Strange

I would say there was no time between 2 and 3. Is that "nothingness"? I don't know.

Well, they are both Semitic languages and so it is not surprising if they have cognate terms for zero. When I came round I was trying to say "three" with a mouth full of stitches ...

I hadn't realised before that zero comes from the same root as cipher (and that they are are both from Arabic).

Well, you certainly need to avoid the error of looking back and saying something like "B was wrong and he should have realised". Scientific theories (even phlogiston) were "right" in their time if they fit the evidence and knowledge available at the time. And while there may be occasional individuals who hold thinks back there are usually the exception and in the long run the scientific process works out. (It can be argued that these individuals are good for science because they force a higher standard of evidence to be needed.)

You say (imply) that "nothingness" does not exist (which may be true) but that people have often thought about it. Isn't that the very definition of a human concept? One could argue that, for example, a mountain is not a human concept because they exist "out there". But of course, our ideas of what a mountain is are based entirely on our own (human) concepts.

You are right. I hadn't thought it through. If one could tell which surface each photon was reflected from, I assume would it stop interference occurring.

Why would you assume that? Ah, the usual creationist nonsense. I wondered where you were coming from. Thanks for finally making it clear. Interesting. Thank you. This would seem to undermine much of your nonsense. So evolution can occur at the chemical level (which isn't much of a surprise) and this could have given rise to the more complex molecules used by living organisms.

I don't agree that theses phases exist. Many people spend their whole lives learning, for example. You seem to be just making stuff up. Again. And I don't see any connection with neurons - apart from the obvious fact that all mental activity involves neuron excitation (and inhibition).

Obviously. That is what makes them "paradigm shifting". Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Or is it a gut feel? After all, the examples of "paradigm shifting" science you have listed would seem to contradict this.

I assume you could tell by the path it took (assuming it was incident at something other than 90˚).

Can you show this? Also, even if a the gravitational field outside a spherically symmetric, unchanging mass can be modelled with your equation that doesn't say anything about the more general EFE. That was already know, wasn't it? What are the "radiant conditions"? Can you show how this relates to black body radiation. Does this have the same temperature as Hawking radiation?

The problem is not which surface if comes from. The problem is about the distance between the two surfaces and whether this results in interference or not.

Presumably because you are using it wrong. It is impossible to create a paradox in relativity. It is proven to be mathematically consistent.

I don't think we could measure that. But also, I don't think it would tell you anything: we can tell whether the photon was reflected from the front surface (from the geometry of the reflected rays). What we can't explain without non-locality is how the photon "knows" whether the thickness of the glass will result in constructive or destructive interference.

And we often use 4 (or even 7 or more) state logic to model this. Four state logic is 0, 1, Z (tri-state) and X (conflict or unknown). Other states can include H and L (weak 1 and 0), U, W (unknown, weak unknown), - (don't care), and so on.

You missed off an important part of that sentence. All I can say is that GR describes what happens. What you are interested in is not (currently) part of science. There are theories where space-time is an emergent phenomenon from some "lower-level" theory (e.g. causal dynamical triangulation). But that just shifts your question to what is that lower level model "really" made of. So I can't help feeling this line of questioning is ultimately futile.

Hmmm.... I sort of see what you mean. But if you have a straight line between two objects, is that straight line a "thing"? If you have three objects, is the triangle that joins them a "thing"? And if you add the angles of that triangle and find it comes to exactly 180˚ is the Euclidean nature of that triangle a "thing"? But if you add the angles of that triangle and find it comes to less than (or more than) 180˚ is the non-Euclidean nature of that triangle a "thing"? Ultimately, the geometry of space-time is about the relationships between events in space-time and how they are changed by the presence of mass-energy. This is a useful introduction: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ But all GR (and science in general) can do is describe. It sounds like you are asking about some sort of underlying reality. But that is outside the domain of physics; it is more of a philosophical question. There is another thread where a poster asked if gravity can be explained by space "falling". And (in some cases, at least) it can be. So you could say that the "curvature" of space-time is just an interpretation of what is going on. Do we know (or can we ever know) what is "really" going on? Maybe not. All we can do is come up with better descriptions.

Ah, so you didn't mean "rationally"; but rather what can you imagine or visualise? While it is true that every group and even individual has their own dialect, to describe these as separate languages is such an exaggeration as to be almost dishonest.

I doubt anyone would argue with that. Like your listing of changes in scientific knowledge, it is so trivially obvious that it hardly seems worth noting.

In relativity it is. (Obviously, once you consider quantum effects, that void is filled with fields, energy, and virtual particles.) Is it? That "fabric" is a metaphor. And a rather misleading one, apparently. What is warped is the geometry of those measurements. (And note that space-time is not warped by gravity, rather the curvature of space-time is what we experience as gravity.)

What is wrong with you? Read what it said: "creating the illusion of a magnetic field propagating through a tunnel outside the 3D space" ILLUSION. Look it up in a dictionary.

I don't follow that. Whether they educated themselves or were educated by others, they have developed an expertise in the subject. It is easy to pick on one example of someone self-taught, such as Ramanujan, and claim that therefore all of them must be equally insightful but, basically, I don't believe it. If he had been from a different family background and gone to university, then I assume he would have been equally brilliant and made just as many breakthroughs. He appears to have been a bit of a savant. But I'm sure there are also examples of autodidacts who are pretty average and don't make breakthroughs. I always thought Newton and others were very unhappy with the idea of action at a distance. In fact, didn't he say something about his law of gravitation describing the way gravity behaved but he had no idea how it could work. Was he an expert in flight? Or just a pompous ass? Again, you seem to be extrapolating from an individual to a more general problem (which doesn't appear to exist). No one is ignoring that. It is well known and totally obvious. So much so that I'm not even sure why you brought it up. OK. But contrary to the way "thinking outside the box" is normally used, the people who did this were all firmly "inside the box".

There is absolutely no reason to think this. If you are interested in understanding this, I suggest studying some basic physics. People here will be very happy to help you. No one is mad. Where is this theory described? It is not in any of the web pages you linked to.

No there wasn't. There was a suggestion that it might be possible to create a tunnel where things that passed through were not visible. (Apart from that, nothing is ever "proved" in science.) Let's look at one of the articles you posted: The team of mathematicians that first created the mathematics behind the "invisibility cloak" announced by physicists last October has now shown that the same technology could be used to generate an "electromagnetic wormhole." Note the word "could" indicating that it has not been "proved". Note the use of "scare quotes" around "electromagnetic wormhole" to indicate that it is not really a wormhole. Their results open the possibility of building a sort of invisible tunnel between two points in space. Note the use of the word "possibility" indicating that it has not been "proved". Not even achieved yet. Also, it is a tunnel "between two points in space" NOT "though another dimension". To create cloaking technology, Greenleaf and his collaborators use theoretical mathematics to design a device to guide the electromagnetic waves in a useful way. Note the use of the word "theoretical mathematics" indicating that it has not been "proved". Not even achieved yet. So please stop posting nonsense. Then maybe you should ask some questions. Perhaps about things you don't understand in the articles you have read. What proof? What is your idea? Maybe you need to explain what your idea is, first.

Don't worry. It is only temporary.