Strange

That's odd. I'm pretty sure I just hit the quote button. Unfortunately, it is too late for me to edit it now. Sorry about that.

It depends which interpretation you choose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics Science doesn't deal with what "really" happens, just what we can observe. It is your philosophical choice as to whether it is real or not. (And you would also need to define what you mean by "real".)

Not of infinite duration. A single frequency must last for an infinite time to be a single frequency. A "real" signal will not be of infinite duration and therefore cannot be a single frequency. I don't think the uncertainty principle is particularly related to this topic, it is just another example where the Fourier transform means that if you define one thing more precisely (e.g. a shorter signal or the position of a particle) then the complementary property (e.g. bandwidth or momentum) is less precise. You are, of course, free to believe that. But there is no scientific basis for it being impossible. Energy, and specifically energy conservation, is not well defined on cosmological scales anyway. Sorry: autocorrect error. Should have been "point-like". So a photon has no well-defined position in space (or size). So, for example, it is able to go through both slits of a double slit experiment. But, when it interacts, it always happens at a single pint (an atom in the detector, for example). A classical wave is divisible; it can split at the surface of a piece of glass with half passing through and half being reflected. An individual photon cannot split like that. It is either entirely reflected or entirely passes through. An atom can absorb a whole photon or nothing. This is why the photoelectric effect was so important to establishing the quantised nature of light. As far as we can tell, there are a number of fundamental particles (electrons, photons, quarks, etc) that are indivisible. That is an odd question when I have just said they are not particles. You may be describing the Stern-Gerlach experiment which showed that spin is quantised and is not directly related to the particle-like nature. (Unless you consider that the fact that all quantum properties are quantised to be an indication of the particle-ness of quanta.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern–Gerlach_experiment There is a clear distinction: science deals in testable models, philosophy doesn't. He means, he doesn't think it is reasonable to think that what we can see and measure is all there is. That there is something "beyond" that. Something spiritual or numinous. (I hope you are not trying to defend the "I don't know anything about it but I am thinking outside the box" argument of crackpots. Who don't even know where the box is or what is in it.) If your lamp emits single photons, then it either emits a photon or doesn't. It can't emit a partial photon or emit a photon gradually. The photon is either there or it isn't.

But the effect we observe is LARGE therefore effect that is too small to measure is irrelevant. So again this falsifies your model. The trouble is you are mixing nonsense with science. If you posted your religious nonsense in thread of its own I would ignore it. But if you pretend it has some scientific relevance it then I will have no hesitation in ridiculing it. This is not mean spirited.

So it is "subtle" but causes a large and easily measured effect? I don't get that. There is a huge difference from the rotation speeds predicted by Newtonian gravity and yet the effect predicted by your model is less than the error bars? The discrepancy in rotation curves is not dependent on the mass of orbiting particles it applies equally to stars and hydrogen atoms So does this mean that your model predicts an effect too small to be measured? But the actual effect is measurable therefore your model is wrong. Sigh. GR is not needed here. MOND-like theories don't work. There are multiple lines of evidence indicating that dark matter is some form of matter. It is very dangerous to let your baseless beliefs blind you to the facts.

You mean Newtonian gravity doesn't work on galactic scales? After all, you don't need GR to determine that there is a problem. But what about all the other evidence that dark matter is some form of matter. Your god is a trickster and liar like Loki, then?

And they all also think you travelled different distances. So, to my mind, this is the problem with thinking it is a "physical" effect (depending, of course, what you think that word means): you can't be different ages at the same time. It is probably more accurate to say it is a measurement effect. The change in measurements is real not just a matter of "appearance".

In this case, it was just a mathematical abstraction. If you want to consider a single frequency then the waveform has to extend for infinity. If you consider a shorter signal, then it will consist of a mixture of frequencies. (This, incidentally, is the basis of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.) Infinity may exist in reality if the universe is infinite. I agree, calling quanta of light "particles" can lead to confusion. But in the case of electrons and all the other fermions, it seems natural to call the particles. So it seems we are stuck with the terminology. But photons are neither waves not particles. They have some wave-like properties (e.g. we can measure their wavelength) and they have some particle-like properties (their interactions are post-like and indivisible). But they are neither waves nor particles.

