Strange

And doing this for a design containing several million transistors would be impossible without simulation.

You still haven't explained: why copyright? This will affect musicians, painters, authors. Most of whom don't earn a large amount of money. But it won't affect people who make billions running companies that pollute and damage the environment. This does not seem fair. Or even sensible. And it won't affect scientists and engineers. Surely a scheme should encourage scientists, engineers and businesses to develop products that are better for the environment. Maybe by taxing those that are not. Instead you are taking money from people who may have no control over the environment. There isn't really any such thing as "copyright revenue". You own copyright in the posts you make on this forum, but there is no revenue from that. I work as a writer but I don't own copyright in anything I do. So my pay is not "copyright revenue". The companies that do own the copyright in my work don't make any money from it, so they don't get any "copyright revenue". An author who gets a few cents for each book sold doesn't get "copyright revenue". They just get a (small) percentage of sales. It is hard to resist arguing with such a stupid idea.

You need to read more carefully, that isn't what was said. Have I ever used the word "bloke"? News to me. Oh yes, I see I did. How very unusual...

An infinite universe does not imply infinite density. (And Cantor doesn’t say anything about density)

Yes. See Michael123456's post on the Horizon Problem. (This doesn't really have anything to do with gravitational waves though [and nothing to do with "gravity waves", which are a completely different thing ])

And I am trying to find out why you claim it is impossible when it is not possible to know. Note: this is a science forum, so wild guesses are not acceptable.

Why? The mass here is not affected by the physical extent of the universe. The mass of the Earth is the same if the universe is 10 time bigger than the observable universe, or 10,000 times bigger or 100 billion times bigger. Or infinitely bigger. You did. You said that if the universe beyond the observable universe were infinite then density differences would disappear. This is not logical.

What is the evidence for that claim? What evidence do you have that matter can be infinitely dense?

There is no reason to say that there must be regions of infinite density (which sounds physically impossible) in an infinite universe. The rest of the universe could be largely the same as the visible universe. (And I have reported you for creating more sock puppets.)

Why would density difference vanish? Why would the density differences here on Earth be affected by the universe beyond the observable universe which by definition can have no effect on it. We don't now anything about the inside of a black hole. And it isn't relevant anyway (being finite). I don't see why.

How exactly would you tell the difference between the universe being, say, 10 times bigger than the observable universe and being infinite? Given that nothing outside the observable universe can be measured or have any effect on you. Local density differences would be exactly the same however large the universe is.

None of that tells you if the universe is finite or infinite. Obviously.

Wow. Impressive superpower. I'm afraid your (possibly delusional) perceptions don't really count as scientific evidence. It also appears to be a non sequitur, which doesn't really help.

You don't know that.

As Saa seems to have hit the 5 post limit for their first day, we will have to wait and see... (Given the number of people who post here and seem to think copyright can protect their ideas, I would think it more likely to be due to a misunderstanding rather than translation.)

It makes me go: Hmmm, a balaclava discarded on the snow? Or maybe: someone needs to get a new lens; that one seems to have a bad fault. Or: is that the mark left on the wall when that candle tipped over? Or ... Maybe it was designed to.

The work done by scientists and engineers is not protected by copyright (apart from the tiny numbers who write books about their work). Most authors barely make a living from writing. So it seems unfair to target authors, when most of the money goes to large companies (and perhaps most of the damage is caused by them as well.)

Apart from their self-induced feelings.

! Moderator Note As the sock-puppet who started this thread has been banned (again), I don't think there is nay point keeping this thread open

! Moderator Note Do not post mages with no explanation. If you want to try again you will need to provide a clear explanation of the purpose of the thread.

Here is one answer: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-born-rule-has-been-derived-from-simple-physical-principles-20190213/

If the speed of gravity were different then there would be other measurable difference in GR. There are various direct and indirect ways of measuring the speed of gravity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Measurements These are all consistent with the speed being the speed of light. And there is nothing that says we can't measure things faster than the speed of light. There was the famous example where it was thought that neutrinos were faster than light.

Indeed. It actually came out of his work solving the problem of the black body spectrum.

It is in the links you posted earlier. Now, how about a reference that "they determined the amount of energy in space required for an individual Planck Unit of space" ?

The discovery was purely made by measuring the red shifts of galaxies. So I have to assume you misunderstood it (along with so many other things you have garbled). Sigh. Really? Citation needed. Again. I assume that, as usual, none will be forthcoming.