Strange

I said a wave isn't made of particles. I even highlighted the words to make sure you didn't misunderstand. But you could win a gold medal for misunderstanding. Really? Can you give an example? I haven't heard of that.

So you need to prove that your solution has polynomial run time. The challenge is extending that to N points. (I don't understand what you are describing, anyway, so I have no idea if it is a good approach or not.)

Oh, I was looking forward to it! But why? I was just answering studiot's question (and guessed the reason he asked was just because it is unusual to see them in upper case).

Yes. You haven't provided a reference to the experiment you are talking about.

Position and momentum. They are usually lower case.

Yes. That allows us to make thing like lenses. A lens that scattered light (because the surface was matt or it was full of impurities) would not be very useful. Irrelevant to refraction, which can be explained with classical waves and the bulk properties of materials. The scattering of light by particles, obviously depends on the particles. But, again, can be explained in terms of classical waves. 1. A wave can. A wave isn't made of particles. 2. Scattering is not the cause of refraction. Scattering causes light to be scattered in multiple directions (the clue is in the name). If you have frosted glass in a window, that will scatter light and any refraction by the glass will probably be undetectable. Yes, because that defines how the light interacts with the particle. So, yes, scattering is affected by refractive index. But refraction is not scattering. Not really. It can be explained classically. Yes. It can be described that way. So can scattering. And reflection. And absorption. That doesn't mean they are all the same thing.

"What is your biggest character flaw?" "Honesty" "I don't think honesty is a fl...." "I don't give a **** what you think"

It is NOT scattering. This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering does not include the word "refraction." This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction does not include the word "scattering." Do you know why that is? Can you guess? It is a bit immature to give people a down vote just for pointing out that you are wrong.

Aaaarrrrrgggghhhhh! Talk about "missing the point". Lord Antares, it isn't just you (or monkeys). I have had many frustrating discussions about physics with tar where he thinks that what someone had for lunch, or what colour shirt they were wearing, might be relevant to tests of the theory of relativity. (And, before tar asks me to point to the exact thread where we had that exact conversation: it's a caricature. But not an unrealistic one. As this thread shows.)

I agree.

Doing a search for "convex hull" and travelling salesman" suggests that this is a very common approach. For example: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6429058/ (I can't read the full article but the abstract suggests it is similar). Have you proved that (a) this generates the shortest path and (b) the run time (worst case) is not exponential? The only thing you have copyright on is the images and associated text. You cannot protect an algorithm. That may be sensible when you start. But after finding a solution, it would make sense to see if it is already known. (This one seems to be.)

But "backward" has long been used as synonym for idiot, stupid, retarded, etc. So I don't think you should use that word. Please find another one.

People have been telling you this for 3 months. You refuse to listen. Basically, you claim to violate conservation of energy, therefore you are wrong and need to learn why.

(Unfortunately, the images on that site are not working at the moment, but the explanation should be clear, anyway.)

I think they are suggesting that the anti-helium ions could be produced (along with helium ions) by the decay of dark matter, not that they themselves would be dark matter. For one thing, there can't be five times as much antimatter as matter - we would have noticed! For another, it would not be dark.

They may have frequencies which are within the audible range but they are not sound waves. Sound waves, as you rightly say, are propagated through a medium such as air. Neither are they gravity waves. They are gravitational waves; waves in space-time. So they don't need a medium.

No. Obviously not. Here: http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html

I am not denying that water is a formal matter!

So it is a binary universe? You do realise that no matter could exist in such a universe?

OK. Thanks. Interesting. (Of course, solitons are not matter, so I'm not sure if that is what Dubblosix was thinking of.)

So if we just look at the launch cost (assuming everything else will be spread out over the lifetime of the project) you would have to store and return more than 250 million pounds worth of energy to make it worthwhile. At a generous 15p / kWh that means storing 1.6 GWh of energy. What sort of battery technology are you thinking of that can store that much energy but still fit in a satellite?

Do you have a reference for this? I did a search but couldn't find anything.

Apart from being trivially disproved, that is a bizarre definition of "absolute". You could have chosen a more appropriate word to describe this concept. Pineapple, for example.

Errr..... How shall I put this ... No.

Scattering is not refraction.