Strange

I would say that some of the key features of numerology are: 1. Assigning meaning where there is none. For example, a common use is to assign numbers to letters and then calculate the value corresponding to a word. This ignores the fact that spelling is arbitrary and changes. And the fact that multiple words, often with different or contradictory meanings, can produce the same number. Or the fact that this implies there is something special about modern English orthography (or whichever other language they use). 2. Using pseudoscientific techniques to get to a desired result. For example, cherry picking evidence. Such as choosing words with a particular value and saying that they are related in some way, while ignoring synonyms with different values and antonyms with the same value. Or making an error (deliberate? unconscious?) in a calculation in order to get the desired result. Or changing the method used to get the desired result (like normally adding all the values but in one case multiplying). Or ignoring small errors ("this word summed to the value of 42 while this word summed to 20, which is almost exactly half") There are other clues like a general lack of logic or critical thinking, a reliance on mysticism, etc. Plus the usual crackpot claims that it is "important" or "suppressed" or will "soon be accepted and change the world" or ...

Certainly a PDF file is more sensible than a Word file any day (not everyone can open Word files). But neither should be necessary to explain an idea.

As in tl;dr ?

Why not use your keyboard and tell us what your "theory" is, rather than just repeatedly complaining about Word. (You could try copying and pasting from Word to Notepad and then copying the text here.) Which assumption is that? And how is it "inverted"?

Google can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole_(disambiguation)

You are right that if the universe is infinite then it has always been infinite. And it is still "banging" as the big bang is a description of the continuing expansion and cooling of the universe. (It is badly named in that sense; it is not a theory of creation of explosion.) And, yes, galaxies, stars and planets are still being formed. Why would it cause an inward force? If you release the pressure on some gas it expands - it doesn't provide any inward force. As expansion means that speed is proportional to distance there are now, and always have been, places that are moving apart faster than the speed of light. The rest of your post doesn't make much sense (see StringJunky's final point).

Why would you want to paste from Word, anyway?

The energy of a photon (or anything else) is observer dependent. So the motion of the observer changes the observed energy and therefore the frequency.

Again, I see no insult in what you quoted. But if you think you are being insulted report the post, don't make offensive comments yourself. If all you are saying is that circadian cycles are synced to external (light/dark) stimuli, then that hardly seems noteworthy. And I don't really see how it is evidence for (or against) your idea. Next up: the source of the NASA definition of life. And why we should think that is the best definition. All we know of your "hypothesis" is what you have presented here.

What does that mean?

Citation needed. (The one paper you reference does not seem to support this claim.) Citation needed. And why should we think that definition is better than the others that exist? Citations very much needed. I don't think you know what "ad hominem" means. I can't see any insult there, just comments on the quality of your idea. If you think you have been insulted, you should report it to the moderators (using the "Report" link).

Not really. It is saying that something is going on which is described by the mathematical theory and that can be considered analogous to "real" particles. (Have you read the page that Mordred linked?) The thing is, Feynman had a profound understanding of the subject he was "guessing" about. He wasn't just making stuff up. Have you ever worked with real experts (in any subject)? They develop an ability to intuit what the right answer might be. But, even more importantly, the knowledge and skill to quickly recognise and reject incorrect guesses.

4. It is just the distance between things. If you don't assume that, then you don't reach that conclusion. And there is no real reason to assume that.

Your "discussion" seems to consist of a series of wild and uninformed guesses (such as, are gluons gravitons). Perhaps you need to stick to asking questions for a while, to fill the gaps in your knowledge.

What evidence do you have for a weekly cycle in any organisms (other than human culture)? When do you claim the month was 32 days? What evidence do yo have for this?

The gluon is spin 1 but gravitons must be spin 2. So no. All theories are incomplete. That doesn't mean you can just make stuff up.

It is not about whether anyone likes your beliefs or not. It is about the difference between science (testable ideas based on evidence) and random beliefs you (or others) have for no reason at all. I have repeatedly pointed out that it is indistinguishable from any other religious belief - i.e. it is purely based on what you want to be true, and not on any evidence. Yet you reject this categorisation (although with no stronger argument than "no it isn't", which isn't terribly compelling). If you don't like the description of it as an arbitrary (quasi-religious) belief, then WAG (wild-assed guess) is the next best thing. It certainly ain't a theory. And yet that is all you do. Which is a religious perspective, not a scientific one. You are constantly lying to yourself when you cherry-pick evidence that supports your faith and reject other evidence. In other words, your belief. Indistinguishable from any other religious belief. The fact you belief in a creator god, make this a religious belief. BY DEFINITION. You lie to yourself and us every time you deny that this is a religious belief. SR only describe INERTIAL reference frames and therefore the Earth does not count. If you are not even able to understand this basic idea, it is hard to see why anyone would take you seriously.

I seem to recall that there have been some experiments to detect the Cherenkov radiation that would be emitted by tachyons. If they existed. (Results have all been negative so far.)

Not very useful as the velocity of a photon is always c. This means the wavelength is always inversely proportional energy or momentum or frequency.

1. You should provide a reference/link to where you copy text from. 2. I strongly recommend no one downloads a spreadsheet or or word document from an unknown source. So please provide your argument here. 3. Why do so many people insist on criticising a 100 year old experiment? 4. What about all the different experiments since then that conform Lorentz invariance? Some of which show no violation to stupid level of accuracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation Does your spreadsheet show all of them to be wrong as well?

You would think ...

Then look up the way the second is defined. It explicitly says that it is defined at 0K - in other words, in the absence of motion. And the value of c doesn't come into it.

What evidence do you have for this "fact"? The definition of the second, for example, explicitly says there is no motion. And I'm sure swansont can give full details of how they (a) attempt to eliminate and (b) compensate for motion in atomic clocks to make them more accurate. Also, in GR you can build "toy" models of space time with no matter/energy. They still have the time dimension, even with nothing to move.

Maybe the problem is all the detailed mathematical exposition required to explain this theory and show how well it matches experimental evidence. Or not ...

This seems to be a good example of the fallacy of begging the question.