Strange

I don't know what you mean by the mass being "set". Whatever the mass is (finite or infinite) it has always been the same.

Yes, I came up with the same number.

But what we do know, we know with some known level of certainty. (Just in case you are thinking: we don't know anything for certain therefore we don't know anything therefore anything I make up is just as valid.)

But this is just completely ad-hoc. You need some theoretical basis to explain why time would be compressed. And then you need to show that the values we measure are consistent with that model. And just saying "time dilation" is not a theoretical model unless you can explain why the time dilation would occur and the amount it would dilated. Just saying "what if" isn't science. "If the CMB is created by invisible pink unicorns flapping their wings, then it would always be the same."

This is a science site. We are not, generally, interested in opinions. Especially ones that are contradicted by evidence. There is no evidence that time started with the big bang, so no one is going to prove that. And, as the universe quite happily "flowed" into its current state without man, I think that it is pretty clear that man was not necessary.

In what way are the calculations tailored to fit. The model predicted a microwave background with a black-body spectrum of about 3K (about 20 years before it was detected, if I remember correctly). As other data has got more accurate and measurements of CMB have got more accurate, they have remained consistent.

Good question. It depends which frame of reference you use. In your frame of reference, they are separating at nearly 2c. But from the point of view of each quasar, the other one is moving away at just under c. This is because velocities do not actually add linearly (they seem to in our slow world, but the difference becomes noticeable at higher speeds). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel.html Just realised, that answer is completely wrong! It would be correct if you were asking about, for example, two spaceships heading away from you in opposite directions. But the quasars in your example are receding because of expansion. This implies a couple of things. Firstly, they will be near the edge of our observable universe, and will therefore be outside each other's observable universes. But, if they could, somehow, observe the speed of separation, it would be nearly 2c.

It has also seen some unusual galaxies that could only have existed then. Just one example (the first search result): http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-space-telescopes-see-magnified-image-of-the-faintest-galaxy-from-the-early-universe These seem to confirm that early galaxies had larger short-lived stars (because of low "metallicity").

The term "dark flow" was coined for a possible anomalous velocity of galaxy clusters.

So "time" is just our crude human attempt to model or describe the fact that things happen in order, or at a certain rate; a process we could call ... uhhm ... gosh, what should we call it? I know! How about "time"? (I think you might have hit on what the OP is struggling to communicate. But as all he can say is "time doesn't exist" we may never know.)

So like football? Or pop music?

That makes no sense. The events (cooling of the universe, formation of stars and planets, emergence of life, formation of fossils, evolution of humans) were ordered in time before we were there to understand them. As all you can do is repeat the same thing, with no logical argument or evidence, I think we can dismiss it is nonsense. Unfolding implies that it took time. Physics includes time. The evidence shows this belief to be wrong.

So you are saying that the evolution of the entire universe and then humans happened in zero time? Ordered events imply time. I have a vague hope that the next post will be, "Doh. Of course. How could I have been so silly. Of course time exists."

You are not making much (or any) sense. Nor are you answering the question. Try to answer the following question without just repeating your beliefs: In your view, if it weren't for the presence of human consciousness, there was no time. In which case, how did humans evolve to make time appear? (Evolution requires time, by the way.)

That is too vague. If you don't understand the origin, and why it has exactly the spectrum and temperature that it does, then you cannot understand why it proves your idea wrong.

On the other hand: (I gather that this was because the automatic braking system was only activated if there was someone in the vehicle.)

I thought you were claiming that time didn't exist. Now you are just saying it is only of interest to us. I won't argue with that (because it has nothing to do with science).

If it remains constant (and you will have to wait a few million years, at least, to find out) then you need to explain the source. (Because the current explanation would be wrong.) Do you know the origin of the CMB?

If 52 is about 20, then yes.

So if it weren't for the presence of man, everything would be in the same place at the same time? In which case, how did man evolve to make time and distance magically appear? Nonsense. They are opinions. Science is not based on opinions. If you think it is, that might explain why you (and others with their personal theories) think that your opinions are worth something. The expanding and cooling universe can only happen if there is time (and distance). It certainly seems to be. You have offered no evidence to the contrary, just your personal belief.

Fairly obviously it is because you said: "So in 10 billion years the Big Bang will still appear to have begun 13.8 billion years ago." So do you know the origin of the CMB?

Wrong. Expansion does not require dark energy. However, the rate of expansion is seen to accelerate. This needs to be explained. We do not know what the explanation is so we call it "dark energy". What should we do? Ignore them? Dark matter appears to fit all the evidence. Attempts at modified gravity theories can work for galaxies but not galaxy clusters, so still seem to need some dark matter. They do completely different things. You might as well ask if photosynthesis and earthquakes are caused by the same thing. (I have seen a couple of pretty speculative attempts to unify them, but it is not clear they will get anywhere.) As the "dark" name is just used to indicate something we don't understand, I'm sure there are or will be other unknown things that get a similar label. The problem is that there isn't any clear evidence that doesn't fit the current model. So there are few good directions for new physics to go. If dark matter is actually matter, then it will be a new form of matter that and so QM will need to be extended.

Please show the mathematics to support this idea. Otherwise you might as well say it is caused by invisible pink unicorns. Dimensional analysis still shows it to be invalid, whatever you call it. You obviously do, or this thread would not exist. Do you even know what the current theory says the origin of the CMB is?

It is difficult though. The astrophysicist Katie Mack recently got a lot of criticism on Twitter for saying it is OK to block people when you get sick of their constant hatred and bile. She was accused of encouraging an echo chamber. Does being open to other ideas mean you have to listen to hate speech and threats of violence?

Great answer. Nothing to add really, except that a future theory of quantum gravity might tells us more about the early history of the universe, the nature of dark energy and dark matter.