Strange

Pretty much all theories of quantum gravity: string theory, causal dynamical triangulation, loop quantum gravity, etc.

That does not mean that the universe is a flat disk. After all, it obviously isn't: we can see the universe is homegeneous and isotropic (ie. the same in all directions). So not a flat disk. It is referring to the geometry of spacetime. As it says, that the universe overall has no curvature. For example, if the universe is flat it means that if you draw a triangle, the angles will add to 180°. If the universe had positive or negative curvature, then the angles would sum to more or less than 180° and would vary with the size of the triangle. (You could have followed the "curvature" link from that article and found this out for yourself.) As you obviously don't have a high opinion of people on this forum, here is a link to more information: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/103-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/geometry-of-space-time/606-how-can-the-universe-be-flat-we-re-3d-beginner I am not posting as a moderator, just as an interested member of the forum. (Apart from initially moving the thread to the correct part of the forum.) p.s. It would make things easier if you used the Quote function so it is clearer who and what you are responding to. Thanks.

That does not say the universe is disk shaped. But you have provided no model or evidence to support this.

Not everything is travelling faster than light. Obviously. However, the fact that we can see galaxies that are receding faster than the speed of light has always been part of the model. (For obvious reasons: Hubble's Law.) "We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests." https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 Nowhere on the linked page does it say that the universe is disk shaped. If you disagree, please provide an exact quotation from that page which supports your claim. Obviously I did, because I have already read the same page you refer to.

The is clearly not true. The initial evidence for the Big Bang model was the fact that recessional velocity is proportional to distance. So most galaxies we see are moving away with less than the speed of light. But, obviously, we can see galaxies that are moving away at more than the speed of light. I'm not sure what you are saying is not part of the current model, so I can't really provide any further information. Perhaps you could be a bit more explicit. It is up to you to provide evidence to support your claims. If I google "shape of the universe" I don't find anything saying it is disk shaped. So, over to you ... Why is it not the other side of the black hole? What do you mean by "the other side" in that case? And why is the other article questionable? The simulations were created by Kip Thorne, one of the leading experts on GR and the physics of black holes.

Please provide some evidence to support this claim. As black holes are a tiny proportion of the mass of the galaxies they are in, how can they have a significant effect on the expansion of the universe? Expansion cannot really be described as a speed. It is a scaling effect. This means that the speed of separation between any two points is proportional to how far apart they are. This does mean, as you say, that there will be points far enough apart that they are operating at the speed of light. And two points that are further apart will be moving apart at more than the speed of light. No. It is a standard part of the Big Bang model. And yet we are able to measure the movement of the Earth around the Sun, of the Sun around the galaxy, the galaxy relative to other galaxies, the expansion of the universe, etc. So I am not sure what you are claiming we cannot measure. Why do you think the universe is "disk shaped"? What evidence do you have for this? Evidence? Why do you think we can't see the other side of a black hole? For example, if you were to observe a black hole with an accretion disk you would not only see the accretion disk that was in front of the black hole, you would also see the part of the accretion disk that is behind the black hole. (See the images from the movie Interstellar for example: https://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/) And we have observed gravitation lensing caused by a black hole that allows us to see what is behind it: https://www.space.com/8830-massive-black-hole-bends-light-magnify-distant-galaxy.html I'm not too surprised. There is a difference between theory and just making stuff up. Theory requires mathematical model and evidence. Making stuff up is simpler, but not as useful. You may want to try some sites that are not science-based.

! Moderator Note Moved to the Speculations forum. Please read the rules for this section of the forum; in particular the need to provide evidence for your claims.

Five is not real in the sense that a brick is real. (In other words, I'm not sure that is a very useful statement.) On the other hand, infinity is just as real (whatever that means) as five. There are a few problems with this simple statement. It could be taken to imply that infinity is one of the natural numbers (the last one?). It is more accurate to say that it is the cardinality ("size") of the set of natural numbers. And there is more than one infinity; there is another (larger) infinity that is the cardinality of the reals. Again, there seem to be multiple problems with this. The Planck length is not "infinitely small" (several theories in physics require entities smaller than the Planck length). Also, as zapatos notes, this appears to be a non sequitur. There may be a minimum size for things in the universe (or not) but that has not connection to whether the universe is infinite or not.

