Strange

Your consciousness (in the sense of "who you are") and the physical structure of your brain depends on all the experiences you have in your life.

Modern cosmology says it is borderless too. But that doesn't tell us whether it is finite or infinite. You have been given an answer as to how this could be. You either missed it, failed to understand it or just dismissed it because it didn't agree with your belief system. How about a 2D analogy? If we have a 2D surface which has no boundary then it can be infinite (for example, a flat surface that goes on for ever) or it can be finite (for example the surface of a sphere). The same is true in 3 (or more) dimensions.

There is no change while waiting for the muon to decay. Nothing happens. Nothing moves. And yet time passes. It is completely static in its own frame of reference. This is a science forum. I don't think alone cares what you believe. Again, nothing changes in the interval before the muon decays.

You could try: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49486980

It certainly has more mass. (I am not going to get into the mass vs weight sidetrack. That might be better in a separate thread.)

OK. If you use general relativity (GR) to extrapolate back then that is pretty much what you get. However, the singularity does not have a physical reality; it just shows that the theory no longer works (a bit like dividing by zero). This is why people are looking for a quantum theory of gravity ("theory of everything"), in the hope it will provide a better explanation of the early universe. Well, matter couldn't exist in those circumstances. Matter didn't appear in the universe until it had expanded and cooled enough to allow matter to form. But, evenly distributed is correct. The universe has always been homogeneously full of "stuff" (matter now, a quark-gluon plasma before that, and before that: who knows). It still is, on average on large enough scales. Not really sure what that means. But, yes, all of spacetime would have been in the singularity (if it existed!) Possible. Maybe. That seems unlikely. As the universe continues to expand, galaxies will get further and further apart so even if every galaxy turned into a black hole (also unlikely) then you would end up with a large number of black holes moving apart. But ... That is possible in the "big bounce" models that were popular in the past. In these, the expansion slows and then the universe collapses in on itself again. Possibly causing another Big Bang. However, the current acceleration of expansion (rather the expected slowing) suggests that won't happen and a heat death of the universe is more likely. Important to note that there would be no "outside". The singularity would be the entire universe. It is not completely ridiculous. Parts of it correspond to some existing ideas. But it probably isn't right, either! Important to note that a "proper" scientific theory needs to have a mathematical model that enables it to be tested. But keep learning and thinking!

Different things change at different rates. Does that mean time is variable? And what about examples where nothing changes but time still passes? For example an isolated muon will decay after about 2 microseconds. During that period nothing happens, nothing changes but still time passes.

Some use the term universe for the entire universe which may be finite or infinite as we have no way of knowing how large it is.

The mass would only be equal on both sides if energy were included, which it isn’t usually. If energy is not included then the mass on both sides will not necessarily be equal. Photons have energy but are not matter. That can be considered to be mass (but I would never do that). You seem to mix up "matter" and "mass". They are not the same thing. Mass is a property of matter. As is energy. But non-material things can also have energy.

I would assume the coating on the glass is the vaporised metal from the burnt out filament.

dispiki has been banned as a sock puppet of franco malgarini

Yes and no.

Not sure we should be giving them the oxygen of publicity. (Or, as the late, great Linda Smith might have said, "Or even the oxygen of oxygen")

The fact that words can have more than one meaning, and that can be context dependent, is not unique to physics.

Not in my dialect of English. (Unless this explicitly specified, "the current is a constant 2 A for the first hour and then drops to a constant 1A") That is one use of the term. Not the only one.

"The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" is the title of an article published in 1960 by the physicist Eugene Wigner.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences And Max Tegmark has written a book called "Our Mathematical Universe" where he suggests the universe is "made of math." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/ (I have not read either of these.) An interesting question is whether "maths that exist" is a superset of "maths we know", or are they the same thing.

I think I meant if the current is constant then the field is static. No, because the heat energy in the container (ignoring radiation/conduction losses for the moment) comes from the mass lost in burning. Then the heat will radiate away and the container will have less mass. Good point. (I did originally write "weigh less" as a more familiar concept in my "candle" example. Then realised it could cause more confusion!)

It makes you a slightly different person. In the sense that you are now a person who has experienced (and has a merry of) being hit on the head. All of your experiences in life contribute to "who you are". Few, if any, of them change your DNA.

Good question. I might assume it is reversible, but when dealing with things that are so counterintuitive... I don't think so. Because this is dealing with one orange, not the abstract concept of 1. And it is not even a physical orange. One can't do this with real objects; just mathematical ones. It is clear that maths and physics are related. And that seems to go deeper than just the fact that we use mathematics to describe the world. Or even the fact that we can use mathematics to describe the world. It does seem as if the physical world is actually defined by mathematics (rather than the other way round). There is some interesting work by the mathematical physicist, Cohl Furey, on the idea that quantum theory can be derived from purely mathematical principles. I linked to a couple of articles on this a while ago: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116080-mathematics-physics-and-theory-of-everything/ Someone else posted a video of one of her lectures on the subject. I rarely recommend videos, but these are worth watching. I suppose this is a more advanced version of the Greek's view of the universe being a mathematical construct (bringing us back, nicely, to your opening post).

Well, if you only want an imperfect copy, you could use a 3D scanner at one end and a 3D printer at the other.

If the current is static, then the field is static. That equation for momentum is only for objects with mass (where, therefore, v < c). Momentum is always conserved in a closed system. But if energy or mass is leaving the system , it is not closed. Mass is easily converted to energy. We do it all the time when we burn fuel to power a car, for example. If you were to burn a candle in a sealed container but let the heat escape, then the container would have less mass afterwards.

Even if DNA had a more direct control over brain structure than it does, that would not work because that control would only happen during development. It isn't responsible for storing memories, experience and everything else that makes your brain "you".

Then why are you so worried about the computer? I think I would start with antivirus/spyware software.

Maybe that is what he means by "the information on my computer such as the text that I write is being leaked into the internet in basically real time"