Strange

Relativity of simultaneity depends on relative velocity. You can claim your idea gives the same results as relativity but you need to prove that mathematically. And if it does, then what is the point ?

Nah

Correlation is not causation.

I hope so.

There are various models that attempt a common explanation. The challenge is they behave so differently it is hard to see how they can be unified. They don’t really have anything in common

True (ish), but by intervening hopefully they can improve the chances of one outcome (survival) against the other, and bring it about faster (like, you know, “speeding up”).

While we are being annoyingly literal ... I have few language peeves but: Of course it is semantics! All (meaningful) words and sentences are "just semantics". Without semantics they wouldn't mean anything.

Have you ever come across the concept of a "metaphor"? Have you not seen claims that children are growing up faster, or the speed of social change is increasing? What "force" do you think is being applied in those cases? Again: really? Or have I missed something? Is it Literal Week on science forums this week?

No one suggested applying a force to it. Selective breeding is, potentially, different. There purpose here is, as zapatos said, to make what would happen through natural selection (which could include extinction, I suppose) happen faster (*). Selective breeding can also be used to produce results that would never happen through natural selection (ie not speeding up evolution). (*) In my dialect of English, making something "happen faster" is also known as "speeding it up".

Really?

Of course. It is a law of physics. What has this got to do with the Olympics, being left handed or gold medals? At this rate, the thread will be moved to Trash, I suspect.

What does that mean? Are you referring to the fact that there is an overall geometry of the entire universe? Measurements show this to be flat (within the limits of measurement). I am not aware of any. It seems had to imagine how it could be a property of space itself when it is not present everywhere in the same amount distributed. Space-time curvature needs to be "caused" by something (typically the presence of mass and/or energy). (Dark energy, on the other hand, is possibly a property of space itself - because, as far as we know, it is everywhere and everywhere the same.)

Maybe. There are so many different ideas being looked at I wouldn’t rule anything out without some extensive research. Yes - because of the presence of mass-energy. You are suggesting that there just happens to be the right amount of extra curvature, for no reason, and with just the right distribution to produce the effects we see, again with no reason. This is basically equivalent to magic.

Hang on a minute ... I obviously skimmed this post too quickly before. Classical, you say? Non-relativistic, you say? But then you say this: In a non-relativistic world, the length of the second would not change. So you are not using classical physics at all You then go on to use the wrong formula for the time dilation and the wrong formula for the Doppler effect ...

I can’t see any reason why not. Why would you doubt it? Have searched for any? Not surprisingly, there is at least one: https://www.teamusa.org/usa-archery/news/Features/2015/April/21/CEO-Denise-Parker-Archery-Will-Always-Have-a-Place-in-Me And no doubt many others. This still has nothing to do with physics.

Of course we can. But that is not what you asked and has nothing to do with the Olympics.

They have. You have ignored them. Because, as you admit, you didn't;t understand it.

In which case you can ignore all the stuff about Java and just use Python. Much simpler. If all you want to do is keep the documents synchronised between the two servers then the command rsync may be all you need (it has dozens of options for different ways you might want to use it, do I won’t attempt make any suggestions at this point). I use it to keep a backup of all my files on a server. You can run it at regular intervals (eg using corn).

The idea that we only have 5 sense is rather old fashioned. https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/think-you-have-only-5-senses-its-actually-a-lot-more-than-that

How is this connected with the topic of the thread? What is "force of space"? No Casimir force in FREE space. What is this "thing"? In what way is it "going on"? What is "the test"? And how would it detect the "thing"? (And can you quantify the size of this effect, whatever it is?)

But that is not what you said. A single point can move away from where it is, or it can move towards something else. It can't move towards itself; it is already there. I assumed by "mass-energy equivalence", you were referring to the equation e=mc2 and that mass can be converted to energy. Just saying that the whole universe contains all the mass-energy in the universe (which is trivially true, even if the universe is infinite) doesn't really explain anything. So by "point" do you mean the same as what is called an "event" in relativity (ie. a set of x,y,z,t coordinates)? I don't see why not. And it would seem to limit the usefulness of the model because it implies nothing can ever interact with anything else (because they can never be at the same place and time). There is no universal "now" in relativity. Time is relative to the observer. The time between events, and even the ordering of events, depends on who measures it. It is very vague and not very useful until you can show that it produces practically useful results (ie the same results as relativity).

I know. But you haven’t presented any theoretical basis or evidence for that. And you haven’t shown a mathematical model that reproduces galactic rotation curves and orbits of galaxies in clusters So there seems to be absolutely no reason to consider this. No it doesn’t.

Except, of course, you do.

There is a variable delay, rather than a change is speed. And we can calculate it. So not correct on both points.

Space can be (roughly) described as being “squeezed” by the presence of mass-energy (hence what we call gravity, etc). You are suggesting this happens without the presence of mass. Why would it happen? Without an explanation, this is not a very useful idea.