Strange

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations ! Moderator Note On second thoughts, as you appear to have two threads open on this already, this one is closed. A field theory (and physics in general) is, by definition, a mathematical theory. If you have no mathematics, you are not doing science.

Mental disorders also have symptoms. Many (most?) symptoms of physical disease depend on the patient reporting what they feel, so not really much different. Im not sure why anyone would fake the symptoms of a disease, mental or otherwise. Maybe to escape criminal charges by claiming to be “insane”. But people rarely get away with that because it is not extremely hard to accurately fake the symptoms. People with schizophrenia are often unable to cope with society. Some can be a danger to themselves or others. So pretending it doesn’t exist is not helpful. No is ever diagnosed as “crazy”

I think that, after 100 years, many people have heard of the theory of general relativity. This is one of our most accurate and well-tested theories. Measurements of gravity can be very precise: they are used for surveying and, most recently, for the detection of the minute changes caused by gravitational waves. If you are claiming that your model is more accurate than GR, I will need some serious evidence for that. That is because we are talking about science. If they cannot be measured then they have nothing to do with physics, and probably no other branch of science. With no math, it is not science. But it may still be real.

I have never heard that. It doesn't sound like something a physicist would say. They are not just within particles, but the idea is that they are "rolled up" small so that we do not perceive them. On the other hand, they could just be a mathematical model, and not actually exist. And on the third hand, string theory might be wrong!

What it “is” is defined by its behaviour. Just like anything else in mathematics (such as the integers).

May be worth noting that this is not really anything to do with photons. The same is true in the classical view (where light is electromagnetic waves).

So you agree that there is no additional source of information, and therefore all the information is in the genome? Of course it is genetically defined. Where else does the information to create the biochemical reactions that create these patterns come from? You just said there is no other source. Unless you are using "genetically defined" in a ridiculously narrow way to mean that the genes should encode the shape an position of every spot on the leopards skin. And where are those components defined? Oh look, another straw man.

I imagine it would be pretty complex to work out what the effects would be (problems like this often have to be solved by numerical simulation, rather than analytically). My (relatively uninformed) guess is that the effects of relativistic time dilation, etc. would be much smaller than the "normal" tidal effects which would be pulling the spacecraft apart. I think the dramatic effects in Interstellar, for example, were somewhat exaggerated.

Cantor proved that the "size" of the infinite set of reals is (infinitely) larger than the infinite set of integers. He may not have been happy with the concept of infinity, but that isn't really relevant.

I thought that went without saying! (but perhaps not...) The OP's argument seems to be: 1. Genes are (relatively) simple: they just encode proteins 2. The systems that cause morphological development are incredibly complex. 3. Therefore 2 can't just be caused by 1. There are several fairly obvious reasons why 3 doesn't follow.

It has been pointed out that a reactionless would violate Newton's laws (which have been shown to be correct by extensive testing). We can't do much more than that as we have no idea what you are thinking. (The Springsteen reference was not mocking you or the science, but the idea that you should get all the credit when you want someone else to do all the hard work: spend many years studying physics or engineering, give up a paid career to work on your project, and then potentially getting nothing in return).

It has been known for a long time that self-organisation plays a role in biological development. For example, in the 19050s Turing wrote about how this can determine the patterns in animal skin can arise from the interaction of different process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chemical_Basis_of_Morphogenesis I think this has now been extended to explain the development of larger structures (eg limbs).

Science forums like this are full of people posting flawed theories! You are in a classic Catch 22: no one is going to enter a confidentiality agreement without knowing if it is worth it; you can't convince them it is worth it without a confidentiality agreement. If you were just interested in credit, rather than the vast wealth that would accrue from the invention ( ) then I would suggest just publicising the idea. If someone else turns it into a successful product, you will still be known as the person who came up with it. I don't see any mocking. People have pointed out the most basic physical principles that would prevent a reaction less drive from working. (And also pointed out that it it is unreasonable to expect someone else to do all the work for no significant return.)

Asimov used to talk about someone approached him and said they had a great idea for a story; if Asimov would write it, they could split the money 50:50. Asimov said, "tell you what, you write the story and keep all the money." Ideas are easy. Execution is hard.

Note that you cannot patent an idea or a concept. You can only patent a "machine" (in the most general sense) or "thing" that does something using that concept. The patent need to explain how the thing works in sufficient detail to allow someone else to build it. The best way of doing this is to build a version yourself. You would also need to provide that level of detail (and probably a working model) to convince an entrepreneur to invest. You would also need to be able to provide that level of detail to a developer who is going to help you. Note that if a developer worked with you and had to provide significant technical/innovative input to make the thing work, then they would have to be listed as an inventor on the patent. Why not? Lack of money? Lack of practical skills? Lack of theoretical knowledge? Don't wish to be unkind, but as someone who has worked in engineering and startups for most of my working life, this sounds like "I want someone else to do all the hard work, while I keep all the money". An entrepreneur is going to want a significant share of ownership if they are going to put money in. The same for someone providing either theoretical or engineering help.

Pain and smell can affect things other than the brain.

I don't think all of the mechanisms involved are fully understood yet. However, I doubt it gets "from the mind" to the sperm cells, more likely that the triggering event (pain, in this case) causes changes in both. Also, note that there are no mutated genes involved (that is why it is called "epigenetics"). I doubt it is "instant" either. The mice had to learn to associate the smell and the pain over a period of time; no doubt time is also required for the epigenetic modification to occur. This might be a good resource to learn more: https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/fundamentals/ (Hopefully, someone with more expertise will be along soon!)

1. I think it was Lavoisier who first stated the law of conservation of mass, not Newton. 2. Since Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, we know that the simple statement is not true (energy can be converted to matter and vice versa). 3. Even if it were true, I don't see why that means that nothing can be infinite. If the universe is (and always has been) infinite, then there is no need to create matter to have an infinite amount of it. 4. Mass-energy is not conserved on cosmological scales (because energy is dependent ton the frame of reference and there is no single frame of referencer the whole universe). 5. In fact, it appears that energy is created as the universe expands. 6. We cannot know if the universe is finite or infinite, but we know that infinity (infinities, in fact) exists in mathematics.

! Moderator Note We think this could be discussed in the original thread. I am also concerned that the introductory wording could lead to more off-topic argument (see also: John's comment). Therefore this thread is closed.

There are quite a few organisms that have lost functionality during evolution. That includes brains (and even all neurons). Sea squirts even "eat" their own brains when they mature from the larval form. So bigger brains are not universally better than other things.

Why not submit it to a math journal, if you are confident it is correct? Have you had any other mathematicians check it?

Well, I guess you would end when you got back to where you started. But this is no different from a torus (which has the advantage of being geometrically flat) or any other connected surface. Nope. (I assume you mean "stars".) They are generally unsymmetrical oblate spheroids. Most diverge quite a bit from being spheres. Protons and neutrons do not have a static shape but, again, are not generally spherical spherical. http://www.washington.edu/news/2003/04/05/surprise-to-physicists-protons-arent-always-shaped-like-a-basketball/ Electrons are fundamental particles and therefore have zero size and are, therefore, not spheres. Most thing are approximately spherical because of energy minimisation. They are not actually spherical for other reasons. All of this can be explained by physics.

This thread is about abiogenesis. Beecee provided a link to a page about the scientific study of abiogenesis (which starts out by pointing out that it is not about creation myths). ! Moderator Note Drop this line of discussion NOW.

It is not a bold claim at all. It is pretty obvious that life could not have existed in the early universe (if there were no atoms and therefore no molecules, there could be no life; unless you have a very odd definition for "life").

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations