swansont

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.

And we know religion gives us wrong answers, because there is more than one religion, and some of the answers are in conflict. We don’t know what’s beyond our grasp unless we try to find out. And we keep expanding our knowledge.

If there’s a leak in the filtration system, isolating it would allow one to measure the pool level change and see if it reverted to the evaporation value, rather than probing the ground.

You posted “Besides pretending to be making progress on a "warp drive" Elon is also claiming A "Revolutionary Anti-Gravity Fighter Jet."” and “That is how easily Elon lies” which is quite clear in saying that claims are from Musk. If you’re going to go on about people posting misleading stuff, perhaps you should get your own house in order.

So children should be subjected to authoritarian regimes?

No, physics and chemistry do not present an orbital as an orbit. Finding an electron in one place is not the same as having a trajectory. That said, you can induce a dipole moment in atoms, which accounts for e.g. the London dispersion attraction and Debye forces

Sure. There are things we don’t understand. The fun of science is figuring them out.

Which in no way contradicts the statement “The mechanisms for evolution are better understood than you think.” but this is a thread about religion, not science, and unanswered questions of science are not evidence of a supreme being.

So you are literally making a god-of-the-gaps argument.