Strange

This is (a) impossible and (b) not necessary. You need to provide some evidence that supports your hypothesis. As light is already known to travel through space at the speed of light, you need some alternative evidence to support your idea.

Swansont gave the perfect answer. And you are a fine one to talk about not answering questions ...

Describing expansion in terms of a constant speed is totally incoherent. It makes no sense. It is impossible. I mean, feel free to post the math that shows how it is supposed to work but I can't see how it is possible. Of course you do. This is the classic "it makes sense to me" argument. Any calculation in QED needs to take account of non-classical paths to get the right result. As the papers you cite seem to confirm.

They are reaching conclusion based on guesses about what might happen in future. So we can just ignore you then. The evidence for that is the light that the sun gives forth.

I guess you are thinking of Ibn Bajjah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world#Mechanics He obviously didn't formulate Newton's third law. But he got the general principle right. Ibn Sina and Al Biruni (who are better known, to me at least) also produced early versions of Newton's other laws.

How about you provide a link instead of expecting people to search for it? I don't believe you. That is an insane idea.

Evidence?

Citation needed. "Stigler's law of eponymy ... states that no scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

Which multiverse theory (hypothesis) are you thinking about? There are several. There is a suggestion that the net energy of the universe is zero. Therefore no energy is required to create a universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe No one knows. Although the measured flatness suggests it is either very very large or infinite. (It would be very surprising if there were nothing outside the observable universe.)

in physics time is a dimension like space. Hence 4D space-time.

Quantum mechanics is mathematical (i.e. logical) theory that describes reality extremely well. So in what way is this evidence that logic is not capable of describing reality?

What does this have to do with quantum computing? I see nothing here about entanglement, superposition or any of the other techniques used in quantum computing. Are you planning to explain your diagram?

Really? Another thread on the same thing? Sigh. As there is no evidence for repulsive gravity, this seems a bit moot. There is no evidence that gravitational force depends on anything other than mass. You mentioned the solar system; well, there we have many bodies spinning at different rates and yet their gravity is determined only by their mass. Well, OK. If the object is spinning then it has more energy and therefore more gravity. But we know that already. In general, they also have zero or near zero electric charge so there appears to be no evidence that is required to create gravity either. What are these reasons? You seem to be ignoring the fact that Faraday was an excellent experimentalist. His collection of empirical data is what enabled Maxwell to mathematise his results. So where is your experimental data? Or are you not at the "Faraday stage", but rather at the Wild-Ass Guess stage? Relying on a well-known crackpot for support does not seem sensible. (I have just seen that Wikipedia describes Podkletnov as a "ceramics engineer"; so he really is a psychoceramicist! Brilliant.) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/psychoceramic

Simply repeating the same thing doesn't answer any questions. Where is your evidence that spin speed and/or charge are relevant?

And must be really tedious to type. So this is just a very confusing restatement of the fact that each number in the sequence is the sum of the two previous numbers. I have no idea what this means. What is a "Fibonacci based binary code"? It doesn't even help your explanation.

As you keep comparing yourself to Faraday, please feel free to come back when you have the results of your experiments. Stars, planets, moons, comets and asteroids have no (or negligible charge). Many have no magnetic field. They spin at a wide range of speeds (including near zero). And yet our current theories of gravitation work very well. This appears to falsify your idea.

So you seem to be ascribing some sort of physical attributes to empty space that can have a position and speed. Or, to put it another way, how would you experimentally detect and measure this expansion of space? Also, how do you connect your idea of points expanding at c (*) to the fact that we observe expansion as a scaling effect? (*) This which still seems mathematically nonsensical. So perhaps you could present the math behind it. So your idea seems to have no value.

