Strange

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Yep. Non-locality goes across space and time.

I never knew this. Well done for working it out, even if it is two and half thousand years too late!

There is a bit more detail on the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Evidence_of_existence Note that the original work has been confirmed with much larger samples of supernovae.

Why is it sarcasm to ask for evidence of a claim? It is the basis of science. Why is it sarcasm to point out that the universe is not expanding into anything? But don't take my word for it: "The short answer is that this is a nonsense question, the Universe isn’t expanding into anything, it’s just expanding." https://www.universetoday.com/1455/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/ Or, for more detail: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/623-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into-intermediate

You might want to consider the fact that the experiment has also been done with atoms, and even large molecules. (With the same results.)

Can you provide a reference to it being used with a double slit experiment?

What is wrong with you? It is weak evidence for a "cloud of iron" or an "iron nebula". Doesn't even mention iron.

There was some discussion of this already: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/111856-no-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-needed/

Oh, that's an interesting result. Thanks for letting us know about it. (Sheesh.)

Why would you say something as stupid as that? Do you not get the point that the presence of iron does not make it a cloud of iron? It is like claiming the sun is made of iron because the spectral lines of iron can be seen.

Why would you say something as stupid as that?

Still no evidence it is a "cloud of iron" or an "iron nebula".

Still no evidence you can do this. And, based on your posts here, I don't believe it.

Duh. And please start providing source for your quotes and images. I might have to annoy the moderators by reporting every case where you post unreferenced material. Still no evidence it is a "cloud of iron gas" (which is not the same as a could containing a number of elements including some iron).

Citation needed. The fact there there is some iron (and other elements) present does not make it a cloud of "iron gas".

Yep. Nothing in there about an "iron nebula" (whatever that means) or even "blue". But it does (not surprisingly) confirm the presence of iron (and other elements).

How do you know that? Just more baseless claims.

What are you talking about?

Got any evidence for that? It is not expanding into anything. It is either infinite or finite and unbounded. So there is not "outside" for it to expand into. Given the advanced stuff you post about, you have some absolutely massive gaps in your knowledge. So not leaking at all, then.

Do you have any objective evidence to support this claim? Or can we disregard it, just like your other guesses.

Lawrence Kraus? Stephen Hawking? I guess they don't count. Oddly, as this is a science site and you posted in the philosophy forum, I thought you might be using the word "logic" with its proper meaning. But, thanks for confirming that you are just using it to describe things that make sense to you. This is a totally useless way of judging a hypothesis and the complete antithesis of science. But knock yourself out. Nothing has zero energy. The proposal is that you can create equal amounts of positive and negative energy (so the total is still zero). But feel free to ignore it. There isn't really any evidence for it. There are a few scientists here. But most members are just people with an interest in science. Not sure what you are doing here as you appear to have no interest. Whatever. That is such a broad generalisation as to be pretty much useless. But if that s as far as your understanding goes, and you aren't interested in learning more, then that's fine. You have eliminated it by saying you don't believe it / can't understand it. Meh. But if you want to believe the universe came from nothing, then fine. I don't suppose anyone cares much what you believe. If you are so convinced no one understands you (rather than simply disagreeing with you) then perhaps you need to make your case more clearly. For example, it isn't helpful to just say "I have already said/explained ..." It would, perhaps, be more effective to expand on or provide an alternative explanation for those who don't get it. However, it seems to be a common tendency for those with their own unscientific "theories" based on common sense and belief to insist that the only reason people disagree is because they don't understand. Or they are scared by it ... oooooh ... an alternative idea, badly expressed .... so scary ...

They were present in the cloud of gas and dust that the sun and solar system formed from.

Maybe: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostasis !

I wouldn’t say that. Time exists but is measured differently by each observer (frame of reference). Your watch would become unsynchronisedas soon as you move (or climb a mountain).