Strange

The amplitude of gravitational waves is usually measured in terms of strain (the amount by which lengths are changed, orthogonal to the direction of ravel). I don't see how this can be expressed as an acceleration.

What don't you understand? You asked us to discuss your thoughts. We have pointed out that your beliefs are random and baseless. All you have done to defend them is to simply repeat the same thing. Not much of a discussion...

I can't tell you what Christians think, but my thoughts are: Who is Zakir Nail and why should I care what he thinks? Where is the evidence?

That still does not appear to have any basis in physics. What is a "timeline"? How can a particle appear to be in two places? How does it then split into two particles? Some detail would be nice ...

I don't think you are on any sort of crusade. I am just pointing out that your way of thinking (belief in things that do not appear to exists and based on zero evidence) are indistinguishable from religion. And some of the specific beliefs (e.g. a creator, us being "special" or chosen in some way, etc) are common to many religions. The only argument you have against your beliefs not being religious is, "no it isn't". Not very convincing. Again, can you explain how your belief system differs from a religious one? Which is pretty similar to what a lot of religions say. But your "different" way appears to be to ignore facts and accept whatever ideas you come up with, just because they make sense to you. Of course you do. Most people do. That is why critical thinking and learning how to evaluate evidence is important. But the only way of knowing if you are right is to test your ideas against reality. (That is the difference between us.) Instead you seem to think that because you thought of it, and you trust your own ideas, then it must be true. But anyone can do that and come up with their own ideas, possible contradictory to yours. So how should someone decide which of these manifold random ideas has any basis in reality? Not by choosing the one who "has the best gut", that is for sure. It is not thinking in a different way that is a problem, it is ignoring reality. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be happy to discuss that. (I am not particularly interested, because I'm not sure the term is particularly meaningful; nor do I believe it is, in general, knowable.) I certainly would not give any credit for a random guess, even if it did turn out to be right. Look up "justified true belief" for example. If there is no reason (justification) for the belief then it does not count as knowledge, it is just a guess. No predicts for guessing the right answer.

There is a standard interpretation of QM called "retrocausality" which describes it this way. So, yes, if you like. Is it lonely in that camp?

You believe in a Creator who is invisible and undetectable. This is common to many religions. You believe that we and/or our planet are somehow special or "chosen". This is also common to many religions. You believe that if everyone believed in your creator then things would be better. This is also common to many religions. Like religion, this is entirely based on believe and "gut feel". How about you explain how your beliefs are different from religious beliefs instead of just insisting they are. And that is where the idea falls down. It is also possible that Jupiter, Alpha Centauri or some speck of dust outside our visible universe is the centre of the universe. So which is simpler: that we are The Special Chosen Ones or that there is no single special location? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity). You are inventing a creator, a special location, a forgotten history, and various other magical and unnecessary concepts. But if we have a creator then so does every other star, planet, lifeforms and speck of dust in the universe. So they are all equally justified in being the centre of the universe (because there is no centre). So you are choosing your location despite the billions upon billions of other equally valid choices. Not exactly rational. But perfect for a new religion.

Yes, using our eyes is an act of observation. If we see photons that have interacted with the electron, then that changes the behaviour of the electron. (Actually, the fact a photon interacted with the electron probably counts as an "observation" anyway). In fact, it is more accurate to say that the "two particles" are a single system. So there is no need for faster than light communication between them. I would say that this shows that the detectors do affect the outcome. But the effect is non-local in time as well as space.

No. But we have evidence for lots of other things: such as who built the pyramids, why, how many people worked on it, for how long, where they lived, what they ate, what they were paid, etc. Why guess at something "magical" when we have a lot of information. This is a pretty standard part of most religious doctrines: "we could end all suffering and disagreement if only people would follow MY religion rather than those other, false ones." You are "not using feelings" but your entire idea is just based on your personal beliefs. Again, I struggle to see the difference. That suggests that you don't understand Occam's razor: "don't introduce any unnecessary entities". It is not necessary for the Earth to be at the centre of the universe (or for there to be a creator). So by introducing these unnecessary concepts (that have no support or reason beyond your beliefs/feelings) you are violating Occam's razor.

Why take a guess, when you can use evidence? Can you explain the difference between believing in an invisible and unknowable creator (most religions) and believing in an invisible and unknowable creator (you)?

