Strange

That is not what "predetermined" means. Of course the past is fixed. I'm not sure why you would even need to say that. You might note that the word "predetermined" begins with the bound morpheme "pre" which means "in advance" so we are talking about the future. And the second morpheme is "determined" which means "fixed". You can't say that things in the past are predetermined. That is like saying "I am looking forward to yesterday". Not predetermined at all then. (It can't be a little bit predetermined; that is like being "a little bit pregnant".) In other words, "predetermined" is not the word you are looking for.

Then it isn't predetermined. You can't have it both ways: either the future is fixed/predetermined or we can change it so it isn't fixed/predetermined. Make your mind up.

1. That wasn't addressed to you. (Although it could have been.) 2. Predetermined means "fixed in advance". Which means, by definition, you can't change it. So, you are saying that if the future is fixed you can still change it. But that is nonsense because it is fixed (which means "not changeable"). If you can change the future, then it is not fixed, which means it is not predetermined. Maybe you don't mean "predetermined"? Maybe you mean "predictable" or "unfortunate" or "happy". I don't know.

But wrong. Occam's razor does not mean you should ignore the evidence in favour of a simple idea.

That makes absolutely no sense. What are you talking about?

So you have changed your mind? That is not predetermination which, by definition, is about the future. So all you are saying is that the past is fixed and can't be changed. Wow. Insightful.

Has it? We are getting very close to an organic laser: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.4913461 What sort of machinery? Like artificial heart valves? Or even mechanical hearts?

Not if it is predetermined. If it is predetermined that you will eat it at 15:03 then that is when you will eat it. That is what "predetermined" means. Good answer! So you get one shot at "free will" then, after that, the future is predetermined and so you can't change your mind? Or, you have changed the meaning of "predetermined" to mean "not determined at all; the future can change at any time"?

Do you mean they can distinguish acceleration from gravity? Or just that they have some level of isolation from short-term, small-scale accelerations?

If it is predetermined that you will eat it then you cannot choose not to eat it. If it is predetermined that you will not eat it then you cannot choose to eat it. I don't know why that is so hard to understand. I think you need to take an introductory logic course. (I have had the same problem with religious people claiming that both an omniscient god and free will can be true at the same time.)

The "anomaly" only exists in your head. Indeed. Why not calculate how great that force is and compare it with gravity? No. It is evidence that everything is rotating at the same speed. (Including the air around you. On average.) Don't most people get over this when they are about 6?

Because if things are predetermined then the outcome is fixed in advance, therefore you can't have a free choice. Not sure how that is relevant, but all theories are incomplete. The theory of evolution doesn't tell us about gravity and the theory of relativity doesn't explain how plants are ablate photosynthesise.

You just quoted the response (I know you are blinded by your religious faith, but really ...) and there are more in swansont's post following.

Sunrise and sunset? Coriolis force? Foucault's pendulum? The motion of the stars? The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid? The Hafele-Keating experiment? That wasn't what you asked about. And, don't hijack this thread with your religious beliefs. Start your won.

And those possibilities have been confirmed by experiment. So it appears to describe the reality we live in.

I guess we should say, "physics works the same way in any inertial FoR" ! (Not that physics doesn't work on non-inertial frames) Remember Newton's laws of motion? It will continue moving in the same direction unless acted on by a force. In this case there is the force of gravity and air resistance. This will bring it back down to Earth.

It shows that it can be considered to be stationary, just as you can consider the train to be stationary when moving along with it. There is no sense in which you can say that the Earth or the train IS stationary. All motion is defined relative to something.

You don't want satellites to go straight up and down! You want them to go into orbit. Which means giving them a large sideways velocity - this is why the launch rockets are so large (it's not to get them up into space).

Without evidence one way or the other, there is no reason to be dismissive of hypotheses like this.

Imagine you are on a train speeding along at 200 km/h. If you start juggling, the balls do not fly towards the back of the train at 200km/h, they just go straight up and down as if you were not moving. This was pointed out by Galileo some time ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance The rotating Earth is very slightly more complex as there will be a small sideways force due to the Coriolis effect.

Of course not. What a ridiculous thing to say. The fact that outcomes are probabilistic doesn't mean they are random. If we had freedom of choice, that would contradict your claim that everything is predetermined. So it is predetermined except when it isn't. Very useful.

If space is infinite then, by definition, there can't be anything beyond it. If there were something beyond it, then it wouldn't be infinite. In current cosmology models, even if space is finite, there is nothing beyond it.

You seem to be ignoring the probabilistic nature of quantum theory, which suggests things are not predetermined.

It is an important result: it opens up the a lot of possibilities for new a type of astronomy. The detection of gravitational waves could be the most significant development in astronomy/cosmology so far this century. However, you seem to have missed the real point: "the discovery that shook [not shattered] the world" is a reference to the literal meaning that the gravitational waves did indeed shake the world.

I'm afraid it is not very clear what you are trying to say, but let me comment on this: Whether the universe is finite or infinite, there is no "beyond". The universe is all there is.