Strange

Your beliefs are shared by s (small) number of groups of religious extremists. Your twisting of the evidence to fit your beliefs is typical of religious extremists. Walks like a duck, sounds like a duck.

You have just confirmed exactly what I said. The study doesn’t say that; what it says (confirms) is that there is a lot we don’t know. But people of faith, like you, will always take “we don’t know” as confirmation of their beliefs. (But of course, it is an interesting and useful paper.)

But when there are a range of possible outcomes, some people will use that to confirm their beliefs (whatever they are).

Indeed. That might make it easier to explain to you where you errors lie. Of course he doesn't. That could be true, it depends exactly how you set up the scenario. (There are potential complications with time dilation and simultaneity of relativity - you can deny this, but as your understanding is clearly flawed, your denials carry no weight). How can this be? Because you are talking nonsense. If we assume that the two spaceships are connected by a rigid rod so that the length contraction of that rod reduces the distance between them (there are complications here to do with the meaning of "rigidity", time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, but they are just details at this stage). In that case, the distance of each end of the shortened rod (and therefore the two spaceships) to the planets A and B will increase. Because, of course, the distance between the planets doesn't change; therefore subtract the reduced length of the rod and the apparent distance of one or both spaceships from A and/or B increases. I guess you can "prove" anything if you just make stuff up. Let's try a diagram to clarify: Spaceships (joined together) not moving: A >----------> B Spaceships moving: A >----> B

There is no gravitational time dilation in Newtonian physics. I would strongly advice people NOT to download Excel (or Word) files from unknown sources. This is a very serious security risk.

So, rather than the common description that energy-momentum causes spacetime curvature, it sounds like you are saying that energy-momentum and spacetime curvature are the same thing; just different ways of representing it. That is quite insightful.

It is up to you to show, without using the invariance the speed light, that your alternative hypothesis is correct. Er, that IS one of the postulates on which relativity is based. If you assume that, then you will reach the same conclusions s relativity. As, indeed, you seem to be doing. Of course not. You are moving at near the speed of light (relative to something); does your watch run slow? Of course not. No, he will see the pulsar (which is moving relative to him) going slower than would someone stationary relative to the pulsar. There is also a gravitational difference, but if we were only to consider relative speed, then the ISS would see Earth clocks running slow. (I haven't worked out what effect gravity has one this.) You can make all sorts of counterfactual claims about what you believe will happen in these scenarios, but theory and experiment shows you to be wrong.

Indeed. And, it can be misleading, because people in this group sometimes pose the questions as "what if <alternative scenario>" or even appear to be proposing an alternative scenario rather than actually asking a question. But they are usually happy to be corrected and to learn. But without putting in the years of study required (and, quite possibly, but not necessarily, without being as smart).

It turns out, they are mutable. Surprise!

So you are proposing a modification to the law of gravity to get round the shell theorem (I would like to see the mathematical proof that changing from a square law does, in fact do this). But we see no evidence for gravity working this way.And if it only occurs very close to an even horizon (so we cannot, yet, observe it) how is it able to affect the speeds of galaxies across the entire universe. I have another, more philosophical, problem with your idea. If dark energy is due to some kind of event horizon surrounding the observable universe, that puts using he exact centre of the universe. This raises all sorts of awkward questions. You do realise that this is just a consequence of simple arithmetic? As expansion is accelerating, the Hubble constant(*) is increasing and so the Hubble distance (speed of light / Hubble constant) is decreasing. (*) not really a constant Of course. "Strongly" is a quantitative thing and therefore requires maths. You can' explain them at all without maths. An infinite universe means one without end; however far you go, you can always go further. The is exactly analogous to the mathematical definition (however large a number you get to, there is always a successor). Muscles.

