Strange

So is length an illusion as well? As you now appear to be discussing g the nature of "reality" (whatever that is, and whether it even exists) this definitely belongs in Philosophy, not Physics. (Can I also suggest that, as this is a science site, you try and provide a little more support for your case, rather than just repeating your personal belief over and over.)

There is no evidence (yet) that space is quantised. This would probably require a theory of quantum gravity. Many people are working on various ideas but there is currently no evidence to support any of them. I assumed you meant that it is finite. What do you mean by "limit"?

There is no evidence for that. And one of the challenges in current physics is that it would conflict with General Relativity. Gravity is another way we can detect / measure the curvature of spacetime. Redshift is another. We don't know if space is finite or infinite.

Is it? How does that work for solutions to the Einstein Field Equations such as the Milne model, where there is no matter and energy and hence no "physical processes"? We can use change to measure time, but there doesn't have to be change for time to exist.

The universe is not expanding because of dark energy. There is no centre of the universe. You are proposing a new idea, therefore you need evidence for your idea. If you claim dark energy is evidence for your idea then you need to demonstrate that this is the case - preferably using maths.

Again: what evidence do you have for this? Or can we just ignore this as some sort of fairy tale?

The fuel burns by combining with the oxygen. Remove either the fuel or the oxygen and the fire is extinguished. (Wasn't there an almost identical question recently?)

You have yet to present any evidence to support this. For example, as far as I know, there is no evidence that dark energy is non-uniform, so why do you claim it is? What experiment could be done to test your idea?

1. This argument is a ridiculous fallacy. Just because people are pointing out your errors, it does not make you correct. This is known as the Galileo Fallacy. But, as Sagan said: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." 2. No one has ridiculed you or your idea. Just pointed out that it is wrong. 3. You don't get to choose who comments. 4. Don't be such a sensitive flower. If you want to propose a new idea, don't expect everyone to pat you on the head and say how clever you, be prepared to defend it. Then show us the model (i.e. the mechanism and the mathematical description that makes the hypothesis testable). What experiments could be done to confirm or show your hypothesis to be wrong? Only if you also agree that length has no "primary physical existence" and is an abstract idea. Please define "primary physical existence". You measure the size, colour and time of a ball with the appropriate instruments: ruler, spectrometer, clock, etc. So the universe was static and unchanging until humans came into existence? How did they come into existence with no time? Then this has nothing to do with science. Whether you measure how long a particular ball lasts, or estimate based on measurements of previous balls, you have still measured the lifetime of a ball at some point.

I'm not doing any such thing. I am simply explaining what the word "dimension" means, and that it is not an "energy field". The rest of your post is pretty incoherent and doesn't seem very relevant to the topic.

No one says that is what happens. It is a straw man fallacy. Reported for copyright infringement.

Er, no. That is not what "dimension" means. "the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it – for example, the point at 5 on a number line. A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it – for example, both a latitude and longitude are required to locate a point on the surface of a sphere. The inside of a cube, a cylinder or a sphere is three-dimensional because three coordinates are needed to locate a point within these spaces." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension Most people learn this at school. Or maybe language (and human thought) just reflects the reality around us.

What do you mean by "nothing physical"? They are entangled and therefore related by something physical (a wave function). How are undetectable hidden variables that are contradicted by data more "physical" than the reality of entangled particles? They are effectively a single particle. That is what "entangled" means. 1. Entanglement doesn't hold DNA together. 2. Even if it did, there is no reason to insist that requires hidden variables. If entanglement plays a role in the function of DNA then that understanding is based on current theory which does not need hidden variables. Simply repeating your belief doesn't make it magically come true. So far it seems to do OK. You have presented no evidence that current theory doesn't work. That is just a statement of your opinion / belief. There is no science behind it. There is evidence that hidden variable cannot exist. The two papers you link to do not say anything like that. A pop-sic article does but admits it is completely speculative with no proof. Again, this is explained by current theory (without hidden variables). So this is, again, just a statement of your opinion / belief. There is no science behind it.

Is this your experimental results? No. Reported for trolling.

If humanity is in danger from, say, an killer asteroid or the effects of global warming then I don't see why being connected to God would make any difference. If anything, it might make people less willing to take action - for example, many people in southern Europe don't bother with seat belts because "if your time has come ..." Also, even if being connected to (a) god were an advantage it would be important to cleave to the right one. It is possible that this: is just the anti-god's way of fooling you onto the wrong path.

Even if people do that, does it matter?

Humans create groups, even without religion. Overall, I would say no. There are many religious groups and individuals who do wonderful things for other people, from charities to art. There are some bad things that are done in the name of religion, but I suspect many of those are just using the cover of religion and the people would do the same things in the name of race, nationality, language, or some other in-group out-group distinction.

Yes.

There will be frames of references that can see every possible ordering - from all simultaneous to reversed. Is that 34?

Well, I suppose you can consider time to be a human invention to describe the wy things work. The same is, of course, true of length, mass, temperature, colour and all the other concepts we use to describe things around us. However, in physics (where you posted this) time is another dimension like the 3 spatial ones. And it describes very accurately the way the universe has evolved from an early hot dense state. (There is no reason to think that "time started with the big bang".) Your question (is time real) belongs on the philosophy forum. There are already multiple threads on this. They have been going on for months, going round in circles. Feel free to join one. It is not (cannot be) an effect on matter. If you have a scientific hypothesis along these lines (complete with evidence and testable mathematical predictions) then open a thread in the Speculations forum. The Physics forum is not the place for this.

These questions probably belong in the Philosophy section where there are several other similar threads. Be prepared for it to ramble on for months with no answers.

There isn't really a medium. The closest thing is the electromagnetic field. The photon is a "ripple" in that.

Because there is no wave without the photon. And as different photons have different wavelengths (and polarisations) then space would somehow have to have all of these and "know" which were "attached" to each photon. There are no separate particles and waves: there are things (quanta of light = photons) which have some properties we normally associate with particles and some properties we normally associate with waves.

God. That sounds like a combination of crappy SF and tricks that would not fool Penn and Teller. I hope you are not taken in by guff like that.

Indeed. You claim to be the equivalent of Faraday, so where are the large volumes of data from your experiments?