Strange

That is one possibility. Or a finite view of a larger finite universe. (It could even be that the entire universe is smaller than the observable universe, and when we see very distant objects, our view has "wrapped around".) I don't know what that means.

Rate of displacement, speed of separation, call it what you like. You cannot describe expansion in terms of speed. I don't think so. And if you were able to apply calculus, you would know that gravity cannot pull something apart from the outside.

60 SECONDS LATER... OK, it's still nonsense.

The concept of a graviton is hypothetical. If it were theoretical, we would have solid evidence of its existence. The graviton (if it exists) would be a quantum of changes to the field, not a field itself. And it would be a boson. And so its energy would be defined by the frequency of the radiation. Same way that magnetism can get through an opaque material. 1. Forces are mediated by VIRTUAL particles (I think you have been told this before). Virtual particles are not particles, they are misleadingly named mathematical constructs. 2. Gravitons do not have to (and could not) get out of a black hole., The black hole's gravitation field is outside the event horizon. And that is where the virtual gravitons would do their job of mediating the force.

The current model is just that: a mathematical model based on well-tested physics. You seem to have some vague fairy tales based on a confused understanding of physics. I'll stick with the science, thanks. You could ask the mods to move it to Trash, if you think that is a better fit. There certainly isn't any science here. The observable universe is increasing in size: the cosmological horizon is receding and, in future, more galaxies will be visible. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

The light originated from a point about 4.5 billion light years away. It took the light about 13 billion light years to reach us because the distance was increasing as light travelled. By now, this galaxies are about 46 billion light years away.

That would mean that there are some parts of the universe that are empty. As far as we know, the universe is, and always has been, uniformly full of matter. Write out 100 time: expansion is not a speed. Expansion is described by a scaling factor (i.e. each unit of time, distances are multiplied by a constant factor). This, by basic arithmetic, leads to the result that the speed of separation between two points is proportional to distance. So, yes there is a distance (within the observable universe) where galaxies are moving away from us at more than c. You read somewhere? #facepalm All the matter that exists now is all the matter that has ever existed. (The amount of matter created and destroyed by nuclear reactions is insignificant.) There is a limit to what we can see. Beyond that, the universe is assumed to continue pretty much unchanged (and is either finite or infinite). I am not aware of any inverse square law related to expansion. Do you have a reference to this? Gravity doesn't work like that. Ask Newton.

But maybe that "other person" (and their confirmation) is an illusion as well. Solipsism may seem to be a rather foolish idea but it can't be disproved and, as we can see from this discussion, it does have a role in teaching critical thinking.

Indeed, part of the pragmatics of language is that there is an assumption that each party will say something relevant and meaningful (see Grice's Maxims, for example). Maybe this is what the good Dr means by "truth". But I am not sure a probability can be assigned to that except by some sort of pst-hoc analysis (which appears to be the opposite of what he suggests). In short, I wish Dr Dick would get on and explain his ideas in more detail, instead of this repetitive drip-feeding of morsels. It is clear there are many people here capable of understanding, and willing to consider, his ideas. If only we would be told what they were...

You should probably read this, on common misconceptions about the size of the observable universe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions_on_its_size

Stuff cannot pull outward from every direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem In fact, this was why Newton concluded the universe must be infinite: that is (in Newtonian physics) the only stable configuration. However, you are right in that that both gravity and expansion have the same underlying cause: the physics of space-time. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

OK. Well, lets see which version of arithmetisation Dick means. And then what the claimed consequences are ...

Which seems to be what Dick is suggesting. So "dog" would have different index numbers for when it was a species of canid, when it referred to the adult male of that species, when it referred to a poor quality of merchandise, when it meant an unattractive person, when it was used as a verb meaning to follow, and all the other possible meanings. Then each of those nouns would need two numbers (in English) for when it was the subject or the object of a sentence. And another when it was neither. (No, make that six to allow for singular or plural.) And in other languages these could be multiplied by much larger factors for all the different cases. And the various verbal meanings would need different values for transitive vs intransitive, tense, mode, voice, and all the other possible modifications that can be made to a verbal form. Added to that, the role of some words can be ambiguous in many cases so you might have a choice of two representations with no way of deciding which was intended. I don't know if that is what Dick intended (or if he will just complain about us introducing yet more extraneous ideas into his thread) but if so he did not explain it well. I am not sure it is possible because, for example, how would it handle recursion where an entire sentence can become the subject or object of another sentence. You would need some way of marking that sublist with its grammatical function. And I just don't think that the grammar of natural languages can be codified like that. (Look at all the problems with machine translation, etc.)

I am not convinced that any "thought" can be expressed like that. Certainly any sentence (or a random collection of words) can be represented by a list of numbers. But maybe that is all you mean. I'm not sure what you mean by the word "truth", especially as you put it in scare quotes. Communication does not require the statement to be true, it does not require either individual to believe the statement is true. The message could be a question, which does not have a truth value. So could you expand on what you mean by "truth" in this context? I am not sure this is true. For example, your list of number (indices) must retain the order of the original list of words. And the receiver must understand the grammar of the language (and probably a lot of other context) in order to extract meaning from from the list of numbers. In other words, the receiver must fully understand the structure of the language in order to make use of your system.

Have you checked that the data is actually being sent in the order you think? The other possible/likely problem is with pointers to buffers. The sort of pattern of random bits of data being wrong/missing is typical of a buffer allocation problem. How are you allocating the buffer that the received data goes into? Are you sure the pointer you are using to read that data is pointing to the right place? Is the buffer being created in a called function and then used by the caller (in which case it will get corrupted)? Check the value of the pointer when the data is received and when you read it / print it out.

Yes, of course, you must be right.

That is exactly what MigL just said.

IF the field (space-time) could be quantised, then the interaction (curvature of space-time) could also be described in terms of the exchange of virtual photons. I am not aware that it does. None. It can't. As the graviton would be massless, it would travel in straight lines at the speed of light. "What does it look like" doesn't make much sense. Any "image" of a fundamental particle is a poor analogy. It would be a real particle, a boson. Its interactions (gravity) would be mediated by virtual particles (i.e. not particles). I don't think it can accumulate energy. (I think the photon is unique in coming in a range of wavelengths/energies. Although, obviously, massive particles can gain kinetic energy by being accelerated.) No. As others have said, this is just nonsense.

Another incomprehensible post. https://translate.google.com You show little sign of having learned much.

Your imaginings and hallucinations are worthless without evidence.

And it does work. I used to work in a lab with windows on two sides facing south and west. It was unbearably hot in summer until they put that semi-transparent film on the winds. After that, it was merely hot! (They only did it because they had bought some expensive new electronic equipment that would not work in those temperatures. Not because of our comfort...)

That sounds completely different, non-junk and quite delicious!

No, it started much smaller and expanded. That is what "expansion" means. There is no edge. And if there were an edge, the universe would be finite, not infinite, contradicting your initial claim. Exactly. That is why it is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you mentioned it. Expansion is not a speed, it is a scaling effect. The speed of separation of any two points is, as you stated earlier, proportional to their distance. It took about 380,000 years for the universe to expand and cool enough to become transparent to light. You seem to have some very confused ideas about cosmology...

This is true. But it is also true for a finite universe. We have no way of knowing if the universe is finite or infinite. This is known to be true. (And saying it is indicative of an expanding universe is a circular argument (i.e. begging the question) because you start by assuming speed increases with distance. No. Olber's paradox applies to a universe that is infinite but static. Expansion does away with Olber's paradox. That doesn't seem to make much sense.

This. Only if you have no interest in science.