Strange

Citation needed. I am assuming you have made this up. But feel free to provide a supporting reference. If you think that mounting the Great Pyramid on a pole and spinning is a "good place to start" I think you have some serious problems. And how are you going to make a pile of limestone act as a magnet. (Come to that, how are you going to make it stick together when you spin it.) How does "never" work for you?

The first is a guess and there is no evidence for it. It seems physically unrealistic. The second is just an unrelated statement of fact. Entirely possible. But, again, no real evidence for it. This is not consistent with the evidence, so we can rule it out. The evidence shows that the universe has always been full of matter. Apart from the fact this is based on a false assumption (see above) it is not obvious that this would produce the effects we see. So we can dismiss this as well. As it not consistent with the evidence this is not true. There is no reason to think that your guess can reproduce the effect of dark energy. And therein lies the problem. That is not how science works. It doesn't proceed by people making guesses about subjects they know nothing about, especially when those guesses are inconsistent with the evidence.

That is not philosophy. And it is pretty much nonsense as cosmology (there is no void or boundary). It is also completely off topic.

And that was pretty much what I was going to say as an answer. The field that drove inflation could be similar to dark energy. But as there is no compelling evidence for inflation ...

It could be argued that numbers (and everything else in mathematics) are purely philosophical concepts.

This would be rather analogous to the atmosphere of the Earth. There is a small amount of diffusion of air from the top of the atmosphere but the surrounding vacuum does not cause the air to accelerate into space. Apart from which, a model like that would imply a centre to the universe which is not consistent with what we see. This doesn't make much sense interns of the original analogy where the surface represented the entire universe. The inside of the balloon does not exist in the analogy. However, someone did once suggest that you can consider the radius of the balloon to represent the time dimension. In your example, the outer balloon is expanding faster because it is later in time.

And the problems arise because too often people are not randomly selective, but choose characteristics based on their personal prejudices.

I believe it is possible to choose a different set of coordinates where distances are not changing (ie. there is no expansion) but the speed of light (and therefore the rate at which clocks tick) is. This isn't a different model, just the a different view. This doesn't address accelerating expansion. You would have an accelerating change in the speed of light, which would require an explanation (ie dark energy). Your claims are too vague to be amenable to mathematical analysis. One the other hand, they are based on flawed physics and stuff you have just made up, so there is no need to prove them wrong. They just are. Nope. The universe is, and always has been, uniformly full of matter (on large enough scales).

I suppose you can call the destruction of a photon a rather extreme example of the observer effect. But it is still largely irrelevant to the dual slit experiment. This is caused by diffraction (in the classical case) and the non-locality of quantum effects (described by wave functions). If you want to say that diffraction is an example of the observer effect because the waveform is affected by the slit passes through, then I would say you have extended the term so far as to render it meaningless. If every interaction is going to be labelled "observer effect" then we need a new term to describe the fact that we affect something when we try to make a measurement. Because it is a way of determining which slit the photon when through without affecting it (a direct detection of the photon would destroy it and so we would never know if it formed an interference pattern or not). Why do you think an entangled particle is measured? They measure polarisation.

Beliefs have nothing to do with science. I said it is irrelevant to your "theory". We have testable models of the universe, therefore we have evidence supporting those models. Your beliefs are irrelevant compared to that. Show us, in mathematical detail, the predictions of your model and how it compares with what we observe. That is the only way to know if your idea is better than the existing theories. Neither did the people who originally came up with the Big Bang model. But they used theory and compared it with available data.

This is contradicted by the definitions of "race" given in the Wikipedia article. I am not a biologist so I am more persuaded by the Wikipedia article than your opinions which based on you (admitted) ignorance. As you appear to have problems reading and/or understanding, here it is again more loudly: in 1972, Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin showed that the concept of race starts to dissolve under genetic scrutiny. He found that the vast majority of human genetic variation, which he measured in 16 genes, is found within, not between, what he called the 'classical racial groupings'6. Since then, studies examining hundreds or even thousands of genetic markers have confirmed Lewontin's findings7, 8. I don't think saying "this old way of viewing the world appears to be objectively meaningless" is political correctness. But what does it say about someone who wants to hang on to those old definitions because it suits their worldview? Because that is not what it means. Those results are based on the genetics of populations now, not ancestry or race. There have been many examples of mass migration in human history, from ancient times to the last few decades. That is, to a large extent, what is represented by those results.

My impression is that for most people in the original flat earth society, it was a bit of club of like-minded argumentative people. No doubt a few of them really believed the Earth was flat, but they were probably considered nutty by most members. Now it seems that the people in the various social media groups devoted to this, really do believe (with possibly a minority thinking it is a joke and egging them on). ! Moderator Note If you want to discuss this, without spamming your book, do so. Until then this thread is closed as there is nothing to discuss.

Photons do not exert a repulsive force. They couldn't add energy. They could only contain the energy that was already present.

Stars and galaxies are held together by gravity. Expansion is what happens to a uniform distribution of matter in the absence of any force to prevent it. It looks like you are desperately searching for straws to hold on to. Even if accelerating expansion is eventually able to pull galaxies apart (the "big rip") that is irrelevant to the universe we see now.

