Strange

Nonsense.

No it isn't. Stop making stuff up.

That is not a law. It is a hypothesis (being generous). It is up to you tell us what (mathematical) laws govern that. And that is why you need to start doing some science. So we can tell if your guess works or not.

Science isn’t about describing reality, if such a thing exists. Nope. Citation needed. Especially for the first one.

I still have no idea what you mean.

I don't know what that means.

You still haven't explained why any law needs to be enforced. As your contention is that laws need to be enforced, you need to explain what enforces this law. Let's take a real example of a scientific law, Newton's law of motion: F = ma. What sort of laws would enforce that? That is not a "law" in the scientific sense. It might be an assumption, or a hypothesis or a postulate. But you would need to provide a mathematical model and some evidence before it could be accepted as part of a theory.

You have completely failed to explain why. You have said that the reason your super laws don't need to be enforced is because they are super laws that don't need to be enforced. This is bad, even as philosophy. It is an example of the fallacy of begging the question. I am simply applying your own "logic": if the currently known laws need to be "enforced" then why shouldn't your new laws also need to be enforced? Your only answer seems to be: "because they don't".

What you call "today's standards" are really the "public" standards. As I say, I'm sure many women would have (silently) had the same standards then. Part of the problem is that in the past the treatment of men by women was largely judged (publicly) by men. Absolutely. But people often forget that and assume that because someone was great at X, then we should consider them a role model for all things. Look at the knots people get tied up in trying to decide whether it is acceptable to admire the art of someone who has been found to be a racist, for example.

Not at all. After all, I think we are all agreed that a creator would be metaphysics and nothing to do with science. You are claiming that these super-laws are science / physics. Therefore if the laws of current physics need to be enforced then so do the laws of your new physics. Otherwise we can just say that the existing laws are *the* enforcement and don't need anything to enforce them. Again, why do you think that? It seems like a ludicrous idea. If you are basing a scientific idea on this, then you need to provide either a theoretical reason or some evidence that they need to be enforced. Otherwise we just have "I think the laws need to be enforced" versus "I don't think the laws have to be enforced". How do we decide between those, scientifically? We need evidence. You are the one claiming that laws need to be enforced, so don't try and push the burden of proof on to others.

I'm not sure what connotations the phrase has. I wouldn't ever use it because it sounds dated and cheesy! But, Feynman clearly had a problem with his attitudes to women. One might say that is using today's standards to judge him, but I suspect that is a rather male view; I wouldn't be surprised if many women of the time judged him in the same way. I also think it is worth being aware of these aspects of a person's character (even if it could be considered anachronistic) when they are held in high regard. People should know that, yes, he was a great scientist and a great science communicator but not every aspect of his life is to be admired to the same extent.

True. But that is a separate thing from the description of building a black hole from entangled articles. Yes, so we are dealing with real particles not virtual ones. There is an article here that attempts to explain it: https://www.quantamagazine.org/wormhole-entanglement-and-the-firewall-paradox-20150424/ But I have to say, it isn't very clear! I am guessing this might be because it is one of those things where it is hard to explain in words what the mathematics describes.

Why do you think they need to be "enforced"? Our "laws" are just mathematical descriptions of the way the universe works. They are all approximations with limits to their applicability. It may be remarkable that the universe can be described in such a way. And many people have suggested reasons; but these are all philosophical or religious arguments, not scientific. I can't see why. You have some vague idea (possibly similar to some scientific theories). But even if you (or the people doing actual science with similar ideas) were correct, all that does is push the question back. What enforces the laws of the system you describe? And how are these super-laws enforced? See the problem?

You said you were not disputing the math, but clearly you are. In the mathematical description of light waves, they are represented as sines. If you are saying that they are not sines, then you need to show, mathematically, what these "waves" are. And no, I don't say that "all" energy is in the form of sine waves. Just the light waves we are discussing. The rules require you to show that here. Even if that were true, it is irrelevant. You need to show us your model and the evidence supporting it. Apart from being nonsense, that explanation relies entirely on the constructive and destructive interference that you claim does not exist! There is no change in frequency. If I was looking for an animation to demonstrate why you are wrong, that would probably be it. One of those desires is consistent with the rules of the forum, and one isn't. Guess which. You can treat this forum as a blackboard and show us the math.

How does that change things? How does adding two pulsed sine waves (or any mixture of frequencies) produce a higher frequency? And what can't that higher frequency be detected? You see, this is how science works: you produce a model (you have not done this) and then you test the expected results (you haven't done that). So, again, show us your math that describes how adding two signals produces a higher frequency. And then show us this higher frequency being detected. Citation needed. (Or, to put it another way: no it isn't.) EDIT OK, here is how jamming works: "Intentional communications jamming is usually aimed at radio signals to disrupt control of a battle. A transmitter, tuned to the same frequency as the opponents' receiving equipment and with the same type of modulation, can, with enough power, override any signal at the receiver. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_jamming Nothing there about changing the frequency.

Yes you are. You are saying that adding two sine waves does not produce interference and that it changes the frequency. Neither of these are supported by the mathematics. So, either you don't understand the math that you are "not disputing" or you need to tell us what math you are using. (It is easier to type the math here rather than create a video.) Well, we could gather some data on this by comparing the number of peer-reviewed videos there are compared with peer-reviewed papers.

Is it? It appears to be based on complex entities that interact in complex ways. The universe is expanding. From that we can tell that it was once much hotter and denser. We have theories that can explain what it was like back to some early time. But before that, we have no idea. It is not a mystery that science can answer. Questions like "why does the universe exist" or "why does it have these laws" are philosophy/religion, not science.

That is how science works. Just trying random things, is not. We have a theory about the pressure in a pipe in water. It has been tested. Your idea will not work. Science.

Why is there less pressure inside it? Try sticking a straw in a glass of water: does the water come out of the top of the straw? That is not how science works.

I cannot readily watch videos, so my answer may not address what is in it. However, there seems to be some confusion in what you write. There are two separate things here. One is virtual particle pairs which appear and disappear. The other is the entanglement of "real" (non-virtual) particles that make up black holes and Hawking radiation. Roughly, what Maldacena and Susskind have shown is that there is an equivalence between entanglement and the wormhole that (hypothetically) connects black holes. This relates the particles that fall into and are radiated from black holes. Based on this, they also suggest that the structure of space-time may be maintained by the entanglement between virtual particles. If you can show errors in the work of Susskind and Maldacena, please do so. This sort of childish rant doesn't belong on a science forum.

Gravity pulls things down. So what is driving the circulation?

Which is why video is the worst possible medium. (Well, apart from interpretive dance, perhaps.) Just show us the math. And the experimental data. This is a science site, not a film club.

How would you do that? What power source is going to create the circulation? And how do you extract energy from it? And why would you get more energy out than you put in?

So, how do you do it?

I don't think of them as being very concrete. Nor very abstract. We can take a ruler and measure 1 metre. We can use a clock to measure 5 minutes. That is about all you need to know. A set of four independent measurements. The same as in special relativity. It is a mathematical abstraction that describes the physical world around us. Like all of physics. There are lots of "mysteries" in the sense of things we don't understand. Why? Because the universe is complicated. There is no evidence for that. You seem to be looking for something that science cannot provide.