Strange

I don't know. There are zero energy solutions to the Einstein Field Equations (the Milne model, for example) that consist of an empty space-time. These are useful to understand how space-time behaves in various different situations. They are "unphysical" in the sense of not representing the universe we live in, but they are valid physical thought experiments.

I don't think that not being able to understand how it can happen is a good reason to reject an idea. I would recommend reading Godel, Escher and Bach (Hofstadter) if you haven't already; he gives some suggestions as to how this could be possible. This, like solipsism, seems to be unfalsifiable and isn't really worthy of consideration - other than as an idea to play with ("what if a tree falls etc").

Also: Chosen Okamura http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume6/v6i6/okamura-6-6.html

See also The Japanese Museum of Rocks That Look Like Faces

Geometry! If you move an object past a light, the speed the shadow moves increases with distance.

The speed of light is defined by the permeability and permittivity of space http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c4

I think this is already done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packaging_gas http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/4765673/Packaging-with-argon-helps-keep-food-fresh.html

I already explained at least two reasons why your extrapolation is probably wrong. I provided references. I also explained that.

I don't think expansion is enough to explain the difference between these numbers. I can't find the published paper to see exactly what they are saying but I think when the say "when" the event happened, they are describing it relative to what we see now. So we see the black hole "now" being 35000 light years from the galaxy, and it was expelled 1-2 billion years before "now". But, in reality, by now it has had an extra 8 billion years (or more) to move and so will be much further away. But we can't see that yet. BTW, the original link didn't work for some reason, so here it is: http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1706/

But they are just descriptive models, not reality or truth. How can they be "truth" if they can always be disproved?

Perhaps you could provide a reference for that? What are the ten kingdoms, and when did they appear?

It has nothing to do with perception. It doesn't require a human observer. We create technology. We are part of nature.

You say "ask a physicist" but I am fairly certain that most would tell you that is nonsense ("quantum woo" as it is sometimes called). You need some evidence for that.

If you were to present evidence of a suitable standard (not just assertions) that support your hypothesis, then I think people would be very pleased to see it. By this, I mean it would be good to see details of double-blind experiments, analysis of the data you obtained, etc. Psychology has had a bad reputation in the past, with the nonsense pumped out by people like Freud and Jung, but more recently it has made great efforts to become a scientific discipline.

I ignored this as I assumed it was a joke. You know, if babies double in size in one year, then by the time they are 10 they will be over 1,000 feet tall. So what this shows is that your naive extrapolation is wrong. A couple of the more obvious omissions are: The mass of the stars involved: they are supergiants with masses of 20 to 100 solar mass. The stars have not always been there: stars migrate around the galaxy and stars are created The Krabbe paper referred to earlier explicitly says that there has been star formation in the last million years This paper talks about the possibility of star clusters migrating to the centre of the galaxy: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/318054/pdf

Not without math, they don't.

That is exactly what that paper is all about. They use several models to calculate accretion rate and compare these with observed X-ray emissions. These all seem to produce roughly consistent results. If you think there is an error in their modelling, feel free to show where it is (in appropriate mathematical detail). I'm not sure that is true. The wind from these stars may be affected by the presence of the black hole (but I don't understand the models in enough detail to know if that is the case or not). I don't see how that follows as a logical argument. "Hence, technically, we can say that unicorns exist" is about as much of a non sequitur.

BTW, I should add: I don't care what you believe or what you think your God did. Just don't try and pretend it is science.

Who knows. But not knowing is not evidence for your god.

Well, that is very sweet. But that is what people of other religions say as well. You can't all be right. No you can't because you would need more information is available (see chaos theory). And, ultimately, the behaviour would depend on quantum events which are random.

I'm sure one could argue about this for hours and come with all sorts of ideas. One of the might be your god. Another might be someone else's god. Another might be invisible pink unicorns. Another might be "the laws of physics". But this is all just pointless speculation. You can't say any one's guess is better than anyone else's. So it is not evidence for your chosen god (or anyone else's). Or maybe it was just random chance.

All stars lose mass as "wind" - a stream of charged particles from their outer atmosphere. In the case of the stars around the black hole, some of this falls into accretion disk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1991ApJ...382L..19K&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf Didn't you already post a reference to this? "the Milky Way's black hole ... does have a small accretion disk, which produces a faint glow in visible, infrared, and other wavelengths." http://blackholes.stardate.org/research/black-hole-binge.php.html

There is no scientific evidence that the universe has an origin or was created. If it was created, there is no reason to think it was created from "nothing". There is some speculation that the big bang could have been initiated from a quantum fluctuation, but this is not "nothing" it is the pre-existing quantum vacuum (with a non-zero energy). Otherwise there would be nothing to "fluctuate". If you can believe that, then why not just believe that the universe existed eternally (in some form)? After all, you have just introduced a new entity for which there is no evidence, which directly contradicts Occam's Razor. No you didn't. Your argument seems to be: "I believe the universe was created. It must have been created by something. Therefore it must have been created by my god." This may be an example of the fallacy of begging the question: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html Really, it is just a series of baseless assumptions: You assume creation (because that is what your god did in your mythology). You assume this cannot happen by natural means (because you want to propose supernatural means). You assume your god created the universe (but why not some other god, gods, or dragons). And why do you think you know the truth? Perhaps your religion is wrong, but some other religious creation myth is correct.

How can it be? Newton's theory of gravitation is completely different from Einstein's and yet they are both accepted by science. Neither is "true" in any real sense. They are both just good models. "Even though science is often characterized as such, we do not describe it as a search for truth." http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/truth Hypotheses are not beliefs (unless you are totally changing the meaning of belief). Things do not "become" science. Science is a method for testing ideas.

Do they? Or are those interpretations read into them afterwards? So, as I thought, it is just an arbitrary interpretation of a fairly meaningless image. Why is the head of gold Babylon and not some other large country, person, building or, even, just a head of gold. Why are the two arms Meado-Persia rather than one of the many other countries that have split in tow (maybe it is Czechoslovakia). Why are the legs Greece and not Rome or the European Union. And why Rome? It didn't split into ten parts. The only sources that say this are religious ones, which base it on this prophecy! Which is the ultimate example of Begging the Question! Nope. It was drivel.