Strange

Why must it be assumed? Why are you assuming that time began with the big bang, when there is no evidence for such an idea?

Can you show that the rate of expansion described by Hubble's law is consistent with your equation?

You are right. Although Bohm's name is more commonly associated with it, it is an older idea. I will try to remember that! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

And, as already noted, that is not consistent with the evidence. Therefore it is wrong. What des "space is banging" mean? What is the theoretical basis for this? Bear in mind, we have a detailed and very accurate theory behind the current big bang model: it has made many precise, quantitative predictions which have been compared against evidence. You just seem to have some vague, hand-wavy qualitative statements. I know which model gives me more confidence. And why is the rate of "banging" accelerating? Magic? Or is there some physics behind this? Many scientists would also agree that space is probably infinite. This is an accepted possibility in the current model. It does not get in the least bit "tricky".

I don't see how. A steady state theory says that the universe has always been (roughly) the sae. The big bang model says it has cooled from an early hot, dense state. How do those co-exist? That is not what the current model says. So you need to explain why it has the exact spectrum and temperature that it does. Something more detailed than "background radiation".

There is no such assumed fact, so that is just a silly straw man fallacy.

There is no evidence that is the case. So is this a type of steady state theory (as proposed by Fred Hoyle)? Then the question you have to answer is: what is the source of the CMB?

Well, there was a recent paper that compared the Milne model against the data for accelerating expansion (and found quite a good match). So it seems the models can be tested. Or even a completely empty universe.

You would need to produce a (mathematical) model that shows how gravitational redshift could explain observations (I can't see how that would work, but feel free to present the details). When Hubble first published his result many people attempted to find explanations (even though the correct one had been published a couple of years earlier!) These included tired light, various steady-state and quasi steady state models, etc. However, what really killed all of those off was the detection of the CMB, exactly as predicted. So, how would your model explain the CMB? The big bang is definitely an ongoing thing: it is a description of the evolution of the universe from an early hot dense state. That is still continuing. Arguably, it is also a local event, as there is no point where the big bang "happened"; it happened (and is happening) everywhere. And it is quite possible that a quantum theory of gravity will show there was no beginning.

I would take a field guide to identifying mushrooms for morel guidance.

I am only responding to the posts you have made here. I have made no judgment about you. If you ask questions, I will attempt to answer them to the best of my (limited) ability. And I will probably learn something from the answers made by those more expert than me. If you make claims that are contradicted by current science, I will point that out. Sorry if my attempt to be helpful (to you and other readers) upsets you. Yes, I had forgotten what a good summary that is. I think one can get something from it, even without working through all the previous steps.

Yep. That is exactly what I meant. I almost included the first parenthetical bit but decided it was too obvious. There are models, such as the Milne solution to the Einstein Field Equations, that are "empty" - containing no matter or energy. They still define space and time. So, "as currently defined in physics" space and time do exist independently of matter and physical processes.

That does not seem to be an accurate representation of how the distance between objects (on cosmological scales) changes with time. The most obvious way is the measurement of redshift versus distance (Hubble's law). Measurements show it to be pretty much flat. That its true, but it doesn't seem to be relevant. Also, the acceleration only started about 5 billion years ago.

I would have more sympathy if you were asking questions and attempting to learn, rather than making up your own, baseless "theories".

So with no rulers space would still exist. And with no clocks (including natural physical processes) time would still exist.

So the thing that makes this interesting (from a classical point of view) is that it is the probability of an individual photon being detected at each position that is affected by the slits.

What!? Where do you get that from? Time is a fundamental part of nearly all physics from classical dynamics to quantum theory to general relativity. There are some (currently speculative) theoretical ideas that space and time might be emergent phenomena, but there is no evidence supporting any of these yet. (As far as I know, they all treat time and space similarly: if time is an emergent phenomenon then so is space.) There might be a philosophical debate about the nature or existence of time. And if that interests you, you should join one of the many ongoing threads in the Philosophy section of the forum. Combining special relativity with quantum mechanics was one of the great achievements in physics in the 20th century. It also unifies electricity and magnetism. Not as far as I know. The main problem is that GR must be continuous and quantum theory must be quantised.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Are you saying that IS are motivated by a lack of belief of where the Sun goes at night? And that everyone who follows centuries old dogma is a terrorist? And that no terrorists have been motivated by new political (rather than religious) ideas? In which case, you are obviously wrong. So I must have misunderstood.

No they can't. If they have a net charge they are ions and, under normal circumstances, unstable. So you think you could help a professional football player improve his game even if you know nothing at all about the rules of the game, the strategy and tactics used and how the team plays together? Shouting "just kick the ball" at him is not going to help. Similarly, you are not going to contribute anything to physics until you learn a lot more than you appear to know at the moment.

He understood the current state of physics and the results of experiments that had been done she far. He did his own experiments. He worked with others. I see no evidence that you have done any of those things. Nonsense. That is not how science (or scientists) work. There is no evidence that time began with the big bang (that is not what the prevailing theory says). And there is no proof of anything in science. So you will have a long wait. So it seems like you at the level of JJ Thomson when he was at school and had heard of a few interesting scientific ideas but didn't yet understand any of them.

And? What about it? You are missing the point: you want to talk about something that is not physics (emotion, mind, etc). So stop hijacking this thread and create your own (under Philosophy or Psychology or wherever is appropriate).

The Galileo Gambit won't wash. You ignore, for example, the vastly larger numbers of hypotheses that are rejected and are never heard of again. It also ignores the fact that you do not have a scientific idea. Your vague guesses are not being rejected because they are new or don't agree with current theory. I am all for new ideas, as are most scientists. It is what makes science exciting. However, vague baseless guesses with no evidence and no theoretical basis are not scientific and are not interesting.

I would say you need to have a very good understanding of the current theory before attempting to come up with a modified or new theory. Maybe you are just asking why current theory is they way it is. If so, that is mainly because it describes what we observe. There is not really a duality - that is often presented as a paradox or as the photon switching between being a particle and a wave, which is not the case. The waveform that collapses (in the Copenhagen interpretation) is not the same thing as the electromagnetic waveform of light. I don't really understand the question. We observe quantised ("particle-like") behaviours when there is electromagnetic radiation present. With no radiation there is no change in the field and therefore no particle (apart from the virtual particles crated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the resulting non-zero energy of the field). Neutrinos, for example, do not interact with the electromagnetic field to any significant extent. I'm not sure what you are asking. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates the time and energy, if that is what you are thinking of. Electromagnetic radiation is always quantised. Energy, momentum, wavelength (which are all inter-related) and spin ... maybe others I can't think of right now.

But we are discussing physics. Science knows what a dimension is - because it defines it. Not necessarily. It could just be two points. The rest of your post is off topic.

Thank you. I have noticed a lot of very reasonable responses getting negative votes. So I have done my bit to counter some of them, as well.