Strange

Hey, here's a crazy idea. Why not EXPLAIN your method so we can assess it and even try it ourselves! 13. Why are you using the English word for flax but the Welsh word for pod? Answer: because it is bat-shit crazy numerology. Prove me wrong !!!1!! (As you crackpots like to say.)

That sounds roughly correct.

Actually, Mayan. Although it wasn't theirs, it was made up by some 20th century nutter.

No it doesn't. Why would you think that? It means "everywhere in the universe (however big that is)". There is no "outside the boundaries of the finite universe". Because there are no boundaries. I agree it should not be capitalised (but not for that reason). Correct. It is assumed that the universe outside the observable universe is largely the same. There is no reason (and no evidence) to think otherwise.

It is, if it is what you want to do.

I don't think you know what the word "speculation" means, nor what the purpose of the Speculations forum is. Neither case is covered by "made up nonsense".

I think you are hung up on an incorrect mental model of space as "stuff" that stretches or multiplies.

So what? Why is what you find hard to imagine relevant?

Then you should be studying physics, not posting in the philosophy section of forums (and especially not links with "divinity" in the title, which cannot possibly be relevant). There is no evidence that the universe had a beginning. What are these "conspiracies of misinformation"? Can you explain what is wrong with the current system of education, scientific research, publishing of research results (increasingly in open-access media), etc. You seem to have some grand goals, which is great, but you seem to be addressing a problem that may not exist.

I'm not sure it is true. There are many Western philosophers who have studied and incorporated various philosophical ideas from the East. Schopenhaur found a lot of inspiration in the Vedas and Buddhism. I gather he kept a copy of the Upanishads by his bed and read from it every night. Plus, among the public generally, I would think that Eastern ideas have more currency than those of Western philosophers.

I'm not sure that it matters if the concept is vague, or even undefined. The formality is in the mathematics. The "thing" we call energy appears consistently in various equations as a value that is conserved. As far as physics is concerned, I'm not sure anything more than that is required. Attempting to pin down what this "thing" actually is, is philosophy not physics.

Well, I suppose that makes a refreshing change from the usual complaint that scientists are too dogmatic and refuse to consider new ideas... Despite the question marks, these are not questions? Perhaps, if you have a point to make, you should make it? Instead of posting sentence fragments? Which don't mean anything? In isolation?

I agree that you can only use a single reference frame, which is why saying that a number is equal to itself is beyond meaningless. I have never heard of such a thing before. And, as it is not generally true, it doesn't seem a very useful concept.

I haven't watched the video (because it is a video). But are you saying that contact is not due to the electromagnetic interaction of the outer electrons of atoms? Well, bosons can all occupy the same space. But they are probably not "things" ...

The only way you can know how many cycles were emitted in another frame of reference is to count the number of cycles received. (So, trivially, you will always get the same number for "emitted" and "received"). Any mechanism you use to count the number of cycles emitted will be affected in the same way as the frequency of the photon and so, again, you will always get the same number. This tells you nothing.

Visible light (which can be detected by your photoreceptors). So, again, what exactly are you after? Photoreceptors, by definition, can't detect sound (the clue is in the name). But you can learn to navigate by echolocation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19524962

Peer review, primarily. And of course, you are free to check it as well. No data is ever "exactly accurate". That is a stupid question. By that standard all science and engineering is "wrong". The data to answer these questions is available but I get the impression you are not interested in the answers. Your argument (such as it is) seems to be: "I don't know anything about climate change [hence all the questions] therefore it must be wrong". Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You first five posts were about dark matter. But never mind. No disputes that Einsteins theory is the best we have. It is the basis of all current cosmological models. Yes, the evidence has been confirmed by multiple teams. The nearest thing to an "explanation" from you that I have been able to find is: "All I`m stating is that something in our galaxy caused them to get absurd results ( even with two teams ) in an experiment done. I`m not sure what it is exactly, but I`m sure it has to do with time dilation. Whether through speed or mass." I don't think that "they may have made an error of some sort for unknown reasons" is much of an explanation. There is no theory of dark energy yet. There is evidence that needs to be explained. That's it. And Newton's laws of motion are irrelevant. The expansion of space is explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity (remember that: the one you said was most likely to be correct) not by Newtonian physics. The observations of expansion have nothing to do with black holes. Don't confuse your own ignorance with that of others. Unless you can actually show that there is some relevant behaviour of black holes. Indeed. But that questioning has to be done on the basis of evidence and/or theory. Just saying "I clearly know nothing about the theory or the evidence but I think it must be wrong". That is not science. I am not sure what it is. Delusional behaviour? Please calculate the time dilation caused by the black hole. You might then see why you are wrong. I and others have pointed out many of your errors and misunderstandings. But you have just ignored them. So I doubt anything will convince you that you are wrong. You have the certainty of the non-scientist on your side ("it makes sense to me so it must be right"). As far as I can see you haven't said who you are talking about. Please provide references to the relevant scientific papers. That is obviously not what Klaynos said. You seem to have reading comprehension problems.

Worth noting that the conference appears to be pretty bogus and the paper was written to humiliate the organisers. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=29015

I think you are in for a big surprise.

Ooops. https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

So you were saying that the number of cycle counted in the observers reference frame will be the same as the number of cycle counted in the observers reference frame. That is completely tautological so I don't see how it can be used as an argument for (or against) anything. It would be true if there was a change of frequency in transit, or not, or if photons briefly turned into chocolate mousse in transit. It can't not be true. Whatever happens.

Explaining it more slowly doesn't make it correct. https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm

I don't think it is material I find confusing but your presentation. For example you say: When this radio signal of 1000 cycles is sent upward, 1000 cycles arrive at a detector with a faster resonating quartz crystal. The measured frequency is therefore reduced An emitted light ray ("photons") will therefore be released at lower frequency, and if it propagates upwards it will be detected at a lower frequency than the emitted frequencies of atoms at that height. Followed by: If for 24h a certain number of cycles is sent upward, that number must also be received in the same time interval.If the measured frequency is reduced (as you say) then the same number of cycles will not be measured in 24 hours. Unless, of course, you mean that the number transmitted in the receiving clock's 24 hour period must be the same as the number received in the receiving clock's 24 hour period. But as I can't imagine any reason why you would say that (as it is trivially true and therefore meaningless) I assume it is not what you meant.

Because we don't have a "Breaks the Laws of Physics" section ...