Strange

If the math is the same, then the result is the same: space (aka the universe) is expanding. Not necessarily. There is no expansion in galaxies. So if this is a testable prediction of your hypothesis then it is falsified.We don't see expansion between galaxies, even though there is a lower gravitational potential.

Then please show the mathematical predictions and the supporting evidence for your theory. And how is that different from what GR does? That is a non-sequitur. But the same theory that tells us that space is expanding also tells us what other observers will see. And as we have evidence of expansion from the whole of the observable universe, your claim is unjustified. As we have evidence of expanding space going back nearly 14 billion years and there have only been observers for just over 100 years, this is obviously nonsense. I didn't call you stupid or ignorant. I said it sounds stupid and ignorant to say that X exists and at the same time X doesn't exist. If you stop doing that, you won't sound so foolish. It isn't "thinking differently" to not understand that "expansion of space" means exactly the same thing as "expansion of the universe". Did you miss the bit where I explained how they are the same thing? Your opinion is worthless, as you have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread.

True. If you were near a black hole then you would see different red-shifts and a different temperature of the CMB. So what. Because, and read this carefully because it is pretty complicated stuff - it usually takes people about 100 years of postgraduate studies in linguistics to understand this subtle point: THEY MEAN THE SAME THING. Let's try and make this simple for those who are struggling with this concept. It is possible for different words to mean the same thing. For example, the word "tune" means the same thing as the word "melody." Or the word "automobile" means the same thing as "car". Similarly, the phrase "expansion of space" means the same thing as "expanding universe". The two phrases are both metaphors that refer to exactly the same thing. So, you are saying "tunes don't exist but melodies do." Or "cars don't exist but automobiles do." Do you realise how stupid and ignorant this makes you sound? Why would you do that?

I think that is an interesting question. I don't think we know why vacuum permittivity and permeability have the (finite) values they do.

The question makes no sense. It would a real particle if it was a real particle. It would be a virtual particle when it was a virtual particle. Just like photons or electrons or anything else. Real particles. Obviously. (It wouldn't be radiation, otherwise).

Of course we do. You are talking about the General Relativity and then claim that people don't think about General Relativity when they are using General Relativity. That makes NO SENSE. Of course we are. It is described by General Relativity. You might. But people who understand General Relativity don't. We can measure gravitational red-shift here on earth over distance of about 1 metre. There is nothing magical or mysterious about this. Of course we do. The cosmological redshift is due to the relativistic expansion of space. You are not making much sense. You seem to be getting increasingly desperate in your attempt to deny relativity and the Big Bang model. They are the same thing. It is the same thing described using different words. "The universe is expanding" means the same thing as "space is expanding". They are different words describing the same thing. The words "space is expanding" mean the same thing as "the universe is expanding". They mean the same thing. They both refer to the metics expansion of space as described by the FLRW metric. The FLRW metric describes the expansion of space also known as the expansion of the universe. They both mean the same thing. Do you begin to see my point? In case you missed it: they are the same thing. We don't even see expansion of space between galaxies. Bollocks. It is because locally things are held together by gravity (and electromagnetic forces). But you just said space is expanding. Now you are saying that space is not expanding. Let me rephrase that: you just said that the universe is expanding, now you say that the universe is not expanding. This is ridiculous. You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The entire population could also fit in Rhode Island. But it wouldn't end well: https://what-if.xkcd.com/8/

That research is about using a laser to split carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen. Problems with this: 1. Can it be scaled up to remove useful amounts of CO2 2. Where will the energy come from (if it is from fossil fuels, then you are just making things worse. 3. What are you going to do with the carbon monoxide. It is toxic and if released into the atmosphere will turn backing CO2 by reacting with hydroxyl ions.

