Strange

So to answer the original question, you ask one twin which one the the other would say was the liar. And then it isn't that one.

So you will get the wrong answer. I expect this is the main reason your "theory" is wrong. There may be others. But as you have failed to explain anything, it is not clear. I doubt it very much.

Exactly. I think the usual version of this problem is to find out which door to go through or something (one leads to treasure and the other to death). You ask the twins which door to take and then do the opposite.

Please explain it here (as required by the rules). p.s. I realise now when you say "integer" you mean "integral".

Still waiting for this...

Only the first four of those are dimensions. I think you need to read up on what a dimension is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension So if we arrange to meet, we have to say where (3 spatial dimensions) and when (1 time dimension). We do not need to mention "supertime" (whatever that is) or magnetism, etc. So we just need 4 dimensions. In string theory there are 10 or 11 dimensions. The extra dimensions are just extra spatial dimensions. But for some reason they are not apparent to us. (Perhaps because string theory is wrong!) As that has nothing to do with science, it is not worth answering.

That's about it. It may be easier to think of it as a decrease in density rather than expansion. Here is an analogy: imagine the number line with all the integers going off to infinity (0, 1, 2, 3 ...). Now if you double all the numbers then they are twice as far apart (0, 2, 4, 6, ...) but the line still extends to infinity. John Baez's page has a good explanation. He explains it clearly enough that I think you can get something out of it even if the math goes completely over your head. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

Portable air filter for North China smog

It doesn't. The signal is transmitted at the speed of sound in the material.

That sounds as if it will give you the wrong answer. The mass at the outer edge of the disk will have less effect than the mass at the centre. This is why I asked you to show how you derive the equation. Please do that now. Someone called Newton did this properly years ago and got the right answer. You could learn from that. It might help you see where you have gone wrong. I have no idea what you are talking about. As there are thousands of satellites you can use (from the moon to geostationary satellites to the ISS) I don't understand why you do not have an exact value for Ti and the mass of the earth.

Yes, and the permeability. You can choose units such that many of the fundamental constants = 1. This simplifies some equations, as shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#List_of_physical_equations There will still be other constants that maintain their current values. These are dimensionless constants such as the fine structure constant (and e and pi, etc).

Please show, in detail, how you derive this. What do you mean by "slices of a sphere"?

This is perhaps your silliest argument (and further evidence that you are just trolling). Airplane refers to the flat wing, not the flat earth (the word aeroplane was first applied to the wing cases of beetles). Planet is from the Greek meaning wander and has nothing to do with plane meaning flat. And sea level is a reference to height, not flatness.

Indeed. And that is what Einstein did: show how Newton's theory doesn't work in all cases by coming up with a better one. I apologise. Another typo. I meant to say: If his theory were correct then the universe must be infinite. (Whereas you said "his theory would only be correct if the universe was infinite". This is a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent".) I would guess I have heard about the same number of people insist it is finite and infinite. The evidence doesn't rule either out.

Myth of the flat Earth Stars do not make complete circles "only above us". They only do that at the pole. Perhaps if you went out and looked at the stars you could see this for yourself. What does "spinning on a wobble" mean? Are you referring to precession? It isn't. Because they have to reach orbital velocity and a rocket is a much more effective way of doing this. The hard part is getting enough speed, not going up. https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ Because the air moves with the planet and planes fly though the air. (Actually, prevailing winds generally mean that one way is slightly faster than the other.) Stars are all around us. You will see stars in every direction you look. (Except when there is something in the way, like the Earth under your feet.) Because they are all around us and the Earth rotates. What do expect them to do? Of course. Because the apparent motions of the stars and the sun (a large local star) are all caused by the rotation of the Earth. I doubt you are interested in being helped or learning anything. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted such nonsensical claims; you would have started by asking questions.

Nonsense. You would expect the stars near the pole (whichever is only your side of the planet) to go in circles and those stars near the equator to move from one horizon to the other. Which is exactly what we see. You are either trolling or profoundly ignorant. Pointing out that you posting complete drivel is not an insult, just a statement of fact. It is up to YOU to provide evidence to support your claims, not demand other's do that for you.

There can be no expansion if Newton is correct. Therefore you can't use expansion to argue against (or for) Newton's ideas. No. Completely wrong. If his theory were correct then the universe must be finite infinite. 1. His theory is "wrong". 2. What evidence do you have that "most people consider the universe to be finite"? 3. As that belief is not based on any evidence it cannot conflict with science. You might as well say that most people's favourite colour is red and this conflicts with the sky being blue. Opinions are not evidence. (Especially when I have no reason to believe that ,most people have this optinion.)

I meant to say there is *no* mechanism for expansion in Newtonian gravity. So it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether more people think the universe is finite or infinite - there is no evidence either way.

Could The Universe Have Begun From A Big Bounce?

There is a singularity in the classical view. (This may be removed by a quantum theory of gravity.) That is the "beginning of time" in the same way that the north pole is the beginning of south.

All these coordinate systems (and any others) describe the same thing in different ways. They are not describing different things (as shown by the fact that there are consistent rules to transform between them). You can, for example, choose a coordinate system to describe the universe where it doesn't expand but where the speed of light varies over time. That sounds like the sort of thing you are describing.

And if it is option 2, then you could ask for referral to a mental health specialist. Thinking you are unwell for psychological reasons can be just as much a real illness as any physical cause. There is not (should not be) any shame in the fact that the root cause is in your brain rather than bacteria or something.

Thanks. I did wonder if that could happen.

And it is important to note that the intensity (energy or brightness) of the light sources makes no difference. A single blue photon can cause an electron to be ejected but 1 billion red photons will have no effect.

There is mechanism for an expanding universe in Newton's theory. That is what we are talking about.