Strange

This is a tough one. How should a government (or journalists or even scientists) refute lies? The obvious answer is to point out that it is not true, that the claimed evidence was faked, etc. But when people get sucked into an emotionally appealing narrative, it can be hard to convince them that they have been taken for a ride. You could ask, "why not do scientific studies to refute it?" But should scientists really have devote their time (and money) to refuting every crackpot theory? Should they have to disprove claims that the world is flat? Or that man didn't go to the moon? (And, of course, further studies have refuted it. Plus the fact that autism rates are no lower in those countries with rising cases of measles and other diseases because of low vaccination rates.) And I don't believe that the UK government's response was [only] about saving money. They will, quite rightly, have pointed out that it would be a massive extra cost to the NHS for no reason. Should the NHS really have to spend its limited resources on something just because of fraudulent claims?

Even the Daily Mail occasionally gets things right (even if only by chance or because of the stopped clock effect). You need to distinguish between science and opinion. Even scientists can be wrong.

Jonathon Oliver: You have said you believe it is possible there are an infinite number of parallel universes. Does that mean there is one where I am smarter than you? Stephen Hawking: Yes. [pause] And also one where you are funny. And on a more serious note, hist last paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.07702 (no, I don't understand it either)

Somehow, the media (even science writers) need to do a better job of explaining that science is work in progress; it is a process rather than knowledge. So when we learn more, conclusions change. So, yes, it was thought (based on the evidence at the time) that diesels were a better choice (lower carbon emissions) but then the harm caused by particulates was better understood so now we have better advice. Similarly, some newspapers (and hate-filled rags like the Daily Mail) complain that science keeps changing its mind on diet. But if those newspapers didn't take such a binary approach in the first place ("some evidence suggest that a diet too high in animal fats may contribute to heart disease in some individuals" = "AVOID ALL FAT!!!! EAT SUGAR!!!1!") then they wouldn't create the problem when the scientific conclusions change slightly ("further study suggests that animal fats alone may not cause quite as much harm as thought" = "SCIENTISTS WRONG!!! EAT NOTHING BUT FAT!!!") Ditto shoddy reporting of climate science ("15 degree rise predicted in next 10 years!!! Disaster! Death! War!") but ignoring how accurately the observed climate change matches the models. (This is a difficult one because, for incomprehensible reasons, it has become a political debate in the press, not a scientific one.) Some reporters go too far in trying to be fair (yes, BBC, I'm looking at you) by having a scientist who has spent their career studying the subject presenting the evidence with suitable caution on one "side" and an ignorant, rabid ex-politician with no relevant qualifications to rant about the opposite view ("I don't care about the evidence, it's obviously dangerous" - actual quote).

Ethan Siegel: "We Still Don’t Understand Why Time Only Flows Forward: The past is gone, the future not yet here, only the present is now. But why does it always flow the way it does for us?" https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/we-still-dont-understand-why-time-only-flows-forward-1187a8367d74

That means you are not doing it right!

That is Britain not Ireland. And they may have broken the regulations but that doesn't mean there are no regulations. In fact it confirms there are regulations. (And then they appear to have come to a deal about the tax owed. That is not unusual. Companies and individuals do it all the time.)

You quoted beecee and swansont providing definitions of "theory" and then asked what "theory" means. The trouble is you don't just ask questions. You present your own ideas created by stringing buzzwords together in meaningless ways. For example. You keep making up stuff like this: Whenever you are asked for citations to support your claims that quantum foam or the holographic principle get rid of the need for dark matter you just change the subject or drag some other irrelevant topic into the discussion.

Bing!

No. How about looking at the facts instead of making stuff up. Ireland has had a low corporate tax policy since the 1950s. In the 1990s the tax rate was reduced to about 10% to stimulate the economy (very successfully). Google moved to Ireland in 2004. Unless I am mistaken, 2004 is after 1990.

What the ...? Because Ireland has a long history of favourable tax regulations. This is one of the contributors to the Celtic Tiger economy (but not the only one). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Tiger

The lower taxes exist because of REGULATIONS. Do you think they make up their own tax rules? No. They are bound by the same tax regulations as everybody else. They use the tax regulations to find the best place to base their company. The problem is not the lack of regulations but that the regulations are "wrong" (from some points of view).

Because of tax regulations, Different tax regulations would demand the taxes be paid to the country that enabled the company to prosper. FIFY

Because of regulations.

You claimed that "length and energy are related: l * E = ħ / 2" This is obviously wrong. And has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle. You still haven't explained how that is relevant. Your claim is wrong in any units. And that is the problem. You are posting unsubstantiated nonsense. There is a relationship between energy and wavelength, but it is not the one you claim.

There is a different type of field for every type of particle (because particles are excitations of their fields).

Work through this series of articles. It might make things clearer. https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/

It varies. Electrons are made of electrons. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks. And so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion

My understanding is that this does not represent an "extra" dimension of time, but just a different way of representing the time dimension. Using this can make some parts of the mathematics simpler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_rotation

No. And no.

This is the "horizon problem" - the isotropy of the CMB suggests that the early universe was at the same temperature everywhere. This is only possible if it was all connected causally (at the speed of light). The early universe appears to have been too large for this to be the case. Inflation was suggested as a possible explanation of this: a rapid period of expansion that allowed the early universe to reach the equilibrium state it was in. However, there isn't really any good evidence for inflation, apart from that. And there are other possible explanations. (The "big bounce" for example.) I suspect a theory of quantum gravity will give us a better idea of the early universe and perhaps make the horizon problem go away. For example, one attempt to apply QM to the early universe suggests that the universe is infinitely old, which should solve the problem.

It is a speculative idea with no evidence. (Re-read the definitions you quoted) also, Cahill is a crank.

Also, remember that new light is being emitted all the time. Most of the light we see was not created in the Big Bang but in the last few (several) thousand years - from stars.

If there is no relationship why would it be used? It doesn’t make any sense.

OK. So the light we see now is not from the same place where the matter around us came from. As you say, that light is long gone. However, we now see the light that is reaching us from further away. Take the CMB for example, the radiation we are receiving now is coming from about 40 billion light years away. To understand why we are still receiving light from the Big Bang after all this time, maybe the "surface of last screaming" analogy will help: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Lineweaver7_2.html (If you need to relate that more closely to your question, imagine all the people slowly walking away from you. It doesn't really make any difference.)