Strange

No it isn't. Your function fails dimensional analysis and so it is wrong. It is not a solution to the Einstein Field Equations. It is just something you made up.

That is a completely different thing. The situation there is not symmetrical: one twin accelerates and the other doesn't.

Your function is (a) wrong and (b) does not relate to the real world. Nope. Weeds get killed instantly.

Except you haven't provided any detail, just a vague reference to an inverse square law. You haven't shown how this can reproduce observations of Hubble's Law, how it affects the CMB, what the cause of the CMB is, etc.

What is the point of exploring something which is (a) a vague description with no detail and (b) obviously wrong.

I don't think so. They just seem to be a fundamental aspect of the way the universe works. The main outstanding question related to it (that I am aware of) is the fact that there is more matter than antimatter.

There is no "edge of spacetime". If the universe were infinite, then there definitely wouldn't be an "edge of spacetime". But it might not be infinite. (But there is still no edge.)

Is there a direct measurement of the field itself? Yes, the movement of iron filings, particle, compass needle, etc. How does that not answer the question. Maybe you are asking a different question? If you are asking what the thing we describe by the use of a field "really" is, then that has nothing to do with science. It is metaphysics and, as far as I know, most philosophers would agree that we can never know.

You still need to show that this would be the case.

This is already used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_technology One wacky example I heard of a while ago was for training vets. They had an artificial cows uterus for vets to shove their arm into. The system could model pregnancy and various disorders so that the vets knew what they were looking for before having to inflict their skills on a real animal. (But why is this under science news?)

The idea that the universe would gradually stop expanding and then collapse again to a "big crunch" before rebounding and expanding again is an old one. However, the accelerating expansion makes that look very unlikely.

I still see only baseless assertions. In case you don't see the problem with that, let me prove you wrong by using exactly the same level of evidence, mathematics and logical argument that you use: you are wrong. Do you see the problem? You can say one thing, I can say another and Fred can say a third. So we need a way to evaluate who is most likely to be correct. That would require you, me and Fred to actually calculate what the result would be with each of our models and then compare this to the data. That is how science works. Just saying "it would be the same" has zero credibility, no matter how often you repeat it, unless you can provide some support for the claim. Currently, the evidence appears to show you are wrong. According to you, when the universe had a uniform temperature of 4000 degrees, instruments would have measured it to have a temperature of near absolute zero. Does that really make any sense?

You are mixing frames of reference. From your point of view, as someone who sees the two frames moving apart at near c, you will see the separation speed as near 2 x c. However, each frame of reference will see the other moving at just less than c, as Janus explained.

I don't see any calculation that the curvature of spacetime would cause the CMB to remain the same

This is just another baseless claim. Please show, in appropriate mathematical detail, how the curvature of spacetime would cause the CMB to remain the same. (Alternatively, show where the errors are in the current mathematics that calculates the temperature of the CMB.)

Here: A spacetime manifold by definition includes time. You can't wish that away with word games.

The iron filings (or charged particles) are moved by the presence of "something". That something is described mathematically as a field. The field is a mathematical construct to describe what we see happening.

There is no evidence that the universe started 13.8 billion years ago. The big bang theory describes the evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state. If the universe is infinite now, then that hot dense state was infinite. If the universe is finite now, then that hot dense state was finite. Not too difficult, is it.

Because it was always infinite. It never went from being finite to being infinite. I think it infinitely more likely that there is something wrong with your understanding.

It may be (or not). We have no way of knowing (currently). What is believable isn't really relevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background

When you stop posting your personal beliefs as if they were facts, I will.

Getting off topic. You might want to start a new thread. But there is an article here on neutrino detectors: https://profmattstrassler.com/2011/09/25/how-to-detect-neutrinos/ We can detect them easily enough to measure their speed and other properties. They are becoming astronomical tool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_astronomy Even more off topic. As we use neutrons in medicine and industry, it would be a bit odd if they didn't exist.

There is a great article by a mathematician who decided to engage with the trisectors who contacted him with their ideas: http://web.mst.edu/~lmhall/WhatToDoWhenTrisectorComes.pdf

Indeed. But many things discovered by science are counter-intuitive. That is why we use science rather than "common sense". This has nothing to do with "cherished beliefs" or "heresy". It is just that those models do not, currently, match the evidence as well as dark matter being matter. There is a good survey of the current state of the art in both types of model here: http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/modified-gravity-vs-particle-dark.html Not scary, exciting. This is what makes science so great: the possibility of new physics.