Strange

Well, I just reproduced this by placing a drop of water on my glasses and looking not-quite-at a bright light. I see three things. Small round objects (with a dark edge) that move around. Larger, long, randomly shaped objects (also with a dark edge) that move around. And a sort of reticulated background which is static. These are all in black and white. I am pretty sure the first two are different types of floaters in the liquid in the eye. The small round ones are much more common and so it is easy to focus on ones near the centre of vision and then they just move around randomly (rather as you describe) as your eye moves. The larger ones are less common and so are likely to be away from the centre of vision; as you move your eye to look at them they move away (so they stay in the same position relative to the eye). The third pattern may be the pattern of blood vessels in the retina. I am really impressed by this. It is so clear. I am visiting an optometrist next week so I will ask about this and see if they can confirm my guesses (or provide a better explanation). p.s. In my first response, I had misread your post as being water in a glass, not on glasses. (More evidence I need to get my sight checked!)

Nothing, in principle. Apart from the fact it would not make a useful way of defining seconds or metres. The frequency of oscillation of bonds in a molecule. It will depend on various external factors. swansont is probably better placed to answer that (as he deals with this stuff every day) but basically because it depends on fundamental quantum properties that are not significantly affected by external conditions. (Or it is easier to keep those external variables under control.) There is a fundamental asymmetry there which could, perhaps, be explained mechanistically. (Although I doubt it can - and this seems to be confirmed by the fact that you [and everyone else with similar ideas] cannot produce a model.) Which is why I didn't bring this up as an objection. Time dilation is symmetrical (two observers in relative motion both see the other's clock running slowly). This is a based on Galilean relativity. The exact amount of time dilation is predicted by relativity. Both of these have been tested to extremely high levels of accuracy. You say that your idea uses the same math as relativity. Therefore, you must also predict the same symmetrical time dilation. This cannot be explained mechanistically because you cannot say that A is moving relative to the "dark matter" and B is stationary, while at the same time B is moving relative to the "dark matter" and A is stationary.

Do you have a reference that says there is any such thing? If dark matter is not affected by electromagnetic force, why would the positive ions have any effect? Why do you think the ions will go round the wire? Why do you think a pulse will increase that?

No. Everything moves forward in time. Every observer measures this differently. There is no contradiction here. You only think there is because you can’t be bothered to learn what relativity says and are just making stuff up. You don’t have a model. You have a vague idea. You can’t make any testable predctions (or even explain it coherently).

Maybe tiny little aliens?

Interesting point. I haven't looked into this much yet, but I assume that this protection would be more of a "shadowing" effect rather than being directly caused by the Earth's magnetic field. But this is interesting (and relevant to the thread): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere#Earth's_magnetosphere

I assume he either copied encrypted data or removed the password first.

No.

Not something I know the details of. But you have a magnetic field created by the galaxy, the magnetic field of the Sun, the magnetic field created by the solar wind, the magnetic fields created by the interaction of the heliosphere and the interstellar medium ... So I doubt there are any simple answers.

The gases and the solar wind are largely plasma (atoms with electrons stripped of) so static electricity is not really a possibility. Also, static electricity does not create magnetism. You need moving charges (such as the plasma and solar wind). The breakdown (spark) voltage is roughly proportional to density. It also varies depending on the gas. Some examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_gas

My guess would be dust or other particles being knocked around by Brownian motion.

The ARM processor includes hardware security (Edit: as described in Carrock's post) so even if it were possible/practical to extract the entire contents of memory and emulate the entire device (which I doubt) you wouldn't be able to get at the encrypted data. Or ... the suggestion is just bollocks.

Yes. But for different reasons. On the moon it is mainly the effect of solar radiation and wind on the surface ,material. On Earth it is volcanic (or, more generally, plate tectonic activity) and radioactive decay of elements in the crust. And the scale is different. Almost the entire "atmosphere" of the moon is generated by outgassing, while the amount of gas added to the Earth's atmosphere is a tiny amount compared to the total mass of the atmosphere. I don't think so. We are moving, roughly, sideways: https://www.space.com/3801-solar-system-sails-sideways-milky.html I think that asymmetry is unexplained. Maybe turbulence?

Oops. Autocorrect on the phone! (Yes: "outgassing")

You didn't answer the question. Is that because you can't? But I guess you have to deny that photons are quantised as well to support your idea?

Yes. There is some gas (and dust) between the planets in the solar system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere There is some, but less, between the stars in the galaxy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium And even less between galaxies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm–hot_intergalactic_medium "Still, we only have a partial list of what makes up the lunar atmosphere. Many other species are expected." Presumably there isn't enough to detect easily.

Roughly. But remember from the link you posted earlier, the moon is not really considered to have an atmosphere because it isn’t held in place by gravity (long term) and needs to be constantly replenished (mainly by outgassing from the surface). Here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon

Only if the thought experiment is consistent with observations. It is trivial to come up with a thought experiment that doesn't represent reality. So it is the observations that falsify a theory, not the thought experiment that illustrates those observations.

Why? So it is only slightly better than the (incorrect) Bohr model. Is your result more accurate than that produced by quantum theory: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.3728 ? If your model is correct, you should be able to calculate the spectrum of all atoms. Really? IT gets more difficult for larger atoms, but it can be done. For example: https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08928

What creates this “balanced point”? What opposes the electric force between the electrons and the nucleus?

The only way you can falsify a theory is by an observation or experiment that contradicts it.

The best version of that story was from a dad who knew his daughter had seen him and thought he had blown it all. Until, next day, he hears her tell her friends, “Guess what, my Dad is Santa Claus “

So why isn’t angular momentum proportional to temperature?

I can’t imagine how you are going to use argon. This is about the best device ever developed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_de_Graaff_generator Happens all the time in Tokyo in winter. Your body builds up a charge (friction) and it is discharged through metal.

If you don’t want your errors and misunderstandings corrected ...