Strange

Who said it does? I thought your initial comment was a bit odd; this makes a bit more sense of it. But I think you have missed the point of the Tragedy of the Commons. It doesn’t need to be different people who make the regulations. In fact, it is probably better if it is the same people (they are more likely to accept them - which is kind of the point of democracy). However, uncontrolled access to limited resources leads to disaster.

You do know that roaming charges in the EU have been removed?

E = mc2 (So energy can be treated, in some cases, as mass. For example, most of the mass of an atom is the energy binding the quarks together in the nucleons.)

Maybe you shouldn’t t state your beliefs as facts, then. Prefixing statements with “perhaps”, “I wonder if”, “is it possible that” might reduce the demand for evidence. (And some of your ideas sound like bizarre conspiracy theories, which doesn’t help) A “guess the fallacy” competition?

Who are "they" and how do they control the media? Do you have any evidence for that? (Supporting one unevidenced claim by inventing another one is not very convincing.) What!? Pfft. Really? Like that recluse Donald Trump?

! Moderator Note Already done ! Moderator Note Then this thread does not meet the minimum requirements for the Speculations forum

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Can you show us the mathematics for your model? In particular to show that this "banana string" has the same properties as an electron?

That isn't a left or right thing. Both extreme right and extreme left governments or dictators are likely to try and control what is said and thought. Any evidence for that bizarre fantasy? I think everyone does. They seem more interested in hanging on to the past and their money. It has never made sense to me that the political philosophy that is supposedly based on business and capitalism, doesn't understand the idea of managing resource, for example. They should be the first ones to worry about pollution (because it could affect the quality of their products and therefore profits) or running out of oil, or climate change. Instead they prefer to deny these things happen, then claim it doesn't matter and, finally, when it is almost too late agree to do something.

Not quite. Those galaxies would have been something like 5 billion light years away when they emitted that light. Because of expansion, it took 13 billion years for the light to reach us (rather like walking the wrong way up an escalator). Now, they would be over 40 billion light years away. But not beyond the cosmic horizon, because if they were we wouldn't be able to see them.

Then I suggest you stop posting uninformed and largely incorrect statements about it. Feel free to ask questions, but it would be better if you don't try and provide answers to other people's questions when you don't have the knowledge required to provide accurate answers.

"Point to point energy transfer using quantum tunnelling" will never be a thing. Devices harvesting enough energy from the environment might be possible in future.

Meanwhile, back in the real world ...

! Moderator Note Do not post false medical information.

! Moderator Note I don't think we need your fake medical advice here.

I was just answering the question of how many dimensions a point has. Nothing to do with existence or time. (Apart from the fact that points and lines don't actually exist.) Only if that section has zero length.

scifimath has been banned for repeatedly bringing up their pet theory despite being told (repeatedly) not to do it.

What? You need less power if you are transmitting over shorter distance (inverse square law). I thought we were talking mesh networks? And if there are more base stations, then they can be lower power and cheaper. You can buy a femtocell for about $100.

! Moderator Note Good point: moved.

Good.

No. No. No.

There isn't really an easy answer to that. One can create models of spacetime that have no matter or energy. These are useful for understanding the properties of spacetime itself, without that pesky matter confusion things. (Not surprisingly, these model universes don't behave like our own!) So, in principle, space and time could exist without matter. However, there are models that attempt to combine quantum theory and general relativity and quite a few of these show that spacetime emerges from some lower level description. As does energy (and, presumably, matter). If any of these turn out to be correct then there is an inevitable connection between the existence of matter-energy and space-time. And, of course, without matter we would not be here to ask the question! Edit: cross-posted with Eise (and, reassuringly, in general agreement!)

Nonsense. I am not sure that learning C will help with very much with Lisp, Haskell, Prolog, Cobol or even Fortran. On the other hand, if you learn one procedural language, then some principles of other procedural languages will be clear. But it will make learning a functional or declarative language more difficult.

! Moderator Note Stop posting your invented fantasy physics

! Moderator Note It was to encourage the OP to sort a discussion by, for example, posting the relevant parts of the code, explaining why it has been posted, how it works, how well it performs compared to other methods, the advantages and disadvantages of the algorithm, etc. In fact, it has shown that the OP has no interest in discussing it. And, as your response is off-topic, the thread is closed.

1. It wasn't a contradiction. It was an explanation. Your vague ideas are not scientifically testable. Science doesn't work by having convincing pictures. 2. As you have no math for your model (apart from 'the math is the same' but 'your "quantum wave" description would be proven wrong') why do you expect math in response. If you are using the same math (which is a wave description of quantum phenomena) then how can it prove the quantum wave description wrong? I do understand what you are saying. I haven't said I don't trust you. I haven't even said you are wrong (well, except for a few places, where you were factually inaccurate!). I haven't said I want to see math. I haven't said I am unable to visualise your word pictures. I am saying that pictures are irrelevant. Verbal descriptions are irrelevant. This is science. If you want an idea to be taken seriously, then you need a mathematical model. When I say you are using the same model but it produces different results, you say the results are the same. When I say that if the results are the same then you can't test your idea, you say the results are different. I am not saying your idea is wrong. I don't care if you are right or wrong. I am saying that you are not doing science. OK?