Strange

It is called "induced pluripotency". Effectively, it turns mature cells back to behaving like stem cells. https://stemcell.ucla.edu/induced-pluripotent-stem-cells

Things like time dilation and length contraction can be described as a rotation between the space and time axes in the coordinate system. Conceptually, you can. And that is what physics used to be like. Then we discovered that the world doesn't work like that.

No. Sorry if I wasn't clear. The implied assumption in your post was that: "the developer of a scientific theory is not allowed to discuss their own theory on this website". The picture you posted has no relevance to that point. If it were a moderator saying: "You are not allowed to discuss your own theory on this website" then it might be relevant to your question. But it wasn't and so it isn't. Yes. I had to go and track down the source. I don't know why you posted it as an image and without a link to the source. For the benefit of others, the post is here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/?p=388903 This forum has a pretty relaxed approach to people discussing personal theories. There are some forums where it is not allowed at all and any such thread will be closed immediately. There are others where there are very strict rules, which are rigorously enforced. Here, even though there are rules, the moderators are pretty easy going.

So you have experimental evidence that arranging the keys in a grid is more ergonomic? That it makes touch typing easier and faster? Can you provide a reference to this research?

It s probably better viewed as the curvature of space-time. It is mainly the curvature of the time dimension that causes gravity. No one does. Belief shouldn't come into it. There is no evidence, currently, for gravitons.

Please stop spamming your nonsense over every thread. You can't measure speed relative to space, only relative to another thing.

Entanglement has nothing to do with it. And they don't know where to land. There is just a higher probability of landing in certain locations. This is explained by the non-local behaviour of photons - you can describe this as the photon going through both slits, or by a pilot wave, or any other interpretation. I don't see a problem.

Why? In that case "25 ten-million buddhas" means 25 x 10,000,000 x 10 = 2,500,000,000 (not 250,000,000) That doesn't make much sense. And as Pi does not repeat, it is wrong. And you still haven't explained why expression a number in binary would make any difference. It is still the same number. If you can't be bothered to explain, I can't be bothered to find out. Which of us is more lazy?

Well, electricity and generator are from Latin so the fact that the technology did not exist then appears to be irrelevant. I believe modern Latin, as used by the Vatican has terms for things like this. Any human language is capable of coining new words and expressing any ideas.

Surely, the results of the double slit experiment are exactly as predicted by quantum theory?

Light is a wave in the electromagnetic field. The field is quantised so there is a smallest "size" of disturbance, for any given frequency. That "quantum" of the filed is called a photon in the case of the electromagnetic field (and called an electron, in the case of the electron field, etc). Light has momentum and that is transferred when a photon is absorbed. (Strictly speaking, the Crooke's Radiometer doesn't actually work like that, but the principle applies.) Light has energy and that energy can be transferred to an electron, bumping it up to a different energy level.

No. The big bang model describes the evolving state of the universe from an earlier hot, dense state. It says nothing about creating anything from nothing.

Then it isn't a proof.

You could start with Good'Ole Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality And this (rather long) essay: https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance (I have only skimmed through that, but it looks interesting.)

It was a leading question. It appeared to be a rhetorical device to argue that a "developer of a scientific theory is not allowed to discuss their own theory on this website". As there are many threads where people do discuss their personal theories, your initial assumption seems to be false.

I would have expected a proof to be based on mathematics, not arithmetic.

They are as long as they abide by the rules. "Repeated hijacking" is not discussing an idea.

Even if they don't want to use the idea, they may want to stop others doing it (or charge a license fee for others to do it). Why would WIPO make any difference? The patent is already published. And if the patent is well drafted, it wouldn't be easy to make small changes and gain a new patent.

You mean words? Or maybe morphemes? Or phonemes? Yes. Without symbols (words and morphemes) a language does not exist. Thats seems to be like saying that without numbers, a number system doesn't exist. I'm really not sure what you are trying to say. Could you expand on it a bit, please. About 1 or half-a-dozen, in both cases. Depending on how you define "word for snow". Is "sleet" a word for snow? Or slush? Or hail?

Why? The same is true of all physical measurements. It doesn't mean they are changing. But now the speed of light has a defined value. This is then used to define the metre. So if the speed of light changed, the length of a metre would change!

The factors which affect space-time are captured in the stress-energy tensor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–energy_tensor

The distribution of elements varies a bit throughout the solar system, because of the different conditions where the planets were formed. But the Earth isn't particularly unusual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

All the elements heavier than those we have seen on Earth are very unstable (which is why we don't see them).

You say: "Again that time ten million buddhas ..." = 100 million "Again that time 25 ten-million buddhas" = 250 million If ten-buddhas = 100, then 25 x ten-buddhas = 2,500. I have no idea why ten million buddhas equals 100 millions years. It implies a buddha only lasts 10 years. Citation needed. One that shows this is exactly ("to the moment") correct. Not one that says "about 5 billion years". And where does 4.96 appear in you list of nice round numbers? So we go from "to the moment" to "approximately". So it isn't 250,000,000, it is about 252 million years ago. Typical of numerologists to round things up to match their voodoo. Or maybe you are posting this 2 million years too late. Why should they be in binary? And why not write them in binary? And what difference would the way you write them make? This is a logical fallacy. Confirming the antecedent, I think. When?

Is there anything here that wasn't already said by Saussure?