Klaynos

I'd love to see any definitive evidence you have for any of those statements.

How about [math]10ton\pm10ton[/math]?

I recall doing this at school, good days.

They'd probably have issues with all of the entry requirements on things like corruption. 2022 entry would require the process to be well underway by 2017 as it takes about 5 years. That's now about a year away...

There is a further aspect that should probably be considered. That of our definitions. The kg is not some magical unit laid down by the universe but an arbitrary lump of stuff that we've defined that if you measure in a certain way is 1 kg. Other methods of measuring mass should be able to be compared back to that original method with an understanding of errors.

So you have done the test I asked about above? If not how can you be so sure? What's your evidence? I'm not taking any side, I think people need to think very carefully about what they mean with their questions and how you can make any definitive answer which can be backed by evidence.

This really is what I was getting at. It's not really a well defined question.

Can you please define a test for "really exists".

Or to summarise, no you can't. Fails to make predictions, I suspect this thread will close. If you really want to take part in this forum I'd suggest you at least try and understand the purpose of the individual areas. Speculations is for ideas such as you presented, speculative ones. Given you couldn't answer a simple question on time dilation evidence why should we consider your idea anything other than speculation?

Can you show your maths for muon decay time observations in the atmosphere?

The earth is a sphere because gravity is spherically symmetric. There's nothing new or particularly interesting here.

I accept I was too fast to be so disparaging towards coast.

Coast is so far from a scientific source it's pretty laughable. For sea waves you do not need to and its probably not physical to model the bonds forcing in the way you suggest. This stuff really is quite well understood.

Not really. You need to define your tend more clearly. Where did Nsun come from?

Can you please show, mathematically, how you're idea is consistent with the experimental evidence for both femi statistics and bose-einstein statistics? ! Moderator Note Moved to speculations, please view the extra rules and guidelines (http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/#entry839842) for posting in this area.

The equilibrium is flat.

Without the driving force (you pushing the foam board, and excluding other outside influences) the equilibrium state is flat water surface due to gravity and the retaining sides of the pool. None of this is very interesting wave theory. Ocean waves are pretty well understood, the pool example is an example of a driven oscillator, the dawlish sea wall event was iirc a combination of storm surge (a pressure driven event that's really quite interesting) and very strong winds.

B wouldn't require a black hole, a black piece of paper absorbs most of the light incident on it but it not a black hole. You wouldn't be invisible in the traditional sense as your outline would still be there. The problem here is that A isn't really feasible at the moment, if it was done with a suite you wore then you could also imagine some technology that displayed what your would have seen into your mind and replacing the photons used to create the image with another light source.

Are the GUIs running the same version of python as you run in the terminal? Is python ever compiled? Is it not always run through an interpreter?

He escapes the atmosphere if not contained, so also not a problem.

I remember when I was younger drawing the design for a square with 45 degree mirrors at the corners, you'd input at the corner through one of the mirrors building up the intensity inside.

That would depend on the interaction of the light with the walls. If they are 100% reflective (impossible) and it was a perfect vacuum (impossible) then the intensity would be pretty consistent along the length. I think you would find investigating how optical fibre works to be a very interesting activity. Your second question, if we put the light source in the middle of our perfect tube with a mirror on each end then you would get an every increasing intensity inside. This is not physical though due to the limitations of reality.

It's almost impossible to tell. With such limited data it is impossible. One of the biggest contributing factors on height is diet from conception onwards. Look at the height differences between north and south Korea.

Sorry, your said you had a theory but a wag which would imply a mathematical framework. I think Swansont's suggestion of doing the maths to make predictions of the required properties would be a good approach.

Relatively thinner than paper... I'm not sure that actually means anything. What specific, numerical predictions died your idea make? Can you show how you've derived these predictions?