Strange

You can find the original analysis (and all the other details of the detections) online. https://cplberry.com/2016/02/23/gw150914-the-papers/#rates I imagine this will have been updated since, based on the other detections made. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find the information.

Actually, no. If you can be shown to be wrong (which you obviously are) then it is not necessary to analyse the nature of your error. Although it would be a valuable learning experience for you to do that.

You seem to be the one who is being slightly obtuse. No one is disagreeing with the fact that electron-positron annihilation occurs. You are the one who is misinterpreting or misrepresenting this to claim that a fermion can be changed into a boson. One reason is that there are several conserved properties. An obvious one is charge: most fermions have charge and photons have none. That is one reason why you need an electron (charge = -1) and an anti-electron (charge +1) to get a pair of photons which have zero charge. Another is mass. Then there is spin and less well known ones such as lepton number: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number All these have to be conserved, which means that you cannot convert a fermion into a boson.

You can define your frame of reference (coordinate system) in each of those, if that is what you mean. For example on Earth or for satellites, we usually use an Earth based system of coordinates. Space probes to other planets use a Sun based system and so on. They are all equivalent so you can choose the most convenient for the job.

This is not a problem for motherboards but it does happen within chips. It is called electromigration and has to be considered in the design process.

So each person is a different race? Assigning people to groups on an arbitrary basis (probably not related to ancestry or genetics) and then calling those groups "races" is a purely social construct. In other words, the only basis for those groupings is how some people consider others should be grouped. Sounds like a social construct to me. This.

Can't argue with that. We currently have no theories that can provide an answer to which of those might be the case.

That doesn't rule out a god who doesn't care. Or one who is actively evil. Perhaps God has killed The Creator and is now tormenting tormenting his creations. Or maybe you are right and it doesn't exist. I don't know and, to be honest, don't really care. It is not worth getting worked up about.

Every one will find this link interesting ref what is inside an atom. That energy has shape and fluid properties, which would be like vortices. Almost like the space is a fluid making up the fundamental particles, inside the atom. I'm sorry if you think that my attempts to correct your misunderstandings are trolling. So lets look at some points in a bit more detail. 1. It is not about what goes on inside atoms. It is about quark-gluon plasmas. 2. Energy does not have shape or fluid properties. Energy is a property of, for example, particles. 3. It doesn't say anything about space, especially not that it is a fluid making up particles. 4. The word vortex does not appear anywhere in the article so it does say that particles are represented by vortices. I can't really see the benefit of linking to an, admittedly very interesting, article and then just making up stuff that isn't in, or even related to, the article. That has nothing to do with gravity nor black holes in the cosmological sense. A superfluid is detectable (otherwise we wouldn't know they exist). They have been studied for some time using liquid helium, for example. They have very interesting properties - they are, as the name suggests, very fluid and so are almost the opposite of particles. Every one will find this link interesting ref what is inside an atom. That energy has shape and fluid properties, which would be like vortices. Almost like the space is a fluid making up the fundamental particles, inside the atom. I'm sorry if you think that my attempts to correct your misunderstandings are trolling. So lets look at some points in a bit more detail. 1. It is not about what goes on inside atoms. It is about quark-gluon plasmas. 2. Energy does not have shape or fluid properties. Energy is a property of, for example, particles. 3. It doesn't say anything about space, especially not that it is a fluid making up particles. 4. The word vortex does not appear anywhere in the article so it does say that particles are represented by vortices. I can't really see the benefit of linking to an, admittedly very interesting, article and then just making up stuff that isn't in, or even related to, the article. That has nothing to do with gravity nor black holes in the cosmological sense. A superfluid is detectable (otherwise we wouldn't know they exist). They have been studied for some time using liquid helium, for example. They have very interesting properties - they are, as the name suggests, very fluid and so are almost the opposite of particles. No, just slightly saddened by seeing multiple people try and explain your misunderstandings, only for you to repeat them and even more extravagant flights of fancy.

