Strange

Can you give an example?

Your "theory" is very short. Couldn't you type the words here instead of posting a photo of an illegible scrawl. I realise you may have been fighting off a panther while dictating this to a drunken spider, but I cannot make any sense of it.

I don't think this is limited to science. Any equation must be dimensionally correct. You can't say that the area of a carpet is 17 volts x 148ºC

A theory, in science, is a mathematical model that is confirmed by large amounts of experimental evidence. Is that the case for your idea? I doubt scientists will take any note. They are not short of good ideas to investigate. I doubt anyone would be interested in stealing this idea. But if they do, I'm afraid there isn't much you can do about it. You mean that piece of paper that has been scribbled on by children? Correct. I doubt it.

It is the same thing.

Only if accelerated. And the waves they create would interfere, not the particles. Photons. Buckyballs (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/1999/oct/15/wave-particle-duality-seen-in-carbon-60-molecules)

Why would charge be relevant? And we get the same behaviour with uncharged particles.

That is not a physics term. So you need to define what you mean by it. (As you brought it in to the discussion.) Philosophy is all about clarifying meaning. Only indirectly. They are interpretations (explanations, metaphors, stories, whatever) of the maths (which is based on evidence.) But I would say they are philosophy, rather than science. Well, in those cases it is true. Depending on how you are defining "interaction". Really? So? That doesn't (necessarily) mean the logic is wrong. The rules of logic are still rules. (And some of those people may be using logic to mean "it seems obvious to me".) And cosmology not based on evidence? Would you like to withdraw that?

Logic?

An event horizon is not a "thing", it is just a set of coordinates. So I don't think I would call any current model of a black hole an "object". Cosmology? Cosmology!? What is that doing in your list? Some of the others might be debatable, but cosmology? (I would say your list of interpretations of quantum theory are also backed up by evidence because they are interpretations of quantum theory.) So your solution is to make philosophy (already a broad field on its own) even broader? And doing nothing to narrow science down? I don't understand the logic of that. No one believes that. But if you want to get banned, just keep repeating it.

Deep.

Oh, I see. You mean they are both reasons for discrimination/repression?

Huh? That makes no sense. There are, for example, Buddhists with a wide range of ethnicities. Some of them are, lets say, Indian. But not all Indians are Buddhists. (And Indians are not a single ethnic group, anyway). And, of course, people can change their religion. The first two are definitely not because of of religion. (I'm not convinced that Islamic terrorism is primarily religiously motivated but that would be going too far off topic.)

That is exactly right. The relativity postulate is not the reason it is there. It is there for OTHER reasons. It is REQUIRED for other reasons. And, nicely, that results in conservation of energy and momentum being consistent with the equations. So, the Einstein field equations DO include, of necessity, mass and energy. And this is one of the factors causing curvature of space-time geometry which results in effects such as time dilation.

I doubt there is any such thing as "body energy" soI am going to go with "No". And why the heck is this in "Relativity"? (Or even science.)

So, as expected he doesn't say that it "is not required" he just says it is not justified by the relativity postulate alone. (Interesting that you left that last word off, it does rather change the emphasis.) As he says, it is required because of the energy in the system (which includes both mass and the energy of the gravitational field). I'm not sure if you failed to understand what was written or are deliberately misrepresenting it. (But it is yet more evidence that you don't really have a clue.) And why is it only because of Internet Cranks that I find myself reading Einstein's own words? There are much, much better, and more up to date, sources available.

Similar. The differences are that Some, but not all, models of dark matter have been eliminated (including some which are modifications of gravity) whereas all models of ether have been tested and eliminated We know something is required to explain the observations labelled as "dark matter" whereas it turned out that no medium (beyond the electromagnetic field) was required for the aether (there were never any observations supporting it, it was just assumed to be there) But none of them (including that one) say anything about wave-particle duality or polarisation.

