Strange

Your questions seem to mainly be about the creation of the universe. We have no real reason to think that happened and no theory that describes it. (There are a few speculative ideas, some of which might only be valid for a finite universe. But it is not an area I know much about, I'm not really into that sort of speculation.)

There is a theory called Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) which is identical to special relativity in all respects but with the addition of an undetectable aether (it must be undetectable for the theory to work). What that means is that there are an infinite number of such theories. For example, LCT which is identical to special relativity in all respects but with the addition of an undetectable cat (it must be undetectable for the theory to work). And LJT which is ... well, you get the idea ... undetectable jelly (it must ... ). And so on. And then you can have an infinite number of combinations of these: Lorentz Ether and Jelly Theory, and so on. For this reason, we often resort to Occam's razor and choose the theory which doesn't introduce any unnecessary entities.

And the predictions of classical aether theories are not consistent with measurements.

Not without quantitative predictions you aren't. Physics tests nature by having a mathematical model that calculates, for example, the amount that the path of light is bent in the presence of mass. We can then measure the amount and see which theory is closer (in this case GR wins and Newton loses).

I would just like to help you understand the nature of science: what it is and how it works. And, therefore, what you need to do to turn a vague idea into a scientific one.

Why? Does a distance of 1 inch need to be "made" of something? It is. So we need new theories to fill the gaps. Current theories do not need your medium and so they don't define its properties. It is up to you, as the peroson proposing the hypothesis, to say what properties are required and how they could be tested. Making sense (to you or anyone else) is not really relevant. Theories just have to "work". In general, we don't always know the "why" of things. They appear to be fundamental. It is possible that some new theory will explain why certain fields exist and why they have the properties they do. If your single medium has properties that can reproduce all the effects attributed to different fields, then great. But then, of course, there is the question of how your medium has those properties, or better put how can those properties be explained.

We already have explanations. So your idea needs to improve on those in some way: make them more accurate, explain things that can't be explained, etc. Why does anything need to fill it? They have different properties. (Which can be measured.)

Space is just the distance between things. I don't see the logic that says you can't have a distance between things if space is empty. But space is not empty. It is full of fields and virtual particles (and therefore has non-zero energy). So I'm not sure what the requirement is for this medium. Unless you can produce some testable predictions that show that the medium is present (i.e. a theory that produces different predictions than existing theory) then the assumption is not falsifiable and therefore not science.

I think one of the challenges you will have here is the invariant speed of light. For example, why isn't the measured speed of light dependent on our speed through this medium? (There are measurements that are inconsistent with the Earth moving through the aether and other measurements that are inconsistent with the aether being stationary with respect to the Earth.) Not really. How do you develop a testable hypothesis that way?

You are investigating theory about space being filled with a hypothetical medium that causes all physical effects and want to know what the properties of this medium would have to be. Is that not the question? If not, then I guess you are right that you haven't been clear. So, my two main questions would be: 1. How does this medium differ from fields used in current scientific theories? Other than you seem to be talking about a single medium rather than multiple fields. 2. What is the evidence for this medium? Are those unreasonable questions? As for the properties of such a medium, from what I have read of such theories it seems the properties would have to be physically implausible (e.g. infinitely incompressible) and contradictory (e.g. both moving and not moving) in order to explain observational evidence. In order for this to be part of a scientific hypothesis, it needs to be made far more exact. Is there a mathematical model describing this interaction which is able to predict the measurements we make?

Oh well, that's it then. I'm convinced.

Can you summarise the evidence for this medium please. Looking at your first post on the other forum, it sounds like you are describing the concept of fields, which is a standard part of quantum theory. The only significant difference is, perhaps, your description of a single "thing" that fills space, while modern quantum field theory has multiple fields. (The other difference is that quantum field theory is a rigorous and well-tested scientific theory, while you just seem to have a vague idea which you find appealing. But I guess that is "off topic", even if it is a fundamental and very important difference.)