If this were true, you would be able to measure your (absolute) speed. We know you can't. The reason is that L = D in the frame of the light clock, whatever its state of motion. And, in a purely Newtonian universe, L always equals D. You are implicitly assuming one of the postulates of relativity (that c is independent of the motion of the source). And, therefore, your solution is relativistic. But note that L > D as seen by an external ("stationary") observer. The rate at which the light clock ticks doesn't change for the observers moving with it.

I am aware that my responses (positive and negative) often come across that way. I have, in the past, tried to start off with something like "interesting idea but..." or "this bit is correct but you seem to have misunderstood this ..." But I suspect my patience has been worn down by the number of instant, "I'm right, scientists are all wrong, read what I said again and you will see I am right" type of responses. The thread(s) that are, presumably, the immediate cause of this one was particularly frustrating because the poster insisted that we just accept their ideas and that we were being narrow minded for not doing so. But from my (our?) point of view, they were being narrow minded for not accepting any attempts to correct their misconceptions. I suspect that, in cases like that, no attempt to soften the criticism or corrections will make any difference: they know they are correct (after all, the idea makes perfect sense to them) and so the problem obviously lies with the audience.

Really? I mean, really!? Good grief.

This is not something I understand well, so I'm not sure if these questions make much sense... The Wikipedia page says: But I don't fully understand the explanation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation#Theory) Is the oscillation between different flavours of neutrino something that happens to a single neutrino, or is it a statistical thing that can only be observed among a number of neutrinos? I was made to think about this because of their different masses. So, if for example, there was just one neutrino in the entire universe, would it still oscillate between flavours? But then its mass would change, which would seem to violate conservation laws. So does the oscillation depend on their being at least three neutrinos which share the masses and flavours, and we only see the change when we take a snapshot of the state by observing one of them? Just got to this bit of the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation#Classical_analogue_of_neutrino_oscillation Are the two pendulums here supposed to represent a pair of neutrinos that share the mass and flavour information?

Yes, it is the Higgs mechanism that gives electrons their mass.

Gravity doesn't work like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

I don't know what you mean by "EM energy of the quanta". But energy is not always quantised. Ah, thank you. I don't know what you mean by "electric and magnetic energy of particles". This is a meaningless phrase as far as I can tell. I don't what you mean by "recoils back into its particle-like state". But the energy of a free electron is NOT quantised. This is true. Except, of course, QM hasn't "proved" it; QM predicted it and experiment has confirmed it. That is how science works: model -> prediction -> test. That is wy you are not doing science. (And your posts are too ignorant and incoherent to count as philosophy, either.) But I don't what this has to do with the energy of a single electron. (I also find it odd that you use the results of a good, working theory. So you accept we have a theory but you still insist on promoting this mon-theory of yours. Weird sort of cognitive dissonance.) The charge of an electron is fixed. It doesn't change. (And, arguably, the energy [mass] of an electron is already concentrated at a point in space. Remember the fact that electrons have zero size?) I am not asking you to prove anything. (Science never proves anything.) I am asking you for testable predictions that could, in principle, confirm or disprove your idea. You need to provide some evidence of that. Or propose a prediction that can be tested. It is so fundamentally wrong, no one is going to take it seriously without some evidence. Pi is just something we invented and use to do calculations, it doesn't have any effect of reality. I would be very, very surprised if anyone ever answered anything other than "it depends". A crackpot classic! Clearly. And your ego is so big you can't even consider that (a) you might be largely ignorant of science and (b) your ideas are largely meaningless.

No.

What? What did you refer to as a circle? Where di you post it before (why should I have to look for it)? Please show, in mathematical detail, what you mean by this. Space is not a "push" (infinite or otherwise). It is a measure of distances. You know, as you make with a ruler. No pushing involved. It isn't infinite. The volume of a sphere (of finite radius) is finite. The fact that pi has an infinite decimal expansion, does not make the volume of a sphere infinite. You are talking, what is technically known as, bollocks. What is "EM energy"? What is the "perfect volume" of an electron? (Bearing in mind IT IS A POINT PARTICLE - the caps are for someone who is apparently incapable of understanding that basic fact) Any EVIDENCE for any of this? Any MODEL to make testable predictions? What is "mass-charge"? And what evidence do you have for it? Some bosons have charge and some have mass. Nope. Something else you made up? Bold: that IS a theoretical explanation. Your word salad "explanation" (which you seem to be adding more nonsense to on the fly) has nothing to do with physics.