A good explanation here (from a physicist working at LIGO): http://stuver.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/q-what-is-gravitational-wave.html

How is it evidence specifically for that. How is it not evidence for clumsy invisibly pink nano-unicorns that keep knocking things out of place? Or, how is it not evidence for the universe just being like that? "Seems like" is not evidence. That is just a supposition. If I were building a simulation, I would make it as accurate and complete a model as possible so that the entities inside could not distinguish it from reality.

No one criticised you for asking questions about QM. You were simply asked if there was any evidence for "someone" who is scrambling things to hide them from us. QM says nothing either way about the possibility that we are in a simulation. That is one of those undecidable/uprovable (and therefore uninteresting) philosophical questions like solipsism or "what if the universe was created 15 minutes ago and just made to look really ancient" You seem to be using "logical" in the strangely unscientific sense of "it makes sense to me". That is not what "logical" means, and science works hard to get away from those sort of errors.

Defining the concept of "religion" is notoriously difficult. However, personal beliefs (with no evidence) especially about a creator, almost certainly qualify. One of the reasons that science works, is because it takes steps to get away from "ideas that make sense".

Hilarious. I assume this should have been posted in the humour thread...

Clarke's Third Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

As that is not what I devote my life to, that would be a straw man argument. I have a passing interest in the world around me, and science is one of the ways of finding out more about it. Certainly not the only one. But certainly the most productive. I think they are just trying to be exactly as smart as we can be (and no smarter). There was a recent thread about Michio Kaku in this regard. It turned out that the claim he had said this was a lie made up by some religious group. (Although, he says a lot of things that are nonsense, so I wouldn't have been surprised.) As far as I can see, science only does what science is good at: finding explanations that work based on the available evidence. (Note that science has little if anything to do with the "truth" mentioned in your title; that is the domain of religion and philosophy.) I hope most scientists know that. If they don't they need a refresher course in the history and philosophy of science. Science hasn't been about "truth" for about a century. Really? So, yes it is completely about religion. How would it change? Many scientists believe in a creator (and possibly most did in the past) and their goal is to understand creation. For non-religious scientists, the goal is still to understand the world, even if they don't think it is created. I'm not sure what changes. The danger of a religious belief is that it can lead to a tendency to stop enquiry by saying "that is just the way the creator [God] created it (and He moves in mysterious ways so there is no point asking questions)."

Can you share the research that leads you to this conclusion because I have never heard anyone claim this before. 1. What makes you think Adam was white? 2. What makes you think his children were not white? (Also, I have known "white" people with "black" children, and vice versa.) They are definitely real. A significant proportion of the world's population are followers of them. (Although, I really hope I am not a "like-minded" person. That would be too depressing for words.)

I would say you go to the top of the class with that observation. You have just killed multiple threads on this in the Philosophy section!

Do gay men have a "woman's brain"? What is a "woman's brain"? Are all women bisexual?

I'm not sure that is true. Actually, I am certain it isn't but I can't remember which ones don't. (Shinto is one example, I think.) We have detailed records of who they were built by, who they were built for and the remains of the people buried in them. Not exactly "zero". People also stopped pulling the brains of the deceased out through the nose. Traditions change. Especially when they require vast wealth to maintain them. Not to me. But if you are lucky (?) "cladking" will come along with his even more insanely stupid theory. (Or you could look for his threads if you want a laugh.)

Is there any evidence that such a thing is possible? As our experiences and perceptions are often mistaken, I disagree strongly with this. The reason that science works is that it makes great efforts to get away from this way of thinking.

1. You have not shown that FGFs can exist. (It appears to be impossible.) 2. You have not shown that they can account for the effects attributed to dark matter. As you seem to be claiming these FGFs exist at the boundaries of galactic clusters, how can they account for the dynamics within galaxies? I think you need to show the detailed maths that supports points 1 and 2.

But they all say different things, some of them contradictory. Some of them appear to be written version of very old oral traditions, some were created in historic times. I don't really see how they can all be the same thing. This is a pretty popular idea. There is, however, zero evidence for it. And, given the massive changes to the planet caused by current civilisation, it would be quite hard to miss. Unless you think that somehow the Earth literally gets reset each time (coal and oil recreated, etc). Otherwise, what resources did previous civilisations use. Because no one thought it was worth spending that much time and money on something so futile. Similar to the reasons that we haven't been back to the moon in a long time (which is used, in a similar way, by people who want to deny that ever happened). Not doing something is not the same as not being able to do it. It didn't. Progress went in other directions. If you think that using vast amounts of money and resources to build massive tombs for an elite is "progress" then ... well, presumably you voted for Trump.

I don't think I can let that pass. GR describes gravity as the curvature of spacetime. There is no "other factor".