Strange

The velocity is constantly changing and so the ball has any specific velocity for 0 seconds. (I disagree with the last part. The ball may have the same speed twice (for zero seconds each time) but will never have the same velocity.)

What charges? What is the maximum? What do you mean by "attempt to repel"? The force between two charges is given by Coulomb's law: [math]F=k_e\frac{q_1 q_2}{r^2},[/math] so you can easily calculate what happens. ! Moderator Note This appears to be a question, rather than a new idea for the Speculation forum. Moving to a more appropriate place.

Why superluminal? Have you calculated the amount of red-shift (and the corresponding velocity) to convert the visible light from galaxies to microwave radiation? If so, please show us the calculations. How would the spectrum of light from galaxies be turned into a near-perfect black body spectrum by this process? What is causing the galaxies to recede at these massive velocities? a) If it is because of cosmological expansion, then you need to explain why the predictable processes in the early hot, dense galaxy did NOT produce the CMB as basic physics requires. b) If this is not because of cosmological expansion, then you need to explain how galaxies can move faster than light (something forbidden by special relativity). Many of the same questions apply. Why superluminal? Why are they moving at this speeds? Why have we no collided with any of these galaxies moving at superluminal speeds? How are they violating SR? Does the spectrum of the X-ray background match the shifted spectrum of starlight? What, exactly, is wrong with the current mechanisms for producing the X-ray background. In all answers, please show your working. (Yes, it is like being back at school.) In summary: No.

! Moderator Note This is not an appropriate post for this forum. If you want to discuss a new idea you can do that in the Speculations forum

I would start with combinatorics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorics You can easily write down all the combinations of 4 heads and tails. If you do this for different numbers of tosses, you will observe that the number is always 2N. It would not be hard to derive this mathematically. Similarly, if you count how many of those combinations have the same number of heads and tails, you can work out the formula for that. Form those two things, you can calculate the probability. Probability theory developed from these sort of observations. I have read that Pascal first started looking at it because a friend (Guy de Maupassant?) asked him why he kept losing when gambling. By analysing how many combinations of playing cards in a hand, rolled fo the dice, etc you can calculate the odds. (The odds that you will lose, generally.)

There is no such thing as a “pseudo” rest frame. The astronaut is at rest in his frame of reference and so there is no local time dilation or length contraction. Not a valid scientific argument

Because one involves relative motion of the whole object (ie the centre of mass) but the other doesn’t. You can treat the extra energy as increasing the relativistic mass, but not the rest mass (because it isn’t at rest): http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

This just as direct as Bragg!s law

Why? What is the relevance of that? Maybe if you explained what you want to know, and why, you might get a better answer than this, "yes, but not that" approach.

! Moderator Note The OPs questions were answered long ago. The current posts are increasingly off-topic and look more suitable for a blog.

The effect is in the eye and brain. Not between the photons of light. If this is going to turn into another one of your arguments where you insist that a bizarre definition of a word is the only correct one, maybe you should start a new thread. So you think that colour perception in the human visual system (which can happen without the different coloured light being present at the same time) counts as interaction between light beams, but interference between those beams doesn't? Well do that then. The OP says, "will this first beam be affected?" Not, "will the photoreceptors of the human eye be affected differently?"

It depends on what you mean by "real". When you say things like: You seem to be saying that something physically changes in the length of the tape and spacecraft. And similarly with the clocks that measure time dilation. That doesn't work because we are talking about relative measurements. How could another spacecraft speeding up or slowing down cause your astronaut's rule to shrink and expand? And how much should the ruler shrink? I am stationary (in my frame of reference) so my ruler is 100% of its normal length. When a spacecraft flies by at 10% of the speed of light then my ruler is now 0.5% shorter. But if, at the same time another spacecraft flies past at 20% of c, then my ruler is 3% shorter. So which is it? It can't be both. So, yes, length contraction is "real" but it isn't something that changes in the "moving" object, it is just a change in relative measurements.

Only in the literal sense. He has some superficial charm (apparently) but apart from that he is just a dishonest showman and charlatan, driven only by his own ego.

I wouldn't say so. The light doesn't interact. It just mixes.

I wouldn't worry: the problem is not your English language ability! I don't understand it either.

No. Although, if they have the same frequency, then you could get constructive or destructive interference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_interference

This is very garbled. Measurements were made by the BICPE2 team (nothing to do with Max Tegmark) which were thought to show the polarisation of the CMB. This could be evidence for primordial gravitational waves from the inflationary period; i.e. after the big bang. It was later determined that the measurements were caused by dust, not polarisation. Why? You have no evidence, just some incoherent metaphysical rambling about equations. This is a science forum. That has no connection with anything you have said here.

OK. I will request this thread is closed then. I assume you read the rules for the Speculation forum? It is for scientific ideas, not for Wild-Ass Guesswork (I don't think your ramblings even reach that level of nonsense).

Still nothing to do with science.

So this is just metaphysical guesswork. There is no science at all in this thread.

Why? How is the base relevant to the ratio? The ratio is the same in any base. This is incomprehensible word salad. What evidence do you have for that? What "effect" does a combination of digits have?

What evidence do you have for that?

What "effect" does a combination of digits have? As these equations are human inventions, I can't see how they are relevant to the early universe.

Is this homework? The speed is made up of two components: the horizontal speed and the vertical speed. The horizontal speed is simple: if the vehicle just rolls of the cliff, it will be approximately zero. If it drives off the cliff at 110 mph, then it will be 110 mph. The vertical speed can be calculated from the kinematic equations relating time, acceleration, velocity and distance: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/one-dimensional-motion/kinematic-formulas/a/what-are-the-kinematic-formulas They also have a video that, from the tile, appears to be about the exact question you ask

Pi is not an equation. You are not making much any sense. What "effect" does a combination of digits have?