But by ascribing "consciousness" or "awareness" to bacteria you are removing any useful meaning from those words. By your definition, water is "conscious" of the fact it has to run own hill. This is just silly (and further undermines your claims to be a "philosopher"). We now have to come up with new words to describe what the rest of the world means by "consciousness" and "awareness". Your modesty is impressive. It is rather hard to read your posts as if they were written by someone knowledgeable and brilliant. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far.

Then show us that the magnitude of these primordial waves are large enough. Stop guessing and do some science. This is what separates those with a scientific mind from crackpots: doing a quick test of random ideas that pop into your head before testing them. Those with a rational approach will do this and then forget the idea when it turns out to be nonsense. Others won't bother because it is "logical" (in other words, they thought of it is it makes sense to them). Which do you want to be: the rational, science minded person or the crank? It's up to you. Show us the numbers or wear your crackpot badge with pride.

You mean, you want other people to find the solution for you?

1. It is not Newtonian space, so that is irrelevant. 2. It is an analogy to curved space-time not curved space 3. It is just a really bad analogy 4. You can't falsify a scientific theory by criticising an analogy 5. You seem to have ignored all the valid responses in that other forum that point out why you are wrong

Exactly!

I would say that the shape of the Earth is a "fact"; i.e. something we can observe and measure (and have always been able to do). The explanation for the shape (in terms of gravity, rotation of the Earth, etc.) is theoretical - i.e. it based on a mathematical model of how gravity works. Rather like: Gravity is a fact and the theory (theories) of gravity explain how it works. Or evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains it. More than just observation. It has to be done methodically to eliminate human biases. For example people can casually observe things that seem to confirm horoscopes. More rigorous observation shows them to be nonsense. I would agree with you on that.

Do a comparison of their magnitudes. I bet they will be many orders of magnitude smaller than the measurement errors (never mind the variation). But feel free to prove me wrong with evidence rather than supposition. That would be very interesting.

While this is true in principle, the magnitude of gravitational waves far too small to affect measurements of G. Given the fact that a massive and highly sensitive detector is needed to spot the largest disturbances, these are not going to affect a couple of lead weights hanging in a lab. Also, experiments to measure G take a relatively long time to get a stable result. Gravitational waves are gone in a fraction of a second. Next time you consider the relation between two things, you should do some back of the envelope calculations to see if it is valid or not.

I don't think so. I have never understood why anyone takes Zeno's paradoxes seriously. They obviously don't apply to the real world. However, if you do take them seriously, then you can prove they are wrong but it means using some rather advanced maths (calculus and the mathematics of limits and infinitesimals) which you probably would know unless you had done an A-level.

But that is not what is measured. The dimensions of h are chosen to make the relationship E = h f work. O K ?

Is there any evidence for any of that drivel?

Sounds like he was talking about Zeno's Paradox(es): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Paradoxes_of_motion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

I think you should stop smoking whatever it is you are using.

You used three pictures and proved nothing. Well done.

To understand the shape of the "ripple" you would need to solve the wave equation (for the particular context). For example, you could look at the shapes of different electron orbitals in atoms, which will give you an idea of the range of possibilities.

Imagine a single ripple (centred on where the pebble went in) being self-sustaining. So that disturbance in the field is a "thing" (electron or whatever). It doesn't continually require energy to keep it going because it is not a ripple in water (water has mass and requires energy to make it go up and down). That wavelike disturbance can now move around and it represents the position of the electron. Actually, the square of the amplitude of the ripple represents the probability of finding the electron at that location (if I have extended your metaphor appropriately) so the electron is most likely to be in the middle but could be elsewhere. There is a really, really tiny probability that it will be detected on the other side of the galaxy. You can then do calculations by analysing the paths of these ripples. If you add together every single possible path the ripple could take, you will find that some of the waves will constructively interfere and some will destructively interfere and the most probable path ends up being the one that corresponds to a "classical" description of the path of the electron (or photon, or whatever). This is how quantum theory, with all its probability based things, can describe the behaviour of photons and reproduce the results of classical optics. (See the Feynman lectures on QED if you haven't already.)