Strange

You need to show the HTML code (the actual HTML code). You need to show the CSS code you are using. Otherwise how can anyone help? They can only guess what the problem might be. Maybe you have a syntax error in your css code. Maybe you have specified the target paragraph wrongly. Are you using an editor that checks the syntax of the html and css code? (And, as an aside, it would be polite to acknowledge answers to questions and let people know if they helped or not. Just moving on to another questions without a "thank you" or any sort of reply to answers might eventually make people unwilling to help you.) Because you are doing something wrong.

This is unknown, currently. All we know is that it was once in a uniformly hot, dense state and then it expanded and cooled. How it got to be in that state is unknown. One of the challenges is how it came to be so homogeneous. Inflation is one hypothesis. But if the universe is cyclic (the "big bounce" model) then that could explain it too. On the other hand, some attempt to add quantum theory to the equation suggest that the universe could be infinitely old, which would also allow it to become homogeneous. More evidence, and probably better theories, are needed to give us any chance of knowing.

! Moderator Note I have split the discussion of compactificationizering off to here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121967-compactification-split-from-have-we-found-enough-puzzle-pieces-to-get-a-big-picture/

No. There is one way: understand the physics (and therefore the mathematics) and have an insight to develop the field. You can't provide a plausible physical mechanism if you don't understand the physics. Several, if not all, of the things you seem to want to explain are already well understood. I am not aware of a single case of someone who knew nothing about the subject suggesting a new concept that lead scientists to develop new theories. I would love to hear of some, if there are any. The nearest I can think of is the Mpemba effect. Which, interestingly, is still not understood. But that was more a case of someone making an observation that had been overlooked before. Which is possibly related to the fact that the areas where amateurs can (and do) make significant contributions are astronomy and botany/zoology, which are heavily observation based.

By introducing the gene for the protein you want into a cell (which could be bacteria, yeast or something else) it will produce that protein. (That is basically how viruses work.) Good summary here: https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/1959-producing-foreign-proteins-in-bacteria More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_production

Does it? Only under physically unrealistic scenarios. "Mass attenuation"? I guess part of my problem with all this is that you have taken the results of existing highly mathematical theories, stirred them around a bit, and then expect someone to come up with a mathematical description. But you are only be able to propose these ideas because a mathematical model exists already. So we are just going round in circles. That, and the fact that your description makes no physical sense. It seems to be based on a stretching some poor analogies (as used in popular science articles) to breaking point. Foe example: "the fabric of space-time" there is no "fabric". It is just a misleading analogy. Space-time is just a set of measurements. You might as well say that the "fabric of latitude and longitude is a fluid". Space-time has no more physical reality than latitude and longitude. And "space-time has a resonance equal to the Planck Energy" doesn't seem to make much sense. Resonance usually applies to frequency; energy is not frequency. And why Planck energy? And you are saying that space-time has a resonance equal to the energy of about half a ton of dynamite (or two average lightning flashes): shouldn't that be easily detectable, somehow? Should we expect lightning to change space-time? Are toroidal black holes even possible? And where is this black hole? How large is it? Would we be able to detect it? What properties does a toroidal black hole have? What does "tied to it" mean? This is possible, purely based on the concept of gravity slowing expansion and causing the universe to collapse again. It doesn't require the invention of non-physical black holes.It used to be one of the favoured models (the "big bounce"). But the discovery of dark energy makes this scenario look less likely. I'm not sure what "attenuation" means here. Not how it could be calculated from the previous description. Nothing is quantified: "elementary particles gain energy, they will be kicked above the speed of light and move backward in time for a short distance as the extra energy dissipates" How much energy do they gain? How are they kicked above the speed of light? (When we know this is impossible) How far backward in time? How does the energy dissipate? How much energy dissipates? And I can't see any connection between this and quantum chromodynamics (color glass condensates).

