The science cannot prove that God doesn't exist!
Yes, because people intentionally define God to make it as hard as possible to disprove.
Who cares? Just because you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean you should believe in it.
We will find the answers maybe when we die!
Yes, maybe. But again, there is no reason to think you will.
Someone said: ''If God doesn't exist and I believe in him, I have nothing to lose, but if God exists and I don't believe in him, then I lose everything''.
He was called Pascal, and in this regard, he was an idiot.
There are so many issues with this argument it isn't funny and it relies upon your god being an evil piece of shit which means there is no reason to think he would worship you and it requires you to be able to choose beliefs or fool God.
The simplified form (by Pascal just reworded):
If your evil piece of shit exists and it tortures people to not believing, then not believing results in eternal torment while belief results in eternally kissing his ass.
If it doesn't exist, then in the grand scheme of things you lose nothing.
The issue is lots of belief involves basically giving up your life or large sections of it. If a god doesn't exist, that is basically everything.
But the far more important issue, what if you are wrong and a different god exists?
What if Islam is true, then you get tormented as well.
What if a different god exists that will reward people for rational thought? Then you burn but I don't.
What about a just god that will punish you for worshipping an evil tyrant?
What if your god exists, but because it is an evil piece of shit it will torment you anyway?
Basically it can be boiled down to a few options:
1 - No god, you waste your life worshipping a lie making the world worse for everyone who comes after, losing a lot from yourself and taking a lot from others; or you discard this stupid religion and live your life and help others.
2 - An evil god exists that will torture you anyway. This is basically the same as above, but regardless after you die you get tortured.
3 - An evil god exists that will reward people for kissing his ass. Then it is the same as above, but if you pick the right god, then you get to escape the torture. But there are so many options.
4 - A jealous god exists that won't torture you just because you didn't worship him, but will torture you if you worship a different god. This gets more complex. With this there is the chance of reward if you worship that god, but picking a different one results in your torture and results in you giving up your life while there is no penalty for atheism.
5 - A just god exists, that will only torture you for being evil or worshipping an evil god. Again, no loss for atheism, just a loss for worshipping an evil god, which yours is. So in this case, you lose.
So when expanded, the more rational choice is to not pick any god. By picking a god you are giving up a large section of your life and are more likely to piss off any other possible god and are more likely to suffer. It would also requiring believing your god is evil as if it wasn't there would be no need to worship it.
I believe this was called Homer's wager (from the Simpsons).
"Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder!"
Pascal's wager only works if there is only a possibility of a single god. That is not the case.
Before you even try claiming your god isn't evil, don't bother. If your god wasn't evil there would be no requirement to worship it. Only an evil tyrant would send people to hell for not worshipping him.
If your god was good, the wager would be something like this:
If God does not exist, then I give up parts of my life to follow religion, or I enjoy my life if I don't.
If God does exist then, I lose nothing by being a good person as this god will not punish me for it. So I should live my life without religion and just be a decent human being.
Now, It's a certain fact that long ago it was a scientific debate about whether or not there is perpetuum mobile, yet the big bang theory it's based on this theory from my point of view. I said it's a fact because I've read about it from different sources, long before internet.
No, the big bang is not based upon perpetual motion.
I just wonder what happens with all that energy? And if the energy from the stars decreases, where does it go? Probably wondering between the stars?
The same thing that happens to any energy like that.
Do you have a candle? If so that is a great demonstration.
Look at how bright it is when it is 10 cm away. Then see how bright it is when it is a few m away, then a few hundred.
That is how the light decays.
Basically for a spherically symmetric source (which stars are close enough to), there will be the same amount of energy flowing through any infinitely thin spherical shell.
As you get further away from the source, the shell gets larger and larger and thus the energy is spread thinner and thinner and thus it looks dimmer.
The earth it's spinning around the sun and on its own axis, now for a satellite to travel around the earth one should take in consideration all the forces involved and the vectors. Now, when a satellite it's on the side of the earth it does move parallel with the earth, but to follow earth's curvature at one point it should be in front of the earth which means the earth have to push the satellite, if that is the case, then all the other acting forces are null because, if those forces aren't null then the gravity should change in intensity.
Why would Earth have to push the satellite?
The satellite already has velocity. It is already moving along.
If Earth pushed it it would fly off into space.
Earth has to pull on it (via gravity) to keep it moving around Earth.
Compare the velocity of the satellite just before it goes in front of Earth, when it is in front and just after.
There are 2 components, the orbital velocity of Earth and the satellites orbital velocity relative to Earth.
The orbital velocity of Earth by definition will always align with Earth. But orbital velocity of the satellite relative to Earth wont always align with Earth's orbit.
When it is in front of Earth (I assume you mean in the path of Earth's orbit), it will be perpendicular, so it's orbit around Earth would just move it to the side.
Shortly before hand, it will be almost perpendicular, but slightly off, pointing slightly towards the direction of Earth's orbit.
Shortly after it will be almost perpendicular, but this time pointing slightly against the direction of Earth's orbit.
So just looking at the direction of Earth's orbit, you have the satellite going slightly faster than Earth, slowing down to match the speed of Earth and then slowing down to be slower than Earth.
So that is just deceleration, so Earth's should be pulling it back, not pushing it forwards.
Earth will pull it forwards when it is behind Earth.
What about Sagnac theory? I, know Einstein smashed any other theory.
I have never heard of Sagnac theory. I have heard of a Sagnac interferometer or the Sagnac effect. That is one of the things that can be used to show Einstein was right.
Prior to Einstein there were 2 main ideas of how light behaved.
One was the ballistic model which was akin to normal relativity, where if someone is travelling at a speed a, and they project light at speed b, it would move relative to an outside observer at speed a+b. This is what Michelson Morley's interferometer showed, that relative to the observer (which was also projecting the light), light travelled at the same speed.
The other was aether, where light travelled through this medium as a wave and thus its speed relative to this medium was constant (baring effects of other media like water).
This idea goes directly against Michelson Morley's interferometer. However Sagnac's interferometer supported this idea and showed that the ballistic model was wrong as light projected by a source which had to travel around a rotating ring propagated with a speed relative to the stationary surface, not the rotating ring.
These 2 experiments (along with others) showed that both models were wrong. Einsteins relativity with inertial reference frames matches both.
'' The Karpen Pile is claimed to be a battery that has provided continuous energy for over 60 years, making it either a supremely effective method of storing energy or a hoax, furthermore some newspapers describe it as a perpetuum mobile, but most scientists disagree since such a device would violate the Second law of thermodynamics. The device is housed at the Dimitrie Leonida National Technical Museum, and by 2010 it had been working there continuously for 60 years.[6]'', from google, Karpen pile. Have you ever heard about it?
A battery can provide power for a long time, depending upon the chemistry of it, its size and how much power is being drawn from it.
Alternatively it could be utilising the Seebeck effect and temperature gradients.
And if I am to tell you that there is an energy out there which can be used to generate free energy?!?
I would say that depends upon your definition of free.