Strange

What does that mean? The worst case error is only going to be in the least significant digit of the result. Why on earth would you use a bubble sort? This is a pathologically bad sorting algorithm. I thought the intention here was to produce an efficient algorithm. This is irrelevant if you are trying to produce an algorithm that runs in polynomial time instead of exponential time. The Java Math.hypot(x,y) function will calculate this without overflow. (Again, not relevant to performance.)

Then why would there any antimatter at all. Why not just say: "the universe started of with all matter and no antimatter". (Again, ignoring the meaninglessness of "singularities made of matter". But this, of course, still doesn't solve the problem. You would need to have an explanation for why the universe (your singularities) started out as all matter.

Ignoring the problems with "two infinite points" for the moment, you have basically "solved" the problem by using magic: "Why is there more matter than antimatter?" "Because more antimatter was destroyed" That doesn't answer anything unless you can explain why more antimatter was destroyed. That is the question that physicists are attempting to explain (via parity violation, and other things).

This almost deserves its own thread. The data from neutron star mergers will help pin down the value of the Hubble constant, perhaps resolving the current discrepancy in two very different ways of measuring it: https://www.quantamagazine.org/colliding-neutron-stars-could-settle-cosmologys-biggest-controversy-20171025/ The article is also an excellent overview of the current state of the art.

I didn't say either of those things. Then you need to produce a mathematical model of these two types of gravity and show how this fits the evidence. Without that, no one is going to take the idea seriously. And I didn't say that, either. There isn't much depth to your assertions to criticise. I have pointed out a few things that are factually wrong. As the rest is built (loosely) upon this, there is little chance of it being at all useful.

No one said it was. But your rejection of one class of explanations (even though they currently fit the evidence better) is a quasi-religious and unscientific stance. Why do you think it would offend anyone's beliefs. That is just silly. The only thing that "upsets" me is seeing people reject science as you do.

You may well believe that. But until you come up with a more accurate model than GR, no one cares. No we don't. To create mass, not matter. No. It really isn't. As for the rest: tl;dr. I'm afraid I ran out of patience with this long, uninformed essay.

This is a very long post with a large number of misconceptions. As it is so long, I hope you will forgive me if I just pick out a few of the more obvious. Firstly, it is not space that is curved, but space-time. This is important because it is the curvature of the time dimension that is mainly responsible for the effect we perceive as gravity. It is not accurate (or even meaningful) to describe this 4D curvature in terms of inward or outward. Finally, trying to intuitively understand or reach conclusions about GR by way of analogies such as half-inflated mattresses is doomed to failure. The "fabric" of space is (or can be) static. Gravitational waves are unusual and very, very small. (Actually, smaller than that.) So the idea that they could have the effects ascribed to dark matter or dark energy is implausible. You would need to do the math to come up with a convincing argument for this. Vague statements like "While gravity in the form of matter and Dark Matter inhabits the troughs, I suggest that Dark Energy represents the crests. The midline would represent the place where gravity transitions to Dark Energy, and begins pushing back against the trough- an opposite direction" are not convincing. No there isn't. Otherwise waves would not be stable. The rest of your post is too vague to really say much about. (Although the mods will probably move this to the Speculations forum where a lot more rigour is required.) I suspect because you are "not even wrong" and there isn't much to say about it.

I do not "believe" in dark matter. However, explanations for dark matter as some for of matter work better than current attempts to modify how gravity works. I would be quite happy if it turns out is not a from of matter but modified gravity (actually that might even be more exciting). To quote the astrophysicist Dr. Kate Mack: "Dark matter: still the worst theory except for all the other theories." She also said: "(Side note: interesting that so many non-physicists find complex modifications of fundamental forces more appealing than a new particle)". We have been here before with things that we can't see but can only observe the effects. Two obvious examples: Neptune and neutrinos. You are the one who is "religiously" opposed to the idea. Not sure why. Science just goes with whatever works best. Currently, that is "matter".

