swansont

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.

When the pool stops draining, you'll know what the height of the leak is.

And I’m saying details matter. Saying doctors can disagree is not saying they will. You don’t specify how often this happens, or under what circumstances, which might lead someone to conclude it happens more often than it does. Science strives for precision. Being vague is the enemy.

Precisely. They can’t all be most powerful. So in that case “if the God exists, it must be, by definition, the most powerful deity and the most poweful beings” can’t be a true statement

! Moderator Note Threads merged. One per topic, please

What kind of pool is it? When I was growing up the neighbors had an above-ground pool and the older kids would snorkel in it, looking for holes in the liner. Might also work for cracks in an in-ground pool. If the leak is fast enough, dye in the water might show a leak.

Sure there is. You watch, they win. That disproves it. What you can’t do is prove or disprove it by not watching. You’ve mistakenly assumes that making a free throw is random with a 50-50 chance, and it’s not. You don’t know the average until you have the statistics, and this is possibly confounded by the fact that you can improve with practice. You need to be looking at a properly-formulated situation, which you have not done. Can’t really comment on that without an example; this is too vague. One issue with meta-analysis is it’s not difficult to mess it up by using data sets that don’t have identical conditions. This can lead to Simpson’s paradox (though it’s not really a paradox) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox Again, you need specific examples, rather than vague descriptions.

I recall the vending machines in France (~25 years ago) sold diet coke…in 100 ml cans. And there are foods available in the US that are banned in other countries because of preservatives, dyes or trans fats, all thought to impact health. Allowed in the US because of lobbying putting corporate profits first.