For those wary of random links, this is the late Hans Rosling presenting one of his brilliant lectures on world change in wealth, health, etc. There are several others on population; e.g. explaining on why the population will continue growing (for a while) even though fertility rates have fallen below the replacement level, etc.

If you think wild guesses, complete misunderstandings and meaningless collections of buzzwords is interesting, then yes.

Exactly.

No it doesn't. A fermion cannot turn into a boson.

The slits are hols, so there is nothing there to interact with. Some of the photons miss the holes and interact with (are absorbed by) the material in which the slits are cut. Those photons do not contribute to the interference pattern. Those that don't interact with that material pass through the holes and the next thing they encounter is the detector (or screen, or whatever). That is pretty much it. That is what is mean by "wave-particle duality". You observe wave-like behaviour when it is "appropriate" (e.g. passing through slits, as in the classical version of the experiment) and point-like / particle-like behaviour when the photon is absorbed by an atom (it can't spread out and be absorbed by multiple atoms; it is all or nothing). It is probably worth looking at the classical version first. You can see the circular wavefront spread out from the source, interact with the two slits and then spread out as two circular wavefronts from them (and then cause interference patterns). In the individual photon case, you need to think of these wavefronts as describing the possible paths a photon could take. You can then sum the probabilities of all the different paths and calculate the probabilities for where the photon ends up. It turns out that these probabilities re-create the interference patterns generated by classical waves. Hope that helps!

No one claimed conservation laws are broken when an electron and a positron annihilate. (Note that the mass of an electron is equivalent to the energy of one gamma ray photon. The total energy released as gama rays is equivalent to the mass of the two particles.) But still, a fermion cannot change into a boson. Can't make it much simpler than that. (Especially when one of them is an anti-particle.)

There isn't. It is just a point of view or choice of frame of reference that decides who is at rest and who is in motion. This idea goes back to Galileo (at least): http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node47.html

That doesn't make sense. 1. There is no apparent connection between the existence of truths (whether absolute or relative) and a philosophical argument being correct or not. 2. If there were such a connection, then how could the existence of relative truths guarantee correctness, when different people will disagree on what is true or not. 3. Some philosophers argue that god exists other argue that god does not exist. According to you, because philosophy is always correct, they are both correct. But this violates a fundamental law of logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle It is a fundamental flawed argument, but it is hard to say if that is because it is not based on facts. I think an insistence that philosophy should rely on "facts" is naive and limiting. A large part of philosophy is about analysing problems and asking questions. For example, thinking about "what is a fact" is an important and complex question that would need to be thought about before one could insist that philosophy should be based on them.

Because more people were born than died. Why would that be the case? (It isn't.)

The relative speed between two things can be up to 2c as seen by another observer. For example, imagine one spaceship flying away from Earth at 0.8c and another flying in the opposite direction at 0.8c. You will see the two spaceships moving apart at 1.6c. This is not a problem, because there is nothing moving at more than c in your frame of reference. But, and this is the important bit, the people on each spaceship will see the other one moving away at 0.98c. So, again, no one sees anything moving at more that c.

That is a nice way of looking at it. And it clearly relates to aramis720's comment that "We know, of course, that light is affected by gravity..." And... one of those effects is red/blue shift.

And the fact that light is affected (more in one arm than the other) is exactly why it works.

Fermions cannot become bosons and bosons cannot become fermions. Because conservation laws. But they are not "stored" in atoms. They are destroyed and their energy transferred to an electron (well, to the whole system, really).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

No one is disagreeing with this. It is well known. However, you started off saying a fermion can turn into a boson. Which it can't. And I have no idea how you drifted off into this from a discussion of gravity. Focus, man! Focus! There are no photons trapped inside atoms. A muon, for example, usually decays into an electron, an electron antineutrino, and a muon neutrino. (All fermions.) Things that fall into black holes might also be converted into chocolate unicorns. But let's stick to science.

Is anyone saying there are limits to philosophy? Philosophers have considered pretty much everything in the past, and will continue to do in future.