Strange

We can reduce the mass of something and release it as energy (fusion and fission, for example). We can even remove all the mass and convert it to energy (e.g. matter-antimatter annihilation).

You don't have to say this at all. You have your own thread. Don't hijack someone else's thread with your own nonsense. This is purely for their nonsense. Let's at least try and keep the nonsense organised!

Why should properties behave the same? Mass, charge, energy, spin, momentum ... they are all properties. Do any of them have the same behaviour?

His stuff is always worth reading. I haven't seen that one before but it looks good. Nicely, he defines the terms he is using. And he also doesn't, contrary to the OP's claims, think that energy is a "thing" (or "stuff"). I don't think any physicists do.

Is this about string theory? Sounds more like the Many World's Interpretation of QM or one of the many multiverse hypotheses (just had a look and it seems that some of those do depend on string theory). But even if there are multiple universes, only things that are possible can happen so there is obviously no universe where Trump is president. That's just silly!

But that assume "stuff" and "thing" are the same ... er, thing.

What is I5? What is AP? What is C.D? What is T1? What is "Ipn series"? And how is it calculated? What is "Number of series"? And how is it calculated? You are not explaining yourself well. Try a few proper sentences. Try a spell. checker. Try explaining what all your abbreviations mean.

You have once again made a leap to "there must be an entity" with no evidence whatsoever. It doesn't follow logically from anything you say that "there must be an entity". This is simply based on your belief that there is an entity, and you are trying to justify it post hoc. And now an argument from incredulity: "this is the only thing I can imagine, therefore it must be true". You have evidence of that? No. Of course not. Well, that would make a pleasant change. You are failing abysmally. And what would your "necessary being" be if not your god? If you, as a believer, cannot produce any evidence, then I have to assume that there isn't any. Evolution. Chance. Nothing to do with your god. Unless you have evidence that your god hates unicorns and let them all die on The Flood.

You can if you do something novel (inventive, non-obvious) based on the information in the paper. But you cannot patent what is in the paper.

It is well know that heating and cooling can causes stresses between materials with different thermal characteristics. I don't see why the length of time would be significant. The general advice is to avoid turning systems on and of to minimise the effects of thermal stress. I think you would need some good evidence that this is the case, rather the failure of one old monitor.

If that is what you think, I suggest you get someone to throw bricks at you. Then come back and tell us it is not observable. How do you define "thing"? You can say that energy is or is not a "thing" unless you define precisely what you mean by that.

There is not point asking us. You made it up, so you need to explain it. Is it? Do have any evidence to support that claim? For it to be theoretical, you would need a model and evidence. You have neither. It isn't even hypothetical. You are just making stuff up again.

Well, if you are just going to dismiss the evidence because it disagrees with you beliefs, then maybe a science forum isn't really the best place for you. You assert this with no evidence or logical argument. Let me provide an equally detailed refutation of your argument: you are wrong. OK? Please explain how "ever-changing structured asymmetry" is a shape? Also, you appear to be using "shape" in. a non-standard way. Perhaps you could define what you mean by the word "shape"? And what evidence do you have that anyone has experienced "ever-changing structured asymmetry"? Basically, refusing to answer questions and simply repeating your personal beliefs is not a very constructive way to hold a discussion.

I don't know how they did it, but a common trick is Pepper's Ghost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper's_ghost

No one cares about what you "see" or believe. Unless you can provide a mathematical model and evidence. it is rather obvious that atoms are electrically neutral and so there can be no such force. It is you delusions that are lacking evidence and are therefore indistinguishable from nonsense. Because you need something to do the pushing. That something must have physically contradictory and impossible properties: it must be able to pass through the Earth as if it weren't there but also be able to push against things. And if it pushes against things then it must dissipate energy. And a push cannot properly reproduce the way gravity actually works. Plus you have no evidence for it. But apart from that ... Matter isn't expanding.

I guess he was aiming for Trash and missed (probably miscalculated gravity)

Publishing in a paper provides no protection for the ideas. (Although the actual words and diagrams of the description are protectedly copyright.) In fact, if the process is not already patented, then publishing a paper will stop anyone getting a patent on it.

At large scales, the universe becomes increasingly homogeneous and isotropic. Or, to put it another way: no. So is "ever-changing structured asymmetry" a shape? How many sides does it have? Will you please stop making stuff up and posting contradictory nonsense. How about answering some questions? Like: How do you know the universe has a shape? Please provide the evidence for this. How do you know what shape the universe is? Please provide the evidence for this. How do you know the universe is finite? Please provide the evidence for this.

So how is expansion from a white hole not expansion from a point in space? Can we see the mathematical proof of that? Or is just a baseless claim? No. I am trying to discourage you from speculating and to learn some basic physics instead. If white holes exist (there is no reason to think they do) and Hawking radiation exists (possible) then it would be interesting to know what the equivalent of Hawking radiation would be for a white hole. Given that a white hole is, mathematically, a time reversed black hole, then the equivalent of Hawking radiation should be "Hawking absorption". There is no reason to think that the fact that hypothetical white holes could absorb radiation has any connection with quantum foam or the expansion of space. Both of which already have explanations. By wanting to replace the existing explanations, you need to replace all of quantum theory and general relativity. Can you have that done by teat time tomorrow? How can it connect all points in space? A wormhole (if such a thing exists) connects two points. Again: these things already have well tested theories explaining them. What are you going to replace those with? Because that is just some random words you made up. Bit on the other hand, we have scientific theories ...

And, to add to what Mordred said, they cannot share a common field. Each type of particle is a quantum of the corresponding field.

And the evidence shows that it has evolved from an early hot dense state. And yet, the evidence ... That was one of the first pieces of evidence. At the time, there were multiple other explanations possible. But then came the detection of the CMB and, so far, no other theory has been able to explain that. You can make up any number of ideas. The important thing is to test them against the evidence.

The thing about GR is that there is no need for a higher dimensional space to embed the geometry/topology of the universe in. This is because the curvature of space-time is intrinsic. I'm not going to attempt to explain this, and I don't know a good way of visualising it!

I assumed it was something along those lines, but couldn't work out what the OP was doing.

Part of the problem is what meant by the word "shape". In current cosmological models, the universe has no boundary. How does that relate to the concept of "shape"? Also, the measured geometrical flatness of the universe could suggest that it is infinite in extent. On the other hand, it could mean that the universe has a more complex topology than we expect. For example, a toroid has a finite surface area (with no boundary) but is geometrically flat. I don't know how that relates to the word "shape" as used by the OP, either.

Don't bother. I don't watch videos. (They are the worst possible way of explaining things.) If you can't explain it here in a few sentences, then this is obviously such an impossibly complicated process that it isn't worth spending any time on.