Strange

And Venus certainly isn't hot enough the keep it molten. Compared to the early (molten) Earth, both planets are at pretty much the same temperature. David, just come out with it. What is your agenda here? Some sort of creationism? Or that the world must be infinitely old? Or just a general dislike of science?

Of course it is relevant to Venus. It is basic thermodynamics. It is relevant to all bodies. This is getting even more ludicrous than your attempts to disprove gravity.

That is not your only hypothesis. You invent five arbitrary rules A1-A3 and B1-B2 that your "informatons" follow. These rules appear, at first glance, to be entirely ad-hoc but are clearly generated from the theory (GEM) that you are attempting to show can be derived from first principles. So your argument is entirely circular: derive properties of magic particles from GEM. Use magic particles to derive GEM. I assume you are here because this "paper" has been rejected by all reputable journals.

Why do you think scientists are in a panic? They just look at the evidence and come to conclusions.

You could put it that way. So which of the two indistinguishable theories is simpler: 1. GEM with added magic particles that don't make any difference and are undetectable 2. GEM Clue: the one without unnecessary additions.

More evidence for the location and behaviour of dark matter: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32066013

Good point. Maybe it isn't as simple as I initially thought ...

And Occam's razor says not to introduce unnecessary entities. So your magic particles can be rejected because they are unnecessary: GEM works without them.

Nice selection of straw men there. Did you make them yourself? If CO2 indeed trumps all and in every case is catastrophic Citation needed. Oh no, that's right: you made it up. this trend would not exist My understanding is that climate models predict there will be fewer such storms (although there will be more extreme ones)

And GEM does not need magic informatons.

It is a perfectly realistic assessment. As your informatons are not detectable (and therefore have no reality) you could just as well replace them with non-interacting-hyper-neutrinos, or invisible nano-unicorns. Or magic. Postulating things for which there is no evidence, and which cannot be detected and are therefore not falsifiable, is by definition not science.

Too much waffle and not enough rigour. No data. I would suggest you get hold of a tuning fork, a block of wood and some kitchen scales. Drill a hole in the wood so it acts as a stand for the tuning fork. Put the tuning for in the stand and put the whole thing on the scales. Make sure the fork is not vibrating and record the weight. Now take the fork out, strike it against a solid surface and put it back in the wooden stand. Record the weight. Repeat a few times to check for sources of errors. Repeat with different tuning forks and scales to eliminate other sources of error. Report the results here. You might want to wear some protective clothing because if the effect were as large as you claim, as soon as you put the vibrating tuning fork in the stand it will shoot up into the air and bounce of the ceiling.

I don't know if anyone has done a survey of how much "new" science has been developed led by theory first or led by observation/concept. My impression is that its about 50:50. But I don't really know. What "should" lead, is largely irrelevant. It is more about what is possible or known at any time. So we about the visible planets before we had a theory to describe their behaviour. But theory predicted the big bang before we had the observations to confirm it. (Note that Lemaitre's "cosmic egg" came from the maths, not the other way round.) Similarly we knew about the photoelectric effect and black body radiation before quantum theory could explain it. But then quantum theory predicted lots of things (e.g. antiparticles) that were later found.

One is a number. It does not refer to a physical object. You can use numbers to count physical objects but there is no equivalence between numbers and the objects counted.

I am not going to question your assumptions or calculations as, after all, this is your theory. Have you thought about the result you have obtained? What you are saying is that an everyday object which weighs slightly over 50 grams will reduce in weight by about 800 grams when used. Why do you think no one has noticed that? I don't think that is necessary. Partly because tuning forks are designed to ring for a reasonable time. But also because a massive effect like this could be detected in a fraction of a second. If it existed...

Relativity of simultaneity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

So you agree you made a laughably stupid and incorrect claim. Good. There is no "now" for the whole universe. Really, don't you think you should learn a little basic maths and physics before making all these claims?

Yeah, like the natural numbers can't be infinite because the number 5 exists. What does "the moment of reality" even mean?

Like the natural numbers it could start at 0 and go on forever.

You don't know that. Just another random guess.

So you think pure maths is a waste of time? You are entitled to your opinion, I suppose, but I doubt many people would agree. That is still not the same as saying that mathematics only represents physical reality. Which is not true. It does. What do you mean by by "original value"? This is, as I think you have been told, undefined.

There are infinite number of natural numbers. They start at zero.

So how about doing the calculations for a real tuning fork so we can see if the idea is testable.

How much should the vibration of a tuning fork reduce its weight? If we know that, then we can tell you whether that is easy to measure or not.

These are completely unrelated things. And all completely hypothetical. The multiverse idea(s) are about cosmology and the possibility of multiple independent universe. The Many Worlds Interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics (and therefore not a theory, just an explanation or analogy). Infinite space is one possibility. Finite space is another.