Strange

You can find all sorts of information in books and online. The fact the information is "out there" does not mean it has to be appropriate for this forum.

I'm not sure you know what inflation is. It is not the same as expansion. I am not going to watch a video of unknown quality. Please provide a link to the peer reviewed journal where this work is published. Presumably the people who have done this will be nominated for a Nobel Prize...

I would say that time has one direction, but spatial dimensions have two directions.

You could sell it as a "natural" cleaning product. The advantage is no processing is required. It just needs to be packaged and sold. Any other use would, I imagine, require the sodium bicarbonate to be further purified, which might not be economically viable.

We are always travelling through time. When you move through space you "swap" some of that motion through time for motion through space - that is why time dilation happens. As far as we know, it is not possible to travel at light speed.

But Newton's equation for gravity is only approximate. It fails in a number of cases (which was one of the motivations for the development of GR). So you are suggesting that antimatter has negative mass? There is no evidence for that. But also no strong evidence against it either. Yet. The CERN ALPHA project should soon provide a measure of the mass of anti-hydrogen.

Well done. Why did that take you so long?

No evidence, then?

Nicely put.

No. I don't know this. Please provide a reference. You have claimed this but failed to provide any support for it. Where does this speed appear in special relativity? So, it seems that you have invented two things and then said they are equal to one another. Do you have any evidence to support your claims?

Good point. But as both c and v were already in the OP's equation, I assumed "other speed" referred to something else. All you need, as you have stated is v and c. There is no "other" speed.

Why?

What are A and B? And how about answering these questions: What is the "molecular part"? The velocity is v. What is "the non-real velocity"? You keep claiming this. How about some evidence for it? Why? What evidence do you have for this "other" speed? Relativity manages to relate space and time quite well without this "other speed". So why is it needed? As you are unable to answer questions and keep repeating the same baseless claims, I will request this thread is closed.

No. This seems to be at the core of your misunderstanding. The HUP has nothing to do with the observer effect. It is a statement about the relationship between those values, whether you measure them or not.

I am not the one proposing a new theory. Is that relevant? The OP claims to have a new theory that replaces over 100 years of physics. So I assume he is some sort of super genius who has already studied this subject in great detail. It is the OP's theory. It is up to them to defend it. If you want to start your own thread, then feel free ...

What is the "molecular part"? The velocity is v. What is "the non-real velocity"? You keep claiming this. How about some evidence for it? That has nothing to do with physics. But it is wrong, anyway. I have no idea what that means. But if it isn't real, then I don't see that it has anything to do with physics, which only deals with things that are real (in the sense: they can be measured).

How? Please explain in detail how an explosion can counter g-forces. Does that happen on Earth when things explode? Do people feel weightless when a bomb goes off?

We have models and data for fusion and beta decay (and nuclear structure and stability, and many other things - including spin) which are based on the presence of neutrons in the atom. The OP would need to show, in mathematical detail, that their supposition can replicate all of that. Apart from which, gravity cannot be electromagnetic. It is a silly idea with no possible basis in reality. As has been shown every time it comes up.

Guilty as charged! But I still don't see how Lasker is relevant.

I think it is better to think of relativity describing the (relative) relations between times and distances. It turns out that this can be described in terms of geometry. For special relativity, where there is just relative motion, this geometry is "Euclidean" (it is the same geometry we use everyday). For General Relativity, this geometry is more complicated, and is the geometry we have to use on curved surfaces (where the angles of a triangle do not always add up to 180° for example). And it is the effect of those changed times and distances which causes the effect that we call gravity. Note that we normally think of gravity as a force. This is similar to the thing you have probably been told: "there is no such thing as centrifugal force". What that really means is that when we look at something spinning from our perspective, the force is inwards not outwards. But if you are in a centrifuge, or fairground ride, being spun around you will feel the force outwards. So the repsence of the force depends on who is measuring it. Gravity is like that: we "think" we feel a force because the curvature of spacetime is making us accelerate towards the ground. (There are some subtle questions here (that you probably don't want to get into in your essay!) such as: is spacetime really curved, os is this just a mathematical description of distances and times that happens to work!?) Yes (roughly). But ... why do those (virtual) photons get emitted and absorbed! (See what I mean, you can always ask another question!)

That is a tough one. How do electric charges attract one another? It seems to be just in the nature of spacetime to be affected by the presence of energy. (One person, whose opinion I respect, said that the reason is because that is one definition of energy: the thing that curves spacetime!) There might one day be a deeper theory that provides an explanation, but for the moment, all we can say is: that is the way nature behaves...

Then you need an alternative explanation for all the evidence that the nucleus also contains neutrons. Gravity and electromagnetism have a few things in common but are different in so many ways that it is impossible for them to be the same thing. For example: Electric charge has positive and negative charges (and equivalently for magnetic fields). Gravity doesn't. Electromagnetic forces both attract and repel. Gravity doesn't. Electromagnetism can be easily screened. Gravity can't. Electromagnetism can be explained by a simple force with an inverse square law. Gravity can't. Etc. (This idiotic idea comes up with such tedious frequency, that I should really keep a list of these somewhere instead of typing it out every time...) What!? Please provide some evidence that Centaurus A is a white hole. How are the opinions of a chess player relevant?

! Moderator Note Stop taking this thread off topic. If you have something to say about the topic of the thread then say it. If you want to discuss the scientific method, start a new thread.

Because there isn't. What is the connection between phase velocity and relativity? You keep claiming there is one but have not explained what is. Please provide some evidence for this claim. This is another unsupported assertion. It is also off topic. Stop posting nonsense. Unless you can provide some evidence for your claim that phase velocity is connected to relativity, I will request this thread is closed.

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