Strange

But you might tell the person who dropped it that they shouldn’t do that in future! (And I don’t think I can edit titles on my phone...) Edit: yes I can!

Interesting story. (just a peeve about the thread title: "hypothetical" is an adjective, the noun is "hypothesis" so "Hawking's hypothesis" )

If I had a dollar for every time someone said "you could monetize that" ...

Yep. It's magic. (There are a pair of buttons on the [desktop] editor window for creating bulleted/numbered lists.) Or: So this "Transporter" thing is going to kill me, then create a copy of me somewhere else? And you expect me to just walk into it? I was really thinking of concepts that the human brain is just not engineered to handle. Obviously I can't give an example! And that is the problem with the "incomprehensible alien" trope in SF; they are still constrained to be incomprehensible in ways that humans can think of. Also related to the idea I heard once (in an "is mathematics invented or discovered" debate, I think) that if there were alien intelligences in a gaseous (or plasma) form, then some things we think of as advanced mathematics (calculus, fluid dynamics, etc) could be like basic arithmetic to them. And then one of their great mathematicians comes up with the concept of integers; which is a topic that only the most advanced students are able to tackle.

If the aliens decide to explain the technology, I can imagine several possible results: The scientists / technologists who hear the explanation slap themselves on the forehead, say "of course" and rush out to build their own. The humans would spend months or years trying to understand the advances in science required - mathematicians would struggle to convert the alien notation to something they were familiar with - but after a few years or decades, they would put together their first prototypes. The aliens spend decades providing lectures, explanations, seminars, diagrams, working models, etc. And the human audience just sit there looking blank and going, "Nope. Still not getting it. Can you explain it again from the beginning? Are you sure it isn't magic?"

I think that visualisations like that are really only useful when based on an underlying "realistic" (ie. tested) model. And even then they can be of limited use: many people jump to erroneous conclusions because they rely on the "rubber sheet" analogy, rather than the underlying model.

We reached that level of evolution a few hundred thousand years ago. Maybe longer. I don't think the (non)existence of real magic is relevant. Clarke was just pointing out that advanced technology would be mysterious to us, in just the same way that a clever magic trick is. I see some stage magic and can work out how it is done (or, maybe, a vague idea of the general concept behind it). Then there are other tricks that are completely incomprehensible - and if even Penn and Teller are fooled, then it is pretty much indistinguishable from real magic (even if we know it can't be). That isn't what I said, though. They would be as able as someone from, say, 200 years ago. However, if you gave your "caveman" or great-great-grandfather the phone and showed them how it works, they would soon be able to use it. The way it works would, perhaps, appear "magical" (ie unknown and incomprehensible) but the same is true for most modern users of these devices.

As both of these are just mathematical models, and the "fore" (Newtonian) model is probably good enough for anything you will ever need, there is no problem with you deciding to think of gravity as a force. But there are a few cases where that model gives inaccurate results: calculating the precession of Mercury is one, the amount that light is deflected by gravity is another. There is no "outer edge". But as the (apparent) speed of separation is proportional to distance, there will always be points that are far enough apart that they are moving apart at more than the speed of light.

I think that's an interesting question. I think the answer is: either. In other words, it doesn't really matter because, after all, any sufficiently skilled [stage] magic is indistinguishable from [real] magic!

Arthur C Clarke's original statement doesn't rule out that possibility. You are inventing a conflict where none exists (ie. a straw man argument).

I doubt anyone would disagree with that. Although, I have read a few SF stories where the aliens were, in fact, incomprehensible to humans. Because they were so alien. The only example I can remember (because the title is memorable) was The Dance of the Changer and The Three (Terry Carr).

Is that the general consensus within the scientific community. I am only aware of it as an aphorism from Arthur C Clarke. But if you gave a "caveman" (or at last, an early H. sapiens and maybe neandertalis) a smartphone then I'm sure they would be shocked and amazed and not be able to understand how it worked. But in a few days, they would be texting, calling their friends, and be on social media. And taking it all for granted. After all, how many people now actually know how a smartphone works. Maybe it is indistinguishable from magic to many of them. On the other hand, as Agatha Heterodyne said, "Any sufficiently analysed magic is indistinguishable from technology." There are very ancient stories of time travel, life on other planets, flying machines, etc. So I don't think human imagination has ever been a limiting factor.

The full paper is here, for those interested: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331948449_The_Qingjiang_biota-A_Burgess_Shale-type_fossil_Lagerstatte_from_the_early_Cambrian_of_South_China

It would be some sort of parallel or orthographic projection, possibly “cavalier” (which I hadn’t heard of before) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_projection (But I don’t think it is. I would say it is a sort of “symbolic” (semiabstract) representation of arches and/or a vaulted ceiling)

Good point. If it weren't for Popes (and their armies) wanting to assert their (human) authority we would have even more different versions of Christianity - corresponding to all the different "heresies" (interpretations that a Pope disagreed with) about the nature of Christ (human but with a divine spark, a god in human form, half god-half human, etc) and all the different interpretations of the Trinity, etc.

I would imagine many religious people would say that their preferred religion and god(s) are the "One True Religion" and all the others are simply a deviation from that. However, it is obvious that the truth is that Christianity is just a deviation from worship of Bokonon, the the One True God. (I know this because the Book of Bokonon says so.)

Also known as the holographic principle. Greatly beloved (but wildly misrepresented) by "personal theorists".

I am guessing he might have read something about the entropy of a spherical volume being (in certain circumstances) proportional to the surface area of the sphere rather than the volume. And either not remembered it or not understood it, so has come up with this garbled version.

Then you probably also need to spend some time practicing the skill of organising your ideas and expressing them clearly. This will be important in school, any further education you undertake, and work.

And that, I think, is the problem. I think it is great that you are interested in science, but instead of wasting time watching Youtube videos, I would recommend using some of the excellent online courses and other resources to actually study and learn some science. Then you can come to a forum like this and ask questions to clarify anything you don't understand. I know it is hard work but, ultimately, it is much more satisfying than making up stories. Also, you might want to read up on the concept of "paragraphs."

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please read the rules for this part of the forum.

Yes. You are completely wrong. Voltage is not the size of electrons (all electrons are the same size), voltage does not depend on the presence of electrons, muons are not excited states of electrons, etc. Then you have wasted your time. There are plenty of good online courses where you could actually learn some real science instead of making things up. Descartes was wrong about many things. This would appear to be one of them. This is where your approach to "learning" fails. You read something that is not relevant (and may be wrong) and then use it it extrapolate to incorrect conclusions. The size of fundamental particles is not really a well defined concept. They are usually treated as point particles (ie. with zero size). There are other things which could be considered the "size", for example the interaction cross-section. But it is important to understand that these fundamental particles are NOT actually "particles"; they are not solid balls of stuff. The word particle is not really appropriate but is used for historical reasons. It is the difference in mass, not size (see above).

As you are unwilling to provide references to support your claims, there is not much I can say. Sometimes theory comes first: it makes predictions that are then confirmed by observation. Sometimes observations come first and a theory is devised to explain them. Neither is better than the other.

You haven't presented anything of substance to judge. (I know you from other forums, so I have a pretty good idea of the value of your ideas and the level of your scientific knowledge. Both approximately zero.) Then you are refusing to comply with the rules of the forum. I will suggest this thread is closed.

In other words, you have no model and therefore no evidence for your crackpot “theory”