There is no evidence that such a thing happened. (The big bang model is about the evolution of the universe, not its creation.) On the other hand, it is no more plausible that the universe grew from zero to finite size, than it should grow from zero to infinite size.

I think that if they had the technology to build telescopes of that scale, then advanced filtering would be simple for them. (Bearing in mind this is pure fiction.)

If you are talking about that sort of distance, then we can just about see some planets. The idea of being able to see life forms on those planets is pure science fiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets

That was kinda my point: if time is quantised then space would be too. (I don't think there are any theories where space is quantised but time isn't, or vice versa). Also, I don't think that space-time being discrete is quite the same thing as it being made of particles. But that may just be a matter of interpretation.

Excellent point. Kudos for pointing that out. You've got the job!

Could distance?

Except they are not guesses. They are well tested hypotheses that become theories (the closest science gets to "truth").

I would say there is less reasoning than that required! Newton's first law (i.e. inertia) says that things will continue in their state of motion. You only need to say that the cup is solid and the tea is liquid, and therefore free to move, to explain why the tea continues moving but the cup (which you, hopefully, have a form grip on) doesn't. Yes, electromagnetic forces are the reason for things being solid or liquid, but not directly relevant to the question asked. I'm afraid I would mark someone down in a test (or a job interview) if they went into too much irrelevant detail. On the other hand, I would like them to be able to give that detail if asked.

There seem to be two completely separate issues in your post. Firstly, Newton's laws of motion, to which you seem to have given an accurate, if overly complex, answer. Then ... Is this just asking why some things are liquid and others are solid? Ultimately, this does come down to electromagnetic forces, and how strong they are between the molecules of the material. The reasons for this are fairly complicated. It is not just a matter (I don't think) of whether electrons are shared (a covalent bond) or not (an ionic bond). Although most ionic molecules tend to have higher melting points and so are usually solid at room temperature.

Not necessarily. If you ran the experiment multiple times (lets assume it is a simulation, or perhaps the use of genetic algorithms in airraft design) you might not get the same result. You may end up with different wings, some better than others but all meeting the minimum requirements. But often the solutions end up very similar (because there are only so many ways of solving the problem). We see this in the real world. Many functions and organs have evolved multiple times and can be different. For example, eyes have evolved many times and there are many different versions such as the compound eyes of flies to single eyeball in mammals. On the other human and octopus eyes developed completely independently but are quite similar (but with some fundamental differences). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution That is almost true. But the random part is not irrelevant because there is no other mechanism to get to the end result.

You could interview and, if necessary, test them on their ability to do the job they are going to do. But if that is too much like hard work, then by all means pay someone else to give them a generic, made-up test that may or may not be relevant or meaningful.

The other approach I would take is to look at the history of how quantum theory was developed. One of the first things was that Max Planck found a way of solving a serious problem with the classical model for "blackbody radiation" by assuming that radiation could only be emitted in packets of a particular size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe I know some people like videos, so here is one on the subject (I have no idea if it is any good or not): Then Einstein came up with a solution to the problem of the photoelectric effect where electrons are emitted from some materials when light shines on them. The classical theory said that if the intensity (brightness) of the light increased there should be more electrons emitted and if the intensity was low, then there should be a delay before the electrons gained enough energy to be emitted. Neither of these was true and Einstein showed that if you assume radiation comes in little packets (quanta or photons) as Planck had suggested then this explained the photoelectric effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect They both got Nobel Prizes for their work. Then it was just a matter of adding more detail to the theory.... Later, Einstein tried to show that quantum theory (or parts of it) were wrong because he didn't like the consequences. But he wasn't able to (and it was later proved that he was wrong).

What would "most people" score on these tests? What is the average score for the population? I bet that information is not available. I doubt any scientific studies have been done to validate these tests. Why do you think nurses would be smarter than the average person? (They may be. I have no idea.)