Strange

From your source: "standardised as exactly 1,609.344 metres by international agreement in 1959. With qualifiers, "mile" is also used to describe or translate a wide range of units" (emphasis added). The use in question was unqualified and thus assumed to refer to the standard. I tried nautical miles as well. But that was even more wronger.

I dunno. He might get on very well. He could end up being called "The Prof" and attracting audiences to his informal talks about what is "really" going on out there.

ccording to this, Berzelius' atomic weights were based on oxygen being 100: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6ns_Jacob_Berzelius#Law_of_definite_proportions (Which is confirmed by the table in the book) But that seems to make his value for antimony wrong by more than a factor of 2. Rather surprising. Aha! Unless his value for oxygen was for O2. That would make sense; his value for antimony in modern units would then be 129.03. Pretty good for a dead guy.

That should be the number of metres in a mile. But it is wrong, it should be 1609.34 I assume that is a combination of an inaccurate value and different units. The current standard for atomic mass is based on 1/12 of the mass of a single carbon-12 atom. I have no idea what Berzelius meant by pondera atomica, nor how accurate his numbers are. But as this appears to be a search for numerological connections, the inaccuracies hardly matter.

Ah, OK. I see what you mean. There are two different things here: the fact of gravity (and evolution) which we can readily observe. And then the theory (scientific or otherwise) that describes it. Of course, I have seen [the fact of] gravity. It is what keeps me in my chair! So even if someone claims that particles are pushed on by divine forces, that is the the force of gravity. I have also seen numerous experiments that are consistent with our theory of gravity as curved space-time. (Ditto, mutatis mutandis, for evolution.) But theories are just models, they are not about what really exists. But they work; they can produce practical technology, for example. Other explanations (divine forces, invisible pink unicorns, whatever) are possible but they are not evidence-based and are not productive.

Yes and yes. While I agree with much of what you say, I think you slightly overstate the case.

And the moon landings were faked. Those are a couple of the more sensible posts ...

Oops. (I have sigs being ignored.) On the other hand, the post in question doesn't exist...

Searching for various words and phrases in the opening post, which is supposedly to be posted as "this exact thread on my own blog as well", produces nothing but this forum. So I am sceptical this blog exists at all.

John Baez also has a good introduction: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

Er. No. http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/01/are-lie-detectors-admissible-in-court.html

It gets no point across. It is barely comprehensible and appears to have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It is not a hypothesis, it is a theory.

I'm not trying to evade. I thought I had explained how an infinite universe can expand, cool, become less dense. If the universe is infinite then it has always been infinite. Yes. Yes. BTW, I think Delta's comment about having an idea was directed at the (removed) hijack, not you.

You (still) seem to be talking about the "big bang" as an event, presumably where the universe appeared from nothing. That is not part of the mainstream big bang model. The big bang theory is a model of the evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state. It describes the universe now and for the past 13.8 billion years. It does NOT describe the universe at time 0.

More importantly, neither singularity is thought to be physically realistic. So disagreeing with it is fine. The trouble is, without a credible (i.e. sound theoretical) alternative all we really have is speculation.

That isn't the reason for inflation. It was to resolve the horizon problem, it doesn't avoid a singularity. Given that you don't understand the maths, you are in no position to comment on whether the current model works or not.

Current theory goes back before that point. Current theory also predicts, pretty accurately, the proportions of hydrogen and helium atoms produced. Does your model do that? What does it mean for hydrogen to "pop"? What is a hydrogen atom's "north polarity"? And why would they align like that? They are probably all testing the big bang model. They would love to find a flaw in it, because that way comes the exciting new physics, the fame and the prizes. Hey, guess what. Once upon a time, the big bang theory didn't exist. The reason it is now widely accepted is because it is the best model to explain all the evidence. Talking of which, how does your model explain the CMB? No. A few very close stars might eventually fall in but that's it. Black holes make up a tiny fraction of the mass of the galaxy. The vast majority of stars are totally unaffected by them. You said: "If each black hole was only affected by another black hole would they move on mass like a net?" which I took to mean that you thought they were no affected by the mass of other things around them (like the billions of other stars in the galaxy.

In that wall'o'text you don't seem to have answered any of the questions posed. I suggest you learn a little bit about the big bang model before attempting to reformulate it. You appear to have some serious misunderstandings. Why haven't all the galaxies disappeared? Why do you think black holes are not affected by gravity? As you answer that, please note that black holes are a consequence of general relativity, currently the best description of gravity we have.

OK. I'll get right on it. Should have it done by teatime.

If this happened (and as ajb noted, it doesn't) then after a while there would be nothing left. As there are still plenty of galaxies around, it suggests this idea is wrong. Also, does your model predict the proportions of hydrogen, deuterium and helium in the early universe? It sounds like it says there should have been nothing but hydrogen, which is also shown to be wrong by observation. And how does your model explain the cosmic microwave background?

What does "set" a universe mean? And please give some evidence to support this statement. Your claims are worthless. Please provide some evidence. Only if you provide evidence. There are a lot of people who insist the universe must be infinite. And a lot of people who insist that it must be finite. These are just beliefs or guesses and of no value. Then it should be easy for you to provide some evidence. It is no good just claiming that. You need to demonstrate, mathematically, that these can only be produced by an infinite universe. Please show, in suitable mathematical detail, what this difference is. You can then demonstrate that the observed features of the CMB are a better fit for the infinite universe. Come on, it can't be that hard. Sadly, you have that the wrong way round. The CMB is a prediction of the model. As you have no model and therefore no prediction, there is no reason to take your claims seriously. And it isn't a "reflection". Please show, in suitable mathematical detail, that the current universe can produce blackbody radiation with that temperature. Please do. How do you know what its high level temperature was? Please show your calculations. Please show some evidence that light is redshifted just by the passage of time or by travelling a long distance. Also, please explain why the CMB is created at that "significant distance". Why is it created at that distance and not closer? Also, why do you think the CMB is redshifted? Why isn't it just created at the temperature we see? As long as you provide some evidence, that will be most welcome. That is what all delduded crackpots say.

First, I think you deserve some credit for being genuinely curious and not just insisting you are right and everyone else is wrong. (We see far too much of that.) You have a lot of questions about your own idea (which is good). Here are some more: If you think electrons, for example, are "lumps" in the medium why are they all identical? Why is their charge quantised? Why do they obey Fermi-Dirac statistics and other "lumps" obey Bose-Einstein statistics? Why do neutrinos have non-zero mass? Why are there three generations of leptons? Are neutrinos Majorana fermions?

It may do, but you would have to show this. On the other hand, the inverse square law can be derived from general relativity.

What you (or I) consider plausible is irrelevant. Is there any theoretical reason the universe cannot be infinite? No. If there is a mathematical operation which will take you from zero to some finite size, is there any reason that a similar operation could not go from zero to infinity? No.

The problem is, if the only thing that is quantised is the energy needed to remove the electron from the atom then you have to explain why a more intense light does not cause the electron to be emitted. It is only when the frequency of the light (and therefore the energy of each quantum of electromagnetic radiation) exceeds the threshold that the electron is emitted. In your model, a sufficiently large amplitude of waving should be able to eject electrons. But that is not what we observe.