Strange

I would just point out that the invention is not in the public domain. Published != public domain.

Sigh. The first part you quote is about what people used to think. He then explains why that cannot be. He then goes on to equate space-time with "ether". This has nothing to do with photons or the luminiferous ether. All he is saying is that space-time has measurable properties. Photons are quanta of the electromagnetic field and he explicitly points out how this is different from what he is calling "the ether". However, none of this is science. It is just creating images to help people understand (or, apparently, misunderstand).

So you saw Anak Krakaota erupt. That must have been impressive (I have spent many years living in earthquake/volcano zones in different parts of the world). But what the hecking heck does it have to do with GPS? Why do you go off on these bizarre irrelevant tangents?

As you can't even do arithmetic correctly, I see no reason to take this seriously. Please show where science has studied and confirmed your claims.

Then the problem must be with your comprehension skills. He said no such thing.

I can only assume you haven't read his lecture. He said no such thing.

I suppose I need to be clearer: Citation needed.

Citation needed.

It doesn't matter what the idea is, it must be right because the herd are against it.

That is not an explanation, it is just an assertion. An assertion with no evidence and no reasoning behind it. This sort of claim is trivially easy to argue against. So, we can use exactly the same level of evidence and logical argument to provide an alternative explanation: The explanation of the universe can be found only in the universe. There, that was easy. Basically, this comes down to: "I believe god exists therefore she is the best explanation".

I think that trying to list things linearly is part of the problem. You probably need more of a tree structure. Or even a cyclic graph ... That's a problem. We don't know. I guess it could be useful as a starting point to discuss things. Rather than have a fixed diagram, maybe do the bits on separate pieces of paper and then move them around as you discuss how they relate to one another. He might come up with some great insights!

So there are no NP problems? Wow.

I agree that matter is more than just living matter. Also the organisation implies that planets are made from living cells. And galaxies are made of planets? What happened to all the stars? And why does physics only apply to atoms (which is probably physical chemistry, anyway). What about the physics of materials, planets, stars, galaxies, etc. Where is dark matter? Where is energy? Where is dark energy? Your listing of fundamental particles loses all the important structure around them. What is the difference between "atoms" and "elements"? The Planck scale label is far too close to the particles; it should be several feet off to the left. But apart from that .... interesting idea and welcome to the forum!

xkcd already did it: https://xkcd.com/435/

Is that second "time" supposed to be space or something? Otherwise the sentence doesn't seem to make much sense.

How is lightning relevant? Because it can reach temperatures of 2000C. Why is that relevant? Uhm...

A suggestion that tiny fluctuations of expansion and contraction can average out to reduce the effect of vacuum energy. https://www.universetoday.com/135570/new-explanation-dark-energy-tiny-fluctuations-time-space/ https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.103504 https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00543

That's weird. I remembered (and reported you for breaking the rules) so how could you not. Not really.

You obviously don't know what the word means. It wasn't.

Perhaps you could cite some specific experiments and point out the shortcomings in methodology?

A photon cannot be split up. That is where the "particle" nature comes in. The entire photon can be absorbed or the entire photon can be reflected.

I can't work out if you are being deliberately evasive (because your scenario is impossible) or you actually don't understand. There is one clock: your clock. It runs at different rates as seen by different observers. How can that be a mechanical effect in your clock? How can one clock (your clock) run at three different speeds? Even if your clock is a cheap Chinese one, that does not seem to be possible. If the atoms in your body are slowed down in the same way as the clocks are, and therefore all the chemical reactions slow by the same amount, then how would you NOT age more slowly. But now you are saying that the behaviour of electrons/atoms in a clock are slowed down, while those in your body speed up. Do you really think an electron knows if it is in a clock or a living cell? That is an insane idea.

This thread is sounding more and more like a chatbot - a series of not-quite-sequiturs picking up on random words in the previous post.

You can see the slots in the other track where they cross for the "extrusion" (flange?) to go through.

1. Why are the electrons and atoms in clocks affected but not those in your body? 2. Two people, A and B, moving relative to one another. A sees B's clock running slow and B sees A's clock running slow. How can that be a mechanical effect on the atoms? 3. You are stationary relative to me so your clock is not running slow. You are moving at 10,000 MPH relative to the Cassini probe so you clock is running a little bit slow. You are moving at 98% c from the view of atmospheric muons, so your clock is running really, really slow. How can a mechanical effect make your clock run at three different speeds?