Strange

Virtual particles have zero volume. But I still don't; really understand why you think they could "create" vacuum. Do you mean create more space between things; ie. push things apart? I'm not sure why they should and, as far as I know, there is no evidence it happens.

Yes. Derived from GR. See page 12 of this: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~kokkotas/Teaching/NS.BH.GW_files/GW_Physics.pdf If I remember correctly, the gravitational waves from the first observed black hole merger radiated about 3 solar masses as energy.

For some things. Such as electric charge or energy levels in an atom. Other things (mass, length, etc) are not, as far as we know, quantised. Pretty much, yes. QM and GR are in conflict at all levels, but it only becomes significant at extreme conditions such as black holes and the early universe.

I’m not sure. I guess it might be the small (tiny) amount of lensing ?

Yes (as far as we know). Acceleration started relatively recently - about 5 billion years ago I believe. I’m not sure what you mean by “leave a vacuum” or why that would accelerate expansion. There was a vacuum there before and would be again afterwards And wouldn’t creating “more vacuum” (whatever that means) slow expansion? However, the non-zero energy of the vacuum that allows virtual particles to appear and disappear was an obvious candidate for “dark energy” to drive acceleration. The problem is that this energy is about 10120 times too large.

What explosion are you referring to? (And if no one detected it, how come you know about it !?) It may have been detected by one or more of the gravitational wave detectors but unless it looked like a black hole or neutron star merger it would have been filtered out. But a lot of effort goes in to preventing vibration affecting the detectors so, unless the explosion was quite close, it might not have caused any detectable effects.

OK. That's it. Reported.

There is a BIG difference between "don't know" and "it must be magic". Only you insist on the latter explanation. Science doesn't even know for sure if the laws of physics are the same everywhere. So far they seem to be, within the limits of measurement. But some people claim to have detected changes. But, this is supposed to be about your idea. So stop avoiding questions. Why would your machines be the same everywhere? What enforces the laws of the machines? Could it be ... "magic"? If you refuse to answer questions, then I shall request that this thread be closed.

I believe that they are affected by spacetime curvature (eg. they can be lensed) but not directly by matter - they would just pass through the Earth, for example. There are probably more detailed answers here: https://stuver.blogspot.com/p/informational-posts.html See the series on "The Journey of a Gravitational Wave"

Why would you think that? Magic has nothing to do with science, so stop saying that.

Nothing.

What is a "forward circular motion"? Do you mean rolling along like a wheel? Or maybe like a corkscrew?

You are not going to do that by just making stuff up. There are many people who post their pet ideas about how the universe works. One I know claims everything is made up of little particles with hooks that link them together and elastic bands that cause the forces. He is equally certain the he is right. And also has no medal and zero evidence. No one says that. This is the straw man fallacy. Stop it.

1. You have not explained how these machines work and reproduce what we observe. You have just made a claim that they do. 2. You have to explained why these machines are the same everywhere (as they would need to be to make the laws of physics the same everywhere). After all, these machines must operate according to some laws; why are those laws the same everywhere? And where did they come from? So you have just moved your question from "why are the laws of physics the same everywhere" to "why are these machines the same everywhere" And move the related "where do the laws come from" to "where do the machines come from" 3. And you have no evidence for your machines. So, no, you have explained exactly nothing. For an explanation as to why you are getting into an infinite regress with this, see the post about this in your other thread on the subject.

No. For example, one might reasonably ask: why are all of your " tiny virtual reality machines" the same everywhere? What causes them to behave the same in all of space and across all of time? In fact, what created them in the first place? And you have no evidence for your fairy stories.

What evidence do you have for this? Why does the evidence suggest that the universe has not always been the same? What evidence do you have for this? What EVIDENCE do you have for this? It is all very well to make up science-fictiony fairy tales. But that is not how science works. Shall we close this thread now, or do you want to have a scientific discussion?

If you are rejecting evidence, then this is an opinion, not science. If you have no science than I will request this thread is closed. (The reason we know that some earlier theories were wrong or inaccurate is because we used evidence to build better ones. People didn't sit around ineffectually sighing, "oh but we have been wrong before, what if we are wrong now? what are we going to do? its all hopeless") No. No. And again, no. Absolutely: NO. This is your thread for you to present (and defend) your idea. If you are unable to do that in a scientific way then there is no point to keeping it open. You have an existing thread on this open already. I recently posted quite a good answer to this question from a scientist. If you want to discuss this, do it in that thread.

And there are many other possibilities. Not only that, but it could be both: it could be a virtual reality simulation of a universe that was created in the Big Bang!

This is irrelevant to physics. We make observations, build models and test them against further experiments. It doesn't make any difference if the universe is a simulation or a figment of your imagination. Physics is independent of that. I think we should stick to the physics of your idea, and ignore the metaphysical speculation. So, answer these questions: What do you mean by "space is moving things around"? Do you mean that space exerts a force on objects? What evidence do you have for this? What do you mean by "space"? The standard definition is that it is a set of measurements of distances between things. What is your definition? What different predictions does your idea make, that would allow it to be confirmed (or rejected)? What changes are required to current physical theories (ie. the mathematics) to account for these differences? Why would this change the behaviour of things we see around us now?

If I had €1 for every visitor to this website who had a personal theory that was going to change the world ...

What do you mean by "space is moving things around"? Do you mean that space exerts a force on objects? What evidence do you have for this? What do you mean by "space"? The standard definition is that it is a set of measurements of distances between things. What is your definition? What different predictions does this make, that would allow it to be confirmed? What changes are required to current physics to account for this? (Please provide specific mathematical details.)

We had a thread on this a while ago. I'll see if I can find it ... [Later that day] Here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117010-new-defintion-of-kilogram But the useful bit was the link to the description of how it works: https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-kibble-balance

Correct. This is the equivalent volume of a sphere with the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole.

! Moderator Note This is incoherent nonsense

200 metres is less than a microsecond. That is probably accurate enough for most people. And if you need higher accuracy, use a GPS receiver that has a clear view of multiple satellites.