Genady

Requirements 1 and 2 are not absolute either. For example, Newton's theory contradicted observations of perihelium of Mercury for centuries (requirement 2), but this was not enough to reject it. GR has singularities which can be easily turned into mathematical contradictions (requirement 1), but they are considered being out of scope of the theory's applicability, not enough to reject the theory.

No, they do not. When you measure x2=right, electron 1 is not entangled because it was already measured (z1=up). So, at this time its x1 can be any, left or right, independently of the measurement x2.

What is determined is z of electron 1 and x of electron 2. Let's say the measurements were: z1=up, x2=right. Now measure z2. It can be up or down. Measure x1. It can be left or right. They are not entangled anymore and uncertainty holds.

"Same time" in which reference frame?

When you measure any of them, they are not entangled anymore. So, any measurement of one electron doesn't measure anything about the other. Each has the normal uncertainty.

Take a spring. Let's call it's length = total length - sum of widths of the coils. When it squeezed maximally, its length is zero. It has non-zero energy there. When it relaxes it expands, so the minimum energy is at the length greater than zero. This spring has a very real existence

Altshuller, the author of TRIZ (the method), was a science fiction writer before he made himself busy with TRIZ 100%, some time in the sixtieth-seventies. He published his stories under the pseudonym, Altov. But the story and the writer you remember are unrelated to him, I'm quite sure.

Nothing slows down free fall. A matter falling into a black hole will change its shape, becoming "spaghettified." Anyway, it reaches singularity very fast. For example, in the supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way it will be a matter of seconds.

I think that time evolution being non-unitary is a fatal flaw.

I think I understand the question now. In this case, I think, it is just a question to a preliminary study in economics of the project: how "huge" is the expense. I don't know what makes you think that it needs to be as devastatingly expensive as you describe. I think it doesn't have to be more expensive than, say, LHC. Maybe less. We already have a range of developed and tested technologies used for JWST, rovers, probes. Searching for a "suitable" planet is not part of this project - these data come from already running exoplanet projects. There are more technical options described in the articles I've linked a few posts back. The big unknown rather is, how common is life. If life turns out to be even a bit common, then this project is not needed. If on the other hand it turns out to be extremely rare, like e.g. nowhere to be found, then this project has merit.

Who knows then? Maybe he meant that a new theory has to be an extension of an existing recognized theory having it as an approximation / limiting case / subdomain / ...

Didn't he elaborate on these points in the program?

The same answer as before: "to give life a chance to go on after there is no more chance on Earth." Maybe if you rephrase your question, I'll understand why this answer doesn't answer it.

Unitarity is required for the total probabilities to add up to 1 all the time, among other things. Not for beauty.

The purpose is: Whose knowledge? Humans are a tool, not a goal in this idea. Plants and other forms of life on Earth do it while restricted to Earth. The idea is, to remove this restriction.

The point is, to give life a chance to go on after there is no more chance on Earth.

There is nothing to discuss anymore, is there? The OP has conceded:

Why report back?

Predictions of this model should then differ from QM, and this difference should be testable experimentally. What are such predictions?

Is it unitary?

When I have come up with the idea / question in the OP and with its name, Reverse Panspermia, it was new to me. However, after a search on the Internet it turned out to be not so new. For example, "A German physicist envisions giving life a leg-up by sprinkling planets with microbes from robotic spacecraft." (Genesis project – a plan to seed life on other planets (cosmosmagazine.com)) Or, "As Mautner explains in his study published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Cosmology, the strategy is to deposit an array of primitive organisms on potentially fertile planets and protoplanets throughout the universe." (Professor: We have a 'moral obligation' to seed universe with life (phys.org)) There are more. The title has been used as well, albeit for a not purposeful seeding: "His approach is that panspermia, that is, that life arrived on Earth aboard meteorites or comets, has also occurred backward." (Reverse panspermia: The possibility that life on Earth has reached other planets (kagay-an.com)) There is even a legal opinion: "What happens if we seed other planets with Earth life? From a scientific perspective, the answer is tremendously complicated. From a legal perspective it’s simple: Someone goes to jail." (Here's Why It's Illegal to Seed Planets With Alien Lifeforms From Earth (inverse.com)) Just FYI.

I propose it because I don't know and I don't have an opinion, and I'd like to hear opinions and to learn arguments from others. I am proposing it on discussion board, not to a board of directors of SpaceX or NASA

No, the traditional theory does not have this problem. Maybe this quote and this website will help: "It so often happens that I receive mail - well-intended but totally useless - by amateur physicists who believe to have solved the world. They believe this, only because they understand totally nothing about the real way problems are solved in Modern Physics. If you really want to contribute to our theoretical understanding of physical laws - and it is an exciting experience if you succeed! - there are many things you need to know." How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist (uu.nl)

You might be right. I don't know and I don't have an opinion. But, I hear the same arguments about $ and hours from my neighbor, who about once a month asks me who cares about what happened to the universe billions of years ago, or how galaxies billions light years away have formed, when there are so many problems on Earth that need to be solved today.

Re the first part: my "disapproval" referred only to the idea of using them for detection of specifically dark matter. Re the second part: If I understand correctly, you're asking if gravity can be repulsive, rather than attractive. Yes, it can. Dark energy, whatever it is, creates repulsive gravity. The hypothesis of early cosmic inflation assumed repulsive gravity. However, for gravity to be repulsive, its source needs to be somewhat "exotic." No matter and radiation we are familiar with and observe in galaxies, including the dark matter, are like that. Their gravity is attractive.