The neutron star collision was not gentle. They were moving at near the speed of light when they hit. You wouldn’t get any more matter and energy out than you put in. So it would be better to use the energy for travel rather than wasting it trying to collide stars.

Where did you copy this from?

It isn't. Apparently not: https://what-if.xkcd.com/98/

Why not explain your test? That might help just understand this concept. You do realise that concept has to be quantitative, I hope. Therefore you will need some maths to define the test. That equation is meaningless. Are Space() and Time() functions? If so, how are they defined? As you have a power of two in there, it shouldn't make any difference. That is your job.

You said there were only two possible values, 0 and infinity. That is binary. (Binary is not a "relationship".) Nonsense. Before relativity, most aspects of the universe were thought to be absolute. You have some vague metaphysical waffle but no testable model; in other words, no science. I suggest the mods close this threads for not meeting the forum's requirements for speculation.

Then you should be able to provide a reference. So is refraction and reflection and diffraction. It doesn't mean they are all the same thing though. They are different interactions. So you mean the study of optics and electromagnetic waves was impossible before photons were understood? We can explain the behaviour of waves without needing to resort to photons. The photon description is unnecessarily complicated in most cases. Sounds like you are stretching the meaning of "scattering" to mean "any interaction of light with an object". If you do that, then yes your "scattering" is the cause of refraction. But you will now need to invent a new word for the process of scattering, which is different from refraction (even though it is caused by your "scattering"). But trying to win an argument by redefining well-understood terms is a bit silly.

The "particles" are photons of electromagnetic energy. They have no mass, but they do have energy (and momentum) so they are not nothing. These "bullets" are photons and they don't interact with one another. The radio waves used by the phone are basically the same as light. You can shine two light beams through one another and they don't crash into one another. So the problem you imagine doesn't exist. And, of course, as Conway says, you can treat the signals from the phones as waves (which is actually much simpler) and they still don't crash into each other. They also use a broadband encoding technique so the receiver can separate out the signals from each phone.

And yet you claim to be able to deduce the intelligence of people just by looking at them.

The diagram clearly shows an interferometer with a laser, splitter and two mirrors. Is this a sensible way to detect "sound waves"? No. And the first sentence of the of the Wikipedia page you reference says: "The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) is a large-scale physicsexperiment and observatory to detect cosmic gravitational waves and to develop gravitational-wave observations as an astronomical tool.[1] " So, not sound waves.

"If I can read the title, I can understand the thread"

They are not sound waves. And they are not electromagnetic waves. They are not even gravity waves. They are gravitational waves.

I think you are being a little unfair. The equals sign is commonly used to mean "defined as" as well as "equal to". While I'm sure the notation could be improved, I think the meaning is fairly clear, especially given the examples (the "table" you objected to in the opening posts and others later). Maybe it would be better to say something like: every non-zero number, x, is represented by a tuple, X, such that X = (x, x). And so on. But this doesn't really make any difference to the argument presented. (Whether the result is valid or useful is another question.) To take your example, the number 25 would, in this system, be represented by the pair (25,25).

Not “and” but “or”. It can be describes bed either as a wave or in terms of photons. I suggest you read Feynman’s book, QED. It is ver readable and explains how refraction, reflection and diffraction work. Those are two different effects. You can have either one without the other. Are you confusing scattering with interaction? It is true that it is one possible description. But it also possible to describe most properties in terms of waves (without using photons).

Because if there were the amount required, it would be visible (by scattering light from stars, if nothing else). Free neutrons are not stable. Neutrinos are too fast moving. Any matter and anti-matter particles will annihilate one another, so yes. a) It is not stable. b) it would interact with light. A Twitter thread on the subject: https://tttthreads.com/thread/921073626757124096 And a blog post on why an alternative theory of gravity doesn't really answer the question (yet): https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/are-space-time-and-gravity-all-just-illusions-d1d088df6150 So, some form of unseen matter still seems most likely.

Just came across this blog post. If inflation happened then it suggests that a multiverse is inevitable: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-multiverse-is-inevitable-and-were-living-in-it-311fd1825c6