Strange

It could be argued that the electromagnetic field is the luminiferous aether. But why would you bother.

But you must have a reason you think they are all wrong. You must have some evidence or theoretical justification. Surely? Or are you just saying they are wrong because you think it makes you look clever, even though you make it clear with every post that you don't have a clue. No you didn't. You made up a bit of gibberish, claimed it was relativity and that therefore the theory must be wrong. All this proves is your profound ignorance.

Does it? Citation needed. Not if the clock is travelling at the same speed as you. It is not just to do with being "outside". Well, nearly. But remember that the person next to that clock would not notice any difference. For them, time runs normally and they see your clock running slow. They move at c, not slightly less. But the idea that time stops for photons is irrelevant because (a) photons do not have a valid frame of reference (try it and you will divide by zero) and (b) we measure their propagation time in our frame of reference, not theirs. It certainly is. Whether you like it or not, it has to be used in many applications (the most obvious being GPS). And if you discard relativity, then you need to replace all of quantum field theory. Quite a big undertaking for someone with almost no knowledge of physics. You will have to be more specific. I can't see any Nobel Prizes in the 70s related to relativity: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/ Again, basing "thought experiments" on a complete lack of understanding of the theory, is not really useful. (Except in demonstrating how little you know.)

Can you provide a reference to this evidence (preferably from a peer reviewed publication).

That is because you are not pointing out something wrong with society. You are just being aarrogant, self-absorbed, immature , repetitive and annoying. Your threads get closed, you say. What a surprise.

Which has been tested and no evidence for it found. So what do you base your belief on? Wishful thinking? So non-linear effects are impossible now? That means your computer can't work. And as we can not only test time dilation in experiments but also use it in technology, it seems this claim is incorrect. Your "grandma paradox" has nothing to do with relativity. It is a just stupid scenario you made up. You haven't shown any discrepancies in SR. What you have shown is that if you make up some nonsense that has no connection to reality or any known scientific theory, then it may not make sense. Surprise.

The various experiments that are unable to detect any sort of aether have been repeatedly stated in this (and every other similar tedious crackpot thread). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0502097 https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=modern+tests+of+lorentz+invariance Let us know when you have found the flaws in every single one of those. And the evidence for this is, what, exactly? Or is it a religious belief? Bollocks. He had a PhD in physics and had published many papers of fundamental concepts in physics (including one that would win him a Nobel Prize) before he published his theory of relativity. He also provided detailed mathematical models with testable predictions. He didn't just iterate beliefs that are unsupported by evidence. That is a an article by a well known Creationist. So, without even reading it, I can be fairly certain it is full of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and outright lies. Because, apparently, the Creationist God approves of that sort of thing.

Electrons have zero size, so I don't see how they can have a shape.

Red-shift is proportional to distance. So it wouldn't become infinite until they were infinitely far away.

1. Yes (conceptually) 2. Yes 3. Not really. 4. It has been done with photons, electrons, atoms and even large molecules. 5. and 6. Yes, they are neither waves nor particles.

Can you provide a reference to this 0.3 c? I believe the particle event horizon is moving away at about 3 c. The Hubble Horizon (where recessional velocity reaches c) at about 14 billion light years is closer than the cosmological horizon (where we can never observe anything that happens) at 16 billion light years. So between those, we can see objects receding at more than the speed of light. http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf

What connection is there between the universe expanding and the wave nature of electrons?

Our current models describe a universe that has no edge or boundary. It may be finite or infinite.

The toy universe is defined entirely by the model used (unlike the real universe).

No, 0101 = 05 but 101 = 5

You could program a computer, even without advanced AI, to pretend it experienced the same sensations.

