Strange

It is generally thought that dark energy has always had a constant effect but at some point this became stronger than the effects of gravity (as things got further apart).

No it doesn't. 1) Nothing can move at the speed of light. 2) The Lorentz transform does not apply at the speed of light (you end up dividing by zero) You really shouldn't post this sort of drivel in the science sections of the forum. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has nothing to do with bouncing photons off an object. And things really don't cease to exist when not observed. This would appear to contradict your argument. Everything can be considered to be stationary in its own frame of reference and yet time doesn't stop.

I think that is a pretty good way of thinking about it. The "particle" nature comes about because these interactions are quantised (happen in discrete amounts).

No really. An extrapolation back, using just general relativity, leads to a singularity at that time. I don't think most cosmologists think that the singularity has any physical meaning and there are several models which avoid it (and therefore any associated "creation" event).

I'm not sure why you think that is odd. I would assume, as an approximation, that the elements produced by past supernovae are pretty well mixed and distributed. So when a cloud of gas and dust starts to collapse to form a solar system then the quantities of most elements would be roughly the same everywhere. The Earth's magnetic field is incredibly weak. It can just about turn a needle suspended on a low friction bearing (I'm thinking of a compass). You need a pretty big magnet close to a coil to generate a measurable current (and a massive generator to produce useful amounts). Also, the moon doesn't rotate (relative to Earth) so the coils would generate any current. And it wouldn't be practical to get the current back to Earth. Apart from that ...

That is not a good model. They are not particles within the orbitals, they are the orbitals. The position and shapes of the orbitals are a result of quantum theory.

Hmmm ... "energy" and precognition. So we are no longer discussing science?

Nearly all your posts are intelligent and worth reading. But there are a couple of areas where you become totally irrational and allow your emotion to blind you. <shrug> I don't read those topics any more, it is just a waste of time.

Yes. Tunnelling is an essential part of many electronic devices. For example, it is how data is stored in (some types of) flash memory. It also contributes to leakage current, which is less desirable.

Well, the system will lose energy: some of the tidal energy will be lost as heat. And presumably there will be a tiny loss to gravitational waves.

All rotating masses cause frame dragging but it is usually a very small effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

This is quite a good example. Although, in reality, there is a slight overlap (when you consider physical characteristics). There is a slightly larger overlap when you consider the psychological and social definitions.

As I am not a mind reader, I can only go by what you write. If you are unable to state your ideas clearly, that is your problem. This has absolutely nothing to do with how consciousness arises. So, once again, you are not doing anything to support your claims. I suppose you think you are saying something with the rest of the post, but I have no idea what.

It isn't "patently true". I and many other people don't think it is true. As consciousness appears to arise from the operation of the brain and zygotes don't have brains, this sounds like nonsense. But if it is supported by 500 years of science, you should be able to provide some evidence for it.

I see you avoided presenting any evidence again. So this is yet another of your claims that we can put down to an over-active imagination. I thought you said AI was impossible.

Where does it come from then? And what evidence do you have for this? (other than your "logic", or imagination as it is better described) How can we test your claim?

No, that paper explicitly says it assumes the FLRW metric for the universe; therefore not a black hole. Not really.

From a quick skim through that page it appears you have found the same relationship between the Schwarzschild radius and the Hubble constant that Sean Carroll uses to demonstrate that the universe is not a black hole.

That is exactly the opposite of what the article says. Perhaps you can show your (mathematical) support for this claim?

But it isn't: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole/

Also, from what I have read, it seems that cold dark matter is needed when modelling the formation of large scale structure in the universe. This article describes 5 bits of evidence that need to be explained by any alternative to dark matter (and mentions a couple more). https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8

When you do that, you will find that your claims are false. Which will be an excellent indication that you have learned the maths that you need.

Another of your idiotic straw man arguments. Don't you ever get tired of this? That was one of the examples I had in mind. We can predict the weather within about 5 days to pretty high levels of accuracy. The other one I was thinking of is the time that the sun will rise tomorrow. Who suggest they should? Yet more of your tedious straw men. That is quite a common assumption. It is hard to see how the phrase "reality is axiomatic" can be related to that concept. You might as well have said "bananas are tired". So no evidence then? And, from past exchanges, I know that your "unique understanding of the nature of language" is almost complete ignorance of the subject. But you won't let that get in the way of your fantasies. No one claims there is.

Exactly. And that's all you ever can do. You can't. You can, as you say, only look at it indirectly via our senses. And please stop pretending you have some special insight or knowledge. As Ophiolite so succinctly put it, you don't. Your experience tells you nothing about reality.

Extraordinary. It is almost as if you don't know what the Poincaré group is.