Strange

I see absolutely no reason to accept that. It is up to you to prove, in appropriate mathematical detail, that the Einstein Field Equations (which describe the geometry of space time) can also be used to describe the density and flow of an energy field.

I think it is a bit more than mass being some distinct property that somehow causes space-time to curve. It is more that the curvature of spacetime defines what mass is. I may be wrong in thinking of it in that way - it will be interesting to see what ajb has to say ...

Mind you, he has done that before!

Kind of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#History I think the calculated radius would be different among other things. Edit: Apparently not! Those are really just different descriptions of the same thing. Mass is the curvature of spacetime. That is a much better link. And it also highlights the problem with the "escape velocity" description that is often still used wrt black holes.

I am sure you would need a very firm grasp of the relevant mathematics to prove that your space-filling energy field produces the same results as GR. I have heard many people over the years make the same claim about many different personal theories. They have all simply asserted this equivalence (for many different models from aether to push gravity to zero point energy). None have ever done the mathematics to prove this equivalence. I am equally sceptical of your claim as I am of all the others.

Discussion of this movie is not being censored. The moderators are just enforcing the rules that you agreed to when you joined. (You did read the rules, din't you...?)

That is true. The auxiliary verb is usually close to the main verb, however. Can you give me a good example of a question that is not clearly distinct from a statement until the last word. The ones I can think of sound awkward (but I am very unimaginative).

I meant what I said: "in English you often know if if it is a question from near the beginning of the sentence" For example, the sentence might start with a "question word" (who, where, what, etc). Or, the main verb might be near the beginning (e.g. "he is running" vs "is he running"). There are some (slightly odd) examples where you wouldn't know until the last word (perhaps, "you like fish, yes?") but that is not the norm. In English. In some languages, the standard grammar of a declarative sentence is indistinguishable from a question until the last word. Obviously tone of voice is important but the original point was about the written language.

Sometimes. (But as that isn't what I said ...)

What!? We simulate these things all the time. If we couldn't then you wouldn't have the computer that you do. (p.s. Nothing is ever proven in physics.)

You seem to be forgetting that gravity affects both time and space (in a way that keeps c invariant).

Nonsense. Is your computer either on or off? No, it can do all sorts of incredibly complicated things. Having spent most of my career designing and using microprocessors, I don't think that will be necessary, thanks. If you have no thoughts, then I can't really imagine what you mean by "consciousness". If you do have thoughts, then the state is changing all the time. Nonsense. Any analogue circuit (apart from a constant voltage or current supply) changes state all the time. The voltage in your headphones change, the states in an analogue computer change constantly, and so on. And as a digital computer can simulate an analog circuit (including an analog computer) the distinction is pointless.

A very good (and unanswerable) question. Do we only think other people have the same feelings as us because they tell us they do? Or is this "theory of mind" built into our brains? Is that relevant to your question?

Really? I mean, really? A large number of religions have been of that opinion for centuries, so I am not sure why you think this "revelation" (to you) has such a great significance. Again, maybe it is a US thing, but biblical literalism has usually been a minority view in the rest of the world.

The only alternative seems to be some sort of supernatural explanation where consciousness exists external to the brain. There is no evidence to support such an idea. You keep saying this. Can you explain what you mean by this statement. In what way do you consider consciousness to be "uniform" and not change state?

The function of synapses is essential to the operation of the brain. Almost all changes in the state of consciousness are caused by changes to the function of the synapses.

You are not clarifying anything. The examples people have given (normal human reproduction, for example) involve the creation of a nervous system. So, no. There is nothing wrong with that. Maybe it is the word "creation" you should attempt to clarify, not the word "life".

The lack of evidence. We know people think things like this because of psychological biases. We have zero evidence that such things can happen for any other reason. The obvious explanation is something like selection and/or confirmation bias. Unless you can provide solid evidence that this happens a statistically significant number of times, no one should believe it. (Although, no doubt there are thousands of gullible people out there who will believe anything. So if you just want to find a forum where people will go "wow, thats so amazing. I had a dog that could ..." I'm sure you can.) You need to write down every single instance of this sensation - when it happens - and then record the subsequent matching events. That should show you that nothing special is happening. If you still think it is, at least you have some evidence to show people. (Although, without a third party witnessing the record, it still won't be very compelling.)

You keep saying this. It is patently false. Can you explain what you mean by this statement. Perhaps you mean something different by "consciousness" than I would expect. In what way do you consider consciousness to be "uniform" and not change state? Consciousness doesn't pass through a logic gate, any more than music or 3D graphics does. It is a consequence of the operation of billions of "logic gates" (in the same way that the function of a computer program is the result of the operation of millions of transistors). It is not a hard term to describe. It is precisely specified.

Of course, once upon a time, people did complain about the use of singular you: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=26554

Where is this evidence? And neutrinos do not interact with the strong force either. (Being leptons, and all.)

That may vary, depending on the country. And the area of research. Also, a lot of research projects that get government funding have to match that with industrial funding.

It is not a disability. It is normal human behaviour.

Accidental Maps: Cartocacoethes or Blatant Pareidolia?

I find it hard to believe that you can make a change like this and yet expect everything else to just stay the same. Do you have a mathematical proof of this? This was one of the first pieces of evidence for dark matter: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1937ApJ....86..217Z And much work has been done on it since. It is also one of the biggest problems for all modified gravity explanations. So it is particularly important that you can test your model against this data.