Strange

Go on then. Just one quantitative, testable prediction from your model ... Not word salad. Crimble is caused by phlogisticated doodle flops.

Are they? Can you provide some evidence of this? People have looked (and continue to look) for evidence of an absolute reference or, more generally, violations of Lorentz invariance. So far, no evidence supports this idea. Citation needed. And indeed you can. But you can use anything else (and I'm sure Newton knew that). Huh? Black holes have size. The only ones we know about are pretty big.

No I didn't. I said the acceleration was about the same for Newton and GR (in the weak field limit). Obviously it is not exactly the same or we wouldn't need GR. For example, the very small anomalous precession of Mercury can only be explained by GR. I would assume that whether GR or Newton produces a larger acceleration depends on the specifics of the case.

You asked about force, then acceleration. But if the acceleration is the same, then the change in momentum must be the same, no?

I don't think so. The location of the event horizon corresponds to the distance where the escape velocity (calculated according to Newton's theory) is c. And GR says the same thing.

Yes, sorry. I meant "nothing" is not a well-defined term!

There is no force of attraction In GR. Instead, gravity's described in terms of curvature of space time. In most cases (at low energies/masses) this produces almost exactly the same results as Newton.

OK. So you are talking about geocentrism. That was not as universally accepted as you suggest. For example Aristarchus, in the 3rd century BC, suggested that the Earth went round the Sun. It was Copernicus, not Galileo, who came up with the modern heliocentric model. But what does this have to do with the theory of relativity?

That is a very general question. The answer depends how much detail you want and how much you already now. Basically, quantum theory is the study of the very small, where it turns out that things like energy and electric charge have minimum values and only come in multiples of those values. In other words, they are "quantised". That basic idea results in a lot of surprising effects. You can read more her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics Then, if you have some more specific questions, feel free to ask.

They don't come from nothing. They come from the existing energy (you know mass and energy are equivalent?) Maybe if you understood, you wouldn't find it creepy. Again, you would need some evidence of this. Where does that equation come from? Is C supposed to be c? What do you mean, by "where is the mass"? And of course C^2 = C * C, that is what "squared" means.

Well, duh. Was there any point to that rather obvious statement? As you are not interested in a discussion, just posting cryptic and increasingly irrelevant comments, I am going to suggest that this thread is closed.

Citation needed. And this doesn't make sense: what is more productive than what? No you don't. Ah. OK. Got it. Thanks. Reported as spam.

OK, so you are using matter in a slightly unusual way. I would consider the fermions to be matter and not bosons. Obviously mass is not only connected with the particles in the standard model, because dark matter. And energy, of course. (And pressure, and momentum, and stress ...) Do you have any evidence for that? But only temporarily. It doesn't create any new matter. (Although we know that matter can be created from energy.) Huh? We observe matter-antimatter annihilation all over the place. I wouldn't call energy "nothing"but it isn't a well-defined term. That is a bizarre statement. It could be a particle that is not part of the standard model. That is the basis of most hypotheses. It has nothing to do with the black hole. That has almost no effect on the dynamics of the galaxy behind the small number of nearby stars orbiting it. I think you would have a hard time modelling the effects of dark matter with a central point, but good luck! I have followed the thread and I am not aware of any evidence supporting the claim that "nothing" can be a source of gravity. There is a lot of science around dark matter: multiple lines of evidence, its distribution, how it behaves, its necessity for large structure and galaxy formation, etc. Almost the only thing we don't know is what it is made of. There is no science around "nothing" having gravitational attraction. I don't know how you define "nothing" but wouldn't this mean that empty space should be a source of gravity?

