Strange

If you know how to access your email, yes. If you have a gmail address (and you can read the email) then why didn't you use that?

See the link in beecee's post above:

You mean you just enter a random email address? That is NOT going to work.

Let's take it one step at a time. You say: "I use emails. I have gmail, yahoo mail" But then you say: "I don't know how to check my email." So does this mean you have created email accounts but have never used them? To be more specific: have you ever sent someone an email? Have you then read their reply?

Maybe you need to get a 12 year old to explain how to use email.

Do you know how to read your email? If you use email, you must know how to read your email. No? You just give the website your email address and they will send you an email to activate the account. You click on the link in the email and that proves that you can read your email.

While it is true that many nouns can be used as verbs (*) I struggle to imagine how "consciousness" could be used like that. "I wasn't sure what was happening until I counsciounessed it" - sounds wrong. "He is busy selfing himself at the moment" - ??? I guessed you might mean it in a metaphorical sense, but I had no idea what that was!

So does this mean you have never used email before? How did you create your Twitter account? Surely that needs an email address? And how did you provide an email address to the registration process if you don't have an email address? I am very confused!

Do you have an email address? If so, how do you read your email? If not, you will need to create an email account with Google, Hotmail, Outlook, Yahoo, or whatever. (Does Yahoo still exist?)

Not everyone uses it.

No, they are both nouns (-ness is a suffix used in English to convert an adjective to a noun).

There is no "particle of space"; space is just the distance between things. Saying the universe expands is the same thing as saying space expands. It just means things are getting further apart (or the density is decreasing). Because they are hypothesised to explain different things. Dark matter is required to explain the orbits of stars around, dark energy is required to explain the accelerating expansion. Apart from the "dark" in the name, there is no real connection between them.

There is normally a registration form where you provide email and password. Then you usually get an email with a link you need to click (to confirm it is your own email address). If you don't get the email, check your spam folder as it may have been wrongly identified as spam or junk mail.

The Scientific American article is really about reducing stress levels and the potential damage done by stress-related hormones (I didn't bother looking at the others). That's ironic.

The answers there explain why you are wrong. Why did you ignore them and just repeat the same thing? (I have suggested that the moderators split this off, probably to the Speculations forum as you seem uninterested in the answers.) Edit: I see you are making the same point as the OP, so I withdraw that last bit...

We are building models in order to understand. But those models do not necessarily say anything about reality. (According to some people it cannot say anything about reality.)

No. You can disprove one theory, but that says nothing about the validity of other theories. (Although the evidence that disproves one theory may be consistent with another theory and thus provides support for that other theory. Or it might be consistent with multiple other theories and doesn't help decide between them. The alternatives to the aether (Maxwell's theory and Special Relativity) are both supported by much other evidence. Maxwell's theory came first and, if anyone had looked, already undermines aether theory. Special Relativity came later and was (largely) based on different evidence than that which falsified aether theory.

So, what have we learned? That Creationists attempt to affect education about science. Other religious forces attempt to affect the political decisions made on the basis of climate science. There seems little other evidence of religions effect of science. The OP seems to have abandoned his claims about religion and science. Presumably because they are unsupportable and he was just having a little rant about a theory he doesn't like. Perhaps it is time to close this thread now it has degenerate into silly comments.

1. The hotel analogy (actually, I'm not sure this is an analogy; it is more a thought experiment in mathematics) has nothing to do with two versus three dimensions. 2. The order of infinity of a 2D surface or a correspond 3D volume is the same; it entirely depends on whether you use real numbers or integers to define the points within that area or volume. (There being infinitely more real points than integral points.) 3. A volume does not contain "exponentially" more points than an area. It is almost as if you don't know what you are talking about. That is pretty incomprehensible but I am certain that it has nothing to do with the Hilbert Hotel. A better analogy is the natural number line. This is obviously nonsense. If we take the obvious mapping from the hotel rooms to the set of natural numbers, we can see that there is a first number (that is: 1) and there are an infinite number of integers following that. So an infinite series can have a beginning and no end. Similarly, there is a Room 1 (next to the reception desk) and an infinite number of rooms after that. It is almost as if you don't know what infinity means.

Because, in order for the predictions of a hypothesis to be tested, they need to be quantitative so that they can be accurately compared against experiment or observation. In order to make quantitative predictions, you need a mathematical model. Science is accepted if it accurately describes the world around us. What do you mean by "Either it is or it is not"? Is or is not what? There wasn't really science then. And what do priests have to do with it? Well, the science needs to be tested and confirmed before it can be applied to technology. This is not an either-or choice. You need to do both. Well, the first was decided by the use of mathematics: aether was rejected and relativity accepted. I'm not sure what you are referring to with Model and Einstein.

Evidence?

That's a very good point. Any system that the OP comes up must be (by his own definition) sufficiently expressive that it will, by Godel's theorem, be incomplete; i.e. will say things that may be either true or false (undecidable). I wonder if he has taken this fact into account ...

With no context, I would assume the worst. Context might explain it but if these were sent out of the blue then it sounds like a very bad thing to do.

Also, the reason light cannot escape a black hole has nothing to do with its velocity. It is about the curvature of space-time.

Role.