Strange

Also there is evidence of significant interbreeding between H sapiens and Neanderthals. I'm not sure that happens often between predator and prey species....

Except we now know that isn't true.

It is not an area I know anything much about, but I suspect the difference is that he is making stuff up whereas the traditional view is based on a detailed knowledge of anatomy, biomechanics, forensic science, pathology, and uses tools such as X-rays, CAT scans, analysis of fractures, breakages and other injuries, as well as a whole range of other tools and expertise. But I may be wrong.

And answered. Asking what speed is with no reference is meaningless.

The choice is completely arbitrary. The most "logical" is whatever is practical and useful.

Heartbeats. Dripping water. Slow burning candles. Look at the history of clocks.

What does that mean? I assume they are reconstructed based on the size and shape of bones, etc. What are these human (or ape) paradigms and how are they used? What is his expertise in the field? Why should we trust his reconstructions? Where has his work been published? Or is he just another RGOTI?

Well, you couldn't be travelling at the speed of light (because nothing with mass can). But as speed can only be defined relative to something else then, if there is nothing else, then you must be stationary by definition. Time would "evolve" (pass, whatever) in exactly the same way whether they know about clocks or not. If they don't have clocks they can't measure it. But time passed long before people had clocks (or long before people).

And useless without any maths or evidence.

So no mathematics then? Just guesswork.

What, even the ones that aren't electromagnetic?

I guess you are thinking of the fact that the end of the rod should be moving at more than the speed of light. In practice the rod would bend, shrug and/or break before that happened. This is probably related to the Ehrenfest Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox (I know you specified "indestructible" but that is impossible and so not really relevant.)

Perhaps because it is a random collection of words with no semantic content? Perhaps you need to explain, in detail, what you mean by "its own dimension".

Please provide evidence that such a thing occurs. Please provide evidence to support this claim.

But it had nothing to do with being closed minded. The member in question had had a previous thread on the subject closed (after many failed attempts to explain why his ideas were incoherent nonsense) with the instruction that he was not to bring it up again. Apparently having a thread closed when you have been explicitly told not to open it is "closed minded". And apparently enforcing that instruction is "hypocrisy". We truly do live in a post-truth world. Exactly.

Please provide some evidence to support this position. (You know, this being a science forum and all that.)

As you have provided no evidence of any novel scientific knowledge, there is no reason to be motivated. And yet you are curiously unable to provide any references to this research. Why is that?

Obviously, there is an implied "within the rules" after "anything".

Then why don't you? You just keep making empty claims.

I imagine there would be problems with generating enough energy in the sound waves to detonate a device without causing damage to nearby buildings and people.

They both rely on a deep knowledge of the subject matter and creativity. After that they diverge in the skills required.

That isn't what I asked though, is it. As "synaptic hypercomputation" is something you have invented, how can it be related to anything? So you need to: 1. Present evidence that "synaptic hypercomputation" exists 2. Present evidence that it is connected to "neural synchronicity and (phasic) dopamine exocytosis" Otherwise your "argument" is simply an unsupported assertion and therefore worthless.

I don't have any opinion on neural synchronicity or the evidence for it. I don't care. I am just saying that calling it "gravity" or "lemon drizzle cake" or "hyper computation" is going to cause unnecessary confusion. Citation needed. Then you should be able to provide a link to some published research on "quantum-like wavefunction of synaptic dopamine exocytosis." Or show us the mathematics of this wave-function and how it relates to synapses. Citation needed. Just throwing a random mixture of buzzwords together (and giving an execllent impression of someone who doesn't understand what they mean) does not constitute "research".

It wasn't until you made up new meanings for it. There is no evidence that hypercomputation is possible and, also, no evidence that quantum computers can implement it.

You will have to define what that means before we can pretend it exists. (It doesn't mean anything based on the usual meanings of the words. You might as well call it "dynamic banana".) I think the fact it is a meaningless phrase you have made up is damning enough. Only if you showed, in mathematical detail, that such a drive were only possible if this mythical dimension existed.