Strange

This is a science forum. Not a place for incoherent rambling. How about addressing the fact that your equation for pi is just plain wrong?

What a surprise. No.

Thanks for checking for me. I was just about to go look!

What do you want to clean? If it just accumulated dust (and hair, skin flakes, dead insects, ...) then a soft brush and a vacuum cleaner should do.

And ... Trash in 1 ... 2 ...

Complete and utter gibberish.

Ah, I see. He wants to reduce the concentration of benzyl alcohol but keep the same concentration of whatever the active ingredient is. The answer is: speak to your doctor.

Because the Earth is curved and the orbiting object is falling towards it. I mean, really. Sheesh. Your ignorance is absolutely staggering. Unbelievable. I know people who propose their own "personal theories" are usually relatively uneducated but you don't know ANYTHING. You know NOTHING. I cannot believe how little you know. How did you manage to learn so little in school? http://www.astronautix.com/n/newtonsorbitalcannon.html Puhlease try and learn the sort of basic physics that schoolboys know before going round trying to say that all of modern physics is wrong. Your attitude is just delusional. No one will take you seriously when you base your ludicrous assertions on total ignorance. I suppose learning is hard work and making stuff up is easy, but it is just pathetic to watch. Please stop it: You are embarrassing yourself and disappointing the rest of us.

A bold claim. However, your image is incomprehensible. The text in the image makes some more bold claims. The text in your image also contains some factual errors. pi = R2 / 3 ? Really? So the value of pi for a circle with a radius of 10cm is 100/3 = 33. That seems wrong. And for a circle with a radius of 12 inches, pi = 48. While for a circle with a radius of 30.5 cm (ie the same size) the value of pi is 310. So it looks like you are talking nonsense. You haven't even checked if your nonsense is plausible.

It is hidden so how can we know? Why not contact the person who created the video, politely point out that you know they are a fraud and ask if they would eb willing to explain how it was done. Good luck.

Of course it doesn't. Presumably you have don them wrong. If you put as much care into your experiments as you do into your writing, then they are worthless. Ditto.

So you want to reduce the concentration but don't want to reduce the concentration. That makes no sense. Reported as being inappropriate for the forum.

The (repulsive) electromagnetic force of the outer electrons in atoms is what keeps atoms apart and makes things appear solid (combined with other effects like the Pauli exclusion principle that give atoms their size). The strong force holds the nuclei of atoms together (and holds the quarks together in the protons and neutrons). That's about it, outside of extreme conditions such as neutron stars. The weak "force" (interaction) is responsible for some types of atomic decay, mainly beta decay and variants. The gravitational force holds planets, starts, solar system and galaxies together (and keeps you in your chair)

The LHC and similar accelerators are used to collide particles (protons, heavy nuclei, etc) and look for the particle created, hoping to find something new. The actual detection is done with a variety of different detectors. In a sense, many work in the same way as the cloud chamber: the passage of a particle is detected by the effect it has o the material it passes through. In some cases, this will be layers of semiconductor material that generates a signal when a charged particle passes through. Often the particles of interest, such as the Higgs boson, are not detected directly but by seeing the particles they decay into. In the case of neutrinos, which usually pass through matter without interacting, they typically use large tanks full of liquid.Very occasionally a neutrino will interact with an atom causing a flash of radiation that is detected by light detectors all round the tank.

I'm not sure what "a fundamental component of an intrinsic object" means. Maybe you mean a "test particle"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_particle That sounds like a "yes". Again, as time doesn't really "flow" (in SR) it is hard to answer this but lets try ... Particles are represented as "world-lines"; i.e. a path through space time. If the particle is stationary then this will be a straight line parallel to the time dimension. If it is moving, then it will be a wiggly line that moves around in the spatial dimensions but still goes "forward" (ie "flows") through the time dimension. This is true for one particle, two particles or a million particles. The concept of "existing at the same/different times" is not very clear. All the atoms in my body, and the particles they are made up of, exist at the same time otherwise I would be like some strange character from Dr WHo; spread out through time and not really existing anywhere (or anywhen). And if two particles (or people) are in relative motion they can still "exist" at the same time: I can talk to a friend wheile they are travelling on a high speed train. So speed does not mean we exist at different times. On the other hand, I can't talk to someone who was alive two centuries ago because they existed at a different time. All of that may be obvious, irrelevant and silly. I only mention it to highlight that it is still not very clear what you are asking. So let's go back to what SR actually says about two particles in relative motion: Each particle will see the other's ruler(1) shortened in the direction of movement. Each particle will see the other's clock(2) run slow than their own. Each will, potentially, have a different view of the ordering of external events (2) That's about it. Note: (1) These are conceptual rulers and clocks; but we need some way to make measurements otherwise we can't apply relativity. (2) As there are only these two particles there can't be any actual events! I'm not sure why. If we consider a universe where there was one short-lived particle (A) on Tuesday afternoon and another particle (B) on Friday morning then they don't exist at the same time but time still "flows" for them. And that's true in relativity as well. The time is observer dependent. Different observers will potentially see events happening at different rates and may even disagree about the order they occur in.

