Strange

If there is a medium you can tell if you or the source are moving relative to it. That doesn't make it a privileged frame f reference. You can measure the speed of your relative to the road, that doesn't make the road "privileged". The medium (or the road) could be moving relative to something else (and that would not be directly detectable) so it isn't a privileged frame of reference.

It is an interesting question. The next questions would be, at what level does it stop working and, more importantly, why? We know gravity applies at the scale of individual atoms (even hydrogen atoms). And there may be evidence that it works at even smaller scales. But it gets increasingly hard to test at those scales. I'm also not sure that just saying it doesn't exist at the quantum scale solves all the problems. How do we get from there to being able to predict what happens indie a black hole, for example. There are some theories where spacetime is "emergent" from some lower-level physical description. So, presumably, in those gravity also emerges at a particular scale. But I don't think any of these theories can yet be tested.

You don't understand it so you assume it is wrong? There is. You just haven't understood it. Here is one analogy that think works quite well. Imagine two people walking forwards, side by side, on a flat plane. Their paths will remain parallel over time. We can consider the direction they are walking as the "time" dimension (they are moving steadily into the future) and the distance between them as one of the space dimensions. On the the flat plane, the distance between them doesn't change over time. Now put them on the surface of the Earth and have them both walk towards the North Pole (along lines of longitude). As they move forwards (in time) they get closer together. No force is acting on them, it is just a consequence of the curved geometry they are travelling in. You can consider them falling towards one another because of the "gravity" of the curved space-time they are in. You are not far off. Mass does change both space and time (we know this because we can measure both effects). However, it is mainly the curvature of the time dimension that we experience as a force we label gravity. This isn't true because the difference in gravitational potential on the Earth and in empty space s very small. We can measure it (we can measure the difference over less than a metre) but it is very small. So time in empty space does pass faster than on Earth but not "very quickly". You can't apply Newtonian gravity when discussing the expansion of the universe. It is a consequence of GR. It doesn't require an input of energy to "fuel" expansion. Dark energy does not cause expansion. Believability is not a suitable criterion for judging scientific theories. I am going to stop there because it is far too hard to quote from your bizarre text format. [Edit: and now it has disappeared] But there are many errors in your description: cosmological red shift is not due to the Doppler effect; Hubble's Law is not based on the assumption that it is the Doppler effect because it is purely an observational law; etc. It seems like you are picking bits of GR you "like" and discarding bits you don't like, then hoping that the resulting chopped up theory will still work. But unless you can demonstrate, in mathematical detail, that your model quantitatively produces the observed effects, there isn't much point to this.

Note that there are three effects, one of which is the speed of the source relative to the medium. Summarised nicely here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108127-typesetting-equations-with-latex-updated/

OK, let’s talk about why science and math are important to test ideas. You have come up with an idea that you think it is correct. You think it is correct because it makes perfect sense to you. It makes perfect sense to you because you created it based on what you know. So it exactly matches your expectations. Now you want other people to accept your idea. But here’s the thing. Science forums like this one are full of people with their personal theories. These are all different, relying on aether, vortices, springs, waves, new particles, new types of energy, superfluids, supersolids, supercrystals, harmonic resonance, etc etc. All these different ideas cannot all be right. And yet, their proponents are all as equally convinced that they are correct as you are. And then there are hundreds of “real” scientists with their ideas based on things like symmetry groups, string theory, causal dynamical triangulation, topological defects etc (all of which are completely over my head). So, how can we decide which of these ideas are correct or not? We need some way of testing them. In order to test these ideas (or hypotheses) humans have developed, over several centuries, the idea of science as a process for testing things based on objective quantitative evidence. This requires the theory to make testable predictions. This means they need to be precise. Not just “this will happen” but exactly how large the effect will be and how much it differs from existing theories. Producing such quantitative predictions requires mathematics. Sorry, but that is just a fact. Without testable predictions, and therefore without mathematics, you are not doing science. I have not seen any such tests from you that would objectively distinguish your idea from existing explanations.

