Strange

You say this (even though it is impossible) but then: If you believe that, then it implies you accept general relativity. Special relativity is just a special case (simplification) of general relativity. So you are being inconsistent in accepting a more complex case, but not the inevitable simplification. This hardly seems rational.

As English is obviously not your first language, I think you need to look up the word "dome" in a dictionary. It is very clearly not what you mean. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dome Perhaps one of these: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/plane Or maybe: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/plateau

We already have another thread on this topic: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/104528-what-is-the-likelihood-that-this-universe-is-a-simulation/page-2 Not sure why these childish ideas interest people so much, though ...

Er, yes it has.

You might as well believe it is caused by invisible pink unicorns. That would be slightly more realistic. Apparently.

No one knows. RNA.

Although the wavelength is a classical idea, the wavelength of individual photons can be measured (see, for example, the dual slit experiment). As the photon is able to pass through both slits, which are a macroscopic distance apart (multiple wavelengths) it cannot be "really really small".

I don't see why. The only parameter that you could interpret as being the "size" of a photon is the wavelength. This is much, much, much bigger than the Planck length.

As far as I know, there is no way of defining the size of a photon. It isn't localised, until it is detected (at which point it no longer exists). That is not what "0 point" means in "0 point energy". Zero point energy is the lowest possible ("zero point") energy level. It turns out that it is not zero.

"There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length There is no connection between these concepts.

Then why talk about energy? And there is no evidence that there is a smallest possible measurement. All attempts to test if space is quantised have failed.

Energy is measured in joules, not cubic metres.

Correct. Space isn't a thing. Lines don't exist. All we have are the measurements and coordinate systems. (I forgot you have an aversion to using the words space and time to mean the coordinates we use to measure space and time.) But not an error because it It doesn't make any difference. It is just a change in the words. No, the lines are in the time dimension. They are lines from the past to the future. These are known as world lines. Yes. (Although time doesn't really "pass" in this description, but that's good enough.) The line is your position in space in the chosen coordinate system. As the line curves, your position, relative to other things in the coordinate system, changes. I'm sorry if my explanation doesn't help you get the general idea. Perhaps the only alternative is to master the mathematics (but that will probably take you several decades!)

What we perceive as gravity is the curvature of space-time. Imagine two parallel lines that stretch from the past into the future. Each line represents a different location in space. As you move along your line (as time passes) the two lines will stay the same distance apart and you stay in the same (relative) spatial position. Now, if there is some mass present on the other line, then this will cause a curvature of space-time and the lines will no long be parallel but will curve towards one another. As you move forward one your line, you will move towards the other line; i.e. towards the mass. You will interpret this as the force of gravity making you fall towards it.

I think you would. Otherwise you wouldn't know where Mars is, you wouldn't know where it is going to be and you wouldn't know what direction your rocket was going.

Just because you cannot see it does not make it a black hole. A black hole has a very specific meaning related to the curvature of space-time (or the amount of mass within a volume). It is not just something you can't see.

This is actually a very good point. Analogies can only highlight a limited number of ideas. In the balloon analogy these are: 1. You can have something with a limited size (the surface area) without a boundary/edge. 2. Everything moves away from everything else as the area expands. But you have to: A. Expand the idea from 2D to 3D (not easy) B. Remember that the balloon does not exist (there is no "substance" that galaxies are stuck to) C. Remember that there is no inside or outside "the balloon"

The universe outside the observable universe is still part of our universe. The "multiverse" idea is quite different (and has no evidence). I don't see why. The big bang model doesn't say that. There is no theory that says there was nothing before the universe.

It is generally assumed that the universe outside the observable universe is pretty much the same as what we see. There is no reason to think otherwise. Fair point.

OK. Space doesn't expand, but the distance between things increases. Is that better? Note that distance is made of nothing but it increases. But I assume that's not a problem?

I think the problem is that you have a very limited resolution (at the pixel level). So if we assume that 0.8 is the correct shift for 5424A, then the expected shift at 5371A is about 0.808. You won't be able to see the difference between this and 0.8. So for quite a range of values, you will see the same shift. That doesn't look right. Wouldn't the amount of shift be different at each wavelength?

Citation needed. The increasing size of the observable universe is not the same thing as the expansion of space. (Although it does depend on the rate at which expansion occurs.)

Four grades. You forgot Harshy McHarshFace

You will never accept that either your premises or your conclusions are wrong. Even when the evidence says you are wrong, you just ignore it. But you used them wrong.

I'm not good with analogies. But the first one sounds reasonably accurate (as long as you are only considering the 2D surface of the balloon as an analogy for 3D space.) The second sounds wrong. None of which has anything to do with black holes. The mathematics of a black hole is quite different from an expanding universe.