Strange

Why are you defining "segment" when you have not used the term before? And it doesn't help much to try and define something in terms of several other undefined things. What is "global size"? What does "global size of two spheres" mean? How are " two spheres defined by a single coordinate"? How does the "global size of two spheres" relate to the "global size" of each spheres? How about some maths to explain this? What is "it" in this sentence? What is "global rotation"? How is "global rotation" defined by two coordinates? How about some maths to explain this? And I thought he put idiots on the Earth to frustrate the more thoughtful people.

Do you have a reference for that? I have searched for such research in the past and haven't found much that is credible. Yep. I was going to say exactly that. And that. This is the best overview I found in the past when I looked. Most of the research seems pretty inconclusive. http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/

Well, ignoring all questions and comments is one way of "developing" your idea. Probably not the most productive though. What sphere? You didn't mention a sphere. How does the size of a sphere define the position of the square? Three pages on and you still haven't provided any mathematics, or even a diagram, to explain your idea. Please try and keep this sort of idiotic comment out of the thread, if you want to be taken seriously.

Well, all the guests could move at the same time so if it only takes 5 minutes for one guest to move from his room to the next, then it will take 5 minutes for all the guests to move. [Edit: Beaten to it by John!] But more importantly, this is an analogy to illustrate some of the mathematical properties of infinities. Your objection is like saying "but there isn't enough wood to build infinite rooms". I don't think so. Consider the natural numbers (1, 2, 3 ...) to be the rooms. They are all filled (i.e. there is a value in each "position"). But if we add 1 to every number (at the same time ) then we end up with an empty slot followed by 2, 3, 4 ... We can then insert 1 into the empty slot and get back to the original sequence of "filled" slots. Note, you can free an infinite number of rooms by doubling all the numbers (ask the guests to move to the room number that is double their initial room number): then all the odd numbered rooms are empty and you can accept an infinite number of busses with an infinite number of passengers in each.

You have lost information by doing that: the Euclidean coordinates give both eh position and the size of the square. Your "coordinates" (they aren't coordinates) simply describe its size, not its position.

That is NOT what I am asking. Sheesh. Good question. Why didn't I think of that... Oh hang on, I did!

If it was evident, I wouldn't be asking. It is random because the male provides a large number of sperm and only one (at random) will fertilise the egg. And then random factors may affect the development of physical sexual characteristics. But (again) what is the connection between that and logic/creativity?

What is that supposed to mean? And what does it it have to do with the subject? Are you stoned or something? I wasn't asking you to explain the connection between logic and creativity. I was asking you to explain the connection between logic and how gender is determined. Or the connection between creativity and how gender is determined. Or the connection between logic-and-or-creativity and how gender is determined. What is the theme of that game? And how does it relate to the topic of the thread? (Although I'm not quite sure what the topic of the thread is, so perhaps you could clarify that as well.)

Logic is not intelligent. It is just a rigorous/formal way of reaching conclusions from certain premises. Coming up with the initial premises may be a creative process, I suppose. The question seems to be based on a false dichotomy. The gender of a child is determined both naturally and randomly (by the process you described). Although, the X and Y chromosomes do not entirely define the physical sexual characteristics of a child. Hence there is quite a high proportion of children born with ambiguous genitalia (https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003269.htm). I have no idea what the connection is between this and logic / creativity. Can you explain?

I'm not sure what you mean by "psychism". I have not come across the word before. Looking it up it seems to refer to various non-scientific ideas. However, the absence of a definition for "normal" does not mean that psychology is not a science. Maybe there is no such thing as "normal". Maybe there is no need to define such a thing. Maybe it can be defined as "not any of the listed disorders" Maybe ... As there is a lot of good scientific research in psychology nowadays (correlated with other work in neurology, biochemistry, genetics, etc) I don't see how you can say is it not scientific. Because they were pseudoscientific fairy stories. True in all fields of medicine.

Or cultural/societal effects.

It seems clearly political to me (even if you go back to William of Orange). The (modern) religious divide has been largely created (or at least, hugely exacerbated) by the political issues.

So you have moved the goalposts from "most terrorism are Muslim" to "Islam forms a breeding ground for terrorism". Do you have any evidence for that claim (the implication being that Islam is more of a breeding ground than any other cultural group). I have been exposed to terrorism for more than 5 decades. Very little of that was Islamic.

