Strange

Who is "our best scientist"? And where did the they claim this? The universe, in current models, has no centre. However, the Earth is the centre of the observable universe, by definition. Every position in space is the centre of the universe observable from that point. (Which is why there is no centre.)

Go on then. The math is very simple. Post your calculations here and we can check it for you.

To be honest, I think people have been incredibly patient and fair when dealing with someone who thinks their personal beliefs trump scientific evidence. But people like that also tend to think that any disagreement is some sort of personal insult. As we are now clearly well into the realms of "sea-lioning", and you have no science to support your beliefs, I am going to suggest that this thread is closed.

Your disagreement is not based on evidence, though. (I have no idea what it is based on: religion, politics, voodoo, Fox News, rolling dice, tarot cards ... who knows. Definitely not evidence, though.) That is even more true for evolution than for climate change. Climate is measured over decades; evolution typically requires centuries or millennia. And, again, you have provided no evidence to support your beliefs, so there is no reason for anyone to take them seriously. You might as well say that you suspect Santa Claus is real. You are. And you have exactly as much evidence on your side as flat-earthers do. (And it is pretty much a myth that it was ever generally believed that the world was flat.) But you don't just have questions. You have an "opinion" and you are not interested in the answers to the questions. Because, inevitably, they disagree with your baseless opinion. Having clearly stated your beliefs, and having made it obvious that you are not interested in evidence, it is dishonest to keep claiming you are "just asking".

You need to quantify this. What speeds, time, distance are you considering? Better still, learn the simple mathematics of SR so you can work this out for yourself. (And this has nothing to do with Einstein been right or wrong. The theory has been thoroughly tested and is correct.)

! Moderator Note If a meaningless diagram with no explanation is the best you can do, then I think we are done here. Do not start another thread on this.

What is the advantage of attempting to do that? One of the postulates of relativity (and physics in general, since at least Galileo) is that physics is independent of place and time.

! Moderator Note This is a science forum. I suggest you find a forum which is for discussions of Catholicism.

Yes, you can develop an intuitive sense that photons "experience no time" (which is a pretty meaningless statement) but it is not mathematically useful or consistent. You cannot cannot base a theory on this because it will result in division by zero. Please provide the mathematics that support this claim. (Otherwise I will request this thread is closed for lacking any scientific content.) Also, we measure the effects of the double-slit experiment, entanglement, etc. in our frame of reference, not that of the photon. So invoking the (non-existent) photon frame of reference explains nothing.

! Moderator Note Provide citations and data to back up this assertion in the next post or this thread will be closed.

But that is the exact opposite of the current situation. Evolution has, indeed, been obvious for millennia. What was missing for all that time was an explanation (a theory) of how and why it occurred in the way it did. It took the insights and evidence gathered by Wallace and Darwin to change the paradigm. No it isn't. Testing relativity to the extent it has been confirmed has required incredibly complex and sensitive experiments. Multiple lines of evidence from different experiments have all turned out to be consistent with each other and with the theory. (Keyword: consilience.) The same is true in climate science. Different ways of modelling and measuring the effects have all produced consistent results. For example, measuring the spectra of radiation transmitted from the atmosphere (using satellites) is completely consistent with the predicted effects for the measured levels of CO2; the measurements of industrial output (using, for example, GDP) matches growing levels of CO2 production; models of how climate is affected by insolation, greenhouse gas levels, albedo (snow, volcanic eruptions, cloud cover), etc can be matched with past conditions, and on and on. You can keep saying that there is doubt or "another side" or how poor the science is. But until you provide some evidence, these assertions have no value. Especially when weighed against the mountains of scientific evidence. Maybe you are confusing weather with climate? In some parts of the world, climate change is likely to result in colder weather (or, at least, more frequent extremes of cold weather). Remember, climate change is about average temperatures increasing, not about "everywhere getting hotter, every day". The last decade was confirmed as the hottest on record: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51111176 (but even a decade could be counted as weather, rather than climate).

