Strange

Not just the observer; after all you won’t get an interference pattern with no slits or no photons! But it does show that the thing that is observed cannot be considered in isolation. We need to take into account the measurements made - including those in the future or that are non-local. Not sure that is an appropriate question. This is a science forum. If people want present their non-scientific ideas, then they need to open their own thread in the Speculations forum. Regarding the Bohr quote, that was said when this was all being discovered for the first time. I can’t see why those of us who have grown up with it as part of our world-view would be surprised. ! Moderator Note Moved to Quantum Theory. Please make sure all discussion is science based. Any hijacks with “personal theories” will be split off or hidden

The rest of your post is pretty incomprehensible but appears to be describing a process of change. Which sounds like “yes” Also, the contents of this forum are not the same now as 5 minutes ago. So change is clearly possible.

Agree completely. I think the conflation of the two is easy because space (spacetime) is a rather abstract, and difficult to grasp, concept. Measures, such as length or volume, are the ways we experience it directly. (And gravity is the main way we experience its geometry, rather indirectly.)

Good find! Of course, they don't say psychiatry shouldn't exist, just that it needs to find better ways of describing / identifying people's problems.

Yeah, and some people think the world is flat. They are wrong. And so are you. But as you cannot provide any support for your claim that science proves things, I think we can safely ignore it.

What? No, I am just asking you to provide some support for your claim that science can prove things. I'll give you a hand. One of the leading philosophers of science(*), Karl Popper, said: "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html (*) Note that this is nothing to do with "his diploma", just the fact that he is an expert in the field who spent very many years studying the subject. It is relevant, because if you don't understand how science works, then how can you evaluate any theories about spacetime?

Citation needed. Preferably from a reputable authority on the philosophy of science (and not from someone who work in a coffee bar).

Do you have any evidence to support this hypothesis? But, one possible explanation is that "dark energy" (is that what you mean) can be explained by the intrinsic energy of space. That sounds a little bit like what you are trying to say. (There are problems with this, of course.) In general relativity, space and time are not energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

You can't prove ANY scientific theory. That is not how science works. Science works by disproving theories. Wow. Most people would apologise after it has been pointed out that they have plagiarised someone else's work and committed the crime of copyright infringement. (The information value was close to zero. Most of the comments by that insurance clerk were meaningless and not based on anything to do with string theory.) What formula? This is the only thing I know of: From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Oops! Good point And the quantum foam only exists because of the non-zero energy of the vacuum, so I guess your argument would really be that volume is created (or defined by?) energy. But is independent of the amount of energy. Which seems odd.

I don't see why. Surely 1 metre is 1 metre; it doesn't need quantum foam for it to be defined. To be clear, measurements are abstract concepts. A coordinate system based on those measurements is an abstract concept. Volume is an abstract concept. We can define a coordinate system or a volume independently of what is in it.

Volume is a property of things. But it is also a property of space. The intergalactic medium has something like 10 particles per square meter. Those 10 particles are enough to keep that 1 metre cube intact? What if it was 2 particles? Or 1? Or none? At what point does that cubs metre drop to nothing? That doesn't fit any scientific theory I am aware of. Do you have any evidence for that?

Does it? How do we know that? It is dishonest to copy without giving to credit the author. Go on then.

So you are not even pretending to actually understand any of it? Just copying someone else's opinions. And without any credit - that is very dishonest. Is there any point to this thread staying open? Do you have anything useful to contribute? As you are not willing to provide the source, I will just point out that these (largely incomprehensible) comments were made by a consultant at an insurance company. I don't know why we should put any faith in their opinions. Do you?

The size of space is not determined by what is in it. A cubic metre of space could contain just one atom. It would still be a cubic metre, not the size of the atom Or it could contain zero atoms. It would then be a cubic metre with nothing in it. Empty space.

That doesn't mean anything. Maybe try Google Translate? Please answer these questions: (and please use the Quote function so we know what you are replying to) And how would the size be known ? Based on what? The mass? And then you will use that size to "predict" the mass?

And how would the size be known ? Based on what? The mass? And then you will use that size to "predict" the mass?

The force acts on the wire. It has no effect on the magnetic field generated.

The Higgs boson is a fundamental particle and so is treated as a point particle with zero size. What if the particle isn't that size? Are you sure you haven't worked out the size in order to get (roughly) the right value for the mass? You couldn't have predicted the mass before it was measured, could you.

It would involve a detailed exposition on Maxwell's equations. I am not the best person to do that. (And, I suspect, you are not the best audience for it. ) But, basically, you cannot (as far as I know) manipulate magnetic pulses using another magnetic pulse. If you were to drive the wires with an AC signal (which would generate electromagnetic waves) then you could adjust the relative phase so that interference effects control which direction most of the energy goes. This is how modern Wi-Fi works: they have multiple antennas so they can use "beam forming" to make the transmission directional. With more antennas, the more control you have over direction. With only two, it will still be symmetrical so no net thrust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamforming This might be a slightly better description: https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/antennas-propagation/smart-adaptive-antennas/beamforming-beamsteering-antenna-basics.php

Magnetic fields don't work like that.

No. It is like throwing multiple rocks out in every direction simultaneously (ie. no net change in momentum). That is why you need to make your pulse directional. Like, you know, a laser or something.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please check the rules for this section of the forum, in particular the need to provide evidence to support your argument.

I have no idea how to calculate the energy or momentum carried by a magnetic pulse. But I can't see any reason why it would be (or could be) greater than the energy in an electromagnetic pulse (which is far easier to generate and control). You are trying to remove (or not generate) the electric field component of an electromagnetic wave and just leave the magnetic component. Apart from the practical issues (a changing magnetic field will, by definition, also create a changing electric field; so you might as well just use both anyway), the only basis for this being better is that you "believe" it will be. I don't know what the basis for this belief is, but an awful lot of people seem to think that magnets are somehow "special" or magical because they "never run out of energy".

! Moderator Note I will make that official: this is a discussion forum. The rules say that you must present your information here, not just link to something with no explanation. (As that page only has two sentences, why not post it here? This site does not exist to advertise your blog.)