There was never any evidence for the aether, it was just an assumption ("if light is waves, then it must have a medium") but no one noticed, at the time, that Maxwell's equations ruled out a medium. No experiment has ever shown any measurable effects for an aether. It is almost as if it doesn't exist. So, theory says it isn't required and that is consistent with the evidence. Space is not a substance (what is a mile made of? is it the same as a metre?). And distance, area or volume have no measurable properties. Well, you can use the word "aether" to describe space but: 1) What is the point when we already have the word "space"? 2) We now have two completely different and unrelated meanings for the word "aether": the original luminiferous aether (which doesn't exist) and space (which obviously does). Einstein used the word "aether" to describe space-time (in the sense that it is something that fills the entire universe) which has often been picked up by anti-relativity cranks, but he also went on to emphasise that it has not physical attributes. Other people have used the word "aether" (for similar reasons) to describe quantum fields, dark energy and various other things. To my mind, this just causes confusion because (some) people immediately think they mean the traditional (and nonexistent) luminiferous aether. Andromeda is moving towards us, not away. And there is no evidence that space moves with galaxies, nor that space repels other space. Well, it is certainly hypothetical, with no evidence for its existence. But "nonsense" might be a bit string as the concept is based on sound theoretical concepts. Do you have any evidence that gravity is a vibration in space? We already have a good and very accurate model of gravity (two actually). Do you have a useful model based on this idea? What does it add? Is it more accurate than existing theories? Can it calculate things which cannot be done by existing theory? Well, if you insist, you can call the electromagnetic field "other". But it will just cause confusion. And why do that when it already has a name ("electromagnetic field"). String theory has a sound theoretical basis and is, in principle, testable. Aether never had any real theoretical basis, but has been tested and falsified. No it doesn't. The electric and magnetic forces are transmitted by the electromagnetic field (and its quanta, the photon). The weak force is meditated by its field and corresponding bosons, ditto the strong force. Gravity is the only "force" that is mediated by space-time as a field. Evidence? A measure of the distance between things. Note that these experiments disprove (mainly) the luminiferous aether. If you are using the word "aether" to mean something else (like space, or invisible pink unicorns) then they may not be so relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy–Thorndike_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives–Stilwell_experiment Plus, all the experiments confirming Lorentz invariance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation The above should disprove that idea. WTF? We can see galaxies that are moving away at more than the speed of light, so this assertion appears to be incorrect. Where did you get it from? Not blasphemy, just a rather silly waste of time. No one tries to prove phlogiston exists despite all the evidence, so why the obsession with aether?

The only people "oppressed" by magistrates are criminals. But I suppose, if you don't believe in public safety and the rule of law ...

But if the "toy universe" is purely described by GR then there won't be any thing happening on the quantum level.

Your beliefs have nothing to do with the historical reality of Jesus.

It may be worth clarifying a couple of points. Firstly, the big bang theory (perhaps because of the name) is often presented in popular science articles as being about the creation of the universe "from nothing". In fact, it says nothing about that. It is a description of how the universe has expanded and cooled over the last 13.8 billion years (and continues to do so). So it is a model fr explaining what we see around us. In terms of the history of the theory, it has only been generally accepted for a few decades (when I was young, I remember hearing radio discussions about competing models of the universe). The idea was originally proposed on theoretical grounds (as a prediction of general relativity) in the 1920. Georges Lemaitre proposed the idea, and used the known evidence of increasing red shift with distance as the initial evidence. However, it wasn't until the CMB was discovered in 1963 that the old model (of an unchanging universe) was finally overthrown.

While I agree that you can define language to be any system of communication, in the context of the original thread it seemed that it needed to be more than a finite and fixed system like bird calls, scent trails, the bee's waggle dance etc. Human languages are qualitatively different from those and could be used to indicate a different level of mental processing (which seemed to be the reason it was included in the definition there). (Re the connection to "consciousness", that was something that occurred to me as I was writing and I haven't really thought it through yet. But something to do with the connection between self awareness and recursion in language. )

I would say yes, because GR (where the idea of space-time comes from) doesn't include fields as essential components. They, or rather their energy, can be added in the equations. Again, in GR, you can have space-time completely empty of energy or matter. This is a useful class of models for solving problems in GR.

Or, we could be in a moral simulation that does care about suffering, etc. I don't think there is any possibility of that, either way.

Although we don't actually know if that is true of Pi, as we don't know if it is normal or not.