Strange

Eppur si muove.

I am not aware of anything in Hawking radiation that can cause the black hole to change its charge. Not that the description given (by Hawking) in terms of the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs is not an accurate representation of what the mathematics says so it is dangerous to try and extrapolate from this analogy. The process is more related to how different observers can partition the vacuum into positive and negative energy states... Here are a couple of articles that attempt to explain what happens slightly more accurately: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html http://backreaction.blogspot.de/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html

You might be surprised to find out that running a computer program does not alter reality. I suspect you have watched The Matrix one too many times ...

Computing power is not really the problem. We can already simulate the behaviour of systems that generate gravitational waves (hence all the information about the recent detection). The challenge is getting hold of a couple of neutron stars or black holes and swinging them around in a controlled way. Apart from the fact that I don't know what 'alter reality' means or how you would do it, doing something on a microscopic scale is not going to generate detectable gravitational waves.

There is an interactive editor, which I often use to get the LaTeX right before using it somewhere else: http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php And, as you use Excel, you might like this: http://www.codecogs.com/products/formula_render/about.php

If we knew the answer to that, it would be possible now. I don't think it would be a separate case, but obviously we would need modified laws to describe it.

What exactly do you mean by "laws"? As understood in this thread, the "laws of physics" are our mathematical descriptions of them. These can, as the example given show, be "broken"; i.e. they are not always correct. What do you mean by laws that we are not able to break? Do you just mean the existence of gravity? Or what? What does that mean?

Well, there is something we can all agree on, at least. Being a genius (even if true) doesn't make him a scientist. For someone who claims to be a "philosopher" you demonstrate very sloppy thinking. "Hans Eysenck, who writes in Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire (1985) that Freud set back the study of psychology and psychiatry "by something like fifty years or more",%5B168%5D and Malcolm Macmillan, who concludes in Freud Evaluated (1991) that "Freud's method is not capable of yielding objective data about mental processes".%5B169%5D Morris Eagle states that it has been "demonstrated quite conclusively that because of the epistemologically contaminated status of clinical data derived from the clinical situation, such data have questionable probative value in the testing of psychoanalytic hypotheses".%5B170%5DRichard Webster, in Why Freud Was Wrong (1995), called psychoanalysis perhaps the most complex and successful pseudoscience in history.%5B171%5D Crews believes that psychoanalysis has no scientific or therapeutic merit.%5B172%5D" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud As I say, because he wasn't a scientist his "theories" were pretty much just stuff he made up. He had a few lucky guesses that do seem to be supported by later science. (Although, even now, much research in psychology seems to be of pretty poor quality, so I don't know how valid that support is). So, again, it seems your opinions count as "philosophy" while other people's opinions are nonsense. You keep going on about how you are a philosopher and feel this forum lacks depth and integrity so I wonder why you hang around. I'm sure there are other forums where your insights will be given the acclaim they deserve. So you don't have one. Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Applied_philosophy Perhaps you want to edit that page to add Science. I fail to see the relevance of you quoting that again. Especially as you left off the relevant part.

The third definition is the one that seems most relevant. A simple example is the Goldbach Conjecture (which there is a current thread on): Every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes. This seems to be true (it is true for every value that has been tested) but no one has yet managed to prove (or disprove) it. One would imagine that a simple statement like that would be easy to prove. But apparently not.

Or if you were capable of accurately reporting what the article said. (BTW You do realise that "within an order of magnitude" means the results could be 10 times too large or small. Which is a pretty enormous margin of error.)

No. I am just pointing out that you are being selective in your interpretation of their results.

Those are all purely mathematical results and so you would expect them to be inviolate. (Although the HUP may no longer hold if quantum mechanics is completely reformulated.)

So you cherry picked the bits you liked.

But not surprising given his neo-Creationist credentials.

Have you actually read the paper?

But that isn't what you said.

Then why state it as a fact? How do you know we are relatively stupid? What are you making the comparison with? You mean you can make wild guesses.

There are already several threads on the Fermi Paradox. Do we need another one? And you know that how?

I wonder if you have read the paper yourself, or you are just relying on a few quotes about it? You seem to think that this is some sort of shocking breakthrough and yet they frequently show how their results are largely consistent with earlier work. Where there are differences, it is mainly because they are considering a wider range of stars and environments.

Because it supports (or can be interpreted to) support your prejudices. It suggests that the Earth may be (not "is") relatively unusual (not "different from nearly all other planets") in the total population of planets (not "all other planets that have been discovered"). Three misrepresentations in one sentence. Not bad, even by creationist levels of dishonesty. However, as their study includes a wide range of star types as well as both elliptical and disk galaxies, this is not too surprising. The main "mild" violation of the Copernican principle that they note is the fact that we are not in an elliptical galaxy. Is that really such a big deal?

Except it doesn't say that. You are making stuff up based on your religion and then cherry picking quotes that you think support it. This is the same dishonest tactic (along with your initial "just asking" deception) used by creationists and other liars. So it is hardly surprising that people are impatient with you.

Not without some evidence, no.

That is not generally true in general relativity (and therefore the big bang model). http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html There is no support for that. Dark energy appears to increase with the expanding universe.

That does not make him a scientist. I'm sure plenty of quacks studied biology and/or medicine and worked in the medical field. I'm not surprised. Citation needed.

Although it can be expressed more accurately using mathematics. I would say that a postulate is better described as a working assumption; assumed to be true until proved otherwise. If any part of science is dogma, then it implies it can't be overthrown by evidence. So, perhaps, the only dogma is that evidence trumps everything!