Strange

Why can nothingness not be approached rationally?

I know who he was. So, presumably you think autodidacts are more likely to "think outside the box|"? Do you have any evidence to support that? <sigh> I suggest that we have a new forum rule: Anyone who brings up this myth automatically loses. Haven't you got that the wrong way round? For example, people assumed the aether must exist because light would require a medium. But it doesn't. I suppose a few ignorant people might have thought that, but so what. The "experts" never did. So all these examples show is that science changes and evolves as we learn more. A few of these are paradigm shifts. But EVERY paradigm shift is created by those working in the field. Who types them? That is what the quote function is for.

Correct. Which is why we use things like the cosmological principle. We assume (a working assumption) that the universe beyond what we can see is largely the same as what we do see. Now it is entirely possible that immediately outside the observable universe, everything is made of chocolate. But that is a far less useful assumption. So we stick with the simpler one, which allows us to make models of the universe. I don't think there is any reason to think it is "something". It is the distance between things. (I think this is called the "relational" interpretation of space-time).

I suggest you have not understood any of the articles you have read.

The "electromagnetic wormhole" has absolutely nothing to do with black holes. It also has absolutely nothing to do with traveling through other dimensions. Is "megaman starforce dragon" a google translate error or some sort of sci-fi/anime reference?

None of the above. They just happen to have some properties that we usually associate with waves and some properties that we usually associate with particles. They are neither waves nor particles. No. Notes that are very close together will go in and out of phase causing a recognizable "beating" effect. This can be used for fine tuning of a guitar for instance. No. Hitting it is what causes a tuning fork to vibrate.

"Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous." Gordon Pennycook, James Allan Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek J. Koehler, & Jonathan A. Fugelsang, "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit", Judgment and Decision Making 2015 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=22605

I have no idea what you think the word "logical" means. There is a big difference between something being discovered and people making up stories. I wonder why is this myth is so popular? And why it is so often wheeled out in support of drivel. "The myth of the flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages in Europe saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1][2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Not quite. The point of the thought experiment is to show that until you collapse the wavefunction (by opening the box) not only do you not know whether the cat is alive or dead, but in fact the cat is neither alive or dead. Note that "collapsing the wavefunction" is just one of many interpretations/descriptions of what happens (the Copenhagen interpretation). I think Schoedinger came up with this example to show how silly the Copenhagen interpretation is. It is us doing something (making a measurement) that causes the wavefunction to collapse. So the event causes the collapse not the other way round. Because they are entangled, there is only one wavefunctions. This is the key part. Before the people on Earth look, the pair of particles are in an indeterminate state. So the people on a ship cannot detect a change: all they can do is look at the particle and find it is not in an indeterminate state. But that is the same whether they do it first (and they collapse the wave function) or they do it second (and the wavefunction is already collapsed). In both cases it goes from "unknown" to 1 (or -1). To detect a change, they would have to look at it once and then look again later. But when they look the first time, the wavefunction collapses and the particles are no longer entangled. The only way for the particle to trigger something would be to have a detector that says, say, "if the particle is spin up then turn on the green light, if it spin down then turn on the red light". Before testing the particle, neither light is on and the particle is in an undetermined superposition of states. After testing, either the green light is on or the red light is on. But you still don't know if that is because the people on Earth have already looked at the particle (so they already know if you will get red or green) or because you are doing your test first (in which case no one knows). I don't know if that helps ...

You have been given many pointers to the right way to do this. You have chosen to ignore them. <shrug> It is just another ludicrous "ancient alien" theory. The same as all the others: based on made up interpretations and zero facts.

That is your pareidolia talking. There is no objective evidence that it represents that (if it represents anything). It could be an image of people comparing hats. Note: hats exist. We have no evidence that your Alien Overlords exist. Therefore, which explanation do you think is more likely?

I understood (nearly*) everything you wrote. I just didn't think they were examples of "thinking outside the box" as it is usually used by posters on science forums, nor as you described it in your first post. Some of them might be examples of the "correct" use of the phrase: experts can exploit knowledge or techniques or ideas provided by other experts. No one would disagree that experts from one field can assist experts in another field. This is why multidisciplinary teams are so important in science and engineering (and archaeology and, in fact, pretty much every field). (*) I still don't see the how Ramanujan fits.

