Strange

That is where the tiny fluctuations in the CMB, and hence the large scale structure of the universe, are thought to come from.

True. But then does anyone suffering from some form of insanity recognise it. I think there is good evidence that depriving people of all stimuli causes serious psychological problems.

I don't know what that means.

I think it would be conscious. And then go insane.

I am tempted to buy a remote island, just so I can make it true somewhere in the world...

No. Completely garbled. The light from the train moves at c. As measured by the people on the train. And as measured by us. The train's frame of reference always travels with the train. That is the definition of a frame of reference - where the train is stationary. We have instruments that can measure thing moving at the speed of light. Like, you know: light. So time dilation is not an illusion. It is a real effect that we exploit or take account of in technology.

Who knows. Maybe it is the only way a universe can work (for reasons we don't understand). Maybe it is one of many possibilities and chance gave us this one. Maybe there are multiple universes that work in different ways we just happen to be here. Maybe someone's God made it this way. Maybe the universe doesn't exist at all and it is all a figment of your imagination (which is why it is incomprehensible ).

I'm not sure what this means, but the key point is that dark matter does gravitate. That is one of the things we know for sure.

The computer you are suing to communicate with us depends on similar mathematical abstractions describing quantum theory; including some very counterintuitive concepts such as tunnelling. So this mathematics can produce useful results.

While it is true that the mathematical description is some sort of abstraction and not reality itself. It seems to be describing something real as the doctor does pick up a wave-like signal.

I think (and I'm sure ajb will correct me if I am wrong!) that the reason that the geometry is described in terms of bundles is, at least partly, because we are talking about INTRINSIC curvature. So, the images you have posted show 2D surfaces curved in 3D space. But when we are talking about the geometry of space-time, the curvature of the 4D manifold(surface) does not require a higher dimensional space. This is almost impossible to visualise and can really only be described mathematically. (The nearest thing I can think of as an analogy is bump mapping used in 3D graphics.)

Also worth noting that chaos theory tells us that there are things which are completely deterministic but not predictable. So, it seems that the universe is not deterministic but even if it were, it wouldn't be predictable. That's good enough for me.

Please try and make sense.

No, it is just some random nonsense that you made up. It has no basis in reality.

The thing is, we have a subject called "science" which is able to take all those different properties, make precise, mathematical predictions about how those planets and stars behave, and then test those predictions against observation. So that is at least 3 reasons why your random thoughts do not count as a theory. And not even as science.

Quantum mechanics is one reason why the universe is not (as far as we can tell) fully deterministic. So one counter-intuitive thing cancels out another!

Thanks. I did get a little bit from that! The Wikipedia page has a useful analogy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_bundle

I see that by resurrecting this thread, the OP has gained even more negative votes. Not enough though. If every negative vote ever given on the forum were assigned to that one post, it would not properly reflect how truly asinine it is.

No. But you seem to. You seem to think that progress has stopped, for some reason. I assume this is just because you don't know what research is going on and what new ideas are being thrown around. What makes you think they aren't. Again: PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING AT NEW IDEAS. Scientists always hope to be the one to overthrow the currently established ideas. That is where fame and fortune lies. How do you know they are not? And what level should they be scrutinised? And who decides? You? Don't make me laugh.

People are doing exactly that. (I have mentioned some examples, there are plenty more.) I have no idea what you are objecting to. Science hasn't come to a halt. People are still coming up with wild new ideas and testing them. It is just that (as always) 99% of those turn out to be wrong.

How do you store data as decimals? Do you try and store 10 different voltages in each memory cell? And get each logic gate to handle 10 different voltages? There are very good reasons why we don't do that.

Uhm, like the several fundamental paradigm changes that have happened just in my lifetime? We have gone from an unchanging Earth to one governed by plate tectonics. We have gone from a static universe that is infinitely old to one that has expanded from a hot dense state. We have gone from a "zoo" of fundamental particles to a well ordered system. And if you extend that back a bit further, we have gone from time and distance being absolute to all being relative; from gravity being a force to not being one; from electricity and magnetism being totally different things to being the same thing; from light being a waveform to it being quantised; from the plum pudding to the planetary to the modern view of the atom; from .... There has been nothing but the overthrow of centuries old ideas. What is wrong with you? And look at how willing people were to consider throwing out relativity when it was thought that neutrinos had been seen going faster than light. And when the first evidence for neutrinos was spotted (missing energy) one of the suggestions was that maybe the law of conservation of energy was wrong. And there was some recent work suggesting that there might be a fifth fundamental force. And one of the first explanations for Hubble's law was the suggestion that light just kind of ran down as it travelled through space. And people are still looking at multiple alternative explanations for dark matter: some new kind of matter; gravity doesn't behave as we think; some sort of quantum gas; etc. etc.

And that is the same as saying that distance or the metric has changed.

Any chance of a (relatively) lay explanation of what a bundle is, and how a fibre bundle differs from a frame bundle from a principle bundle?

Again: I am not minimizing it. The various anomalies may be very important. But they are very small in size (that is why so much time and effort needs to spent studying them). Some can be explained and some can't. Some of the latter have all sorts of far out speculations associated with them (e.g. Mersini-Houghton's "colliding universes" idea) Dunno. I guess there is just a lot of competition for news space. Isn't the admission that the suggestions of a new particle from the LHC being wrong sufficiently humble? Science is the discipline of being consistently wrong. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to try and show that your (or other people's) ideas are wrong.