Strange

Probably. Not knowing whether it was or not is not the same as saying it can't be.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

Er. No.

"They will be much better off without me. I wouldn't be able to avoid tinkering and, based on past experience, it would only make things worse." I wish that some engineers I know had that attitude!

Why would it be pseudoscience? Inflation and the cyclic universe are just two ways of explaining various aspects of the early universe: mainly the uniformity (the "horizon problem"). Do you have scientific evidence in favour of one model over the other? Or is this just a personal preference for one model? As far as I can tell, they both have the same amount of evidence; i.e. both are consistent with the existing evidence.

Indeed. It is much easier to explain the state of the world with multiple gods disagreeing with one another. Otherwise you have one god who appears to be insane, stupid or dead.

Maybe She fell asleep after all that hard work and just hasn't woken up yet. So the seraphim have been playing around.

And we know that because we observe babies being born. There is zero evidence that the universe was created. You are, of course, free to believe that. But it is not a scientific belief. So we are intelligent and can (partly) understand the universe. The universe does not have to be intelligent to behave the way it does. Water does not need intelligence to run down hill.

Unfortunately, things are not that simple in general relativity. Energy is not necessarily conserved on cosmological scales. (However, there is zero evidence for the universe being created, so I would not give the idea much consideration.)

Nonsense. It was proposed my several people, based on General Relativity. The astronomer and physicist Lemaitre used data (later known as Hubble's Law, and now as the Hubble-Laemaitre Law) to estimate the rate of expansion and age of the universe. If it had been proposed purely for religious reasons then it would have been ignored or quickly abandoned. The reason it is still the accepted cosmological model is because of the evidence. (Bizarrely, a lot of fundamental religions are opposed to the Big Bang model, possibly because it is based on relaitvity which they associate with moral relavitiy. But who know. It is hard to understand the motives of people that stupid.) The Big Bang is a class of models based on the clear evidence that the universe is expanding and was, therefore, once much hotter and denser than now. There are multiple explanations for how it got into that hot dense state. So the first of your models IS (a version of) the Big Bang. There is no evidence for that version of the model yet. Penrose has supported this model and claimed that there were patterns in the CMB that support it but this is not generally accepted (yet). The second appears to pseudoscientific nonsense. I don't know where it comes from but does not appear to be consistent with any of the evidence.

Maybe you should invest in a clock. So the universe was static and unchanging until humans came along? That sounds like a version of Last Thursdayism: the universe started evolving once humans came to be, and magically appeared to be 13.8 billion years old. Sounds implausible.

And on the Eighth Day he realised he was bored by the World He had created, and wandered off to do something else.

That is evidence of existence, not creation. There is no conscious (intelligent) intervention required. I think you need to define what you mean by “intelligence”. You appear to be using it in a non-standard way Perhaps you mean “stable” or “consistent”?

And I should add that it is monumentally unlikely that everything we know is wrong. Simply because there is so much consistent evidence of different sorts for all the models we have now. You couldn't overturn one without everything else also being wrong. There are probably many things that are inaccurate or incomplete. There may be a few things which are completely wrong. But that is vanishingly rare in science. I can only think of a couple of good examples in the history of science.

1. What evidence do you have that there was a "creation"? 2. What does "the creation is intelligent" mean? 3. What evidence do you have for this "intelligence"? 4. So what needs to be explained?

It could be, and that possibility is one of the cornerstones of science. For a long time we only had Euclidean ("flat") geometry and it was inconceivable that there could be any other sort. Then someone said, "what if we replace that fifth postulate with an alternative". And not only was a new branch of mathematics born, but also new ways of describing (and hence seeing) the world. This are many similar examples. And that is one reason why science is not concerned with 'truth" but just with the best descriptions we are currently able to produce.

Your impression is wrong. It does not say they are using quantum entanglement. It does say that they use classical electromagnetism. The Are Tecnica article (a very good website about technology, not so good about science) has added the bit about PT symmetry being similar to CPT symmetry which is important in quantum theory. PT symmetry exists in classical physics. For example, if you have an object moving in the X direction with velocity V, it is the same as an object moving in the -X direction with velocity -V. Swap both the direction (P) and velocity (T) and you end up with the same result. (That may not be the best or most accurate analogy, but it is the best I can come up with at this time of night!) I have no idea how that relates to their system. It sounds like they are using some sort of negative feedback circuit so it self-tunes to the optimal frequency.

The article is correct. The ages were wrong. The article is correct in that it correctly states what the "incorrect" (i.e. inaccurate) value was at that time.

Only if it approximates a black body

It sounds to me as if it is just an analogy. But it really isn't clear. There is this: https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/14/big-advance-wireless-charging-moving-electric-cars/ It doesn't give much more information in the text. The video might say more.

So you are no longer claiming that this is some sort of explanation or model of quantum effects? If so, good. That is some sort of progress.

Sounds like a circuit that uses the interaction between the two subsystems (charger and "chargee") to automatically find the most efficient frequency for transfers. It works, as they say, up to 1 metre. With an efficiency of 10% with the potential to increase that to over 80%. Which would, I think, be comparable to or maybe slightly more efficient than current systems. I imagine it will be years before a research concept like this makes it into real products (if it ever does).

Does Bell's theorem have anything to do with randomness? It says something about (classical and quantum) probabilities, but that's not the same thing as randomness. And, it puts constraints on those (well-defined) probabilities. So it seems the opposite of "cannot be defined". Randomness can be defined by a variety of statistical tests/definitions.

I am not aware of any good evidence for this. Can you provide a reliable source.

I saw an interesting graphic showing which types of facial hair were compatible with face masks. So it seems that having a close fit against the skin is important. And if breathing out disrupts that, then perhaps that is a bad thing. Best hypothesis I could come up with.