Strange

No, it was definitely a thought experiment. The craft will see the light moving away at c. Someone on Earth will also see the light moving at c. But, yes the maximum separation speed is 2c - but it is important to note that no one, in any frame of reference, sees anything moving at more than c.

It is a thought experiment. No communication is necessary. I'm not sure I understand it. You seem to be saying that if the speed of is a fraction of c, then the speed is that much less than c. But that is (a) tautological and (b) not very useful.

Nonsense. Why would either be "catastrophic"? How can anything be catastrophic to science? (Other than a cut in funding!) Science thrives on challenges, unanswered questions, finding new solutions, etc. Your only problem is you have some sort emotional/[quasi-]religious dislike of the current best theories. Well, that's just too bad. The current approach is called "science": look for evidence, try and model it, update theories, test the theories, look for new evidence, etc. Your approach is called "making up stuff that makes sense to you, regardless of evidence or theory."

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91034-extreme-pain-after-injury/page-2#entry900582

Why do you need to communicate? The question doesn't really make sense. The speed of light isn't relative to anything. But I suppose you can consider the difference in speed between the light (i.e. c) and the craft (0.5 c) which is (rather painfully obviously) 0.5c.

Sorry if that wasn't clear. The scenario is: You (or an alien) are on a spaceship which is moving relative to Earth / me at 0.5c. (Note that the implausible numbers have been chosen to make the difference clear and the arithmetic simple). You / alien fire a rocket (torpedo, rescue shuttle, landing craft, whatever) ahead of you at a speed of 0.5c relative to your spaceship. I see your spaceship moving at 0.5c and the rocket travelling at 0.8c. If we were talking old-fashioned physics with trains and baseballs, then if you were on a train going past at 40 MPH and tossed a ball forwards at 10 MPH then I (standing on the platform) would see the ball moving at 50MPH. But if I could measure incredibly accurately, I would see it was a really tiny bit slower than that because velocities do not add linearly. Is that better? Your "rocket" is a beam of light. Different rules apply here. You would measure the light moving away from you at c. I would see the light moving at c as well. You don't have to take my word. The arithmetic is very simple, nothing more complicated than division and square roots.

This is a science forum, not a place for making up stories. The early universe was not a black hole (and there probably wasn't a singularity). There is no such thing as Schrodinger's Cat, so that is OK. But the concept of superposition is well-grounded in theory (not made up stories, like yours) and confirmed by experiment. The same is true for the double slit experiment. What is "electron fog"? The speed of light is invariant. Then perhaps you can show the mathematics for this?

You should realise there is something terribly wrong with your level of understanding and your attitude.

Of course. (I struggle to see why the idea of aliens is relevant. Also, not that the speed of the rocket is specified relative to the craft firing it [sorry if I didn't make that clear].) And you are wrong.

You don't even need mass. One result of special relativity is that we find speed does not add linearly in the way we are used to (at our normal humdrum pace). For example, if you are travelling past the Earth at 0.5c and you fire a rocket ahead of you at 0.5c then, from my perspective on Earth, I will see the rocket moving at 0.8c (rather than at c). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel2.html This just comes from applying the Lorentz transform.

Exactly. Note that a black hole is fully characterized by just three things (the no hair theorem): mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Form the link I posted earlier: "We’re currently working on results using a waveform that includes the full effects of spin, but that is extremely slow (it’s about half done now), so those results won’t be out for a while." http://cplberry.com/2016/02/23/gw150914-the-papers/#parameter-estimation That was written in February, about 6 months after the detection. That should give you an idea of how complex these simulations are. Yes. There is no simple answer to that. But the closer they get, the faster the orbits. There is a probably more accurate, and nicely annotated, simulation here: http://cplberry.com/2015/09/12/monty-carla/

No they wouldn't. That would come out of the equations of general relativity that are being simulated. The initial conditions would be things like the masses of the black holes, their spins and distances.

Calculating the gravitational waves generated by the merger of black holes requires massively complicated simulations using supercomputers. So I wouldn't put too much faith in your guesses, if I were you. (I thought it worth repeating.)

You are confusing a 2D cartoon with the physics of space-time.

