Strange

I tried watching your video (I don't usually bother). It shows some fuzzy, handheld and illegible pictures of books and then an incomprehensible and unexplained animation of "bullets". As light doesn't behave like bullets, I don't know what it is intended to show. But, basically, if you are not able to present arguments that are based on the mathematics of relativity (which you clearly aren't), then I think they can just be ignored. All you are saying (again) is: "I don't understand relativity so I am going to make some stuff up which I think proves it wrong". And, again, all this does is demonstrate your ignorance.

The scale factor is a dimensionless number so I suppose it is absolute in some sense. There is, as far as I know, no theoretical upper limit to the rate at which the universe expands. During ht inflationary period it was very large (Mordred can probably put a figure on that!) The need for a "but" comes from your ignorance. You MUST learn the basics before assuming that you are right and hundreds of years of physics are wrong. Again. The speed limit of the speed of light comes from special relativity. Which means that it is a local limit (in flat space, with no gravity, in inertial frames of reference). It just doesn't apply in cases that have to be described using general relativity (such as cosmological expansion).

Our thoughts do not create matter. It isn't.

The universe may be infinite, in which case it has no edge. Or it may be "finite but unbounded" meaning it has a topology that has no edges. The best analogy is to consider the 2D surface of the Earth (just the surface). This has a finite area but there is no edge - you can travel as far as you like in any direction (you may end up where you started from). That area could increase (expand) without needing an edge. It is. It is the redshifted radiation from a plasma that was at about 3,000 degrees.

Well, you could say that the "updated formula" is GR, and specifically the FLRW metric.

1. Yes 2. No Expansion is a scaling effect. The "speed" of expansion is proportional to how far away you look. At the Hubble distance the speed is c. Beyond that it is greater then c (and we can see galaxies receding at more than c).

As you say, SR doesn't apply on cosmological scales, so the expanding/ accelerating universe makes no difference. Calculations on that scale are derived from GR. Andromeda is blue shifted because of relative motion in our local cluster.

But I wonder what the relevance to the subject of the thread is.

So it is plausible if you can believe three impossible things. Please show how you calculate the speed. (Remember that as radius increases, orbital speed decreases.) And what is the relevance of this orbital speed? That makes no sense at all. Citation needed.

OK. I think I see what you are getting at. Lets consider two people, A and B, who are moving relative to one another. A will see B's clock running slow and B will see A's clock running slow by the same amount (lets say 10%). Now if we also say that that A is at a higher gravitational potential than B such that it causes 10% time dilation, then A will see B's clock running at the same speed, while B will see A's clock running 20% slower. (I think.)

Maybe you could restate the question more clearly? (The last part of the opening post made no sense at all, to me.)

You need to be clear whose year you are talking about. And do the necessary arithmetic, rather than guessing at numbers. If you spend a year travelling at 50% the speed of light, it will feel like a year to you. If someone else is traveling at 50% of the speed of light, relative to you, then after a year of your time about 10 months will have passed for them.

Huh?

But you have the wrong value for v. How did you calculate it?

Then why not just use the equations.

Note that expansion is not a speed, it is a scaling effect. Therefore (by simple arithmetic) the speed of separation is proportional to distance. So at some distance, the expansion will be 0.3c, at the particle event horizon it is about 3c, beyond that it is 4c, and so on. Consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light. There is local motion within our galaxy cluster, which means that some galaxies are moving towards one another. On cosmological scales everything is moving away from everything else and so there is only red-shift. Radiation from active black holes comes from the accretion disk around the black hole, not from within the black hole.

It is not clear where you get the numbers for the KE equation, but they are clearly wrong.

I wonder if you mean "Wikipedia tells me"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall#Examples But if you are going to use terminal velocity, then you need to calculate the energy lost to air resistance, etc. At which point it all starts getting very complicated (but if you do it right, you will find that energy is, indeed, conserved).

So, once again, we have to rely on your vague memory of something you once read. You need to start providing better sources of information. I think I read once that invisible pink (or maybe blue) unicorns (or was it dinosaurs) were able to influence gravity. Or read minds. Or control the weather.Or something. I don't know where I read it but I'm sure it was true.

It did look like an exercise in selection and confirmation biases, but I haven't looked at it in enough detail to draw any conclusions.

All this shows is that you don't know what you are talking about.

And that, by itself, shows that PE and KE are equal. And (surprise!) using 93.95 m/s for the velocity gives the same as PE.

So if this is evidence for an evil god, it can't be evidence that he/it doesn't exist.

While interesting, that is not about "telepathic conscious influence".

Citation needed. I know there was some typically dodgy reporting about the Amondawa language in despicable rags like the Daily Mail that completely misrepresented things. Maybe that is what you are thinking of. https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/amondawa-has-no-word-for-time/