The evidence is pretty strongly in favour of dark matter being some form of matter. Whether it is a particle yet to be detected or something else is unknown. But, certainly, there are non-matter particles with mass; W, Z and Higgs bosons. Well, unless there is some alternative theory that says they can't have charge... But I can't see how that would mean they would have to be made of known type of matter. The same is true of Schwarzschild black holes. No. These are completely different things. Hawking radiation is created at the event horizon. It exists even in the absence of matter around the black hole; it is purely a function of the existence of the event horizon. In fact, our only chance of detecting it would be if there was a small and almost completely isolated black hole close enough to make detailed measurements of. Polar jets on the other hand come from the accretion disk outside (quite a long way outside) the black hole. Well, dark matter obviously isn't. As to what happens inside a black hole; we don't know. You might be interested in this, though, as an alternative: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-fuzzballs-solve-the-black-hole-firewall-paradox-20150623/

America used to have a "first to invent" rule. I guess under that, you would have been able to invalidate someone else's patent if you could prove you invented it first. Or maybe it would allow the the "free license" you suggest, but I haven't heard of that. But they have got rid of that stupid rule now! It doesn't matter whether anybody has encountered it; as long as t is public and could have been. But, yes, if it goes to court it is usually those with deepest pockets that win.

What is this evidence? I suspect the evidence is just things you believe. It isn't evidence you can measure and show someone else the results. In other words it isn't objective or scientific evidence. Citation needed. Especially for "almost all historians".

There is no value in the 5th(at y). Or are you not using the numbers in your grid? If not, I don't understand what you are doing. What do you mean by "count the nos of points"? Perhaps you need to show a complete example; i.e. all the steps not just the first and the last.

Excellent post @timo Is this mixing the same thing we see with the mass/types of neutrinos? So does it mean that in this "massless era", the particles we know and love would not exist as the separate entities we see now, but as various permutations of those properties?

Well, yes. They all have their own measurements, but they also know how to convert between them. So it is like an American using feet and inches (or Fahrenheit) and the rest of the world using real units. The numbers are different but we can still communicate. So are all measurements. Invented to describe the way the world works. Is this going to be yet another "I don't like/understand relativity so it must be wrong" thread?

I'm not sure you can compare the two concepts. If there were a preferred, or absolute, state rest then you could define all velocities relative to that (by using it as a reference to measure all speeds agains). But you can't use the speed of light as a reference. The speed of light for all observers is the same and so, relative to light (if that means anything) everyone would be moving at the same speed. But it is the fact that the speed of light is invariant that allows special relativity to solve all sorts of problems by making measurements of space and time relative.

Well, the vacuum has non-zero energy and so all of space is full of virtual particles that constantly appear and disappear (because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). So, yes, there is energy and associated particles in "empty" space. It would be an option if there were any evidence of these Planck particles. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, but it seems that you are going from a general purpose equation that describes the relationship between various factors to assuming it must describe some "real particles".

Not the original question. An irrelevant one you made up, maybe. No.

Well, I'm not quite sure what you are doing there (you seem to have skipped some steps). But as far as I can see, the (7-2)th square (i.e. the 5th square) is empty. So, when you write "(7-2)th(3rd squ)" how do you get from there to "24"?

I vaguely remember reading a science fiction story where they were able to recreate the sounds of the past from things like the patterns left in a painting by the vibrations the paintbrush picked up. (Can't remember any more than that, I'm afraid!)

Thanks for not taking the humour too seriously! But really, the consequences depend on how you change those laws. So, for example, if you say that energy is not conserved, then dragons could generate massive destructive flames without needing a source of fuel. And they could fly because they wouldn't be constrained by the energy needed to lift a massive object. On the other hand, if energy weren't conserved, then orbits probably wouldn't be stable. Even atoms probably wouldn't be stable. So the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. But maybe you could suggest that energy is not conserved in some very special and limited way. If so, the consequences depend on what those limitations are. You can make up the rules and then invent the consequences. There have been real examples of this. For example, when the evidence for neutrinos was first seen, as an unexplained energy difference, one of the suggestions was that energy conservation might only be true on average. And so individual small-scale interactions could violate it. However, after a while neutrinos were detected and the conservation law lived to fight another day. Also, it used to be thought that mass was conserved and energy was conserved but, famously, Einstein showed that it is actually mass-energy that is conserved. (That's hyphen not a minus sign!) Because of Noether's theorem, if energy were not conserved then you would have odd effects like physics experiments not behaving the same at different times.