andrewcellini

i'm okay with it as long as he ends all of his posts with "groovy baby, yeah!" from now on

or for exploiting bugs in an effort to bring them to light so they can be fixed.

this might be a good place to start - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/maine/2013/05/25/north-pond-hermit-discovered-arrested-after-years-maine-woods/xSXsUlDOQVhqUMb8nkslxN/story.html- interpersonal relationships are clearly not unavoidable

the one with the black dot

i'm not sure i can agree with this. it is usually quite clear when someone is exhibiting psychosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis#Signs_and_symptoms) which i presume you mean by mad. or you could be using it as delusional in a less severe, perhaps more "religious devotion" sense, which would also be quite clear if you could not provide evidence for your "theory" and kept on believing in it. what you've presented isn't a theory in the scientific sense. it's an idea that's you've thought about for a little while, and it makes predictions which are vague and are potentially unfalsifiable. you jump quickly from one facet of your "theory" to another without any real explanation. how does any assumption about an "unlimited world" lead to discussion about war and world peace?

not all animals move in the adult stage of their life cycle, for example barnacles and coral are sessile. most* plants go through sexual reproduction with male and female gametes. *dandelion's are an example that i can think of which actually reproduce asexually. there may be others. i'm not sure how to answer you main question.

and quite hairy

i presume the op meant to put another t there (t and r are just so close together lol), and thus the derivative is wrt t.

hey hey hey i don't have a bicycle i've come across this and did it myself. i blame watching the universe and through the wormhole without looking up anything to get a better picture (at least in my case lol). it is much easier to watch an hour long video or read a short article and think you understand all of quantum mechanics than to actually try to learn some of quantum mechanics, and i think is goes for just about anything in science (and possibly other fields of study). i just heard a quote from lawrence krauss that i think fits, "people get inspired by physics even if they get it wrong, and there's nothing wrong with that."

i'm not sure i understand. do you think that it would help your situation out more to have "educated guesses" from people doing what amounts to quick google and database searches, or "educated guesses" from people who actually work in the field which deals with your situation (whatever that may be)?

what do you mean by energy?

xyzt, shouldn't it be equal to kt, not kdt, after the integration with respect to dt? integrating both sides with respect to dt, the dt's will cancel on the LHS, leaving the integral of df on the LHS, and the integral kdt on RHS but i could be mistaken.

that wouldn't be up to me. as mordred said, it might be helpful to lay out what you understand about relativity.

to be fair, this happens to be a science forum. also one of the guidelines of this sub forum happens to be "this is a science forum, and speculations are still to be discussed in that context. If it doesn't fit as a science discussion, or you refuse to discuss the idea as such, the thread will be closed down."

what answers have you gotten so far? how did you come to them?

with what you've described, i'm not sure how you're using the word dimension.

no it isn't, that is what seems to be a description of your ideas. what tests can be independently performed in order to falsify or confirm your "theory?"

but it comes from the bible which comes from yaweh... but it comes from the bhagvan gita which comes from vishnu... but it comes from the avesta which comes from zoroaster...

then you need to actually make a model of what you're talking about and show numerically how it predicts what is observed. i think you're gonna have a lot trouble with your black hole idea though, unless you simply don't know what a black hole actually is. it is not the same thing as the nucleus of an atom which is the dense, positively charged "central" portion of the atom containing protons and neutrons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus

this is not a theory. reading this it seems to be a bunch of disconnected premises, words which seem to be used unconventionally (for example "black hole" which you seem to be equating with "nucleus"), and claims which need evidence (for example "the sun is an atom"). this is probably because you haven't carefully examined any of the topics you've attempted to discuss in your informal education.

aquagenic urticaria comes to mind but i'm really not sure that she wouldn't be able to drink water due to it as it is an epidermal reaction.

if you didn't have anyone "yanking your chain," you would probably not think twice about the validity of your ideas. at the very least i hope to provide you with some doubt as to help you strengthen not only your current ideas but any future ones. how many times do you expect someone to read it before they understand it? i'm not going to reread ad nauseum something which hasn't made sense two times now. all of the entities you have presented seem to be unrelated except when you have explicitly and arbitrarily defined them as "souls." if this isn't the case then feel free to expand on it. likewise if your numbers have some actual meaning it would be helpful for you to explain.

i need to clearly understand what you're trying to say. so you're neither going to confirm or deny that you are arbitrarily assigning numbers to words, or that you're just stringing together ideas which you may or may not even understand? i'm not being trying to be personally mean towards you when i examine your idea and show you things that are ill defined by you, or things which probably are incoherent. i'm trying to clearly understand what you mean. for all i know, you are tossing numbers and words around meaninglessly. at the very least try to form a stronger informal argument than what is contained in your op; it's clearly not a complete explanation if no one (so far) can understand what you're trying to say.

there's no one claiming that you made up the word universe, but your descent into "u"niverse "i"verse and the like are ill defined in your own post and indeed are incoherent. if you want to explain the meaning of it because I have no idea what is it to represent. you are arbitrarily taking dimensionless numbers to be special and then associating them with words that may or may not even be related. there is essentially no use to it.