Strange

So you are saying that this thing you call “physical peak” is measured as age? In other words it increases linearly with age from 0 to 106 (or whatever). I assume that isn’t what you mean so: what is “physical peak” and how do you measure it (ie what tool or instrument do you use)? And what units is it measured in? Why is it so hard for you to explain?

What is “it”? How is it measured?

What is this "state"? How is it measured? How do you know it has a peak value? Can a person's entire physical and psychological condition be captured by a single "state"? Might there be multiple states that peak at different times (if they peak at all)? Is it all downhill from birth? Or all uphill? Does nutrition or disease matter? Your question is a bit like "which is the best animal" or "what is your favourite colour"

You should start a new thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation (and others) There is no "centre of the Big Bang" If there are multiple universes like this then they would be causally separated because they would be receding from each other faster than light There is, currently, no theoretical reasons why large black holes would do this. Only very small black holes can explode. A hypothesis should be based on theory and some evidence. This is more like a wild guess.

Nope.

Nothing in principle. After all you can get a wireless charger for your phone or electric toothbrush now, where you put the device directly on top of the charger and a tiny current is generated. This requires all sorts of advances in modern technology in oder to deliver small currents over short distances. At the time, there wasn't a good theoretical understanding of electricity and radio waves, nor was suitable technology available. And Tesla himself seems to have been driven more by wishful thinking than actual science. This seems to be a good article about the flaws in his ideas: http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/02/22/teslas-folly-why-wardenclyff-didnt-work/ This also suggests that the "radio transmitter" idea was a bit of a con to attract investors.

I am going to put this down to a language problem. It dense;t make much sense otherwise. ???

Depend what you mean by "work". My understanding is that it was originally designed as a radio transmitter. It would have worked for that. Unfortunately he decided to try and implement his crackpot "wireless power" ideas halfway through construction and so the project was abandoned by his (sane) investors.

You seem to have completely missed the point. (Which doesn't surprise me.) Let's try this again from the beginning. What you said: "They [the laws of the universe] concern what we say about the universe." (Note that there is no mention of "through experiments/empirical evidence" so if it is an error to omit that, it is your error. Eise corrected your statement to: "They [the laws of the universe] are what we say about the universe." You quoted this and added a second correction ("through experiments/empirical evidence") which suggests you accept Eise's correction but also had to add your own correction to your original statement. So your current position includes one correction from Eise and one correction from you. Is that clear now? Nope. But you did deny the (rather obvious) physics of how it worked and came up with your own bogus "explanation". But lets not revisit all your previous mistakes. Life is too short.

But not necessarily understood it.

Two of those things are so far in the future that it isn’t worth worrying about. It isn’t worth losing sleep over the fact the speed n will exist lode and destroy the earth in a few billion years. Mob the other hand evolution is a fact and is a good thing, so not quite sure why you lump it in with the others. Please go and seek medical help

Correct. So your nonsense is unnecessary. Are you claiming you can predict earthquakes. That should be easay to test. Please provide precise details and location and time of the next earthquake greater than mag. 8 What are you on? Is this an idea for a bad sci-fi movie?

That is not what you said. But it is what Eise said. So I guess his correction was correct after all. LOLOLOLOLOL

It is a science forum, not a place for your ignorant and hateful opinions. I do not think any of your posts have been deleted. But if you are so sensitive that you can’t cope with people pointing out that what you say is wrong, then a science forum is definitely not the place for you.

Perhaps if you made the wings from (or covered them with) an insulating material?

Note that this cannot be easily combined with your other starting points. The recessional speed of distant galaxies cannot be described in terms of relative speed and SR. For example we can see galaxies receding at more than the speed of light. That's the thing. Scientists (whether they are geniuses or not) don't work in isolation. They constantly discuss their ideas with others. This helps them to test ideas: eliminate the ones that don't work, refine the ones that might, etc. Katie Mack on the "lone genius" idea: http://www.astrokatie.com/blog/2013/06/the-lone-genius-hypothesis.html "Actually doing physics"

Who knows. But bear in mind that only things that are possible can occur. However, there are animals with one horn. And there are animals that are (almost) invisible. So maybe v

Fair point. Although I meant “popular” as opposed to classical, rather than commercially successful. (Although the distinction is probably irrelevant. I expect someone will soon include rap in an opera, if they haven’t already.)

Only 12 years too late. But never mind. Anecdotally, it seems to me that, although professionals in the UK pronounce it KEFF, most laypeople would say SEFF.

The purpose of "life" not the purpose of any one individual. You really are a vile individual. I had assumed you were religious, but most religions encourage people to be nice.

It is happening in all sorts of places. Do you have any support for your claim it isn't? They did. That is an essential part of the process. It seems you don't actually know what you are arguing against. IT happened over millions of years. Why not do some calculations on the amount of biomass that grows each year and how much fuels this would create. Just relying on your incredulity is not very convincing. And a lot of it has leaked. Giving humans easy access to it for millennia. Again this seems an argument based purely on your incredulity. I don't know what this has to do with the subject. So you have no evidence against the formation of fossil fuels. Just your incredulity and ignorance. Forgive me if I don't find that very compelling. One of the great things about science is that it does very often say "we don't know". This includes people who study evolution. There is a great deal we don't know about evolution (as in every branch of science). But the underlying theory is so well supported by (literal) mountains of evidence that there is very little doubt about it. (It is others, such as religious nutters, who refuse to say they don't know. I guess you might be one of them as you use illogical arguments and think that "Darwinist" is a thing.)

As far as we know, the entire universe is full of matter just like the observable universe. I assume it could also be uniformly filled but not repeating like your (d).

It doesn’t lose much energy on each swing.

I am probably of a similar age (or older!) and, much as I love blues, 70s R&B, 60s psychedelia, etc I do think rap is one of the greatest genres of popular music!

True. But there the light from the LED is also modulated to encode the different commands. I would imagine most of them use a simple microcontroller.