! Moderator Note Almost every statement in your last post is wrong: there is a purely quantitative difference between a material being magnetised and not; virtual photons do not violate the conservation of energy; the "guy on the video" can only make sense to someone with zero knowledge of, and interest in, physics. If all you can do is list all the things you don't know, rather than attempt to justify the claims in the vide, this thread is closed. Do not start another thread about those videos. Feel free to start a thread in the Physics section where you can ask questions about electromagnetism and, perhaps, learn something. But if you use such a thread to say that physics is wrong, then that thread will be closed.

It was pointed out that that is not a valid frame of reference and results in division by zero if you try to use it as such.

You can choose to think of the wave equation as a purely mathematical description in an abstract Hilbert space. Or you could choose to think of the field as the medium (but the field is just an abstract mathematical concept, so that isn't really much different from the first choice). Perhaps the important point is that physics is not necessarily concerned with what things "really" are. In the case of water or sound waves, we have some sort of intuitive sense of what water or air "really" is (until you spend a bit of time in a philosophy class) so it seems obvious what the waves really are. In the case of quantum particles, all we have is a mathematical description that works. Whether it says anything about what these particles really are, or whether a medium is needed, is all irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the description works.

Thanks. It turns out I did kind of know what it was then.

Studiot. Who almost certainly knows what a Hilbert space is, unlike Strange.

I think light weight is rather incompatible with high heat capacity. You might be better looking at something like those chemical hand warmers. One type uses the latent heat of crystallisation and is reusable by heating. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_warmer Maybe if you tell us the application, someone will have some better ideas.

That was kind of the point I was making.

Not necessarily. It depends on the quality of those dissenting voices or, more accurately, the quality of the evidence and analysis in those dissenting papers. Obviously, it may not be easy for a layman to make that judgement. And, of course, not all of the papers which support climate change are necessarily of high quality. And it may be that some of the 2.9% are actually pointing out problems in flawed papers in the 97% (which is a good thing). As swansont says, there are serious physicists who think relativity is wrong (and biologists who think evolution is wrong). That doesn't mean there is "another side" that is worth considering. Those people are just wrong. But it is good that there are people challenging the consensus. Science needs that. Einstein's views on quantum theory were wrong. But the fact that he challenged it made people think more carefully about those issues and come up with better experimental tests to confirm the theory. I don't think that is fair. None of those things have happened to the OP or to you for asking questions (unless I missed it).

Or, more realistically, "any commentary suggesting the negative will need to be supported by evidence." There is a general assumption on science forums that well-established mainstream science does not need to be defended. Some forums completely ban any discussion of "non-science" (however that is defined) others allow it under very rigid control, and yet others are a complete free for all. This forum is somewhere in the middle: allowing people to discuss their pet theories or challenge science within some fairly loosely defined limits. But in any such discussions, the assumption is that currently accepted science is taken as already well tested and well supported by evidence. So if someone says it is wrong, they need some pretty convincing arguments. Now, one can ask if the world is round or climate change is real, and the answer is yes. One can ask for evidence of that and people may provide it, or provide links to where one can lean more. But there is no requirement for anyone here to do that. On the other hand, if someone says that the world is flat or says that climate change is a hoax, then they must back that up. You ask for evidence that there is no "other side". How can anyone do that? There is no evidence of "the other side" because there is no other side to the science. But, again, if someone says that there is another side that should be listened to, then it is up to them to show (a) that the other side exists and (b) that it has some valid evidence. (In the many discussions of climate change I have seen, neither of those have ever been done. For good reason.) (And note that the OP was not "just asking") Maybe it is time to do that. *shrug*

! Moderator Note This garbage certainly does not belong in Science Education. I will be generous and give you a chance to defend this. That means providing the math and or physical evidence to support these claims. If your next post does not contain some science, the thread will be closed.

Can you define the difference between an EXPLANATION and a DEFINITION? Or maybe just explain it. Also, how is that relevant? Light travels from the Sun to the Earth whether you take a classical or a quantum view of it.

Of course it travels. We can measure its speed and even see it as in the examp,e above or:

I would suggest this might be better placed in Philosophy

On the other hand, in GR time is not a thing that “passes”; there is no change, it represents the universe as a static 4D manifold. So, as so often, it largely comes down to what one means by “time” (and “change” and “real” ...)