Strange

Some examples here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/synchrotron.html

Evolution in action?

Worthwhile as those things might be, they are not science. An uncertainty which is precisely defined (and derived) mathematically.

This is simply because the universe has been expanding since the light was emitted. The light was emitted 14 billion years ago, but since then the stars that emitted that light have been carried further away. More here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN Note that the rate of expansion is not "faster than the speed of light" because it is not a velocity; the velocity depends on distance. "For every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 67 kilometers per second." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#How_is_the_expansion_of_the_universe_measured_and_how_does_the_rate_of_expansion_change.3F This means there will always be something far enough away that it is receding at greater than light speed. It wasn't an explosion pushing electrons through space; it was space itself that expanded. In other words, the distances between two points increased. There is no speed of light limit in this case, because that only applies to two objects in relative motion in the same frame of reference.

Isn't the fact that it is being played equal-tempered part of the problem? (I assume that is done to keep in tune with fixed tuning instruments like the piano?) I thought that if you tuned to a specific key, then the notes could have exact integer relationships and the beating would disappear.

I don't like or dislike it. I am completely indifferent. I am just pointing out that it is (a) an unsupported assertion and (b) wrong. Feel free to provide some evidence for that. Otherwise, I will treat it as I would any other unsupported claim such as, "there is a unicorn in my garden".

Earlier, you said this: It seems you have a closed mind are are not willing to learn. Modern cosmology, based on general relativity, shows that the universe is expanding. It also says that the universe could be either finite or infinite, we do not currently have enough evidence to say. If you prefer to just repeatedly assert that "matter is finite" with no evidence, then a science forum is probably not the right place.

Most people use the word "universe" to mean all of space and everything in it. Both space and the matter in it may be finite or infinite. "The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence,[1][2][3][4] including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy." "The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe Why not. As I say, the model is not that the universe is expanding like a bubble. It is rather that distance between things are increasing (on large scales). This does not require the universe to be finite. As an analogy, take the set of natural numbers: they are infinite (1,2,3,4 ...) but you can make the series "expand" (increase the distance between them) by doubling all the valuesto get 2,4,6,8, ...

What is the difference between space and the universe? The universe is space; there is no space outside the universe because there is no outside the universe. It certainly seems that way.

True. I guess the difference is that Aristotle didn't even look for the evidence, presumably considering it unnecessary. A crank, presented with the evidence, will just dismiss it. I think even theoretical physicists will look for evidence (or work with someone else who will).

I am exaggerating, obviously, but his preference for "reason" over evidence is a trade-mark of most modern Internet cranks. As far as we know, the amount of matter (1) is fixed (2) and so it will not become more dense. If space is infinite, then the universe is infinite: the universe is space. And, if the universe is infinite, then it will contain infinite matter. Currently, it appears there is not enough mass to cause the universe to collapse again (as was once thought to be the case). In fact the rate of expansion seems to be accelerating. (1) Or, more exactly, matter+energy (2) Well, perhaps, apart from dark energy

Aristotle also said that men have more teeth than women. So I wouldn't put too much faith in his opinions; he was the just one of the first crackpots. If they are philosophical, then they are not physical theories.

Neither of those sound natural to me. That has already been answered, hasn't it?

The fact the universe is expanding has nothing to do with whether the universe is finite or infinite. You may be thinking of the universe expanding like a balloon. That is not how it works. It is more accurate to think of it as the distance between things increasing; or the average density decreasing.

I wonder what the difference is between "commonly used" and "proper English"; I guess it depends on which English you are talking about. You might avoid it in formal writing, but it seems perfectly acceptable in normal speech (or even informal writing).

Those both sound correct to me. I would use "not as" but "not so" isn't wrong. Maybe just a dialectical difference. Is "not so" more acceptable to Americans, I wonder? Hmmm.... Thinking about it some more. I would use "not so" with an adjective phrase: "How was the movie?" "Not so bad. But not as good as the original."

Partly because electrons are fundamental and protons aren't (most of the mass of the proton is the binding energy of the quarks). Anti-matter particles are just as stable as matter particles. They can combine to form atoms, which are just as stable as matter atoms. As your starting point is erroneous, it is unlikely that any conclusions will be worth anything. What are e and g? Can you show that this idea makes predictions consistent with observation? If not, why even bother mentioning it? Any idea needs to pass that minimum level of plausibility check before being presented for review.

Seconded.

Which is?

I can't directly help you with answers to your questions, but I can give some advice. First, a meta-comment on your approach. You will find that the reaction to posts like yours on a science forum will be two-fold: 1. Explain that if you don't have any evidence to support you idea then it is not a theory in the scientific sense. (And related points like, it is up to you to support the idea not others). 2. Point out the flaws in your idea (if it is developed enough). Note that an idea proposed by someone with little background knowledge and with no theoretical/evidential support will almost certainly be wrong. As such, you might find it more productive to just start by asking where you can find the information, without raising hackles by raising the spectre of "personal theory". You have to realise that people on forums like this are sick to death of the following dialog: Newcomer: I have a theory .... Assembled Members: No you don't. You have an idea. And it is obviously wrong. N: .... closed minded ... imagination ... new ideas ... book learning ... scared ... AM: sigh, here we go again ... Second, on your idea. Data on the mass and composition of stars should be readily available. Thousands, perhaps millions, have been analysed in this way. I can't tell you much about that, except that: 1. The main element is hydrogen, typically 70 to 90%. 2. The second element is helium, making up almost the remaining mass. 3. There are two types of stars: Population I stars contain more of the elements above helium that Population II stars. Because Population I stars were formed from the material ejected by the supernovae of old Pop II stars. 4. The composition of a star changes over its lifetime as hydrogen is turned to helium and then, towards the end of its life, hevier elements are formed. I don't know how 4 affects your idea. Flash point refers to combustion of materials. I don't see how that relates to stars so you need to work out what you are really asking there. (Otherwise you will attract even more criticism.) I get the impression that you might be thinking of the big bang as some sort of explosion like a supernova. If so, then you can just drop the whole idea now, as it bears no relation to reality.

Of course it does: How does "infinitesimal" differ from 0? If you think that 0.999... is not equal to 1, perhaps you could write down the exact value of the difference. 0.000... = 0/9 0.111... = 1/9 0.222... = 2/9 0.333... = 3/9 (1/3) etc. 0.888... = 8/9 0.999... = 9/9 = 1

As far as is known, matter and anti-matter behave identically as far as gravity is concerned. There is no particular reason to think otherwise, but the Alpha experiment at CERN is aiming to test this. http://alpha.web.cern.ch/ Don't know what that means. Given that matter and antimatter (are expected to) behave identically with respect to gravity, then they curve spacetime identically. No reason to assume that. Other than the fact that they have opposite charge - when they have charge. Neutrinos and antineutrinos are both uncharged. It is hard. See the Alpha experiment, for example.

A bit more browsing around came up with this commentary on the paper: http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/12/13/dont-be-duped-by-duon-dna-hype/

Do you have a link to the paper (or an article) being discussed in that quote? I would be interested to read more about this. OK. I found this: http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/ as a start... I'm confused. Hasn't it always been known that some genes control gene expression, rather than coding for proteins?

Which journal was your theory published in? Why not write to the journals which have published the papers that you say are plagiarised and provide a reference to your published theory. They normally take plagiarism very seriously.