By very careful control of the frequency, phase and position of the speakers. It is quite easy for a single frequency, more complicated for complex sounds. But this is how noise-cancelling headphones work (in the small space inside the headphones). That is has some wave-like characteristics and some properties we usually associated with particles. Why would that need to be relative to anything? You can take a single photon or electron and measure its wavelength (a wave-like property) or the point it its a screen (a particle-like property).

This is jthe same thing; it is ust a matter of coordinate choice. See, for example, the mapping from the Schwarzschild description of black hole to the Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates. These describe the exact same thing, but have a different physical interpretation (curvature of space-time verse the flow of space-time). Space is not expanding "into" anything - this is the problem with informal descriptions like "the expanding universe"; it can create the wrong impression. What "space is expanding" means is that, in the absence of any force to keep things together, the distance between points in space will tend to increase. So it may be better to think of it as the universe becoming less dense, rather than getting bigger. It is three of the dimensions in relativity. (It may have more dimensions if string theory, or something like it, turns out to be correct.)

Step 8 doesn't happen. Nothing changes on the starship. You could send them a smug message (at light speed) telling them what value they will measure for the particle in box 3 (if they measure it). But there is no way they can tell by measuring it that you have or have not doe so. All we have is a correlation between the results they measure and the results you measure. But you can only compare those measurements (and see that the correlation exists) at light speed.

No, because we have plausible hypotheses for how replicating molecules can arise (and then compete and hence evolve). I don't see why. Presumably for the same reason that we have never seen another abiogenesis "event". Existing organisms will feed on (and hence destroy) any environments and/or primitive organisms. They have been "out evolved". Do they replicate with heritable characteristics?

As far as I know, it makes no difference whether there is one photon at a time or two or a billion (after all, the original version of the experiment was with continuous radiation = gazillions of photons). But as soon as you do anything to measure which slit each photon goes through, you will destroy the interference pattern. (Actually, I assume this still holds in the classical case, but I'm not sure it is possible to do.)

It is not clear what you mean by "this". So you are referring to people (experts in their field) getting new ideas from novel sources. That is a good example of how, in order to "think outside the box" you have to have huge expertise in what is "in the box". And kinda contradicts what you said earlier about experts needing help from the ignorant. How is this relevant? Only if you can provide the historical and sociological evidence to back it up. I don't know anything about the history of the wheelbarrow in Europe. But I do know that the reason Central American cultures didn't use wheeled vehicles is not because nobody "thought out of the box". It is because they were (a) impractical and (b) unnecessary (for a number of reasons). I assume similar explanations could be found for the absence of the wheelbarrow in hisotyr. Sorry, but I didn't see a single example of people with no knowledge of the subject contributing to it. You will have to be a bit clearer. We had: 1) Jet engine designers = experts in their field. Or are you counting the beetles as "people with no knowledge"? 2) Bioengineering = experts in biology and engineering. 3) A brilliant mathematician with a deep knowledge of mathematics, much of it learnt from standard textbooks (i.e. an expert in his field). 4) Unsupported assertion. 5) Experts in archaeology using a wider range of sources. Who, in this scenario, are the "people with no knowledge"? 6) The use of modern technology by archaeologists (experts in their field). None of these involve what we see on science forums. No one with zero knowledge of engineering and jet engine design came along and said: "you should make the turbine blades out of eggshells. And power it by urine. It seems logical to me." And hence started a revolution in jet engine design.

Define what you mean by "binary number". It sounds like you mean a set of integers (or, equivalently, rational numbers). If real numbers are uncountable, it doesn't matter how you represent them. That can't change their countability.

Exactly.

No it won't.

Very nicely explained. Thank you.

But if the questions are essentially meaningless (as, for example, are many of the questions/suggestions/assertions made by those "thinking outside the box" on this forum) then it won't provide any insight. Here is an article called "‘Outsiders’ Crack 50-Year-Old Math Problem" which suggests that non-mathematicians have solved a long-standing math problem. But that isn't the case: the "outsiders" are brilliant mathematicians. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124-kadison-singer-math-problem/ Can you think of an example where a breakthrough was made by, or even inspired by, someone who knew nothing about the subject in question? There are other possible reasons (if you think outside the box).

But mechanical movement travels at the speed of sound (in the medium).

Light waves and radio waves are basically the same thing - electromagnetic waves at different frequencies - so they would have the same delay. The data would travel along the rod at the speed of sound (in the rod). If it were infinitely stiff (made of unobtanium) then the fastest possible speed of sound is equal to the speed of light.