Strange

If the basic concept arose with early man, then it could have diffused (and evolved) with them as they moved around the world. In that sense, even religions in, say, the Americas, could have a common origin with all religion. But, more recently, we do know that there has been a lot of "cross-fertlization" of religious ideas around the world through all of recorded history. So some ideas from Buddhism (for example) may have been taken up by the Gnostic Christians. And so on. I'm not sure about that. For example, you ruled out Zoroastrianism, but that is still going. And there are monotheistic versions of Hinduism. And Sikhism. And there were phases of monotheistic thought in Ancient Egypt. But what is also interesting is the tendency away from monotheism. For example, the way the early christian church struggled to explain the "trinity" (and how most explanation became heresies, in favour of the "least polytheistic" version). Or the way many christian worship Mary and other saints almost more then their god. This tension may explain why other monotheistic beliefs have not become as widespread. The Abrahamic faiths (other than Judaism) seem to have struck a good balance with an ostensibly monotheistic religion with a certain polytheistic flavour. Hence appeals to the widest range of people. And Zoroastrianism. And then there is Amaterasu in Japanese religion. In fact most religions have a had a Sun god, which isn't too surprising.

It might be more interesting if there was anyone who couldn't do this.

It is a quantised oscillation: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/

Nope. I have also said that you are not saying anything new about the curvature of space time and time dilation due to gravity. Where you go wrong is in asserting that the mass of the Earth causes a MASSIVE difference. It doesn't. It causes a minute difference. And that difference is rapidly overwhelmed by cosmological red-shift. Nope. Because it is bollocks. It is scientific when I have a rough idea of how large the effect is and you ignorantly claim it is MASSIVE. If you want to prove that the effect is MASSIVE and not insignificant, then do the calculations. Then show us how big this difference is. If you can't do that, then stop claiming it. Because it is a baseless assertion. And as a "philosopher" you know that assertions are a form of fallacy. It is as stupid as someone saying "I can walk to the moon" but refusing to acknowledge the distance and the absence of stairs. It is not a preferred frame, it is just an arbitrary (but convenient) choice. You are saying that using a 24 hour clock is a preferred frame. It isn't. It is just a convention. No it isn't. It is just a choice of a particular, convenient frame of reference. When you are driving down the road, you use the road as a reference to determine your speed. That doesn't make the road a preferred frame, it is just a choice of reference. So what? You can measure a distance in feet or meters. It doesn't mean that distance is meaningless. You just cite the distance (or age of the universe) in the units you have chosen to use. And you wonder why your threads get put in Speculations? Because of this sort of drivel. Please don't try and learn from Maartenn. He is totally ignorant and will only confuse you.

How can it be non-dimensional if it also 4-dimensional. For a "philosopher" you do talk a lot of bollocks. We can measure it directly. We can measure changes to length and to time. (In other words, changes to space and time.) And these are exactly as predicted by the theory (not a concept you seem to be familiar with). It has FOUR dimensions. Three of them can expand. Nope. That is (partly) why relativity was invented. For example, the precession of Mercury cannot be explained by Newtonian physics.

Isn't this an example of the Bernoulli effect? The air flowing over the opening reduces the pressure and draws some air out. The low pressure wave flows down the tube and is reflected back from the end causing an oscillation at the resonant frequency of the tube. Anyway, I have always assumed that is how it works. Not sure how the holes in the tube tune the frequency though ... does the wave get reflected back from the place where a hole is? But I don't see why that would happen... Edit: I just found this, which suggests that you were closer then me: http://www.lewpaxtonprice.us/fltphys.htm But it is complicated; especially when it comes the function of the holes!

How do you know the difference is "massive" if you cannot quantify it? Because you are claiming that the Big Bang theory is wrong. There isn't actually a section of the forum called "I Don't Know What I am Talking About But I Am Going to Make Some Stuff Up" so "Speculations" seems the best fit. It is up to you falsify current theory by showing that there is a MASSIVE difference.

There are lots of examples observed speciation. However, I suspect you will just reject them all and demand to see a dinosaur giving birth to a chicken. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

He has revealed his truth. In the form of real physical evidence. You have chosen to believe in twisted version of religion that rejects the beauty and completely levity of that creation. Nearly all major religions accept the reality of the world revealed by physical evidence. Only a few misguided heretics like you insist that your beliefs are better than reality. We have seen evidence of all these things. I agree that there is no evidence for a god (or gods) and so you need faith to believe in those things. I don’t have a problem with that (unlike some people here ) but that is no reason to reject all evidence.

