swansont

Movement is always in relation to some reference. The earth moves relative to the sun, for example. The earth does not move relative to some building resting on its surface. Light moves relative to any object in an inertial frame of reference. Because light does not have some fixed frame of reference, asking if the earth moves relative to light can be problematic; you can say it does, relative to any photon, but since photons can move in different directions, “in relation to light” suffers from being too vague of a statement.

Did you ever consider you can judge yourself?

If AI is a fancy name for computer processing, sure. But I think it dilutes the language to refer to everything as AI when there’s no actual “I” And fiction is, well, fiction.

Spacetime is not a substance.

“Fears of a Covid-style pandemic are overblown, experts say, noting that such events are typically caused by new viruses, which is not the case with HMPV.” Please do better

That seems to be the thrust of MAGA, too. “Things were better when we could be bigots and there were no repercussions”

As long as you quantify data, you are going to have statistics of some sort. Unless the conditions of two studies are the same, comparisons might not be meaningful. It’s highly dependent on the experiment, and the presence of confounding variables (which I think tend to crop up more in life sciences) I don’t see how that makes anything better.

And I asked for some clarification. That’s how discussion works.

You don’t mention the veracity of answers. If you don’t require correct answers, have you really achieved 1.1.2?

But not left or right. If it’s edge-on, you can’t see the far edge anyway, so that’s moot. You’ve provided no reason why this timing matters. The stars would have to speed up or slow down, which requires the distance from the center change, which requires a radial velocity component. Is there evidence of this?

But why do you get to be the arbiter of what’s offensive to others? You also don’t get to decide if it’s too hot or cold to do something outside for anyone but yourself. Do I get to decide that you can’t be offended if someone here called you a sh!thead, or cast aspersions on your mother, wife or daughter?

Because that’s how rotation works. You are missing information here. You can get doppler shift information even if it’s only a component of the velocity. If the galaxy was edge-on, you can get the information from the opposite edges, which would in fact be the same distance away, but wouldn’t get the information from the interior part, since you can’t see it. The individual parts still had gravitational pull. And at distances far enough away, it won’t matter if the mass is concentrated or not (it’s why a black hole has the same gravitational attraction as a normal star of equal mass, as long as you’re further away than the radius of the star. (i.e. the earth wouldn’t notice a gravity difference if the sun were a 1 solar mass BH)

Science does not seek to understand reality. It describes how nature behaves. It’s like saying a bicycle should fly. That’s a nice fantasy, but not the function of a bicycle. Science would be further hindered by trying to dilute it by making it incorporate extraneous things.

The effect of the mass doesn’t “turn on” when it forms a clump with another mass. It’s always on.

You don’t know this to be true. You may want it to be true, but if the experiences aren’t identical, how can you say it’s part of reality?

The center isn’t rotating, and I addressed the issue of timing, though you didn’t quote that part.

If there’s something I can’t experience, how is it part of reality?

like NGC 1068? Notice anything about it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy There’s always uncertainty but we can quantify it. The thing about spiral galaxies is that the motion is tangential, not radial, so it really doesn’t matter when the time-tag of the measurement is. I don’t see where you've made the case that it matters

Subjective is a key word here. How can something subjective be giving you “perspectives on reality”? Isn’t reality, by definition, comprised of things that are objectively true? Your “sense of omnipresence” can be chemically-induced (along with being a bait-and-switch argument)

Black holes, and possibly some neutron stars

“Sense of omnipresence” ≠ omnipresence

Hypothetically. Unless you can empirically confirm this.

It would not orbit, as there’s not enough mass (or, more precisely, density). A photon will orbit at a distance of the photon sphere, which is 3/2 the Schwarzschild radius for a non-rotating mass. For a rotating mass, as Genady said, it would depend on the rotation, and whether you emit with a velocity component in the direction of rotation or opposite For the earth, the Schwarzschild radius is much smaller than the physical radius, so orbits are not possible. There would be a very slight deflection toward the earth as the photon went out into space. Even around the sun the deflection of a tangential photon would be small, as Eddington confirmed.

Sound is vibration of atoms and molecules. 2 particles colliding doesn’t make sound. You need a lot of particles. Particle collisions can be detected by the recoil of the particle you hit, or by particles emitted as a result of the collision

We don’t know some of these limitations of science without testing. Of what practical use is a religious answer if we don’t know it’s correct? The notion that some god is looking out for you might provide comfort, but it’s not going to do much in determining if the bridge ahead is safe.