Strange

I know this suggestion is not completely serious but the former fire warden in me needs to point out that if the liquid made contact with the battery, it could cause heating (and toxic fumes) and possibly an explosion.

The growth of dendrites (number, length, branching) is not determined by genes. It is a dynamic process that is changed by interactions with other neurons, environment, neuronal activity, disease and many other factors.

He said "recently". You claimed quarks are made from photons. This violates multiple conservation laws. For example: "Recently a large number of particles has been discovered, but this produces an ever increasing confusion" or "Light can both repel and attract itself" Because this thread is for you to present and defend your idea. (And also because "opinions" are not of much value in science.)

Are you saying that the gravity for a rotating object is different than a non-rotating one? If so, you need to quantify this so it can be tested. How large a difference does rotation make? Actual numbers required.

1. There is no reason to think that the universe is empty beyond the observable universe. 2. We cannot observe anything outside the observable universe. By definition. I think you should get o grips with current science before making up nonsense.

I am fairly sure that popularisation of science go back several hundreds of years. “More traditional black holes” ! What on Earth are they? Also I would like to see a reference for SMBHs being more common than stellar mass black holes. What? What is that based on?

No.

Your idea is not supported by any evidence. You have stated all sorts of things that are not true. You have made claims that are contradicted by basic physics. You should test your ideas against basic "sanity checks" before proposing them. They should at least be plausible. Proposing something that is based on evidence and not contradicted by basic physics, maybe. Proposing nonsense, not so much.

What do you mean by "polarity"? I am not aware of photons having anything that could be described as polarity. Spin, maybe? Personally, I think making stuff up is a terrible way to learn. That is caused by interactions with the medium.

The number has not changed. I am not aware that there was an expected value for the mass of the Higgs. If you know otherwise, please provide a link. Not really my job. You are supposed to be providing support for your idea. Anyway, I wouldn't pretend to fully understand this papers, but I see not evidence for photons having an attractive or repulsive force. If you disagree, please provide the exact quotation from the papers that support your claim. Sorry, that was a typo. It should have said that photons have no charge, but quarks do. Therefore, quarks cannot be made of photons. Don't you think you should learn the subject first before inventing new theories?

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please read the rules for this section of the forum; particularly the need for evidence. Can you provide a reference to this. The only newly discovered particle I am aware of is the Higgs boson. It has been quite boring apart from that. Since the quark model was developed in 1964, the number of particles was reduced to 6 leptons, 6 quarks, and 5 bosons. There is no "ever increasing number" I think you are misunderstanding these papers. You will need to provide some specific evidence of this, not just papers you have not read and which do not appear relevant. Do you have any evidence of this? It violates all sorts of conservation laws. For example, photons are massless but quakes have mass. Also, photons have no electric charge, while photons quarks are charged. What do you mean by "uneven balance"? As it is extremely difficult to get photons to interact (see the paper you cited earlier) that seems to be wrong. The force between protons is very strong. And the forces between atoms are pretty string: try pulling a piece of steel apart.

You need quantitative (numerical) predictions to be testable. That means you need a mathematical model. Why do you think mass pops out from nowhere? What evidence is there for this? What evidence do you have for this? You need to show the numbers: how much will the mass increase? What is the range of gravity?

But even generalising to patents and other forms of IP, the idea doesn't really make sense. The income that companies make, and the damage they do to the environment, is not directly related to the size of patent portfolios.

If it is a point particle, it does not occupy any space.

Apparently you think that this is a strawman because you used the term "absolute infinite" instead of "infinite". As you failed to explain how this difference in terminology was important or relevant to the universe, I ignored it. However, we can drop this line of discussion, if you wish. (But you really should learn a little bit about cosmology; it is a fascinating subject. Much more rewarding than making things up.)

What? If you measure the size of a piece of wood, you measure it from one edge to the other. This doesn't make much sense. That is why you need the mathematics, instead of vague words. How do you propose to modify this equation: [math] R_{\mu \nu} - \tfrac{1}{2}R \, g_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G }{c^4} T_{\mu \nu} [/math] This is overly simplistic. The mass of an object is greater than the mass of the particle that make it up.

So we are back to a completely different idea: a tax on the size of companies to support nature?

Or maybe a truth table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table ?

And that includes the space outside the observable universe (which you claim does not exist). And, by definition, being outside the observable universe, we cannot observe that space. It has nothing to do with technology. Have you ever thought that it might be a good idea to learn something about a subject before spouting off with such confidence? Or are you planning a career in politics, instead. That if the universe is infinite it will be infinitely dense.

Maybe. But if companies just use patents for protection then there is no revenue from them. It is only if they licence them to other companies that they get royalties.

Space is just measurements of distance in three dimensions. The atmosphere has mass so you are saying it is not possible to measure distance in the atmosphere. This is obviously not true. Let’s see the mathematics of this new extension to GR then. Which of the tensor are you changing?

Do you mean a table that shows the precedence of operators? https://interactivepython.org/runestone/static/CS152f17/Appendices/PrecedenceTable.html Or something else

Really? What do you base this claim on? You cannot answer such problems with logic. That is why philosophers (and scientists) do not know the answer. I don't agree with your fantasies.

Why? Most companies don’t rely on copyright. So you are not really talking about copyright. You are talking about some new tax system that you have invented. You have confused things by calling it copyright. It sounds what you really want is a tax on inventions. Or something. It really isn't clear. Why not just tax companies that pollute the most: then they will be encouraged not to pollute, and they will pay to clean up their mess.

See previous posts. Also: ”Because we cannot observe space beyond the edge of the observable universe, it is unknown whether the size of the Universe in its totality is finite or infinite.[3][57][58]” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe Ah, I see. You are talking about a fantasy universe that only exists in your imagination. You will excuse me if I am only willing to discuss reality; the universe we live in. Which may be infinite. Sorry, this is not science.