There are several approaches to quantum gravity that effectively quantise space-time, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

Because the question (unclear as it is) is about "two points" and how they are related by special relativity. Nothing to do with light, EM fields, Newton, Maxwell, ... The OP's points (excuse the pun) are confusing enough without adding more unnecessary entities. Light only came up because of a sidetrack/hijack by mistermack. Maybe we should ask the mods to split all of that off to Trash.

1. They can't. 2. Under extreme conditions some things can occur that would not normally be possible. That is why I linked to degenerate matter and neutron stars earlier. Yet more evidence that we need a theory of quantum gravity.

Could you find or draw a diagram of this. I can't visualise what this means. (I am about to google "torsion suspension meter" to see if that helps...) Edit: no, Google didn't shed any light on it ...

They are a consequence of "naively" extrapolating general relativity to an area where we are fairly sure it doesn't work. It is almost certain that a quantum theory of gravity will cause gravitational singularities (in both black holes and the Big Bang) to disappear.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I have said. This is all entirely irrelevant to the topic of the thread. So let's drop it.

Well, if you want to keep moving the goalposts and making logically incoherent arguments, I'm out. Just a reminder of what you asked, as you seem to have forgotten: You have gone off on all sorts of tangents since then. As far as I can tell, just because you want yet another thread to display your ignorant bigotry. I think I'll just put you on ignore. You clearly have nothing useful to contribute.

I thought it was Maxwell's. There is no electromagnetic field in Newton's theories, is there? Does relativity say anything about light? But, certainly, the description of light in quantum field theory (which uses relativity) is different - light is described in terms of photons. But the field still fills all of space. (Doesn't it?)

Light travels through the electromagnetic field. Which fills all of space. But that has nothing to do with modelling space-time. You can, of course, add an electromagnetic, and other, fields to your model of space-time. But you don't have to. You can define, and use, a model universe which has nothing but the four space-time coordinates.

Think of a piece of graph paper: we normally plot the X axis along the bottom and the Y axis up the side.Then any position on the graph can be defined in terms of its X,Y coordinates. This is a two dimensional space with two spatial dimensions called X and Y. You can think of a dimension as being a distance from the origin in a particular direction. The other key point about dimensions is that they have to be independent. So you can move a point in the X direction without affecting its Y position. The simplest way of thinking of this is that the 3 dimensions of space are at right angles to one another, then changing a particles position in one dimension does not affect its position in the others. Does that help? And to go back to the confusion of the OP, there are an infinite number of points on our graph paper: there are an infinite number of positions along X and an infinite number of positions along Y, and therefore an infinite number of points (X,Y) across the surface of the paper. This is because the coordinates are continuous (they are specified as real numbers) so you can have positions 0, 1, 2 ... but also 1.5, 1.6, 1.601, 1.600001, etc. But argo says that there are only two points. So how are we to interpret that? One easy way would be if there is only one dimension and it only has the positions 0 and 1 on it (i.e. it is not continuous and there are no positions between 0 and 1). But argo also describes the points as 0,0 for example. So it seems to be a 2D system like our graph paper. In this case, we seem to have two dimensions each of which can only have the value 0 or 1. This means we actually have four possible points 0,0 0,1 1,0, 1,1 so this doesn't really meet the "only two points" criterion. However, whatever is meant, there appears to be no time dimension (the "fourth" dimension in relativity) and so it is impossible to say anything about how time might relate to these "only two points. So, in summary, the OPs question is, basically, meaningless. I think they are using the word "point" to mean something other than a location in a 2 dimensional space.