Strange

The wikipedia page you mention does not mention entanglement. Where did you get the information that entanglement is involved?

And, avoiding the action genre, there are several films about women that have largely (or even entirely) female casts.

So why did you lie about begin Christian? Is lying part of your form of Buddhism? I see no reason to believe anything else you say now.

Not all (but still too many). For example: Haywire The Hunger Games Wonder Woman Moana And probably lots more that I can't think of right now.

I am not going to watch your crappy video but there are several logical flaws just in the still image. For example, there is no logical reason to say that time has no meaning without a beginning an end. Also, you seem to draw the wrong conclusion from that. If time must have a beginning and an end (which is what you claim) then that means time is finite, not infinite. Basically, you are talking nonsense.

That may be true (given that you are not using "theory" in a scientific sense). But it has nothing to with science. You don't know that. That sounds more like Christianity again.

But, but ... A Christian Buddhist monk? I don't think you are a professor or an American citizen either. No, I think the problem is that you have no idea what science is or what they means. I would like to say that you will be missed but, unlike you, I don't like lying.

There is a physical difference between "erased" and data stored. Storing data means injecting electrons through an insulator onto an isolated conductor. So there will be a difference in energy (and, presumably, the number of electrons). I haven't done any calculations yet but it seems surprising that it would be easy to measure...

It does seem implausible. I haven't watched the video and I don't know where it is from.

It is accurate, apart from the implication that there is some sort of data transmission. Note that the 10,000 c is a lower limit. It is possible/likely that it is instantaneous. The point about an entangled system is that it is a single entity. So, in swansont's coin analogy, you wouldn't expect any delay between one side being heads and the other tails. They happen at the same time because they are a single thing. That sounds like an attempt at a "hidden variables" explanation, which we know doesn't work.

I think that is the last of the 9 billion names of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God

I assume the only reason for using a large number of large capacity cards is to make the difference large enough to be measurable. It would work with a 64GB card but you would need a much more precise scale to measure the effect.

Well, actually it isn't. Because of quantum theory, we know that space is not empty. There is a non-zero amount of energy even in "empty" space and, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it is full of particle-antiparticle pairs constantly coming into existence and then disappearing again. This is perhaps the problem with "independent research". Unless you follow a very disciplined course of study (and there are many good books, courses and other resources available online) you may end up with some wrong ideas. You need to have a much more solid understanding before you are ready to start formulating your own ideas. It may not make sense to you, but that is the classical (pre-quantum) view and I see no problem with there being something surrounded by areas of nothingness. "Making sense" is almost the worst possible basis for a scientific theory. The universe may be finite or infinite. We just don't know. There are massless and changeless particles (e.g. the photon) which can have a known position, have momentum, etc. So this statement appears to be contradicted by reality. Well, congratulations on your interest in science. But you have a lot to learn - which is great! The fantastic thing about science is that there is always more to learn. But most people study these subjects for many years in order to get an understanding of the basics. So 24 hours is not much! You might be better off using this forum as place to learn by asking questions...

1. If there is a strong correlation then please present the data. 2. Correlation does not equal causation. It could be that global warming has caused increased use of cellphones. But, actually, in this case the two have a common cause: the rapidly increasing industrialisation of the world since the end of the 19th century. Please show your calculations that show that the energy from cellphone towers can change the reflectivity of clouds by 2%. Please also show your calculations that show a 2% change is enough to compensate for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Please also explain why you would need to "compensate for CO2" if that is not the cause of climate change? And, if this radiation compensates for CO2 levels, then it would be stabilising the climate not causing climate change as you claim. And, while you are at it, please explain why over 200 years of work on the physics of CO2-induced climate change is wrong. So far, I'm afraid, it sounds as if you have no idea what you are talking about. Please bring some science into the discussion.

Must have been all those telegraph wires ...

There is no such thing. Viewed by who? Based on what evidence? There is no need for any branch of science to include "details" of non-existent things made up by an Internet crank.

What about evidence that it happens?

Huh? The evidence that it is not a scientific theory is that you have provided no evidence or testable predictions. What "scientific knowledge"? Please provide an example. And explain how this "scientific knowledge" has been experimentally tested. Do you even know what science is?

If god does nothing then he is pointless and might as well not exist. If god intervenes then that should be detectable. Unless he deliberately intervenes in a way that is identical to him not intervening, in which case he is pointless and might as well not exist.

Because of EVIDENCE. Not something that is going to come up with regard to god (by definition).

How would you test this? (Hint: if can't be tested, it isn't science.) That is what we call a "metaphor".

1. That is not how science works. Your lack of understanding of the way science works may be the reason for your discontent with it. 2. The main reasons gods (or any other form of magic) are excluded from science are (a) a lack of evidence and (b) they are not subject to rational enquiry - after all "god" can be used to answer absolutely any question: Q: Why are people good? A: God; Q: Why are people evil? A: God Q: Why is the universe suitable for life? A: God Q: Why are people killed by natural disaster and disease? A: God After all, he moves in mysterious ways. On the other hand, science assumes (it has to assume) that the world acts in predictable and repeatable ways. Luckily, that seems to usually be the case, which is why science works. (And, probably, the reason why the universe exists.) If the universe worked according to the capricious whims of a deity, then science would have a much harder time explaining anything.

This is not a conjecture; it is one of the most thoroughly tested scientific theories. As you have no alternative beyond some vague, slightly incoherent ramblings, I don't see any reason to discard this as the basis of physics.

Do you have any evidence for or against this "theory"? (It is not a theory in the scientific sense.) If not, there is little scope for a logical discussion. What sort of revolution do you expect to make?

What do you mean by the "theory of Buddhism"? You seem to have just copied part of the Wikipedia page.