Source?

Interesting idea. I hadn't heard that before. (Although not relevant if the deep-sea vents hypothesis for abiogenesis is correct.)

Can you show, mathematically, that changing the size produces the same results as special relativity? Can you explain how this relates to General Relativity? But, as you claim that changing size affects both distance and time then it cannot be considered a dimension. An important aspect of the definition of dimensions is that they are independent values.

There is a new thread asking about the frequency (wavelength) of matter. This got me thinking about the relationship between the de Broglie wavelength of a composite object and the de Broglie wavelength of its constituent parts; and then how/if this is related to the quantum-classical divide ...

Energy is not always wave motion. For example if you lift something up it gains potential energy. If you charge a battery, the energy is not stored as waves. If you throw a ball it gains kinetic energy and moves in straight line, not a wave. The frequency of matter can be expressed by the de Broglie wavelength: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave So the frequency is proportional to the energy of the object.

Nice idea. But I don't think it will work. If you observe a man in the past who is 2 metres tall as measured by his 1 metre ruler, then he will still appear to be 2 metres tall: you can't measure him with your own ruler (because he is not there, he is in the past) you can only measure him with his own ruler. So you won't see a change. Which is why we use a known reference for observing the scaling factor of distant galaxies. That allows us to measure the change in scale. The trouble is, you can't have two different explanations for the same effect. If it is purely geometrical effect as described by optics, then there is no room for changing size. If it were due to things being smaller in the past, then there must be something seriously wrong with geometry.

Congratulations on being inquisitive and imaginative. Unfortunately, science needs to be based on data and evidence. Your idea seems to be lacking in both respects. We already have two very good theories that can actually make useful predictions. Can your "theory" do that? This doesn't make much sense. For example, I don't see how something can "oscillate at light speed". If you think of something that oscillates, such as a pendulum, you can see that the speed is fastest in the middle of the swing then slows down and reverses at the end. Can you clarify what you mean? Also, what evidence do you have for this "force field"? What experimental tests could we do to detect it? How can frequencies (a measure of the rate of oscillation) collide? This appears to violate conservation of charge, mass, spin and several other properties. This is explained by quantum theory. Can you explain precisely what is wrong with that theory? (Or is the problem just that you are unfamiliar with it?) There are many reasons why this is wrong. For example: 1. Electrons repel because they have the same electric charge. 2. We can shield the electric charge but not gravity. 3. Matter has an equal number of positive charges (protons) and therefore the net attraction is zero. And so on ... Where does the figure of -173.15 degrees C come from? What does "the temperature of a single atom" mean? (Temperature is defined in terms of the kinetic energy of collections of particles.) What do you mean by the "flashpoint"? If you mean the temperature at which it will combust in air, then where di the air come from in this scenario? The big bang cannot be modelled by an explosion. After all that, we can see that you had no need to copy from Word after all. I am disappointed to see that this is not because of the detailed mathematics behind your idea. Instead it seems like some random and fairly uninformed guesswork. I suggest asking some questions in the Physics section so you can learn something about science. If you are interested. Where does the figure of -173.15 degrees C come from? This is 100K. That is the only significance I can see. So we appear to have an element of numerology, as well as random guesses.

Or you could read a statement prepared and agreed by all members of your family. In that way you are free to speak for them.

Touche! Two "strands" might be a poor choice of word, in this context ...

No. If it were a fallacy, it would probably be "argumentum ad hominem" but as he didn't say they were wrong because they were racists, it isn't.

That is a little unfair. You have had masses of help. The original animation created by someone else. The Mathematica model was created by someone else. The mathematics and most of the description in your paper was developed by someone else. People have tried to understand and help in this thread. (In fact, I might be tempted to ask what you have contributed? ) You now have a simple analytical description of the relationship between the angles (which I always said was possible, but you claimed was not). As to whether that can be described as a function or not: that is way beyond my math skills. But a function maps between an input value and an output value. It is not clear (to me) which of [latex]\alpha , \upsilon , \phi , \lambda[/latex] is the input and which is the output. Perhaps if you can answer that (if you have already, I apologise) then maybe someone can solve for those (or say why it isn't possible).

That is a good description. I am also unhappy with the common description "DNA from three people". While strictly true, it is quite misleading. After all, you could say the same about someone who has had an organ transplant.