Strange

That’s what the mind tells us

Everything we know about the external world (including our assumption that it exists) is created by our mind. So we can't say anything about the external world other than what our mind tells us. I suppose that is indistinguishable from the mind creating the external world. (If you want to really get into this I depth, there is a thread on the Cosmoquest forum that has been going for about 100 years. And not really getting anywhere.)

And, at the risk of going in circles, is there any reason to believe that such other universes exist? (I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Despite your shopping list of fiction and irrelevancies.)

You need to do a better job of explaining how these things are evidence for "alternate reality". Can you imagine a criminal trial where the judge asks the prosecution what the evidence is that the accused is the murderer and they say: 1. Optics 2. Fantasy 3. Science fiction 4. Ghost stories 5. Time 6. Microscope 7. Sleep 8. Fairy tale 9. Fairy tale! 10. Amnesia Judge: "OK. Case dismissed. The accused is free to go because the prosecutor has apparently lost his mind." But before that, perhaps you can define what you mean by "alternate realities"?

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 requires you to say what you want to say here not just link to a video.

The “evidence” is either fictional or already has a good explanation

What is an "alternate reality?" Why are any of those things evidence for it? Explained with no need for "alternate reality". What are "unexplained artefacts"? And what evidence is there that they exist? What is a repeating universe? And what evidence is there that they exist? And what evidence is there that they exist? And why would it be evidence of an "alternate reality"? Do you mean time? Why would time be evidence of an "alternate reality"? Why is the existing of a scientific instrument evidence of an "alternate reality"? I can't even ... A dream is a ... DREAM. It is something constructed by your brain. You can tell this, because it bears no resemblance to any reality, alternate or otherwise. You know when you are in a dream because it is obviously unreal. Sheesh. Was this an episode of Star Trek that I missed? (OK. Just googled it. You seem to be confusing urban legend with reality.) Again, either urban legend or possibly a story told someone with mental health issues (I can't find anything to suggest the story is anything other than urban legend or just fiction). Simply explained by the fallibility of human memory. We know human memory is unreliable (it is trivially easy to get people to remember things that never happened; and they will be convinced that it can't be their memory that is at fault because "I can remember what happened").

No, but others have. For "quite a stretch" read: "wrong". And failed. You are using the wrong theory and, as others have pointed out, using it incorrectly. This is inconsistent. If red-shifts map to speeds then we do see galaxies receding at superluminal speeds. if you say they are not receding at speeds greater than c, then red-shifts do not correspond to speed. (This is one of the problems that arises when you try to interpret the red-shift as a Doppler effect.)

Some are, such as planets orbiting a star or satellites orbiting a planet. But in others, gravity is irrelevant (e.g. chemical or thermal equilibrium). I think that's the wrong way round. We know how gravity works already. And we know how it can lead to systems being in stable/metastable/unstable states.

Most experiments on free electrons are performed in a vacuum (for obvious reasons). Some experiments involving electrons can be done in conductors, semiconductors, plasma or other material but that normally means that it is the interactions of electrons and the material that is relevant. ! Moderator Note if you want to present your own non-standard theory, please open a thread in Speculations

! Moderator Note Stop posting obviously false information

Which aspect is it that causes the problem, do you think? Is it the concept of telling the machine what to do? Or is it the specifics of programming languages?

You can’t use that on cosmological scales. You have to use GR. (Apart from all your other errors that have been pointed out.)

Can you provide a more specific reference than “some people”? Pretty much all matter (in the form of hydrogen and some helium) was formed early in the Big Bang. That is the “one source” and why matter is evenly distributed throughout the universe

! Moderator Note Do not hijack serious threads with unsupported nonsense like this

I’m not sure what definition of “simultaneous” you are using. I can’t imagine one that would make this statement true. For any reasonable definition of simultaneous, the observers would both see the universe being about 13.8 bn years old. Red shifts do not correspond to speeds. Otherwise there would be a problem with the galaxies we see with recessional velocities greater than c.

! Moderator Note Moved to a more appropriate forum

It would be an adventure to visit the only planet we know that is entirely populated by robots

That would be orthography, not grammar.

! Moderator Note With ignorant nonsense like this, this is not suitable for any part of a science forum

When that “different level” appears to be “total ignorance of genetics” then this seems doomed to failure. There seems no justification for that confidence

Why? ”real” is not measurable or testable so it is irrelevant to science. You need to define what you mean by “real” and by “space”. In other words, that is philosophy and therefore off topic.

! Moderator Note Do not open another thread about oscillators.

So you are thinking about changing only one gene, not 10% of the whole genome. But a human has between about 27,000 and 2 million base pairs. Changing even one of those can completely stop the gene functioning normally. An you want to change thousands of them. Sounds like a recipe for instant death. It seems like you need to learn a lot more about how genes work. Or, to put it another way: you need to learn how genes work.

! Moderator Note I think you need to be more open-minded in your approach to science and not desperately, and rather sadly, try and force everything to fit with your obsession. Please show the details of the mathematical model that you used to draw that graph in your next post or this thread will be closed. Please also explain how the reference is relevant. Because, apart from the word "oscillator" it does not appear to be.