The IT industry does not rely on income from copyright or, to a large extent, any other form of IP revenue. So you would be expecting a tiny number of companies who make their income from intellectual property to subsidies every other company in the world. The top 10 industries in the USA do not directly make money from intellectual property. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-are-the-biggest-industries-in-the-united-states.html In fact, only 1 industry in the top 20 does. So you are expecting to raise as much money from 4% of the economy as is currently made from taxing 100% of the economy. Can you begin to see the flaw in this plan? So, taking 1/3rd of the only industry based on IP is equivalent to just 10% from the one largest industry sector. Or, to put it another way, by taking 1/3rd of the income from only the largest industry would give you more money than the total revenue from IP.

! Moderator Note This thread is closed. Do not open another thread on this subject.

! Moderator Note This thread is closed. Do not open another thread on this subject.

! Moderator Note You are clearly not interested in engaging with any of the corrections provided. This thread is closed. Do not open another thread on this subject.

Maybe there is a different equation for every planet...

You are misusing the word "therefore" in that sentence. Your conclusion has no connection to the premise. There was no comparison of gravity and electromagnetic radiation in the post you quoted. Also, the fact that we can screen electromagnetic waves is not relevant. So you get a double fail in logical argument.

New theories are accepted when they have compelling evidence. This is something you are totally lacking. You cannot expect people to believe things you make up just because ... well, because you made it up. Please show how this equation is derived. It depends what you mean by "philosophical logic". If, like so many people with "personal theories" you mean "it makes sense to me because I made it up" then no. It would be better to base your theory on sound science.

Music, books, TV, movies: yes. Food, cars, houses, electricity, furniture, and the majority of the rest of your spending: no. Then just put a tax on sales of goods and on the profits made by the producers. In most countries these are already taxed, so just assign a proportion of that tax to protecting the environment. In most countries that is already done, so campaign for a larger amount of tax revenue to be spent protecting the environment. Why invent a new tax?

I don't think so. Newtonian gravity as infinite range but does not have those sort of non-linear effects. Parallel to the time axis would imply no motion through space. They will be a line at 45° (a stationary object would be a line parallel to the time axis and any moving object would be between those two extremes).

Ah, sorry. My fault. I read (or interpreted) that as "all the matter in the observable universe". And responded on that basis. Matter outside the observable universe was not in "gravitational" (causal) contact with matter near us. (It starts getting confusing, because matter some distance away from us has its own observable universe sphere around it, which overlaps with our observable universe but includes matter that is outside our observable universe...)

Please show the mathematics behind this "analysis". If this is just random guesswork then it is not suitable for a science forum.

You said "analysis" in the title. What we have is a lot of buzzwords strung together in a meaningless way: I don't remember any evidence it generated suction. RedBarron waved a piece of paper around near the tube and claimed it was generating gravity. (At best, there might have been a bit of air movement but the "experiment" was so shockingly shoddy we can't know.) How can it make air flow into the tube without pressure building up? This appears to start out as a question but then trails off into an incoherent ramble. I have no idea what you are trying to ask or say. Assuming the resistance of wiring is not significant, then connecting the batteries in parallel with long or short wires will make no difference. If the resistance is significant, then you will just waste power in the longer wires.

Not sure why you think it would imply that. The horizon problem is about the fact that the observable universe is so homogeneous (e.g. the CMB is exactly the same temperature everywhere) that it there must have been time for it to reach equilibrium even though the transfer of information/temperature/etc. is limited by the speed of light. To be that compact, but to have reached the size it is now, requires inflation to account for the rapid expansion (or some other explanation for the uniformity). So light could travel across the entire observable universe in a short time. And so could gravity. But this does not allow us to see beyond the observable universe. And it does not allow gravity from beyond the observable universe to reach us.

Apart from the fact you don't appear to understand mass-energy equivalence, this does not imply a limited range for gravity. Please let us know which peer-reviewed journal it is published in.

Of course. I just meant that the growth is not directly determined (predetermined?) by the genes. But of course the whole process is defined by the genes, and the growth and pruning of dendrites is controlled by gene expression (which is, in turn, controlled by the factors mentioned).

It would not provide a direct short across the battery. One would hope.

Bt you are not the one who is planning to dunk their phone in liquid. I assume the answer to that is none, but the definition of "liquid" (ie. not being a vapour) Or just aluminium foil.