Strange

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations Note that the Big Bang theory does not say it was compressed to a point in space; but that all of space was smaller. To put it another way, all of space has always been full of matter. But in the past, because space was smaller, that matter was hotter and denser. It is not clear what particles you are referring to. But there are a number of fundamental particles (electrons, neutrinos, photons, etc) which are all the same size: they are all zero-sized. That is correct: in cosmology there is no edge to the universe. Either because it is infinite or because it "wraps round" (like the surface of the Earth).

When you will be a different person and so get a new allocation of "likes"

I interpreted it that way as well. But decided to take a short-cut in the answer!

Nice journalism, but there is no science there. The singularity simply shows that our theory (ie. the mathematics) no longer applies. It is what happens when you take a naive extrapolation using just General Relativity. The only scientific evidence we have is that the early universe was very hot and very dense (and very homogeneous). "Actually stationary" does not mean anything. Two bodies could have never experienced any force but still be moving relative to one another.

Just thought I would mention that the following appeared in a presentation on machine learning a couple of weeks ago. If doing this sort of thing on large N-dimensional matrices makes sense to you, then you probably have nothing to worry about. (I was largely baffled.)

Here is an interesting article on the effect of anaesthetics on brain function and consciousness. I'm not sure it answers the question, but does suggest that all the brain activity that corresponds to "conscious" activity (even when asleep) can be stopped and replace with something else, but we still wake up and are (or think we are!) the same person.

I thought it was the same. That wikipedia page refers to "neutron–mirror neutron oscillations"

Brainwaves, maybe. Because they are continuous, unlike dreams. But it is quite possible that our sense of continual consciousness is just an illusion we create from our memories. But your cells are constantly being replaced (see also Trigger’s Broom or Theseus’s Ship).

I don’t think saying one is alive and the other isn’t helps very much. The problem is more about define what we mean by “aware” or “self aware” or “conscious”. For example: The speed of a simple chemical reaction may vary depending on temperature or the nature of the substrate. Is it “aware” of its surroundings? We can get DNA to replicate and express proteins in a test tube. Is that living or non_living? A virus will take over cells to replicate itself. It has evolved solely for that purpose. Most scientists say it is not alive, yet it seems to have “drive” and “motivation” by your definition. I can build a simple robot that searches out light to recharge its batteries and runs away from loud noises. It is not alive but is it aware? I am just presenting these as a few simple examples to show that isn’t as black & white or alive & dead as you seem to think.

I don't think it is reasonable to say that all living things have "drive and motivation." Many just respond automatically to the environment. In the same way that water does. If you are going to say that a lichen is aware, then I can't see why you you wouldn't say that a rock is too. I would say that a nervous system is a minimum requirement for awareness, and probably some sort of brain. If the word is used for plants (other than in a metaphorical sense) then I think it devalues the word so much that we would need another for the completely different level of [self]awareness that some animals (including humans) have. I disagree. If we say that consciousness and awareness is a function of the brain, then it is logical to say that plants and animals that lack a brain are not aware/conscious.

It is not a science. It is a branch of mathematics, and therefore a tool of science. It doesn't mean "making stuff up that makes sense to you." No.We have multiple theories that describe the same thing in different ways (for example, gravity is a force according to Newton, but the effect of geometry according to Einstein). Is one of these true and the other false? Or maybe they are both "true" in the send they both work as useful models. So you are using "logically" to mean "something that makes sense to you". That is not the meaning of logic. And there is no reason to think that space must be either finite or infinite. You can probably find the same number of people who insist it "must be finite" (because logic) as are certain that it "must be infinite" (also because logic). They can't both be right, and neither group are actually using logic, so we need some way of deciding. Science uses evidence. In this case, there is no strong evidence either way.

I suppose this does raise an interesting point. It is easy to see that organisms such as plants or bacteria just respond to the environment through (relatively) simple chemical reactions: growing towards the light or "searching" for areas with higher levels of nutrient. On the other hand, when it comes to humans (or other animals with complex brains) there seems to be, as the OP said, "something more" involved in decision making, emotion, interests, language, etc. But there is a complete spectrum from non-living things that respond to physical or chemical energy gradients, to simple organisms that do the same (which we can anthropomorphise as doing so "for a reason" because they are "aware" of their surroundings), through lower animals that have a primitive nervous system up to corvids and primates who show signs of what we call "intelligent". Is there a qualitative change somewhere along that spectrum? Or are they just variations of ever more complex physical and [bio]chemical reactions to the environment? (I don't know the answer to that.)

It needs strong gravity to motivate it.

I think that ascribing “drive” or “motivation” to a potato is not useful. Does water have drive or motivation to flow downhill?

Any of the above! It could be either a completely new theory that "replaces" GR, or it could be a realisation that a particular small tweak is needed, or it could be the discovery of completely new particles, forces, or something not yet thought of.

! Moderator Note You have had a thread on this topic. Do not open another one.

Thank you!. I was going to come back to this but forgot all about it. And I think the rest of your answer captures very well what I wanted to say at the time.

The mathematics of black holes is based on a model of spacetime. The clue is in the name. What a sad waste of time. We do need evidence.

It is a 2D representation of a 3D graph. If you think that is impossible, you must also think it is impossible for architects to design houses, engineers to build bridges or for walkers to navigate using maps. Your claims of secret knowledge are not very convincing. So, I shall ask that this thread is closed as there is no science here.. Do you have any evidence for that claim? We are not in a back hole. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary? No, thought not. And yet we can mathematically represent what happens inside the event horizon. Ooooh. "trans-dimensional manifestation". Is that supposed the mean anything? I think this is the sort of thing that the phrase "word salad" was invented for. Meaningless tosh.

I assume you are thinking of something like this: This is an actual plot of the equation for the gravitational potential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_well). So I don't see how it could be misleading. Also, this does not (directly) represent spacetime curvature.

Can you show mathematically that the normal representation is wrong? Can you then plot a graph of this "reversed curve" so that we can all visualise it? However, an object falling into a black hole reaches the centre in a finite (and very short) time, so that seems to contradict what you are claiming here.

Who is that addressed to?

"Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined." https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong Please learn to use the Quote function so we can tell who your are insulting.

So what you meant was that matter is not observable in a black hole? That is not exactly a surprise to anyone; it is obvious from the definition of a black hole. Show us some quantitative, testable predictions (using mathematics) and we will see if you have a "theory".

Citation needed. What does "space is reversed" mean? What is the basis for your claim of "more and more space as you approach the center"? Please provide the maths or other evidence/citations to support this claim. What does that mean? What do you mean by "quantum leap"? Locally, your speed is always less than the speed of light. So, yes, I suppose. (But not sure what the "either ... or" is doing there...) What des "space reverses" mean? The event horizon is not a singularity. Well, it is a coordinate singularity in the Schwarzschild metric, but spacetime is continuous in other coordinate systems.