Strange

What is the "density of space"? Do you mean the amount of material in interstellar space? Or something else?

It seems to be confirming what was expected. (Which is always a bit disappointing!)

I have changed my answer because you have clarified what you meant. Well, both energy and mass (and a few other things, like pressure) contribute to gravitation. And gravitational fields have energy themselves and therefore also cause gravity themselves. This non-linearity is partly why GR is so complex. However, this does not become significant until you get to the extreme conditions of black holes, etc. Gravity is not caused by waves, is all I am saying. With suitable evidence...

It is a video, so no. But I assume from the title of the link that it is about the large scale structure of galaxies, clusters, filaments, etc. If so, that is describing the distribution of matter. I don't know what "corridors" and "troughs" of gravity means. But if you just mean that mass forms large structures, then yes. Actually, very constructive. This is a science forum. We are discussing science and scientific theories. That means you need to have a mathematical model capable of making predictions before anyone will take an idea seriously. A vague "it seems to me" based on a superficial understanding is not useful. No. It is suggesting the presence of matter (which is not visible). Mass is a property; you can't have mass without matter. Really. For example, things fall to the ground because of the static space-time curvature produced by the mass of the Earth. No waves involved. Gravitational waves are only produced in specific circumstances, like binary black holes.

OK. Thank you. I wasn't aware that NASA was looking at such crazy ideas! I know they have. In particular the ALPHA experiment is attempting to capture enough anti-hydrogen to check that it has positive mass. http://alpha.web.cern.ch The annihilation of matter and antimatter still obeys the conservation of energy. You can't get out more energy than you put in. So I still don't see why you would want to collide stars to generate antimatter. Or even why you think that would generate any usable antimatter.

Indeed. But you need some overlap between the various methods to build a reliable distance ladder.

Oh dear. Here we go again. Being English is no guarantee of writing good English. (Just as well, or I would be out of a job.) You may remember, I have asked you if you were a native English speaker before because some of your sentence constructions and word usage is slightly ... unusual. He made no such accusation. He simply asked for clarification about the meaning of a sentence. This is similarly to what set you off before.

You keep saying that gravitational waves are sound waves. That is unsupported. Everything you post is nonsense. But I assume this is deliberate? You have nothing constructive to say, so maybe you should take your own advise and stop posting.

Yes, well done. There is no aether. We all know that. I assume you thought this would be controversial and cause people to get excited. But because you don't understand the material you are copying and pasting, you have shot yourself in the foot by confirming what is already known. I'm afraid you have been found guilty of TWI (Trolling While Ignorant). Time to move on.

There is no "fig. 15" either. He has obviously just copied and pasted it here. I doubt he even knows what all those strange symbols mean. Reerer, feel free to prove me wrong and (a) tell us where you copied this from and (b) explain, in your own words, what each of those equations means. Or, better yet, admit you have been rumbled and go and pester another forum.

It can go much further than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder But I wouldn't expect much sensible response from the OP. He appears to have copied this from someone who was trolling another science forum. I doubt he even understands most of the words he copies and pastes.

Yes. I thought I remembered an almost identical thread recently, but couldn't find it.

What name calling? You seem to have problems understanding what you read.

Your first post was amusingly stupid. Your later ones are just stupid. Maybe it is time to stop now, and move on. (But what on Earth is a Dradkkith / Drakkith?)

The antimatter particles created in particle accelerators cannot be trapped as they are travelling too fast. Also, that requires a vast amount of energy to recreate a handful of particles that would release almost no energy when they annihilate. I don't believe anyone has (seriously) suggested using antimatter for space travel. You might want to produce some evidence or references to support these claims. If you can harness that much energy, why not just use it for space travel? You are not going to get any more energy out of your "colliding stars" system than you put into it. I suggest you look up conservation of energy before going any further.

I suggest you look into QED. It has been described as the most accurate theory ever created. Huh? It is one of the most written about experiments of all time. (Google provide about 3 million results.) Pretty much every serious or popular discussion of quantum theory introduces it to show how "weird" quantum theory is. That and Schrödinger's Cat.

You said it was evidence. In what way? You seem to be saying that it shows QM is wrong or incomplete. And yet the experiment is perfectly consistent with QM. But I can see this could turn sour again. So I will leave it at that.

Huh?

I doubt it is "infamous". Not yet, anyway. An interpretation is just an informal description of the theory. No interpretation makes predictions. The theory does. And all interpretations of QM are based on the same theory. So, in as far as you can say any of them make predictions, they all make exactly the same predictions.

This would appear to be suggesting hidden variables. Bell's inequality shows that isn't possible. As this result is exactly as predicted by quantum theory (which is why the experiment was done, in the first place) I don't know why you think it means QM is incomplete. Your opinion doesn't count as evidence. Who are "they"?

What is "the theory of Copenhagen"? Do you mean the Copenhagen interpretation? That is just a description of QM, it doesn't make any different predictions than QM.

This (like most of your posts) appears to have nothing to do with either the OP's algorithm nor the travelling salesman problem.

Bazinga. Also, we can receive signals from Mars which is much further away. But maybe the OP thinks those are faked as well.

You will need to quantify this. What is the function that relates age to red-shift? Without that, your suggestion is untestable. Sorry, but you need to do some math. Nonsense. There are multiple independent ways of measuring the distance of objects and the associated red-shift. There are also other ways of measuring the Hubble constant, that have nothing to do with red-shift. The recent gravitational wave detection also confirms the value of the Hubble constant. Therefore, we can account for the Hubble factor and measure any redshift that is purely due to the age of the photons. There isn't any. Your proposal would also violate conservation of energy.

It isn't by current evidence. I'm not sure what you mean by "withoutHubble" but once you factor out the expansion of the universe, there is no change in frequency with age. So your hypothesis is falsified. This doesn't make much sense. What is T-n? What does "space approaches zero" or "space approaches infinity" mean? It sounds like "banana approaches 5", in other words meaningless.