Strange

Then why do you ask so many profoundly stupid questions that could be answered with 5 seconds searching on the web? I don't require it at all. I just expected, given your previous stupid rants about China. How about explaining what the point of this thread was?

Fleas don't live on the bodies of animals. Horses don't have nests or beds, so there is nowhere for the fleas to live, so horses rarely get fleas. What is "T/F"?

Like all proteins, it is transcribed from DNA. LMGTFY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase

Are you making things up again? It is one possibility. As far as I know, no one thinks it represents any sort of physical reality. Our current theories don't allow us to go back before a certain time. If you extrapolate GR you get a meaningless results (a mathematical singularity) which probably means that GR doesn't apply. You had a pair of gamma rays, therefore you were talking about a context in which space time exists. Now you are saying what if those gamma rays didn't even exist in the first place, could they still cancel each other out? What sort of question is that? If unicorns don't exist, which one would win a race?

Or it might have a finite, measurable size. (It might even be smaller than the observable universe!) The fact we may never be able to measure it doesn’t make it infinite. (We are talking maths and physics here, not some abstract, metaphysical meaning of “infinite”). Conservation laws. As you say, it takes a particle and anti-particle to annihilate and produce a photon. Similarly, particles and anti-particles should be crated in pairs. Understanding why they weren't is the challenge. They would have to re-inforce somewhere else. (See also: interference fringes.) You can't just destroy energy. Except it probably didn't. A singularity in the maths just means the theory no longer applies. It isn't a "thing".

So, gravity does affect expansion. For example, there is no expansion between galaxies in clusters, because they are bound together by gravity. But I'm not sure I understand your suggestion. The red shift is caused by the expansion of space between us and the distant galaxy. If the red shift were different at different parts of the galaxy, it would imply that there was more expansion at the edges of the galaxy than the centre. In which case, the galaxy would be quickly torn apart. But it would require mass between us and the other galaxy to change the rate of expansion. I don't see how the mass of the galaxy itself can do that.

“Seems” is the right word.

It is frequently challenged. But that is philosophy not science. Science doesn’t tell us about what is real, just what we can measure.

Did you miss the link to Planck units earlier? They are not widely used, I think, because the units are either much too small or too big.

You can also select some text in a post and then then a “Quote this” button should appear next to it. Clicking that copies the text into a quoted box in the reply

Science doesn’t really do “proof”. A theory can be an answer but not the answer. For example, we have two good, but completely different, theories of gravity. You use the best one for the job. Neither is “true”. Similarly, you can describe light as a wave or as a particle. Some things are easier with the first (refraction) some are better with the other (photoelectric effect).

It is one definition, but there are plenty of groups counted as separate species that are able to interbreed. And some are unable to interbreed for biological reasons (the offspring are not viable or are sterile) or geographical reasons (they are on different continents) or other. And then there are ring species where each can interbreed with other "nearby" species but those most distantly related can't - even though there is genetic mixing between them because of the intermediates. (There is a good overview of the problems of species definition in the Talk Origins page on observed speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

No it is a human invention. There is no simple way of defining species that works in all cases. Race is similar, but more so. Most people think of race in terms of skin colour (or culture, religion, language or any number of other markers). But there is no simple genetic definition of these "common sense' divisions. Most people have a mixed heritage. (For example, some genetic testing websites promise to tell you where your ancestors came from. But this is pretty meaningless for individuals. You will get very different answers from different companies depending what they look at and what they compare it with.)

No. Real slaves. You can't get fat on love-of-your-job, that's for sure.

So se is defined as metre-seconds (assuming de/dm is dimensionless), which doesn't seem a plausible unit for space expansion. It is usually described as a scale factor (dimensionless) or Hubble's constant (seconds-1). So you need something to else to account for the what we observe. What accounts for galaxy rotation curves (and all the other evidence for dark matter)? What accounts for the accelerating expansion? What is the value of this constant ? And what are de and dm? So why doesn't mass appear in your equation for se? Why? And how much less? Is it a measurable amount?

That doesn't apply because photons have zero mass. You need to use the full form of the equation for massless particles.

Three as far as we know. String theory requires more. Or it could be finite (the fact we can never tell is a philosophical question, I guess) but still with no boundary. A singularity is where the mathematics produces infinity as a result (e.g. infinite curvature at the centre of a black hole). Virtual particles are not particles, they are just short lived fluctuations in the non-zero energy of the vacuum. But you touch on a fundamental problem. If matter came from the energy of the vacuum, why wasn't there the same number of particles and anti-particles, and why didn't they annihilate one another.No one knows. Well, string theory has more than three space dimensions.

Not in our universe! (You can create models of hypothetical universes with space-time but no energy and therefore no virtual particles.) Space and time are dimensions.

Neither. Space is the universe. It may be finite or infinite, either way there is no boundary or edge, and nothing outside. All of that space would have been in the singularity - although there was probably no such thing.

The plot thickens (or not) https://phys.org/news/2018-04-dark-interactive.html

Huh? "Oh my god, it's full of stars"

That is exactly the same thing. In GR, standing on the surface of the earth is to experience continuous radial acceleration. Can you clarify what you think is different?

Or not: LMGTFY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_display

I’m afraid Prof Einstein beat you to that insight! If you want to interpret it as motion, then this coordinate system is what you need: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand–Painlevé_coordinates

You would be better off starting a thread to ask your questions. Space is not a "thing" and cannot have a speed. Expansion is a scaling of the distances between points in space, not a speed. The relative speed of objects in expanding space is proportional to how far apart they are. Yes, the geometry of space is affected by the presence of mass and energy. Absolutely not.