Strange

It is a science forum. There are expectations that speculations will be science (i.e. evidence) based. Not just made-up nonsense with no basis in reality and that is contradicted by evidence.

That is a good attempt to clarify. Except ... we can see galaxies that are receding because of the expansion of space. More than that, we can see galaxies that are receding at more than c! But the key point you make is that you can no longer (directly) compare their relative speeds.

True. "Contracting space" is a poor analogy for the change in the coordinate system. That's why it is normally called "length contraction" because "length" is defined by the coordinate system (which contacts and therefore length/distance contracts). I read it. It was part of the evidence that contributed to my conclusion.

Distance is constant but can get longer or shorter. Got it. If you are moving from the Earth the the Sun, you will measure the distance as being less than someone on the Earth would. You have nothing to teach. You are either profoundly ignorant or just posting nonsense as a joke. (Tip: It's not very funny. You should try harder.)

Not if dx changes as well. (Which, if there is time dilation, it will.) This wilful ignorance and refusal to engage with the evidence is probably the reason your previous posts got shut down.

OK. So the analogy went completely over your head.

So you are saying that time is made of something? Why do you accept time dilation and reject length contraction when they are the same thing?

The distance travelled (dx, in your notation).

yes exactly That doesn't make any sense. If they measure the same speed, then it is the same speed. How would you feel if you were driving down the road at 40 MPH and the police used a radar gun to measure your speed as 40 MPH but then prosecute you for driving at 120 MPH (because they think the speed is different from what they measure). The whole point about measurements is that they are supposed to be objective. If you are going to say that, even if they measure the same speed it is not actually the same, then you are no longer doing science.

What? If you have time dilation then you also have length contraction. Because the two effects always go hand in hand. Because the speed of light is defined to be constant. Therefore it is impossible to have different observers measure different values for the speed of light.

All non-primes are the product of primes.

The coordinate length. In the same way that coordinate time changes. So they measure the same speed but think it is different. Got it.

As far as I know (but I have been corrected on things like this in the past) Einstein mainly derived the theory of special relativity on purely theoretical grounds. Basically the assumption that the laws of physics (and, specifically, Maxwell's equations) are the same whatever your location or state of motion. Particle decay, if it generates radiation at all, generates very specific wavelengths of radiation. There is no evidence or theoretical reason to think that space itself can generate radiation (this would appear to violate conservation laws). The CMB is a near perfect black body spectrum, which can really only be accounted for by a hot plasma. Why do you think it has been overlooked? It is a mainstay of popular science articles and there have been many variations of the experiment (for example, using light, electrons, molecules, with and without eraser, with and without delayed choice, etc.) https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22double+slit%22 More than 22,000 results. I wouldn't call that "overlooked". You can, of course, make up ad-hoc excuses for each individual bit of evidence. But when they all point int he same direction, that is a losing game in the end.

If you accept that time dilation occurs, then you should also accept that length contraction occurs. They have equal standing in special relativity. The fact that they disagree on clocks and lengths is because they measure the speed of light to be the same. The changes in length and time are calculated based on a constant speed of light, therefore you can't use them to show the speed of light varies.

The whole point is that all observers measure the same speed of light. This is what theory says and what measurements confirm. So claiming otherwise is just wrong. Today's Top Tip: if you think you have spotted a trivial flaw in special relativity then you are certainly wrong and have probably misunderstood something.

I think you have to have enough storage for the entire bit-string. You can't start putting out the reversed string until you see the end of it.

Nonsense. That is irrelevant to the question. Which was about energy. Nuclear fusion is pretty well understood. And also seems irrelevant (apart from the fact that the Sun and stars are powered by fusion reactions, I guess.) It isn't true. You are just displaying your ignorance.

I have always liked Curtis Mayfield's line "We people who are darker than blue" as nicely descriptive and slightly ambiguous (and with a nod to Homer's wine dark sea).

OK. Looking at it again, your numbers are approximately correct. (This could be a first. We should have some sort of celebration.) I apologise for assuming that every calculation you post would be wrong, based on past experience. The recessional speed is 71 km/s/Mpc and so at 2571 Mph it is 182,500 km/s or 06.c. At double that distance, it is 1.2c.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to show, but I bet it is wrong. You cannot add speeds linearly.

Because, if there is expansion of space and the galaxies are far enough away that this is significant, then you cannot compare their velocities without using GR to take the expansion into account. Therefore you cannot add velocities as you are doing.

Why bring black holes into it? How is that relevant? If a black hole absorbs some of the energy from the Sun (or another star) then that will increase its mass by the same amount. You are not making much sense.

This doesn't really make any sense.

So you want someone else to invent something (*) for you, and then you will generously share the proceeds from their invention with them. Sounds like a criminal scam to me. (*) Which appears to be something impossible, anyway.

I guess some people are so pathetic, the best they can do is "look how vile I am".