Strange

Huh? The same amount of dark matter explains both galaxy clusters and galaxy rotation curves. It is also consistent with models of large structure formation, patterns in the CMB and various other things that I don't fully understand. And the density distribution of dark matter around galaxies matches both simulations of how dark matter behaves and the observed effects.

What if everything, all of space-time, has a finite volume (and a finite mass, finite number of atoms, etc.)?

It is called a PC. There is even a specialised version of Windows (Media Center) for this application. I think you can buy ready made systems based on this. There are probably a few dozen Linux equivalents if you want something that won't work out of the box.

True but rather missing the point.

That is an odd/interesting way of putting it, but basically yes. We can only say anything about a photon when we detect it. And I suppose that is true for a classical wave as well. The difference is that we don't have to destroy a wave to observe it (e.g. you can see the path of light through smoke).

What was the point of that? Most of your posts are pretty content free, but posting nothing at all?

You have (as far as I can tell from your rambling description) the same equation with Ti substituted for G. The value of G is both measured and regularly used for a wide range of applications (planetary motions, satellites, spacecraft, GPS, gravitational lending, and many experimental test of GR). As far as I can tell from description you have zero evidence that G is wrong and Ti is correct. And the evidence for this is ... ?

As a photon always moves at c then that is obviously wrong. In the classical description the wavelength (and speed) changes which causes refraction. I don't think that is true in the quantum view - refraction is due to the interaction of the photons with electrons but they continue to move at c.

As this is different from the measured value, your hypothesis/guess is falsified. Bad luck. (I might make other comments but as you have posted images rather taking the time to write something, then I can't be bothered either. )

It is based on an extrapolation of what general relativity says. But we are fairly sure that a theory of quantum gravity is needed to provide a more realistic description. It is almost certain that the singularity has no physical meaning/existence.

The banned users thread has some great put downs ...

Did you miss the word "repeated" ?

That's another way of avoiding dissenting views.

It's an invention of denialists?

Welcome to the club! As a new member you are entitled to one (1) free drink of your choice. I thought it might be because it said something that disagreed with him. "I know, I'll put it on my ignore list".

Excellent FAQ on some of the questions that have come up in this thread: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/5-questions-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask-about-the-expanding-universe-9433c4906a29 And this one on whether the "Big Bang" is the beginning or not: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all-81844b973333

And yet the entire article is about the impossibility of perpetual motion [machines]. You really shouldn't post this sort of drivel in the main science parts of the forum.

That is such a strange non sequitur it barely even counts as a straw man? why would you think such a thing? But are you saying you think a fast moving object would turn into a black hole?

Please show us the model that leads you to these conclusions.

And, once again, that is what I am doing. You are taking the meanings of the individual words "perpetual" and "motion" and assuming the phrase can be applied to something that continues moving perpetually. That is not what the phrase "perpetual motion" means. It s a bit like saying that it is always "full moon" because the moon is always full of rock.

Please explain your model and how it reproduces the results of the dual-slit experiment with single photons.

You can ask the question but you can't assume there is a single answer. Consider an atom of uranium 235. It is notable. It could decay in the next second or the next trillion years. The time it decays is random. It is pure chance. That could be the case with the entire universe. On the other hand, if you insist there is a purpose, then I would have to insist that the purpose is that Bokonon wanted it that way. Do you agree with me? Or we can say that there is no reason or purpose for things being the way they are. This is turning into another of your "I believe in God and therefore ..." threads, isn't it?

How odd. You want to state your "theory" but you don't want to provide any evidence or discuss it. Are you so convinced that you are right that you think people should just believe you with no reason?

But that is not what people normally mean by "perpetual motion".

Then you should study, fix your ignorance and learn what is possible. Ignorance and making stuff up is very rarely productive.