Strange

This, and the entirety, of the rest of your post is entirely and 100% a religious statement. But you could monetise this. There is a lot of money to be made from selling religion - as the inventor of Scientology demonstrated. (Although he also went mad: swings and roundabouts )

As this is a belief without evidence, it is basically a religious belief. But I have seen lots of discussions by people who think we were created by an alien intelligence or are part of a simulation or ... So your belief may not be unique. And your belief you can’t discuss it appears to be false.

That is an odd use of the word intelligent.

Partly because that is what the theory says - and the theory is confirmed by evidence. But also, how could you changing your own speed affect other people’s clocks?

What is “this information “? And what does it have to do with dividing by zero? It also can’t rule out finite but very, very large. It also can’t rule out finite but very, very large. Or that the observable universe is flat but overall the universe is not.

OK. So we can safely ignore your opinion as it is entirely unsupported. (This thread went off topic a longtime ago - it is a series of random non sequiturs from 1x0.)

There needs to be the possibility of evidence. In other words, it has to be testable and falsifiable to be scientific. It doesn't need to have been tested already to be a scientific hypothesis (or theory, in the language of theoretical physics). Although I have come across one person who thought that a theory he didn't like wasn't scientific because it hadn't been falsified (as opposed to being falsifiable). In other words, he would only accept it as scientific if science showed it to be wrong. They are both scientific. The steady state model was consistent with the evidence at the time; once the CMB was discovered it became harder for the steady state model to adapt to the evidence. The big bang model has always been consistent with the available evidence.

Fair comment. Insanely crackpotty?

Thoughts affect the outside world just as (or no more) directly than emotions. Your emotions don't affect people by magic but because you do something. Your thoughts don't affect people (or computers) by magic but because you do something. There is no difference between thoughts and emotions in this respect.

As it says in the article: "polyester resin: This can be bought at some craft and hardware shops. It is used to make those paperweights that you see with bugs, flowers, and other pretty things embedded in them. It is not that expensive but it is good to shop around. Do a Google search on 'casting resin' to find online options and add your location for local suppliers." The resin comes with an "activator" or catalyst that makes it go hard. Note that "orgone" and "orgonite" are meaningless words made up by insane crackpots. But if you want to make a pretty paperweight then go ahead.

Well your thoughts and knowledge are causing black and white patterns to appear on my computer screen, so I guess they can influence matter. I'm not sure they are that rigid. The energy and wavelength depend on the observer, for example.

Not really. Energy and mass are properties that things can have. Matter has mass and can also have energy. Photons, for example, have energy but no mass. Electrons are a component of matter (whether they are themselves matter depends on how you define "matter" ). This sentences is very ambiguous: it is not clear what you are saying is a property of matter. Electrons are "substance" in that they have a variety of physical properties (mass, charge, energy, etc) and you can count them and put them in swansont's bucket. One definition is that it is anything with mass and physical extent (ie. size). Another is that it is anything made up of electrons,porotons and neutrons in other words, made of atoms). I don't think it is very accurate or useful. It is not a choice between those. The earliest state of the universe was a quark-gluon plasma (I'm not sure if electrons already existed at that point or not). This had mass and energy. Whether it is matter or not depends how you define "matter". They are not equal, but they are equivalent:we can convert one into the other and these equation tells us how much energy we will get from a certain amount of mass.

I am certainly not saying it doesn't happen. I am well aware that it appears to (although I haven't heard of increased risk of depression being an epigenetic effect before). But the idea that someone should change their career choice because of the epigenetic risks to their offspring just seems a bit odd.

What is "absolute" about it if it isn't universal? (I will ignore your attempt to drag your pet theory into this. Let's hope the moderators don't notice.)

I think that is wrong. The black holes themselves have no mechanism for releasing energy, other than as gravitational waves. There have been no optical counterparts observed for the gravitational waves from black holes.

That seems to be a slightly different question. But if stress could increase the probability of depression in the next generation (and I'm not aware that such a thing is possible) then that suggests everyone should avoid stressful situations "just in case". That doesn't seem a very practical plan.

Ditto.

On reflection, maybe you see it twice.

Yes, relative phase is important. If you connect one of your stereo speakers up the wrong way round, it will be very obvious! Changes in phase can be audible as well.

We know (from the evidence) that the universe was once full of hot dense matter so this "infinite void" doesn't seem to be consistent with the evidence. A black hole doesn't have a particular mass. It can, in principle, have any mass. It is concentrating that mass in a volume smaller than the Schwarzschild radius that makes it into a black hole. I'm not sure that lumps of matter casually bumping into each other can lead to that (if it could, I would expect the solar system to be full of black holes). If two black holes came into contact, they would merge to form a larger black hole not a burst of matter. (We have observed this happen via gravitational waves.) Your description seems to imply an explosion of matter into empty space. That is not consistent with the Big Bang model or the evidence. People have suggested this: that there might be distant areas of the universe that are made of antimatter. Various observations have been made to see if there is any evidence for this. I don't think it can be ruled out yet. How would that explain the rotation curves of galaxies? There are mainstream theories that suggest multiple island universes (and multiple inflationary processes creating new universes all the time). So you seem to have a few ideas which are not really consistent with the evidence and a couple that others have considered.

This fact is derived from the postulates. Maybe you should start a new thread where you ask someone to explain the basic concepts of relativity to you. This isn't the place for that. They don't. We don't know (and probably can't know) if the universes finite or infinite.

Just a few points on this first sentence before I read the rest of your post.... The Big Bang model describes the expansion of the universe from a hot dense state; it doesn't say anything about the birth of the universe. Naive extrapolations lead to a singularity, which is an indication that out theory is no longer applicable at that point (a bit like a dive-by-zero error when solving an equation). No one thinks that the singularity represents any sort of physical reality. We will probably need a quantum theory of gravity before we can fully understand what happened in the early history of the universe. So preliminary attempts to do this suggest the universe could be infinitely old. And, finally, finding a theory uncanny is not a reason to reject it. Only the evidence can do that. Now I will read on ...

Obviously. Move a few inches towards or away from the source; this will change the relative phase of the harmonics, with no audible effect.

The evidence contradicts this. Where is what coming from? We don't know if there is any beginning. If there was, you could label it as zero. Or you could label now as zero and that time as minus 13 billion years. Or you could label the creation of the solar system as zero which would make the Big Bang about -9 billion years and now about +4.5 billion years. These are all equally valid. But what does any of this have to do with the subject of the thread?

So... maybe it is a good opportunity to introduce people to the wider meaning of dimension.