Strange

Not unless you can produce a model that matches observations. And matches all the evidence. How does this explain the CMB, for example?

In most parts of the world the birth rate has fallen below that needed to increase the population. That is why most models predict that the world's population will peak before the end of the century and then start falling. Hans Rosling's talks on this are always good value: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth

Is the question: why is the big bang model currently accepted as the best description of the universe? In which case the answer is that is was predicted by theory and it is the best match for all the evidence. Various other models were tried to explain the observed red-shifts, none worked as well. And no other model can also explain the CMB.

So that is a completely different question. In this case, the light from an object 4 billion light years away would take 4 billion light years to get here. No matter how fast that object was moving. And, of course, that object could not be travelling at c.

Can you explain why the answers so far are not satisfactory?

I doubt very much that a model where gravity follows a simple inverse law has been proposed. Basically, it would not fit any of the observational data. Could you even have stable orbits?

And, because of the increasing distance between those objects and us, there never will be enough time. As Markus pointed out, it is invariant not necessarily constant. It is a constant locally, but in an expanding universe if you divide the distance when the light was emitted by the travel time, you will not always get c. So, for example, the light from the most distant observable objects was emitted when they were about 4.5 billion light years away but has taken nearly 14 billion years to reach us.

There is no such evidence.

No. An atom always has the same number of protons and electrons.

That is my view (or three orthogonal distances, in our normal choice of coordinates).

Because none of those things appear in the theory of (or the evidence for) gravitational waves. So, yes, space is full of all those things. But those things are not what space is "made of" and they are not a medium for gravity.

They would look like (fuzzier versions of) electron orbitals: http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n4/fig_tab/nchem.1008_F3.html Not sure.

If you look at it that way, there are no object surfaces, just the fields!

Although people sometimes like to say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," when there is such an overwhelming absence of evidence, then it very definitely is evidence of absence.

You are parsing it wrong. It is: "The ratio of [a planet's radius squared] to [its mass] ..." Or what ajb said (Not "The [ratio of a planet's radius] squared to ..." which seems to be the interpretation your brain has got stuck on)

(Well, strictly speaking, it is not a valid "theory" because it is just a rather vague, general idea.) However, there has been some work done to produce a theory of electromagnetism based on curved space-time. The best known is probably Kaluza-Klein theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza–Klein_theory There is also Rainich-Misner-Wheeler theory (which know even less about!)

Well, it obviously doesn't mean that the world does not exist. (Because the world very obviously does exist.) So I suggest you read the book to find out what he means by that.

No. See, for example, Buddhism.

People who find this sort of speculation interesting, will find this the sort of speculation they like. Good point. We did all rather jump to a conclusion....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox I rarely watch videos. Very rarely. You might as well assume never.

Hypothesis, maybe. Not a theory. As Prometheus says, with no evidence it is nothing more than one of those ideas like "what if the world was created 15 minutes ago and just made to look like it was billions of years old". It might have sounded clever when you were 14 but now it is just silly.

I don't know. But from the description on Amazon, it sounds like he might be using it as an analogy for Russell's set of all sets (and the resulting paradoxes). What do you think?

Presumably their findings were negative, then, as there were no world-changing announcements about the results. Clever attempt to defuse the claim by poisoning the well. It doesn't change the fact that your post is a mixture of misunderstandings, made up "facts" and mumbo-jumbo. Or, as it is better known: woo. This is what is technically known as "bollocks".

Very good. Although, from the description on Amazon, it looks like it is an introduction to some important ideas in philosophy such as how do we know things, what can we know, what is the relationship between what we can know and "reality", what does it mean to know something, etc. Whether it is any good at doing this is another question. It certainly doesn't claim that the world doesn't exist (except, perhaps, for some particular definition of "the world").

How do you know it is nonsense? Now that is nonsense.