Strange

OK. So you are using "paradox" to mean something that is unintuitive but not actually contradictory? If not, could you answer my question please?

I am not aware of this paradox. Could you explain it or provide a reference, please.

What paradox?

Related to that, controlling DC motors by simply adjusting the voltage does not give you very accurate control over torque, which depends on speed, load on the motor and other factors. Electric motors for cars use multiphase windings to provide accurate control and feedback.

This is not strictly accurate. Mass can be converted to energy, and vice versa. The matter and energy in the universe has always been present (as far as we know). It started out in a hot and very dense state, then expanded and cooled. That allowed parts of the cloud of gas to collapse to form stars. Eventually, some of the these stars died creating the heavier elements that Mae up planets, etc.

Lets just look at this again. It very specifically says that the observable universe is all the matter that can be observed from Earth (because there hasn't been enough time for light from matter further away to reach us). It doesn't say anything about the maximal size of the universe. It goes on to say: The same page also says: So it explicitly says that there are objects further away than the limit of the observable universe. And therefore the "whole universe" is bigger than the observable universe. Why shouldn't it be?

Also not relevant. The question was not "what benefits will accrue from reconciling science and religion"

Yep. You have said this before. Multiple times. Can we finally move on to your claims that this somehow tells us something about physics? Please. (Preferably without any more of your diversions and insults. That is getting very tedious.)

I'm not sure that is relevant. There will always be people who reject science (whether for religious reasons or not). You can't force them to change their minds. Some of them might change their views after discussion/education but some won't. That doesn't seem to be the point of the thread (to me). There will always be be people for whom reconciling religion and science is not a problem. It isn't a problem for me. So, the two can be reconciled. Maybe. But (as I was continuing in another reply) it doesn't seem relevant to the topic.

Shrug. Is that relevant?

Many people, of varying levels of faith, have done this many times over the millennia and yet ... answer came there none.

That is not unique to Latin, of course. It is true of any second language.

No. It is the size of the universe that is (in principle) observable from Earth. Beyond that is the rest of the universe that can never be observed. Someone 50 billion light years away will have their own observable universe which overlaps with ours. But most of their observable universe is outside our observable universe. Someone 100 billion light years away will have their own observable universe which doesn't overlap ours and so is outside our observable universe.

This is a good article on how the concept of "relativistic mass" came about, why it is used, why it can cause confusion and therefore why many people think it shouldn't be used: http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq_old/Relativity/SR/mass.html

It is pretty obvious that much of it is not intended literally. Even if, say, the creation story was believed to be realistic initially(*) anyone know (and for the last few hundred years, if not longer) knows that it is not literally true. (*) I'm not convinced that even early people would have believed the myths to be literally true. People usually have a clear idea that the stories of gods and heroes in a "golden age" describe a world that is not the same as the one they live in (and not just because gods and heroes existed then). The Australian native peoples know that their "dream time" myths happen on another plane, not in this world. Of course I have. And nearly all theologians (the relevant subject matter experts) would say they are misguided. I don't know. You would have to ask some. But I assume they don't think there is anything to reconcile. (The word "compartmentalisation" has already been mentioned on this thread, if you think that is a helpful concept.)

Firstly, evolution does not work that way. Things do not change because you change the way you use them. (This was the basis of the Lamarckian theory of evolution which was proved to be wrong). Secondly, even though Khoï'xan (and many other languages around the world) include a variety of clicks, I am not sure this means that linguolabial consonants are used less. Finally, all languages including those with clicks, use "the Adam's apple" (by which I assume you mean the vocal chords). In Khoï'xan there are both voiced and unvoiced clicks, so this makes no difference to the use of the vocal chords. That is not the etymology of Eve. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Eve There is no such thing. There is no reason to think Enkidu or Gilgamesh were African. (And they are mythical, anyway.) I'm sure you can create a convincing narrative along these lines. But don't expect any scientific support for it.

Nope. The scientific method is based on methodological naturalism which specifically excludes the supernatural. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism But feel free to provide some real evidence (not just assertions) that the scientific method is based on Intelligent Design. Only if you misunderstand them and subscribe to the beliefs of Quantum Woo. Any evidence for that? Or just another assertion? Citation needed. So far, you are providing a lot of emotional assertions but are short of evidence. Just insisting "everything is evidence of ID/Creationism" is not helpful. An atheist could equally well say "everything is evidence of the absence of a designer". Unless you can demonstrate, in an objective and quantitative fashion, that some piece of evidence supports your belief more strongly than another point of view, then all you have is empty assertions. They are of no value in a scientific discussion.

It isn't religions (generally) that deny science. It is some individuals who have a (usually) distorted view of religion (and maybe of science). For example, people who take every word of the bible literally (which, obviously, was never the purpose). And yet plenty of people do. Religious scientists, for example.

Probably. How do you know?

The important point here is that these plumes (usually referred as jets) don't originate within the black hole. Although the mechanism is not fully understood, they appear to be created by the intense magnetic fields and temperatures in the accretion disk (outside the event horizon) which accelerates particles to high speeds at the magnetic poles. Yes, a spinning black hole is flattened: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/Kerr_black_hole.html (GR is complex and what "seems" like it should be the case often isn't!)

How do you know that?

So, you are saying that I am not moderately intelligent? I would be offended except I have noticed that most of your posts are nonsense.

There are several problems with this idea: memory devices, etc. are getting smaller or denser because of changes in technology developed by physicists and engineers; chromosomes are not designed chromosomes are not storing more information than in the past. Apart from that ...

No. If something "local" is accelerated then its increase in kinetic energy can be interpreted as an increase in (relativistic) mass, as described by SR. That does not apply to galaxies moving apart from one another which is not [local] motion and there is no increase in relative energy. Yes, because expansion is a scaling effect, not a speed. So it is just simple arithmetic that the speed of separation is proportional to distance. For example, consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light.

No one is silencing you. You were asked to provide evidence. You were unable to do this. You have, effectively, silenced yourself. Atheism is not a belief system. Creationism/ID is based on a belief system (one that takes a number of metaphorical myths as being literally true.) And atheism has nothing to do with science. There are, and always have been, many religious scientists.