Strange

0.5c + 0.5c does not equal c

It also fails to account for the fact that velocities do not add like that.

Just answer the question.

Why does it affect the clocks we use to measure, but not the cells in our body? So, here is a thought experiment. You are travelling at, say, 98% of the speed of light. According to your hypothesis, your clock would run slow, but your body would not. Therefore, you would be able to see that your clock was running slow; e.g. by comparing your heart rate (which is not affected) with your clock (which is). Is that correct?

Your idea doesn't make sense because this is a theory of relativity. So if a spaceship comes flying past you, you will see its clock run slow. You say that is a mechanical effect caused by the motion of the spaceship. But the people on that ship will see their clock run normally but will see your clock run slow. So how can that be a mechanical effect on the clock, when people disagree about which clock is affected?

well, we know a single photon can be released from pint A and detected at point B. So "vibrating in place" doesn't seem a very sound idea. On the other hand, we can't say anything about where the photon is between A and B. To calculate what happens, you actually have to calculate every possible path the photon could take (out to the black hole at the centre of the galaxy, doing a couple of orbits and then back again). so it seems like they are genuinely non-local until they interact with something. If you want to call anything the aether, then it should be the electromagnetic field. It is everywhere, and it is "the thing that waves" (crudely). Photons are just (quantised) disturbances in that field.

You said "everything". But previously you said it only affected "mechanical atoms" and not "living atoms". So, is it everything or is it only atoms that are dead? No one is going to disagree with that. So I'm not sure what your point is. (Note that the people carrying the clocks will also be "reading different times"; i.e. have aged differently. Otherwise we would see our clocks slow down. Which doesn't happen.)

I don't see how a few psychotic, murdering gangs could be the end of civilisation. I would be more worried about N Korea.

If space were that "stiff" then, presumably, it would not just be detectable but would be bloody obvious. Gravitational waves would not propagate in the same way, for example.

Yes. And does "everything" include living bodies?

You can state that. But the only justification you have given is the surreal "living and reproducing atoms" one. As we know that is not true, you either need to admit that all atoms behave the same (and therefore all systems will be slowed in the same way) or come up with something ever so slightly more plausible. How can a water clock, a candle clock, a pendulum clock, a spring and escapement clock, an atomic clock and every other sort of clock slow down (by exactly the same amount), but a biological clock (heartbeat, brainwaves, biochemical reactions, etc) not slow down?

Not necessarily. It could have existed in some sort of metastable state for an infinite time before then. Or (as she attempt to medal quantum gravity show) it could have existed for an infinite time getting asymptotically denser. Or it could be the result of a "big bounce". Or ...

So, the atoms in a machine are different from the atoms in a human body. Got it. That makes perfect sense. After all, we hardly know how atoms work. The idea that they are colonies of little reproducing animals should revolutionise chemistry. I expect your Nobel Prize is already on the way.

Context, for those(*) who had no idea what this was about: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/does-new-glass-battery-accelerate-the-end-of-oil (*) Me.

Why are the atoms in a clock different from the atoms in your body? What makes you think that the movements of fermions in a human body wont also be affected, by being in a gravitational field or moving through it.

I thought you might want to explain what you are doing, show the calculations and, you know, discuss it. What with this being a discussion forum. If all you want to do is make implausible claims and post code samples, then I suggest a blog.

Other OS versions available here: http://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB4012598

Sadly, the predators seem to have made enough money to have that taken off line.

My view is that you should provide details of this experiment.

If you are just going to insist that there are no relativistic effects when there obviously are, then this is pointless. We know relativity works, so why deny it?

If by "no distinction" you mean that they both see the same time dilation and length contraction in the other ship, then that is correct. You should not be surprised by this. It is a result of the "no preferred frame" you mentioned before. All frames are equivalent. Wrong. They both notice the same relativistic effects. As you said earlier: And there will be. What makes you think otherwise? Of course they do. What makes you think they don't? There are two answers to this depending which frame of reference you use. If you see a spaceship moving at v = 0.2c then the difference between v and c is 0.8c. This tells you absolutely nothing useful. However, the people on the spaceship will see their velocity as 0 and therefore the difference from the speed of light is c. This actually tells you something very profound about the way the world works.

I don't think time has energy. (And there is no edge of the universe.) But one possible explanation for "dark energy" is that space has an inherent energy density. So, as the universe expands, the amount of dark energy increases and expansion accelerates.

It is not clear that there are objective moral values and duties. However, to the extent that there are, I see no need for a god to create them. They can arise from the fact that we have feelings for and sympathy with others. We therefore feel it is good to treat them well - partly because it may be reciprocated, but also just because we can feel their suffering. And why would we have that empathy with others? Evolution. It is a benefit to the whole species if individuals look after each other. It is not clear that the universe has an origin. What if it has always existed? Why not just the fact that the world behaves in regular ways, which can therefore be described. If the universe were random and chaotic (beyond any form of description) then we wouldn't be here to ask the question. There is no evidence that the universe is fine tuned.

I don't think you can isolate a group from the larger context. Take starvation, for example. The ultimate cause is, ultimately, a failing of government. Yes, you can say that the immediate cause is the lack of rainfall for 6 months, and the fact that there were no reserves of food, and the roads aren't good enough and ... But why isn't there resilience in the system? Why are the population dependent on subsistence agriculture? Why isn't there a good educational system with the resulting variety of economic activity and hence jobs? Why aren't there (internal) mechanisms for providing short-term support to get over (what should be) a minor crisis before it turns into a disaster?

If you are not interested in discussing this, what is the point of this thread? Just another demonstration of how little you understand?