Strange

Except we don't. You may have heard of the theory of relativity, which disposed of the idea of absolute time and absolute simultaneity. They are both observer dependent.

Bearing in mind they are separated spatially (they are not all in the same place) and temporaly (they are not all happening at the same moment) rather suggests that both space and time exist(*) and are inseparable. (*) For suitable definitions of "exist".

I'm not sure this is very realistic. Both in the sense that I don't think anyone has done it this way, and also because the use of a cloud chamber would drastically change the momentum of the electron (and even absorb it completely) and hence obviously change the result. Surely, a more realistic model would be to describe the experiment as it is actually done? For example, the "which slit" observation can be done without affecting the electron passing through the slit. But you said the tracks in the cloud chamber reflect the classical paths of the electron. How can an extrapolation of these classical paths produce a non-classical result? When the electrons go through the cloud chamber, the paths will be the same as those popular illustrations that show how ping-pong balls or grains of sand would go through the slits: two piles/peaks behind each slit. No interference pattern. It would probably be better to address the actual physics or real experiment designs rather than criticising pop-sci representations (which we all know are not accurate).

Ironically, under the title “time does not exist” it says “posted three hours ago”.

No one, apart from you, claims to know where the universe came from. And you have failed to provide any logical argument beyond personal incredulity to support your beliefs. So I am going to stick with "don't know". Thanks anyway.

Possibly, I guess. Not from what we know at the moment. Although rotating black holes do appear to have a path through the singularity to another space (whether that is somewhere else in this universe or another universe, isn't known). Some people think this would form a white hole - but we have no evidence for such things. Others suggest it could form a new universe (https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe).

Given that there a many different hypotheses and speculations about the origin (or otherwise) of the universe made by very brilliant people, I don't know how you can narrow it down to just two. I think you mean "neither of which make sense". You haven't presented a logical argument. Nope. I am merely stating that (1) your belief that is impossible may be incorrect and (2) the universe may not have come from nothing. It is up to you to demonstrate that the universe must have come from nothing and that it is impossible. So far, all we have is your personal incredulity / belief. I guess you didn't understand what it says. The matter is there now. It wasn't there when there was zero energy before the universe was created. Neither was the negative energy that cancels it out. So the hypothesis starts with nothing. From that it creates equal and opposite positive (matter and energy) and negative (potential energy) parts. You appear to be dismissing it for no valid reason. They may or they may not. To assume they won't (because it would conflict with your beliefs?) is the height of anti-science.

However large they are, all the matter falls towards the centre (according to GR). The average density (the mass of the black hole divided by the volume enclosed by the event horizon) of the black hole decreases with increasing size and mass. For large black holes, this can be less than water. But, as far as I know, this has no physical meaning. Nothing I can imagine. I suppose that, in the very far distant future, it is possible that all the galaxies in a cluster could collide so their black holes merge and then absorb all the material from those galaxies. But as galaxy clusters move apart, it seems impossible that everything could be absorbed in one BH.

I don't think there is any theoretical upper limit. On the other hand, it isn't known how the really big ones in the centres of galaxies get to be that big.

How would that happen? But if it did, then the interatomic forces would prevent the natural expansion or contraction. In the same way that standing on the surface of the Earth stops you falling to the centre of the Earth, which is the natural consequence of the curvature of space-time around the Earth. (Although you will be a few centimetres shorter than you would be in zero gravity!)

In the very early universe, the high temperature means there were no atoms, just a dense quark-gluon plasma. Once the temperature and density had dropped sufficiently for atoms (and molecules) to form, then the distances between them would be determined by the usual physics of gases (the universe was 90-something% hydrogen). But, yes, the hydrogen would have been denser than the average density of the universe now, so the atoms would be closer together.

I think there have been great improvements in that area (in the UK, at least). Although the subtle/unconscious biases do still persist. But the real problems exist before cases even get to that stage. And in the discussions in the press / social media once it becomes public.

No. Light speed is both constant and invariant. They happen in different places for different reasons. The expansion of space only happens where there is an even (homogeneous) distribution of mass. Approximately true at cosmological scales. Not true around the LIGO instrument (or in the solar system, or our galaxy, or a cluster of galaxies). So nothing to measure. Gravitational waves travel through space, independently of the presence of mass. So they travel through LIGO and cause the stretching and compression we measure.

Yes. And I think the fact that many people don't even realise this is part of the problem. So many times, the victims of such assaults are told not to make a fuss (perhaps because it will cause problems for the accused, or the accused will make problems for them). Or they are just not believed ("I can't believe he would do such a thing"). Or people talk about the victim's behaviour or the way they were dressed or how much they had to drink. These things may be changing now, with the publicity generated by Weinstein and others. And there is, of course, a danger of it swinging too far the other way, where there accused is assumed to be guilty. I'm not sure that is too big a problem (once the hysteria of the scummier end of journalism has died down). But, anyway, wouldn't that bring it in to line with most other crimes? I think most people assume that if someone is accused, arrested, brought to court, etc, that they are guilty. It is often thought to be some sort of miscarriage of justice if they are acquitted.

It is very small on the scale of galaxies or clusters of galaxies (which don't expand) so it is definitely too small on the scale of planets and rulers. (I'm not sure it is accurate to regard it as a force anyway.) No. Early stars, for example, were actually bigger because they were purely hydrogen with no heavier elements.

So those say it is a possibility. From Appendix IV of that second link:

But you said it as a (pretty unreasonable) response to "a system that disbelieves them by default when bad things happen". It isn't "unfair on men" not to dismiss the stories of victims.

That doesn't mean you should discount, or blame, the victim.

Yep. That's what I said. A sane person capable of critical thinking, in other words. Designing things is not irony. I have spent my life designing things. No one ever told me I was being ironic.

Couple of recent interesting articles related to this: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-bacteria-help-regulate-blood-pressure-20171130/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-bacteria-can-tell-us-about-human-evolution-20171205/

Interesting article on the nature of black holes and the "firewall paradox": http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/225

Here is a good article about how the new James Webb Space Telescope will see further into the infra-red and hence see more distant galaxies: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-how-much-of-the-observable-universe-are-we-failing-to-see-fad5828b6189

Why? And what is a "non-designist"? I assume it is a term used to refer to someone not gullible enough to be taken in by superficial appearances. Is that right?

It is a plot of alpha (y-axis) vs lambda (x-axis) for values of upsilon = pi/2.2, pi/3, pi/4, pi/6

To put that another way, they could explain it in 5 minutes but you wouldn't really understand what a derivative was. At best you might have grasped some useful (but not completely accurate) analogies and have a rough idea of why it is useful. If you did an introductory course (over several weeks or months) you would understand a lot more (you wouldn't need 500 books, just one good one). But you still wouldn't understand everything.You could take several years doing a PhD and then do a decade of post-doc research and I suspect you still wouldn't understand it completely.