Strange

Infinity is not a value, so you are making a category error. ! Moderator Note Nothing to do with Relativity, so moved to Mathematics

That is true of drawing any 3D shape in 2D. There is nothing special about spheres in this respect. How are you defining "start" and "end"? where is the "start" and "end" of a tetrahedron? Nope. They are almost never spheres.

Is there a difference? How would you distinguish between the “actual wavelength” and the wavelength measured by an observer? All the related properties (length, time, energy) are observer dependent so multiple observers could measure different wavelengths. You can choose to define the “real” frequency as that measured in the frame of reference of the source, but that is just a convention and doesn’t affect what is actually perceived by the observer.

And this is one of the main ways we measure the rate of expansion (and how the acceleration was detected)

Just wanted to clarify: your question is (appears to be) about the accelerating expansion, not expansion.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? How are you defining the quantity of information in the genome? Are you taking into account the interactions (direct and indirect) between different parts of the genome? The (changing) physical confirmation of the chromatin complex? And how are you defining the amount of information required? And why do think that people are not of emergent phenomena and self-organisation?

So this is an argument about popular science writing / journalism, rather than the actual science?

I am really torn here between thinking the OP is stating the obvious (of course genes don’t directly tell proteins where to go) or dismissing the role of genes (obviously the genome says how to create proteins that organise themselves, and cells that differentiate to create organisms). And obviously the genome can’t do anything without the support of the cell. But the cell is defined by the genome.

I found it easier to think of as density decreasing (on average) rather than space expanding. This naturally leads on to the idea that the universe is cooling (by analogy with the gas laws).

Maybe you could pick one of the many objections to your claims and discuss it...

I'm not really certain of anything (I was exaggerating for "humorous" effect). It is trivially easy to produce (deliberately or by accident) a system that produces more power out over a short time period. Which is why the only figure that seemed relevant was the energy consumption over a long period (24 hours) where the inputs and outputs balance out. Agreed. However, as it is not being published in a reputable journal but in what can best be described as a fan-club, doesn't fill me with much hope that it will be replicated.

From the "paper": So the energy output is almost exactly the same as the energy input. By cherry-picking data from a small time period (when the heating element is still hot but less input is being provided, presumably) you can make it look like there is an excess energy output. I am absolutely certain that this is just sloppy science and not a deliberate attempt to defraud investors. After all, no one would fake results just to make money, would they. The fact that this research is not published in a peer-reviewed journal is also irrelevant, of course.

! Moderator Note Interesting as the diversion is, can we try and stay on topic

Self-assembly plays a role. For example, the genes do not (directly) tell proteins/enzymes how to fold in order to have the correct function; it is determined by the protein itself: it folds itself as it forms. A basic example of self-assembly. Self-assembly also plays a role in cell differentiation and embryo development. It probably also played a critical role in “pre-biotic evolution” (abiogenesis). So the idea it is “immensely improbable” is either a straw man or another demonstration of your ignorance. This is so vague, it impossible to tell if it is (yet) another straw man or “not even wrong.”

There are lots of online resources for studying physics (as opposed to watching youtube videos, which will not really teach you anything). And then you can come to a forum like this and ask questions about the bits you are not clear about. Starting off by trying to propose a "theory" based on limited knowledge is likely to antagonise some people.

If a thread has to be closed for good reasons, it does not make sense to delay the closure for 24 hours to make sure everyone has a chance to stir up more trouble.

Exactly. For example, it can lead to questions like “would I turn into a black hole if I moved at nearly the speed of light” That us why some people prefer not to use it as a didactic tool. It is still a useful concept, once you understand what it means!

I would suggest using a proper source of information.

You would need to provide some evidence to support this. (Given your apparent lack of understanding, I don’t expect that to be forthcoming.) That is a truly terrible analogy. It would imply there was “a gene for” every part and every variant of the body. Do you really think there is a specific gene for the 2nd joint on the third finger of the left hand? This ignorance probably explains why you believe the previous point was sensible. It very obviously does. Because, as you say, some genes “are only used in specific types of cell” (and often only in specific circumstances). This activation of specific genes is, ultimately, under the control of ... the genome. (I assume you think it is a god that turns the genes on and off as required.) I can’t be bothered to read more of this ignorant drivel.

No. Even if the universe is infinite (and we don't know if it is) there is no requirement for things to repeat. And even if there were another identical Earth with identical people, it would not be "resurrection". Those people would die and be no more, just like people on this Earth.

1. There was no animosity. 2. It depends on who we are not alone with, I guess. 3. There is zero evidence of that, so it is a moot question.

Try reading what was said: "You can't claim to JUST be the messenger." Or was it a deliberate straw man argument?

You lost me at Michio Kaku ...

What does "one reality" mean? We know different observers will measure different quantities (energy, length, time, ordering of events, etc.). There are very few things that are invariant between observers and which could therefore be described as "one reality".

All? Extremely unlikely. Most major countries probably have secret craft in development that only a limited number of people are aware of. Also, people are generally very poor witnesses, especially of rapidly changing, one-off events. In particular, people cannot really tell the difference between a large thing that is a long way away, and a smaller thing that is nearer. Similarly, it is hard to distinguish something close and moving fast from something more distant moving slowly. Pilots are no less prone than anyone else to misinterpret what they see. And, being pilots, they will tend to interpret what they see as some sort of flying craft (because that is what they are most familiar with). Radar systems are also quite capable of giving false readings. If they really saw something and if the same thing was recorded by radar, then it is intriguing. But we still don't have any information about what it was (it was unidentified, remember). It is also possible that there is no connection between what they saw and what showed up on radar. It is an unjustifiable leap to go from "unidentified" (and, presumably, unidentifiable) to "ALIENS!!!!1!"