Strange

Hold on ... The filament is in the bulb. Light bulb filaments are very fragile (knock a bulb while it is on and it is likely to break the filament) and so potentially sensitive to vibration. This now seems more plausible than the vibrations affecting the relatively solid camera. The bats ultrasound will be a periodic signal. The light flickers at a (different) periodic rate. The camera scans the image at (yet another) steady frequency. Some or all of these could interact and I would expect the result to be regular rather than "crackly". You will often see a similar (but moving) set of bars if you try and video an old-style CRT TV screen.

Good point. We don't know it is anything to do with the bat! Although, I have never noticed strobing effects from incandescent bobs (and I would have thought the camera would have been designed not to be affected by that).

There is a possible mechanical affect: the ultrasound could vibrate the filament and hence modulate the brightness.

What Bender said. It was almost certainly generating ultrasound all the time. That is almost certainly what was affecting the camera. (Some cameras might use ultrasound to assist focusing, maybe?)

I am fairly certain that the "energy" is ultrasound. Again, when you said it was "quiet", how do you know that? (You do realise that you cannot hear bats?) Arguably "Physics" might have been better, but it doesn't matter.

Well, it might help you develop the critical thinking skills that you appear to be lacking. Like almost everything, it is a skill that can be learned. Obviously some people will be better than others, but everyone can improve.

Er, no. While theoretically possible, I think there would be a public outcry. And it might violate privacy laws in some jurisdictions.

So its a "yes".

Do you have a bat detector? (Or really good hearing? ) Good question. The ultrasound could affect the bulb causing a change in brightness captured as the image is scanned by the sensor.

I haven't read all the details yet, but I'm not sure why it would be better evidence for dark matter. I can't see that a few galaxies without dark would make much difference to the average amount; I guess it would be down there in the noise. Although I suppose it is good evidence against some/most "modified gravity" theories. The link is: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25767 Also available on Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.10237 I think you will find it was a question, not a "speculation, proposal, theory or contention". I don't know the answer. Do you? Another article discussing it here: https://www.universetoday.com/138911/hubble-finds-galaxy-almost-no-dark-matter/ This hints at why dark matter [usually] seeds the formation of galaxies. I remember reading some time ago about simulations of how the large scale structure of the universe forms. I don't remember the details, but I think that the structure formation was lead by dark matter and then formed a "framework" that attracted baryonic matter to the same structure. Not sure why it is that way round though ...

Absolutely correct.

Buddhism includes a supernatural element. Obviously. Atheism doesn't. Obviously. To add to the "hair colour" analogy, I would add: "not being interested in golf is not a sport". That has nothing to do with atheism. There are plenty of examples of people who regard themselves as above societies norms because they are "doing god's will". Sadly for your argument, that is not what atheism is though. Atheism is simply not believing in gods. I don't see how you can say that not believing in Santa clause or the tooth fairy or gods (yours or others) is a religion. That is not rational. On that, we can agree. Oh come on. Keep up. You said that it was the Jews fault for moving. What about all the others who didn't move? Therefore the problem isn't people moving about, it is murderous dictators that are the problem. Do you see the relevance now? You seem to keep forgetting what you said.

Interesting. I can only think that the ultrasound is affecting the camera somehow - causing jitter in the lens or something ... I tried googling for this but the results are all about ultrasonic imaging.

It doesn't have to "go" anywhere because it isn't conserved! Here is a good article on the subject: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html And some more discussion here: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

Maybe Itoero thinks it was their own fault for not staying at home. Ironically (again) victim blaming is common in some religions (eg claiming that the reason for that devastating earthquake that killed your children was because you didn't pray in the right way).

You mean they look very similar. Unless you have done a detailed physical and chemical analysis that says they are identical? But perhaps I am being unfair () maybe the brown spots on the glass were drops of rusty water that got knocked out of the mirror. Interesting. What do you base this conclusion on? Is there a hole through the glass where the rust spots are? Is the mirror made of glass or some sort of hard plastic?

Then perhaps you could present that evidence. And if the sky were green there would be no apples. Meanwhile, back in the real world... Of course not. Only an idiot would take such a biased perspective on the world. p.s. Your circumflex is in the wrong place. And, from the history I have read, that happens more often than not. Or even living next door to each other. (Yes, Serbia, I am looking at you.) Because he appears to know more about the subject and isn't just cherry-picking quotes? I hate to say it, but you have taken that sentence out of context.

You can't even understand your own arguments? You said that religion crossing [cultural] boundaries woudn't help break down boundaries between religions. I gave an example where that seems obviously false. Rather than explain why it is wrong, you pretend you don't know what you are talking about. Fair enough.

Wow. Victim blaming. Impressive. Similarly, if the gypsies [not a religon] hadn't left India, then Hitler (and others) wouldn't have killed millions of them, either. And if mankind had never left Africa in the first place ... You are not making much sense here, you know. Nearly all Islamic terrorism takes place in Islamic countries. (And the ultimate cause is the political and economic interference of other "western" countries; so perhaps it is more of a problem when political culture crosses boundaries.) The spreading of religion created hospitals and universities. Why not drop the bigotry and try to think rationally.

Why? Sounds to me like you are saying that just because it is what you believe. Which would be ironic. (As you have provided no logic or evidence to support this claim then I can, with equal conviction, say: no it isn't.) So you don't think it is easier for there to be inter-faith dialogue in a country like the UK where there are very many religions, rather than a country where there is only one dominant religion? Can you justify that stance?

Just now you were saying that religion was bad because it created/reinforced boundaries. Now it is a bad thing that it crosses boundaries. Seems like religion can't win with you anti-religion types. No. I was talking about CULTURE not geography as that was the sense of boundary crossing we are talking about. Well, no one said it crosses ALL boundaries. And you can't really expect two different religions (eg catholicism and Quakerism) to cross their own boundaries. They wouldn't be different religions in that case. Although, there are many people and religious groups who espouse ecumenicalism and interdenominationalism and interreligionism. So the boundaries can be crossed.

Well, duh. Let me think... Oh yes. Christianity. It exists in Middle Eastern cultures, South American, European (which is multiple different cultures), South Asian, South East Asian, ... And if that is not enough, Buddhism exists across Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, right through to the Far East. And even Hinduism exists in India (not surprisingly) as well as several very different cultures such as Malaysia and China. Of course, if you are going to say that the first are all "Christian cultures" etc then there isn't much scope for a rational discussion.

Indeed. Religions cross cultural boundaries, and there are cultures that contain many religions.

It may be connected with those other things, but they don't define the religion. Religions often cross those other categories and exist across cultural systems. Having done a [short] religious studies course, I know how hard it is to define religion, but I would certainly include supernatural belief as one of the defining factors. I would not include politics, ethnicity, neighbourhood or social class as playing any part in defining religion.

That happens anyway. It is a natural part of human nature. It happens due to language, politics, sin colour, football team, fashion, music ... A good thing about religion is that it creates groups. Those groups can cross other boundaries. And they often come together to do good.