Strange

There is a large button, clearly labelled "Quote" beneath each post. You can use that to make it clear when you are quoting someone else (as here). Otherwise it becomes nearly impossible to follow the discussion. I assume (as it has been completely obvious for many millennia that the world is round) that you are simply trying to understand why your experiment produces the wrong results.

Can you show how that is calculated? And how large the effect is.

Can you cite your sources?

The wavelength measured are important because of increasing red-shift with distance. So, for example, the oldest light we can see is the cosmic microwave background. But, as the name suggests, that is microwaves and so requires specialised detectors. That dates from about 360,000 years after the (notional) "start" of the universe. If you want to know what is the oldest visible light, then that is a much more complicated question. But the oldest galaxies that we can see are about 13.39 billions years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11

It is more like we are on the surface of a balloon (a 2D analogy for the 3D universe). Your description suggests that there is something "outside" the balloon. That does not match current cosmology. The rest of your post seems to be baseless speculation. As there is no science in it, there isn't much to say.

Because you haven't analysed it correctly.

I don't think you understand what the word "theory" means, nor how science works. They explain how it works very precisely. I don't know what "they do not explain how it works literally" means. How can Maxwells equations explain something perfectly but not explain it? He explained how light "works", by means of equations. Those equations can be described in words. And therefore the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields can also be described in words. Therefore, your earlier comment is obviously wrong. His mathematics (and therefore the "words") describes light, electric fields and magnetic fields equally well. Yes, the difference is that the maths is the theory and the words aren't.

I don't think you know what the word "theory" means. There is, currently, no evidence that the universe had a beginning. And neither theology nor metaphysics have anything to do with science.

Maxwells' equations explain electric fields and how a changing electric field produces magnetic forces, and vice versa. They do this quantitatively, producing useful results that are used by technology (e.g. the design of motors, dynamos or transformers). You vague idea doesn't (and, as far as I can can see, can't) do anything like that. It appears to be entirely useless.

Pound-Rebka? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

Objects that emitted light 13 billion years ago were, at that time, about 4 billion light years away. They are now about 47 billion light years away. Not sure what the conundrum is, that you are referring to ...

That is not true. For example: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 The limit on things moving at the speed of light comes from special relativity and is, therefore, a "local" limit. The expansion of space is described by general relativity. I don't think any of Einstein's equations say that.

Yes. (Not sure what else to say. )

Interesting idea. I haven't come across it before. Sounds a little bit like texture mapping. I'm not sure what the advantage is; it doesn't obviously take any less space. You still have to have value for every pixel, just that it will be the coordinates, rather than the pixel values (consider the ,limiting case where every pixel is black, for example: you still have to list the coordinates of every pixel.) However, combine it with run-length encoding and there might be an advantage. Although it makes operations on the image (e.g. filtering) more complex.

Good point, well made.

Sounds like "opinion" to me. That is why science differs from philosophy. Science allows you to find out if you are mistaken. Philosophy doesn't. So neither of them deal with "truth", but for different reasons.

The phrase "citation needed" comes to mind. Any evidence for that? Or any of your claims?

As I said, long on assertions.Sort on evidence. So you want to change the terminology. <shrug> That has happened before. We no longer call people "lunatics". It sounds like we agree that people can have behavioural problems (is that OK?) that make life difficult for them and/or others. And that such behaviours, ultimately, arise in the brain. You don't think that "mind" is a useful concept. I do, in fact I think it is unavoidable. I have seen plenty of very scientific studies of the mind (and the brain), so that appears to be untrue. But perhaps you mean something different by "scientific" than I do.

Good point!

DNA makes many different proteins. The "letters" (codons) in the DNA specify a sequence of amino acids - and proteins are made up of amino acids strung together. Some of these proteins are enzymes, some are the structural components of the cell, others have other uses. All cells, including white blood cells, are constructed by the proteins created by the DNA.

Can you? I would have thought that the emotions alternated, rather than happening at the same time. But I am only guessing as I have never been in a position to know...

All you have is unsupported speculation that is not supported by any evidence.

DNA encodes proteins. If you work out a way to make those proteins produce inorganic structures, then it could done. In fact, this already happens. Look at seashells, for example.

Your initial claim is that: But there is no physical mechanism for some of the mass and charge to move separately. So you invented the explanation that electrons are composite particles. (To make that work, you have to invent some new unknown particles "notquarks" that behave in previously unknown ways.) Now you are saying that the evidence that electrons are composite is your initial suggestion that electron mass could be separated. But there is no reason to think that happens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Rest mass is the same even from other frames. Unlike, say, energy or length.