Strange

Really? I am surprised by that. I don't see why the block should not be limited in extent in or or more of its dimensions. For example, if you consider the idea that the universe started from a singularity of zero size (*) then the spatial dimensions would shrink to zero and the temporal dimension would come to an end (rather like going to the North pole, there is not further north to go). The same could happen in the future if the universe were to collapse to a singularity. (And all black holes would be similar "pinch off" points). (*) This is probably not realistic, but it is the result of extrapolating using just GR and is thus consistent with the block model

That sounds like superdeterminism. I don't think may people take that very seriously as an explanation of quantum phenomena. (At least partly because it is a bit like "god did it" in that it shuts down any further questioning or investigation.) As there is, currently, quite a fundamental disconnect between GR (which I assume is what you base the "block universe" model on) and quantum theory, I don't think it is reasonable to use one to try and invalidate the other. Perhaps that means that when (if?) we have a theory of quantum gravity then it will move away from a simplistic idea of a block universe.

There very obviously are. (Ask if you want examples.) Whether they are relevant to the subject or not, I couldn't say. But I do think they undermine the idea of complete determinism. I am not convinced that determinism and free will are incompatible, anyway (depending what definition of free will is being used).

It is generally thought that the universe beyond the observable universe is pretty much the same as the universe we can see. There is no reason to think it would be different. In other words, someone near the edge of our observable universe would see pretty much the same thing extending around them for the same distance as we do. I don't think anyone is expecting to find anything new inside the atomic nucleus.

Why not? It says that not everything has a cause. Learn more about the subject so you can make a more convincing argument. (It sounds like maybe you believe you are right rather than having a convincing argument.)

According to current theory, there is no "outside" the universe. The universe is all there is.

Except, of course, when it isn't. How could someone convince you that you were wrong?

Not strictly a physics question, more history of science. But this has come up in a few threads where people have mentioned "Einstein's rubber sheet model". I have read little of Einstein's original writing but I didn't think he came up with this analogy. Does anyone know where it originated?

I don't make any such claim. I have no idea what you are talking about. The colours on the map show variations in temperature. The variations are less than 1 millionth of a degree though. In the big bang model, there has always been a uniform distribution of matter and energy. It is almost as if you do not know what you are talking about. Maybe it is a language problem. But I think you would be better off asking questions to fill the apparent gaps in your understanding, rather than claiming to have a "theory". The universe has always been uniformly full of matter and energy. As the density dropped and it cooled, gravity allowed it to form denser areas. Eventually stars and galaxies formed in these areas. No, I didn't say that. Inflation is still an unconfirmed hypothesis. It may turn out to be unnecessary. It does predict a uniform distribution of galaxies because it is based on the assumption that universe has always been completely and uniformly filled with matter. Anyone with a basic understanding of the big bang model would know this. Pick one from here and explain why you think it is wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity One of my favourites, because it is a brilliant piece of experimental design, is the Pound-Rebka experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment And then, of course, we have the recent detection of gravitational waves. It must be either finite or infinite, agreed. We do not know which it is. (Note, those choices are not the same as you gave before.) I don't know what "must occure" means. Anyway, enough of you displaying how little you know about the big bang model and back to YOUR model: Please show, in mathematical detail, how your model predicts the cosmic microwave background. This must quantitatively explain both the spectrum and the apparent temperature. You have avoided this question several times now. If you have a theory, then it must be able to predict this. Just another couple of points: As the expansion of space (including Hubble's law and the CMB) was predicted using GR, that cannot be true. Yes, mass energy causing expansion is exactly what is predicted by GR (for a homogeneous distribution of mass-energy).

It sounds like a difference of interpretation. What does the mathematics say?

That is the same article you posted at the start of the thread. I still haven't read it (and I have no interest in reading it). And I still have no idea if he has published any scientific papers on this.

In the temperature and black body spectrum. "But the big bang wasn’t invented to explain the CMB, rather the CMB was a prediction made twenty years before its discovery." https://briankoberlein.com/2015/02/08/fact/ According to the big bang model, the universe has always been uniformly filled with matter and energy. Surely you know that? Sorry, that is totally incomprehensible. Maybe you could try Google Translate. I am asking for a precise mathematical calculation of the spectrum predicted by your theory (so we can compare that with the spectrum of the CMB) and the temperature predicted by your theory (so we can compare that with the temperature of the CMB). In other words: numbers. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of experiments that confirm GR. The one you mention is probably the worst (it was pretty inconclusive). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity Your "logic" seems to fall short of reality. In other words: d) None of the above. P.S. I know it is hard. But please try and master the complexities of the Quote function. (But thanks for being another datapoint in the correlation between inability to use it and crackpottery.)