As there is no evidence for repulsive gravity, this seems a bit moot. You shouldn't really hijack someone else's thread with your own wacky ideas. There is no evidence that gravitational force depends on anything other than mass. You mentioned the solar system; well, there we have many bodies spinning at different rates and yet their gravity is determined only by their mass. Well, OK. If the object is spinning then it has more energy and therefore more gravity. But we know that already. In general, they also have zero or near zero electric charge so there appears to be no evidence that is required to create gravity either. What are these reasons? You seem to be ignoring the fact that Faraday was an excellent experimentalist. His collection of empirical data is what enabled Maxwell to mathematise his results. So where is your experimental data? Or are you not at the "Faraday stage", but rather at the Wild-Ass Guess stage?

In which direction? And speed relative to what? Are you head and your neck moving apart at 300,000 km/s? Or your head and your feet? The photon is also affected by any possible future paths. And by other objects that are further away than this sphere. How does your model handle that?

OK. Point taken. We all have to learn. I'm sure that some of my code was (and probably still is) quite appalling. Good luck with your studies.

As it is a mathematical theorem, perhaps you can show where the error in the maths is? And, if the mathematics iOS correct, then perhaps you can explain why experiment is consistent with Bell's inequality? It is only absence of one particular cause. Or the correlation is caused by something else. As hidden variables are not the cause that doesn't seem relevant. Not really. Hidden variables means things like the spins of two particles being determined when they are created. Or the correlation being caused by the transmission of information from one to the other. Basically, Bell's theorem shows that the observed results cannot be caused by a locally realistic theory. Bell's inequality is true for any type of hidden variable (local, realistic) solution. Or that you don't need hidden variables and our current explanation works fine. For things where cause and effect is involved, it certainly seems to be the case that cause must precede effect. But there are, of course, cases where things don't have a cause.

It would be the same in C, C++, Python, Java, ML, Lisp ... Probably even Fortran.

1. Someone showed you a better method and you said it was wrong. 2. I never said I could do anything better than you. It has nothing to do with scanf. As far as I can tell, you are getting a newline at the end of "1 2 3 4" because the user has to type newline to enter the information. If the requirement really is to display the sum after the entered numbers, then your solution of reading one character at a time is probably the best way. (Note that the standard function is getchar, not getch.) (OK, so in a very indirect sense, it is because scanf is being used to read lines of input.) However, that is such a bad idea (for example it does not allow any editing keys, such as backspace, without a lot more work), that I think the problem description may be wrong. I would guess (hope!) that the input can be read as "1 2 3 4 <newline>" but then the output shows the input values followed by the sum. Which is then a very good reason for storing the data in a 2D array. So, as a very general design principle for even a simple program like this, I would recommend keeping the data input, the computation (calculating sums) and the output as quite separate bits of code. (Even doing them in separate functions to add some structure.) // read input into array for (int row = 0; ... for (int col = 0; ... // Calculate sums for rows and columns ... // Output array with sums for rows and columns ... There is some extra overhead to that approach but I would certainly give someone more marks for clarity than efficiency in a task like this. Especially if they included something in the comments indicating that they were aware of this and, perhaps, suggesting how it could be restructured to be more efficient if required.

Haploinsufficiency ?

It is exactly the same as what you wrote. You swerve between occasionally sensible posts and nonsense like this. Your coding examples are generally close to the worst possible solution to the problem (if not completely wrong). Thank god you are not a professional programmer. It doesn't add a newline. It preserves the newline that was entered. However, as it is being used to convert a string to an integer, I struggle to see how that is relevant. You don't say what is wrong when you run the code (and, I'm afraid, I haven't tried your code myself yet. However, one problem is that you are entering 4 numbers on each line but using scan to only read a single value. I think you are unnecessarily complicating things by storing the values in a 2D array, when all you really need to keep is the array of totals. (But maybe that was part of the problem definition?) You could read all four integers with a single scanf (using the format string "%d %d %d %d") but this is not very flexible and I would not recommend it. It would be better to read the input string and then split it into the substrings containing the numbers. There are various ways of doing this. Look at strtok() for example. Then each string containing a number can be converted with atoi().