Strange

I see no reason for that. Some things have evolved to become larger and some smaller. Some have become more intelligent and others haven't. Organisms evolve to match their environments.

If you clearly know, why not answer the question?

Good. Please provide a reference to the scientific research that demonstrates that DNA etc are "activated by awareness". I'm sure that will be easy for you as you state it with such confidence and therefore it must be based on science.

You don't provide any references to anyone saying that the existence of quantum fluctuations (or virtual particles) is "debatable", and I can't really comment un unnamed books written by unnamed people. The idea that physics is different in different countries is just bizarre, especially given that most physics research takes place in multi-national teams. Anyway, here is a good article on quantum fluctuations (by a physicist at CERN): https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/quantum-fluctuations-and-their-energy/ What do you mean by "this"? I was questioning your claim that quantum fluctuations are "debatable". How could the fact they are not debatable be "discovered"? Because they don't. (See the article above) They won't. Antiparticles have the same mass-energy as particles. Neither of these have been confirmed by experiment. They are both fairly speculative ideas at present. Why do you think that? I can't see any reason why they should be. They are both based on the same underlying theory. I don't know what you mane by that. "One" what? The density of a black hole decreases with mass. (Not that density really means anything in this context.) "First, the average density of a SMBH (defined as the mass of the black hole divided by the volume within its Schwarzschild radius) can be less than the density of water in the case of some SMBHs.[6] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole Citation needed.

1. How is this relevant? 2. Please provide a reference for this claim (preferably not a video)

That isn't what your video says. As I can't quite from your video, here is a proper (i.e. written) source: "The holographic principle is a principle of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle The holographic principle has nothing to do with time dilation; it is a consequence of time dilation. No me. You are contradicting what astrophysicists say. No. It is based on thermodynamics. "The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which conjectures that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected." (same source) Note the complete absence of any mention of time dilation on that page. I think that is enough of your guesswork.

It is not in the least debatable. It is a well-understood aspect of quantum theory.

! Moderator Note Discussion of holographic principle split of too:

Both what? It certainly doesn't say that "all of the information of the universe can be stored on the surface of a black hole" as you claimed. (And this is why videos are such a terrible source. I can't quote from it - and neither can you - to demonstrate what it says.) This is just nonsense. Someone falling into a black hole would be in the same Rame of reference as the other stuff falling in and so would not see it time dilated. In fact, someone falling through the even horizon would not notice anything at all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/01/19/what-would-you-see-as-you-fell-into-a-black-hole/#16a293ce8583

What is it about you people and videos? Can't you get your information from proper sources!? OK. That does not say what you said. They said the information in a black hole is (may be) encoded on the surface. The information in the universe may be encoded on a 2D surface (not a black hole).

No. It is your claim; it is up to you to support it. Without that, I will just assume you are mistaken (or made it up).

They arise because of quantum effects. The lowest energy state of a vacuum is greater than zero. Because of the uncertainty principle, there are a range of possible values of energy possible for a short period of time: larger energy fluctuations exist for shorter time, smaller ones for longer. If the energy fluctuation is large enough this can temporarily create a particle-antiparticle pair. The pair will immediately annihilate returning the "borrowed" energy. Unlike "real" particles, these virtual particles can only exist for a short time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation Quantum mechanics doesn't violate conservation of energy. Neither do black holes. The reason Hawking came up with Hawking radiation is because he was trying to understand how quantum information could be preserved if things fall into black holes.

Perhaps you could provide a reference, then.

Nooooo..... It says that the entropy in a spherical volume of space is proportional to the surface area of that volume. It originally came from black hole thermodynamics. The observable universe may have a horizon but it is nothing like a black hole. Apart from anything else, the singularity in the Big Bang model is in the past, while a singularity in a black hole is in the future.

