Strange

You give one example of a system within which formal propositions can be defined to be true. Not really applicable to anything outside mathematics. You give a second example which is pure opinion. Even if everyone sees the moon as round (for one day a month) that does not mean that all truths are absolute. So it cannot be used as an argument for universalism. Definitions of beauty are not universally agreed. Not all moral and ethical choices are universal. Some people like jazz and others hate it. People disagree on what is right or wrong. Different countries have different definitions of "natural" rights.

It is the change in distance that is being measured. Because the distance changes, the time taken by the light changes. From the article I linked: There is a link to another (very simple) explanation at the end of the article: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2004/11/wavy-gravy

I am not aware of any theory that assumes something can come from nothing. Can you be more specific? What evidence shows this? Even if every observation we have made so far doesn't involve something from nothing, that doesn't mean it is impossible, just that we haven't yet observed it.

I have no idea what that means. Perhaps you could use Google Translate to translate the sentence from your native language.

Look up at night.

Interesting (and useful). I had always assumed that CV was British English and resume was American (for the same thing). There is, as far as I know, no such distinction in Br. Eng.

Apparently, it was me (yeah, I was surprised too): The universe, including black holes, existed (and was in motion) for many billions of years before the Sun was formed. So, what was in motion (before the existence of the Sun) was the contents of the universe. To say the universe (as a whole) is in motion would seem to be pretty meaningless.

You said that motion in the universe was started when the Sun came into existence. I was just pointing out that things have always been in motion (before the sun existed). The evidence for this is the fact that we see stars, galaxies and other structures in the universe. You also said that black holes did not exist before the Sun came into existence. That is even more bizarre. But the evidence is that there are black holes in the centre of nearly every galaxy and they predate the existence of the Sun. And what is wrong with your keyboard? What all the random punctuation in your posts? ~<<=-??/!@£$%^&

No it can't. No. No. And no. OK?

And according to my understanding, there is no absolute truth. Therefore, your assertion is incorrect. Natural rights are a human invention and vary from place to place and from time to time. (I have provided exactly the same amount of evidence and logic as you, therefore my position must be just as correct as yours. Therefore philosophy cannot be used to prove an argument correct. Only evidence, in other words science, can do that.)

This is actually a really good question. What is being measured is the travel time of light along the two arms. The speed of light is not affected by the gravitational waves, so the minute difference in the time to travel along each arm can be measured (as a phase difference). More here: http://stuver.blogspot.it/2012/09/q-if-light-is-stretchedcompressed-by-gw.html

Citation needed. Well, it certainly seems like your views are very unclear. If not entirely wrong. In the big bang model, the uni verse has always been completely and homogeneously full of matter. It was never empty. A series of apparently unrelated sentence fragments don't really help explain anything. It is pretty clear from the evidence (baryonic acoustic oscillations, simulations of large structure formation, etc) that dark matter has always been present in about the same proportions as currently. So you have given up pretending to talk about science. You need to be more specific about what this experiment was, who did it and when. I am fairly sure that Neil deGrasse Tyson (note the spelling) did not do it. So you don't know how, when or what this experiment was but you feel confident to report its findings? I call bullshit. You also have another thread where you have posted the same nonsense and then failed to answer any questions. Are you going to do the same again? Please don't. You obviously don't have a clue and you are just wasting everyone's time (including your own).

The amount of energy ("relativistic mass") only depends on speed. An object does not gain more energy or "mass" if it stays at the same speed. (But this doesn't apply to photons, as others have said. )

You can't use entanglement for communication.

The universe, including black holes, existed (and was in motion) for many billions of years before the Sun was formed.

What does the multiverse hypothesis have to do with atheism? I can't see any connection. (You do realise that a lot of cosmologists are, and were, religious? Perhaps most notably, one of the founders of the big bang model was a priest and scientist.)

I don't think I made any such claim. I drew your attention to an analogy that can be used to describe one specific coordinate system. That coordinate system applies to a single, isolated, non-rotating, spherical mass in an otherwise empty universe. It does not appear to be a general principle that can be used to describe gravity in all cases. You are extrapolating to an unreasonable degree, simply to match the way you think things should be. By the curvature of space-time.

He may gave done. But nucleons contribute far more to the mass of an object. Each is about 2,000 times more massive than an electron and there are generally more than twice as many of them in an atom as there are electrons. So electrons only account for about 1/4000th of the mass of your body.

You didn't provide a source for the quote, so I have no way of confirming if he actually said it, what the context was, or even if he exists. However, you appear to be relying on an argument from authority. As far as I can tell, there is no scientific evidence confirming a link between fluorides and cancer. For example (first search result): https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk.html Well, I am not going to apologise for quoting you saying that they use distilled water. Whether that is true or not, it has nothing to do with them being made using distilled or purified water. But the water content of a drink is just water. Where that water came from, or how it has been treated is irrelevant. No. I just added an afterthought (which is why I quoted my own post). The Snopes article does mention the source: From what I remember, this was based on research done for the US Army to work out how much water soldiers would need in different environments. But, as they say, the message was misinterpreted almost immediately.

Which black hole? What is the "cone"? Nothing can escape a black hole.

Wrong in so many ways. 1. Like charges repel, not attract. 2. Your body and the earth are both electrically neutral. So no net attraction. 3. We can block the electrostatic force between electrons, but we cannot block gravity. 4. Light has no electrons but is affected by gravity. 5. Neutron stars have no electrons but have massive gravity. 6. The number of electrons is not proportional to the mass of a body but gravity is. 7. And so on and so on.

The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency (e=hf). The range of frequencies from a black body is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation#Spectrum (Watts is a unit of power not charge)

If you mean photon, then no. It starts off moving at c, it doesn't accelerate.

For example, you can throw a ball or fire a missile up at less than escape velocity and it will go up and then fall back. So escape velocity doesn't stop something leaving the surface, it just means it won't keep going. On the other hand, nothing can leave the event horizon even temporarily

No. I think the need to believe is inherent to human nature. More so in some than others.