Strange

Even without that paper, I think it is doubtful whether black holes are properly described as "objects". But if they are then, like you, I can't see why this paper would change anything. (I think it is just more of Itoero's anti-science schtick.)

You may call it scattering, but as far as I can tell no one else does. You have yet to provide any reference at all that says that the interaction of photons with atoms that causes refraction is called "scattering". As you are so sure you are correct, it should be trivial to do this. So I'm not sure why you haven't done it yet.

I don't see a contradiction there. You can think that the constitution should apply to all whilst also thinking that some parts of the constitution are wrong (and shouldn't apply to anyone). A constitution is not an immutable thing that is given to the country. It is something that is (should be) created by the people, and can therefore be changed by the people. Most other advanced democracies in the world survive without the free access to weapons that the US has. Most other countries with similar levels of freely available weapons are probably those developing countries in a near-constant state of civil war.

Well, it certainly isn't acceleration because acceleration doesn't cause time dilation! But I am surprised you ask because you have explained it yourself. Gravity is caused by the curvature of space time and, more specifically, by the curvature in the time dimension. Therefore the time dimension is a different "size" for people at different gravitational potential and so their measures of the passage of time will be different. If the question is "why does mass curve space-time" then that is not really something that can be answered. That is what mass is: "the thing that curves space time." That is just he way the world is, is the best we can say. I'm not even sure that a "deeper" theory of gravity (e.g. quantum gravity) will explain why, it can just provide a better explanation of the how. In this context, "why" is not really a scientific question. There is no invariant rate if time experienced by all. And GR is not just about our perception.

Yes we can. That's not a bad description of how gravity works. However, it isn't relevant to the expansion of the universe.

There is a very simple derivation here: https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/proof.html

Both the time dilation and the red-shift are caused by the changing scale factor.

It is a conversion factor between the units used for mass and those use for energy. No.

Speed squared is not a velocity and neither is it a volume.

You are not making much sense. Matter is something that has the properties of mass and volume. So what are "two different states of the same thing"?

Good grief. Is it Gullibility Week or something?

The trouble is, analogies only work in a limited way. So describing the field as "solid" might be helpful in explaining how they push, but that's about it. And I don't think it is very helpful then because the presence of another magnet (or even magnetic material) will deform the magnetic field, so it isn't really solid. Magnetism is caused by moving electric charges. It is just a fact of life that opposite charges attract and similar charges repel. There are various ways of describing this mathematically, but they don't really say "why" it happens.

If c2 is meant be c-squared then that is not a velocity.

No one said any such thing. This is just the same straw man you keep using. I can't imagine why you would cite something that appears to be a crackpot paper to support an erroneous claim. You seem to like denying science for the fun of it.

I like the current style - if only because it means undeserved negative votes can be hidden completely. And it is simpler.

Rather than carrying large and possibly fragile works of art around, people would start writing on bits of paper that they could be redeemed for a particular work. And then they would forget about the artworks and just use the paper as currency.

I have always assumed that (up or down) votes on old posts are from new members who have been catching up on old threads.

You made that up so you can claim to be correct. I can use exactly the same amount of evidence and logic to counter your claim. Are you ready for this? It might go over your head but here goes: you are wrong. Because it is an immature daydream with no rational basis. Maybe it helps you masturbate but, really, discussing your schoolboy fantasies on a science site is just bizarre.

And as we know that the numbers of other species vastly outnumbers humans, then humans will still be in the minority. There being no rational reason to think that insects will not go to heaven. After, all they cannot go to hell because they have no free will and hence cannot do evil.

Closer. In the Big Bang model, the universe has always been completely full of matter. 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was very small and so all that matter was hot and dense (at this stage, there were no hydrogen atoms, just a quark-gluon plasma). As the universe expanded, it also cooled (like when you use an aerosol spray: it gets cold as the pressure drops) and this allowed hydrogen atoms to form. And then the clouds of mass collapsed to form stars and galaxies and ... here we are! Well, we don't know that it is infinite. And we don't know if it had a beginning and so ...

There is obviously not a single definition. Otherwise you would be using it instead of inventing your own fairy tales. How are you going to measure the contents of your imaginary fairy tale? And, no, you cannot decide what is more logical in any given opinion. Logic has nothing to do with opinion. If you are discussing opinion and fairy tales (which were are) then there is no logic involved. If you think science is not based on evidence, then there probably isn't lot to discuss.

Note that this description only applies to the "observable universe"; i.e. a sphere of the universe, centred on us which is the part of the universe that we can see. Beyond that is the rest of the universe which is, as far as we know, pretty much the same as the bit we can see.

Yes, but it isn't defined. If my definition of heaven is somewhere hot where people are tortured for eternity then ... That is exactly what I mean by the crackpot definition of logic (or rationally). Common sense means "things that make sense to you [personally]". That is not what logic means. (It isn't what rationality means, either.) And the problem with using "common sense" is that no one can persuade you that you are wrong because "it makes sense to me" is the ultimate defence (in your own mind). Only to show how ridiculous your argument is. It was not an example of "his" heaven. It was deliberately ridiculous to try and explain to you have ridiculous the idea of trying to say that logic or rational thought can be applied to some fairy tale you have made up. You have no sense of humour! (Although a world without stupid ideas would be a slight improvement.) It is a methodology based on evidence. You cannot produce evidence for something you have made up, therefore it is not possible to apply the scientific method. Not even in principle. If someone claims heaven is populated by pink flying unicorns, how do you test that scientifically? (That is just as "rational" as your idea, by the way.) You can't. Obviously. Says the guy who has nothing scientific to say.

Of course you can’t. That is like saying you can decide if it is more likely that invisible unicorns are blue or pink. It is an insane idea. Yours obviously appears more “logical” to you because you are using the crackpot meaning of logical (“it makes sense to me”). Reading comprehension problems? Phi did not say what he understood heaven to be. How about a place where cranks don't infest serious discussion forums? Can we do anything to make you change your mind?

There wouldn't be anything beyond. If space is finite, it is also unbounded (has no boundary). A 2D analogy would be the surface of a sphere: this has a finite area but no edge (and so nothing beyond it). If you start walking, you will eventually end up back where you started. The same could be true of space, but in 3 dimensions.