Strange

That isn't math. So it isn't relevant. But as that person also doesn't see conservation of mass then, by your logic, science must be personal as well: this person sees the universe following different rules than the rest of us. Science has always changed (and always will). In my lifetime, science has changed: The universe being static to the expanding universe The continents being fixed and unmoving to plate tectonics A "zoo" of subatomic particles to the quark model And probably other examples I can't think of right now.

If that were true of math (it isn't) then why doesn't science also depend on people's ability to observe the universe or to understand what they see?

For one thing, that sounds more like arithmetic than mathematics. Secondly, just because one person can't do math, doesn't mean that all math is personal. That would be like saying that because one person can't read, all writing is personal and the meaning varies. (Mind you, as your sentences are making less and less sense, maybe that is true.)

I would recommend a good dictionary. Or even Wikipedia.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Well, that is the most impressively wrong statement I have heard for a long time.

The philosophy of science is part of philosophy, not science. And, in general, it says the exact opposite of what you say. Maybe you should take a course? Citation needed. That is an ... unusual definition. Pretty much every definition I have seen says it is a body of knowledge (about the universe) particularly that developed using the scientific method. Can you provide a reference for your definition? Or did you make it up? At the time, it was as good a theory as any other: in other words, it was consistent with all the evidence. Then more evidence showed it to be wrong and an alternative model was developed. This can happen to any theory. OK. There is a big discussion among philosophers of mathematics and (some) mathematicians about whether mathematics is discovered or invented, but either way: it is not personal. Something proved by one mathematician is true to all mathematicians and for all time. Er, it is.

Which just confirmed what the mathematics said. No. That is called "common sense"; and is very often wrong. For example, it seems to be what you are relying on in your understanding of science. He most certainly did.

Not sure you know what “logic” means. It is a branch of mathematics and so can be proved to be correct. On the other hand, our observations of reality are never perfect and always incomplete. As a result, our scientific theories are often wrong or incomplete.

Doesn’t mean they always will be. (See also “black swans”) On the other hand, a mathematical proof only needs to be done once. And then it is true for all time. Our descriptions can be (and often are) wrong. It is impossible to do physics without using math to describe it. Math often does this.

One standard approach uses set theory to define integers in terms of axioms and then derive their properties (including addition). I can try and find a reference for you later. A mathematical proof is always true (unless there is an error). Science is often (always?) wrong ... to some extent. The phlogiston theory was completely disproved with more evidence. (Ditto the steady state universe) Newton’s law of gravity was found to be wrong in certain cases. And so on...

No, they haven’t been disproved. Which is an important difference. We know they are both consistent with all the evidence we have so far, but there is always the possibility that new evidence will be found. It is very unlikely that either will be disproved but they could be shown to have limited applicability/ accuracy. This is a relevant article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/13/ask-ethan-what-does-truth-mean-to-a-scientist/amp/

What do you mean by perfect? (All crystals have flaws, especially ones that grow naturally)

I assume it is because they are large with irregular and complex shapes. Simple geometric crystals are usually formed from smaller molecules which can pack together in regular ways.

This one. A few important things to note... The expansion of space only happens at very large scales. At the level of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, gravity stops things moving apart. The surface of a balloon comparison only works if you consider the just the surface of the balloon being a 2D analogy for 3D space. This also explains how a finite universe can have no boundary: the surface of the balloon (or the Earth) has a finite area, but has no edge. Dark energy is an extra factor that causes the rate of expansion to increase (this started about 4 billions years ago, I think) The speed at which things move apart is related to how far apart they are. This is nothing special, it is just because expansion is a scaling effect. Consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light. (We can see galaxies that are receding faster than light.) We observe that (distant) galaxies are moving away.

There is no separate meson number, but mesons have a baryon number of 0. This is more about quark conservation. But quarks were not known when the baryon number was defined.

If magic were possible do you think all those who could use it would allow it to be kept secret like that? How do you know about these tests and the results, if the government is keeping them secret?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rocket+simulation+software

Because it is not the reason the craft moves; that is due to momentum being carried away in the opposite direction by the EMP. (As action and reaction are equal and opposite, I suppose you can think of it the other way round. That would be like saying that a rocket goes because the burning fuel pushes on the front of the reaction chamber but not on the back where the exhaust is(*). Which is not wrong, but is just ... weird. So if you want to think that the craft moves because the EMP pushes on the wire, I guess you can. That doesn't stop it being hopelessly inefficient.) (*) Not really familiar with the terminology for rocket engines! But I hope people can see what I mean... I'm not sure what you mean. I did the picture quickly (while at work) but I didn't think it was that bad. I was attempting to show the small amount of the EMP that is blocked/absorbed by the wire in your system, compared to how much could be if you were to put a semicircular barrier behind it. (For simplicity; ideally, I guess it would be a parabolic reflector). Your scheme uses a tiny fraction of the available energy (or momentum). I obviously can't calculate how much, because you have not provided any details. I assume you could. The alternative scheme uses at least half the available energy and, if a reflector were used, approaching 100%. Why would I do it? So you could see how inefficient your idea is. I can only give a qualitative answer ("a gazzilion times less efficient"); you could work out a quantitative answer. If you so wished. It is a crude estimate, but it is basically c2 (as in e=mc2). Obviously, the energy density of different materials varies enormously, but only by a few orders of magnitude. The equivalent mass (or momentum) of an EMP is minute. It is up to you demonstrate how it does that. Using physics and mathematics, rather than just claiming that it does. The idea of powering a craft using electromagnetic radiation is not novel. Your method is, prima facie, incredibly inefficient. But feel free to produce some actual physics as a counter-argument. You need to demonstrate that it can.

Presumably because you paid them. This is not a reputable journal.

I said the force on it is irrelevant. (That is just the reaction force to the thrust being generated.) It has complex electronics to generate precisely timed pulses. It is just as much a number as any you have used. I gave you a diagram and asked you to work out the actual efficiency. (I deliberately used a vague reference because, as noted earlier, you have provided no details to be analysed.) Using a propellent just gives you more thrust (than electromagnetic radiation) because the energy density of matter is much greater. By a factor of about 1016 (that's lot more than a gazillion). If you don't want to use propellant, but just rely on electromagnetic radiation, then that is fine. You can do that. There are systems that do. You just need a sensible (ie. not stupidly inefficient) way of doing it (eg. solar sail, laser, etc) As you are the one claiming it is reactionless, maybe you should explain what you mean by the term? Based on the fact that there are far better ways of producing a solar-powered craft that uses no propellant.

That is not how probabilities work. Back to school. There is no such thing as "pure energy". As you don't even know how to calculate probabilities, and you certainly don't know why the early universe was not like a black hole, I don't think we need to give much credibility to your "suspicions".

Do you know how many atoms there are in the universe? Do you know what the probability is that just by chance they all (or even a decent fraction of them) "came up heads"? Do the math: you might realise just how silly this claim is. Please demonstrate this is the case, in suitable mathematical detail.

It is a bit hard to read, but if you are saying that the force increases by 4, then that is the right answer!

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please note the special rules for this section of the forum; in particular the need to support your claims with theory and evidence. What is the difference? As the universe expands it also becomes flatter (imagine the surface of a balloon as it is inflated: the area increases but it also gets flatter). Can you show, mathematically, that parts of the universe acted like an event horizon; in other words like a black hole? OK, if we accept that for the moment, then why do you say: If the chase of a particle and an anti-particle is the same. You are contradicting yourself.