I have read similar statements about 19th century scientists. Either way, it is certainly true that modern science (even just modern physics, chemistry or biology) is too big for anyone to have a reasonable understanding of all of it. When to comes to "inventing science" he was definitely standing on the shoulders of giants. Certainly back to Roger Bacon in the 13th century, Al-Biruni in the 11th and all the way back to the Egyptians and Sumerians.

A black hole is caused by the (rest) mass of the object in its own frame of reference. After all, you are moving near the speed of light relative to something, but you are not a black hole!

I don't think it defeatism; it is an opportunity to study and learn more. I hope you have learned them in full mathematical detail, otherwise you have wasted your time. Well, the whole point of string theory is that it incorporates relativity. So that is not really a novel idea. I'm not sure what you mean by "the quirks of relativity". Can you be more specific? And also how it relates to quantum theory? Are you talking about the fact that quantum field theory combines mechanics and special relativity? if not, how does your idea relate to this? What success? Can you give us examples of quantitative predictions that match experiment or observation? Maybe you should have published in a scientific journal, then. There may be a little bit of truth in that: Newton and the falling apple, Kekule dreaming of a snake eating its own tail and coming up with the structure of benzene. But this only works when it is an expert making the analogical reasoning. If you had gone to Kekule and said, "maybe benzene is like a chimpanzee eating a banana, because that makes sense to me" it would not have helped at all. Definitely not true. Why would they? I'm sure someone with the necessary mathematical skills would have plenty of their own ideas to try out mathematically. Ideas are easy. It is the detail and testing that requires inspiration and hard work. I would not say "confirmed" http://news.mit.edu/2012/lead-proton-collisions-at-large-hadron-collider-yield-surprising-results-1127

"Pass by" Right

Reviewers are nearly always anonymous. There are pros and cons (and some people doubt the value of the current review system anyway). This article has a good summary of why they are anonymous and some other points of view: https://massivesci.com/articles/peer-review-anonymous-signed/ But I can't see why knowing who the reviewers were would be of value to the readers of the paper.

friendstalkingwithyou has been banned as a sock puppet of farsideofmoon. If you're going to be a monomaniac, you're going to get caught.

! Moderator Note We did that before and you refused to explain. Also, creating a sock puppet to evade a ban is against the rules. ! Moderator Note Can I suggest you report posts like this, rather than replying to them

https://galdin.dev/blog/why-you-shouldnt-be-using-turbo-c/

Can you explain what you mean by "can't edit it"? Do you get an error message? Turbo C++? That was discontinued 20 years ago, wasn't it? (It could be a bug in Turbo C++. Which is not going to get fixed, now.) Why not use a more modern tool? You can get a free version of Microsoft's Visual Studio, which is excellent

I've never heard it called that before. (But now I am going to be coming across it all the time.)

So you have come up with your own words and your own mental image. It doesn't seem you can communicate clearly what is new or different about it, or what value it has. "It makes sense to me" is not much use to anyone else, especially when the principles and the details are already well understood.

It could. But most of time, exciting new discoveries fade away with more data.

No implications for us. (It isn't coming to get you.) But, if it turns out to be correct, then it may cause some bits of our theories of physics to change. The "fine structure constant" is assumed to be constant, as the name says. If it turns that it has changed very slightly, then we would need to modify theories to explain or incorporate that. It could, I suppose, make a slight difference to theories about the very, very early universe.

That is about the measurement of the fine structure constant getting different results in different directions (i.e. not being isotropic). https://www.yourdictionary.com/isotropic

A single entity can be unstable (or meta stable). Like a muon, for example. In "equilibrium"? Maybe not the best word. But then neither is ASD!

It is completely different. Nothing to do with expansion at all. It is about measurements of something called the "fine structure constant". They get very slightly different results in one direction than another, for very distant galaxies.

Bazinga

Cool picture. This can be described/explained conceptually in terms of equilibrium and balance, and quantitatively using mass, gravity, moments of force, etc. I don't understand what ASD is supposed to add.

! Moderator Note This is not Science News. I'm not sure what it is, but I'll give it a chance in The Lounge