Strange

! Moderator Note As this "theory" contradicts known physics it is moved to Speculations. Please read the specific guidelines for this part of the forum in particular the need to provide evidence to support your claims.

If there is any indeterminism in quantum theory then there is indeterminism in the universe. Ah. Sorry, I thought you meant quantum theory was non-deterministic. It has indeterminacy, which leads some people to assume it is non-deterministic, but it isn't. (Incidentally, that Wikipedia article directly contradicts your claim, in another thread, that the HUP is due to the observer effect: " In quantum mechanics, however, indeterminacy is of a much more fundamental nature, having nothing to do with errors or disturbance.")

If by "relativistic mass" you mean energy, then obviously they do have energy. But, once again, you have moved the goalposts. No one denies that photons have energy. But they do not have kinetic energy and they do not have mass. Nope. This is just wrong, as you have been told multiple times.

As far as I know, quantum theory is (completely?) deterministic.

! Moderator Note If you want to discuss your idea you need to do it here. Asking people to download a potentially dangerous file type is not acceptable

Today I learned that the European E-road network was started in 1947 and includes some amazing international routes. The E45 goes from Alta in the north of Norway to Gela in Sicily. And the E80, together with Asian Highway 1, crosses all of Europe and Asia, linking Lisbon with Tokyo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_E-road_network

About 3 billion kilometres or 20 times the distance of the Earth to the Sun. The math is actually quite simple but, to make it even simpler, here is an online calculator: http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/

While trivially and obviously true, that has nothing to do with the double slit experiment. (And photons don't have kinetic energy because they are massless.) Nope. Nothing to do with the HUP. Just like your posts!

! Moderator Note OK. I tried to fix the messed formatting in the OP but it just made it worse. As the post is incoherent nonsense, it is closed and moved to Trash.

Mono = one; theism = bound morpheme meaning "belief in God, a god, or gods," from Greek theos "god" Perhaps you can give an example of monotheism that doesn't involve believing in a god. Also wrong. There may have been single unique event of the creation of a living cell from which everything else evolved. That doesn't challenge evolution. It's almost as if you don't know what you are talking about on every subject you venture an opinion on.

What evidence do you have for this state of matter? What does "higher than plasma" mean? How would you create this state of matter starting from a lump of, say, lead? What does that mean? It doesn't sound like a "state of matter". For example, if you change the state of oxygen from solid to liquid to gas to plasma it is still just oxygen. It doesn't "include a number of substances". Energy, including kinetic energy, is a property of things, not a state of matter. Giving something kinetic energy (ie. making it move) does not change its state of matter. After all, energy is dependent on the person who measures it, not the substance being measured. For example, if you are on a train with a cup of coffee you will say that the coffee has zero kinetic energy. But if I am on the platform as your train passes, I will say it has a kinetic energy of 150 joules. And someone on a train passing by in the opposite direction will say it has a kinetic energy of 300 joules. You can't convert oxygen to kinetic energy. And kinetic energy does not "include a number of substances". Any evidence to support that claim? Nope. You can't convert a pound of lead, or even an atom of hydrogen, to light. Nope. It suggests a hypothesis that you don't know what you are talking about. Are there? What are they? I wish I had said that!

Actually, it only makes mathematical sense. I don't think anyone considers it to have any physical reality. There is no scientific theory of "creation" only some speculative ideas. There is no evidence that the universe was created at all. There is overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang theory. I'm not sure why you think the LHC has anything much to do with it. We have two very good theories of gravity. In one gravity is a force. In the other it is the geometry of spacetime. If you mean we don't know what it "really" is, then that is true of everything and outside the scope of science. That would require evidence, which you have failed to provide. I think nearly everyone would agree with that. Unfortunately, we don't yet have a theory that tells us what the universe was like at the very earliest times. (And you have not contributed to that, despite your childish rant. Any "theory" that starts with "The Truth ..." can probably be dismissed.)

Maybe Mike should stop worrying about unsolvable math problems.

But as some people insist on using the pump on the same side as the gas tank (I have often seen long queues at a half-empty filling station) having a "random" distribution makes more efficient use of space!

At last, you have said something I can agree with. It doesn't say that. The description of the Religion section of the forum is: "Forum for the discussion and examination of the rational foundations of religion." (Not that that happens very often. It is mainly used for irrational attacks on religion. And occasionally for irrational preaching.) I just thought that a forum dedicated to theology or philosophy, or one of the specific religions referenced, might have more people interested in, and knowledgable about, the question. Most people on this forum seem to be uninterested in or strongly opposed to religion.

I don't see where it says that the placebo and the drug are different. The OP seems to be just throwing the word placebo in for no apparent reason ("Each placebo is .. Ok fine it's Xanax") as with most of the other information supplied. And "Each placebo is 2mg" makes no sense.

You don't provide enough information to work this out. Why not just weigh them? Or ring/write them and ask. Or ask the pharmacy to weigh them.

You are the only person proposing this "time flow" idea. The fact that you find it contradictory suggest you should stop promoting it.

But that has nothing to do with entanglement. You just weren't very clear what you meant. So the photon that is detected / destroyed is not the one that went the slits. So that second photon is not affected by the observer effect.

You are the only person making this argument. How is that connected to the definition of time? You are just repeating the same errors

This makes zero sense. What is the "natural state" of neutrinos? They only have one state (but three flavours ) What does "no heat" mean? Why say "no charge"? We know neutrinos have no charge (the clue is in the name). Nothing, not even neutrinos can travel faster than light. What does "cycle through an atomic creation" mean? Neutrinos do not interact with anything. Gravity and electromagnetism are completely different. You can't get the effects of gravity from electromagnetism. This is not "PEE rays as the pee down on Earth". It is electromagnetic radiation with a black body spectrum; not neutrinos. What science knows is based on evidence. What you claim is based on your fairy tale. Almost every sentence in your post is wrong and/or nonsense. So I have given up commenting on it. You can't solve them by just making up nonsense.

You can do the detection of which slit (using another, entangled, photon) after it has passed the slits. So you are not affecting the photon that went through the slits. And what does “transforming its energy” mean? The photon that goes through the slits is not changed by the fact it’s entangled partner is observed.

Do you live in a very hard water area? It could be limescale being deposited on a hair or something. But it seems a bit rapid for that

How is it dangerous? And how is it irrelevant, when it describes the mechanisms by which species change? And why must natural selection (or even deliberate selection, as in breeding domesticated animals and plants) be described as "Darwinian forces"? Who says they must? And why not "Wallacian Forces"? And what about all the factors that Wallace and Darwin were unaware of?

Because that article is written by someone who can't write and doesn't know what they are writing about. Here is a more detailed description of the object and its behaviour: https://www.popsci.com/space-junk-trash-bag-A10bMLz Basically, it appears to be a lightweight piece of plastic. It has enough surface area and is light enough that it is blown about by the solar wind.