Strange

Sorry, that is not how science is decided. The theory works, and that is all that matters. Because the motion of the Sun (or us around the Sun) is way too small to measure. But the movement of the galaxy is much greater and we see that in the measurement of the CMB.

It is an analogy. The same can be true in three dimensions but it is just harder (impossible) to visualise. Still not quite sure. Are you suggesting that the motion of the Sun would affect our measurement of the CMB? Like Doppler effect, or something? The motion of the Sun is far too slow to have any detectable effect. However, we do see the effect of the motion of the galaxy relative to the CMB.

Not if it is unbounded. As a 2D analogy, consider the surface of the Earth (note: the surface - I emphasise that because it is often a stumbling block). It has a finite area, but there is no edge to the surface and no centre of the surface. We are in the centre of the observable universe (by definition). But the "whole universe" is many, many times large (or infinitely larger, perhaps). I don't understand the point about the Sun's orbit.

It isn't expanding "from a point". That would imply it is expanding "into" something - but there is nothing for it to expand into. It is all there is. Yes, it can be difficult to get your head around that. Start with the fact that the Big Bang "happened everywhere". That means that the CMB radiation was emitted from everywhere. The radiation were are seeing now was released 13.8 billion years ago and is just now reaching us. The radiation we will receive tomorrow was released that little bit further away and hasn't got here yet. We will continue to see radiation coming from further and further away. And that is the problem with trying to evaluate theories on the basis of "logic". It is too easy to say that something doesn't make sense on that basis. But when you build a detailed mathematical model you find it works. OK. I haven't understood your reasoning there. I'll try and take another go at it.

No that isn't the source of the CMBR. For a long time the universe was filled with a hot, dense plasma. This was so dense that light could not travel any significant distance. After about 380,000 years it cooled enough that the plasma was able to form atoms (mainly hydrogen) and so became transparent. At that point, the light was able to travel vast distance across the universe. And that is what we now perceive as the CMB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background The Big Bang was not an explosion at some point in space. It was the expansion of the universe. So, the universe is currently full of hydrogen gas, with occasional "clumps" (galaxies and similar structures) but on a large enough scale it is uniformly full of matter. It has always been full of matter. It was just denser in the past. And there are many people who insist it can't be infinite "because that is not possible". As it is, we have no evidence either way (and I'm not sure we can every know). That is correct. Whether the universe is finite or infinite, it is "unbounded" has no boundary. Which would imply that it "wraps around" (like a Pacman screen). The universe was "born from" a hot dense state. We don't know how that came about. Maybe from the collapse of an earlier version of the universe. Maybe it had been in that state for an infinite time. Maybe it was created by a quantum fluctuation. Fair enough. I guess no one can argue with you using it as a working assumption to build your model. Contraction? What evidence is there for any such thing?

I couldn't make much sense of it, I'm afraid. I asked a few questions/comments earlier. In case you missed them, I'll post them again: Can you explain exactly what "area of matter" means? Do you mean "volume of matter"? Why don't we see the area/volume of matter reducing? And although you say "exponential" reduction, can you be more specific. What is the exponent? Over what timescale is this change happening? (In other words, we need some math.) 1. We don't know if space is infinite or not. 2. Being infinite doesn't imply expansion in all directions 3. What does "expanding inward" mean? Surely, something can only expand outwards? Isn't that the definition of expansion? We already have a very good explanation for the CMBR, entirely based on very well-understood and well-tested physics. (It was the main piece of evidence that confirmed the big bang model and eliminated alternatives.) So if you are saying our current explanation for the CMBR is wrong, then you are claiming that a vast amount of very basic physics is wrong. Well, for example, "expanding inwards" appears to be self-contradictory and therefore logically inconsistent.

I was pointing out that we need an objective way of deciding which are correct; ie. which best match observations and experimental measurements. That is why you need a mathematical model. The orbital speeds of stars in a galaxy at various distances from the centre does not fall off in the way that we would expect just from the visible mass (stars and gas). The speeds correspond to there being extra mass distributed through the galaxy, but more concentrated near the centre. So the force doesn't increase towards the outside, it just decreases less quickly than expected. Nicely, the distribution of dark matter required to explain the speeds, corresponds to the distribution you get from modelling matter than only interacts gravitationally. Here is a good description: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8 That article summarises all the other evidence for dark matter, which is all consistent with dark matter being a form of matter.

Is the question just about converting units? What does UHPN stand for? Where did the 230 cu ft. figure come from? It seems kind of obvious that in a 230 ft3 tank, there will be 230 ft3 of nitrogen (or equivalent). But is the gas pressurised? Is the question about what the volume would be at atmospheric pressure? Or does "how much" refer to something else like mass or moles or ... And is this homework or just a general question? You can even tell it what units you want: https://www.google.com/searchq=230+cu+ft+in+bushels

! Moderator Note You need to present your idea here on the form, not just post a document.

So yo have just been wasting my time? That is very annoying. Let me try again: Are you saying that you have a different mathematical model that produces the same results as relativity? Have you proved that they are mathematically equivalent? Or just tried a few test cases? And are you referring to special relativity or general relativity? (Maybe I should just wait until you post your new model)

It seems pretty uncertain at the moment. Somewhere between 0 and 100% For example: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-what-proportion-are-asymptomatic/ https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1375 https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/09/1161521/22-of-new-zealand-covid-19-cases-asymptomatic http://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/id/documents/COVID/AsymptCOVID_TransmissionShip.pdf

I can't possibly know. But you have already said that it gives the wrong results, so I am just asking if you are still going to pursue it. And, if you are, why. That is arithmetic, not logic. (And, being mathematics, it can be proved based on a few axioms.)

