Strange

Works perfectly for me. It is a public website so I don't know why you can't access it. There is nothing to forgive. We are all ignorant. The important thing is to be willing to learn. (And not think that you can come up with a new theory before that.) Says the guy who is "uninformed" and has "never studied science". How would you feel if someone said, "I have never studied accountancy, but I think you are adding up those numbers wrong" ? Please learn first then ask questions. To tell people that science is wrong when you don't understand it (because you don't understand it?) is just foolish.

Yes. It is called an atmosphere. What is Planck charge? Dark matter doesn't have anti-mass or electric charge. You are talking nonsense. The increased density of the atmosphere near the surface (if that is what you are talking about; it is hard to tell) is completely explained by gravity. There is no such thing as "anti-mass repulsion". We can explain the behaviour of objects using gravity and no anti-gravity so it seems that your speculation is just wrong. Yep. Reported. Why would we provide help when he is wrong? What do the moderators have to do with it? I am only against "new ideas" when they have no science behind them and are contradicted by the evidence. Science thrives on new ideas.

That doesn't explain anything. Why should the fact that atoms have different numbers of electrons make the values (for each electron) quantised?

I just didn't understand what you wanted to compare it to. I suspect the extra cost and complexity would be better spent just improving the vacuum in one chamber. Note that achieving a good vacuum can be very hard (and potentially dangerous, if you don't know what you are doing). I haven't done any work in this area for nearly 50 years so there are probably better people around to advise you!

What? 30 inches of mercury (if that is what you mean) is roughly standard atmospheric pressure on Earth: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=30+inches+mercury+in+psi

What does? If you mean the Big Bang, then that cannot possibly be the case. Both the concept of a local limit on the speed of light and the Big Bang model come from the same theory (relativity). As the theory can be proven to be mathematically consistent, there cannot be contradictions like this. That doesn't make much sense. Time is not a speed and so can't be faster than light. Expansion is not a speed, so cannot be faster than light. However, because the apparent recessional speed of galaxies is directly proportional to distance (just simple arithmetic, nothing to do with relativity) then there must be objects that are far enough away that they are receding at more than the speed of light. In fact we can see galaxies that are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe Tamara M. Davis, Charles H. Lineweaver "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 Don't you think it would be a good idea to learn something about the theory you are attempting to replace before launching into uninformed criticism?

Good point. I'm sure there are experiments where the composition matters: measuring the absorption of difference wavelengths of light, or the breakdown voltage or ...

I assume you mean "invariant" rather than "constant". (These are very different things. A constant speed of light doesn't really need an explanation.) It seems you are explaining the invariance of the speed of light as a consequence of the "mechanical" changes in lengths and time. What about looking at how the second is actually defined. There is no movement involved and it would seem quite a stretch to suggest a mechanical explanation effecting it. So you are picking the evidence you can provide a mechanical explanation for and ignoring the awkward facts that you can't explain. Not the case I was talking about. Because the haloes formed over millions of years at the same time as the normal matter condensed to form galaxies. There is no mechanism to slow dark matter enough to form small scale structures. (Collisionless and dissipationaless, remember.) I guess they didn't feel the need to state something that would be understood by anyone familiar with the subject.

It is pretty much a vacuum. (There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, it is a relative term. If you created that little pressure in a lab you would consider it a pretty good vacuum.)

Collisionless (and dissipationaless) because they don't interact. The weak interaction only allows specific types of particles to interact in specific ways such as beta decay. Neutrinos, for example, do not interact with one another at all. They don't exactly pass through each other (remember, fundamental particles are zero size: they may have a non-zero interaction cross-section, but only if they interact) but they do pass each other without having any effect. I will try and get back to the others later.

It is hard to provide something this specific. You really need to study the subject properly. Here are a couple of relevant papers. There are probably better ones ... https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2334 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490..493N But that is NOT the example I am talking about. You may be able to fudge an answer in that specific case (but as you are unable to do any calculations, we can just ignore your claims anyway). In the case of two observers in inertial frames of reference, a mechanistic explanation does not (and can not) fit the fact that both observers see the other clock running slower than their own (after allowing for signal propagation delays, Doppler effects, etc).

Physics (simulations) show this is not the case. So you need something better than just repeating your claims. Why would the limited speed of communication cause this effect? Please demonstrate, mathematically, that this is the case. This implies that for over 100 years scientists and mathematicians have missed some obvious factor. But, anyway, time dilation is what observers would measure after taking into account any effects like that. Nope. There is no point just making stuff up.

Nonsense. The orbits of the planets, for example, are affected by the mass of the other planets in the solar system. It is a very small effect but it is measurable in their deviations from the orbits they would have if they only orbited the Sun. Why do so many people appear to be obsessed with this idea? It never had any evidence for it; it was just an assumption (it seemed "logical" in the language of crackpots). There is now (a) no need for it and (b) evidence against it. I don't understand why so many people cling to this idea. Even if it were shown to be true, it would bring no practical benefits.

Please don't post this sort of nonsense as an answer to a serious question.

And yet, here you are replying. I believe there is a 5 post per day limit for new members (an anti-spam measure). Not sure how long it lasts, but you should be able to post again tomorrow. Please feel free to explain exactly where I have gone wrong, rather than making vague claims like this. Here is an article (by an actual astrophysicist) explaining how the universe can be infinite spatially: https://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-finite-infinite.html And here is a paper describing the possibility of an infinitely old universe: https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093 And, there are other models for an infinitely old universe such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

The universe being infinite, and even infinitely old, can be entirely consistent with the Big Bang model. So I still don’t understand the question. And yet it happened.

I doubt many people think that the gravity is infinite. (If they do, they are just confused.) But it is strong enough to stop light escaping. That is why they are called "black holes".

Just to go back to one of the points in your original post: Time Dilation. If we have two observers (A and B) in uniform motion relative to one another then A will see B's clock run slow and B will see A's clock run slow. How is this possible if there is a "mechanical" explanation for time dilation? Either observer's clock can be considered stationary or in motion. If we have 100 observers all moving at different speeds relative to A then they will all see A's clock running slower by different amounts. (And they will all see each others' clocks running slower than their own.) How can that be explained by a mechanical effect?

They don't. But I suppose you are right, if they did then it would be infinite at any distance.

True. It is not as simple as just gravity. There are sources providing gas to the atmosphere and there are variable factors that remove gas (temperature, solar wind, etc)

What? Is the density low because the density is low? The density is lower because there is less pressure. There is less pressure because the surface gravity is lower.

A good astronomy book? Wikipedia is usually a pretty good starting point; you can follow up with the references for more details. But a web search will produce plenty of other sources.

Why? So it won't concentrate significantly around mass such as planets.

0.3 nano pascals is 4 x 10-14 psi. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.3+nano pascals+in+psi In other words the atmospheric pressure on Earth is about 400,000,000,000,000 times greater than the pressure on the moon. I do hope you were not about to claim that the Moon's almost non-existent atmosphere is responsive for its gravity. Mainly, the fact that gasses are released from the surface. "For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum." "Otherwise, the Moon is considered not to have an atmosphere because it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment due to the high rate at which its gases are lost to space." "One source of the lunar atmosphere is outgassing: the release of gases such as radon and helium resulting from radioactive decay within the crust and mantle. Another important source is the bombardment of the lunar surface by micrometeorites, the solar wind, and sunlight, in a process known as sputtering." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon "The atmospheric pressure on the Martian surface averages 600 pascals (0.087 psi; 6.0 mbar), about 0.6% of Earth's" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars So every single fact in your post appears to be wrong. Now, what was your point?

Says the guy who admits he doesn’t know what quaternions are or how to use them.