Strange

The unusual lighting conditions does make them look pretty spooky. (But they are obviously porgs.)

I was just suggesting the reason why you don't have the maths background to follow the explanations. (I didn't learn any of these things at school either.)

There are several ways that the universe could be infinitely old. There are obvious ones like the "big bounce' (the current expanding universe was formed from the collapse of an earlier state). One of the more interesting ideas is from attempts to combine quantum theory and GR, which suggest that the universe has been expanding for an infinite time.

In their frames of reference, the velocity of the other is less then c. Nothing can ever move faster than c.

In your frame of reference, their speed difference is 1.2c. (But that is OK; nothing is moving at more than c in your frame of reference.) They each see the other receding at 0.88c.

For anyone else who isn't sure what this is about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon's_needle (I have always known this, I just didn't know what it was called.)

And boring. No. No one expects that. It would be silly. I think all we want is: Don't resort to logical fallacies. When you have the facts explained to you, don't keep repeating the same lies. If you want to show that there is something wrong with the mathematics of GR, then you have to use mathematics. If you want to overthrow a scientific theory, you need evidence not just beliefs and assertions. Don't come to a science forum and pretend that your beliefs have the same weight as scientific evidence. In short, stick to science. This is, after all, a science forum. Simple as that, really. (Read the rules you agreed to when you joined, if you are still unsure.) Finally, no one really cares that you don't like the Big Bang theory. I'm sure there are lots of other people who people who also don't understand it. They (and you) are welcome to come here and ask questions in order to learn. But just repeatedly shouting your beliefs at us is not welcome.

Sigh. Wow. Does this drivel mean that you concede that you have no arguments against GR anymore? If all you have is this metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, then I will happily leave you to it.

I have never denied it. Your insistence that "because it is based on relativity we can't know anything" is idiotic. It is obviously nonsense. We use the same principles of relativity (relative velocity, different gravitational potential) for GPS. That works very accurately. On the other hand, you insist we can't apply the same science on large scales because you don't like the results. That is irrational. No one is making absolute statements. (As you have been told repeatedly.) Constantly repeating the same straw man argument is boring and dishonest. NO IT DOESN'T. Please stop lying.

Why?

There are no absolute statements about space (expanding or otherwise). The only invariants (which is what I think you mean by "absolute") are space-time intervals. They are the same for all observers. Because they are not absolute statements. They are made from our frame of reference. If you insist on the terminology, they are relative statements. No. The only "contradiction" is between your beliefs and reality. But I doubt you will suddenly understand that.

There is a common idea that being faster than light means going back in time (I blame Superman and The Flash for this!). It is actually a bit subtler than that. IF you can travel (or communicate) faster than light then it is possible to send a message back in time but it requires a special combination of circumstances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone (Isn't that a great name for a concept!) If the neutrinos had travelled faster than light then the travel time (whether one way or both ways) would just be less than the travel time of light. It wouldn't be negative.

Because it requires you to divide by zero. As you would know if you were capable of doing the simple arithmetic required. No. You cannot make absolute statements about time and space Also, because it would require you to divide by zero. As you would know if you were capable of doing the simple arithmetic required. Correct. Go on then: show us the math that we should follow. Because when I follow the math of special relativity it proves that you are talking bollocks. If you were capable of simple arithmetic, you would be able to see this for yourself. I didn't call you an idiot. I asked you NOT to be an idiot. But you seem determined to ignore my request. I think it is amazing that someone who cannot even do simple arithmetic insists that general relativity is wrong. That isn't having another opinion. It is being wrong. BTW. I don't have anything much better to do so I am quite happy to keep pointing out your errors and fallacies until the mods close the thread. (You should start making sense soon, if you want to to avoid that.)

There is no reason, in principle, why we couldn't measure things moving faster than c; or even instantaneously (within measurement limits). Look at the case where OPERA experiment thought they had measured faster than light neutrinos. It turned out to be an instrument error, but there is no reason the measurement couldn't be valid.

That is like saying that the fact you can't divide by zero means that you can't use mathematics to describe the real world. Only an idiot would say that. Don't be that idiot. Just use the maths that doesn't involve dividing by zero and you can use the mathematics of GR to describe the universe. Simple. (Well, not exactly simple. But possible.)

And I tell you (because you don't now) that there is no such math. You cannot do that. ... from the frame of reference of a photon, because there is no such thing. However, we can make measurements from our frame of reference. And that is what we do. And that tells us about the expansion of space. The fact you refuse to believe this is irrelevant.

I am fairly sure that is because when you relax the focus, the eye focuses on infinity.

There is an upper bound on the ,magnitude of these waves. So you should be able to show that they are large enough to affect measurements of G. But they haven't been detected yet with our very sensitive measurements which, surely, means that they cannot be affecting the very low precision measurements of G.

And several people have tried to explain why you are wrong. I will leave you to stew, as you are not interested in learning.

You just said we should follow the math. When challenged to show some simple arithmetic you panic and pretend it has nothing to do with maths. Your "interpretation" is wrong. It is a fairy tale with no connection to any maths or physics. Therefore it doesn't apply to the real world. No you can't. Stop lying. Dividing by zero is a problem of maths not "interpretation". If that were true, you would be able to show us the maths (that you want us to follow). You can say exactly nothing about anything using the frame of reference of a photon because there is no such thing.

You are suggesting that the particle ceases to exist when it is free? Wave function of a free particle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_particle#Quantum_free_particle

What is wrong with the standard terminology "wave function"?

So you are talking about the ave function of the particle which defines the (probability of the) location of the particle. This is not "flux density". And it doesn't have an inverse square law. I don't believe so. Every particle type is an excitation of a particular type of field.

It sounds as if by "flux density" you mean the wave function of the particle? If so, I don't think this decreases with an inverse square law (in general). Or maybe you are just mixing up different concepts. After all, even neutral particles have a wave function so the term "flux density" doesn't really apply there.

That is why you cannot use light as a frame of reference. What is wrong with you? Then why not show us the math you want us to follow. I understand the maths, that is why I know you are wrong. You don't understand the maths (as you are happy/proud to admit) which is why, I suppose, you are posting so much incoherent gibberish.