Strange

That is all nonsense. You can't predict next weeks lottery numbers, however much information you have.

No theory is ever proven. That is not how science works. But if you have evidence that gravity stops at some point, then present it. As you are unable/unwilling to provide any evidence to support your "theory" should we ask for the thread to be closed? Then you use this forum to ask some questions and fill the gaps in your understanding, instead of spouting nonsense.

Can you analyse enough data to tell me next weeks lottery numbers? (Or even what will happen with Brexit!)

Ah, yes: "quantum theory is strange; consciousness is strange; so they must be the same thing". I am constantly amazed at the shallow arguments produced by someone so brilliant, just because he believes humans must be "special". And the thing about Godel's theorem is nonsense. There aren't things we "know" are true but can't prove. There are things we can't know are true because we can't prove them. It may be common sense or practical to assume they are, but that doesn't mean we are right in this assumptions (common sense is notoriously unreliable).

Not negative gravity, but the pressure of the energy in the "inflaton field". But the only reason for suggesting the existence of this filed is to explain what we observe. We don't know if any such field existed, what it was or why.

! Moderator Note Thread closed pending moderator discussion. This is too open ended and vague to be a topic on this forum. If you have a specific theory (mainstream or otherwise) that you wish to discuss, feel free to start a thread on it.

How do you know that? How do you know humans are not “mere information processors”? How does the brain defy the laws of physics in this way? How do you know a machine could not do the same thing? ps I have not watched your video (because it is a video) but I have read some of Penrose’s arguments. As far as I can tell they are just arguments from incredulity (“but we are human, not machines”)

! Moderator Note The rules of the forum require you to present your idea here. If you are not willing to do that, this thread will be closed Then you should have no problem presenting it here.

As neither are (currently) possible, you can make up whatever science-fiction rules you want.

Don't worry, I think I agree with everything you say! Current AIs are computer programs. I deliberately wrote "artificial intelligence" to distinguish the artificial recreation of human intelligence (if that is different from TM "intelligence") from what we currently call AI (which is not really very intelligent!) Exactly. If we can do things that TMs can't then I can't see any reason why we couldn't create systems that do the same thing. All of which seems to be a good argument that humans can't do anything more than a TM.

If humans were capable of doing more than a TM then, presumably, it would be possible to create an artificial intelligence that also do that.

Yes, but you said it wasn't "doing" anything. That's all I was commenting on. (Unless I misunderstood ...)

A human could attempt to solve the halting problem. That is "doing" something. Can you expand on what you mean by that? Is it a reference to the many-body problem?

Can you demonstrate that this is more efficient than, for example, pumping water up a hill to a reservoir and then using it to generate hydroelectric power? Can you show that your concept can be scaled up to generate gigawatts of power?

Really? So what are next weeks lottery numbers?

See into the future.

't Hooft's list starts with basic mathematics and classical mechanics (with links to online courses and resources) so, although it would be a lot of work, I think it is suitable for starting from 0.

I am assuming (in 3) that the aliens are infinitely patient and really, really want to help us. "Come on, it's so basic, surely you can understand it's just -----------. Isn't that obvious?" I just think there may be limits to what the human brain is capable of understanding, even using the tools of mathematics and abstraction that have got us so far. Or maybe not. We won't know until we encounter these aliens. The trouble is, any examples that any of us come up with (warp drive, matter transporter, etc) are already things we can imagine and we can make up science-fictiony explanations for how they might work. But that doesn't prove that an alien couldn't come along and present us with something (whether a concept or a piece of engineering) that is just beyond the capabilities of the human brain.

Neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically, either. But we have made detailed measurements of their properties despite that. So far, dark matter has only been detected by its gravitational effects. But multiple lines of such evidence produce consistent results. That is about all you can expect. Conclusive proof arguably doesn't exist in any domain of science. Can you make quantitatively testable predictions with that hypothesis?

It is not a "fact" unless you have evidence to support it. And if the Newtonian equation applies, then it is not "new" and not a "discovery". And you need to provide some evidence. No, you can't shift the burden of proof. You are the one claiming a "new discovery" so you are the one who has to provide evidence. (But the evidence for the Newtonian model is the fact that we can correctly calculate most gravitational interactions with it. Apart from a few cases where the greater accuracy of GR is required.)

Gerard 't Hooft has put together a guide to all the things you need to learn to become a "good" theoretical physicist (it is pretty daunting!): http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html

You need to learn some basic maths before making silly statements like this. That would only be “proof” if you actually had evidence of such places. (And even then it wouldn’t be proof because nothing is proved in science) But it is almost certainly false because, as far as we know, the universe has always been full of matter so there is nowhere without gravity. I have no idea what that means. But it seems to be a series of false statements. There is no evidence that the universe started. Infinity can be continuous; eg. the real numbers. The only place infinite curvature occurs (mathematically) is where the equations are not valid (a singularity). There is no mathematics in your explanation. Wrong. This obviously nonsense as objects move continuously from place; they don’t jump one inch at a time. It is for many cases, but not always. Then you need to: 1. Show your equation; 2. Tell us at what distance the gravity drops to zero; and, most importantly 3. Provide some evidence that your model is correct.

In other words, not validated at all. why? There are polytheistic religions with a creator god (or gods). Then provide some evidence that it is historically accurate. (And that means NOT using Biblical sources.) What historical records? (Again, NOT the bible.)

How is Christianity "testable"? And how is it "founded historically"? There are no contemporary records of Jesus and his actions. There have been many threads on the historical existence of Jesus and the conclusion has always been that there is not, or very little, contemporary evidence. And there is just as much, or more, historical evidence for the founders of Buddhism, Sikhism, etc. 1. Just because some said that he said it doesn't make it true. (It doesn't even mean he said it.) 2. Other religions do claim that. There is no evidence that the resurrection happens. You can't use your belief in something as evidence it is rue. But, of course, those other denominations will think that your understanding is wrong and they are the ones who have it right. The fact you are blind to this is staggering. (But, given this is a discussion about baseless beliefs, maybe not.) Yeah, studiot's comments made no sense to me either!

Hard to answer this as there is no evidence that time travel is possible, so no proof that it has happened. But if some took you back to meet Queen Victoria (random example) then what else could that be but proof of time travel? Wouldn’t that imply that time didn’t exist without humans (and other living things) to remember the past? Also, unless that can be quantified in some way, is it useful in science? So, in GR, for example, time is treated like a dimension and this allows us to make predictions that turn out to be accurate. Do you have a suggested alternative? Maybe. Who knows.