Strange

Then why not take a scientific approach and test this. Stop cherry picking and succumbing to confirmation bias. Try and take a sensible and objective approach. This is, after all, a science forum. After that, you can try and find some reason why your insane idea about alien overlords is more plausible than a map of the nearest water wells, an application for planning consent for new round windows, or an order for bagels. (Hint: it isn't.) Yes, because of course you won't just dismiss any objections on the basis that you must be right.

Or that you have a job and need to commute. This thread could be a pointer to more made-up tosh.

Regarding 1 to 3, note that space is a vacuum (it is a long time since I did any vacuum work, but I guess this is a better vacuum than most labs routinely manage). So even if there is some slight increase in density at the heliopause, it is still a vacuum. So you wouldn't detect anything without specialist instruments, as Ophiolite says. If you Google voyager leaves solar system you will find lots of detailed explanations about the nature of this "boundary", what was measured and how.

Except it doesn't (and can't) give the same results.

Actually, quite the reverse. Science works by disproving theories not by proving them. It would be quite easy to disprove the theory of climate change. You could show that 200 years of physics is wrong. You could show that levels of CO2 have not increased. You could show that despite this global temperatures have not increased. And on and on...

But you can't reinvent something you don't understand and are totally ignorant of. Can you?

There is a rather neat experiment you can do at home to directly visualise the waves in your microwave oven. A couple of examples: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Phys_p056.shtml http://www.instructables.com/id/How-To-Measure-the-Speed-of-Light-Using-Chocola/

The Gullstrand-Painlevé metric is a solution to the Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity that describes gravity in pretty much those terms. Here is a non-technical explanation: http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html Well, as G appears in the Einstein Field Equations, it is safe to say it has some connection.

We do know how it explodes. How do you think they were able to design it in the first place, if it wan't understood? It wasn't just random. But you aren't discussing. you don't answer any of the objections. You just repeat the same thing. That is not discussion.

It is possible to image electron orbitals and confirm that they match theory: http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n4/abs/nchem.1008.html

This seems to be a common misconception. The universe would expand without dark energy. It is the recently detected accelerating expansion that requires dark energy. I can't see how you would get an interference pattern from that sort of setup. You need waves. Look at Huygen's original version. Or ruipples in water. http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/feschools/waves/diffract3.php Natural magnets are formed in rocks by the Earth's magnetic field.

That is just a metaphor (and a rather poor one). If you follow the "spacetime" link in that sentence, it says that spacetime is a mathematical model (not a "thing").

There is another approach where you can transform space-time to "momentum space" which consists of 3 momentum dimensions and 1 energy dimension (in place of 3 space and 1 time). https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128241-700-beyond-space-time-welcome-to-phase-space/ And an article describing several such approaches here: http://www.nature.com/news/theoretical-physics-the-origins-of-space-and-time-1.13613

There are a number of speculative theories where space-time is an emergent phenomenon from a simpler underlying model, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity And probably others ...

You seem to be confusing the human activity of "doing mathematics" (and its associated notation, rules, etc) with the patterns in the universe, which could be called "mathematics" (they are certainly mathematical patterns).

Dear psreddy, I wonder if you could explain why you are presenting this idea. I am genuinely curious. I assume that because you didn't study science you don't understand how scientific theories are developed. Is that correct? Do you think, for example, that science consists of people (e.g. Newton, Einstein, etc) just making up nice ideas? Or do you think that you have some special insight that others lack? Do you know why Newton's and Einstein's theories are generally accepted?

Of course. (Although why you say "without words" is beyond me. That is a stupid restriction.) However, if you want to learn about fire or explosions, you should open a thread asking such questions in the appropriate part of the forum. Here, you are required (by the rules you have agreed to) to answer questions and defend your theory. That is why it is not a theory. How would you test this idea? Please show, in suitable mathematical detail, what predictions it makes that would allow it to be distinguished from existing theories. You can make that appeal but with no theory and no evidence, no one is going to take any notice. Frankly and openly: it is unsupported nonsense. You should start by providing some support for this one.

What is it being pushed by? I see you have avoided answering Klayno's question. I assume that is because you cannot? It would take a theory (i.e. mathematics) and experimental evidence to convince others. Do you have either of these? Currently it is not a theory and there is no reason to accept it. Why do you think these are unanswered questions? Is it just because you don't understand? Perhaps you should learn a little basic science first ("i did not study science in higher studies"). We are in a post-Newton period and make extensive use of Einstein's theory (GPS, for example). Perhaps you need to catch up. After all, you are only 100 years behind the times.

What I meant was, you don't get an interference pattern by sending golf balls or similar through a pair of slits.

Why do you think that? Can you show a single experiment which produces results not predicted by our current theories? Why do you think your vague ramblings are an improvement on precise mathematical theories which have been extensively tested over hundreds of years?

You don't get interference patterns with macroscopic objects. It depends on a relative phase shift between waves: light, sound, ripples in water, etc. What is wrong with the one we already have? I don't think so. They would be exposed to equal push and pull from the sound waves. So at most they would oscillate back and forth.

Where does it say that? But note that evolution can only act when there is a transfer of genetic material. Therefore, the first lifeforms on which evolution could have operated must have had genetic material.

Wolfram Alpha is pretty good for this sort of thing. It (like Google) also doubles up a search engine so you can enter things like: "G * (mass of moon) * (mass of earth) / (distance earth to moon in km)^2" http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=G+*+%28mass+of+moon%29+*+%28mass+of+earth%29+%2F+%28distance+earth+to+moon+in+km%29^2 This gives an answer of 2x1020 N. Dividing the force by mass will give you acceleration.(*) To get a speed from that, you need to know how long the acceleration is applied for. Or are you trying to calculate orbital speed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed (*) The fact that you divide by mass (which therefore cancels out) is the reason that all objects fall at the same rate (as shown by Galileo). Yes. If something says it is 'radius of the moon' then it is probably calculating the force of gravity at the surface. Why r? Perhaps because it was originally used to work out orbits? If you want to know how to derive orbital speed, this might be useful: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/255694/deriving-an-equation-for-the-orbital-period-of-a-satellite

No it doesn't. That isn't what you said.

Because that is the arbitrary choice you made. And please define what you mean by "exactly". As the two shapes are not identical, the match cannot be "exact". I assume you mean "it looks exact to me".