Strange

And, of course, you can measure it, which is how we know we have a good theory. A crude analogy to describe something that is not like the things we are familiar with. Things do not "switch" between particles and waves; they just have some particle-like properties and some wave-like properties. Yes. And that interpretation came after Schrodinger formulated the equation. (And, like you, Schrodinger didn't like it.) Where do you get this incorrect and garbled view of history from? Not true.

Well, if is a choice between science based on evidence and the baseless and illogical guesses of a random guy on the Internet, I'll stick with science thanks.

No. What you just did is to show that you don't seem to understand the difference between logic (the process of rigorous argument from a set of premises to a conclusion) and truth. A logical argument does not have to be based in reality or truth. It simply says that IF the premises were true, then this will be the result. That means that if the premises are true, then the result of the logical argument is true. However, if the premises are not true, then you cannot know if the result is true or false. Logic is not about reality or about that makes sense to you. It does not depend on an individuals believes or opinions.

As there is a detailed mathematical theory that makes testable predictions which are confirmed by experiment, it is a perfect example of science in action. There are not two different states. And it is not a premise but a result of the theory. This appears to be back to front. The interpretation of the ave equation as probability cam after the wave equation, not before. And Schrodinger never liked the idea of it being about probabilities. This is the "measurement problem" and is completely different from the inherent uncertainty in the quantum world. Bizarrely, despite everything else you have said, this appears to be correct.

What is the "rate of hydrogen emission" ? Stars "burn" (fuse) hydrogen to helium. This is complicated (and really deserves a thread of its own). You need to understand the basics of QED (quantum electrodynamics). A photon does not travel in a straight line from A to B. We cannot, in fact, say anything about its trajectory. All we know is where it was emitted and where it was detected. Fermat's principle and Snell's law are classical laws and do not apply to individual photons. The probability of a photon ending up in a particular place matches the classical predictions. But to calculate that probability, you have to take into account every possible path the photon could take to get from A to B (this includes flying off to the other side of the galaxy and back, and everything in between). It isn't. Only a tiny proportion of the mass is converted into radiation. Most is blown off into space. That sounds right, apart perhaps from the last bit "due to curvature of the spacetime manifold" (which I don't understand). It is not homogeneous in time (that would be a steady state model, it is homogeneous (and isotropic) spatially. If the distance between points is stretched, then the volume they are in must also increase, surely?

This is getting painful. And repetitive. Originally, there was a theory that predicted increasing red shift and a universe that was cooling and becoming less dense. It was not widely accepted. (Maybe not even widely known.) Then Hubble published his famous red-shift vs distance law. Lots of scientists came up with different possible explanations. Lots of them were quickly shown to be wrong (not fitting all the data). Several survived for quite a long time (because they could explain all the data available at the time). Then the CMB was observed. It matched predictions of one theory perfectly, and all the other theories were unable to explain it. So we were left with just one good, working theory: the "big bang" model. As more data has been collected it has all found to be consistent with that model. Because this is science (and not dogma) people still try other models to see if they work. So far, none have been able to match all the data as well as the "big bang" or Lambda-CDM model. OK? I know you don't like it and you don't understand it. But that doesn't make it wrong. It is currently the best (only) theory we have. It isn't going to be overturned by you saying "yeah, bit what if..." It will only be overturned by evidence.

Not really. It doesn't matter if you measure in furlongs or millimetres, or base 10 or base 17. As long as you are consistent between measuring radius and area. Yes (if you mean what I think you mean). If the relationship is no longer A = 4 pi r2 then that represents curved geometry.

Primarily the CMB, but all the other evidence as well. http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm What calculations do you base that on? It clearly does not maintain its density. It used to be denser and hotter.

Nope! Radius is radius: the distance from the centre to the surface. It doesn't matter what the sphere is made of or how it formed or how you measure it.

I think you have missed the point. No simulation is necessary, because this is just calculating the geometrical effects. But however much they were squashed, the relationship of area to radius would still be 4 pi r2 In GR, that is no longer true.

Because it was a great technical challenge, it confirmed yet another prediction of GR and opens up the possibility of a new era of astronomy. If by "classical" you mean Newtonian gravity, then that is wrong. "Gravitational waves cannot exist in the Newton's law of universal gravitation, since it is predicated on the assumption that physical interactions propagate at infinite speed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave I don't think anyone expects to expects to detect gravitational waves from such a source in the foreseeable future (if ever).

That is what Feynman is comparing: the "expected" value in Newtonian gravity (based entirely on Euclidean geometry) and the fractionally different value in GR's curved spacetime. It is an approximation to GR, in "normal" (low energy) cases. The Feynman example shows how good an approximation it is!

No. The trouble is, you are jumping to conclusions based on how you think things are, rather than looking at the evidence. For example ... That is absolutely correct. And that is what we observe. Also correct. The evidence suggest that the density is decreasing and so there is no need to create new mass. So you are adding complexity (some unknown mechanism for creating matter) instead of accepting the simple solution supported by the evidence (decreasing density). This is Hoyle's quasi-steady-state model. This was falsified when the CMB was observed and matched the prediction of an expanding and cooling universe (i.e. the density is decreasing, not staying constant). Steady state models are not able to explain the CMB (without adding ad-hoc complexity).

Mainly the fact that there is nothing to rule out any possibility. The fact that measurements show the universe to be very close to flat could imply an infinite size. But there are finite topologies that are flat. No one would disagree with any of that. That is the strategy that science uses. It is how it progresses. Occam's Razor is often used as an argument for choosing the simplest theory that works. But, as someone said, make it as simple as possible ... but no simpler.

Not everything we measure has to be either a particle or a wave. Time and space exist in the mathematics of physics as dimensions. Whether they "just" exist in the mathematics is a metaphysical question that has nothing to do with science. Try the philosophy forum.

It is not a riddle. Refractive index of air is pretty close to 1, so any effects of refraction can be ignore. I think it is pretty clear that the question was simply about two things moving in opposite directions.

Of course. (Because we don't know, so all possibilities are considered.)

Are you thinking of a tree growing or a balloon expanding? Anyway, the object expands into the space around it. Space is not "stuff" that gets pushed out of the way. It is just distance.

Assorted cranks and crackpots haven't though.

Pretty much the same way as the rest of physics. (In what way is time not symmetrical?)

That is a non sequitur. There is no particle of sound. Does that mean sound does not exist?

Yes, Isaac Newton can: look up the shell theorem.

That is just one type of symmetry. Symmetry in mathematics is much more general (and complex) than that. And supersymmetry has a very specific meaning; it describes each currently known particle being paired with a "super-partner". So each boson would have a corresponding fermion and vice versa. Nothing about anti-time.

Why would it need an opposite? What is the opposite of length?

By "stuff" do you mean antimatter? If so, it is measured in the same way as matter - it behaves (almost) identically to matter. The challenge is that we normally only have access to tiny amounts of antimatter so measuring its properties can be tricky. There is an ongoing project at CERN to capture enough anti hydrogen to confirm that it responds to gravity in the same way awn normal hydrogen