Obviously not. You are in your own rest frame, no? And you are seen as "physically shorter" by observers moving relative to you (and there are a near infinite number of those moving at different speeds and directions). But you are not contracted by all sorts of different amounts in different directions (in your own frame of reference) are you. This is purely a matter of what you mean by "physically" or "appears". In other words, it is an issue of semantics (or ontology, if you insist) not physics.

So I don't get this. I have heard others call the Big Bang model some sort of left-wing atheist conspiracy. But that doesn't make sense. Although the theory says nothing about creation, it can easily be interpreted to imply a creation event. So why isn't this loved by those who believe in a creator? Can you explain this? (Also, this is a profoundly unscientific or even anti-scientific attitude. But we have another thread on that, so I'll say no more.)

A lot of people who experience it say the same thing. It doesn't need an external stimulus.

I still can't see how it is different from ASMR. What you describe sounds exactly the same. You haven't said how it is different.

Sounds like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_sensory_meridian_response

To judge that, one would have to see the published science on eugenics. Is there any? I would not be surprised if there were a genetic component to those things. I'm not sure why you assume there isn't. Again, there may be a genetic component to those things. But that doesn't say anything about the validity of eugenics.

No. That only applies to the observable universe. If the whole universe is 150 times (or 1 million times) larger than the observable universe then it always been that much larger. (It may be that the expansion was not completely uniform so perhaps the ratios have not always been constant.) There is, as far as we know, no upper limit to how big the universe could be. It could be infinite. It sounds like you are thinking of "the Big Bang" as a thing or an event. It is a process: the universe is getting cooler and less dense over time.

The rotational speed is independent of the mass of the orbiting bodies. For example, rotation curves are measured for stars (of various sizes) and gas. You should be able to find the data you need here: http://astroweb.case.edu/SPARC/

Those two sentences are mutually contradictory. It cannot be a theory with no mathematics. How do you test your idea for correctness without calculating the predicted results? No one is going to accept it just because you "believe" it is correct. It may be allowable but it is a waste of time.

Related to that, those engaging in pseudo-science start out convinced that they are correct and will then cast around looking for bits of evidence that they can interpret as supporting their idea. (You will see this in most of the "Speculations" threads on this and similar forums.) A scientific approach is to remain sceptical of the hypothesis, however attached to it you are, and evaluate all the evidence. If it turns out that this shows your idea to be wrong, then back to the drawing board.

So you could say that the opposite of loving someone else is loving yourself ...

Until you have a model that matches observation, you have no basis for that claim.

I haven't seen this paradox before. It looks quite likely that the explanation, again, is relativity of simultaneity; in other words, each frame of reference has a different view of what "first" means.

Again, until you can show in suitable mathematical detail that your idea produces the observed rotation curves in galaxies AND galaxy clusters then there is no point writing any more tl;dr screeds. Note that matching the observed effects of "dark matter" in both galaxies and galaxy clusters has been one of the main problems for attempts to explain dark matter as modified gravity.

I don't mean that the theory of relativity is intuitive; it is not. But some models describing it seem more natural than others. Although it seems that tastes can vary. Dark matter is required by purely Newtonian models of gravity and so has nothing to do with GR. We can't ignore the evidence and need to find an explanation. The easiest solution seems to be some form of matter (an idea that works with Newtonian and GR) which is reinforced by observations of dark matter through gravitational lensing. But it could still require a change to our model of gravity. Dark energy is purely a placeholder. It happens that it can be modelled as energy (hence the name) but it could be an indication that we need a new model of gravity. So, as I say, you can change the coordinate system so you have variable speed of light and keep other things constant. But if that is all you do, you still need to explain the effects that are labelled "dark energy". They don't just go away with a new coordinate system. You need to show, mathematically, that this gives us the observed rotation curves.

Without an explanation of how relativity of simultaneity solves this, I'm not sure it will. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

To some extent, the answer to this question depends more on what you mean by "appears","physically", "real", etc. It is not just an optical illusion but nothing actually changes in the object that is length contracted. For example, one of the best examples of length contraction is the fact that when we collide protons in a particle accelerator they are flattened by length contraction. This is seen in the way they bounce off each other; this can only be explained by colliding "disks" rather than spheres. But if you were moving alongside the particles, they would still be spherical. And, for example, you are currently moving at nearly the speed light relative to something (e.g. the particles in that accelerator, or the muons mentioned before) but you don't feel squashed by that.