Strange

A jump implies a third dimension.

Because they seem to be unique, and I don't really understand the legal significance of it. Given the Bern Convention, it should be unnecessary. I don't if it is just a historical convention. Distracted by irrelevant issues. Why worry about copyright? You are not stealing anyone else's work. And no one will steal yours. Just get on with the research, write your paper and start submitting it to journals.

That's not a bad analogy. The 2D image of the teapot seen by each observer is different. These could all be combined into a 3D model that is invariant. Similarly, as Markus pointed out, we get different results when we just look at time or just space but when combined, the whole 4D model is invariant.

So if you only care about proper time (what you see) then it doesn't matter if there is 1 or 100 other observers. So why say 2 is OK but 3 isn't.

There is a limit to how many connections you can have without crossing.

That is correct. You are (deliberately) mis interpreting/misrepresenting what is being said. Simply because you don't like the universe the way it is. No. Annoyingly, you have hijacked other people's to spread your misunderstandings.

You can call it wibble if you want. But that is not what it is. No one says that. The laws of the universe dictate what we observe. Exactly. And that is all we can know about "reality". Do you realise you now have three different threads where you are trying to make the same (erroneous) argument?

Neither do I. I have always found it slightly odd. Usually you would not need to use the law. If you inform journal or website that they have published something that is your copyright then they will usually remove it first and then check your claim. Going to court would be expensive and slow. And a complete waste of time for an academic paper, I think. That depends on the journal's rules. But I don't think they would object to some parts of it being shared (e.g. for an informal review on a site like this). But they would not want to publish a paper that has previously been published in another journal. This is true. In 4 decades of technical communication, this has never been an issue for me.

That is not what you said before: So your clock runs at two different speeds (the one you see and the one I see). It seems your view of reality is rather inconsistent.

But it is OK for two different things to be "truly happening" at the same time?

A bit confused, but basically OK. In quantum theory an "observer" is just a measurement. It has nothing to do with intelligence or consciousness.

Why is three different results any different than two?

Yes, you might have to work hard to produce a paper that is worth publishing. But just being someone who works hard is not enough. And part of that hard work must include reading all the standard books and papers published previously. There is no such thing as "official copyright". If you publish something, then you own the copyright. (OK. The USA has a system where you can register copyright with the Library of Congress, but I think that is almost unique in the world.) That is a different issue: plagiarism. Most universities (and I guess publishers) now use software to detect plagiarism. If you think your copyright work has been copied, then you can take action to stop it. That is why copyright law exists. You do not need any "official" copyright for this. (But, as above, it can make it easier in the USA.) Which is why journals use peer review: to check the quality of the work.

I don't see why your personality is relevant. All that is important (when it comes to publishing a paper) is the quality of your research and the quality of the writing. I have worked in intellectual property for so many years that I don't think I am capable of making a joke about it. http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

And how do we find out what that reality is? The only access we have to reality is through our measurements. So how do you decide which of the many possible measurements is the "true" one? Is it that you are always right and everyone else is wrong?

In fact, if you publish something on this forum you will have copyright. (See rule 5)

This seems like very good advice. Also, as others have said, read a lot of the papers published in the same area(s). You seem to think that your character means you do not have to study. I think this is a very dangerous attitude. I have interviewed, trained and worked with a very large number of engineers. The ones who had the greatest confidence in their abilities were the worst engineers. Those who doubted their abilities and wanted learn from others were the best engineers. Copyright will not give any protection to your ideas. Also, you get copyright simply by publishing something. So put it on a blog. You will have copyright.

But you seem to be assuming that one of those is "true" (i.e. what really happened) and the other is some sort of distorted view of reality. That is what is wrong with your analysis. There is a similar discussion going on at the moment on another forum (the CosmoQuest forum, under the heading "Is Lorentz Contraction Real"). One of the points being made there is that all we can know about reality is what we measure - there is no other "reality". So if different observers measure different things, then that is reality. And trying to ask questions about what "happens" to the ruler, just shows that our language (and concepts) are not appropriate because they developed based on things that are intuitive, where these effects are not apparent. Nothing happens to the ruler (or photon), we just have different views of reality.

OK. If you don't really mean 2D but just very thin (like an integrated circuit) then yes. But in 2D the connections don't overlap they short-circuit.

So what. That is not unusual. It is pretty common nowadays, in most fields. No.

I doubt it because you wouldn't be able to get the level of interconnectivity needed. We can only make very simple electronic circuits in 2D.

Citation needed. Have you calculated how much gravity would need to decrease with time? For example looking distances to galaxies in our local cluster? However, I can see a couple of problems: 1. It is not enough to just have less gravity - that would just cause the galaxies to rotate ate a different speed and/or be larger. Current modified gravity theories to explain dark matter make gravity decrease at slightly less than an inverse square law. This can be made to work for galaxies but not galaxy clusters (and vice versa). 2. It would result in the amount of apparent dark matter increasing with distance. Have you checked the observational data to see if this is the case?

No. But presumably you have studied papers related to the topic(s) you are hoping to publish. What journals were they published in? That would seem a good way to find suitable places to submit.

I imagine a paper that involves mathematics and sociology would be best suited to a sociology journal. After all, all sciences rely on mathematics so it would seem to be the sociology aspect that is more ... specialised / relevant. To put it another way: a sociology journal will be quite used to seeing mathematics in papers, but a mathematics journal might find sociology quite unusual.

Most theories treat dark energy and dark matter as completely separate things. They have different effects and the only thing they have in common is the word "dark". However, there are a couple of attempts to explain both effects by a common mechanism that I have seen. For example: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111325 ( Unification of Dark Matter and Dark Energy: the Inhomogeneous Chaplygin Gas) I'm not sure what you are asking. Where to publish such a theory? You would need to submit it to a suitable peer-reviewed journal. You would need a thorough understanding of both General Relativity and Quantum Theory. (Einstein struggled to get to grips with the mathematics of GR, but that is the easy bit!)