Strange

Small black holes are one possibility that has been considered to account for dark matter. The problem is that the number of dark holes needed would have an observable effect - either because they would have an accretion disk and generate radiation and/or because of gravitational lensing. And, similarly, the amount of dust that would be needed to explain dark matter is enormous. So much so that it would obscure our view. If you are suggesting that the dust is invisible because it is made of some unknown form of matter which is not visible then, well, that is pretty much the idea of dark matter. So it sounds like both your dark energy and dark matter proposals have little basis in science.

Protein folding Gene transcription Computational chemistry for in-silico drug discovery ... Just a few very important real-world applications off the top of my head.

As it has to be taken into account in a range of technologies and scientific experiments, it is hardly "nonexistent". Perhaps you can give some evidence that the calculations based on relativity are not accurate?

And there is no reason you would have to.

Is this another example of the old "science doesn't know everything so it doesn't know anything" trope?

It was you who brought this up: Gravity is one possible cause.

Invariant means that all observers see the same same speed of light. This is what leads to length contraction and time dilation.

What?

If you are moving relative to someone else, then their clock will appear to be running slower than yours. One result of this is the "Twins Paradox" (not really a paradox, just a surprising result) which shows that if your twin flies off into space and travels really fast for a while then when she comes back she will have aged less than you. So, for example, if you were to travel to a star that is a hundred light years away and you accelerated at a constant 1g half the way and then decelerated at a constant 1g for the rest of the journey then it would take you about 9 years of your time to get there. people on Earth would see that it took you just over 100 years. After doing a bit of exploring, you get back on board and head back to Earth. More than two centuries have passed but you are only 20 years older. Is that time travel? You decide. I have seen this proposed as a possible resolution to the grandfather paradox, but I don't know if it has any theoretical basis.

Well, if you could achieve sufficient time dilation such that 7 centuries passed on Earth in a few years, days or minutes of your time, then that would effectively be time travel into the future. Or the nearest thing that is actually possible with currently known physics.

Could you provide a reference? I am not aware of anything like that (but there are a lot of things I am not aware of.)

You have a table at the top with numbers assigned to symbols. 1. Where does this table of symbols come from? 2. What determines the order of these symbols? 3. How do you know what numbers symbols should be assigned to these symbols? 4. How do you know that one set of signals means "scorpion"? 5. How do you know that another set of symbols means "craf" / "garlic" ? 6. Why are you using an English word (scorpion) in one case and a Welsh word (craf) in another case? As has been explained, because you are using numerology you can match a given number to any meaning you want. Which is why your method has zero value.

Or how you define "clock"

It has nothing to do with relativity. You were (strongly) implying that scientists are being deliberately dishonest. I can assure you that is not true. The lead engineer on our design projects was one of the leading authorities on GPS systems. I don't think he included the relativistic corrections for fun.

Negative energy is a purely hypothetical concept. There is no evidence that such a thing can exist.

On a planet with zero gravity (such a thing is not possible, so lets say a body with 1/6th Earth's gravity: the Moon) there will be almost no atmosphere. On the other hand, there could well be a planet with a gravity similar to Earth but with almost no atmosphere.

I have heard the shocking statistic that 50% of people have below average intelligence! I think something should be done about this.

Nowhere in that article does it say the universe is 10 times bigger. It just says that, in the early universe, there were many more (smaller) galaxies that there are now. This provides valuable information for theories of galaxy evolution. No. "It appears that when the universe was only a few billion years old there were ten times as many galaxies in a given volume of space as there are within a similar volume today. Most of these galaxies were low mass systems with masses similar to those of the satellite galaxies surrounding the Milky Way. Prof Conselice said: “This is very surprising as we know that, over the 13.7 billion years of cosmic evolution since the Big Bang, galaxies have been growing through star formation and mergers with other galaxies. Finding more galaxies in the past implies that significant evolution must have occurred to reduce their number through extensive merging of systems.”" http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2910-a-universe-of-two-trillion-galaxies (BTW, you might get better responses if this had been a new thread rather than tacked on to one that many people won't read.)

It makes no difference if it is finite or infinite. And, no, a finite universe does not need to have a centre. Take for example, the 2D surface of the Earth as a simpler analogy. Where is the centre of the Earth's surface? There isn't one. If the Earth were expanding, then all cities and towns would move apart from one another equally. And, from simple arithmetic, the speed at which they move apart would be proportional to their distance. Not quite. It represents the point at which the universe had cooled enough to allow them to travel freely.. If you are going to propose an alternative mechanism, then you must explain (1) why it has a (perfect) black body spectrum and (2) why it is the temperature it is. If there were an explosion some distance away then some stuff would be moving away, some would be moving towards us, some would be going left, right, up down. So we would see a range of different red/blue shifts depending where you look. This is the opposite of isotropic.

I am not a scientist (although I find your use of quotation marks around 'science' pretty offensive). I am an engineer who has worked on the design of GPS receivers and I can assure you that they do make relativistic corrections. I have only skimmed that paper, but a few immediate comments: 1. It is talking about the software on the satellites (and ground control stations) rather than receivers. 2. It is quite old and the accuracy of GPS has been improved since then. 3. You omitted the abstract of the paper, which describes its purpose: "We give and explain in detail the formulas for the relativistic corrections to be implemented in [various cases]" The cases where these corrections need to be applied now includes ground-based receivers. About 100ms, not instantly. GPS is used, by many people, as a reference timing source that needs to be far more accurate than that.

Well, it isn't really that gravity affects time. Gravity is how we perceive the curvature of space-time caused by the presence of mass. Another visible consequence of that curvature is that two people at different locations will see each others lengths and times contracted or stretched. So the effect on rulers (distances) and clocks (time), and the gravitational force are observable consequences of the presence of mass (or energy).

And it is important to note that, at low speeds, you only need Galilean relativity (and everyday experience) to answer this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

How would you tell the difference? If, for example, all clocks (and biological processes, etc.) are equally affected in what sense could you say that time is not affected? And that is the case, to the extent that it can be confirmed. All processes where we can measure the effect, such as different types of atomic clocks, the frequencies of photons, the rate at which supernovae change brightness, the lifetimes of fundamental particles, etc. all follow the predicted behaviour. So, as always in physics, we have a model which works to a high degree of accuracy. I guess you can argue about that is "really" happening (and there are always several lively threads about that) but that is philosophy / metaphysics rather than science.

I think that is a likely explanation. I am still puzzled by the persistent inability to provide the background to their thoughts, even when asked specific questions.

Well, the one that prompted me to post this was the Voynich manuscript one. The member in question mainly just posts cryptic and/or illegible images with little or no explanation. Presumably the content of these is (a) visible and (be) meaningful to him. But I can make little sense of it. What I can is mainly by guesswork. If someone says, "I don't understand the image could you explain it" surely the thing to do is attempt to explain it, not just post more incomprehensible images. It is all jolly frustrating. And then there is this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99599-sports-are-usually-governed-by-a-set/ What the .... (Turns out it was failed spam - they have just gone back and added the missing spam link.)