Strange

I don't think I have ever heard that used. The squits is another popular alternative. I seem to remember being surprised when spellcheck corrected "separately" for me, so presumably I had been misspelling it as "seperately" for years.

To be honest, I doubt anyone cares what your "theory" is.

The answer here looks plausible: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/141278/why-does-a-dish-cloth-absorb-liquid-better-when-it-is-damp

I think most people would spell it, "the runs".

They are not independent. The magnetic field of a permanent magnet is due to the presence of electric charges. Because you are using terminology in odd ways or that doesn't even exist. And you seem to have some odd, non-physical assumptions (like 4D space). For example: If we assume that you are rotating through 90º then a second rotation will change from the magnetic field back to the electric field. That is, in the case of electromagnetic radiation. In other cases, it is relative movement that creates a magnetic field from and electric - or vie versa. Can you explain how much you understand of virtual particles already because I'm not sure your questions/statments about them make much sense.

On the evolution of flowering plants, this might be of interest: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42656306

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

All electromagnetic field interactions are mediated by virtual-articles. (There are other virtual particles for things like the strong and weak interactions.) But I'm not really sure what you are asking. Or why ... So maybe if you explained a bit more about the background, it might make your questions a bit easier to interpret.

In other words, you made it up. Good grief. The holographic principle says that the entropy of a 3D volume (that is THREE dimensions) can be encoded on a 2D surface (that's TWO dimensions). So it reduces the number of dimensions. And is therefore the opposite of increasing the number of dimensions to four. And it doesn't give any extra information.

Do you have a reference for that? No. Because of course you don't.

I wouldn't put it like that. The force isn't "coming out of the Earth". The force is between the Earth and the object so the magnitude of the force depends on both masses. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation) What is the relevance this question? That is predicted by theory and consistent with the evidence. What speed do you think they move at? And I assume you mean gravitational waves (gravity waves are much, much slower).

The force exerted on an object by the Earth is proportional to its mass (from Newton's law of gravity). So more massive objects experience a greater force. The acceleration of an object is proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass. So these two things exactly cancel out: the more massive object experiences a greater force, but that force is just enough to cause something with that mass to fall at 9.8 m/s2.

OK. So you do just mean that it doesn't make sense to your intuition. There is not (cannot be) anything illogical (as in, inconsistent in any formal or mathematical way) in GR because it is a self-consistent mathematical theory. Things like the Twin Paradox that you refer to are just called "paradoxes" because they seem counter-intuitive, not because there is any real paradox to be resolved. It is explained within the framework of GR. Indeed. The idea that speed can only be determined by reference to something else goes back to at least Galileo.

Firstly, I am not aware that the holographic principle says anything about entanglement. Do you have a relevant reference? Secondly, reducing the number of dimensions from 3 to 2 is not really a great argument for the existence of 4 dimensions. No one knows.

It can't really be explained by "passing through space" because the amount by which a clock changes depends on who observes it. So, while you are sat still in your chair, you are moving at a variety of different speeds relative to different observers. You are not moving relative to your neighbour so your clock is not dilated. You are moving quite fast relative to a GPS satellite so your clock is dilated a small, but measurable, amount relative to that. You are also travelling at a much higher speed relative to, say, the Andromeda galaxy and so your clock is dilated larger amount according to those observers. So it is not caused by your clock moving through space. What are these? Or by "logical" do you just mean that it doesn't make intuitive sense to you?

Nope. It is undefined. Nope.

You keep saying that but not providing any support for it.

What a great question. I wonder if it is somehow related to surface tension: the dry fibres not being able to overcome it while the damp fibres can. Or maybe the stiffness of the dry fibres mean they can't come into such close contact with the liquid (after all, it doesn't apply to a very soft fabric like a tissue). This could be tested by thoroughly scrunching and working the dry cloth first to see if that makes it more able to absorb the water...

Evidence?

Do you mean a plane (any plane) through the nucleus? (Not that it makes any more sense.)

Worth saying that, while that is true, it is not the reason that things can't escape a black hole. After all, objects can (temporarily) leave the Earth's surface at less than the escape velocity. You can go arbitrarily far at less than escape velocity. But you can't leave the event horizon at any speed, because there are no paths that lead out of it.

Sorry, this is a science forum, not a science fiction forum. Because it wouldn't be accurate. Lets say you are on a spaceship travelling at 51% of the speed of light and you fire a missile ahead of you at 51% the speed of light. That missile will be going at 102% of the speed of light, no? No. It will be 81% of the speed of light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Composition_of_velocities

There is an article on the latest work on how relativistic jets are formed: https://www.universetoday.com/138247/astronomers-figure-black-holes-can-blast-relativistic-jets-material-across-light-years-space/ (not quite the same thing, tough)

Really? Where do you get that from? It seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding.

An idea that has been thoroughly tested so it is now a theory and not just an idea. Citation needed. Of course not. This is science after all. But currently it is the best we have. Nothing has yet found to be incorrect. No it doesn't. It says that the entropy of a volume can be represented on the surface of the volume. You have been reading too much popular science. And you should stop making stuff up.