Strange

You seem to be using “electricity” to mean voltage. And sometimes you seem to use it to mean current. And sometimes you mean static electricity/charges. No wonder you are so confused. This may result in multiple frequencies but it doesn’t result in AC.

I don’t see going from zero to some finite size any more or less implausible than infinite size. Mathematically it is the same thing. (And physically it is pretty meaningless.) Although, given Mordred’s comment above, it may not be relevant.

It is true that singularities do not have to be a point. But I think in the case of the universe it does. (As always, I may be wrong!) An infinite universe would still have started out as a (zero-size) singularity.

And exactly the same conclusions were reached (at the same time) by Alfred Wallace, looking at the evidence on the other side of the world. So the idea it is "too theoretical" is obviously wrong. Darwin is renowned as a great botanist and biologist because the enormously detailed observations he made, in many fields (literally, in some cases!)

A singularity is mathematical term; it means that the theory produces infinities at that point. So by naively extrapolating backwards using GR you get to a zero sized point containing all the mass and energy of the universe. As it would be zero size there could be no movement. It does not represent physical reality. Our current physics can only take us back to a fraction of a second after the big bang. A future theory that includes quantum theory might tell us more (some attempts at this suggest that the universe may be infinitely old, for example).

I wouldn't expect you to be able to discern individual pebbles; it is a big beach! You would probably have to go there. http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/chespeb.htm

So you are saying that a battery powered lamp does not use DC current? Your claims get more bizarre by the moment. I think you should read that. And think about your behaviour. But according to your “logic” if they turned it on and off then it wasn’t DC. You can’t even keep your own misunderstandings straight. That "that flow of electrons in one direction" is what is known as DC. The fact that switching that current on and off generates multiple frequencies does not change that. "Direct current (DC) is the unidirectional flow of an electric charge." "The electric current flows in a constant direction, distinguishing it from alternating current (AC)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_current

! Moderator Note I can't see any connection between these vague mathematical statements and mythology. Thread closed. Do not start another thread on this subject.

When I think of pebbly beaches, I think of larger pebbles furthest from the water with smaller pebble and gravel/sand where the water is. Or a line of large pebbles with smaller ones either side. Never really thought much about the mechanism. But it must vary from one beach to another. On Chesil Beach, they are sorted along the length of the beach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesil_Beach (sort of)

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. This is a science forum. You need to provide evidence or mathematics to support your ideas. Unsupported assertions with a few meaningless diagrams are not sufficient. If you do not provide either a testable (ie. mathematical) theory or some evidence in the next post, this thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note If you have something to discuss, you need to present it here, not just link to a video

"To keep from being confused, everyone should stop using the completely standard term and replace it with my preferred term" As I say, good luck persuading everyone to do that. What!? How can "electricity" be different at both each end? Do you mean "voltage" perhaps? I think you should stop posting this nonsense now. It isn't clear, but it seems likely that the charges are split between the person and the belt of the treadmill. Which of those do you wish to call "ground". Because either choice would be fantastical.

How is this relevant to your point? Come to that, what is your point? That the speed of light is different from what we think, but when we measure it we get a different number? That doesn't make much sense. (BTW. When you quote something, it is considered good form to provide the source.)

That is pretty much what I was about to suggest as well. Maybe also combined with an ice halo, which would always be circular (although much larger than the moon).

It is worthless. Ask yourself why it has not been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.

! Moderator Note No. ! Moderator Note Science does not deal in "truth". For that you want religion. Now, stop posting nonsensical threads.

! Moderator Note OK. Thread closed. Do not start any more threads unless you want to actually discuss some science.

And even if that were true, how is it relevant. Why would natural constants have to be round numbers in base 10. Why not base 9 or base 42? Numerology is not science.

! Moderator Note Unless you are willing to discuss some science (eg. explaining what the apparently meaningless term "antigravity vacuum" means) then this thread will be closed.

Good. So you admit that your limited definition that "it must involve voltage and current" only applies to a subset of the uses of the word "electricity". Now that we have got past that bit of nonsense, maybe we can move on. No it isn't. It is just called "earth". (Although many people understand the American term "ground" as well. In fact the two might be equally commonly used now. But as I no longer do any engineering, I can't be sure.) They are certainly different. I don't think anyone would disagree. However, previously you said that one of them was not electricity, which is nonsensical.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations Why on earth would a natural constant be an exact number of arbitrary human units? Why isn’t it “actually” 1.0 megafurlongs per microfortnight?

Well, no. Because those things are (as far as we know) truly random. (I'm not sure what "truly random" means or even if it is possible to define it rigorously.)

Good on toast.

It is not the antithesis, but it is not "truly" random (the clue is in the name ) You can define (or measure) randomness in statistical terms (how evenly spread are the set of numbers, for example). A good PRNG will be able to match a true random source for many of these. But it will repeat (exactly) at the end of the sequence. And any two systems implementing the same PRNG will produce the same results. In a lot of cases, this is a useful feature. For example, spread-spectrum transmission works by multiplying a signal with a PRNG. This makes the signal look like noise but mean that a receiver (using the same PRNG) can detect/decode the signal by convolving the input "noise" with the PRNG sequence, thus picking it out of the really random background noise.

Ah, but apparently it isn’t “electricity” in that case (it is just “sparkling charge”).