Strange

I am always willing to help people learn (if they are interested) and overcome their misconceptions about the world and about science. (I don't think I am particularly brilliant. Not at all brilliant, in fact. And I'm usually posting here as a work-avoidance thing!)

If you say so. Looks more like paddling in the shadows with a blindfold on.

I just came across an article in Scientific American on the meaning of life. Interestingly, it came to exactly the opposite conclusion that a recently banned member claimed: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-actions-dont-matter-in-a-cosmic-sense-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-dont-matter/

I really think you should learn the basics of the subject before "speculating" in this way. There is a difference between the methodical approach of science and just making stuff up. If you can come up with a model, preferably mathematical, that makes testable predictions then you are doing science. If you are making stuff up and sticking some sciency-sounding words together ("the quantum continuum of processing bioperception") then you are not doing science. You are just wasting your time. So, where is the mathematical model for this? What predictions does it make that we could test? The Big Bang is not like an explosion. What is "quantum perception"? But if you just mean that as a result of the evolution of the universe from a hot dense state, it reached conditions where quantum phenomena, and then chemistry and then life could occur. Then, yes, rather obviously. I have no idea what that means. But, of course, the ongoing expansion of the universe (i.e. the Big Bang) is still perceivable. That is how we know it is happening. But it doesn't have much to do with chemistry (apart from the fact we are bags of chemicals, I suppose). There are many possible sources for gravitational waves. The ones that have been detected so far are from the merger of black holes and neutron stars. There was a claim that gravitational waves from the early universe had been (indirectly) detected. But that was later withdrawn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#Primordial Only in the sense that everything is. Life emerged about 13 billion years later.

Also, worth noting that these black holes might be "supermassive" but they make up a minute proportion of the mass of the galaxy and so only have a direct effect on the few stars directly orbiting them. From: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/milky-ways-central-monster-measured/

*Whispering so the mods won't notice* There is a bug in the software so that the votes don't appear immediately. If you come back to the thread, you should see it. And sometimes, there might appear to be a physical interpretation but it doesn't really mean anything. For example if you work out the fuel use of your car in, say, gallons per mile (for the Americans) the result has the same units as area. But I'm not sure what that area would mean.

Most black holes are not consuming any significant amount of matter. We know this, because when they do, the matter falling in gets incredibly hot and generates a lot of radiation and even seeds jets of matter out at nearly the speed of light. We see this as the relatively small number of quasars and "active" galaxies. Also, galaxies are not, in general, expanding. They are pretty stable (apart from occasional collisions). Expansion only happens at very large scales. It is the space between galaxies that is increasing. Actually, it is the space between clusters of galaxies that is increasing. (Which is why galaxies in clusters can collide with one another!) There is no evidence that anything can come out of a black hole or that they can convert matter to dark matter. And no theoretical reason to think it might happen. Welcome to the forum!

Obviously not. But if you are using "connection" in that vague sense, then your statement is so completely pointless that it becomes meaningless. On that basis my cat has a connection with science. The rocks in my garden have a connection with science. If, by your definition of the word, everything has a connection with science then saying that "religion has a connection with science" is pointless and meaningless. You have, once again, chosen to use words in a non-standard way that makes any discussion impossible.

You are very confused. The fact that some (most?) religions accept science as a valid and worthwhile thing does not mean that religions have any connection with science. Many politicians think that science is a valid and worthwhile thing, but few of them have any connection with science. I think science is a valid and worthwhile thing. I have absolutely no connection with science

Probably doesn't require its own thread, but here is a story on China's work to build a fusion reactor: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-43792655

Not really. Some religious people are scientists. Some religious people disagree with science. I am not aware of any religion that specifically has a connection with science.

