Klaynos

My first guess would be using a machine learning method on the gradient of signal vs number of minutes (or seconds depends on sampling) past midnight.

Time is the "period" in which matter exists. Moment is a subset of the period...

Sorry but your post is pretty much incomprehensible. You appear to have strung pretty much randomly together. Can you please review the speculation specific rules as your post is currently not meeting our minimum requirements.

You can use a vna, structured metal surface and a coupling method to observe electromagnetic surface waves. What are you trying to achieve?

I'd agree with that.

I'd suggest that depends on what other information you have and what your sensor is reading.

Newtons ideas were mathematical. You've not answered my question at all. All of your questions have well evidenced answers. And if you're going to use a title for me (not that I insist on that in any way), it's Dr, not Mr.

Can you show, mathematically, using your idea how you would derive the altitude of a geostationary orbit for the earth? There are lots of assumptions and assertions in your post that are just wrong. I'd strongly suggest going and doing some serious background research.

If before you opened the boxes the gloves were both right and left in a superposition then it would be closer to what is observed in qm.

When processing large data sets I tend to push as much data as possible into the ram and manually parallise the processing to use all but 1 or 2 of the cores depending on what else I want to do with the computer. I find ram and disk read write speed are what hold up my desktop processing.

It's a common misconception that there is communication, there is not.

I think among many other mistakes you're understanding of entanglement is wrong, or you're redefining it. I'd suggest doing dinner background reading, not using popsci sources.

c being invariant is a result of electrodynamics. Electrodynamics is pretty well tested, you're effectively testing it constantly these days. Nothing massive traveling at c is a result of special relativity (SR). SR is consistent with our observations. This includes things which require SR to be correct for long range high bandwidth communications which again you rely on constantly. There is no required system of acceleration in SR it is true no matter the method.

Maths is the normal form in British English, math sounds funny to our ears.

With very few exceptions. Yes. Even the origins of the objects that bombarded the earth are in the cloud that formed the solar system. The likeliness of extra solar system objects is tiny. Let me call on the great Douglas Adams. "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

Pick an element, given his much of that can be found on the earth work out how big the bombardment would have to be too being that much material to earth, check references to see if that's feasible. I suspect that other than surface layers (like the iridium layer) and ignoring the moon event then having it brought by impact is not feasible.

Logic is often used as "it makes sense to me" which can cause problems on a science forum.

For some reason I completely ignored the big lump of copper.

These are just low precision measurements. If the kids forehead was 100degC you'd notice, if it was -50degC you'd notice. You can confine it further I've just picked the obvious limits. I'm not sure I distinguish between measurement and observation. It's certainly not that a human is involved in one and not the other.

This seems to be closest to the definition of logic of "it makes sense to me". But we know the universe doesn't work like that (and why should it). I strongly agree we need some fourth definitions here. English isn't really suited to that though.

That's a lot of assertions with no evidence. Let's concentrate on "maths works because it is logical". Can you define your use of the word logic here, as logic is a subset of maths, not the other way around which is what you impy.

Then how can you be quite so definitive? It's a really interesting topic, I just don't think you can state a well evidenced answer either way.

No evidence then.

I'd guess copper sulfate.

Unless we're using the "what makes sense to me" definition of logic, which we all know doesn't match the universe.