Strange

1. This is off topic. If you want to discuss Unruh radiation, start a thread on it. 2. No. It requires an accelerating frame of reference. 3. No. An interferometer does not measure some random "flux"; it compares the phases of a singe light source

I don't believe anyone has ever said that. Please provide a reference.

Make that "our" Big Bang if it makes you happier. Our Big Bang happened everywhere in our universe. OK?

It is everything we have evidence of. Anything beyond that is not science but guesswork. (I don't think you know what the word "assumption" means.)

I cannot imagine what makes you think that. You must have read a different paper. I don't think science has ever supported eugenics. Finally, a sensible comment.

That is a possible scenario but there is no evidence for it. All we can realistically talk about is our universe.

Well, we have found many likely black hole les and zero white holes. So the odds seem to be against it.

You seem to have some confused ideas. Matter cannot turn into antimatter. (Of course, we don't know what goes on inside a black hole, but it is unlikely that it completely breaks all physics we know.) I'm not sure why you think they might become entangled and why they might disappear...

The average (or total) energy doesn't change. So, no.

But mass doesn't disappear.

Maybe not. But some of us know about evolution, biology, historical linguistics, etc. I think providing new interpretations of myths is a good thing to do. However, if your interpretation overlaps with science (evolution, biology, historical linguistics, etc) then it must be accurate.

Why? It has nothing to do with mass.

We don't know. That is the earliest state that our current theories can take us. Not without the addition of energy from somewhere.

This may be the smartest thing you have ever said!

I have never heard anyone suggest that mass can disappear from a black hole (other than through Hawking radiation). You are making stuff up again.

Pretty much. Depending how you define the word "matter" you could say it was always there in a different form (initially as a quark-gluon plasma). And the implication that black holes explode (they don't - apart from really tiny ones, and there is no evidence that such things exist). Once they formed atoms, they would no longer be entangled. Not without the addition of energy from somewhere. A wormhole is a theoretical prediction for certain types of black holes. The idea they might be connected with entanglement is purely speculative, at the moment. (Although fascinating.) Link doesn't seem to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang

B'dum-tish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sting.ogg

p.s. Hoyle and Lemaitre were really good friends. They must have had some interesting debates after a few beers!

He always denied it was derisive. He just wanted a snappy alternative to "steady state" for the radio program he was doing. I am not old enough to remember that program, but I am old enough to remember science programs where the steady state and Big Bang models were debated on an equal footing because there was no overwhelming evidence for either!

What happened? Apart from him being recognised as one of the most important physicists of the 20th century and being the L in FLRW? There doesn't seem to be much similarity between the two. (I also was not familiar with Hugh Ross.) Lemaitre studied GR and the evidence and came up with a novel theory. (He may have been quietly pleased that it described a "creation" event, but as far as I know he never said anything much about that.) Hugh Ross (as far as I can tell) has done nothing so groundbreaking but tries to find ways to make creationism and a semi-literal interpretation of the bible fit with the evidence. He is, at least, scientific in his approach unlike Young Earth Cretinsationists. Two reasons: the paper was not widely read outside of Belgium and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy BTW, I find your references to "Georges" a little demeaning. Rather like anti-relativists will talk about "Albert" (or "Uncle Al") or some people will talk about Trump vs Hilary.

It is not clear what in the above you are quoting and what are you own words but... This is a circular argument: "you have to use relativistic mass if you want to calculate rest mass + inertial mass" On the other hand, if you don't use relativistic mass, then there is only rest mass and so the above issue doesn't arise.

That is not (by itself) a source for the etymology of the word. I was hoping for a reference to work by historians and/or linguists. Most sources seem to trace it to the verb "to be", as far as I can tell. That is not what it means. I have no idea what would make you think that.

While the etymology of Yahweh is not clear, this does not correspond to any theories I am aware of. Can you provide a reference for this derivation? I would second Area54's request for some evidence that this trait does exist, and that it is specific to Bantu.

That is a potentially misleading picture as it implies the universe is a bubble with some sort of void outside. I'm not sure how the first bit of that ("galaxies all over the Universe") is relevant. But there are an infinite number of points that have their own observable universe. There may overlap (if those points are close to us) or not (if they are sufficiently far away). These are not separate "bubble universes"; they are just the volume of space that can be seen from any point. There could be multiple big bangs (there are a class of theories based on this idea) but these do not correspond to different observable universes. The observable universe for someone in the Andromeda galaxy is slightly different from ours (but largely overlaps it) so is not related to another Big Bang. I think the rest of your questions also show why that connection is not tenable. If there are multiple big bangs, then they are probably separated by vast distances in space (and maybe time) and are better described as completely separate universes.