And reality doesn't care about the accuracy with which we do our calculations. The decimal expansion of pi is irrelevant to nature; it is just something we use in our calculations. It is our minds that tell us this, so I guess they are equipped for it. And the cardinality of the integers (or the continuum) is a very different thing from the (possible) infinite spatial extent of the universe. You seem to think that because they both use the word "infinite" that they must somehow be the same. You are the only one to have used the word "weird" (in this post. So I have no idea what you are talking about. How about answering some of the questions you have been asked? For example: Does your model allow you to make any testable predictions? (If not, why should anyone take it seriously?) Can you show, in suitable mathematical detail, how a sine wave can be closed into a sphere (whatever that means). What is wrong with you? The number that gives the required level of accuracy. You seem to be avoiding and ignoring the answer. Have you ever considered starting with the hypothesis that you don't know as much as you think you do? There is a lot of evidence to support that (unlike your incoherent idea).

You have already been told that you are misrepresenting / misunderstanding this. The electron is not a sphere; it is point-like. And they do not have volume.

But it doesn't grow without limit. It is easy to find an upper limit that it will never exceed. I'm not convinced that the fact that pi is irrational is relevant. This is a basic bit of mathematics that is normally taught at school. But swansont gave a specific example. What do you mean by the energy of an electron? Is kinetic energy quantised? (Hint: no it isn't.) And how are you containing an electron within a sphere? That will presumably change the energy of the photon. After all, the smaller there sphere, the greater the uncertainty in its momentum. How does that relate to your idea? I haven't seen any physics behind this idea yet. The only mathematics is the basic equation of a sphere. It is not clear how this relates to electrons (which are not spherical). Perhaps you could use the Schrodinger equation to describe the behaviour of this "electron contained in a sphere"? Where is the infinite magnitude in the equation of a sphere? This just isn't true. There is a whole area of mathematics that deals with infinite (and transfinite) cardinals. For most of physics it isn't relevant. But it is generally accepted that the universe may be infinite in extent (and maybe infinite in age). So no one avoids the issue as you suggest. p.s. just repeating what you have said before, with no further explanation and no attempt to answer questions, is not really productive. You seem to have convinced yourself that you are correct. But that is very easy to do. Providing enough evidence to convince others is more of a challenge, and not one you seem to be up to.

What link? The only links in this thread are your (spammy) ones. The question was not in your opening post. The answer is, obviously: it depends. It depends on how accurately you need to calculate something. (You seem to confusing calculating the size of a sphere with its actual size. Or something.) I can't believe anyone has given you a different answer. What does that mean? Huh? That makes no sense. But feel free to show, in suitable mathematical detail, how a sine wave can be closed into a sphere (whatever that means). What is the "inward direction"? The along the radius towards the centre of the sphere? What does that have to do with the precision to which you calculate anything? This is not a fact, it is .... I don't know. Just bizarre. Are you talking about the cardinality of the integers versus the real number (ie the continuum)? What connection does this have with the precision of pi one uses? If you ignore rounding (which no one does). But it doesn’t increase without limit. It is trivial to get an upper bound by rounding up (at any number of decimal places). And the unrounded and upper bound will converge so you can easily see how many digits are “enough”.

That is not very useful. Just about every cosmological model, including myths and theories that have been proved wrong, is consistent with the universe existing. You need something a little more specific. And quantifiable. It looks like you have no testable model and therefore no evidence. So you are not doing science.

Which of these questions are you daring us to ask a professor?