swansont

Since you couldn't observe such light, by definition, there really can;t be direct evidence for it. But AFAIK it's consistent with the rest if the observations and with the theory. Recessional velocities and the cosmic microwave background are evidence. Recessional velocities were observed, the CMB was predicted and then measured.

Since typically you use QM when you have discrete states, it's very important and means that "mathematically, this happens due to usage of the Dirac delta function." doesn't apply in most situations.

Sorry, I'm having a hard time reconciling "good article" with "creationresearch.org" I am unable to load the page at the moment, though.

In inertial space, yes. But AFAIK expanding space does not qualify.

Regardless of your belief, it is true. When the first satellite with a cesium clock went up, there were those that did not think the clocks had to be corrected. So they sent up the satellite with the ability to change the oscillator frequency from the ground value to the nominal orbit value. They launched the satellite that was operating at the correct frequency on the ground and sure enough it ran fast when in orbit, by the amount predicted by relativity (the kinetic dilation term is smaller than the gravitational term in that orbit), to about 1%. So they switched on the frequency correction, and it was fine. (more)

But GR does, and SR is a subset of GR. There is a kinetic term of v2/2c2 along with the potential term GM/rc2

A system may be in an indeterminate state, so the wave function that describes it is a superposition of states with various probabilities. But when you actually "look" at the particle, it can only be in one state. The wave function is said to collapse to that one state when you do a measurement that tells you what state the particle is in.

If there is no net external force on the system, then momentum is conserved. Since it's a vector, it can be broken down into components, and those components must be conserved. Ball A has 20 kg-m/s of momentum in the x direction, and zero in the y direction, before the collision. The system must always have this much momentum. Since you know the momentum of ball B after the collision, whatever is missing from he original must still be possessed by ball A.

You can't model it as a straight wire because the field doesn't go in the correct direction. You can try and model it as a loop of wire, or as a series of loops (solenoid).

You go where the evidence points. The behavior of nature is not subject to our ability to understand it, so argument from incredulity doesn't really carry any weight. BB theory has advanced because it explains certain observations and makes predictions that have been confirmed to be correct.

From your first link, and repeated in your third: The Sun's dipolar field is about as strong as a refrigerator magnet, or 50 gauss (a unit of magnetic intensity). Earth's magnetic field is 100 times weaker. How does this qualify as an "enormous magnetic field" ?

It does? Do you have a citation for this?

But photons don't have or define a rest frame. You always measure them to be traveling at c, if you are in an inertial frame. As JC said, if objects didn't behave as Newton's first law says, there would be an absolute rest frame.

Because you have not done anything with regards to presenting evidence in support of your claims. No, my issue is not whether evolution is an ongoing process. It is with the specific mechanisms you propose, such as the positions of the stars. Simply stating that you believe it to be true does not make it true. Where's your evidence? I don't care if you believe evolution is affected by the stars. But you are stating that as a fact, not a belief. I am challenging your facts. Religious beliefs have no place in science. Scientific "beliefs," aka hypotheses, are supposed to be challenged.

(emphasis added) I don't care what your beliefs are. I thought I had made that abundantly clear. If you are going to assert something as fact, however, I am going to ask for evidence in support of that assertion. Is this really a difficult concept to grasp?

QM has more application to terrestrial technology, so it's studied more. Every physicist learns QM to some level. Few learn GR.

Regarding post 53: Boy did you miss the point. I am not asking for you to provide evidence that you have beliefs. But you state those beliefs as if they are factual. I am asking you to provide evidence that what you assert are facts are indeed facts. Science is based upon evidence, not beliefs. IOW, If someone were to say, "I believe the moon is made of cheese" and I say, "Evidence, please" I am asking for the evidence of the cheese, not the evidence of the belief. Got it?

This zero-sum event is often overlooked and misinterpreted, so I wanted to reiterate it. Everybody dies exactly once. (semantics/operating room heroics aside). So eliminating, reducing or delaying one affliction necessarily has an increase somewhere else.

No, I don't think you can conclude that. Without knowing the average lifespan in question and the distribution involved, you really can't say. If some cases happen at age 80, you need e.g. either a whole bunch of 40 year-olds getting cancer, or much younger people getting cancer, to end up with an average of 42.4. There's no way you have enough data to conclude that it's half, or anything else.