Strange

If you extrapolate back to time 0 (without taking quantum effects into account - because we don't really know how to do that) then everything is "at the same place" (i.e. with zero volume). That is not thought to be realistic. At the earliest time we can plausibly extrapolate back to (the 10-43 seconds, you mention - although missed the minus sign!) the observable universe would have been very small but not zero sized. This is a very, very good question. And one of the unanswered questions. For the universe to be as homogenous as it appears to be, it would be necessary for it to be in thermal equilibrium, meaning light could travel from one side to the other. If the universe was too large the would not be possible. This is the reason that an inflationary phase was suggested: the universe could have been small enough to be in equilibrium and then expanded very rapidly to match the early size we see. (That may all be a bit vague, but it is not a topic I know a lot about.) I think there are two reasons why the explosion idea doesn't work. The distribution of velocities of the matter in space would not match what we see even if we were at the centre of the explosion. Secondly, the theoretical idea of space expanding (and various predictions based on that) came first and then the evidence was found that was consistent with that.

Thanks!

It might disagree with what you think they said ... The axions must have the same energy as the photons.

You could extrapolate from this: "At the Moon's surface, the beam is about 6.5 kilometers (4.0 mi) wide[9]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment I am guessing that at that distance, the laser would be imparting minimal momentum to the light sail and so trying to use it to slow down would have negligible effect.

Just a quick request: when you post an image like that, could you include a link to the source. The context is sometimes important. For example, the graph seems to be talking about the size of the observable universe, even though it doesn't explicitly say that. The source material may make that clear (or maybe not). The observable universe is about 93 billion light years in diameter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Size

Thank you. Praise, indeed!

Think of buoyancy as an analogy: as air pressure pushes down on a balloon (or beer pushes down on a bubble) it rises rather than being pushed down. Because it has less mass than the background "field" (atmosphere/beer).

I can support everything I said with references. But given your attitude, I don't think I will bother. You are the only one who has been aggressive. Apparently not: "ancient Egyptians "closely resembled ancient and modern Near Eastern populations, especially those in the Levant, and had almost no DNA from sub-Saharan Africa. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt#Population Again, that is not how evolution works. Again, apparently not: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/rice/historyofrice/spread

Well, I suppose one of those describes me ...

Because there is not a simple relationship between torque and voltage. Yes, the speed will increase. But by how much?And how will that be affected by the current speed? And by loading? And temperature? Also, how do you propose to control the voltage? It would be much more efficient to use a multiphase DC motor where you have have precise control of the torque generated.

It is not used often because the advantages (cost, weight, etc) outweigh the advantages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual-wheel_drive It is not that simple.

Oh well I suppose that's the way young people say "thank you" nowadays. I thought you would welcome some factual information on evolution and linguistics. You're welcome.

Because rubidium atoms have (positive) mass. They can be made to behave as if they had negative mass. In the same way a hole (absence of an electron) has an effective mass even though it doesn't exist. And, MigL was right, there is no such thing as negative currency.

Where did you get this fairy tale from? Lemaitre was a professor and a professional astronomer and physicist. Who didn't trust hem? Who preferred a "non religious posterboy"? I don't think it matters much whatever medium the paper is published in. As long as it is a good quality paper backed up by evidence. And of course, you have evidence of that? Or is it something unproven that you believe? Lemaitre's work was published so he seems to have been taken pretty seriously. Well, I don't think there is anything to reconcile, either. (As examples like Lemaitre, Paul Davies and many others show.) So maybe we can agree on that.

The full paper is available here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11926557_The_Heritability_of_Attitudes_A_Study_of_Twins No. There may be heritable factors but that's all.

Interesting. It looks like the new forum software tracks +s and -s separately rather than just the balance. And adds a (redundant?) "like" option.

I would have thought that anyone on a scientific forum, with n understanding of science, would assume that is what was meant. We can't hedge every single statement around with "seems", "as far as we know", "is not consistent with the evidence", etc

It is hard to prove a negative. Do you have any evidence that they are "condensing"?

Why not? His work was pretty "modern". You had better tell that to all the Christian and Moslems who do exactly that. I'm sure they will be thrilled to know they are not "real".

There is no evidence for this.And it would violate conservation of energy. Why do you keep repeating it? From that link: So, you are right. They don't speculate. They use chemical analysis.

OK. Let's assume, despite your evasiveness, that you agree that there are no contradictions in relativity or quantum theory, and move on. Can you clarify whether you mean that electromagnetic radiation is not quantised, or just that the quanta of electromagnetic radiation is something other than a photon? Are you saying that the quantum of the electromagnetic fields the electron? Or have I misunderstood this?

Pretty much, yes. Everything is moving away from everything else rather than away from some central point. The latter would not match what we observe. This us based on the idea that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

Two things. I think it is important to establish/clarify the basics of your idea. If you think that there are real paradoxes (i.e. contradictions) in existing theory then that needs to be corrected before going further. If you can't answer a simple question (I am guessing a one word answer would have done) without getting defensive (and offensive) then it doesn't bode well for further discussion of the details.

I have no idea. Why do you think I am asking? (And would it be possible to drop the insults?)

I can search for paradoxes related to special relativity but I can't be sure that what I find will be the same thing that you are talking about. Why is it so hard for you to answer the question? You obviously have a specific paradox in mind. I guess a couple of the more famous so-called paradoxes are the "barn door paradox" and the "twins paradox". Is it either of these you are thinking offer something else? (Neither of these are actually paradoxes, of course. There cannot be paradoxes in special relativity because it is mathematically consistent.)