This is the Newtonian view: that gravity is a force (inherently) associated with mass, in the same way the electric/magnetic forces are associated with charge. (We have an alternative model now, which I will talk about in a moment) Also, note that an inverse square law means that gravity extends for infinity (but with a decreasing effect). This means that the mass of a single star, for example, becomes insignificant at some distance but the mass of a whole galaxy of stars might still have a measurable effect. That is sort of correct but could be misinterpreted. The difference is that you can get closer if the radius is smaller. There is no difference in the actual gravity from two objects of the same mass. So if you had two objects with the same mass but different densities, then at the same distance the gravity would be the same. For example, if the Sun suddenly turned into a black hole, it would have no effect on the Earth's orbit. (But it would get very cold and dark!) There is, as you say, potential energy inherent in the gravitational field (because energy needs to be expended to move something higher) but there is no transfer of transmission of energy between objects (I don't think that is what you meant but, as lawyers say: "for the avoidance of doubt"). Yes. But the occasions when matter is converted to energy (e.g. matter-antimatter annihilation) are pretty rare and insignificant on a grand scale. And the conversion of energy to matter (e.g. pair production) is even rarer. The conversion between mass and energy is more common; e.g. fusion in stars. True, but I doubt this is measurable (off the top of my head - perhaps we should work it out ...) Electric and magnetic fields are just two aspects of the more general electromagnetic field. Electromagnetic radiation is the propagation of changes in the field. The reason why light, for example, is affected by gravity and a magnetic field isn't, is because it is moving. (A better explanation of this is possible with the "other" explanation of gravity I mentioned before...) Magnetism is due to the movement of electric charges. The force between two electric charges follows an inverse square law (like gravity) and so extends forever. As you say, because a magnet is a dipole, the force follows an inverse cube law (and also extends forever). If you could have a magnetic monopole, it would have an inverse square law. I think that statement is too general to be useful. Energy is not a thing that exists by itself, it is a property of things. I'm not sure what you mean by "energy" in this statement. It sounds like you might be thinking of electric charge? The gravity of a spherically symmetrical object (a good approximation for the Earth) can be considered to come from the centre. So if the all the mass of the Earth were at the centre, or all concentrated in a thin shell at the surface, we would not see any difference. So the modern view (if 100 years counts as "modern") is that gravity is caused by the curvature of the geometry of space-time. And that curvature is caused by the presence of mass (or energy). Lets try an analogy. Imagine two people who start walking parallel to one another but a few feet apart. If they are on a flat plane, then there will be no change in the distance between them. For the sake of this analogy, lets call the distance between them "space" and the direction they are travelling "time" (so they are walking into the future at a steady pace). Now, instead of walking on a flat plane, they are on the surface of the Earth, in the Arctic, walking towards the North Pole. As they move towards the pole (into the future) they get closer together. There is not force pushing them together, it is just the nature of the curved geometry of the surface of the Earth. Now, simple extend that analogy to four dimensions and it will all make sense! And this is why light, for example, is affected by gravity: it is travelling in the equivalent of a straight line in curved space-time. You might ask, "why does mass cause the geometry of space-time to curve?" And I guess the only answer is, "that is the definition of mass." Science doesn't really deal with the ultimate "why" questions. Newton refused to guess what might cause the force between two masses; it is just there. That will probably just raise more questions but I hope it helps... The energy to accelerate something to the ground, comes from the fact you have to use energy to lift it up in the first place. So, being on the ground is a lower energy state but there is no energy transfer due to gravity itself. It doesn't require a source of energy to maintain a static gravitational field. In the same way, it doesn't require any energy to maintain a static magnetic field. A magnet doesn't use up its "power" by being attracted to things.

That is because it isn't seconds by seconds; the notation is confusing (as explained in that thread). It also gives you a good example of what s2 means (OK, s-2)

There is no such thing.

Of course not. But they can be modelled. Which is what science does. It may be easier than actually studying, but making sarcastic comments is probably not a very efficient way of learning.

Well, assuming you are not one of those crackpots in denial about science, you can find several lines evidence here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

And it is certainly nothing to do with faith or religious views.

Well, where do we start... Have you heard of the big bang theory? Should we start with Einstein or Lemaitre's solution to his equations? Or can we skip straight to the CMB?

Are you suggesting that as the universe expands, more matter is created? We know this is not the case, because the universe used to be very dense (and very hot) and now it isn't. Because it expanded. (And you still shouldn't hijack other people's threads.)

You shouldn't hijack other people's threads with your questions. You should start your own. It depends what you mean. If you mean, at the current time with the current density, then yes: the bigger space is then the more matter and energy it contains. If, instead, you are referring to space expanding over time, then the amount of matter and energy is roughly constant (dark energy may be proportional to the volume of space but it is tiny, anyway). No. How can distance have weight? How much do you think 1 metre weighs?

Why not tell us what this formula was, then. Why not try and explain your thoughts more clearly, step by step. And try to avoid terminology you have made up (like "processing h" or "bioelectronic perception"). Stick to standard terminology. If you have to introduce new terms, then define them (using standard terminology). I assume "processing h" means something to you, but I have no idea what it means and you seem reluctant to explain what you mean. This is a little frustrating.

The average of a set of numbers is not equal to the reciprocal of the average of the reciprocals. Because the reciprocal of the sum of reciprocals is the not the same as the sum. For example, [math]\frac{1}{\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}} = \frac{ab}{a+b} \neq a+b[/math]

Impressive.

Well, sight perhaps. But quantum theory is not really needed to explain it. Unless you are going down to the level where all chemistry is based on quantum effects. What evidence do you have that chemical processes related to sight act in random ways? (If that is what you are saying. Something seems to have gone wrong half way through that sentence) Why would these be different from other chemical reactions which are generally not very random. What is "processing h"? And how does it relate to "getting close to 0"? How close we can get to zero depends on the context. For example, the lowest temperature reached is about 0.006 K (I think). The closest we can get to "time 0" in the Big Bang model is around 10-36 to 10-32 seconds. The upper bound on the mass of a photon is around 10-27 eV (I think). How do all these relate to "processing h" (whatever that is)? What are "packets of bio data"? How does it relate to the periodic table? I'm afraid I am not getting much out of your answers. You don't seem to be explaining things in a way I can understand. I think you need to be a lot clearer - more detail, introduced in logical order) in your explanations. Of course, it is entirely possible that I have just failed to understand. (This often happens.) Maybe others reading this will know what you mean. I think the fact that I haven't understood your explanations puts me at a severe disadvantage, rather than giving me the "high ground". I am interested in many areas of science, but mainly physics and cosmology, I guess.

What, exactly is "quantum perception of light"? How does the uncertainty principle relate to it? What are "processes of h"? How are they "broken down"? What are "biosystem understandable packets of physical data"? What is "bioelectronic perception science"? Why do you think I am offended? I am slightly disconcerted by your use of technical terms in apparently random ways but ...