Strange

This is a good explanation of the equations of GR: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ A cloud of "test particles" is used to explain the basic meaning of the equations and describe how gravity, tidal forces, expansion, etc work.

A black hole of that size will absorb more mass than it loses due to Hawking radiation. Even if it were in remote space with no matter to absorb, it would absorb more energy from the CMB than it loses.

Unimaginable.

You are right. Really, really tiny black holes will explode. (I was thinking of the ones we know exist.) As far as I know, there is no mechanism for creating black holes that size and no evidence they exist.

No.

The evolution from the early hot dense state is the (relatively) easy bit. The unknown is what started the whole process. Then you need to apply the physics that applied at those energy levels. For example, the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces were united. So particles such as photons and electrons would not have existed, at least, not as we know them now. No. It describes the ongoing evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state. The definition of energy in this context is not simple as we are not looking at a single frame of reference (because the universe is expanding). And there are models where the total energy of the universe is zero. There is an open question of why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe (in other words, why there is any matter at all). We have no theories that go back to a single point (other than a naive extrapolation of GR)so I don't think anyone considers that to be a realistic description. The universe could be infinitely old, in which case you wouldn't need to worry about "where it came from". (is that the option c you referred to?)

And yet every thread gets dragged down to your beliefs. If only you believed that you might stop spouting your ludicrous beliefs all over the forum.

Do you mean c2 (which isn't a speed) or 2c? And why do you think it expands with that speed? And the expansion of space is not described by a speed but by a scaling factor. Which means that the speed of separation between two points is proportional to the distance between them. So there will be points that are far enough apart that they will be receding at 2c. There is no evidence that matter is created. Blah, blah, blah. Colourless green sheep dream furiously. The nearest is something falling into a black hole. But that is not entirely without trace. Its mass, electric charge and angular momentum are preserved. Quantum information may also be preserved, but that is an area of research. So, no.

So you are defining distance in terms of a basic unit of time? Rather like Planck units, where the Planck distance is defined that distance light travels in one Planck time. (Actually, its the other way round, but no matter.) Normalisation is a mathematical process, so you can't use it to get rid of mathematics. You still need maths to produce a testable theory. It is providing the information in external document that is against the rules. And can you show that this reproduces the forces that we observe? You couldn't run that simulation without maths. And the Earth is not, to my knowledge, expanding. Which seems to be a fundamental flaw even at the conceptual level. Such as? Are you going to build some practical device based on these ideas? (That could be protected by patent.) But you will need a bit more than these vague concepts.

Not at all. Just that there is no legal protection for ideas so claiming ownership is a bit futile. If your idea is any good you will get credit.

Your argument was that there was no difference. There is a difference. So you are wrong. They are not significant when playing golf. They are significant in showing you are wrong.

Perhaps you didn't actually read what was written: there is a difference. It just isn't significant. I think swansont knows exactly why they run at different rates and doesn't need your help there.

Solar panels. Because we know how to make them already! But in both cases, there is no practical way of getting the energy to Earth.

Side note: I am always bemused/amused when people make claims of "ownership" to ideas like this. I mean, obviously, you have copyright in the document but there is no protection for ideas. And, generally, no one is going to want to steal (or even be associated with) ideas posted on a science forum. To the content! Line 19 (thanks for numbering the lines it makes it easier to reference; but doesn't get round the fact you are breaking the rules) (Hmmm... the line numbers get changed when copied. Weird.) 1. Surely you mean the "minimum" distance. If that is the maximum distance and is based on time being quantum, then there are no measurable distances between 0 and this maximum. 2. There is no evidence that time is quantised and your reference for this (the only reference) is to an unpublished work by someone called Egerton. I would comment further, but I'm afraid the rest of it doesn't make much sense to me. You start off talking about a cloud of free particles (good start, a similar approach is taken with some very god explanations of GR, for example). But then you try and apply this to the Earth, where we have a set of particles closely bound together by interatomic forces. I think you need to study the difference between a "gas" and a "solid". Finally, there is not very much maths in this short article. What testable predictions does this model make that would allow it to be compared with GR and/or the real world?

Nonsense. Unless you are claiming that gravity doesn’t work as we think. But there is no evidence for that. Most currents aren't the same as shipping routes. (Many of them concentrate material in some central point in the ocean, like those masses of plastic and rubbish we have heard so much about recently.) But they don't have a very great effect on things floating on the surface. So it would be too slow and unpredictable. As far as I know, they only have a minor effect on fuel efficiency and so are usually ignored when planning shipping routes.

Can you explain what the point of this is? What is the advantage of having multiple 0 values?

You mean, build a star !? Apart from the fact it would be impractical, we don't need to: we have one. The challenge is getting the energy from there to Earth effectively. The same problem would face any space-based generation system. Centrifugal force throw things apart, so I'm not sure what you are thinking here...

So is this some sort of alternative/spiritual therapy? I would use the term "con man", personally. I think it is despicable that people like this play on the fears and desperation of the vulnerable using magi tricks. I'm glad to hear you didn't fall for his "gold statue" scam. I hope you have found a better source of help with your problems! Best wishes.

Producing one electron-positron pair doesn't get you very far. The early universe was full of a plasma of quarks and gluons. How do you explain that?

Yes, it is a representation. It is not the data. Don't be ridiculous. I didn't say it wasn't relevant. And I am not rejecting the data behind it. I said you should use the data for your "analysis". Most of the data is lost in the image. JPG is a a lossy format that introduces errors and noise, apart from anything else. As you haven't answered my questions I will take this as confirmation of my conclusions that: 1. You are looking at the noise in the image and thinking it is significant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia) 2. You don't have a clue what you are talking about - confirmed by looking at your previous posts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect) Feel free to prove me wrong by going back to the original data, using statistical analysis to support your case or showing what is wrong with the procedures used by LIGO.

They only make passing reference in this paper to some of the techniques used to eliminate false results. But there have been large numbers of papers released before which go into great details on how signals are identified, the multiple methods used to eliminate noise, extraneous signals and false positives, and so on. The idea that someone could spot an error by looking at a noisy JPG is laughable. It is up there with the "face on Mars" and "Jesus in my toast" stories.

I did that after replying. Should have done it first, then I could have avoided wasting my time on this.

You appear to have based your "analysis" on looking at some pictures rather than the data. I have no idea what you are talking about. Before the -2 minutes mark, there is no data (because they were not injecting the test signal into the actuators). There is no data outside of the narrow range centred on 20 Hz. (This is confirmed by the other diagram in the original paper.) I can only assume you are looking at the noise and JPEG artefacts (exacerbated by you manipulating the image) and thinking that it is data. What data do you base this claim on? According to the paper, both signals were matched against templates (separately) and the results were consistent. And what did the LIGO people say when you told them this? Finally ... Vixra? Really?

I would normally start off by converting your 8 feet into metres and calculate it from there. But as I was getting Wolfram to do all the calculation, I didn't bother. It doesn't matter what units you use, as long as you convert them all to the same thing at some point. The equation is the same for feet or metres.

You said "science" was the language, not mathematics. You really don't know anything, do you. Multiplying by zero always gives you zero. That is part of the definition of zero. Dividing by zero is undefined. It certainly doesn't give 1.