Strange

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

That is exactly what they are doing with all the observations. If they weren't interested in testing their hypotheses (NOT assumptions) then they wouldn't keep making observations. You have just quoted from articles discussing the work. How is that "ignoring" it? Seeing as you are unable to do basic arithmetic and do not understand any pot the physics involved, I don't think anyone is going to lose sleep over your delusional thinking. Either go and study the relevant science, or stop posting your daft misapprehensions. I think this is one of those rare occasions where this is entirely justified. David has shown himself, repeatedly, to be unable to learn even the most basic aspects of science and yet continues to be convinced that he is right and the rest of the world has made a terrible mistake.

What evidence is there for this "universal black hole"? Where is it? If everything is flowing away from it, why do we see everything moving away from us? What evidence do you have that matter is converted to dark matter? Why is the density of dark matter greater near the centre of galaxies? You got that bit right, at least.

"The story is widely understood to be a hoax.[1][2][3]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment

As I was summarising the description provided by GR, I think most physicists would agree (although we all know it is incomplete). This, and most of the rest of your post, are good points about the nature of reality and the relationship to mind. But it is off topic. You might want to post this in the Philosophy section of the forum. That would be the clock. Note that all of your comments about time are equally applicable to length or distance. But science creates models and makes measurements to test those models. You can argue about what is "really" being measured (if anything) but that has little to do with science.

There seems to be a long-standing myth that Einstein was some sort of uneducated genius who worked alone. I don't know if anyone has looked into how this arose.

There is currently no evidence that space-time is quantised. A lot of theoreticians think it should be. There have been a number of experiments to test the idea, for example: http://www.uchicago.edu/features/experiment_probes_nature_of_space_and_time/ If you search for "quantised space-time" you will probably find others. (If you find one with a positive result, let us know!)

Not everything is a form of energy. Space is not energy (it may contain energy, though). Space is just the distance between things. Time is also another measure of the distance between things. In order to meet someone you need to specify both a location (3 dimensions) and a time (the 4th dimension). The geometry of both space and time are changed by the presence of mass or energy. That is what causes the effect we perceive as gravity (which is mainly due to the curvature of the time dimension). p.s. Sorry but I hit the "down vote" button when aiming for the Quote button. Maybe someone else will kindly remove that negative vote.... EDIT: Thank you!

Which sounds like it is innate. I am trying to understand the difference between (your definition of) "innate" and "emergent quality of being", "not needing to be taught", etc. I just don't understand how, if a baby can be content without being taught, that it is not innate. Babies will be scared by scary things because fear is innate Babies will be hungry if not fed, because hunger is innate. Babies will not start speaking unless taught because language is not innate. (I know that one is slightly controversial.) Babies will start swimming if thrown in water because swimming is innate. Babies will not start writing unless taught because written language is not innate. Babies will laugh if you play games with them because laughter (and, perhaps, play) is innate. But: Babies will be content if well fed and warm because contentment is not innate? Really? I just don't understand the logic here. Why is contentment different from other innate things?

Babies (and animals) do not have to be taught to be fearful, neither do they have to be taught to be content. That is the evidence it is innate. Which, obviously, you reject. So, can you PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE explain WHY you think contentment is not innate. Just repeatedly saying "it isn't" doesn't get us anywhere. If you say why you think it isn't then maybe I (or someone else) can explain why we disagree.

Interesting article. I hadn't come across this before (but I bet swansont has). It does hint at possibilities for new physics. But it seems somewhat off topic ...

As this is an entirely fictional scenario, you can make up whatever rules you want. Although it is probably better if you make them consistent.

Well, duh. Thanks for that groundbreaking insight.

No it doesn't.

Of course we can measure effects: that is why "dark matter" (whether that turns out to be matter or a modification to gravity) is hypothesised. And we do know where it is. What should we do? Just ignore the evidence? Or try and find ways of explaining it? And then test those explanations to find which is the best? Because the latter is how science works. Like it or not. What does that even mean? Maybe some members of the public think like that. If so, it is a failure of science communication and science journalism. It is hardly relevant to the discussion of the way science is done, though. Close. Except the guesses are based on evidence and theory. Then they are tested. As you say, if they don't work they are discarded. Why not? People are searching for dark matter as new types of particles (quite exciting), which might also turn up in the LHC. People are also searching for dark matter as changes to our understanding of gravity (more exciting) - that probably doesn't have any connection to the LHC. People are also searching for dark matter as totally new physics (most exciting of all) - which may or may not have any connection to the LHC (as we don't know what that new physics might be). Given the wide range of possible solutions being chased, that doesn't seem like a reasonable criticism. What line of research do you think is being missed?

The pulse last about 1/10th of a second. They took about 1.4 billion years to get here. They have already detected at least one more event. I think it is too early to say how frequent such events are.

I think we know enough about the relevant effects to answer the question (I don't think I have anything to add to Airbrush's answer).

I guess you could email them and ask what the latest status is?

Here is an overview of the first gravitational wave detection: http://stuver.blogspot.it/2016/02/LIGO-FirstDetection.html And of the second: http://stuver.blogspot.it/2016/06/GW151226.html Direction: because there were only two detectors, they could only get an approximate direction. In future this will be determined more accurately as more detectors start running. http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2016/03/06/direction-ligos-gravitational-waves/ Source: the merging of two black holes Frequencies: for the first detection, they rose to a peak of about 250 Hz (that is the rate at which the two black holes were orbiting one another before they merged). Pure: because the signal is so weak, it is accompanied by a lot of noise. I think that the raw data doesn't look very "pure". And, yes, the gravitational waves pass through everything, causing a slight stretching and squishing. This is so small it is barely detectable. More here: http://stuver.blogspot.it/2012/07/journey-of-gravitational-wave-i-gws.html http://stuver.blogspot.it/2012/06/q-what-would-gravitational-wave-feel.html And more detail than you could ever need here: https://cplberry.com/2016/02/23/gw150914-the-papers/

You should have stopped prevaricating and got to the point straightaway.

So, is your point that if we divide this by 100 billion, we get a number that is within 1% of Phi ? This seems like numerology to me. For example, the figure depends on using the arbitrary, man-made unit of seconds. It is only approximately true at the present time. The good news is that it will get closer to Phi for a while before passing it and getting further away again. p.s. to try and make up for the perceived insults, here is a present: an article on the relationship between Pi and Phi https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2017/03/07/pi-and-the-golden-ratio/

No.

All sorts of reasons. Mainly, they are used as a proxy or indication of distance (as the parameter z). Can you explain the relevance to the thread?

Sorry, but I don't see what is insulting there. It does appear to be numerology. And you do have some unique aspects in your writing. I have no idea what the cause is, so I guessed it was a religious thing.I have been "accused" of being religious in the past; I didn't find it insulting. But if you do, I apologise. I'm not sure the Jews in my family would agree! (I don't think any of them avoid writing the word "God" but they are not Orthodox - all Liberal or Reformed as far as I know.)

1. What is the source? 2. What does "High-Spectral Radiance" mean? 2. The image quality is not very good (could you provide a link to the original data/website?). But f this is the CMB then it is a black body spectrum with a peak at about 160 GHz. Is that what you mean? How does this relate to your post? Your link doesn't work. I assume it should be this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background That page also has a history of the measurements of the CMB temperature starting from 1964 (Penzias ad Wilson) with a temperature of about 3K. This has been gradually refined over the years to the current 2.7260±0.0013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Microwave_background_radiation_predictions_and_measurements Can you explain the relevance of this to the thread?