Strange

I have asked you about this several times. It is pretty obvious that energy is frame or observer dependent. Let's imagine an observer looking at an object moving past with a speed of 2 m/s and a mass of 1 kg. They will calculate the kinetic energy to be 2 J. Now imagine a second observer travelling at a speed of 1 m/s past the first observer (in the same direction as the object). They will calculate the KE as 1 J. Now suppose there is a third observer moving at 2 m/s (in other words, not moving wrt to the object). They will say that the kinetic energy is 0. How does the object know how much energy it has and hence how much "processing" it has to do to get the corresponding time dilation?

Total energy? In what frame of reference? No. It is consistent with c, not “exactly c”. Importantly, it is also consistent with less than c, within experimental error.

Nonsense. But their education does allow them to quickly rule out the 99% of ideas that don't work. Sometimes it is. Sometimes experimental physics precedes theory and sometimes it is the other way round. Science doesn't really "prove" things and doesn't deal in "truth". You have time to post this nonsense but not to answer a few questions on your ideas?

No one has been banned for expressing themselves. No one has been banned for posting their random opinions, even when in the wrong forum. No one has been banned for criticising the rules. No one has been banned for saying "I'll be banned for this" Must try harder. I haven't criticised, just asked some questions.

I don't think anyone has been banned for criticising the rules (although hijacking another thread to do it isn't so cool). With all due respect, you should have read the rules when you joined.

I get the impression that Austin L is not interested in discussing his hypothesis.

What does it mean for a field to be in a "non-matter state"? How are you defining the "density" of a field? How can a field take less space when a field, bu definition, fills all of space? What is "quantum space"? What evidence is there that it is expanding? Really? What existed before starts (that are stars made from)? Citation needed.

How can it be when the photon doesn't have a specific energy. The energy depends on the observer. As does time dilation, so it can't be due to some internal "processing" in the particle. The fact you continually ignore this point suggest you realise you are wrong but don't want to admit it.

Wolfram Alpha is good because you type in almost anything (like "volume of Earth in bushels" or "radius of black hole with mass of earth ") and get a result. https://www.wolframalpha.com And it will evaluate almost arbitrarily complex equations.

Great historical and linguistics analysis of the 2nd Amendment here: https://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

New periodic tabl? Based on what? fractional numbers of protons? I don’t think there is any science in this word salad (never mind bots, your posts sound like the output of a random text generator fed on bad science).

Nothing there suggests it is “only approximately constant” or that it varies with direction. (But it does change over time)

As far as we an tell, dark energy is the same everywhere. If there were some sort of source of dark energy like this, then we would expect the acceleration of expansion to be greater in some directions than others. All sorts of things could be. But without evidence for this extra force it is moot. The attempts to model dark matter by modifying gravity or invoking extra forces haven't worked so far.

Not really. The time dilation becomes infinite at the event horizon for an observer at infinity. For the person falling in to the black hole, nothing special happens. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html The photon is not a valid frame of reference so this can't really be applied. Spacetime inside the event horizon is not unlike space-time outside. The fact that the radial direction becomes time probably wouldn't make any difference to our perception - although that explain why you will never see anything falling in ahead of you: because it is in your future. Space & time are inseparable so the question doesn't really have an answer.

Unless you can develop a mathematical, quantitatively testable model of this it is philosophy not science.

That's all a bit facile, isn't it? "Why do we get emotions?" Apparently, because we have a brain. Or because of soup. It isn't much of an answer. "Why do we get addictions?" Because we enjoy things. Really? There are plenty of things we enjoy without getting addicted. There is some real science behind addiction which you seem to have ignored (or be ignorant of). You could probably sell it as a self-help book (they are usually pretty content-free, as well). Just repeat the same thing in every chapter. People seem to like that. But there isn't any science in it, and this is a science forum.

He gave us a (quantitative, mathematical) description of how mass-energy affects space-time. He didn't explain why it does it. It just seems to be in the nature of mass-energy and space-time to behave like that. Yes, science works forward from there. Working backwards to explain "why" is philosophy, not science. It doesn't say that at all. It says that, on the one hand, some people object to dark energy being a property of space and hence increases with expansion. On the other hand, people don't usually object to the "disappearance" of energy in red-shifted photons. Nowhere does it equate these two things (ie. nowhere does it say that the loss of energy by photons is the source of dark energy). I have no idea how you reach that conclusion. It doesn't say anything about the gravitational field energy weakening. It is just pointing out that the potential energy of the gravitational field is negative (which is just an "accounting trick" to make the equations work).

That will be because this is a science site.

Another crackpot. If you cannot find any valid science to support your claim, perhaps you should reconsider it? In the meantime, how about answering some questions: 1) Please show that your idea reproduces the observed orbital velocities in galaxy clusters and galaxies. (Note: your reply needs to be quantitative: using mathematics to show the values predicted by your idea and comparing those with the observed data. Not just more claims.) 2) Please show quantitatively (using mathematics) that the gas around galaxies has the right density to cause the lensing predicted by GR. 3) Please explain why there is no dispersion if this is caused by refraction. 4) Please explain how gravitational lensing is caused by dark matter even in the absence of galaxies or any visible matter. 5) Please explain quantitatively (using mathematics) how the observed large structure of the universe forms in the absence of dark matter. If you cannot answer questions like this, then this thread is pointless (ie. you are not doing science) and we can ask the mods to close it.

Animal Farm - George Orwell. I thought it was trite and predictable. Cheap caricature rather then cleaver satire. This book is the closest anything has come to that cliche of "changed my life". But it certainly changed my attitude and approach to a lot of things.

Can you provide a reference for "c changing a great deal"? (Hint: it doesn't.) Sounds wrong to me. But I don't know what "manifestations of energy" means. Are they also "manifestations of spin"?

Well, at least you didn't try and saw someone in half.

Oh no! We got those in the wrong order. I'll file a bug report on our scheduling code...

Well, this is certainly a more coherent and well-reasoned hypothesis than the rest of this thread. Well done.

Is that because we can both see through your shambolic nonsense? Feel free to report us both to the mods if you think we are sock-puppets. They will ban us in an instant if that is the case.