Strange

If it is the equation for a sphere then it is not, in general, a description of the electrons round a nucleus. If, on the other hand, it is the equation describing electrons, then it is only spherical in very specific, limited circumstances. Electrons are point particles, not spheres. (I think I know which pop-sci headlines you have been misled by). I can't make any sense of this, even after reading your longer "explanation". What is a "fractional infinite"? Energy is a property of particles, etc. It is not a thing itself that can "occupy space". If it is infinitesimally small, how can anything "spread" into it? Infinitesimally small means approaching zero size? But you appear to be talking about an expanding sphere so I don't know how it can approach zero size. Why do you expect the energy to "vanish"? What is an "elemental pocket of energy" I assume you mean "packet", but that doesn't make it any clearer. There is no such thing as a packet of energy; energy is a property. You might as well talk about an "elemental packet of size". That is probably because it is a meaningless concept based on a thorough misunderstanding of physics. Are there any testable predictions from your idea? In other words, can your model use mathematics to produce quantitative predictions that can be experimantally tested to determine whether the model is correct or not? Or, even more simply, what would show your idea to be incorrect?

That's the wrong way round, surely. If it had a boundary or an edge, then one could ask what is beyond that edge, ie. outside the universe. But because there is no edge, the question is not necessary; there is no "outside" or "beyond" to ask about. We don't know that. There is no evidence the universe started. We project back, using a theory we know no longer applies, to a notional "time 0"; but there is nothing tat say the universe was created then.

No it doesn't. Or, at least, not in the way you think. The reason that dark matter causes expansion is fairly complicated but if you could somehow "get" some dark and stick it in a wormhole, it would not act as exotic matter. Just no. You seem to have assembled bits and pieces you have read into a meaningless jumble without understanding them. You are very fond of saying that almost everything can be "easily be achieved with an extra dimension" yet you never provide any support for this. If it were so easy, one imagines someone would have developed a model along these lines. The nearest is probably Kaluza-Klein theory, but that has been largely abandoned as not being very useful. I can't imagine how. It is very obviously nonsense. That is one point (the singularity of the black hole) to one other point (the singularity of a white hole). NOT "all of space". And also note that there is no reason to think that singularities, white holes or wormholes exist (and good reasons to think they don't). Indeed it isn't. In fact, it (like everything else) contradicts almost all your claims. Please stop making up this bollocks.

Ah. Perhaps we are thinking of "size" in two different sense: the cardinality of the coordinate system (which is, in GR at least, the continuum); versus the physical extent (volume) of the universe, which could be finite or infinite. Does that make sense? I can't comment as I am not familiar with the context...

That is nothing to do with science. Are we? What do you base that on? A lot of interesting work (mainly mathematical, but some physics) has been done on the concept of infinity. So what makes you think anyone is afraid of it? What is the "question" referred to in the title? How is pi misused?

Sell, we can measure distances in three independent directions (space) and we can measure time. So they certainly exist. We can also measure the predicted changes in the geometry of space and time caused by velocity, the present of mass, etc. So the concept of space-time as an integrated set of coordinates seems to be well founded. Whether you choose to describe this as a "fabric" is irrelevant. The word "fabric" is used metaphorically to describe many things (for example, "the fabric of society"); it isn't meant to imply the reality or existence of any "fabric".

I just quoted the scientist from your article. But: "A wormhole can be visualized as a tunnel with two ends, each at separate points in spacetime" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole) Nope.Dark energy is just energy, not "exotic" energy or matter. It is, as you said, a result from the mathematics GR. (Whether or not it represents reality is another matter.) Please provide a citation for " from a singulrity to all of space time". Please provide a citation for "requiring dark energy to keep it open to all of space time". Otherwise I will have to conclude that this is just more stuff you are making up on the fly. Then you will have no problem providing a reference for it? Einstein played with what? But you keep claiming that white holes are the source of dark energy. Either provide a reference for this or admit it is more sh*t you have made up. I suppose that posting incomprehensible gibberish is one way of ending the discussion.

