Strange

As far as I know. Including beyond the observable universe (which is OK because it can't be used to transmit information). They have to be entangled in some way, which means that must have shared some sort of interaction in the past. I would say yes, because changing anything in the experiment can affect the result - see things like the quantum eraser experiment, for example.

The cause is non-locality. The fact that the entangled particles are a single system, described by a single wave function. Decay of fundamental particles is an obvious one. The usual response to this, by people who think everything must have a cause, is that there must be a cause but we don't know what it is yet. why must there be a cause? Because everything has a cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Yes, different observers can see events occur in a different order (as long as there is no causal connection between the events).

I guess it could be argued that theoretical physics works deductively while discoveries made through experimental physics are more inductive. So, I would say that Relativity, for example, was developed deductively from a few simple premises. However, that doesn't "prove" the theory. It still needs to be tested against observation. But that is true of a theory developed inductively, as well. (No theory is ever "proved" anyway.)

I am not aware of any such connection.

The outsourcing of manufacturing and other jobs to other countries is, combined with the poor economic, the reason that Trump won the election (and the the UK voted for Brexit and other extremists are winning around the world) in the hope that it would reverse this trend. It probably won't. And why is this in "Speculations" rather than Politics? It is not a speculative scientific idea or hypothesis.

There are posts before yours and some after. So probably not an illusion.

That is exactly what clocks do. As they measure time and your definition of "physicality" is something that can be measured, then by your definition time is physical. I agree that the OP seems to have been more of philosophical question than a physics one. But as he asked it in Physics, rather than Philosophy, I think most people have attempted to give answers based on physics. Hopefully, your response is closer to what he is looking for.

How does that relate to physics?

Indeed. After all, what would you expect them to be made of? Brass? No, they are quanta ("particles") of electromagnetic radiation. They do have energy. They do not have mass.

What a bizarre question. So photons, time, length, mass, etc are all physical. Good.

Indeed. But that behaviour is well explained by existing theory.

So you come here asking for feedback on your idea, but when asked some questions you storm off in a hissy fit and refuse to discuss it. What's that all about?

Ah, so a load of old cobblers then. (Based purely on the fact it is in the Mail ... I assume they blame it on foreigners or women.)

Please show an example of the math here so I can understand how I missed it. I am asking you to provide that explanation here. Thank you. That would be a circular argument as relativity is based on the invariant speed of light. So who you say "constant speed of light in all reference frames" you don't mean invariant, you just mean constant, but possibly different? But, again, the evidence is against you. (So you can consider your hypothesis falsified.) Wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation What experiments are you referring to? Einstein's work on relativity was largely just based on purely theoretical considerations. Please stop making such asinine and smug comments. Thank you.

No it isn't.

There would be NO stresses on his body if moving at a constant velocity.

No it isn't. I'm not sure what that even means. But mass is not dependent on velocity. So again, no. No it isn't. As you conclusion is based on a number of false premises, it has no real basis. And you really shouldn't hijack other people's threads with this sort of thing. It belongs in the Speculations forum.

I have skimmed your "paper". There is no maths so I don't see how you are able to make any testable (i.e. quantifiable) predictions. Perhaps you can explain how the speed of light is the same in all directions if it is moving through a medium? And the same for all observers, regardless of their state of motion with respect to this medium? How is it that all attempts to measure the effects of a stationary aether, an aether that moves with the Earth and every possibility in between, have failed to detect anything? What is it about "personal theorists" and this obsession with protecting their ideas? Bizarre. Apart from the fact no one is going to want to steal it, there is no IP protection for theories. You have copyright in that document, and that's it.

Why do you assume people have not read them? I have read them and I see nothing to support your claim that they all point in the same direction. Please point to a specific quotation that says this. You do realise that "the big bang" is the (ongoing) expansion of space from an early hot dense state; it is not an event. So your first sentence seems contradictory. What do you mean by "very theoretical"? In science, this means extremely well established and supported by lots of evidence (which the big bang model is). But you seem to be using it in a negative sense.

Stars, planets, moons, comets and asteroids have no (or negligible charge). Many have no magnetic field. They spin at a wide range of speeds (including near zero). And yet our current theories of gravitation work very well. Please explain why this does not falsify your idea.

Thousands of millimetres and milliseconds?

We are still talking physics, I assume ...

It is interesting how hesitant and restrained the applause was when he talked about unity, congratulating Clinton, etc. ("What did he just say? That isn't what we voted for!")

It Is Evil (And Very Slightly Annoying) To Capitalise All Your Words. Why Do You Do It? How Do You Do It? It Is Really Hard Work. Invent a different god if you don't like the one others have invented.