Strange

And this is really, really important. If not more important than that. It is a simple, basic thing, but really important!

Is that Romeo22? Why isn’t he discussing his paper?

If so, where is it published?

This was debated as a possible model of the universe when I was young. Then the cosmic microwave background was discovered. There isn’t much else to say. But I gather various attempts have been made to revive the corpse. Edit: your link explains the main reasons it was rejected.

Well, how would you calculate it? How many more times. It only appears to be "not too cold, not too hot" because we have evolved for the environment we are in. If it was consistently hotter or colder, we would have evolved differently and there would be "people" saying, "look this temperature of -30° is perfectly designed for us!" I don't care about your opinions. This is a science site.

It is impossible to calculate anything like that. What makes it perfect. It could have been different and then we would have evolved for that different environment. And, as a result, we would consider it "perfect". This is a common Creationist fallacy. So you believe in an all powerful god who is unable (or too lazy, or too evil) to do anything useful. I am not opposed to religion, but if you tell me what you believe then I am quite happy to tell you how ridiculous it sounds. If you don't like that, keep your beliefs to yourself. You are not being mocked. People are just explaining your error of thinking the world is "perfect" because we evolved to fit.

100%. Because here we are. On the other hand, could things have been different if the Earth had been slightly nearer or further from the Sun, or the Sun was larger or smaller? Of course. And there may well be other planets where life and evolution took a different route. There is nothing "perfect" about these. Life has evolved to use what is there. So they seem perfect because we have adapted to them. “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.” Douglas Adams I have no idea why you think that is the "greatest importation". We are busy destroying the environment and causing a mass extinction. Is your god proud of that? Was it part of her plan? Through all of human existence, when people moved to new areas of the planet, they wiped out large numbers of the species there. And, when other humans were there, they have often destroyed them too. Not a great record.

Yes, every point is moving away from every other point (on large enough scales).

Do you have a link or reference to this debate? What does "transcend empiricism" mean? Any thought experiment needs to compared to observation to test whether it is an accurate model the world or not. So in that sense empiricism is more important than any thought experiment (only evidence can falsify a theory, a thought experiment can't). What premise would be made false by that?

There are various catalogs of stars and galaxies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_catalog The observable universe is expanding. Note that it doesn't really make sense to say that the universe is "expanding faster than light". Expansion is a scaling effect not a speed. The speed at which two points move apart is proportional to how far apart they are (this is Hubble's Law). So there are always objects that are far enough apart that they are moving apart at the speed of light or, if they are twice as far apart, twice the speed of light, or whatever. We can see objects that are moving away from us at more than the speed of light.

It is very easy to say "G is a function". As you say, it is much harder to justify it. So I would suggest that if you can't provide any support for your claims, then don't make them. And if you don't want a "fray" (discussion) then don't post claims that you can't support. So you lied about having to and search through publications to find the paragraph where it is said. And if they are claims you are making then it is up to you to provide evidence for them (as required by the rules of the forum). And it only takes a second to falsely claim that Eotvos found that chemical composition changed the relationship between inertial and gravitational mass. If you don't want your false claims challenged, then don't make them. Luckily, it only takes seconds to point out you are wrong, so I am going to continue it. I did not create a "war". (That is a bit like blaming the police for creating a disturbance because they are chasing a thief.) I like to think that pointing out that your claims are false is a public service. At least you are willing to admit that it is just invented nonsense. So thank you for that. Maybe you will think a bit harder before making stuff up again.

I am disappointed that you are not willing to either support your claims or admit that you made them up.

Motors and generators are, effectively, the opposite of one another, although there are many types of each. You apply a voltage (possibly AC) to a motor and it turns. In some types of motors the rate at which it turns depends on the frequency of the AC voltage. In the case of a generator, when it is made to turn then an AC voltage will be generated, with the frequency depending on the speed of rotation. I have no idea what Tesla used, but it should be easy to find out. (Although made more complicated by the existence of Tesla motor cars!) For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#AC_and_the_induction_motor His AC electrical distribution system used 60 Hz (the frequency still used in the USA). This would be a very low hum if converted to sound. His resonant coil worked at over 50kHz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_coil#Oscillation_frequency) which, if it were sound, would be beyond the range of human hearing.

We clearly can use the same m in both cases. And the results are not absurd; in fact they are consistent with experiment. Which suggests that, within the limits of measurement, gravitational and inertial mass re the same thing. After all, you are not the first person to have wondered whether they are the same and so people have performed experiments to test the equivalence. It is impossible because gravity and electromagnetism have very different properties. Adding more exclamation points doesn't make your claims any more plausible. A function of what? And: Citation needed. Citation needed Citation needed. No one does that. But experiments, such as the Eotvos experiments, show that they are the same. I am sure people will continue to test this to higher accuracy.

I'm afraid I have no idea what that means. Perhaps you could try using Google translate? Or find a friend who speaks better English?

Expansion is uniform in all directions. The Big Bang is visible equally in all directions. So I don’t know what “from visible BB to bigger distance” is supposed to mean. It must mean all directions.

Spirituality seems to be an inherent property of the human mind. Which led people to invent religion. Both science and religion are attempts to make sense of the world. The difference is that science uses facts while religion is purely a product of human imagination.

You seem to be treating the Big Bang as an explosion from some central point. It isn’t. It is the uniform expansion of space everywhere so there is no “direction from BB”.

Possibly interesting: "Ten new plants discovered this year: Plants have been on the planet for hundreds of millions of years – but we’re still discovering new ones." https://www.bbc.com/news/science_and_environment

m is an independent variable. You have replaced it with something that is, not only not independent, but also may be dependent on m. except we know that we can use the same m in both and we get the results that are consistent with experiment (eg. Galileo's famous demonstration, pendulum period, etc). And there is no evidence that gravitational and inertial mass are different. The "absurdity" of (3) is just a demonstration of your wilful ignorance; after all, several people have explained why there is no problem and what the equation represents. The value of G is irrelevant. You can set it to 1 or 42 and you will still find that you can use the same value for mass in both equations. (After all, G only appears in one of the equations.) As the is in the speculations forum, it is up to you to provide some evidence that inertial and gravitational mass are not the same. (Meaningless and childish tricks with algebra are not evidence.)

What do mean by “true”? And why do you think it is relevant?

There is no evidence of any higher force. Look at the equation for gravity, for example. There is nothing in that equation that represents a “higher force”.

Are we talking about the same Russia? I’m thinking of the presidential dictatorship that is riddled with corruption and without an independent legal system

Ukraine could be admitted into the EU. But letting Russia join would be a bit like a deer inviting a lion into its home.

You have had your misunderstandings explained several times in different ways. Here are some of the clearest: