Strange

The only blue I can see is the blue parallelogram behind the white stripes. If the sphere are too small to see, why are they there? What container? There is no container in your diagram. Everything.

The subjects is quantum fluctuations. This is part of (mainstream) quantum theory. And has little or nothing to do with black holes or dark matter.

It shows a sheet of white corrugated paper attached to a blue board being distorted from a parallelogram to a rectangle. Maybe. Meanwhile a blue and a white rectangle change shape. I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to represent.

He was a physicist. He knew what he was talking about in physics. (Many scientists have a poor opinions of philosophy. As do many other people. Perhaps because they haven't studied it. Or perhaps because of people like you who claim to be "philosophers".) He very obviously understands far more than you. And has obviously studied it in depth.

In GR (and, in fact, in Newtonian gravity) photons are affected by any mass. Hence gravitational lensing. How are you defining "object"?

I learned that Google Translate does Latin (I thought I had checked this before). But it does a pretty crap job of it.

What is? What is the source text? You can’t always rely on machine translation.

It is tidal forces. The tides on Earth are effectively a small scale spagghetification of the surface water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force#Explanation It is caused by the difference in gravitational force (or curvature in GR) between your head and your feet. Yes. Not necessarily. It depends what material it was made of. If it was a steel rule, it would probably be stretched less than your relatively soft body. But if it were a paper tape measure, it would perhaps be ripped apart before you. I don't think "density of space" means anything. I suppose you can talk about how the points in the chosen coordinate system move relative to one another. In some, at east, the points would get further apart as you approach the black hole, which could, I suppose, be described as space getting "less dense". There are coordinate systems that can be visualised as space "falling into" the black hole. It is hard to see how. Why would the event horizon produce that radiation? Apart form all the other reasons why the universe is nothing like a black hole.... You can't accelerate to the speed of light, and certainly not past it. But objects moving very fast do "pancakify". For example, the proton-proton collision in the LHC produce results that can only be explained by treating the protons as flattened disks. Yes, as you fell into the black hole, you would see the universe around you become increasingly blue shifted and sped up. (Until you hit the singularity!) More here: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html

Citation needed. Or is this you making stuff up again? I'm sure this has been said before: expansion does not require "dark energy". It is the (unexpected) acceleration of expansion. There is zero evidence that white holes exist, or that they are responsible for the Big Bang. And there is no apparent connection between them and quantum theory. And I have no idea why you think a completely invented explanation makes more sense. You are making stuff up again. Expansion is not "driven" by anything. Acceleration is but you have been given several reasons why a white hole is an implausible explanation. Why are you still clinging to it, with no evidence? The hypothetical graviton would be part of quantum theory, wether string theory is correct or not. It doesn't. But neither does the theory of evolution. We have an explanation for the expansion of space (GR) and good models for the creation of black holes (e.g. in supernovae). The zero-energy universe hypothesis doesn't make any difference to either of these. Wrong question. Why would it do that? Why wouldn't there be an obvious point (the white hole) that expansion was centred on? What is the mechanism for creating the CMB?

Really? Which translation? Or is this your attempt at translation? (The latter sounds plausible as the initial sentences in your post are just gibberish.) And what do you mean by "missing"? Only the first page of Genesis is missing, as far as I know. Much of the text you post is obviously not from the Gigas Codex (you give a date of 1727 and it is obviously not biblical text). So where is all this from? What "scandal"?

Except we are not. We have a position in some fairly short food chains (grass - cows - humans ...) but we are not at the end of any of them. There are apex predators that would happily eat us. There are scavengers and microbes that will equally happily consume us after we are dead. (And others that will eat them.) It is not even clear that humans are apex predators: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_predator#Human_trophic_level

I think you might have missed the point. It is not that the crackpots in question think anything is possible if you can imagine it, but rather that their pet theory is possible because they thought of it. (In reality, it is stronger than that: they are usually convinced their idea is correct because it makes sense to them - which it obviously will, because they thought of it.) (See also: the recent thread on "what is science" where you gave a pretty good response as to why science has to do better than "common sense" )

But, as you said at the beginning, you have made all sorts of approximations to make the calculations simpler. Therefore your results will be approximate. But maybe someone else has the patience to try and decipher your incoherent text and incomprehensible diagrams.

How do you know there is a mistake?

I don't usually give downvotes for content. But this post is so indescribably stupid ...

So what is the point of your post? Why do you think there is an error in your calculations? (It is, for me, impossible work out what you are talking about from your rambling description and incomprehensible diagrams).

I have absolutely no idea what you are calculating or what your diagrams represent but my guess as to the source of the error is:

It is also misleading in that it implies that living things eat other living things for some sort of "life force" rather than just for energy and the raw materials for growth. Any living thing could survive just as well on completely synthetic food derived from non-living material. And plants don't eat other life. (Well, a few do. But most don't.)

Well, that would be entirely plausible by itself. These has always been a serious problem in coal mines for example (hence canaries). The bit that made me wonder if it was faked was the gun: that wouldn't be affected by the absence of oxygen / presence of CO2. So ... I dunno. Can you provide a link or the name of the cave?

Definitely. That is part of the definition of a white hole. In a black hole, all paths lead to the singularity. In a white hole all paths lead from the singularity and out of the event horizon (a white hole is the opposite of Hotel California: you can leave any time you like but can never check in). We are at the centre of the observable universe but not the universe. If there were a centre (as in a white hole) then we would not expect the universe to be as isotropic as it is. The existence of stars and planets show that space is not perfectly homogeneous. But on large scales it appears to be extremely homogeneous (and even more so in the past). Hence the uniformity of the CMB. No one knows what this represents, if anything. It could be a different place (and time) in our universe. It could be a different universe. It could just be a mathematical result with no physical meaning... It may disappear when we have a theory of quantum gravity. Also, white holes may not appear as a possible solution in a theory that includes quantum gravity. For example, string theory has a model for black holes (very different from the classical one) but, as far as I know, has no equivalent to a white hole.

The Wikipedia article seems like quite a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory I don't know if there is any way of experimentally distinguishing it from other interpretations of QM. This is another good article: https://www.quantamagazine.org/pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support-20160516/ Thinking about it (for about 30 seconds ) this seems to just push the problem back a step. As I understand it, it makes particle properties deterministic and locally real but in order to do that introduces a wave (with, as far as I can tell, no measurable properties) that is non-local and is collapsed by observation. Weren't they exactly the sort of characteristics the theory was supposed to avoid? They have just been moved from the particles to some ... um ... "imaginary" wave. I hereby invoke Occam's Razor!

What!? Technically, this is nonsense. Humans are conscious and yet we still continue to need a regular source of energy.

As white holes come from the mathematics of GR and quantum foam from quantum theory, and we currently have no way of combining the, there seems to be no connection there. I don't know how being inside a white hole could reproduce the isometry and homogeneity of the universe, the CMB, expansion or dark energy. You would rapidly be expelled!

This isn’t a conjecture. It is incoherent drivel. There are two well established theories describing light. Why make up this sort of bollicks?

If space is not a volume defined by three dimensional coordinates (ie what is normally known as "space") then you need to do a better job of defining what you are using the word "space" to mean. Saying "space is space" is not very useful when you are using "space" to mean something other than space. You might as well say "blue is not the colour of the sky; blue is blue".