Strange

There are simpler explanations. However, they suffer from the, not insignificant, disadvantage of being wrong.

Why? There are much, much more efficient ways of generating energy.

What is the advantage of this? Why not just power the motor from the sugar directly? Or, because sugar has quite a low energy density, why not use a battery?

Which makes it an interesting idea for an SF movie ...

By having an angle, you have a coordinate system. Otherwise, what is your angle relative to? If alpha is a unique function of E then you only have one variable (E) and so you can only express directions in two dimensions.

That doesn't require any higher dimensions. You can represent that in the 4 dimensions of space-time (or even just 3 spatial dimensions, I suppose). I'm afraid I can't follow the rest of your post.

That is what vectors are for. These can use cartesian coordinates (i.e. N orthogonal axes, where N=3 for 3D space) or spherical coordinates or any other basis you choose (6 [or do I mean 8?] axes at 45 degrees, for example). There are simple functions to convert between each of these different coordinate systems, which is what "something along the lines of: E is a function of alpha, and for every different direction the function changes" sounds like. And if you are saying that the function changes, then that sounds a bit like you are talking about curried functions. There are, of course, many other ways of representing direction. For example, in 3D graphics we use the plane equation, ax+by+cz+d=0, to represent a surface because this makes it easy to calculate intersections, hidden surfaces, etc. This can be trivially converted into a direction by calculating the surface normal. Which is a vector: [a,b,c]. I don't mean to be impolite but ... as you don't have the mathematical knowledge to recognise that vectors (and operations on them) are the answer to your question, how would you recognise this Special Function you are looking for (even if someone were able to divine what it is from your vague descriptions)?

There are so many volcanoes, and eruptions are so frequent, that I'm not sure there is a comprehensive list of all of them around the world. Most countries only have data for their own hazards. This is the best I have been able to find so far: http://volcano.si.edu/reports_weekly.cfm Volcanoes are always erupting. I am not aware that there are any more eruptions now than normal.

That is also a rather poor analogy to what the maths says (even though both the maths and the analogy are due to Hawking). I posted a couple of links about this before but didn't keep them....

I think you are basically correct: the speed of light can be treated as a conversion factor between time and space. And in Planck units, the speed of light is 1.

Note that the end of the rod will never achieve that speed, however long it is. This sounds a bit like the Ehrenfest paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

Several of the values are vectors. For the electron, these are spin and magnetic moment. For the Earth they are things like surface gravity, orbital velocities, moment of inertia, etc. However, if you are asking if "direction" (just direction and nothing else) is a property of things, then the answer is obviously no. Neither is position. These are entirely arbitrary properties that depend as much on the observer as the observed. (And entirely on the choice of coordinates.)

Here is a list of physical properties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron And here is another one: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html Some of those properties are scalars (directionless) and some are vectors (directional). Scalars do not have any "inherent" magnitude, either. If it is not a vector, then it doesn't have direction. Maybe you need to study some basic mathematics before you go any further. And it simply shows you are wrong.

The fact that this claim is incorrect means it belongs in the Speculations forum (along with all the other claims that are contradicted by the facts). I am not sure what "lists of physical properties" you are referring to, but there are many that I can think of that include direction: magnetic dipole moment of the electron, orbital parameters of planets, etc. And of course, many fundamental laws of physics include direction: from F=ma to the Einstein Field Equations.

It is not necessary to read Einstein's own writings (Personally, I think his writings on relativity are not particularly clear and there are many better explanations out there. And the maths is there same in all cases, which is what really matters.) You haven't explained why you have doubts so I don't know what to do about that. I assume it is because you you have misunderstood something. If you could explain where your doubts come from, then maybe people can help clear them up. There is an "Edit" button at the bottom of every post which allows you to do just that. So, for example, you could reformat that sentence properly:

Only if "new" means 100 years old.

The first occurrence of "quantisation" is in your post. The OP specifically mentions "quantification" more than once. I agree, the answer appears to be vectors. Direction is a fundamental aspect of movement, force and many other vector properties.

I agree.

Fail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority "In 2008, Robert L. Park wrote that BLP has benefited from wealthy investors who allocate a proportion of their funds to risky ventures with a potentially huge upside, but that in the case of BLP since the science underlying the offering was "just wrong" the investment risk was, in Park's view, "infinite".[20]" Well put.

Isn't that exactly that the balloon analogy attempts to do? (without introducing the idea of a hypersphere, which might be just as confusing as the thing that the analogy is trying to describe)

The thing is, Occam's razor is not about complexity. It is about not including unnecessary things. No one has managed to come up with a simpler model that works. So it seems the complexity is necessary (there is no reason the universe should be simple enough for us to understand it). If you force the electrons to go through a single slit, that is the same as having the "which way" information that breaks the interference pattern. Because the size of the wave is (roughly) inversely proportional to size. So the experiment has been done with C60 "buckyball" molecules (and some even bigger, I think). But it becomes increasingly difficult to do the experiment.

There is no such point. The universe is all there is.

There is no such part of the universe. The universe is and always has been homogeneously full of matter (on large enough scales).

And what does "hexagonal axes" mean? And wouldn't that require 6 points (or more)?