Strange

What? And where is the physics?

Accelerating expansion may be evidence that energy increases as space expands.

That attitude is about as intelligent as most of your posts.

Do you want try that again in English. I don't have any idea what it is supposed to mean. "You to know"? Not even grammatical. "make you thing"? What thing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_solution_(general_relativity) There is a significant list of "knucklehead" physicists there.

I don't think so; after all, gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. Don't think so. You remove the matter and the space-time curvature disappears (at light speed).

There is the concept of a black hole which only exists because of the energy in the gravitational field - no "extra" mass. But, in your example, although it is non-physical I think an answer could be that removing the mass would change the space-time curvature that stops information escaping such that the information about the changed mass can escape.

The motion round the galaxy isn't relevant because the other star would be following the same motion. As the observations were made of the same star from the same place, the motion due to the rotation of the Earth would be roughly the same (and is much smaller than the orbital speed, anyway).

There are zero-energy solutions to the Einstein field equations that describe space-time with no matter present -and one can see how space evolves over time in such models. Which seems to invalidate the claim that "time is obviously linked to matter".

Yes. That is exactly what I was commenting on. You prefer the vaguely remembered TV guy over science. That is bizarre. (Put me back on ignore, now.)

So the half remembered words of an unknown person glimpsed through a window decades ago is better than scientific evidence. Bizarre.

If they are paired to form a positronium "atom" then it will be a boson (like a hydrogen atom). I don't know if an entangled pair that are spatially separated would be considered a boson or not.

And the evidence for this is? And what makes that "absolute"? It is relative to "now". And "now" is different for different frames of reference. So what is your definition of the "relative universe"?

The clock tells you elapsed time. So less time on the clock means less time elapsed, no?

Yes: younger = less time elapsed. But this doesn't seem to answer the question which was about a natural equivalent of an odometer. (Sore feet, maybe. :))

I obviously completely missed the pint of the initial example. (And I still don't get it.) I thought it was supposed to show that you can't prove or disprove a physics hypothesis by pure reason. There was no box and so no mechanism to reveal.

Although David has been banned, here are a few comments: The initial summary in David's post is (amazingly) pretty much correct. (I'm sure he will claim not to know any of that when he pops up again.) As to the questions: 1. Immeasurably small. The universe will double in size in 13.8 billion years (ignoring the acceleration) so in 100 years it will cool by a factor of 100/13.8x109 or about 20 billionths of a degree. (Maybe someone better at the relevant maths will correct that if necessary.) And no. 2. The oven is an inappropriate analogy. The universe is not cooling because the heat is leaving the universe. It is cooling because it is expanding (the volume is increasing). This is described by basic thermodynamics.

OK. They use R for the scale factor, instead of the more usual "a". That explains it.

Citation needed. (In other words, it is bad form to copy something without giving a source.)

The equation you post appears to contradict that statement. The rate of expansion is increasing, which implies an increasing lambda. Also, where did that equation come from? It looks like, but is different from, the standard Friedmann equation.

The equivalent of showing a logical contradiction in mathematics is to show a contradiction with observations in physics. In reality, the ball doesn't shoot up and therefore the hypothesis "the proposition that gravity causes objects to fall to the ground is false" (reductio ad absurdum) is shown to be false.

Virtual particle pairs only exist temporarily. Also, they are evenly distributed but dark matter is not. Pair production requires a source of energy. The Big Bang happened because the universe was hot. The universe is cooling. Most models have dark matter appearing in the early universe, like normal matter. We can detect electron-positron pairs.

I think this is more a question for philosophy than neuroscience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

I interpreted it more as "independently of"; in other words, there isn't a larger (empty) space which the universe expands into, or a static space within which space-time curves. But I may well be wrong, and it is an interesting perspective either way. On. related note, a member of another forum answered the question "what is mass" with the answer "the curvature of space-time". In other words, in the same way that gravity is not a separate thing "caused" by curvature of space-time, mass is not a separate thing that causes space-time curvature. I thought that was an interesting perspective, too.

Without the source for the images, it is hard to say. I would guess that the last one was enhanced to show the presence of some particular wavelength or compound.