Strange

I doubt it very much. None of which is in the slightest bit relevant to the question.

Not in GR. Newtonian gravity is known to be wrong for this, and other reasons. r in the equations is the distance between the two bodies. Changing the radius of an object does not change it gravitation.

In general relativity, the equations inciude terms for mass, energy, energy flux, pressure, and other factors that contribute to the gravitation. Which "current formula" are you referring to? Newton's law of gravitation or Einstein's field equations or something else? And what evidence do you have that it is incorrect? Why would reducing the radius increase gravity? The Bohr model is wrong. Your questions are answered by quantum theory. As you admit it is speculation, we can ask the mods to move the thread. What causes this friction? And why would heat repel electrons? And how can you have heat inside an atom? (Do you even know what heat is?) What evidence do you have for this? Why?

Perhaps you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

This entire thread has been about a weight been swung in a circle on the end of string. And now you ask about a ball that is not moving? I can only assume you are posting random, irrelevant questions to keep the thread going and wind people up.

In which case the ball isn't moving: it is lying on the floor with the string loosely connecting it to the pivot point. Why do you keep making these ludicrous diversions?

Is it? Why do they all have different rotations? Can you provide a reference to this research?

They are electromagnetic waves. Huh!?

I second the request for evidence of these "orbital systems" as building blocks.

Either. Although, I suspect most people nowadays would consider the version with diaeresis to be rather pretentious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphate_rich_organic_manure

This may be a slight diversion, but it might help to tie things together a bit... And the probability of a particular electron (or photon) getting through is related to the cosine of the angle between the first and second filter (cosine squared, actually). In the classical view of light (as a continuous waveform) this means that the amplitude of the light getting through also depends on the cosine2 of the angle. (You may have seen a previous thread in speculations where a poster started from this fact and thought he had shown that Bell's inequality was wrong/irrelevant - but because he started with the result he wanted to demonstrate this was just an example of the fallacy of begging the question.)

It was brought up by the OP: I think he was using it in an informal sense, so thought it would be useful for him to understand what it really means. (And not what studiot thinks it means. )

I assumed that "if evolution is real" was referring to biological evolution. Apparently I was wrong. If you are just using the word "evolution" to mean "change" then it is probably reasonable to say that (almost) everything changes. Hardly a useful insight. Not even an insight, really.

As the Wikipedia page says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_%28physics%29#Mathematical_derivation_in_the_case_of_an_object_of_constant_mass

Have you heard of "scrolling"? Or are you to busy cherry-picking evidence to hide your mistakes...

As the Wikipedia article says. (But thanks for admitting you were wrong, previously.)

So how do we tell which theory gives the more accurate results? Do you have any tests that could actually be performed in the real world?

It is radio signals, rather than magnetic. http://www.piha.co.nz/piha-and-the-norfolk-island-effect/

1. What definition of information are you using? 2. How do you detect/measure this information? 3. How do you know that it determines the evolution and presence of physically presented values as energy and matter? What objective, repeatable measurements have you made to support this claim? 3. How do you know that information exists beyond physical reality? What objective, repeatable measurements have you made to support this claim? 4. How is this different from your other thread?

Your posts are a mixture of incorrect statements, strawman arguments and irrelevant (and dubious) claims like this one: even if a PC is running in superuser/admin mode (but no one concerned about security would do that) then it is potentially vulnerable and it hardly matter swhether you use XOR with a PRNG, 256-biit AES or ROT13. I would recommend anyone reading this thread to ignore Enthalpy's posts as heavy on opinion and low on fact.

So can you show us the mathematical model? Can you show that it produces the same results as GR (i.e. reality)? Can you show any results that would allow an experiment to choose between your model and GR?

What properties does that have? How would you measure them? No it doesn't.

Maybe you need to read the definition of impulse, as well.

You tell me. What properties does information have that become "materialized"? How much mass does information have? Also, what definition of information are you using?