Strange

But the paper you posted didn't mention it. You claimed it did. That counts as a lie in my book. (This "thing" you have linked to appears to be as meaningless as your posts.) "Seems to me" is not a substitute for evidence. (Especially given your record of meaningless nonsense.)

Evidence that there isn't a worldwide conspiracy involving the many hundreds of thousands of people responsible for maintaining and operating the tens of thousands of aircraft throughout the world? To be honest, no. But as that is such an incredibly implausible story, I think it is up to those who believe it to provide some evidence. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nonsense. This, itself, seems to be a story popular with conspiracy theorists even though it clearly isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#History Do you have any evidence for this "clandestine/unilateral geoengineering activity"? (After all, you have repeatedly demonstrated that what you "know" is of little value. Based on what you have posted on this forum, I would start with the assumption that anything you say is incorrect if not the opposite of the truth.)

And, again, it doesn't say anything about quantum effects. Please stop lying.

We don't do that. There might be some simple plants or insects that only feed on one thing, but it would be faulty unusual. We can't know how likely it is as we only have one example to look at. It took millions of years, not two minutes. (And humans didn't evolve from Neandertals.) Samarian? Accounts of what?

I don't understand your scenario. What is the difference between "lose" and "die"? Aren't they the same thing? If they are different hen presumably he could lose and die, or lose and live, or win and die, or win and live. I think you need to explain your thinking in more detail. But, as others have said, the many worlds interpretation is an interpretation therefore it describes exactly the same thing, with exactly the same outcomes, as any other interpretation.

Crazy people on the Internet with nothing better to do that invent conspiracy theories. That is because there are not many people crazy or stupid enough to believe in this nonsense.

And that is what physics attempts to do. You can come up with simplistic "explanations" (like, "its all just waves") but that means ignoring most of what we know. In order to explain the interactions of electrons, photons, quarks and the various other leptons, fermions, bosons, etc. you need the full complexity of modern quantum theory. And although much of quantum mechanics can be described in terms of waves, that is not the only method that works. There is an entirely equivalent system called Matrix Mechanics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics). So I think it could easily be argued that reality does not consist of waves at all. That is just a convenient mathematical trick we use to describe it.

Another important point is that scientific materialism (naturalism / physicalism / whatever) is just part of the methodology of science. Science only works with (can, by definition, only work with) things that are measurable and testable. These are the things that we consider "material". But not all scientists are materialists. Many are religious or have spiritual beliefs of some sort. However, they keep these separate from science because they are not quantifiable and hence not part of science. Science doesn't deny the existence of things beyond the material. It just has nothing to say about them. Because they are outside the scope of science. Eise has given an excellent critique of the web site you linked to. I would go slightly further and say that from point 9 onwards, the statements are increasingly dishonest. It is basically a pack of lies. I would also be extremely dubious of anything that has Chopra's name associated with it. It is a very large red flag.

Why would you posting nonsense make anyone uncomfortable. It is more a feeling of: "sigh, here we go again".

What do you mean by scientific materialism? And why would quantum non locality in biological systems disprove it?

The big bang theory doesn't say anything about the creation anything. It describes how the universe evolved from an early hot, dense state. The amount of stuff that existed then (which may be infinite) is the same as now. There is no evidence that new matter is created.

And the same can be said of Newtonian gravity.

Well, it is what the science says. So I haven't just made it up. Unlike your random posts. Wibble. Colourless green sheep dream furiously. (Your sentences have equally little semantic content.)

The acceleration could be measured with a vanishingly small mass (which is how you can calculate the effect of Newtonian gravity on something massless like light). And, you could argue that the curvature of spacetime could only be measured by using a second mass.

The force is between two masses. But, for example, the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth is due to mass of the Earth alone.

Things like weight and bouyancy only exist because of gravity. It is simpler to describe all the effects you mention in terms of a single underlying force. You could, I suppose, try and produced a unified theory of the motion of planets, tennis balls, and the universe based on secondary factors such as weight and buoyancy but I think it would rapidly get pretty messy. Can you show how to describe the orbits of planets just by reference to weight, bouyancy, etc? Can you derive Kepler's laws from that? His theory describes the changing geometry of space and time. That geometry can be curved. You have neatly sidestepped the question. What do you mean by "physical"?

Have you taken into account electric charge, spin, the weak interaction, the strong nuclear force, color charge, and various other quantum states? If everything were just "waves of energy" how would that account for covalent bonding, beta decay, nuclear fission, etc?

We can't say anything about an unobserved particle. When we observe a particle we can observe both wave-like properties (e.g. wavelength) and particle-like properties (e.g. indivisibility). But the particle always has these properties (when observed). It doesn't flip between them in different conditions, or sometimes have them and sometimes not. The wavelength is related to energy and momentum. In the case of a particle with mass (e.g. not a photon) it is also related to the mass. Seems unlikely. That is, presumably, because you don't know what "energy", "dimension" or "force" mean. Nope. It is just the interference of waves.

What is a 2e ?

What medium are you imagining these waves travel through?

Would it surprise you to know that I don't think that this unsupported assertion counts as evidence in support of your previous unsupported assertion. You may suppose it. How about providing some evidence for it?

If these are observable scientific phenomena then it should be easy for you to provide evidence. Why is asking you to support your claims "harassment"? And it isn't unilateral: everyone should be able to support their claims. Of course if someone claims that gravity follows an inverse square law, then they are unlikely;iekly to be asked to support that. It is common knowledge. But f someone claims a massive secret worldwide conspiracy, then I would expect at least an attempt to support it. Asking you to provide evidence is not elitism. It is the way science works. But you dislike the rigour and methods required, apparently.

So you are not able to quote anywhere in the article that discusses quantum effects. That is what I thought.

Both. The fact that biological things age is because they change over time, as is typical for things in this universe.

I do. A lot of people with limited knowledge of science search for answers to their questions and may find explanations on forums such as this one. I don't want them mislead into thinking that numerology makes sense, that Einstein was wrong, or creationism is a reasonable idea. As such, a part of the moderators role is to ensure that the answers provide in the main parts of the forum are consistent with current scientific knowledge. Part of the role of the wider membership is to highlight and challenge statements which are unsupported, erroneous or just plain nonsense. People mustn't be allowed to get away with posting pseudoscientific drivel because "its just the Lounge".