Because there are two particles created: one falls in and one escapes. The pair takes an amount of energy from the black hole and half of it is returned. Or read the explanation linked to by beech, which describes how you can treat the particle that falls in as having negative energy (which is matched by the positive energy of the escaping particle, so energy is conserved). But note that these are just analogies; ie simplified descriptions of what happens. You cannot really use these as a way of properly understanding what happens. If you want to understand the detailed mechanism, you would need to have a solid grounding of QM, GR and how to apply Bogoliubov transformation (an isomorphism of either the canonical commutation relation algebra or canonical anticommutation relation algebra. This induces an autoequivalence on the respective representations). The power and temperature of Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole. And it reduces the mass of the black hole. Which results in higher temperature and radiated power, which reduces the mass further.

If it were dangerous, I'm sure they wouldn't be able to sell it. I get the impression that Proposition 65 warnings have very little value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)#Abuse

I am not going to attempt to answer these, I'm afraid (I'm not in the mood to write 14,000 words to answer each of Q1 and Q2). But I am fascinated by the fact you make a distinction between "the definition" and "your definition". Would you like to explain why you did that? Or would you prefer to wait until there are some answers? (It will be interesting to see if/how people distinguish them.) Fairly obvious, I would have thought. I think you should give a link/credit to the source...

This comes down to Bell's Theorem, which showed that the probabilities of certain correlations could not be explained by a classical theory. If you measure the polarisation of a photon at any angle, it will either be "up" or "down" with respect to that angle, and an entangled photon will have the opposite polarisation. Then the question is, what if you could measure the polarisation at two different angles? What are the probabilities of the first one being "up" or "down" and the second one being "up" or "down" (for all the combinations). Bell showed that for a quantum system you will get different results than for a classical system (e.g. the red and balls in Eise's example, or the pairs of socks often used in examples). What makes it tricky is that measuring the polarisation at any angle "destroys" the polarisation information at the other angle. This is where entanglement comes in: we generate a pair of entangled photons and measure one angle on the first photon and a different angle on the second photon. We do this lots of times and check the probability of these matching. What this comes down to is that in the classical examples of the coloured balls, the actual colour in each box is fixed ("real") as soon as we put them in the boxes. In the quantum case, the values are not determined until we actually measure them (in other words: there are no hidden variables). This is a much better (and probably more accurate) explanation; it is quite detailed but only uses simple math: http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

What is "applied science"? Do you mean technology? Or experimental science? In both cases, they depend on the theories. Why do you call it "Darwin's tree" when he obviously didn't know about microbes that existed millions of years ago?

So, back in the day, when Newton was a young man, it was not known whether light was a wave r a particle ("corpuscular" as they called it then). There were good arguments on both sides (I'm afraid it is too long since I did History of Science to clearly remember what these were). From what I recall, Newton originally favoured the corpuscular theory. It was the observation of effects like polarisation and diffraction (eg Young's original two-slit experiment) that led to the wave model to be generally accepted. But then a couple of things happened. Planck found that the observed "black body" spectrum could only be explained if he assumed that light came in packets with discrete energy. And then Einstein came up with an explanation for the photoelectric effect based on the idea that light consisted of indivisible packets or "quanta". (And got a Nobel Prize for his efforts.) So now we are in the position where we know light has some characteristics of waves (wavelength, polarisation, etc) and some properties of particles (indivisibility, etc). They are, however, neither one nor the other. They are what they are.

You deserve an upvote for this line alone! It is a red herring.

Maybe you should look at more up-to-date sources. Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide#Lunar_atmospheric_tides Yes there is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide Please show the mathematics to support this claim. ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please make sure you have read the rules for this forum: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ In particular, the need to provide support for your claims. In your case this should include calculations of the size of effects and comparison with observation. Please show the calculations to support this claim.

What is that and where is it from?

The UN figures are just raw birth rates. Not very informative. You could follow the link and find the data (it is in a video, unfortunately. But I gather some people like that sort of thing.) I mean to provide a link for the fertility rate and replacement fertility rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate (confirmed by several other sources). I would like to see some evidence for that. Still waiting.

Exactly. Who said you could?