Strange

What is "it"? What does "it" do in the fixed background? Both what can't be correct? An inclusive definition of what?

That was a good point, well made apart from that error, so I have corrected it for you (assuming it was too late for you to do it).

Which doesn't answer the question. It has the advantage of simplicity. But does labour under the not inconsiderable disadvantage of being wrong.

Beat me to it. What is amazing is that it has only been invented 3 or 4 times. And what is surprising is that it seems that people have always been reluctant to extend it beyond its initial symbolic form to create a full writing system. Also, writing allows knowledge to be transmitted efficiently so that we can develop computers, hearing aids and all the rest! (And, arguably, without being able to write things down, the concept of "information" and communication that is central to computing, might never have occurred.)

Not necessarily true. Depends where you are and what your climate is. It may be true on average, in some places, but it may also mean that you have even more extremes. Some plants can adapt in short time scales. For example, some deciduous trees will happily grow near the equator. They then adapt by wither never losing leaves or losing them continuously. Eventually they may evolve to better fit the new environment. However, other plants will just die. So I doubt there is a simple answer to this. Increasing CO2 levels may be good for some plants, allowing them to grow faster. But it will probably reduce yields of rice, for example as they are sensitive to high levels. In most cases, probably. Small organisms, such as insects, that reproduce rapidly and in large numbers may be able to keep up.

Oops. You are right. I apologise. I think your arguments were good!

I assume this is for the curve y = -1/x2 ? Can you show the proof of this? I get roughly -1.645 (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+of+-1%2Fx^2+from+x+%3D+1+to+infinity) Can you show the proof of this? It seems intuitively correct that it will sum to -infinity (unlike the other one). What is the "mass density"? How does it relate to x or y? What is the "ratio" of the mass density? (ie. mass density divided by what?) Are and volume of what? How do these relate to x or y? Imaginary mathematics.

In other words, you don't have an idea at all. That makes zero sense.

Your idea can be trivially dismissed because the mathematics of waves shows that it is wrong. They can also be trivially dismissed because observations and experiments are consistent with that mathematics. You also need to provide better arguments than videos. I certainly won't watch them. You need to provide your mathematical model and some evidence to support your claims.

There are about 6 million pages on Wikipedia. You need to provide a better reference, such as a link or at least the title of the page. Science is not about "belief". I'm not sure which of Einstein's theories you are referring to, but scientific theories are accepted because they are supported by evidence. So, Einstein's theories of Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect, special relativity, general relativity, etc. all make predictions that can be tested against evidence gathered from experiment or observation. That is the only basis on which theories are judged. I have no idea what your theory is, but I'm sure that if you can show that your mathematical model produces results that match the evidence then your theory would be considered. (Your other thread appears to be full of incoherent nonsense, with no science at all. So don't expect anyone to take that seriously.) Science says nothing about "truth". That is for religion and philosophy.

Because you insist on using this affected writing style, it is almost impossible to see what you are confused about. You seem to be happy that period (the time between one cycle and the next) is 1/f. And you seem to understand that rotational speed is the length of the circumference dividing by the time to perform one rotation. There doesn't seem to be anything else to say, or be confused about. Maybe if you could write a single sentence, like a normal adult, explaining the problem it might be possible to understand you. But if you continue to write incoherent nonsense, filled with random punctuation, then I doubt anyone can help.

As all forms of energy cause spacetime curvature, this appears to incorrect. Which forms of energy does it not interact with?

Which part of "IT IS IN THE RELATIVITY FORUM" is hard for you to understand?

I gather he treated women pretty badly, if that is what "ladies man" means.

And, for the purposes of this thread, that choice is "relativity".

! Moderator Note The rules require you to explain what is in the video.

What?

You would need to explain (1) why a higher frequency is produced and (2) why a receiver tuned to that higher frequency does not detect a signal. Interference is such a simple mathematical fact that can be observed in water waves, acoustic waves, light waves, etc. that it seems a bit silly to pretend it doesn't happen. Normally we have physics crackpots coming up with their own crazy theories to explain these experiments. Now we have one saying the experiments don't exist. Kudos for novelty, I suppose. It doesn't make you any less wrong. Perhaps you are mistaking your ignorance of the evidence as lack of evidence? Given that it is standard physics supported by centuries of research and evidence, I'm not sure he needs to. It is up to you, the one proposing a new "theory" to provide the mathematics and evidence to support it. It seems you knowledge of basic theory is severely lacking. Do you understand the relationship between voltage and energy? Or between amplitude and energy? Do you even know the wave equation you are discussing?

So you agree that space is volume? Whether space is infinite or not is not the subject of the thread. Note that this makes no difference to any theories and so we can’t know.

For certain definitions of "free". This is certainly energy you don't have to pay for (or, at least, it comes from your food, which you were probably going to eat anyway!) The problem is that "free energy" is often used to mean getting energy from nothing at all.

Unless you have deleted it, I doubt it is any more accurate. And perhaps you should say what you have changed rather than expecting people to remember what it said before.

Which is just nonsense. It's from that old-school of psychology where people just made stuff up (see also Freud). And I'm not aware of which bit of that says that people mainly kill for pleasure.

That is roughly right. If you extrapolate back using the physics we currently know, there is a "time 0" when everything appeared to start. The trouble is, we know that none of our theories tell us what happened at the very earliest time (much less than a picosecond) because the conditions become so extreme. So we probably need a theory that combines quantum theory and general relativity (among other things). There are a number of different models that try to explain what happened. One attempt to combine GR and quantum theory, seems to describe exactly what you say: an infinitely old universe that then expanded. https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093

It also explains that the relevant equation is Faraday's Law, not Lorentz Law.

Good grief. I think you should ask for this thread to be closed before you embarrass yourself further.