Strange

How about something a little more ... serious.

What does that mean?

We don't currently have a theory that explains why the things in the standard model. That is just the way things are.

That I don't want to hear your preaching. Start a church or a blog. This is a stunning level of hypocrisy (but not too surprising) from someone who thinks all Muslims are the same as ISIS. Why shouldn't I assume that you are exactly like the most retarded, literal, fundamentalist bigots. After all, all Christians are the same, aren't they. I hope your daughters are suitably ashamed of you.

As there is nothing moving, how can it be Doppler effect? The address may have changed, but it is still nonsense.

In one office I worked in, the timeout for the lights was quite short so if you sat on the toilet too long in the evening, you would be plunged into darkness until you got out of the cubicle.

Who knows. But that is why I said "human life".

It is physics. It is just about modelling/describing how things work. You can have multiple models of the same thing (that work in different cases). What it "really" is (and if reality exists) is a question for philosophy, not physics.

G is just a constant of proportionality (because of the arbitrary units we use for measuring things). It is determined by experiment. (It actually isn't known very accurately because it is hard to measure.) If you choose the right units, it disappears. It is not an assumption. It is just based on observation. We only ever see masses attract one another (apples falling from trees, planets orbiting the sun, etc). If we ever see gravity pushing things apart then we will have to update our theory. It depends how you model it. In Newton's formula it is a force. In GR it is not.

I would say: "Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious."

Obviously, yes. That has nothing to do with either the big bang or evolution.

The idea of travel through wormholes is based on the work of Hawking and others.

No, I think the point was just refuted, crushed and disposed of.

Citation needed.

If that is not his area of expertise, I struggle to think whose it might be... Surely, he is one of the leading authorities on space-time? (There seems to a be a slight irony there... )

Well, not quite. But very close. Seems unlikely to me. At those temperatures, atoms would be ionised. And the strong electric and magnetic fields may keep oppositely charged particles apart. But this is an immensely complicated subject so I am just guessing. Also, remember that both particles and anti-particles would be formed. So the antimatter will end up destroying an equal amount of matter that was formed. Can you provide a link. Wikipedia is quite large. It sounds like this is not well understood at the moment; e.g. http://www.bu.edu/galacticring/new_summary.htm#objectives It seems unlikely. The amount of mass around the black hole is a minute fraction of the mass of the galaxy. Any new atoms formed will be a small proportion of that. And, as noted, I don't see that there can be a net creation of matter. 1. The size of the accretion disk varies. Sometimes it can disappear because all the mass has been absorbed by the black hole. (There is no significant accretion disk around the black hole at the centre of our galaxy currently). And then if a large gas cloud or group of stars approaches, it can gain a large accretion disk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus 2. I can't see the black hole having any effect on the bar or 5-kpc ring. It is too far away. The black hole only affects mass nearby. That seems to be because that is where most of the hydrogen is. Stars are formed from hydrogen. This is nowhere near the black hole. So, no. But what does any of this have to do with the Higgs boson!?!?!?

I don't think anyone is going to argue with that. Well, I might change "observed" to "defined"; especially as science is occasionally observed to be affected [temporarily] by the personal beliefs of individual scientists. But more generally, belief seems to be an essential component of human life - despite your belief to the contrary.

Did I say "active"?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26307858 As swansont noted, this was just for pain. And only in the US. A few comments on this here: https://www.painscience.com/biblio/is-the-placebo-effect-getting-stronger-the-tuttle-kerfuffle.html And some discussion here: https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/american-placebo-255973 http://www.nature.com/news/strong-placebo-response-thwarts-painkiller-trials-1.18511

If you could hit the Quote button (the big one, bottom right) it would make it easier to follow. Asking what the units are is not a cop-out; it is fundamental to science. If you look at a drug trial (whether it uses placebos or not) you will see that the results are quantified in some units of measurement.

That doesn't answer the question: "What are the units of belief, and of observation?" And you comments about double-slit experiments don't seem to make much sense.

Perhaps you could show here some of the experimental data that you put in these submissions. You do have experimental data, don't you? If not, that may be why it was rejected, rather than some sort of blind prejudice. After all, science progresses by challenging and occasionally overthrowing generally accepted principles. That is what the big prizes are awarded for. You have provided no evidence. Wrong. I make no claim. I am asking you to provide evidence to support yours. What insult? Why do you think I am "emotionally charged"? I find your stubborn refusal to provide evidence, or even to see that it is required, mildly amusing. But that is all. Why is it that people with their own personal theories are convinced that they make others angry, or scared or emotional. I don't get it. But ho, hum.

There are some. Including at least two moderators, I believe. Sadly, one female member was bullied away recently.

Belief x Energy = Observation 1. It is not axiomatic. An axiom is something that is taken to be self evidently true. 2. How are you defining "belief"? 3. What are the units of, and how do you measure, "belief"? (You do realise that these need to be quantified if they are to be used in an equation?) 4. Do you mean "energy" in the physics sense (as measured in joules)? If not, what do you mean? 5. What is this the energy of? 6. How is this energy measured? 7. How are you defining "observation"? 8. What are the units of, and how do you measure, "observation"? Is that piece by piece enough for you?

I think you asked this before. The main difference in the case of a black hole is that all the matter is moving in the same direction in the accretion disk. However, it does seem that that there are very highly energetic interactions (e.g. generating the jets of material from the poles) so it may be that Higgs bosons are created. But they will, of course, like many other particles decay again immediately. Why do you ask? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103720-matter-in-accretion-disks-vs-higgs-boson-at-cern/