Strange

! Moderator Note Moved to Physics as this is a straightforward question.

Everything the brain does, including "feelings" (however you define that), require the brain to do some sort of processing of inputs, memories, etc to produce a result. So it is all "computation" (however you define that). Unless you can show that "computation" and "feelings" are actually different things, the question doesn't really make sense.

I assume by "feeling" you mean some sort of "intuitive understanding" (rather than emotions). In which case, it depends how you define "feelings" and how you define "calculation". Which you seem to have understood by the hedging around this terms in your post. Clearly, the brain does some "calculation" that we are not aware of, and we may only become aware of the result as a "feeling". You might want to read Thinking, Fast and Slow where Daniel Kahneman looks at these two ways of thinking, how they each work, the effects they have, etc. https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

Reference?

So you can show us the quantitative predictions and how well they match measured values, then? But anyone can make up a story and then claim it passes unnamed tests. As there are no (quantitative) predictions, Joduh can claim that any observation matches.

You can b whatever you want to b

The tongue? The heart? The safety thing that you pull to make it all fall apart?

They do exactly what your singularities do, of course. They have exactly the same mathematical description (ie none). And they have exactly the same level of existence and credibility. Singularities are not "things". They are places where the mathematics of a model no longer works; typically because values become infinite. So, what mathematical value becomes infinite at your singularities? Curvature? Density? Mass? The problem with making up fairy tales, as you are doing (even if they have a few sciency words in there) is that there is no way of testing the ideas to see if they are correct or not. That is why mathematics is required if you are to do science. Just because you are ignorant of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Measure the dimensions of your room (height, width, length). That is geometry. You could start from there.

It is true that you are not doing anything like science.

Perhaps because it is true. You should maybe learn a little about how science works. (Hint: it is not by making up the sort of drivel you have posted here.)

! Moderator Note You appear to have answered your own question. And this seems to have little connection to chemistry.

But no evidence. No math. No testable predictions. In other words, no science.

cosmicweb has been banned as a sock puppet of MultiSingularity and scifimath

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please note the rules require you to provide support (math or evidence) for your claims.

I suspect you might have to provide the tiniest bit more information. Such as what this "little red piece" looks like, where it is located, etc. Maybe a photo?

! Moderator Note This is a science forum. If you want to discuss something, scientifically, then do it here. The rules (that you have agreed to) say that you must post your discussion here, not just provide links to your website. You might also note that the rules forbid preaching. So, what do you want to discuss?

I have no idea what these images are showing, but I am pretty sure it is not "some sort quantum spin."

Can you explain how you are measuring the "twist" in this "field line"? I assume this might have something to do with the images in your first post, but as I have no ides what they are photos of they don't explain anything. (They appear to be "caustics" or some other effect of light being reflected from a metallic surface) There are a great many reasons why it is obvious there is no connection between magnetism and gravity (despite some analogies between them). For example, gravity affects (and is created by) uncharged and unmagnetised objects. (Note that charge and magnetism are the same underlying phenomenon, electromagnetism, and the (special) theory of relativity explains the connection; meanwhile, the (general) theory of relativity also explains gravity as a different phenomenon.) Also, charge/magnetism has two values (+/-, N/S) and therefore repels as well as attracts. Gravity is purely attractive. Gravity is proportional to mass, not charge. We can block electromagnetism but not gravity. Trying to explain the attractive forces between more than two bodies in terms of electromagnetism rapidly leads to logical contradictions.

Some good introductory linguistics books listed here, including some aimed at conlangers: https://allthingslinguistic.com/post/133756588946/a-very-long-list-of-pop-linguistics-books-and As you are apparently starting from complete ignorance of linguistics, you should find some useful stuff there. In other words, completely divorced from reality. It is like saying that you have come up with a better automobile engine based on purely mathematical principles while not knowing how to drive, how an engine woks, what gasoline is, how cars are built or used, or even what they look like.

What evidence do you have for the existence of these two "theoretical elements"? (You must have some direct evidence if you assert they are "real" with such confidence.) What evidence do you have that they are eternal? What properties do these two elements have? What does "dynamical simplicity" mean? How can it "choose" anything? What are the postulates? What does "continuum limitations" mean? What is the "continuum" in this context? What does "absolute" mean? What does "local" mean? What evidence do you have for these limitations? What evidence do you have for them being absolute? What evidence do you have for them being local? What does "background structure" mean? What does "minimal" mean? What does "continuous" mean? What evidence do you have that this structure is minimal? What evidence do you have that this structure is continuous? What are these "dimensionless parameters"? How many parameters are there? What values do they have? How do they guarantee the emergence of space time? What evidence do you have for the existence of these parameters and for their values? What evidence do you have for the emergence of spacetime? What does "probabalistically modified locally" mean? What characteristics of points in space are modified in this way? What evidence do you have that there is "atomic, discrete quantum spacetime"? (You might want to consider the existing evidence against this claim when answering this question.) How does "atomic, discrete quantum spacetime" correlate with "background structure is ... continuous"? What is a "proto- discernations"? What evidence do you have that these "proto- discernations" exist? What evidence do you have that time and space emerge from "proto- discernations"? What evidence do you have that gravity emerges from "compressive casimir effect"? (In your answer, you might want to consider the fact that the Casimir effect only occurs in very specific circumstance, in very small volumes of space; whereas gravity appears to be universal). What are "exclusion zones"? What are "lightning structures"? (Does this have anything to with weather?) What are "gradient structures"? What evidence do you have for "exclusion zones"? What evidence do you have for "lightning structures"? What evidence do you have for "gradient structures"? What is "spin symmetry" in this context? Can you provide a mathematical definition? What does "electrical dynamo" mean in this context? How does it relate to "spin symmetry"? What neutral particle properties are you referring to? How do these relate to "spin symmetry"? What do you mean by "orbitals" in this context? What are "pressure crystals"? What are "cracks of exclusion zones"? How do oribitals organise those things? What is a "propagational vector pulsewave"? What evidence do you have for this description of light? (You might want to consider all the evidence that light is s single phenomenon, and that what light is made up of a combination of colours, in your answer.) What does "expansion of spacetime" mean? How is it different from the well understood expansion of space? What does it mean for time to expand? What evidence do you have for the expansion of spacetime? What does it mean for this expansion to be "regional? What are "probabalistic forces"? What are "dynamo forces"? What evidence do you have for these two forces? Apart from that, it all seems pretty clear ... Please show the mathematical proof of this assertion.

These are just different interpretations (descriptions) of the same theory. You can think of this experiment in terms of retrocausaility or instantaneous (non-local) collapse of the wave function or many other ways. But the underlying theory, and the mathematics, is the same in all cases. So there is no way of distinguishing between interpretations, because the theory makes the same prediction, whatever interpretation you choose.

Today I learned that owl have really long legs (that they keep discreetly hidden) and that baby owls look just like aliens:

! Moderator Note This forum does not exist to advertise your web site.

! Moderator Note That is quite enough. I think this thread has run its course.

! Moderator Note A thread hijack about absolute time has been split off to here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120533-absolute-time-split-from-is-quantum-time-travel-possible/