Strange

Thanks. I knew I could rely on someone here!

Fascinating. A whole new communication method has been discovered between cells: tunnelling nanotubes. https://www.quantamagazine.org/cells-talk-and-help-one-another-via-tiny-tube-networks-20180423/

I would assume as little as possible; ideally nothing. “The first Friedmann equation describes how, based on what is in the universe, its expansion rate will change over time. If you want to know where the Universe came from and where it’s headed, all you need to measure is how it is expanding today and what is in it. This equation allows you to predict the rest!” https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-most-important-equation-in-the-universe-9153947e399

I'm not sure why ...

That is true, but I don't know what the mechanism is.

If you are thinking of the release of energy from fission rather than fusion., there are a couple of important points to bear in mind. Fission only works with large atoms, such as uranium, which are rare. Fusion happens with small atoms, such as hydrogen, which makes up 90%(?) of the universe. Also, fusion releases a lot more energy than fission. More here: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae534.cfm

Why would you want to "reverse the Sun's energy"? Make it absorb light and heat instead of emitting it?

Good example. But, because you haven't measured it you can't see the change at the other end.

Because in the analogy, it is curvature in the time dimension that brings the two walkers together. It doesn't. I was answering the question from mistermack. He seems to have taken the thread of track slightly - apologies for following him! What is 5d space-time?

I don't think light has ever been defined that way. The usual definition is an electromagnetic wave. At a quantum level, this can be be described as quantum of the electromagnetic field, called a photon. This is not a "union" of a wave and particle, it is something that has some wavelike properties (e.g. wavelength) and some particle-like properties (e.g. localise interaction, indivisibility).

So you were talking about differences, not values? They don't have the value +1 and -1. You could say they have the value +x and -x, I suppose. But it is probably easier to just say they are equal and opposite (or their sum is zero) as we don't know what the values are.

Wow. What a truly appalling example of science "journalism". Thanks for highlighting a web site that is well worth avoiding. On the other hand, an interesting bit of experimental work. A more sensible and informative article about it here: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-atoms-combined-dipolar-molecule.html#jCp And the original paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/04/11/science.aar7797

A value of 1 does mean a positive integer. One more than zero. No, between those values lie an infinite number of values such as -3.141, -3.6, -3.9999. The value of 1 is not between those values (in any number system I am aware of). And it is still not clear how you think a zero energy universe (that's zero energy) can have an energy of one. (And 1 what? 1 Joule, 1 calorie, 1 eV, 1 Planck unit, or ... ?)

No it is not possible. Once you have measured the state (in order to change it) you have broken the entanglement.

Conservation laws. For example, if one of the particles is an electron, you need an positron to balance the charge (and all the other quantum numbers). I can't imagine how it would make any difference. It has a relatively small effect across the whole millions of light years, so I don't see it making much difference to a coupe of particles. (The antiparticle would annihilate with another particle sooner to later anyway). The vacuum energy is about 10120 times too large. Another great mystery waiting to be solved.... There are no outstanding particles int eh standard model. The last one was the Higgs boson. And, sadly, there is still no evidence of particles beyond the standard model. (See the recent thread about results from the LHC - which unfortunately got hijacked by an irrelevant discussion of dark matter). No.

I would say the wave description comes first, and both the non-zero vacuum energy and uncertainty principle are a consequence of that. But on the other hand, I don't think it makes sense to separate cause and effect in something like this.

So you are rejecting all theories of gravity from Newton onwards. I will suggest the mods move this thread to the appropriate place. Where does it stop? And where does Earth's gravity stop? Where does the Sun's gravity stop? "Secrets of nature"? Of course. A search for "fluctuation of tidal forces" on Google produces half a million results, 45,000 results on Google Scholar and several hundred on Arxiv. So it would appear you are wrong about this as well.

Well, as far gravity is concerned, it is the curvature in the time dimension that is more significant. It is not clear to me that intrinsic curvature of a 4D manifold can be represented as a radius (or even four radiuses). The "common point" in 4D space-time would be the centre of a massive object (more obvious in the case of black hole, where that becomes a point of infinite curvature). And what is 5D space-time?

If you don't have anything relevant to say, maybe consider not saying anything?

In addition to Prometheus excellent answer, I would just add that saying: is not very helpful. In general you need to say what sort of errors (including the specific error message): syntax errors, execution errors, just the wrong output , etc...

There is a HUGE difference between lacking evidence and Tour's claim that we know pretty much nothing. As Moontanman says, we have lots of evidence for many of the possible processes involved from the very earliest pre-biotic stages right through to the symbiotic development of organelles in cells. Yes, there are gaps. But that doesn't mean we know nothing.

While that may apply in some cases (defenders of Creationism seem to have no problem with lying to support their case, for example) this is slightly broader. Rather like Apollo hoax believers using data from NASA in their arguments: if that data from NASA is OK, why not the rest. This is slightly more than just cherry-picking data because it relies on using a source to discredit the same source (on another forum, someone is using data from a single NASA document to "prove" that the conclusions of the same document must be wrong).

It describes the way that the relative paths of particles moving forwards in time change in the spatial direction(s). As an analogy, imagine two people walking forwards, side by side, on a flat plane. Their paths will remain parallel over time. In fact, we can consider the direction they are walking as the "time" dimension (they are moving steadily into the future) and the distance between them as a space dimension. On the the flat plane, the distance between them doesn't change over time. Now put them on the surface of the Earth and have them both walk towards the North Pole. As they move forwards (in time) they get closer together. No force is acting on them, it is just a consequence of the curved geometry they are travelling in. You can consider them falling towards one another because of the gravity of the curved space-time they are in. More here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/einstein.html

Yes, it is space-time curvature. No. Space and time. That doesn't change the curvature of space-time. (Except, of course, there will be some curvature associated with your own mass and that will move as you do.) In a given distribution of mass, the curvature is fixed.

Huh? It seems a perfectly normal ability that most people have (or can learn).