Strange

It is known that it doesn't disappear.

Hey, that's my line!

I'm sure there are certain people who are proud of their negative points as it shows they are angering the narrow minded (atheist) scientists by pointing out The Truth.

Citation needed. This sounds like made-up nonsense, but I'm sure you can provide a reference to prove me wrong. I can't see the logic of that. Please show this is appropriate mathematical detail. No. The photons pass energy to the electrons. Of course, you can call all energy "relativistic mass" as a way of saying that you need the concept of relativistic mass. But that is, as I said, a circular argument. If you call it every, instead, then there is no need for relativistic mass. This can be explained without relativistic mass though, just using the relativistic formula for acceleration. This is one area where the use of relativistic mass can cause confusion. (Rather like the question whether an object moving fast enough will turn into a black hole because its "mass" increases.) The gravitational effect of a moving object cannot be simply calculated from the relativistic mass because there are other terms in the stress-energy tensor which that doesn't account for. And I can't see any connection to quantum gravity. Many people find it helpful. Many people find it confusing. I have seen enough confusion to agree it should be avoided.

Citation needed.

Good grief on the other hand it has "us" in it so it is nice and inclusive. And ions to give us energy.

Jesus H Christ. The design of the transistor was based on quantum theory. It is very unlikely it could have been developed by trial and error. Modern quantum theory incorporates special relativity (thanks to Dirac). Pretty much every advance in semiconductor technology depends on an understanding of quantum theory. For example, the flash memory in your computer relies on quantum tunnelling.

Another impressive demonstration of ignorance. I can assure you that without quantum theory and special relativity, your computer would not exist. This is based on a long career actually designing the components in computers, as well as some understanding of the theory. Sad, really. (And without general relativity, the internet would collapse.)

So you agree that quantum theory and special relativity are not examples of "atheistic pseudoscience". Good. We maybe making some progress.

Sorry, that doesn't work. You have already demonstrated with your comments on the Big Bang theory that you are almost totally ignorant of the science.

OK. Done that. It is still a ludicrous idea based on your ignorance of science.

There is no need for intelligence for this. The whole point about evolution is that "it just happens". Do you think that stuff falling to the ground requires intelligence as well, because it is really the same sort of thing. But maybe you are using the word "intelligence" to mean something else? Maybe to you it just means "amazing" or "efficient"

There is a big difference between "believing not X" and "not believing X". It seems that this distinction is lost on those of a religious mindset.

And you don't understand that religious beliefs have no role in science. (Not even atheism, if anyone is stupid enough to think that is a religious belief.)

And maybe (probably?) science will show that to be correct in future. Presumably, then you will stop saying that science is some sort of atheistic conspiracy and instead proclaim it as a marvellous thing revealing the "truth" (i.e. your beliefs) to the world.

Or, here's an idea, why not just tell us what you are talking about. Being evasive and slightly dishonest is not something to "lol" about.

Exactly. Science assumes nothing about a creator. If evidence appeared for a creator, then science would accept it. (I imagine some people would be unhappy about that.) If evidence shows that the universe has always existed and no creator is necessary (which seems very likely) then science will accept that. (And I imagine some people would be unhappy about that.) But the "atheistic pseudoscience" that you cite is NOT science. It is popular journalism. I agree that much of that is of poor quality. But I have no idea what percentage of journalist are atheists.

The interior of the black hole has no effect. It is entirely driven by gravity pulling material in, which is then heated by friction, becomes a plasma and generates intense electrical and magnetic fields. Exactly how this results in jets is not really understood though ...

How would you detect this absolute reference frame? Or, if it is easier, how would you measure your speed compared this absolute frame?

But there is no inherent reason why those beliefs need to be in conflict with science. There are many religious people who fully understand and accept the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. Not quite true. Science uses a process of methodological naturalism, which basically ignores anything supernatural and just looks at natural explanations. Why? Because something supernatural is, by definition, does not provide reputable objective evidence (if it did, it wouldn't be supernatural). If there were objective evidence for a god and sets that could be done to determine its powers, etc. then it could be part of science. In short, it has nothing to do with atheism. There are, after all many religious scientists. I call this ignorance of the relevant science. For example: It seeks to do no such thing. The Big Bang model is based on the laws of physics. There was no "explosion". That is not a problem, for obvious reasons (to anyone who knows what they are thing about). Good job it wasn't an explosion, then.

Without the capital K it makes mathematics sound more dangerous than it is!

No, that would be the observation problem. It is true that Heisenberg himself said this was the reason but quickly realised it was wrong. It is not just that we can't measure conjugate pairs (momentum-position, energy-time, etc) accurately, it is more fundamental than that. They don't both exist more accurately. It is a Fourier transform. So, for example, to have a signal of just one frequency, the signal needs to be of infinite length. If you shorten the signal, the greater the number of different frequencies. So you can either specify an exact frequency or an exact length but not both. I'm not sure that the "random" nature of quantum theory is directly related to this. They are both consequences of the theory, not cause and effect. (It is not really random, just that outcomes can only be predicted in terms of probabilities. But it is not like anything can happen.)

Still not seeing any physics. How long are you going to drag this out? 96 posts so far to explain something that could probably be done in two tweets. Despite all the times I have said "yes, this is well known" or "you are not saying anything new" ... The fact I am asking you to get on with this instead of dragging it out over hundreds of posts is because everything you have said so far is trivial and could be understood by a bright 12 year old. I have stated a few minor objections and quibbles with your argument so far, but they are hardly relevant. I assume the "interesting" bit is when you actually get to show how this relates to physics. I may have some more penetrating questions then. If I live that long. Your repeated insistence that no one can understand your simple posts is pretty insulting.

That is actually quite an interesting idea (although nothing to do with black holes!) You are suggesting something like the equivalent of holes in semiconductors; a point with lower energy than the vacuum (zero point) energy. I have no idea if such a thing is possible or has been hypothesised, though. The Big Bang is not the source of all matter. It is just a model describing the universe expanding and cooling over time.

I guess most of it is in safes. This should answer your question, and many more ... http://www.numbersleuth.org/worlds-gold/ And if not, there is this: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21969100