Strange

Irrelevant. The fact that the presence of energy causes space-time curvature / gravity and also results in quantum fluctuations does not mean that space-time curvature and quantum fluctuations are the same thing. That is like saying that rain causes wet ground and rainbows and therefore wet ground and rainbows are the same thing. (I don’t think the uniform vacuum energy causes gravity anyway.)

“Conventionally”? Implies that there is no absolute/objective meaning, but the convention is to use that value.

I find that hard to believe when trump and his team deny the problem even exists.

If there was no time then there couldn’t be an “after”. Also, their is no evidence for the universe “coming into existence”. That is not part of the Big Bang model.

It is just an analogy. You can’t take it too seriously.

Nope.

Please stop this ridiculous straw man argument.

You might get better response from a a conlang forum such as: https://conlang.org/communities/ A couple of points: You haven't said anything about word order (which must be fixed). It looks like it is SOV (like Japanese). Is that right? You don't have a means for creating new words. As the words are all just random morphemes, there seems no way of producing new words. Obviously.

And you believed him? By abandoning the agreement, the US will not be helping anyone. (But will, of course, benefit from the work that all the other countries do to meet the goals.) I'm not sure what you/Trump think the agreement is about. It almost sounds like you think it is about the US bailing out other countries, or something. In fact it is about all countries doing their bit. The US is now, I believe, the only country that has refused to agree to do their best to reduce the effects of climate change. Luckily, industry and many states are more intelligent, and have a better grasp of the science, than Trump and his anti-science cronies.

Where have you copied this from? I haven't heard of this described n terms of tunneling before. My (limited) understanding from reading one of the papers on this (https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9907001) is that the particle can tunnel out because the event horizon is shrinking to be inside the location of the particle. Interesting.

When they are the product of a profoundly ignorant and delusional imagination. They certainly do. They make it very obvious how little you know and how you twist things to match your delusional ideas. But you just couldn't stop. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Actually, those things were evidence for dark matter. I don't know how we got on to that. It hardly seems relevant to the thread topic.

The original observation was the speeds of galaxies within clusters. Since then we have had: Galactic rotation curves The power spectrum of the CMB Gravitational lensing The bullet cluster Large scale structure formation Big Bang nucleosynthesis And probably other things that I am not aware of. None of the other models work any better.

Reminds me of the Asimov story, The Last Question: http://multivax.com/last_question.html As Pierre de Fermat would have said if he was around today.

There are (have always been) things explained by science that are counterintuitive. For example, it seems "obvious" that the sun rises and sets and so it must be going round the Earth. It took a long time before people realised that it was the rotation of the Earth. Children still get confused by this: "why can't we feel the Earth moving" etc.

Gravitons are just disturbances in that field. So there is no need to "fuse" the ideas, they are the same thing. We can't isolate an electric charge from the electric field / virtual photons, so there is no reason to think that is possible. Any evidence for that? I really hope no one asks you for help with their homework...

For comparison: Refraction is the change in direction of wave propagation due to a change in its transmission medium. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction) Reflection is the change in direction of a wavefront at an interface between two different media so that the wavefront returns into the medium from which it originated. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)) It is defined as the bending of light around the corners of an obstacle or aperture into the region of geometrical shadow of the obstacle. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction) So, by your "logic", a change in direction is the definition of refraction, reflection and diffraction. But of course, these are all different things, and so that definition is incomplete.

No it isn't. If you are going to be that sloppy, you might as well say that "localized non-uniformity" or "medium" is the definition of scattering "Scattering is a general physical process where some forms of radiation, such as light, sound, or moving particles, are forced to deviate from a straight trajectory by one or more paths due to localized non-uniformities in the medium through which they pass." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering Please stop making up your own definitions and your own physics. And stop pretending people said things that they didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No one said it is random. You made that up.

The sky is blue because of scattering so that is certainly observable. And it is equally true of refraction, diffraction and reflection - they can all be described in terms of either waves or "particles" (photons, not really particles). (I don't know why you are bringing the Doppler effect into it. That seems completely irrelevant.) Not all such behaviour. Only scattering. It doesn't refer to refraction, diffraction or reflection. You are the one who keeps saying that one is observable and therefore, by implication, the other isn't. Because it is refraction. A different mechanism. (Although you get scattering as well.)

Right. So just one more reason why your comparison of black holes with atoms was idiotic. They do not tunnel out as Hawking radiation. This is created at the even horizon and (in the popular, informal and not terribly accurate description) one of a pair enters the black hole. This has nothing to do with the amount of antimatter. For one thing, there is no antimatter involved. And for another the Hawking radiation of any realistic black hole is close to zero.

A joke, right?

And this doesn't just apply to photons. A golf ball would fly through empty space without losing energy as well. (Of course, interstellar space is not completely empty so there would be a minute amount of drag from the interstellar medium which could slow it down.)

I said no such thing. I just said that light (or anything else) never travels faster than light. At the photon sphere a photon can orbit a black hole indefinitely (at the speed of light). Within the photon sphere it cannot escape and will enter the black hole (at the speed of light). At no point does this imply that light travels (locally) at anything other than the speed of light. Inside the event horizon, there is no path that leads out of the black hole so there is nowhere where a photon could "hover" as you describe. All paths lead to the centre of the black hole. (And, inside the black hole, the radial direction becomes the time dimension and so attempting to leave radially would be equivalent to travelling back in time. Ain't going to happen.)

No. Who said that?