Strange

Why not?

Because it is a discussion forum, perhaps?

No.

I assume you just need to calculate the force between the charge at the origin and each of the other charges. Then calculate the total (addition). The force between the other particles doesn't seem to be relevant.

Firstly, dark energy is NOT the cause of expansion. It is placeholder for whatever causes the apparent accelerating expansion. (That should be put in a sticky post.) They are not "pegged" to their locations, but they will stay in those locations unless some force acts on them. Thus, in the absence of any force, they will drift apart. You can describe things in that way (it is a "coordinate transformation"). But it isn't used because it ends up being more complicated (there are complications like the speed of light changing over time, etc) and it is unintuitive (for most people - although there are a regular individuals with their "personal theories" based on the idea). As for the red-shift, in this model, it comes from the fact that the atoms (or whatever) were larger and hence the wavelength of the light was longer (redder) in the past. As it is a coordinate transform, anything that exists, or can be described, in one system also has an equivalent in the other. So, for example, you still need an equivalent of dark matter to explain the "accelerating shrinking of matter". Dark matter doesn't really push things. It just changes the energy density so that the expansion rate increases (the details of that are somewhat over my head). There is no higher dimensional space that we are embedded in (if there were, it would be fifth dimension, as the fourth is time ). To understand why, means getting your head round the tricky concept of intrinsic curvature. It is probably easier to think of the universe as being infinite. And then you don't have to worry about what it is expanding into, because it is already everywhere!

As it is, like solipsism, inherently unfalsifiable I would say that Occam's razor is the most obvious reason to ignore it. Apart from the fact that (like solipsism) it makes no practical difference and so can just be ignored.

This makes no sense.

The true religion is Bokononism. I know this because it is perfect. Therefore, your religion is false.

That is ironic, coming from the master of the tl;dr screeds of irrelevant nonsense.

Well, they match the predictions of the model. Which is why the model is accepted. As you have no model, and therefore no predictions, your idea cannot be tested and will, therefore, never be accepted. That is the trouble with choosing to remain ignorant, you condemn yourself to be ignored.

The land is not "white". Even if the majority of the population are, temporarily. Peoples move. Populations change. There is no land that belongs to "white" people in some absolute sense. p.s. as you say, there is no entitlement of particular groups to specific geographic locations.

Exactly. However, the verbal descriptions are just analogies or approximations of what the math describes. So you cannot really rely on them (especially the ones in popular science journalism) to gain anything beyond a conceptual understanding. I did miss. that. I think it is a good way of putting it. Rather insightful. The expansion is the equivalent of free fall; the natural state of motion in the absence of any opposing force.

A few things to note about this. 1. The "space falling" description is just an analogy for the mathematics. 2. This solution only works for a spherically symmetrical, unchanging, stationary mass (in an otherwise empty universe). But it is a reasonable approximation for many cases. 3. Also, it is identical (mathematically) to the more usual "curved space-time" description (the Schwarzschild metric). So there is nothing that can experimentally distinguish the "space falling" description from the "curved space-time" descriptions. The Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates tell you that. This has already been done. This has also been done: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/ (And it does. As expected.)

There's "white land"? News to me. Maybe it was a demonstration of precognition.

They won't. But, apparently, working out exactly what the gravitational effect of a moving object would be is non-trivial. Whenever this has come up on forums in the past the consensus view of those experts who could do the relevant math was always, "its complicated".

Note that when MigL says "weigh" he is automatically referring to weight rather than mass. Which is entirely reasonable. But may be confusing. But it might have been a bit clearer if the example had been the Moon, so you weigh 1/6th what you do on Earth (while it is in orbit). When the space-aliens steal the moon and accelerate it so the relativistic mass is the same as the Earth, you would still weigh 1/6th of your Earth weight. (For the reasons given by others.) Yes.

As someone who does not have a degree to wave, I am sick of hearing from people who are too lazy to actually learn anything and think that their fairy tales should be given as much credence as scientific models based on evidence. So I guess we are even then. That would require you to actually learn something about the subject. But that would require too much hard work, I guess.

That does not sound like any scientific description of black holes. (But God only knows what nonsense "atheists" could come up with.) If you try and extract energy from a magnet (not sure how you would do this) then eventually it will stop being a magnet.

What does that even mean?

What you believe is wrong.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. But it sounds wrong. In a vacuum the feather and the canonball will fall at the same rate and hit the floor at the same time. The time is not relative to the mass (or shape) of the objects.

That might be beyond the budget of a school science experiment, though...

Relative to what? Are you considering air resistance? In which case, the mass will make a difference because the terminal velocity will be higher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity

I would. Although you might want to read about the Pound-Rebka experiment.

It wasn't trying to detect the movement of space causing gravity. That is an idiotic assertion. It was an attempt to measure the luminiferous aether; i.e. the assumed medium for light. Nothing to do with space or gravity.