Strange

But you will never know so it is pointless worrying about it.

I may well be wrong then (again!). I was under the impression they were fairly non-functional.

I would rather not spend eternity starving. Thanks, anyway. Or you could look for a more efficient algorithm that gives the same result. But what this has to do with with immortality or money is anyone's guess. Did you start drinking a while before before your wrote the opening post?

Surely immortality means that you need a lot of money: just planning for retirement is bad enough. Planning for eternity sounds like a tough job.

It sounds like you are trying to understand what is "really happening" with space-time, rather than "just the math". But space[-time] is no more or less mysterious than any other aspect of our knowledge of the world, so I am just curious about the motivation.

Cell differentiation is driven by things like chemical gradients https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_differentiation#Mechanisms (Note that lizards don't actually grow back a fully functioning tail but, rather, a tail-shaped lump of flesh and bone.

Did you miss this post: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95954-imaginary-solid-world/#entry929323 As is often the case with The Daily Mail, I mean New Scientist (*) the headline may say that but the article says nothing of the sort. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/

All experiments have shown that there is no medium for light. Every possible model is contradicted by experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/3 Why would this be any different from the many other space probes we have sent to various planets, moons and comets? They seem to have a good handle on what they are looking at.

There are currently (at least) two other threads on the same subject. It seems to be endlessly fascinating ... That is not the usual definition of logic. Logic is a formal (mathematical) process for going from a set of axioms or premises to a conclusion. The correctness of the conclusion depends on the soundness of the logical process (which can be formally tested, e.g. by computer) and the truth or otherwise of the initial premises. The idea that space is a "substance" makes little sense to me. Space is just the distance between things. What is 1 inch made of? Is it the same stuff as 1 kilometre or 1 square mile or 1 cubic metre? And is time (remember GR deals with space-time) made of the same thing as distance? If you are thinking of his Leiden speech, then he made it very clear that he was using ether as a metaphor, and he made it very clear that it has no tangible properties. Dark energy is not responsible for the expansion of space. It is proposed as an explanation for the observed accelerating expansion. The other threads: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98845-models-for-making-sense-of-relativity-physical-space-vs-physical-spacetime/ http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/97105-is-space-time-a-physical-entity-or-a-mathematical-model/

It depends on how you define "I". And whether you believe random speculation like that. (It is also possible that the universe is infinite and the same sequence never recurs.) And, ultimately, does it matter? It is one of those pointless ideas like solipsism or "the universe was created 15 minutes ago but made to look 14 billion years old" or "we all live in a simulation".

There is very important information. Being small doesn't stop it being important! It allows a lot of models of the early universe to be tested. Something like 10 parts per million. Some is just random quantum variation. There are also things like "baryon acoustic oscillations" (which I don't really know anything about). And possibly other effects. People who hypothesize parallel universes or a "big bounce" from an earlier universe also suggest that signs of these should appear in the CMB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Primary_anisotropy

I don't really understand the question. Is there a "physical" model of anything? Ultimately all physics has is a set of mathematical models that seem to work. Why is space-time any different than, say, the electromagnetic field or quark color charge? They are all just mathematical abstractions that describe how things work.

No. It says nothing about the size. The big bang mode works equally well for an infinite and a finite universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

Absolutely. (Possibly apart from the last bit.) And the fact we know that is why science is able to progress. That is because you have said things that are, or appear to be, factually incorrect. As such, it doesn't really matter what your intentions were. I feel duty bound to point out the errors. Indeed. But this ideas came from experts in the field who had looked at the evidence. Not from people who just made stuff up. (Apart from some SF, I suppose. But then we know that is fiction.)

But the evidence (the apple falling) is not a belief or speculation. Which is what you said before. And, as gravity is the name for the thing that makes things fall, it obviously is gravity. By definition. The challenge is to explain gravity. Newton did a very good job of this by providing a mathematical theory that could be (and has been) tested. So no belief or speculation there, either. It is not clear what the message was. It was a rather confused (and confusing) wall of text. And the Speculation forum is not for just making stuff up. It is supposed to be a place to present well thought out scientific hypotheses - i.e. with evidence and, hopefully, mathematics.

That doesn't seem to say anything about masses repelling nor about active and passive mass. Perhaps you could try again. Maybe a reference to a published paper where these things are discussed. Apparently it is well known, so it shouldn't be too hard.

So you agree that there is no evidence that these organisms generate EM radiation. Good. That would be nearly all of them. With the exception of warm-blooded animals. You are the one making assertions with no evidence.

Please provide a reference that supports this. And I am still waiting for the reference to the "well known" fact of active and passive mass.

Nonsense. If you observe or measure something, that is not a belief or a speculation. Huh?

Exactly. But all these advances were made on the basis of observational evidence and mathematical models. Not guesswork and beliefs.

How about the fact that your definition of life doesn't actually describe most living things?

Another way of looking at it is that the speed is proportional to separation => Hubble's Law! (Which is also due to scaling.)

Oh.