Strange

Only because you are considering a larger volume. That would be true even if the universe were not expanding. Correct. I was just pointing out that there are cases where energy does “disappear “ That is the point we are all making: there is no such thing as “the” intensity of the field. It is purely a function of charge and distance.

If the objects move apart because of expansion, certainly. (In any practical case that doesn’t happen.) But the important point is that this just due to the change in distance not a “weakening of the field” as the OP was thinking The usual question asked about this is: if light is redshifted by expansion, where does the energy of the photons go?

A field is just the way we describe the value of something at each point in space. It is not a "thing". It doesn't get stretched and it doesn't have any energy. The force (in the case of the electric field, for example) is proportional to the product of the two charges divided by the square of the distance between them. This is not dependent on the expansion of space (unless it increases the distance between the two charges which, for all sorts of reasons, it won't). Also, the total energy of the universe (in as much as that means anything) seems to be increasing: dark energy is proportional to the volume of space so as space expands, dark energy increases. That could sound as if you are saying something different to me, but I think we are both saying the same thing from a slightly different perspective. You are describing the case where you have a sphere (for example) that gets bigger as space expands. Within (or at the edge of) that sphere the field strength will decrease. I am looking at it from the point of view of two points a fixed distance apart (or a sphere of fixed size) in which case the field strength doesn't change. These are both correct and valid descriptions. The reason I chose mine was that I wanted to emphasise that the field itself doesn't have any sort of "inherent strength" that weakens with expansion. It is only the changing distance (as highlighted in studiot's description) that changes the field strength.

The field itself doesn't have a strength. It is just a way of representing the effect of, say, an electric charge. There is a value of the electric field around a charge that decreases with distance (inverse square law). That relationship won't be changed because space is expanding. But if things are carried away from each other because of expanding space, then obviously the effect of the charge will decrease the same as if they were separated for any other reason. This is only true within a single frame of reference. The concept of energy is hard to define unambiguously in GR so the total energy of the universe is not well defined.

Good. I just wanted to clarify that there was no misunderstanding there. So, as the brain is a physical object how does it exist independently of the physical world that is created by the brain? This raises an important question: what objective tests can be made of your hypothesis? What testable predictions does it make? In other words, how could it be falsified? Note that your question about what can be demonstrated to be factually incorrect, is the wrong question. Much of your hypothesis is not factual. For example, your claims about the "underlying actuality" are not facts, they are hypotheses that need to be tested. So, how do we do this?

"The sense of pansexual that is most often encountered today is defined as “of, relating to, or characterized by sexual desire or attraction that is not limited to people of a particular gender identity or sexual orientation.” " https://www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch/janelle-monae-out-as-pansexual-20180426

Yes. If you push something, it pushes back (at the same time). I don't think I understand the rest of your questions ...

I wasn't expecting that.

As an example, the first time I provided information about "zero point energy", you [interested, not swansont] said "wow, thats amazing I have never heard of that before". When I provided the same link a couple of weeks later your reaction was almost identical. This is slightly odd.

How can it be "organic" if it is "non-physical"? That would require a redefinition of organic. So, in the true spirit of philosophical enquiry, what do you mean by "organic"? BTW, the idea that reality is a construct of the mind is a rather old idea. It is of little interest to science, because it is irrelevant. It is just a metaphysical, unfalsifiable belief. And if by "brain", you mean "mind" then you get an F for Clarity. And an F- for Raising An Interesting Topic. No it hasn't because it is (or could be) just a construct of the mind, like the rest of our perceived reality. That is why it is impossible to know what "Reality" really is, or even if it exists.

Although equating these doesn't really make any sense, you can equate the proper form of the equation for photons: [math]E^{2}=p^{2} c^{2} + m^{2} c^{4}[/math] A photon has no mass, so: [math]E^{2}=p^{2} c^{2} [/math] [math]E=p c[/math] Now we can equate this: [math]E = p c = h f [/math] Substituting for c = f * L (in your notation): [math]E = p f \lambda = h f [/math] Therefore: [math] p = \frac {h}{\lambda} [/math], which is correct. One thing you have repeatedly avoided is the fact that E=hf is an observed property of photons. And the units of h are chosen to make there elationship work.