Here is an example of a elliptical orbit where we can see the other focus more clearly than your drawings: (From: https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/esm/orbits/orb_ell) If we take the line between the Sun and the other focus, I think you are asking: "what is the angle of that line?" (Here it is aligned with the X-axis, but it could be rotated at any angle) Is that correct? If there is only a single planet (as in that diagram) then it doesn't really matter what orientation you choose because there is nothing to compare it to. If you have several planets, then their ellipses will all be aligned differently. The only way you can know the actual alignments is by making measurements of the planetary orbits. Here is a more realistic diagram of several orbits in the solar system: From: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/orbits-in-the-solar-system/ - that looks like a good page that might answer a lot of your questions. As you can see, the planetary orbits are pretty close to circular. Also, the relative alignment of the ellipses will change over time as the interaction of the bodies will cause the orbits to deviate from perfect ellipses. Like this: From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession Note that if you are simulating the orbits by calculating the positions after shot time intervals, you need to be sure your simulation converges. For example, if your time steps are too large, then the simulation will be inaccurate and the orbit will become unstable and you will fling the Earth off into space. Not easy, because the eccentricity the orbit is so small.

Isn’t that what you came here for? Are you going to abandon your alternative to relativity as it is now acknowledged to be wrong? Logic is just a branch of mathematics. I find most arguments based on “logic” very troubling. Unless they take the form of a formal argument (ie. one that can be written in mathematical notation) it usually seems to mean “something that makes sense to me”, which is not logic.

You agree that your theory is wrong? Well, that's progress.

I wonder if it is because when you read, you can always pause and think about what you have just read. But with an audiovisual presentation you are less likely to hit pause and so you give yourself less time to think. There has been some research that shows you learn better from texts that are hard to read (too small, fuzzy, bad letter forms, etc) because you are forced to take time over them. Reading is an artificial skill that we have to learn. So maybe reading, because it takes more effort, has a similar cognitive advantage over our more intuitive skills like listening and watching.

Maybe. But it is less of an abstraction that "made of math". At least we can measure and quantify energy, and understand its role in physics. As someone else said, math is just a language we use to (attempt to) describe the universe. Imperfectly. Although we have been quite surprisingly successful at approximating the universe using math, I see no reason to expect that math can perfectly describe the universe (which would be the case if it were "made of math"). But there are people much smarter than me who appear to agree with you. For example Max Tegmark and Stephen Wolfram. So I'm not really going to labour the point. It may be an interesting philosophical idea, but it doesn't seem as if it can be made scientific. For example, what would prove this hypothesis wrong? I don't know why you think that. I don't even know what that means. No. Of course not. What I mean is that relativity theory accurately describes the universe. In other words, the results of the theory match observations. If your theory produces different results, then they can't match observations. Therefore it is wrong. That's how science works. But I'll wait to see your theory.

We know that energy is a component of the universe. One could go so far as to say that the universe is "made of energy". But, despite Pythagoras's belief, there is no science behind the claim that the "universe is made of math". There are lots. And even the theories that posits a universe from "nothing" don't start from absolutely nothing. They start from quantum fields, with non-zero energy, etc. It wasn't a critique, just a question. But if it doesn't produce the same results then it doesn't match reality and so it must be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe There is no evidence the universe was created from nothing. That is a non sequitur. So it massively revises it but produces the same results?

I'm not convinced that moving the air around more is a good plan. Is there any evidence for this? Personal protection may be more appropriate and is known to work.

Not all diseases are transmitted through the air

Well I hope Moreno watches that. It answers pretty much all his points in this thread and the other one.

Relying on friction probably isn't good enough to ensure a safe and controlled speed of descent. You have to take the cart back up to the top, which would require a source of energy. Also, there is probably limited number of people who only ever want to go downhill so, at some point, you are going to have get the people back up to the top as well. Now, here's an Idea: why not have two of your carts tied to each other with a cable that goes round a pulley at the top of the hill. The cable is just long enough that when one cart is at the top, the other one is at the bottom, When you have passengers in both carts, you let the one at the top go down and pull the other one up. You may need to use some power to overcome different loads and control the speed, but less than without the counterbalancing cart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funicular

Can you explain exactly what "area of matter" means? Do you mean "volume of matter"? Why don't we see the area/volume of matter reducing? And although you say "exponential" reduction, can you be more specific. What is the exponent? Over what timescale is this change happening? (In other words, we need some math.) 1. We don't know f space is infinite or not. 2. Being infinite doesn't imply expansion in all directions (Newton nicely proved that the universe must be infinite because it wasn't, as far as he knew, expanding or collapsing) 3. What does "expanding inward" mean? Surely, something can only expand outwards? Isn't that the definition of expansion? We already have a very good explanation for the CMBR. It was the piece of evidence that confirmed the big bang model and eliminated alternatives. So if you are saying our current explanation for the CMBR is wrong, then you are claiming that a vast amount of very basic physics is wrong. I did warn you!

Is there any evidence that BCG vaccination was more common in Eastern European countries? It was still routine in the UK until very recently, as far as I know. Even if it is not routine now, it certainly was in the past and so we would expect to see older people less likely to have serious Covid-19 infections, but that is actually the opposite of what we see. Form the WHO: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/bacille-calmette-guérin-(bcg)-vaccination-and-covid-19