Strange

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations as it seems the OP is not just confused, but promoting a novel theory.

You really ought to learn about the concept of "metaphors".

A model led to the discovery of Neptune A model led to the discovery of antimatter. A model led to the discovery of neutrinos. A model led to the discovery of the expanding universe. A model led to the discovery of dark matter. Science is driven by experiment and by models.

What? No. The book was translated multiple times into different languages. At each translation, words (including names) were translated into the new language. I can see that might be a bit hard to understand, but I'm sure it will make sense if you think about it for a bit. But you can always read it in the original Aramaic or Greek, if you prefer.

Based on observation and measurement (i.e. the way the universe is).

If your intuition is based on "god did it" then that cannot lead you anywhere because your gad can do absolutely anything at all. You would have been able to predict the results of the double slit experiments, etc. simply by an intuition about "what would my god do". People were led to develop quantum theory by following the evidence, and using their intuition about how mathematics could explain that. If your intuition is based on a working theory, then you can extend, expand, develop new tests of that theory, etc.

Thanks. That seems to confirm what I said.

It is a translation of (ultimately) Maryam: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(name)

"designed" LOL

Anyone who could see the sea, was well aware that the Earth was not flat. In fact, through history, very few people have believed the Earth was flat. Actually, his math told him the universe was expanding. But as there was no evidence for that, he added a factor to keep it static. Hubble never accepted the universe was expanding, despite the law named after him and Lemaitre (who came up with the first model of the expanding universe using the red-shift data).

It is a Universal Interpretation: Q. Why do single photons form an interference pattern? God sends them to the right place. Q. Why do like charges repel? God pushes them apart. Q. Why does light red shift? God stretches the photons. Q. How do atoms bind to one another in chemical compounds? God holds them together. Q. Why do sunflowers turn to the Sun? God adjusts them throughout the day. Then it fails Occam's Razor: the theory works perfectly well without adding an undetectable "god" that makes no difference to the theory or the results.

We probably can't have tens of thousands of theories, but we can certainly have more than one. We have two theories of gravity (Newtonian and GR). Both have their place. We have two theories related to electromagnetism (classical waves and quantum theory). Both have their place.

Your "original details" are science-fiction word-said. There is nothing to counter there. But conservation laws and thermodynamics prove your idea cannot work.

And it has been shown that this is consistent with SR. If it were not, there would have been a ton pf physicts jumping on it to try and find the errors in SR and so, potentially, get themselves a Nobel Prize (or at least some level of fame and prestige). This idea that physicists are afraid to criticise established theory is bizarre and idiotic. How did we get to relativity and quantum theory if not by scientists challenging past preconceptions. IT also suggests some sort of world-wide conspiracy that stops those young, rebellious scientists who want to do knew things. Why? (That is not actually a "paradox", you know. Just an unexpected result. The same is true of all so-called paradoxes in physics). I don't know what "extraordinary" internal consistency is. But please show, in mathematical detail, how using SR leads to a contradiction. If you are right, it should be easy to show the theory wrong using a reductio ad absurdum argument. (I won't be holding my breath.) That is because you don't understand how science works. Again we will skip the meaningless "extraordinary". No experiments "prove" QM. No experiments prove any scientific theory. That is not how science works. However, no experiments disprove (are inconsistent with) QM. So QM remains as a valid theory. That is how science works. It isn't a theory because (a) you have no mathematical model and testable predictions and (b) it has not been confirmed by experiment. If you want to claim it as a scientific hypothesis, then you need to tell us how it could be disproved. (That is how science works.) Probably not. It is quite likely that Einstein was unaware of the MM experiment when he started formulating SR. He would have seen it later as confirmation, but there is no reason to think it was as important as you anti-science types think. Don't play the victim. It is Irrelevant . There are a few people who are vehemently anti-religion and think that anyone religious cannot do good science. But they don't get to control what scientists do or how they interpret their results. However, most people think religion is just irrelevant to science (for obvious reasons). There are a large number of prominent scientists who are religious and, not surprisingly, manage to do good science. Drop the discussion of religion. It is off topic. This is off-topic. (And, again, what you believe or think, without evidence, is irrelevant anyway.)

Synapses communicate by exchanging chemicals, not electrons. Irrelevant nonsense.

Irrelevant. (And possibly meaningless.) You will still end up with less energy.

Do you have a program to make this stuff up?

It could, in principle. But however you capture it and feed it back to the black hole, you will end up with a smaller black hole and less energy than you started with. It doesn't matter how much Star Trek nonsense you invoke, you can't beat thermodynamics: "you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the game"

If you want it to continuously radiate then you need some external source of energy (or matter). Just capturing the radiated energy and feeding it back will not work. This sounds like science fiction. It has no basis in reality. ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

Some people have suffered quite dramatic changes to their brain, with variable results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage The book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat is another useful resource for the effects of various sorts of change to the brain.

Good point. (Reminds me of Asimov's "Relativity of Wrong")

There are a huge a variety of tests of Lorentz violation, using many different techniques (it is only the relativity deniers who obsess over the Michelson-Morley experiment). This is false and pretty insulting to respectable scientists. (Luckily, I am not one.) No. Some of those experiments have been replicated or analysed in more detail, and the conclusions found to be wrong. That is how science progresses. This is just your ignorance of how science works. There is no such contradiction.

It has been replicated and the real explanation for the results found (by a more detailed analysis unbiased by a belief in geocentrism which, presumably, stopped Silvertooth from looking deeper). This is such a distortion of the facts, that it is pretty close to a straight out lie. You are supporting one scientist because you share his beliefs, and claiming another lied about the results, because they disagree with your beliefs. And you call this "rational".

You use energy to create a black hole. You get less energy out. Even if you pump that energy back into the black hole (or use it to create more black holes) you will still get less energy out than you put in. It is no different than trying to recharge a battery by using the current from the battery. All you will get is losses from the charging circuitry and, eventually, a flat battery (or evaporated black hole). You can't magically create energy from nothing. (I'm going to ignore the videos because (a) they are videos(*) and (b) they sound too fantastical to waste time on) (*) If they had something worth saying, it could be written in a few sentences. I'm not going to sit through someone droning on for half an hour, when I could read the same information in 5 minutes.

If only that were true it might give us some ideas of new physics to pursue. But, disappointingly, all experiments are completely consistent with theory. You have one, flawed experiment. And based on that, you want to reject all of physics. Just to support your religious beliefs. Brave. https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2018/04/06/the-tale-of-a-1986-experiment-that-proved-einstein-wrong/ No. I am asking you to give up your personal biases ("a theory must be intuitive") and go back to rational thought.