This is not snobbery. It just a fact that you cannot make predictions to test your idea without math. If you can't make testable predictions then there is no reason to consider your vague claims. It can be measured and it matches the mathematics of the theory. Until you can do that, you have nothing but "just so" stories, which are worthless. I don't have money or privilege, and I don't think I am superior. I am just pointing out that no one can tell if your idea is correct or not unless you can make testable predictions. I don't think I am particularly intelligent. And I don't have much formal education. My highest qualification is a diploma from a part-time course when I was working. You haven't provided "solutions" because you haven't provided anything that can be tested. You have just told some stories (that make sense to you) about what you think is happening. This is not science. Citation needed. Stop playing the victim and provide some science. (This is a science forum, after all.)

Absolutely. (Some of the best theologians are atheists.) In that sense, I agree completely: religion is not part of the humanities but the study of religion is. (The same could be said of painting or sport.)

Both? I would say it is a tool. It can be used as the method to develop results, and as the language to communicate those results (and the method used to get there).

Oh, I would. (But that might just be because it was included in my humanities course!) It is a part of human culture and experience. And, has profound links to art, history and language.

Thanks for spotting the error. Fixed now. I'll continue to point out your nonsense when I spot it (I do not usually read your posts as they rarely have any meaningful content). Christ on a bike. For someone who is a "philosopher" you do post complete bollocks about philosophy. I have spent decades relying on the correct application of formal logic. Well, there's some good news there, perhaps.

What about the double slit experiment needs to be "solved"? If they can be tested using computer modelling then you must have a mathematical model. Can you share it with us? Then your idea cannot be tested and cannot be modelled on a computer. What do you mean by "solved" the double slit? Can you perform a calculation to predict the result in different cases or not? You claim to be doing science, but all you are doing is waving your hands around frantically.

! Moderator Note If you do not wish to discuss your claims, this thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic please.

Philosophy and religion are not philosophy science. I would expect a "philosopher" to know that. And I am tired of wannabe "philosophers". Pretty much everything I know about religion has come from educational sources, as I was not brought up with much exposure to religion.

We have precise mathematical theories that make testable (and tested) predictions. Why should anyone accept your vague handwaving over useful theories that actually work?

This is probably an example of "confirmation bias". How often do you think of people and not getting a message from them? You don't know, do you? Because you only remember the few occasions when the coincidence seems remarkable. That is why science relies on objective measurements rather than anecdotes.

OK. So you are bored. So you decided to tell everyone how bored you are. Do you feel better now? Or are you still bored? Is this thread too boring to say open? I might have closed it but I am bored of closing threads. I am bored of people saying they are bored. It is so boring. p.s. Yes, I would like to live for ever (or a long time, anyway) because there are so many fantastically exciting things going on - I want to see what happens next!

Oh yeah

You need to explain what you are talking about. I have no idea what these numbers mean or wherevthey come from. So they do nothing to support your case. I can equally well say that in an elephant with a ratio of 42Q it takes 5 miles / 2 light years = more than 200 kg. It is nonsense. Where does this ratio come from? You appear to have made it up. Incomparable, incomprehensible and unbelievable. So it is pure fiction.

So you are suggesting to take a picture of the message and then use image recognition at the other end to decode it? That is a really daft idea. It will require far more bandwidth and be very error prone.

I have no idea what that means. Why lasers? That doesn’t answer anything

OK. Don't answer the question. I was just wondering if you could. Obviously not. Do I really need to explain why this is complete nonsense? That would be because you don't know what you are talking about. What is the dispersion of a laser at that distance? In other words, how large an area would the signal be spread over? And, again, why lasers?

A scientific answer to what? Why so many people are attracted to post to idiotic threads like this one?

No. ! Moderator Note As this is (currently) just a question, I have moved it to Physics; it doesn't belong in Speculations. (But if you start claiming that it is possible, then this will be reconsidered.)