Strange

Then why are you rejecting GR, as it has been confirmed by real-world observation? Do you have any real-world evidence to support this claim? Or are you just disappointed that your non-theory is not accepted? Please show, in appropriate mathematical detail, how your wave equation relates to this diagram. This is simply a restatement of the same claim. There is no limit to the amplitude of a sine wave and so, by your argument, there is no limit to potential. What "real world observation" do you have that supports this claim? It doesn't. And even if it did, it wouldn't mean they were correct. Common sense is a notoriously poor guide. That is why science relies on real world observation. An equation can never be proof (in science). It needs to produce results that can be compared against real-world observations. Where are your equations? Where are the comparisons of your (quantitative) predictions against the real world? Why? And what does this mean? A thought experiment is not evidence. What example is that, and how is it relevant? Why is that impossible? Of course, there are practical limits. What about it? All three statements in your opening post have been shown to be false. And there is no logic: the third statement cannot be logically dervied from the first two (which are false anyway). That is not a sombrero curve. A sombrero has a local minimum:

The same advances in fabrication technology can benefit all semiconductor products.

Lack of supporting evidence? That doesn't make much sense. What limits the height of this "sombrero"? Also, I am not convinced that is an accurate description of gravitational potentials. Can you provide an example? Finally, last time I mentioned that you were talking about gravitational potential you responded vehemently that you meant voltage, and insisted you were being consistent. But now we are back to gravity. I assume you have your own personal definition for "consistent" as well.

You don't know that. The evidence suggests it is possible. As you say, this is not yet fully understood so it is probably a bit optimistic to expect anyone here to explain it. But they may be able to point you at some of the relevant bits of research. But parts of the problem are understood. For example, our sense of consciousness and "self" (which may be an illusion) depends partly on memory - both long term and short term. The mechanisms for the various forms of memory, and how they are managed/recalled are increasingly well understood. Mirror neurons may have a role in us developing a "theory of mind" and hence enabling introspection. And so on...

It is not an opinion. It is a statement of scientific results. You have provided nothing to support voltage being either absolute nor limited. Particularly when "logic" is used to mean "makes sense to me". Can you show, mathematically, how you pretty picture relates to a wave function. And, for bonus points, can you also provide some support for the claim that there is only one wave function. What is the equation of this wave function?

The term "common enemy" pretty much implies that you have an disparate (non-homogeneous) group to start with. Otherwise it would just be "enemy". So your putative cause undermines the OP's case (which was pretty fragile to start with).

You are not. Of course it isn't. DNA doesn't know anything. It is just the molecule that stores the information encoded in our genes. It has no intelligence. I would suggest a good book on how genetics works.

I find it hard to believe that you have read the book when you come up with questions like that. DNA doesn't think (obviously). It doesn't decide to copy itself (obviously). It doesn't know that adaptation is required (obviously).

It doesn't matter what you suspect; neither of them are absolute and, as far as I know, there is no reason to think that voltage difference is limited.

That is a bizarre thing to say. It is obviously not true as you have been shown much of the maths in this thread. The reason we know that the theories that you reject (such as GR) work is because the equations make quantitative predictions which can be tested against reality. Against that, all you present is opinion and waffle. These are simply two different, but equivalent, descriptions of the same thing. You can use whichever is more appropriate to the problem you are trying to solve. You have chosen not to understand.

Yes, you will get to infinity before you get as far as 1.

Given the relentless ignorance and refusal to learn in this thread (and pretty vile and offensive comments in another thread) conway is now on ignore. In my experience, one of the main reasons for threads going on so long (apart from the rare genuinely interesting ones) is because people are committed to trying to educate and inform. Even when we give up on the OP as being incapable of learning, there are others who might need to have the facts explained.

It is well understood what deforms space time: mass, energy, pressure, momentum, etc. Despite your unsupported claims, GR continues to work very well. So I wonder which is more likely to be right... Nonsense. Newton said nothing about space-time. What you have to do to accept your assertiosn is abandon GR. I doubt anyone is going to consider doing that in the absence of an alternative model. And as you don't have one ... Is that your excuse for refusing to support your assertions?

You mean when a material absorbs photons? The momentum of the absorbed photons is transferred to the atoms that absorb them. This gives the atoms a "kick" and sets them moving (more than they were before). "Heat" is just a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in the medium - the atoms now have more kinetic energy, hence more heat. There is: the photons are (in general) more likely to be absorbed near the surface so the surface will be warmer. It doesn't.

It does, but it is pretty small. It is only about 1 millionth the mass of the galaxy. Of course they do.

Building models to fit the data IS how science works. Note that there have been many other attempts to model this; e.g. by tweaking the equations of gravity. Currently, modelling dark matter as matter produces the best fit to observation (which is what science tries to do). The nice thing is that the same amount and distribution of matter also fits other, independent data. All that means is that you don't have a clue how science works. This is a completely normal way of proceeding. Of course, if someone comes up with a better model, then that will be adopted in favour of the old one. If you had a model, then we could see if it is better or not. Gosh. I wonder why no one thought of that... Of course they did. Extensive searches have been carried to find normal matter that we just can't see. This has actually revealed more matter (such as cold molecular hydrogen) that we weren't aware of before. People have also tried modelling to see if rocks, iron dust, small black holes, etc could produce these effects. These have, so far, all been ruled out. What is there to consider? In the first case, the planets add to the mass of the whole system. In the second case, the stars add to the mass of the whole galaxy. The planets (obviously) don't add to the mass of the central star. Similarly, the outer stars don't add to the mass of the central bulge (nor to the speeds of the inner stars).

It eliminates primes and whole load of associated problems.

Sounds like you couldn't help yourself. But at least you have provided the proof that you are wrong. For example, the belief that a voltage difference will exert a force on an uncharged object.

I don't think that showing a calculation for potential energy and then saying "no I meant voltage" is very consistent. Yes. For the reasons given, among others. According to relativity, it is wrong. However, you seem to want to replace it with the Coulomb force. Which obviously doesn't work.

A combination of historical accident, convention and usefulness. Like any categorization, it is at least partly arbitrary. You might also want to look at the Dewey Decimal system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Decimal_Classification I assume they are distinguishing between concepts in the mind (ideas) and external events (phenomena). But I doubt the distinction is particularly well defined. It is more likely to have been a fairly arbitrary choice so that they could break the book up into manageable chunks. Maybe you need to study taxonomy or ontology? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_%28general%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29

And despite all that, the idea still hasn't been clearly explained. Any attempt to pin it down causes it to slip away. This conforms, to me, that conway has this vague idea in his head which he thinks works ("well, I tried it out with a one example") but even he can't define it in a way that anyone can work with.

That was your calculation of potential energy I was quoting. If you were talking about voltage, why didn't you calculate the relationship between velocity and voltage? So when you said: You actually meant: "AFAIK the only way to set a body in motion relative to another body is via a voltage difference." This is clearly false. For one thing, a voltage difference will only affect objects with a net charge. Secondly, it is not the only force capable of setting something in motion. You might have heard of something called "gravity". So we are back to all three of your statements being false.

And, as expected, neither support your claim that it is a "law of nature that isolates an entangled state from intrusion by non participant, non indoctrinated entities."

The weak force is mediated by the W and Z bosons. This seems like a good intro: http://www.livescience.com/49254-weak-force.html

Look! Velocity is NOT proportional to potential. Amazing.