Strange

What if it isn't because of Him? What if it is because of Brahma? Or Amaterasu? Or Ahura Mazda? Or ... ?

I'm sure he is a lot smarter than he pretends to be (what's that all about?) which is why I suspect he may be having second thoughts...

I refute it thus: http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html

Anyone else bemused by the eerie silence from Boris? They keep saying he is the leading candidate but he hasn't yet said he is in the race. He hasn't said anything much. Has he realised that becoming Tory leader now is a poisoned chalice that could destroy his political career?

Between the second and third cervical vertebrae?

"In the rest frame of the electron"

Apart from that one involving stitching bits of bodies together and waiting for a good electrical storm ...

At the risk of getting slightly off-topic, there are some great examples in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat of the way the mind compensates. One was a man who after a serious head injury was told, "We're terribly sorry, but you are blind; you have permanently lost your sight". "Blind? Sight? What are these things? I'm perfectly fine." So, as well as losing his sight he had lost, not only the memory of having it, but the whole concept of being able to see. Another example is people with "blindsight" where the visual centres of the brain are damaged so they have no conscious vision but are still able to navigate around obstacles. But they make up stories to rationalise why they do that. "Why did you move to the left just now?", "Oh, I just lost stumbled a bit. It must be these new shoes." And related to this, the fact that we think we live in a single "now" so the feeling in our foot touching the floor seems to happen at the same time as we see it happening. Even though the nerve signals are delayed by something like half a second.

"consciousness cannot change" What does that mean? Consciousness changes all the time. At the gross level between asleep and awake. At a subtler level, you are never quite the same person as you gain experience and knowledge, etc. The idea that there is any sort of continuous consciousness may be an illusion created by our integration of fragmentary memories and varying levels of external stimuli.

From that article: "No serious researcher I know believes in an electromagnetic theory of consciousness,"[16]Bernard Baars wrote in an e-mail. "It's not really worth talking about scientifically," McFadden acknowledges that his theory—which he calls the "cemi field theory"—is far from proven

There are potentials in nerve cells, but nothing that can't be simulated. We simulate analog circuits all the time.

It is not clear what your problem is. Why is a simulation not suitable? You can either get the computer to display the voltages at various nodes (graphically, if you wish) or use the values to generate a corresponding voltage output. Are neither of those suitable for your purposes? And what are you planning on 3D printing? That is a bit of a leap from simulation. Brain plasticity would emerge from your simulation, if it was accurate.

You need a circuit simulator. SPICE is the best known (and widely used in industry). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPICE And if you want it to generate an actual voltage, then you can use a value from the simulator to drive an D to A converter.

Really?

It also affects photons (with no mass) as in the classic Pound-Reba experiment. (You might get better answers to such questions if they were in the physics forum.)

You need to explain what you mean. Other seem to be referring to reproduction as the creation of life. That seems entirely reasonable so I don't see how you can say it is false. What, exactly, do you mean by "creation of life"?

Do you have any evidence of electrons inside neutrons? After all, science is based on evidence...

More importantly, that it is invariant: all observers see the same speed of light regardless of their (relative) state of motion.

Electrons don't "fit inside neutrons".

Which earlier post? I can't find anything... I find this bald assertion rather unconvincing. You have a completely different model (based on energy waves) so I see no reason why it should produce the same results as GR. Can you show a mathematical proof that your model is equivalent to, or reduces to, GR?

Sounds like specific heat capacity: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa/heatingandcooling/buildingsrev3.shtml There is another factor involved in how hot or cold things feel, and that is the conductivity: how quickly they take the heat away from your hand. So a piece of wood or plastic will feel warmer, on a cold day, than a piece of metal at the same temperature. Just because the plastic warms up where you touch it (because the heat can't flow away) while the metal will feel cold (because you would have to heat the whole thing for it to feel warm).

From the BBC website:

They are the fundamental particles that make up protons and neutrons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#/media/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg

So far there is not known to be anything below the fundamental particles (here "fundamental"). There are a few speculative theories, including one by the spectacularly named Sundance Osland Bilson-Thomson: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0503213

That is an extraordinary story. Therefore, I'm afraid I would need a lot more than a magazine article (by someone who is clearly not impartial) before I gave it any credence. I used to believe everything I read when I was young. After all, if it weren't true, they wouldn't publish it, right? Sadly, I have found that is a very poor approach. It is safer to disbelieve everything you read.