Strange

Just saying it is BS is not a very productive argument. Perhaps you could provide some more (ideally mathematical) detail to support that view? As far as I know that has nothing to do with the zero energy universe. Perhaps you explain why you mention it? There are all sorts of possibilities. For example: https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation I though you said that was impossible?

So you're saying that the surface of a black hole (one common application of the holographic principle) does not exist in 2 of the 3 dimensions of space but in a fourth dimension? And why isn't the 2D surface (almost certainly not a plane) two extra dimensions? Science is not about opinions. It is about models and evidence.

Firstly, nothing is ever "proven" in science. And, no, obviously it hasn't been directly tested at infinity. It would be practically impossible to measure the Earth's gravitation field outside the solar system (and probably even within it). But the theories we have, which have been tested and confirmed, predict that it does in fact go on forever. Which brings us to the point of this thread: it is not a place for you to question established science but to provide some support for your idea. So, what is the mathematical basis for gravitation field having an edge? Please show us in appropriate mathematical detail that your model of "dense" space-time produces the same results as GR (in other words, the same results as experiments).

I assume not. (Which is why I used a conditional form.) But she could learn, if she wanted to . Do you really think no one can learn new skills and choose a new career? Or is it only people who have become famous that somehow become unable to do that? Or that if they do they are ruled out from using their new skills because they are famous?

My very crude explanation would be: Particles are described by a wave function which (among other things) describes the probability of being in a particular location. In the simplest case, there is a single peak in the wave function corresponding to the most likely position for that particle. The fact that the wave function is distributed over space (all of space) explains the non-locality of quantum behaviour. For example, the wave function of the particle going through the double slit experiment, is affected by both slits and any other measuring apparatus associated with the experiment. Hence, making a measurement can change the behaviour of the wave function and hence the outcome of the experiment. (After going through the two slits, the wave function has multiple peaks for the location, corresponding to the interference pattern.) There is no time delay associated with such non-local effects (because no information is transferred). But the wave function doesn't have to be that simple. Under the right circumstances you can create two particles described by a single wave function that has two, corresponding to the position (and other properties) of each particle. Because it is a single wave function, anything that affects it (e.g. making a measurement) will affect both particles equally. With no time delay. This is not how everyday objects behave so it is not how we expect things to behave. But being counter to our intuitions doesn't make it wrong, or mean that there must be some other explanation that fits better with our ape-expectations. Now its your turn: explain exactly how "extra dimensions explain a lot." I can give you a vague explanation because there is the mathematical formalism and supporting evidence to back it up, if you want it. You cannot just say "extra dimensions explain a lot" without some rationale or evidence for that claim. You might as well say "invisible pink unicorns explain a lot".

Do you have any mathematics for this model? Can you show (mathematically) that your model produces Newton's inverse square law? Can your model successfully replicate all the (tested and confirmed) predictions of General Relativity?

Good! Interestingly, I have heard of a few examples in Britain that run the other way. Apparently objectionable politicians get repeatedly elected because they do great work for their local constituents. One example was Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland, who was load-mouthed and offensive, contributed to the outbreak of the "Troubles" and opposed the peace process. But apparently he worked really hard and effectively for his constituents which was one of the main reasons he remained in power.

I hope so. You are right. These things are much more tightly regulated in the UK than the USA. There are (quite modest) limits on all these things. I don't know the figures (it would be quite easy to check) but I imagine it is possible that the total spent by all parties for a general election in the UK could be less than the amount donated (anonymously?) by one person to a single candidate in the US. And even in the UK there are occasional calls to remove private election funding from parties and just give them a fixed amount of money from the state. There would obviously be a lot of resistance to introduce such limits in the USA. But it would probably be a step in the right direction, if it could be done. I guess trying to limit the amount, timing or balance of political advertising would be objected to on the grounds of "free speech" but there doesn't seem any real impediment to limiting other things (apart from lobbying and money). And that's another thing. In the UK, the broadcast media are regulated so that they have to give balanced coverage of all political parties. Obviously, this would be considered anathema to many Americans. Gerrymandering seems to be another major problem in the US. Again, in the UK this is handled by an independent commission (obviously, one can question exactly how independent they are but ...)

Top quote someone from another thread, "good luck with that!" I think it is an admirable goal but I just can't see it happening. The best we can do is elect people who are able to remain decent despite the huge amounts of money around them. (Whether Oprah fits that description or not, I don't know.)

Effectively, yes. Gravitational time dilation depends on gravitational potential. As such it is dependent on the mass of the planet and inversely dependent on the radius. On the other hand the surface gravity varies with mass and (inversely) radius-squared.

I'm not saying you have, but back in the real world (rather than your increasingly bizarre fantasy scenarios) that IS the main risk factor.

This is getting a bit silly. You are adding more and more "epicycles" to your argument to try and narrow it down to an extreme (and extremely unusual) example where we are forced to acknowledge that the woman could have behaved better. However, in the vast majority of cases, the only "dangerous behaviour" the victim engaged in was continuing to be female. I struggle to see why they should either try to avoid that or accept any blame for it.

They are being human. That is what we are trying to explain to you. Have you ever lost anyone close to you (as in, bereaved)? Because one of the first things one feels in that situation is ... guilt. You know, "I should have spotted the symptoms earlier". Or, "I should have phoned more often". Or, "why didn't I ..." This is a perfectly normal (not irrational) human reaction. And as someone dying is not (usually) something we can be blamed for, the guilt and self-blame is a subjective feeling that has nothing to do with the objective facts of the situation. So, again, trying to use this normal human reaction to try and assign some level of blame or responsibility to the victim (even if that doesn't remove any blame from the perpetrator) is just wrong.

That is not how gravity works.

But nothing to do with correlation. We weren't talking about dark matter and dark energy, or how gravity works. But entanglement does not need more spatial dimensions to explain it. It is explained already using 3 spatial dimensions. But now you mention it, dark matter, dark energy and how gravity works don't appear to need four spatial dimensions, either. But if you have a model to explain these things butter than our boring old 3D models, then feel free to share it with us.

If she were suitably qualified and experienced, why not?

There is no science behind that. "Holographic Entanglement Entropy" Wouldn't that imply that fewer dimensions are required, not more. (Not that it is particularly relevant, anyway.)

He was fairly right wing, even for a Republican. And he and Thatcher made a pretty appalling couple. But then I would think that, wouldn't I.

Was Reagan an embarrassment? Well, OK. Occasionally! Arnie was pretty good as The Gubernator. I don't see why being successful in one role automatically precludes you from being successful at something else.

No! Even as I typed it ...

I haven't read every post in this thread. I just skimmed back a few pages and couldn't see anything like this. Could you link to an example or two?

Didn't really want to take this thread off topic (too late!) but if you want a good, detailed analysis of the explanations that do and don't work: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html

That is a very different subject, and one that might deserve its own thread. This thread was about the inappropriate use of power. (But, no, I am not convinced that the woman in a case like that should blame herself or be blamed by others.) I think this is a straw man. Is anyone saying that blaming oneself excuses the perpetrator?

Thank you. That wasn't so hard, was it. I still don't see how you make the logical leap from "a thing that intelligent agents do" to "the purpose of intelligence". But I really can't be bothered to waste another week trying to wring some more detail out of you.

Maybe worth noting that it is not how a Crooke's Radiometer works, despite the fact that they are often described that way. (And, having just checked, another common explanation [that there is pressure from gas warmed by the dark side] is also incorrect!)