There is no evidence for space being created. It is an analogy. You can't ry and extract too much information from it. Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just guesswork? Planets, stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies are not accelerating away from each other. If they are photons, they will not accelerate. Any other particle will be slowed by the gravity of the black hole. They are not affected by expansion. Because gravity. No. It would require a force to accelerate them The only force is the gravity of the black hole slowing them down.

You are right. I am not a biologist and was not aware of the use of this term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology) None of those definitions seem to apply to humans, though. Good discussion of the problems in this article: https://www.nature.com/news/2008/081022/full/4551023a.html And, not only is the concept useless, it can be positively dangerous:

I have flown all the way round the Earth. So I guess I must be part of the conspiracy. I wish they paid better.

I have never heard "race" applied to birds. But there are several subspecies of Steller's Jay. I don't see how this is in any way relevant to humans. There is so much nonsense in these two sentences, I don't know where to start. I don't care It doesn't really matter whether you care or not. how much genetic variation there is within a race The important point is that there is no set of genes that are unique to one "race" (ie a group that people would consider to be a single race). There is variation within populations that overlaps with variations between groups. This overlap is not true for distinct species of animals; which is why genetics can be used to define species. A biologist never says there is not enough genetic variation to call that a separate race UNLESS we are talking about humans. Biologists do not generally define race. And attempts to do so using genetics have not been useful. call that a separate race UNLESS we are talking about humans. But race as a term is only applied to humans. Not relevant. Genetic variation is not the only thing used to define a (sub)species. In this case, they are visually distinct but, probably more important, they are reproductively isolated. Is there? Do you have data on the genomes of the two subspecies?

Yeah, but they would say that. It must be reasonably accurate though, as they have placed the Daily Mail in the red box... Although it should be in the "contains inaccurate/fabricated info" section.

In the double slit experiment, an entangled particle is measured (possibly after the fact) and so the observer effect does not affect the particle that goes through the slits.

I know nothing about Juncos, but this sounds as if these populations meet one of the basic species definitions: they don't interbreed. In this case, because they live most of the time in different locations. Even if they find themselves in the same place, they probably do not interbreed, even if they could. (They may even have different diets; I don't know.) Genetic analysis would probably show that they are distinct species as well (even if just by genetic drift, if not by selection). Homo is the genus. And sapiens is the species (you could call that a "race" but we don't do that for any other organisms).

Why do you think they aren't? There is far less variation within H sapiens than there is in domestic dogs, for example. Dogs are considered to be a single species even though, by some definitions, some should be considered different species (a Great Dane can't interbreed with a chihuahua, for example). One could say that dog breeds are somehow similar to the concept of human race. But there is a big difference: dogs are bred to be within a (human invented) breed specification. So the differences are contrived and carefully maintained. Humans have always mixed so someone who might think of themselves as being racially "white" could have ancestors from many parts of world and many "races". Also, there is now evidence that modern humans have some genetic material from Neandertals and other groups that have traditionally been considered different species so some people are suggesting that we should reconsider whether they are separate species or not. This uncertainty and ambiguity about species boundaries is common to nearly all of taxonomy. So humans are no different in that regard. If you can come up with a rigorous definitions of race that can be unambiguously applied to all humans, then you might be able to argue that the concept exists. But it is the fact that it is obvious that no such categorisation is possible that has led to the concept being dropped. I don't think it is that there is not enough variation, but that if you measure the genetic variation within, and between, two groups that might be considered different races, then there will typically be just as much variation within each groups as there is between them. So how can you choose where to draw a line, one the basis of genetics. On the other had, there are examples of populations of apparently identical animals where genetic analysis has clearly identified multiple distinct species. Interesting point.

There is probably no such thing as a singularity, but we probably need a theory of quantum gravity to say more. As the (notional) singularity is zero size, the event horizon doesn't reach it until it has zero mass. The radiation has a black body spectrum and the temperature is inversely proportional to the radius of the event horizon. This has nothing to do with the presence of a singularity; it is purely related to the curvature at the event horizon. Whatever happens to the particle that falls into the black hole can have no effect on the particle outside. (And this description in terms of virtual particle pairs is just an analogy that only approximately matches the mathematics.) Particles outside the even horizon cannot be affected by anything inside the event horizon (that is why it is called an event horizon). If there is something outside" then that implies a boundary: otherwise, what separates "inside" from "outside"? And why would there be atoms approaching absolute zero? Why wouldn't atoms and radiation from the (relatively) warmer "inside" pass through the boundary and warm them up?

These things don't seem to correspond in any consistent way to a well-defined concept of race. It is hard enough defining the concept of species. Trying to group people by apparent similarities seems hopeless and somewhat pointless. There are many places in the world where people have dark skin but wouldn't;t be considered the same race or ethnicity. Is everyone with ginger hair or blue eyes part of the same race? Nowadays, we can use genetic profiling to identify risk factors for lifestyle or medical treatment. So trying to use a crude approximation based on what people look like seems as dated as phrenology.

Still irrelevant to the thread topic