A scientist takes a photo of a single atom using an ordinary camera: https://qz.com/1205279/photo-of-an-atom-a-scientist-captured-an-incredible-photograph/ (Didn't we have someone here recently claiming that atoms don't exist!) Five ways the heaviest element on the periodic table is really bizarre: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/5-ways-heaviest-element-periodic-table-really-bizarre Discrepancy in neutron lifetime measurements might hint at new physics (but probably not dark matter): https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutron-lifetime-puzzle-deepens-but-no-dark-matter-seen-20180213/ (I wonder is this might be relevant to the discrepancy in the amount of of lithium predicted in big bang models) More here: http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/

There is a difference: it is what has [not] been detected vs what we are (currently) capable of detecting. The aether is detectable in principle but was not detected, consistent with it not existing. The extra dimensions in string theory are detectable in principle but not with any technology we currently have. If/when we are able to test such things, then it can be used as a test of string theory. Again, you seem to be confusing the space that light travels through (whether it has 3 or 11 dimensions and contains strings or not) with "the medium that waves" (which there is still no need for in string theory). You keep saying extra dimensions would make various things easier to understand, but never provide any explanation or justification for this. I don't see how the wavy-particly nature of fundamental particles is made clearer by extra dimensions. Even less so polarisation, which is easily explained using classical theory.

I assume there is already a black market (for illegal and/or untraceable weapons, for example). But in countries where sales/ownership of guns has been strictly controlled or just banned, it has solved the problem. Despite the inevitable existence of a criminal black market for guns. The people who commit these mass killings are not generally criminals (beforehand). Many of them are school age. It is the easy access to weapons that is the problem. I am not aware of many cases where an otherwise normal citizen has taken to the black market in order to engage in a mass shooting. They used the weapons that were readily available. I have seen a lot of people say that people would still buy guns illegally, or would use knives, or sticks or poison or ... But in places where guns were banned after a mass killing, there have been no more mass killings of this sort (occasional terrorist attacks, maybe, but that is a different problem that requires different solutions).

In a rare moment of clarity, the OP confirmed that he was thinking of the luminiferous aether, as defined by swansont. Posted on Friday (his first post here since he started the thread, I think). And having gone back to check, I withdraw the "moment of clarity" comment. (However, he also muddies the water by introducing Einstein's Leiden speech where he used aether as an analogy for space-time.)

And, just to clarify, this doesn't mean space "because light travels through space". Waves in water travel through space, but space is not the medium. Water is the medium; the waves cannot exist without water. Light exists without an equivalent to water.

Of course. This is SCIENCE. It is never the full picture. (But anything beyond 4 dimensions is, currently, purely hypothetical.) But other experiments did.

Only the mods can say for sure, but I would be surprised if I have given you that number. I normally only give downvotes for completely irrational, irrelevant posts. You have had a few meltdowns but you normally try and keep a dialog going. (Even when your are wrong ) BTW I do quite often remove negative votes I have given in the heat of the moment. (I wonder if that shows up as a "someone has reacted" notification...)

I don't know why you would think that. But it is an extension of quantum theory, which does not require an aether (in the sense that the OP meant it). If you want to use "aether" to mean spacetime (as others have) with any number of dimensions, then yes, string theory includes that aether. But that is not the luminiferous aether that has waves which are light waves. Which is what the OP was asking about (as he has confirmed). We know, from experiment, from Maxwell's equations, from quantum field theory and, yes, from string theory that there is no mechanical medium needed to carry the waves that make up light. The nearest thing to that medium, in classical theory, is the electromagnetic field. (But one could argue about whether such fields actually exist or not, or are just a mathematical convenience!) In string theory, as in quantum theory, light is not a wave; it is made up of photons, which are a particular configuration of a string. So there seems to be even less need of a medium (in the luminiferous aether sense). But, of course, those strings/quanta/whatever exist in N-dimensional space-time. And so, again, you can call that "aether" but it is not what the OP was asking about. Sorry to be so repetitive, but you seem to be misunderstanding what I am trying to say. Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't think I have given you any downvotes recently (not in this thread, anyway; and not for a long time).