Strange

Planck time is not evidence any more than years or seconds are. It depends on how far apart the photons are. And how do you quantify "immediately"? I didn't ask for a citation for Planck but for your equations which you say "already exist". Where? It is not clear that it makes any difference. Why do you think using Planck units is different from using seconds? Do you have any evidence that Planck length and time are not contracted/dilated?

Can you provide a citation? Only if you are travelling at the speed of light, surely? What does "fractionally 0" mean? I took your advice and looked it up on Wikipedia. It is about 5.4 x 10-14 seconds, which isn't zero is it? What evidence do you have that time is not dilated? As you seem reluctant to provide any evidence or citations to support your case, I would suggest you read this as it seems to contradict much of what you claim: https://www.quora.com/Is-Planck-time-absolute-or-relative

No they weren't. And yes it was. So clearly you don't understand.

What does "rate" mean? And why is it a function of time? What evidence do you have for these equations? What does this have t do with time dilation? Do you mean Planck time? What evidence do you have that time is quantised?

This is the published version: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1075/meta

Why not? Most people (apart from you and, perhaps, psychopaths and people with autism) can easily tell if a baby (sleeping or awake) or animal is content or not. (And why the quotes around "really"?)

Who do you mean "we", Kemosabe? It is not arrogance to try and explain your misunderstandings and help you learn. (It may be arrogant to insist that you are right and all of science is wrong.)

Most people.

I don't think observing length connection (which is not easy) would tell you anything about direction. Doppler shift could, though. Or just measuring the velocity...

This paper describes how they determine the orbits of all the S stars, and the error margins associated with those. The second half of the paper (section 5 on page 16 onwards) describes how they determine the mass distribution (or other relativistic effects) that can produce the observed orbits. https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4674 I don't think there is the sort of simple answer you seem to be looking for.

Somewhere between 0 and 100%. Oh well. Never mind. It comes up very regularly. Wait a week or two and start a new thread on it.

This is a terrible straw man argument. No one said the had to be "compatible" (whatever that means). But they are consistent (within their relative domains of applicability). Really? Where does it say that? In fact, it says: "Fizeau's experiment is hence supporting evidence for the collinear case of Einstein's velocity addition formula."

Of course they can move in different directions in the same space. Take two laser pointers and place them at right angles so the beams cross: the light from each is travelling in different directions while travelling through the same space. Or just turn on two different lights in your house. I find it odd that someone who doesn't even understand how light and vision work, can be so certain that the whole of optics, geometry, and two theories of gravitation are wrong.

As noted, the second thing ("many worlds" interpretation of QM) has nothing to do with the first (multiverse hypothesis).

What drives the generator?

Not with the addition of a cosmological constant ("dark energy"). Doesn't work. See Newton's shell theorem. These seem contradictory. The whole point of dark matter is that there is more to the universe than we can see. Nobody thinks that. We are pretty certain that the universe is much larger than we can see, if not infinite. That would be the mass of the observable universe. The mass of the whole universe is almost certainly much larger than that, if not infinite.

As it based on General Relativity and is, partly, prompted by the "flatness" problem (I think) then I assume there is a lot. Who knows. It is not based on quantum theory at all. When we have a theory of quantum gravity it may make the multiverse idea irrelevant. Or make it more plausible. I know very little about it.

It is just a shame you are unwilling to use this resource to actually learn anything.

The "multiverse" idea is a hypothesis based on the ideas of general relativity. I don't see any way this could be confirmed or disproved as such universes are, almost by definition, causally isolated from each other.

How old are you? You sound like a five year old who has been told he can't have an ice cream. Maybe you need to grow up, learn a little humility and understand that sometimes you can be wrong.

So you don't understand how light works. (Or maybe you don't understand what the diagram is supposed to show?) You can only see something if a ray of light travels from that object to your eye. You can't see it because a ray of light is passing sideways to your field of view (as your diagram appears to show). http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/light_deflection

That is because it is a science forum. To think that sticking to the subject as censorship is pretty stupid. Because they are NOT science forums. It's all about the evidence. It is not like picking a football team.

So you have the light curve away from the sun and then suddenly do a 90º swing towards the Earth. Is this just based on what you would like to think happens, or is there some theory (i.e. mathematics) behind it? Note that both Newton and Einstein worked out that light would be curved towards the sun, based on their respective theories, in the same way that any material object would. The reason that this was used as a test of GR is that it predicts a different value for the curvature then Newton's gravity. Gravitational lensing happens and is a useful tool for studying dark matter, distant galaxies, etc. The fact that you don't like / can't understand the graphical representation doesn't change that. Actually, looking at your diagram again, I'm not sure you understand how light, or even sight, works...

Why not present your proof and let people here (not me!) review it. That seems like a good way of making sure it is valid. You know me. I am just sceptical that someone who is not familiar with a concept could produce a proof related to it. "I have a proof that Pi is normal but I just need to know what 'normal' means..."

Probably not: https://what-if.xkcd.com/41/