Strange

Just checked and found that my backups weren't working because of a configuration change I made to debug another problem. So thanks for the reminder!

The 2 space ships have a speed of 0.8c, relative to one another (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel2.html) * Note: the calculator on that page assumes the situation you have described - rockets going in opposite directions, so you need to enter 0.5 and -0.5 as the two speeds. The time dilation and length contraction factor is 0.6 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html)

Which is why the speed of light is not a valid frame of reference.

There is no such thing as "the Bermuda triangle". It is a combination of selection bias and pure fabrication.

I think we can already say the same about gravity with the same level of certainty (at the same level of detail). You could, perhaps, draw an analogy between the "balls connected by sticks" model of chemistry being like Newtonian gravity, and the full quantum description of electron orbitals interacting being equivalent to GR.

There is no ether. That's OK. Don't do it again.

No.

I don't see why there should be any conflict. There are, and always have been, many religious scientists of all faiths.

No. It is impossible to know what things "really" are.

It is also slightly problematic asking about Africa as a single entity. It is a hugely diverse continent in terms of language, culture, ethnicity, wealth, health and ... well, pretty much everything, really.

Can you describe the algorithm, so we don't have to reverse engineer your code. Can you also show how you calculated the runtime as O(2N). Also, O(2N) means exponential time, not polynomial. O(N2) would be polynomial.

Why on Earth would anyone say that? It is obviously human, as shown by genetic testing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull Why would an alien species even have DNA? What sort of idiot would believe such a thing?

Do they? Where exactly do they do that? I am not aware of any scientific theory that suggest the existence of a creator. And even if they did, why should it be your god, rather than Xantor the Mighty, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or Flying Spaghetto Monster for monotheists)? Those are examples of the fallacy known as "begging the question". And what if your god is lying to you? You know, like politicians? God have mercy on his pupils. Presumably they will grow up deluded and ignorant.

That is an ... "unusual" definition of complexity. Does it have any connection to any of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity#Topics ? But if it is accepted, what use is this definition? Can you calculate anything? Can you explain anything that we don't currently understand? Does it tell us "why there is energy"? Does it tell us anything?

I wouldn't get too hung up on modern myths.

You cannot directly calculate force in GR because gravity is not treated as a force. And it isn't as simple as greater or less; the results are just different. In most cases, the differences are too small to be noticed. For example, in Newtonian gravity an object can be in a stable elliptical orbit around a star. The path will not change; the planet will keep going round the same ellipse. (Apart from external influences like other planets.) But if you work out the path using GR then the ellipse will change its position slightly (precess). Newtonian gravity is good enough in most cases but (as noted above) we see a small anomaly for Mercury which can only be explained by GR. There are various other things that the two theories give different results for, such as the amount of gravitational lens, "frame dragging, etc.

You would need to show how it could do that. What does it tell us about chemistry -- either quantitatively or that we didn't know before? There are principles of energy minimisation, least action, entropy, etc. that sound vaguely like what you are suggesting. But they can be quantised and so they are useful.

There isn't anything of substance to be wrong. "Not even wrong" as Pauli used to say.

Just repeating the same thing doesn't make it any more plausible. Please explain exactly how all instruments and observations can be affected by the same errors? Why would all the different mechanisms (and things with no "mechanism" such as photons or muons) be affected in exactly the same way? And if the clocks were actually slowing down due to some mechanical change, then we should be able to detect this. Can they? Citation needed. Apart from being nonsense, how is this relevant to the topic? I am no exaggerating. How many times a day do you think mobile phones use GPS? We observe time dilation happening. It is also a necessary consequence of Maxwell's equations. And they seem to work. So it seems like we have to choose between a highly accurate theory and your gut feeling. I think most people here will stick with the science. No one says it is. That is a misunderstanding of what the theory says.

Because that is how he produced a working model. In other words, a model that matches the evidence.

I doubt that very much. Nonsense. You can find published papers discussing alternative ideas. The trouble is, none of them work. The only filter is science: does the theory match the evidence. It may be. And there are published theories describing both possibilities. Currently we have no evidence which will tell us if this is true or not. Do you? If there is a first anything, then it can't be infinitely old, can it. And why is the big bang model (i.e. that the universe is currently expanding) needed to create an SMBH? Then please do. Don't forget to include the appropriate mathematics and show how it produces results consistent with observation. So you have an alternative explanation for the evidence? Good. Show us. Yes. Just present the mathematics and show it matches the observations. That's all. You can do that here or in scientific journals.

It is not a theory as it has not been tested against evidence. It is not a hypothesis as it makes no testable predictions. So it cannot become a theory. There is no such law. There is no such law. Argument from authority. Currently there is no explanation as to why there is anything. That is outside the scope of science. Only philosophy or religion can provide (invent) answers to those questions. Even is true, what use is this conclusion? Can you calculate anything? Can you explain anything that we don't currently understand? Does it tell us "why there is energy"? Does it tell us anything? How would it prove (or even explain) such a thing? Presumably because no one has noticed amor reported it yet. (They have now.) Also, why is putting threads in the correct place an "attack"? There is no physics here.

The whole question of whether is energy is conserved or not in GR is not simple: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

And then multiply that 16 by the millions (billions?) of times that the measurements have been repeated. If you accept this (or were you just listing other things you don't believe) then it is worth noting that the path of photons is bent by the curving of space-time, not just space. And so time dilation is also a necessary consequence.

Free fall is not acceleration. (Free fall means you are experiencing no force so if you had an accelerometer with you, it would read zero.)