Strange

That's right. (But there is another thread about how they are displayed so we had better drop this before teacher the moderator catches us!)

I just noticed that I got a downvote for a joke in the Physics section. Worst of all possible worlds! it is odd when you get a notification that "someone has reacted to a post" and you go there to find it is zero. Did someone just upvote something that was previously downvoted? Or vice versa? And why? And should I care? (I don't, I'm just puzzled by it all.)

As I don’t know what Einstein said about this (I only gave your words, which I know are frequently wrong) I can’t really comment. However, as energy is conserved, then those terms would be necessary (if that were the reason for them being included). And that is the trouble with saying “google it” instead of answering a simple question. All I get is ghosts when I do that. Which just makes you look even more foolish. The thing you claim to be an anomaly is what is expected from Maxwells equations. So we can add the word “equation” to the growing list of things you don’t understand. Citation needed. Citation needed Politics? Huh? If anyone reading wants to get a good idea of what the Einstein Field Equations actually say, there is a great overview which avoids most of the complex math, here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/einstein.html Oh, I see. You think mentioning Trump (for a characteristic that has little to do with his politics) is "political".

Mass is considered under the energy term, so this is untrue. There would be no gravitational time dilation without mass, as can be seen from the Einstein Field Equations. Good grief. You are using people who think they have seen ghosts as your evidence!? There goes any pretence of rationality. Of course there are. Why make all these bizarre claims that you can’t support? They are trivially shown to be wrong. There are no 3 body solutions in Newtonian physics either so I don’t see how that is relevant. What is the point of lying like that? Anyone can go and look at the equations and see it is not true. This is like having a discussion with Trump: the facts don’t seem to matter to you.

I am interested why you think this would be better ... (If we had only upvotes, maybe it would be nice to see who had voted)

And there you go again showing that you don’t know what you are talking about. As you have no math or evidence to support this, there is no reason to take it seriously. GR uses the geometry of space-time to calculate how things move. But feel free to show us your math. Really.

I'm not convinced that it would have the negative effects SJ and koti suggest. I know I have been tempted to over- (and mis-) use it on occasion. I don't pay much attention to it myself, but it seriously annoys some people (and some take it as a badge of honour). I'm not sure it adds much value.

There is no evidence for that. And good reasons to think it is false. As you are so smart, it should be trivial for you to demonstrate that. However, as the equations are for the theory of relativity, I am guessing that you are wrong. What anomalies of light? "Just theory" is the slogan of the pseudoscientist. And either the evidence fits with the theory or it doesn't. You haven't provided any evidence that GR is wrong, just a weird aesthetic/spiritual argument. What do you mean by "illogical"? I assume you mean "it doesn't make sense to me" or "I don't like them". After all, there are no logical inconsistencies in the theories, so you can't mean it in the correct sense. The "other theory" you have been discussing in this thread is the Big Bang model. This is just GR. So if you think the Big Bang model is wrong, then you must think GR is wrong, no?

Is it possible just have the upvotes/likes and not the downvotes? That would eliminate a lot of the complaints about the system.

Those theories are science. If you understood the math, the logic and the evidence, then you would understand why the theories are accepted and why your personal dislike is irrelevant. The science works. That is all it has to do. You want more than that, which means you don't want (and don't really love) science. You love what you think science ought to be, which is some sort of pseudoscience.

We only know relative motion. There is nothing but relative motion. Galileo realised this 400 years ago. You need to catch up. And what the heck does GR have to do with radar?

Science doesn't deal with "reality" (whatever that is). It doesn't even matter if there is no such thing as "reality", science still works. You probably want philosophy, just down the corridor.

That is not what the OP was asking about. Reference? Nope. It was the medium that it was thought that light required. We now know light doesn’t need a medium.

Yes, using science. Not random guesses. It is based on what you say. It indicates a high level of ignorance. Otherwise you would be able to come up with a model and testable predictions.

For those that are interested (apparently not the OP) there is a good summary of the theoretical basis and evidence for the expanding universe here: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-how-do-we-know-space-is-expanding-256d3e8f18a1

Says the guy posting under a pseudonym.

You don't understand this (just like you don't understand the science behind current cosmological models). It is not a dislike of "playing with concepts", it is a dislike of random guesses in lace of science. Science doesn't work by people making stuff up with no basis in reality. It works by developing (mathematical) models based on evidence and then testing those models against experiment and observation. You are clearly unable or unwilling to do either. If you want to show current models are wrong or inadequate, then you need to either show how the evidence does not fit the model, or can be better explained by another model, or show an error in the mathematics. Claiming that (unstated) premises are idiotic is, frankly, an idiotic approach.

Can you show this mathematically or is it just another random guess? Apparently not. And unwilling to learn.

And you are wrong (which is why I provided a link, so you could check the facts for yourself.) Also, as noted, we can see objects receding at more than c which trivially disproves your claim. And that is xplains why you are wrong. Note that in a static universe there would be no increasing red shift with distance. Inflation is irrelevant. Which suggests you don’t really know what you are talking about.

You would still experience 1s/s (if that means anything) at the event horizon. No because it is not relative velocity (as in special relativity). That is why we can observe things receding at more than c. No, we don’t.

Are you asking if the time dilation (and therefore red shift) is the same at the event horizon of a black hole and at the Hubble distance? If so, the answer is no. At the event horizon of a black hole (where the escape velocity is c) time dilation becomes infinite. At the Hubble distance the recessional velocity is c but time dilation (and red shift) is not infinite (I'm not sure what it is off the top of my head). Also, the observable horizon of the universe is about 3 times larger than the Hubble distance, so we can see things that are receding at much more than the speed of light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe (I don't know what "a 1 s/s difference in the rate of time" is supposed to mean. Time dilation is a ratio, not a difference.)

Talking of nitrogen compounds... http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/09/27/what-this-here-compound-needs-is-some-hydrogen-peroxide

The information is readily available online and in libraries so I don;treally think that is a problem. Fluorine is the last thing you want in an explosive. Fluorine compounds tend to be very stable(*). Now, nitrogen ... Although there are exceptions: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride Love that blog:

Clearly you have never been in a chemistry lab. "Losers" (aka professors) spend quite a lot of time on the dangers of various reactions. For obvious reasons.

I can imagine one way would be to bubble the gas through the molten alkali. One of the "usual ways" would be electrolysis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine#Production