I think that what you are confused by (maybe) is the fact that the CMB, being a black body spectrum, contains a wide range of frequencies. However, all these frequencies are shifted by the same amount. If they weren't then it would no longer be a black body spectrum. You see, the problem is, you keep saying "I understand" (and presumably you believe this) but then you repeatedly post things that make it clear that you don't understand. And that you are incapable of learning. I think that, more importantly than learning any of this stuff, you need to recognise your own inadequacies. So: Next time you feel tempted to write "I understand" stop, and remember that you probably don't (based on past experience). Next time you are about to write "Do you agree?" change it to "What have I misunderstood?" And, more generally, don't refuse to learn about modern science just because you don't like the results it comes up with.

Isn't that the wrong way round? Solubility increases with pressure so any gases (in cavities, the lungs, etc) would dissolve in the fluid (presumably leading to some very small collapse of the body structure).

I don't see why not. Heddy Lamarr (the Hollywood actress) got a patent for spread spectrum radio transmission decades before it became practical (and now ubiquitous).

Calculating the gravitational waves generated by the merger of black holes requires massively complicated simulations using supercomputers. So I wouldn't put too much faith in your guesses, if I were you. From Katie Mack's page, I was eventually led to this: http://cplberry.com/2016/02/23/gw150914-the-papers/ An excellent, and really useful, summary of all the papers around the LIGO result. There are papers that go into great detail about every aspect: the detection, modelling the sources, etc. This is a great way to find the ones that are of interest.

Your inability understand is stunning. Not accepting the big bang model is not the same as not admitting his model was wrong. Among other things. You have an entire thread devoted to your inability to understand this. Do we really have to go through it all again? The CMB, as has been explained repeatedly, has a single red-shift value. You are also introducing yet more meaningless terminology: what does "average value of the redshift reflections" mean? Because, as the source you just cited says, the red-shift is related to distance. Who says it is not feasible? It is not a reflection. Please stop posting ignorant nonsense. Physics. It is based on the well understood physics of hot plasmas. Only if you are using the "royal we". It is understood perfectly well by science. No. That is a lie that you invented. And it has been thoroughly debunked and explained (repeatedly) in the thread where you first brought it up. Did you forget you have tried this lie before? Did you not understand the explanations given? (Very likely) Did you hope no one would notice that you were using the same lie again?

You do it all the time.

It wasn't difficult. I just thought it was rather obvious and didn't need spelling out in such painful detail. But Fred Hoyle was wrong (about that) and so you can't use that as evidence. I don't know what "all" the options are. I was simply pointing out that you have, as usual, cherry picked some information because it suits your beliefs.

Here is a description, with moving pictures, that might help you see what happens: http://www.universetoday.com/127255/gravitational-waves-101/

There is no information about this (I have just looked through the paper again). The paper discuss the initial masses, final mass, final spin, constraints on the initial spin, and the distance. So I assume the effect of the orientation is not significant. Maybe it is less than the error bounds?

Of course not. So you don't understand your own words, as well as not understanding what others say. Lets look at one of your options, for example: "B. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - Therefore - There is new Energy/mass creation" Firstly, your "therefore" is wrong because the second part does not follow from the first. Secondly, there are (at least) three possible options here that I can think of immediately: "B1. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is new Energy/mass creation" "B2. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is a decrease in Energy/mass" "B3. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - But Energy/mass stays constant [on average] anyway for some other reason" There are other possibilities. For example, we may find that there is some other conserved quantity that makes sense of all this in a completely different way so that the question about mass-energy becomes irrelevant. There are not just two options. These are two broad classes of theories. One where the universe expands and cools over time and one where it doesn't. There are many variations within these (within the steady state theories this is partly because it had to keep changing to cope with all the contradictory evidence). And possibly some that don't really fit in either. Well, we shouldn't assume anything. We should find the models that best fit the evidence. That is what science does. On the other hand, what you do is decide that cosmology is wrong and then cherry pick and invent evidence to support that. Because there is no mechanism in his model (or any variations of it) to explain the CMB. And yet it is predicted, very accurately, by the big bang model. Clearly you are too lazy to read the links I provide that explain all this. (Or too worried that it will prove that you are wrong.) In summary, what you claim to be "paradox" is, like all so-called paradoxes in physics, purely a result of a lack of understanding or misapplication of theory..

There are more than two. And yet you base those two options on science. Once again, you are contradicting yourself. It does not confirm Hoyle's steady state theory. Apart from anything else, the theory cannot explain the CMB (the discovery of the CMB was what finally killed the theory). There is a lot of other evidence against Hoyle's theory, for example: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9410070 http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm