Strange

Not if it uses byte addressing. It says plus or minus 8192 words (integers0, which implies it does use byte addressing. Is this MIPS or something else?

The quoted text is obviously referring to the use of a 16 bit registe to define an offset from a base register (hence the "plus or minus 2^15 or 32,768 bytes"). We don't know what book this is. Off the top of my head, I don't know what processor has a base address register called RS (MIPS, maybe?).

Nothing can leave a black hole.

It is a fake prop arm held by our lizard overlords? (Who don't understand human anatomy.)

I can't see anything wrong with it. (But I have bad cold, so I may be missing something.)

Make your mind up. If you want supporting references for specific information, then just ask. Asfor how it should aid you: you can't begin to criticise (and potetnially improve on) existing theories until you have a very solid grasp of them. Which you clearly don't.

You have been given several links detailing the density of stars between the arms. You have appare ntly chosen to ignore these. LAWS, It's LAWS, not lows. You haven't done any caclulations. You have reproduced Newtons laws and then gussed that it would support your idea. If you actually did the calculations, you would find it didn't. No you woyuldn't. You would just ignore it again.

There aren't 109 "races" in your picture. And how did you come up with this number, anyway?

And sometimes the complexity is such that the problem is intractable. For example, there is no analytical solution to the three body problem, or the merging of two black holes. Or many other realistic problems. But we can address these by numerical methods and simulation. But, of course, that is not what cladking is saying. He is saying it is impossible to do anything ever.

Plus or minus 215.

That sounds about right. An argument from incredulity/ignorance, in other words. Not a good start. As you beliefs apear to based on your lack of knowledge and incredulity, they have approximately zero value. Maybe you are gnorsnt of the answers. That is not quite the same thing. Argument from authority - another fallacy particularly favoured by physics cranks. Not every hypothesis is ironclad or correct. Their predictions are tested again experiment. Those that fail are rejected. Those that pass repeatedly eventually become accepted as theories. This is the basis of sceince that you seem to rehject. That does seem to be what your are doing.

Some evidence or testable predictions of this "theory" would be nice.

That wouldn't make any difference to the meaning. It would just make it sounds as if it was written by someone whose first language was not English.

More of the same irrelevant drivel that has absolutely nothing to do with mathematics. And possibly nothing to do with the real world. It sounds like the incoherent ravings a wannabe surealist writer. How is "Math doesn't apply in the real world" completely different from "Math doesn't apply to the real world"? I fail to see any difference. Then it is hard to see whether you can make any such judgement.

Maybe retreat and study. Come back when you know what you are talking about.

Do you actually think that means anything? What is "charge potential"? What is "vacuum capacity"? What does "fused at" mean?

Sounds like your entire "theory" is based on not knowing much about current physics. Most of your questions can be readily answered. Maybe you should start by asking some questions in the relevant parts of the forum before making stuff up that is obviously wrong.

There were some amusing suggestions that the initial problems with the LHC were because it could act as a time machine and therefore nature would never let it start up.

It is. But that is not the same as a photon being made up of quarks. Quarks and anti-quarks can annihilate and convert their mass to photons. But you can't combine them into a composite particle and lose the mass.

Hmmm.... Interesting it should get older. In some stories, I think this addressed by the character recreating it each time.

A simpler (and less morally dubious example): you find a book with instructions of how to build a time-machine. The book is unique - the only one in existence. So to make sure it is not found by anyone else, you build a time machine go back in time and burn the book. But that means you couldn't build the time machine and so you couldn't go back and destroy the book. And so the book exists and you could build a time machine ... The same paradox can exist the other way round: you find a book describing how to build a time machine. You build a time machine and take the book back in time and leave it where you will find it. Thus enabling you to build the time machine. But where did the book come from? (This happens in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure - Bill and Ted from the future introduce "Rufus" to Bill and Ted in the past; later, that Bill and Ted travel back in time and introduce Rufus to their former selves. But the only way they know Rufus's name is because they told themselves. How did they know what his name was?)

Why oxygen? Helium is inert. So how is it supposed to form a molecule with another element? (Assuming that is what you mean by "resembles hydrogens relationship with oxygen") And how does it stay in a solid state in the hot early state of the universe? What does "perfectly ionized" mean? Lost all of its electrons? Then how does it couple to another element? (especially in a solid state) What does "internalisation of charge" mean? How could it be below 0K, when that is the coldest temperature possible? And how could it be that cold when the early universe was hot and dense? And, as the universe was hot and dense, where is this vacuum you refer to? What is "tangentially confined spacetime"? What is "field resistance"? What is a "chemical capacitor"? Do you have any evidence or testable predictions? Or just a never-ending buzzword soup?

Exactly.

That magnetism is electrical (and caused relativistic effects) is entirely mainstream, so in what way is this not one of the four fundamental forces? There is no evidence that matter and anti-matter repel. So far the ALPHA projects results are consistent with antimatter acting like matter with regards to gravity -exactly as expected. Also, if this were the cause of expansion, then you need to explain why the expansion predicted by GR is wrong. And, if there were equal amounts of matter and antimatter, why don't we see the distinctive spectrum of radiation their annihilation would cause. How can massless photons be made up of massive quarks?

Specifically, it is (from what I understand) the presence of the event horizon that separates them. In the case that the particle pair are created just inside the event horizon, then one of them is allowed to tunnel out. The Parikh and Wilczek paper seems to say that the only reason it can tunnel out it because the event horizon shrinks due to the loss of mass. (A similar argument applies to pairs formed just outside the event horizon.)