I have no idea. I haven't read the article. And I don't know if he has published a scientific paper on this.

You can use a mathematical theorem to build a hypothesis. You can then test that hypothesis by observation and experiment. If the evidence is repeatedly consistent with the hypothesis then it may be accepted as a theory; in other words a good explanation of the observed phenomena. So the point (of science) is to create better theories to describe the world.

Then I suggest you read the John Baez link I provided above and don't skip the maths.

You can't make experiments to test this. That would mean being able to determine what "reality" really is. And that is impossible. Most or all scientific theories are based on mathematics and therefore on some number of mathematical theorems.

1. You are not asking anything. You are making a series of statements which are either false or incomprehensible. 2. I am not a "science representative" (whatever that is). 3. The nature of the CMB (the black body spectrum and the temeprature) were predicted by the big bang model long before it was observed. 4. It is up to YOU to explain an alternative source for the CMB based on your "theory". 5. A meaningless phrase like "hydrogen concentration only process" is not an explanation. 6. You must explain (a) why it is a perfect black body and (b) why it has exactly the temperature it does. There is probably no point going much further until you can do that. But ... That is not "nothing". It is enough time for even a slow computer like your PC to execute a thousand instructions. It is enough time for light to travel 300 metres. But if you insist that time dilation must be several seconds for it to be apparent to you (because you are so slow) then obviously that is only going to happen in extreme conditions. It still exists and is measurable at all scales, so we have to take it into account in GPS, as just one trivial example. "we do not know whether the universe is infinite or not" https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm

That meaning of manifest would not make sense in that context it is pretty obvious that they mean "cause". Have you read that paper, rather than just that paragraph? It will be obvious what they mean by it. And how would you detect/measure that?

The "rules" are too vague to have any meaning. The "rules" can be (and, sadly, are) applicable to any language. Numerology has been applied to Greek, Russion, Hebrew, Chinese, and prbably every other language and writing system in the world. You As 1/10th of the words will be (randomly) assigned to each of the digits, it is obviously meaningless to say that two words that both map on to 2 have any connection. It would trivial to write a program to prove this is nonsense (I have done it before) but it would be a waste of time. You have clearly convinced yourself that these meaningless patterns mean something. As such, you are beyond rational help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia My understanding is that the upper table consists of symbols with no known meaning. How do you come to assign and order and therefore numbers to them?

You can prove a mathematical theorem but that doesn't prove that it applies to the real world. However, as his underlying point seems to be that we can never know what "reality" truly is, then it all seems pretty pointless because this has been known to philosophers for decades or centuries, maybe millennia.

The other important factor is that neutrinos only interact via the weak force, while others interact via electromagnetic force, as well.

That is not what it says. It says that expansion has no "local counterpart"; i.e. it doesn't happen locally (because of the lack of homogeneity). How are those different?

I am not sure how my statements could be seen as contradictory but, to clarify what I mean: motion cannot be intrinsic to an object because it is observer dependent. It is defined by the relationship between the object and the observer.

I'm afraid your essay is so badly formatted and badly written that I gave up trying to make any sense of it. Many of your sentences are almost completely incomprehensible. Just one (random) example: I assuming that CBR means CMB[R]. But what does "point on" mean? What is a "Hydrogen concentration only process"? If you are proposing an alternative explanation for the CMB, then you need to show in mathematical detail that your model produces a perfect black body spectrum at the observed temperature. You do not seem to have done that. The sentences which can be understood are nearly all factually wrong. For example: Not true. Time "visibly" (i.e. detectably) slows down near any mass. We can measure the in a few metres difference in altitude on Earth. Not true. Space could be finite or infinite. We do not know (and possibly cannot know) which it is. I do not believe Einstein came up with that analogy (although I don't know who did). It is certainly not an "experiment". And it is a truly terrible analogy on which to base any argument about a highly mathematical and well-test theory. Hubble's law was predicted by the theory a few years before Hubble published his "law". The acceleration is not continuous. It appears to have started about 5 billion years ago. And the acceleration can be very well explained by the theory; most simply by adding an extra energy term. There is no reason why it should. Those things are outside the scope of the theory. That is like criticising the theory of evolution for not explaining the flow of water through pipes. That is not a gap in logic. It is the simple fact that we have never observed such a force. Dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang and the "flying away" of galaxies. And so on and so on... In summary, you give an excellent impression of someone who does not know anything about the subject.

I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have clearly failed to understand you and/or the OP.