Strange

There is no edge to the universe in the big bang model.

No you didn't.

That's what it is like at the cutting edge of science!

It amazes me what some people think is "logic". Yep. That's a weird non-sequitur.

Re. the second column: What evidence do you have for multiple time dimensions? Re. the third column: I don't think you know what "dimension" means. What is a "temporal distributor"?

And the atmosphere in between the instruments and the ear, presumably. The cochlea contains a series of hairs which act as tuned detectors, each sensitive to a different frequency [range]. The brain analyses all those to put together the sounds we hear.

Given the size and mass (both largely determined by observations of the stars orbiting it) a black hole is about the only explanation. And it is not hidden from view. There is an ongoing project to image it: https://blackholeimager.gsfc.nasa.gov It is very hard to follow your threads when you jump between non-sequiturs like this. Equivalent measurements have been made in all sorts of ways, there is no evidence that it depends on orbiting the Earth. It has nothing to do with "clocks being affected". Nor by the movement through space. Time dilation is seen in fundamental particles (no moving parts).

I'm really baffled by the OP's repeated "but we can't answer these questions!" when we all know there are unanswered questions. So what is the point? Obviously not to propose an alternative. So, just a general complaint about the fact that science doesn't answer all questions?

I don't know. Microwaves are used to heat things. But on the other hand, the frequencies used by satellites are, to some extent, chosen because they are not absorbed by the atmosphere.

Whuh? I don't believe the polarisation of light has any effect on warming of the atmosphere (if that is what you are talking about). It is the fact that gases in the atmosphere (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc) absorb particular frequencies of infra-red radiation. And what do satellites have to do with anything?

I'm not sure about "probably". It must have happened. Or we wouldn't be here.

This.

Space is not a substance, just the distance between objects. It turns out that in a universe described by the equations of general relativity (as ours appears to be) that objects will tend to get further apart (*) over time if no force acts on them (and if there is an even distribution of matter). This is slightly counterintuitive, as we tend to a some that things will just stay "where they are". But this is the reason for expansion. Locally, things are held together by gravity and other forces, and so the expansion only occurs over very large scales, where these forces become insignificant. There is no "drag" from space. But it was generally assumed that gravity would gradually slow the expansion and start a process of collapse. But then it was found that the expansion is accelerating. This acceleration is attributed to "dark energy" - something unknown, but that can be modelled as an extra energy throughout the universe. (*) Or get closer together. Depending on energy density, initial conditions, etc.

Do you have any evidence for that? What measurable properties does this substance have? That is the fallacy of begging the question. If a distance changes between two points not separated by a substance then there is no substance to change, evolve, grow. That is all space is: distance. You are confusing space as the volume within which things exist (e.g. the fields that mediate the various forces) and the thing itself. OK. I might start calling it Fred. Space has 3 dimensions, not 4. Er, no. I can think of at least two others. Both of which has been around for one or centuries.

Exactly. The big bang model describes the cooling of the universe from an early hot, dense state. It says nothing about "creation". I would certainly disagree that it is a substance. Do you really think that a distance of 1 mile is made of something? The rest depends on what exactly you mean by those words. But I think I would disagree with most of it. All forces (fields) exist within space. If you want to consider that as meaning they are "carried" by space, then I guess that is up to you. But it is potentially very misleading. And, obviously, without space then matter and life would not exist. But saying that it is "the source" of those things seems wrong. You can, of course, call space "the ether" but it seems a bit pointless and potentially confusing. It certainly isn't the lumineferous ether. Even Einstein once described space-time as aether, but he went on to emphasise that it has no physical properties of a substance. And it doesn't make up all things.

And this is where you are being dishonest. Again. We do have some good ideas about some of the possible mechanisms. Even if there are some parts that are not yet understood, that is not the same as not knowing anything. And one day, we may know more. As you have no alternative, why not just let scientists get on with their research. And one day they may be able to answer some of your questions. Your "it's impossible" attitude is just negative and unproductive.

Of course, because you asked about the meaning. Exactly.

Isotropic is probably the more important aspect, in this case.

I don't think so. But I think the asymmetry would be visible from (nearly?) everywhere.

Or maybe it is just not economical. If someone could make money from it, they would (and the current administration probably wouldn't worry about a huge power-generation plant in a national park). Is that true? It looks like sea levels are rising (although I don't know how well that matches predictions). https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

The circuit can only represent positive integers, and therefore cannot store zero to represent the empty set. (If I have understood the definition correctly). Alternatively, zero is a positive (non-negative) integer. The circuit cannot represent the absence of an integer.

It means: each person will think their own religion is the true religion [and others are false]. Why would you need an example? (Which is why I asked for a counter-example.) No one is going to follow a religion when they think that one is false and another one is true. Are they?

I guess it might be a more efficient way of generating fuels (rather than electricity).

And that may be, at least partly, to do with the way they are treated on forums like this.

No. He didn't call science a religion (at least, not in that post).