And another article on a different inter-cellular communication mechanism; this time one that could have evolved from/to/with viruses: https://www.quantamagazine.org/cells-talk-in-a-language-that-looks-like-viruses-20180502/

Close. A line that just follows curved space would appear straight to us (a geodesic). Like great circles on the surface of the Earth. It is the fact that objects or light travel through curved space-time that we can detect the change in direction caused by passing a massive object.

It is Negasonic Teenage Warhead from Deadpool

The arithmetic is pretty simple, but there is a handy online calculator here: http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ You can plug a value into any field and it will calculate everything else. Because it would be so brief, the total energy output would be about 100 kilotons of TNT (quite a big bomb) - based on the mass and e=mc2.

I had assumed it was because you were a fan of string theory. Mine came about because I want to call myself Oji [old man] on the first forum I joined but the software wouldn't let me. So I borrowed the title of the famous (?) song "Henna Oji-san" [strange old geezer] but people started shortening it to Henna, which didn't make any sense. So I changed it to Strange. Avatar? I just loved the character and that scene from the movie so I added the caption because it seemed appropriate to a lot of threads here. (There was also a thing on a forum - not sure if it was this one or somewhere else - where several people switched to female avatars to highlight a problem with how some female [or female-avatared] members were being treated by a few posters.)

If only ... Microsoft seem to be the worst for this. On their forums, there are always official support people who provide completely stupid and unhelpful replies. Typical example: User: "I want to change the display resolution, but when I open the display properties dialog, the resolution settings are disabled (grayed-out). What can I do?" MS Support Idiot: "If I understand you correctly you want to change the display resolution, but when you open the display properties dialog, the resolution settings are disabled (grayed-out). To resolve this issue you need to open the display properties and you can adjust the resolution settings there. I hope this was helpful". Their responses are so formulaic and universally unhelpful, I suspect they are just chatbots.

It would weigh a few micrograms, be about as bright as all the stars in the universe put together and disappear in a tiny fraction of a second.

I wonder how you avoid a cyclic dependency, an infinite regress, here. Because the brain is a thing with physical reality, and yet you claim that it creates physical reality. So what causes the existence of the brain? Another brain or ... ? And if "truth" were objective, then it is also unknowable.

How much did they charge you? (I bet it would have been cheaper, and just as credible, to "publish" it on Vixra.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeuroQuantology So the brain itself does not have any physical reality?

I don't think so. They are an inevitable consequence of the quantisation of fields described by wave-functions. Almost certainly. Although I'm not sure what! It is possible that the non-zero vacuum energy is the cause of dark energy, but it is much too large so that is a problem. It may also be related to the vacuum permeability and permittivity but I don't know if/how that would be.

The fluctuations are a consequence of the uncertainty principle which, in turn, is a consequence of the fact that particles are described by the wave function. I don't think there is a way of explaining why, without getting into some fairly complex maths!

The actual numerical values are, as swansont said, because of the arbitrary man-made units we use for measurement. In Planck units (where c=1, etc) they are both equal to 1. In a way this makes sense because you can (kind of) think of them as the "stiffness" (or something like that) of the electromagnetic field to electric and magnetic forces - one might expect these to be the same. So the only reason that permeability and permittivity appear to be different is because of the units we use.

There are (possibly) two different questions here. Excuse me if I labour the point to make these explicit. But I think it is worth it to avoid any confusion (even if only by others reading the thread). One is how the galaxy can stay together if there is expansion of space. (I don't think this is what you are asking, but just in case ...) The expansion only happens in the empty space between galaxy clusters. Galaxies and galaxy clusters are held together by gravity and so are not affected by expansion. The second one is why we don't see a difference in red-shift between the front and back when there is a time difference between them (and so the the distance and the red-shift should have changed in that time). This is a good question (and quite subtle). Mordred has answered this, but maybe it is worth putting some numbers on it. A quick search suggests that the typical accuracy of measurements of z (the amount of red-shift) is around 10%. Lets assume that someone is able to make really accurate measurements of z to an accuracy of 1% for a galaxy that is 1 billion light years away. That means the uncertainty in the measurement is 10 million light years. Your 100,000 year difference is just 1% of this, or 10,000 times smaller than we can measure. And so it is completely undetectable. You would need to watch that galaxy for at least 10 million years to spot any change in red shift. In other words: "Space is big. Really big. You just won' t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

Important to note the difference between having an infinite number of digits (in a particular representation) and an infinite value. So 1/3rd is a finite value even though it requires an infinite number of digits to represent it (in decimal; in base 3 it is just 0.1).