Theory is not a assumption. It is a well tested mathematical model. The results would be different if the photon had mass; we do not observe this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass momentum = h / L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties (This also includes the full form of the mass-energy equation that you can use for massless photons.) What you expect is hardly relevant. The equation E = hf is based on observation.

Good. Neither of them are metaphysical or mystical, that is for sure.

You said "that's indeed the difference with my hypotheses". You are now saying it is the same as existing theory. So how can it be different? We know mass curves space-time. That is where we get the Big Bang theory (you know expanding space/universe that you reject). So the curvature of space-time is included in current theories. If you want to show that current theories are not calculating the curvature of spacetime correctly, then you need to show your "correct" calculations. Otherwise you are just making baseless assertions. Please calculate how much slower and demonstrate that this is relevant. You are just making assertions with no evidence or theory to support them.

That is a problem with you, not zero.

Of course not. Just because an equation has a “c” in it doesn’t mean it magically applies to photons. E=mc2 only applies to objects with mass therefore not photons. Theory and experimental evidence. No you don’t. You could write like an adult but you choose not to. Purely to be annoying. When you start writing properly.

There is nothing supernatural about zero. Is this because there is no evidence for aliens, just like there is no evidence for god.

Evidence? (I suspect this is pointless and you will just continue to insist you are right despite there being no evidence and theory supporting your claims.)

So, if it can be evidence of anything whatever, then it can't be evidence for your god. And there is no evidence for a "first moment of existence". So you are just making stuff up again.

And it works perfectly well without having to include gravitational time dilation. Do you want to know why it doesn't include gravitational time dilation? Then work out how large the gravitational time dilation would be. That will explain why it is irrelevant. (Hint: I have already told you the answer but you didn't believe me. If you work it out for yourself, maybe you will be convinced.)

It is just meaningless. You can equate c to wavelength and frequency but there is no point. You just end up with c. And this has absolutely nothing to do with photons or E=hf because: 1) E = mc2 only applies to objects with mass. Photons have no mass. The full version of he equation can be used for photons 2) You format your posts like a spoilt child who just wants to annoy people. Photons do not have mass (your doubts are irrelevant as you don't know anything about the subject) so they don't have kinetic energy. And that equation is not for kinetic energy; it is for mass-energy equivalence (E=mc2 only applies to stationary objects; ie with no kinetic energy).

Not really. Which is another reason why science uses mathematics: it allows precise and unambiguous descriptions. You seem to be saying that redshift is due to the gravitational well of our galaxy. There are many problems with this: 1. The effect will be tiny (and possibly too small to measure - you need to quantify it) 2. From within a gravity well, external sources will be relatively blue shifted not red shifted 3. It will affect everything we observe but cosmological red shift only occurs on very large scales 4. You include galaxies receding from one another (i.e. expanding space) and that explains the red shift we observe so your idea is unnecessary. 5. ...

Or unicorns.

We already know this to be true. So you need to go one step further and calculate the size of the effect and show that matches what we observe. The numbers are important, whether you like it or not. You can't say "any difference" will confirm your hypothesis. What if the difference is +100, does that confirm your hypothesis? What if the difference is -20, does that also confirm your hypothesis? What if no difference is seen; does that show you are wrong, or just that the measurements are not accurate enough. You should be able to apply your hypothesis to predict what we see, when observing from Earth. So, if I understand your hypothesis correctly, you are saying that the gravity of Earth (or the solar system? or the galaxy?) will produce the red-shifts we describe as Hubble's Law, is that correct? The trouble is, the values predicted by this hypothesis will be: 1. Too small (it probably won't even be detectable) 2. In the wrong direction (blue rather than red shift) 3. Independent of distance (so it can't account for Hubble's law) Now, feel free to do the calculations yourself and show me that I am wrong. But this is why you (and anyone with a hypothesis) need to quantify the predictions.

No it isn't. Unless you are redefining the word "conscious" so as to render it pretty much meaningless. Citation needed. Of course it is related to consciousness because (conscious) humans invented it. I guess that when you say "they don't understand it" you mean they disagree with you? You think rocks and electrons are conscious?

It will be smaller than we measure. That is what "too small" means. It is relative. But is is also quantifiable. Just guessing that it will give the results you want is no science. This is why science demands quantifiable predictions.

What inconsistencies? It doesn't matter to science what proportion of the public understands it. (Even if you made up the numbers.)