That is evidence (some) people are concerned about it. I haven't (yet) seen any convincing evidence it is really a problem.

This is true. But I don't think the coordinates (or points) count as "contents" of space. I would think of the contents as being matter, photons, etc. The amount of these must, surely, be finite if the volume of space is finite otherwise the density would be infinite. No? Does he mean that it could (in principle) contain an infinite number of particles, rather than it does?

No it hasn't. Maybe you should read the article you posted, instead of just the headline. It is not really a wormhole (it just behaves in a similar way) and there are not extra dimensions: "This created the illusion that the magnetic field must be travelling through some kind of extra dimension." You have said this before. It obviously isn't true. "A wormhole is effectively just a tunnel that connects two places in the Universe." Space is 3 of the dimensions of space-time, so I'm not sure what this means. You keep saying this, too. I assume it is just one of those random things you have made up as you have never provided any evidence for it. Nope. Dark energy has to be positive energy.

Sigh. (This idea comes up so regularly and is so wrong.) Newton's Shell Theorem. Or: Gravity doesn't work like that.

I don't know about "saturated". The levels of these signals are very low (cellphones are battery operated so can only transmit low powers.) There is no evidence for that (and no plausible mechanism). There is no way audio signals could affect radio waves (does your Wi-Fi stop working when you play loud music?). And there is no way for a low frequency signal to "cancel out" a high frequency one. You would need the same frequency but in anti-phase (as in noise-cancelling headphones). So: no. Note that houses are also "saturated" with EM radiation at 50/60 Hz from the electricity supply. I doubt it.

As these are consequences of an effect that you consider “real” AND as they can be measured, I’m not sure on what basis you say they are not real. But then, science isn’t really concerned with “reality” (whatever that means) but only with can be measured.

Exactly this. Faith doesn’t need to be justified, rationalised or explained, ffs. IT’S FAITH!!! Totally missing the point. Well done. You believe it does. But there is no evidence that it does. Guess why? Because it is faith. It doesn’t need to depend on anything external. It is, as you say, personal and internal. Citation needed. There are many religious scientists but they nearly all compartmentalise their faith. It might be part of what drives them to be curious and want to learn about the world, but they know they mustn’t let their faith influence the science.

They can co-exist. I'm not sure that they can work together. One of the purposes of the scientific method is to eliminate human biases, such as faith in random beliefs (like yours), from interfering with the results.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with objective evidence or the outside world. It is just in your head.

Good.

That was covered in the "Meaning of Einstein's Equations" link I provided earlier.

Then you would need some evidence, not just your lack of understanding.

It is important to note that it is not Doppler shift. If you try and interpret it as such, you get incorrect results.

This is the prevailing explanation because it works.

That is a problem with your understanding, not with the model. It doesn't really matter what you think. That is what the model says.

"Space" is just the distance between things. So, pretty much by definition, if the space (distance between them) expands then they get further apart. Uh, what. That is EXACTLY what the Big Bang model explains. It adds lots of details, like the temperature of the CMB, the primordial proportions of hydrogen and helium, etc, but, basically: it explains expansion. That is what it is a theory of. Obviously not.

This is a good overview of Einstein's equations: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node7.html There is some mathematics, but you can get the gist without understanding that in depth. The two relevant points to this thread is that the movement of things towards one another in the presence of mass-energy (ie what we call "gravity") and the tendency of the distance between things to increase in the absence of mass-energy (or a homogeneous distribution of mass-energy) are the natural consequences of the nature of space-time. It requires a force to prevent things falling together, and similarly it requires a force to prevent expansion. So, it is the absence of forces holding them together that allows galaxies to drift apart; it is NOT a force pushing them. That IS a conspiracy theory.

I think blame-shifting is the right term. It still feels a bit unsatisfactory for some reason but that’s my problem !