Strange

How did you find this? Which peer reviewed journals has your work been published in?

No, time is not space. Spacetime is made up of three spatial and one temporal dimension. They don't. They measure time. Often by means of some repetitive or cyclic process. Less use of garish colours. Less copying and pasting of text from random papers with no explanation why they are being quoted. More explanation of whatever it is you are trying to say. Some evidence to support your claims. Some mathematics to show how well your ideas fit current evidence and how they could be tested (falsified).

I don't know what your hypothesis is. All you do is copy and paste things from random papers with no comment or explanation (but with garish colours added). I was therefore under the impression that you didn't have any hypothesis or opinion. And I don't believe I have ever said it (whatever it is) cannot possibly be true.

Because that is the way the theory is constructed. Do you have an alternative theory? No. There is the Bohm Pilot Wave interpretation which, as far as I understand it (which isn't much), attempts to treat the wave and the particle separately. But this is just an interpretation, not a different theory. That is exactly what it is. As is the particle. The particle is a consequence of quantising the field. So how can you have a particle not mediated by the field? It seems too vague and unscientific to be refuted. What testable (i.e. quantified, precise, mathematical) predictions does your idea make that would allow it to be falsified?

And?

Because there is no scientific (reproducible) evidence or theoretical reason to think it is possible. Saying it is "impossible" is probably a bit too extreme, though. Who knows what future science will discover. But I am not holding my breath.

I doubt it. But let's see. You seem to be confusing at least two different things. Some things require a medium for the existence (and motion). For example, sound requires the presence of a material for the vibrations to pass though. On the other hand, you can talk about air as the medium I run through to catch a bus. But I don't require that air to be there for my existence to continue. I can just as readily run through empty space (given a space suit). So there seem to be three concepts being conflated there. So the vacuum of deep space (along with its virtual particles) is a "medium" that light travels through in the same sense that I can walk through air or swim through water or fall through empty space. It is not the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field can be considered the medium that allows light to exist. (But it isn't a very tangible medium, so I'm not convinced that is a helpful model.) Correct. It doesn't. It is just the volume that "stuff" exists in. As always, analogies don't really tell you anything about the underlying science. Especially when you make up the analogy first and then try and make it fit the science. So this is getting increasingly irrelevant. (But, yes, you can model flocking just by looking at the behaviour of individual birds.)

You can build a compass that also measures intensity (in the same way it measures direction). The distinction appears to be only one of accuracy: detection = is it there or not; measurement = how string is it. Whatever you want. Distance. No. Not currently, no. There are various hypotheses about quantised space but none are testable at the moment. Yes. We know (from experience) that we need to specify four independent values to arrange a meeting for example. There isn't really any such thing as "scientific proof". However, as one of our best ever theories is based on 4D spacetime then it seems a re reasonable working conclusion that there are four dimensions of spacetime. That is about the best you can get in science.

Do they? It is generally accepted that the universe could be infinite in size. There are various hypotheses that lead to the universe being infinitely old. There proposals for an infinite number of universes. And so on... Then what is the point you are trying to make? You need to be more explicit about what you are trying to say. What is this graph and why should it be taken seriously`/

I don't think that is going to happen. (Dying, I mean. Sounds like she might be sensible to get out while she can! )

I guess it depends what aspects of the universe you are looking at. Each planet or star or galaxy (or cluster) can be considered an independent object. On the other hand, cosmology often treats the whole thing as a "gas" that is cooling and decreasing in density.

Why? We already have a function that relates space to time, the FLRW metric. What is wrong with that one? What is your point? As far as we know, the universe has existed for 13.8 billion years, and possibly forever. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

As there is no evidence and no theoretical basis for it, why would we consider it? By people making wild unsupported guesses? I don't think so.

True. The same is true of the equations of GR. And everything else in physics. Not really. We perceive it as gravity, for example.

Virtual photons. This is just another description of the same thing.

Yep. It is still nonsense. What does that mean? What is not physical about quantum physics? Newton explicitly said he had no idea what the nature of the force was. “You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter. Pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know, and therefore would take more time to consider of it.” — Isaac Newton From Letter to Richard Bentley (1693). No. Ad hoc fitting of equations is akin to numerology.

What do you mean by "physical contact"? We are going round in circles. Please stop it. If physical contact means that the electric fields of the atoms interact then yes.

They are equivalent, but neither are a force in GR. However, as this is equivalence is the basis of GR, perhaps you can explain what you are saying that is different from GR? What evidence do you have for this? For example, why do we not see the Earth getting larger?

I don't believe he said that.

It means that the electric fields of one set of atoms interact with (repel) the electric fields of another set of atoms. This is what is known as "touching" or "contacting".

You should work through this series of articles and see what happens to a field when it is quantised: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/

The field is quantised.

Apparently it wasn't Newton who worked this out, but someone else using his theory: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/light_deflection A geodesic is the generalisation of a straight line to curved spaces. A null geodesic is the path followed by massless particles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_in_general_relativity

I assume the water would just boil away: as steam was created it would push the water out of the way and escape. Therefore no explosion. In the case of ice, presumably the pressure of the steam builds up until it shatters the ice: an explosion.

I'm afraid I have no idea what that means. Light is affected by gravity, even Newton knew that (although his theory gives the wrong result; which is why that was one of the first tests of GR). But the reason that light is curved in GR is that it follows the curvature of space-time. Light always moves along what are called null-geodesics.