Strange

Then please quote a specific sentence or paragraph from that paper which mentions quantum effects. Because I couldn't find one. (You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.)

That says nothing, zero, zilch, nada about QED or anything else related to quantum theory. Every post makes it clearer that you don't have a clue and are just doing searches for a few keywords and posting the resulting random links.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. You can feel even very gentle acceleration - like a train pulling away slowly. I assume that by "illogical" you mean it doesn't make sense to you. But the thing is, measurements of reality confirm this is what happens. So you need to adjust what you think is "logical". Time is not measured by the speed of light. This is what science attempts to do by relying on objective measurements, rather than what people think is "logical".

One of my uses of the phrase was intended as a joke (given the context). OK, not a great joke but ... I think it is completely different from the example you use because that was in regard to a (supposedly ) democratic country where the members are (should be) free to try and change it. This is not a democracy. It is more like a club. The forum has rules. The members can request they be changed but there is no reason anyone should listen to those requests (and good reasons why they won't). People read the rules when they sign up (what, you mean you didn't?) and chose to agree to them. If someone changes their mind and no longer likes the rules, the obvious option is to leave.

There is nothing special about "consciousness" in this. The observer could be a camera or other measuring device.

I'm sorry if you find it offensive to have your errors exposed. But .... well, tough. What makes you think I am angry? I see nothing to get cross about. (People come here and post nonsense all the time. No point getting excited about it.) It is not a theory. A theory is a detailed mathematical description that is confirmed by multiple lines of evidence. A false assertion that things can go faster then light is almost the exact opposite of a theory.

If time is only an illusion of the mind, how did the universe develop before minds existed?

"c is the maximum speed at which all matter and hence information in the universe can travel." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light Now how about you show some support for these things you are making up?

They are, as swansont says, stochastic. But they are also controlled or even defined by the environment (which chemicals a represent, temperature, pressure, pH, catalysts, etc.) Within a living organism, the environment and the intake of chemicals (food, respiration, etc) is controlled to maintain the set of reactions that constitute life.

Correct. Correct. They don't cancel out. They each see the other's clock running slow. (Strange but true.) What is the "advent of gravity"? The evidence of gravity is that things fall, planets orbit, etc. Mass and energy are the main factors the define the amount of gravitation produced. (There are other things like momentum flow and pressure.) When anomalies were seen in the precession of Mercury, all sorts of attempts were made to account for it by supposing extra mass (an unknown planet for example) changes to the force of gravity, etc. But none of these were found to match all the evidence. Einstein's General Relativity predicts the observed precession very accurately. You are mixing up space-time (the geometry of spatial and temporal distance between events) and the luminiferous aether that was once thought to be necessary for the propagation of light. Einstein ignore this because he derived the special theory of relativity from the simple assumption that the laws of physics (including Maxwell's equations and hence the speed of light) are the same for all observers. The presence of otherwise of a medium for light becomes irrelevant (it is completely undetectable and so may as well not exist). If you insist that light must have a medium then that medium is the electromagnetic field. (But there is not really any evidence that physically exists, other than a mathematical convenience.) The medium for the propagation of light is irrelevant to gravity. However, Eisntein himself did describe space-time as an ether (by analogy with something that pervades the entire universe) but went on to point out that it has no physical properties; it is not made of any material substance. This depends on what you mean by the words "physical" and "medium". (And "space". And "is". And ...) There are several long threads in the Philosophy section on this. Pretty much irrelevant to the science, though. For example: Is Space-Time a Physical Entity or a Mathematical Model? Applying "speed" to expansion doesn't really make sense. It is a scaling effect. Therefore (by simple arithmetic) the speed of separation of two points in space is proportional to distance. So there are points which are moving apart faster than the speed of light. That is incorrect. The speed of light is the maximum speed. Meaningless nonsense.

Here you are cherry-picking the fallacy to challenge! I am not sure that is an example of cherry picking (although you could present the figures for other religious and racial groups, for example). It is more a problem of assuming correlation is causation. Why not present some evidence for the causes of this discrepancy?

This is a science forum. As such, I am not particularly interested in anyone's opinion (in the science sections). And certainly not the uninformed opinions of people who don't actually know much about the relevant science. There seems to be quite a number of people who think that science is just about coming up with an idea that "sounds nice". And then, especially if you are important, other people will believe it. When challenging people who post their "personal theories" I usually try and devote some time to getting them to understand what science is and how it works. This is rarely successful. They are usually convinced that their idea has value because (a) they understand it and (b) it is "logical". I am not a working scientist, not a scientist in trying (nor an ex-scientist). I am just someone interested in science. I feel no need personally, and see no evidence from others, for "obsequious deference".

Why don't you present this research about the neuroprotective effects?

In his original thread where it became quite clear that he was immune to rational discussion. You would guess wrong. (That is the trouble with guessing.) There were multiple moderator instructions / warnings in the original thread. Each time a new thread was opened he was told not to do that. I know he thinks his idea is Very Important and so It Must Be Seen. But it seems the moderators don't agree. Perhaps because it is incoherent drivel. And that can be shown to be objectively true (as was attempted in his thread) so I am not just being "closed minded".

The interactions and processes are not random. At one level they are driven by the rules of chemistry. At another level, organisms will control the reactions that take place. That allows organisms to grow and reproduce, and therefore evolve.

Agreed. That would be a very bad idea. It is up to us. All of us.

I guess the fact that this myth has always been popular shows that people have always felt that the world was screwed up. As it is, for most people continues to improve. There are fewer wars than in the past. Fewer people die in childhood. More people are educated.

So what. That doesn't prove that everything must have a cause.

The fact that some things may not have a cause does not mean that nothing has a cause. How do you know it is impossible for there to be effects without cause? It certainly works. Whether it describes the nature of the universe is something else.

If you don't like it here, feel free to leave. And, conversely, if you do like it here, then maybe stop wasting your energies defending crackpots who feel they are being victimised when people point out that they are posting incoherent drivel.

Then he is objectively wrong in his opinion. (Not all opinions are equally valid.) He was given an explicit instruction not to open another thread on the same subject. He did and it was instantly closed. That is not closed minded by any definition.

What I found slightly offensive (to the concept of intelligent conversation) was that someone should describe the fact the rules were being enforced as "closed minded". It smacks of a rather arrogant attitude (as in, "how dare you apply those rules to me and my brilliant ideas"). Perhaps you are defending him so much because you think you should be above the rules as well ...

How do you know that is not possible?

Then it should be easy for you to present some evidence. But you won't because it only exists in your imagination.

Copyright infringement reported to moderators.