Strange

GR tells us that matter falls towards the centre of a black hole so I am not sure what your complaint is.

Then you claim that GR is wrong. Therefore you need to find an alternative explanation for all the things that are explained by GR. Yes. But the effects would be too small to measure. I have no idea what you are asking. Gravitational lensing is caused by matter. I think we can agree that matter is real? Is this a reference to the fact that we can detect dark matter by gravitational lensing? That is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that dark matter is some form of matter rather than just the fact our theory of gravity is wrong. But it is always possible that some alternative explanation will explain that as well.

Science is a process for gaining information about the world in a rigorous, evidence-based way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method I guess "bad science" could describe a lot of possible ways that people might depart from that. For instance by faking evidence, or ignoring evidence that disagrees with the hypothesis or using bad statistical methods. Pseudoscience is something that tries to sound like science but doesn't pay any attention to the scientific method. Typically it uses a lot of "sciency" words but without really understanding them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

There is no evidence (or explanation) for the "creation" of the universe. If you mean, "how could the universe grow to be that big in that time" then I'm not sure what the problem is. Imagine that, at some point, the observable universe was 1mm across (and is now 96 B light-years across) then at that time, the whole universe would have been 150 times larger (150mm) and would now have grown to 14 trillion light years.

Thanks for putting that so succinctly. I was going to say more, but I thought it might end up getting into different types of infinity, the continuum hypothesis and so on!

Maybe you should read the article: "And what they teach us is that not only is the Universe consistent with being flat, it’s really, really, REALLY flat! If the Universe does curve back and close on itself, its radius of curvature is at least 150 times as large as the part that’s observable to us! Meaning that — even without speculative physics like cosmic inflation — we know that the entire Universe extends for at least 14 trillion light years in diameter, including the part that’s unobservable to us today."

On a more constructive note, it sounds like you are swapping expanding space for a changing "rate of time". My (limited) understanding is that this is a well known coordinate transformation but it is not often used because (for most people) it is a less intuitive model and it can make things more complex (e.g. the speed of light is not constant).

I apologise. My first sentence was intended as mildly humorous comment on some (most?) who come here with their personal theories. I should have left it there and not made it personal.

I wasn't aware of this before. According to this article it is because "when people of different backgrounds marry and produce offspring, it creates more types that are harder to match". https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marrow-donors-rare-for-mixed-race-patients/ So you would need a large number of donors of similar mixed heritage to have a chance of finding a matching type. I think this is because there are a whole set of genes that determine tissue type, so if you have people from a wider range of backgrounds you have more combinations that you have to try and find a match for.

That is a good description of people with no education trying to come up with their own "theories". But it is so much easier than actually learning the necessary maths and physics.... (The idea that you could have learned enough mathematics to understand GR is 6 months is hilarious.)

According to this, the diameter is at least 150 times larger than we can observe http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/18/how-big-is-the-entire-universe/ it doesn't have any effect on the size. It does change the answer to your question "Infinite number of finite observable Universes?" (which doesn't seem a very useful question)

I see no evidence of that. Your descriptions of GR, for example, appear to bear no relation at all to the actual theory.

well, if you can't explain why swansont's answer was inadequate then I don't know how anyone can give you a better answer.

Which comment? They all seem to be addressed to your question. (Apart from the little diversion about whether I had been too harsh; I am willing to concede I was. And now you are back, I apologise.) In what way do the comments (especially the excellent one from swansont) not answer your question?

We don't know. This is a false dichotomy. Even if the universe is finite, there could be an infinite number of observable universes (as long as space isn't quantised). As the universe beyond our universe is not observable, I'm not sure the the question can ever be answered. Maybe there was no "creation". Maybe the universe has always existed.

You may be right. I missed: "what if there is no third law", implying the rest of the text is hypothetical or contrafactual.

EINSTEIN not eneisteins YOU not u And it has already been explained. You just refuse to accept the explanation (or are incapable of understanding it). Your English is execrable.

Dark energy (if it is energy) must be positive energy to have the effect it does.

Why? It simply describes the fact that light is quantised; i.e. either the whole photon is absorbed or nothing. It doesn't mean they are little balls.

That is because apparent or relativistic "mass" is just a way of measuring energy. It is not really mass. Photons are massless.

OK but how is that relevant to relativity?

Please show where this is part of the theory of relativity.

"Supposedly genetic" might be more accurate.

But the whole point is that Itoero claimed mass is not conserved "because it is information". Which is clearly wrong.

Start a new thread on the scientific method if you want discuss this. That is not the definition of eugenics. Also, "because of genes" is a bit meaningless. Do you mean "determined by genes" or "genes may have some influence" or something else.