Strange

It is not really that the sun is too small. There is, in principle, a Schwarzschild radius for any mass. The problem is that there is no mechanism to make the sun turn into a black hole. A black hole with the mass of the sun would have a radius of about 3km. [Edit: sorry, I see you have already worked this out.]

It is a shame you didn’t spend some of that time learning a bit about how languages actually work, instead of wasting your time in this.

The Big Bang is a process, not an event. We have no way of knowing what happened before the time that current theories apply. My understanding is that these simulations start when the universe is already matter. They kind of have to because we don't know what led to the universe being dominated by matter and so it can't be simulated.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum. What do you want to discuss?

Apparently in a decade or so, we should have telescopes good enough that they will be able to measure the expansion of the universe by watching the changing red-shift of distant galaxies. This might even happen in my lifetime! https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/12/this-is-how-astronomers-will-finally-measure-the-universes-expansion-directly/ (*) Extremely Large Telescope - zero points for imagination

At the earliest time that current physical theories can be applied, it was a quark-gluon plasma, I believe. Any photons would not have existed for long (they would have been absorbed again almost as soon as they were emitted). There were no free photons for about 360,000 years. As the universe cooled, the quarks were able to form baryons and electrons (and other particles) were created by the decay of heavier quarks. And eventually these formed atoms; mainly hydrogen with a bit of helium and lithium. (That is about all the detail I have. And I am not sure it is completely correct). Then the clouds of gas cooled enough to start collapsing under their own weight to form large scale structures and eventually stars and galaxies. Then someone invented the Internet and here we are.

Unsupported beliefs have nothing to do with science. In the same way that your "other way" of looking at SR has nothing to do with SR.

The first is wrong, the second is unknowable. So it seems a fairly dubious claim, even if you include the "and". And that is something also shared by other animals.

True. It rules out locally realistic hidden variables

And yet it is you that refuses to explain how your idea has any connection to SR. Not surprising as (a) it doesn’t and (b) you very obviously don’t have a clue. Clearly, you are unable to understand the simple mathematics that shows this claim to be false.

... Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/

As it is only true for a system in equilibrium, you can measure the temperature anywhere because, by definition, it is the same everywhere.

This is Homework Help; in other words, first let us know your attempt to answer the question and then we may be able to help.

That is not what any theory says. You can obviously have parts of a system at different temperatures.

I once donated platelets where they pump the blood out of one arm, extract the platelets, then pump the blood back into the other arm. One side effect is that it also removes calcium ions from the blood (and lowers the temperature of the blood) which can be dangerous. They gave us indigestion tablets to suck to keep the calcium level up and said that if we started feeling tingling or numbness, we were to let them know immediately.

LSD, for one. But I would think most people taking drugs that can cause hallucinations would know (afterwards, at least) that it was a hallucination. There are a small proportion who believe that it is revealing a reality that they couldn't perceive otherwise. Of course data has quality. For example, "it looked really big" vs "it was 120 metres long and 80 metres wide". I am not going to comment on specific things like this. Apart from anything else, I don't trust you to report accurately what was said, given your habit of dismissing explanations out of hand. Your belief in aliens is indistinguishable from religious belief. And yet, other countries that are no under the thumb of the US Air Force have not released this information that you insist they are covering up. Perhaps because it doesn't;t exist. Very similar. So, presumably you would say that people who see angels, experience miracles or have conversations with god need to be taken seriously?

Ah. I missed that. I think that is pretty implausible (on about the same level as aliens )

Has anyone ever claimed that? If anyone said that everyone were lying, I would consider them just as ridiculous as someone who claims that aliens walk among us and run the government. Volume of data is not the same thing as quality of evidence. A single data point could be compelling. But a gazillion bits of low quality data are no more useful than 10. You really think those are the only two possible explanations? Sorry, but no. Mundane explanations are based on known, existing phenomena (despite your attempts at ridicule and dismissing them out of hand [see what I did there?]). Any explanation based on aliens is inherently less plausible than any mundane explanation because it is not based on things that are known to exist. Your are being blinded by your faith, here. So, you are saying that either aliens only ever visit the USA, or the US Air Force has a lot more control than seems reasonable.

! Moderator Note If you don’t start explaining yourself (instead of blaming others) and showing the calculations of the forces, then this thread will be closed. ! Moderator Note Yes, some mathematics would be good. And more words.

! Moderator Note If someone asked their teacher how an electric motor worked and the teacher replied "LORENTZ FORCE, DUMMY", the student would probably not find that very helpful. Perhaps you could show exactly how the Lorentz force applies in the case of your diagram, and what the result is. On the other hand, if you prefer not to follow the rules, we can just close this thread.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please support your claims with evidence or mathematics.

You mean, like in an electric motor? (I have no idea what those colourful scribbles are meant to be; but maybe you could stick them on the fridge)

Hopefully, someone better informed will be along shortly ...

It can represent many factors. Yes, specific heat. But also surface area (ie the geometry of the object), how insulated it is, the colour and texture of the surface, etc. ! Moderator Note Moved to Physics as that seems more appropriate.

Something for which no mundane explanation is even possible. That rules out claimed sightings of unidentifiable objects, unexplained radar signals , etc. Because there are countless possible mundane explanations for these. Unexplained does not mean unexpainable. Note that when people say they saw something, as well as all the possible possible things they could have seen, you also have to account for all the possible reasons why they might not have seen anything. At which point UFO proponents often start with "But why are you accusing them of lying?" Well, while lying is one possibility, I would (because I am hopelessly naive and have great faith in people) put that right near the bottom of possible explanations. There was a recent case where London's main airport was shut down for a couple of days because of repeated drone flights in the airspace. It was assumed that someone was maliciously launching a drone whenever the airport was ready to re-open again. However, after much investigation, it became clear that a lot of the sightings did not involve the drone at all. People apparently saw a bird, a cloud, a "floater" (in their eye) or nothing at all and reported it as a drone. It is possible that a small proportion of those were maliciously reporting something to cause more trouble, but I would be confident that most were "genuine" sightings, just not of a drone. It is entirely possible that only the very first sighting was actually a drone, while the rest were misidentifications. Would I trust those people to tell me they have seen something which could only be explained by extraterrestrial technology? No. (Would I call those people "dumb" or dishonest? Also no.)