Strange

Can you provide a reference, because I have never heard of "grey holes" before. But it still sounds like a pretty speculative idea. There is a lot of evidence for black holes, such as the one at the centre of our galaxy.

We don't know that they are enforced. You have provided no justification for this claim. As such, the rest of your argument is irrelevant. What you do have (dividing spacetime into cells) has already been used as the basis of a number of theoretical ideas. Some of which may turn out to be useful. You have several decades of study and work before you reach the same level. There is zero evidence that the universe came into being like that. So I don't know why you are so bothered about it. Einstein also thought that. He was wrong too. (His scepticism helped drive the proof he was wrong.)

If the experiment is done properly, then we know what the result will be. No guessing required. You are the one refusing to provide a choice of content format. Why not provide the information here and, if you insist, a video as support.

I think that is the wrong way round. I make the time dilation on the Earth's surface about 22 ms per year (for a distant observer) but less than 1 ms per year for the Moon. So the observer on the Earth would see clocks on the Moon running faster. Edit: If anyone wants to check, this is based on the time dilation, relative to a distant observer) at the surface of the Moon being 0.9999999999686 and at the surface of the Earth being 0.9999999993047. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt(1+-+(2+G+(mass+of+moon))+%2F+((radius+of+moon)+(speed+of+light)^2)) https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt(1+-+(2+G+(mass+of+earth))+%2F+((radius+of+earth)+(c^2))) The time dilation at the event horizon is independent of the mass (energy) of the black hole. Citation needed. Or is this another guess? Wrong way round. In GR, gravity is the curvature of spacetime (mainly the time dimension). I would like to see you derive that. I haven't tried yet, but it looks wrong.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. The rules say you need to provide the information here, not rely on a link or document. Note: I would strongly recommend anyone against downloading a Word document from an unknown source.

"He is a very modest man, but then he has a great deal to be modest about" (can't remember who said it, or about whom but it is a nice back-handed insult!) You like ambiguity more than most people. (See what I did there?)

Today I learned that graphene can self repair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene

If you have such a model, why don't you present it in the Speculations forum. Or, better still, publish it in a peer reviewed journal.

You have gone from the implausible "most people kill for pleasure" (because most people are psychopaths?) to the almost obvious "most people engage in hunting as a sport for pleasure". Nice goal post moving. I guess you thought no one would notice. But if you want to talk about hunting, then I am pretty sure that most people in the world hunt for food and other necessities (which would place it fairly low down in in Maslow's Made Up Hierarchy). The fact that hunting for fun is difficult and expensive would seem to confirm that.

To be more accurate, you guess that your guess might be valid if anyone ever develops a model where it is valid. Not much of a basis for scientific discussion. Because it isn’t in any model. Just in your guesswork.

Is there such a model? The other reasonable contradiction is that you have no model and no evidence to support this bizarre claim.

And that needs to follow the scientific method, not just guesswork So you say. But you can provide nothing to support this claim. Maybe physics is the same everywhere just because the universe is the same everywhere. Maybe they can’t be any different. Until you can provide a scientific (evidence based) reason why tour cells are needed and that they do what you claim, this is just guesswork “No, dear. That’s not the king. And she is fully dressed.”

What is a “grey hole”? Do you mean this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_star if so, they are purely hypothetical. There is no evidence they exist.

What are these reasons? Without either theory or evidence, it looks just like guesswork. But we could be generous and call it an unsupported, speculative hypothesis. But that just sounds like a fancy way of saying "guess". I mean, its not a bad guess. After all, there are several plausible (but currently untested and untestable) scientific theories based on the concept. But you need to do a lot more than just "maybe the universe is made of cells and that's what makes everything work consistently". Obviously. But I fail to see the (specific) relevance to this thread. This thread is for you to present your theory. If you want to discuss mainstream cosmology, you should start a new thread (or there may be several already going).

It may be an example of seeing it because it is always there, I don’t know.

I don’t know that he had any. That wasn’t the point I was making.

No, that doesn’t make sense. However, balls do follow predictable paths. We are able to capture this behaviour in mathematical laws. We don’t really know why the universe should behave consistently like this. You believe (for no good reason) that something needs to “enforce” this regular behaviour. You also seem to believe that dividing space up into “cells” will explain this constistent and predictable nature of the universe. However, that is as far as you have got. You don’t even know what size or shape the cells might be. You can’t show, mathematically,, that these cells could reproduce the behaviour we see. And yet, there are real scientists who have started with the same basic concept and have been can show that spacetime, gravity and at least some of quantum theory emerges from it. So, while Einstein may have said that imagination is important, it is clear that you can’t get very far with just imagination, because the people using knowledge and expertise have got a lot further.

Huh? I'm not comparing him to Feynman. At worst, I could be accused of comparing hm to MigL, but I am certainly not doing that either! I am just pointing out that the "they could have said no" defence has little credibility, whoever says it.

Maybe you should come back when you have something of substance to discuss. Not just some vague guesswork.

You have mathematically demonstrated the existence of the lumiferous aether?

That is not what I mean, obviously. I meant the subject that you went ahead and brought up anyway.

Which is exactly the sort of thing people like Weinstein say in their defense: "Of course she could have said no; the fact I am a powerful man who could make or break her career is completely irrelevant."

The ones that would be off-topic for this thread. Hilarious. Reported for hijacking. Again.

As the word "aether" has been applied to several different concepts (as the later discussion showed) it seems entirely reasonable to clarify exactly which concept is being referred to. Although the OP refused to explicitly answer that question, he made it pretty clear that he was talking about the luminiferous aether. Wanting to talk about the luminiferous aether does not make one a flat-farther. In fact, wanting to talk about flat-earth theories does not make one a flat earther. So I'm not sure what you are getting so indignant about. No one said it was.

As the space and time dimensions have the same status in GR, presumably you think that distance is also a form of energy.