Strange

This is not a question science can answer. But it can analyse what the result would be if this were true. It would not be good: https://what-if.xkcd.com/9/

Here is one reference: http://www.einstein-website.de/z_biography/credo.html (Just the first thing that turned up.) Some of these might help: http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/ http://www.einstein.caltech.edu/ http://www.alberteinstein.info/ An overview here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Papers_Project

Why is infinite energy relevant? What is an "open loop" system? However, if the universe is infinite then a particle could, in principle, travel for an infinite distance (with no energy required). And even in a finite system, it is possible to have an infinitely long path. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_snowflake

1. That equation appears to contain two constants and therefore you are not allowed to use it. 2. As this equation does not have the mass of both objects, it must give the wrong results.

Not really that hard: the theory makes predictions which are tested against observation or experiment. This can be technically challenging when the measurements require great sensitivity or very high energy for example. But first you need the calculations. So, can your theory reproduce all the results of GR and QM? Can you calculate the black body spectrum? The ground state of a hydrogen atom? The orbit of a geostationary satellite? The gravitational lensing of light passing a massive body? All of those can be easily checked against known data (or, equivalently, against existing theory) so you don't have the excuse that you can't do the experiments. Or maybe those are too complex. Let's start with something simpler, something that we do at school: calculate the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth (with, of course, no reference to Newton's law of gravitation). Can you do that? The real world doesn't really care what you want. OK. As you have no evidence for any of these assertions, I guess we have to stick with science and assume you are wrong.

Except we don't have to figure it out as if the theory is wrong. We use the theory as if it were correct. Guess why that is? Do you have any actual evidence that these constants change?

That is an ironic analogy. Clocks, of all sorts, keep constant time because there are constants. Whether it is the constant mass, length and gravity for a pendulum clock, or the constants that determine the energy levels in an atomic clock. If there weren't constants, then physics and chemistry would just be chaotic and we wouldn't be here to discuss this. If there weren't constants, then we wouldn't be able to design the semiconducting materials, the components and the ICs that you are using to discuss this.

Not at all. You could be breathing harder when concentrating. Or, even more likely, this is just an example of confirmation bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Which is why you need to get a friend and do a "blind" test; i.e. where you don't observe whether it is moving or not. You simply write down when you think you are moving it, and someone else (who cannot see or hear you) writes down when it moves. Then you compare the results afterwards. My bet is it will be just as likely to move when you are not trying as when you are. Or, as often happens, under controlled conditions, the "effect" disappears completely. Without this, you are just fooling yourself.

No. The scale factor is 1,100. It scales the distance, not volume. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_%28cosmology%29 And, as you get the wrong result, it is clear that your idea is wrong.

I don't have a problem with the idea of some sort of universe before ours. It was the "symmetrical" bit I was curious about. No it isn't. It describes the evolution of the universe from a hot dense state. At some point it cooled enough for some of the energy to be converted into matter and antimatter. They were not created from nothing. I don't really understand what you are saying here. You do realise that we have not only observed antimatter but that it is produced and used on a routine basis? How can an idea which has no support (and is therefore not a theory) be better than the current accepted theory which has mountains of support. That makes no sense. I'm not aware that GR has any particular relationship to angular momentum. Can you provide a reference to what you are talking about? Not really. The thousands of other experiments that confirm relativity would have still been done. Perhaps with even more urgency. In fact, that original observation is probably so full of errors that is can't be used to confirm GR. It is really only of historical interest. Where do white holes come into it? "At some point introducing matter/antimatter" sounds pretty much like the standard big bang model. Without a solid theoretical reason to avoid the singularity, you can't just hand-wave it away. (There are a number of theories that avoid the singularity. They do this using science, though, so they don't have much in common with your speculation.) The Lense-Thirring effect, perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense%E2%80%93Thirring_precession

The part where you post apparently irrelevant links with no explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture

So, given what you have said so far, it is pretty obvious that the motion is caused by your breath and/or moving your hands around. This is about what we would expect.

The scale factor is linear scaling, not volume. So the volume is irrelevant. Also, you are out by a factor of 1,000. A billion is 1,000 times larger than a million.

This is partly true. Curvature of spacetime has been detected, in several ways. Gravitational waves have not (yet) been detected. I get the impression that parts (most? all?) of the rest of your post is copied from elsewhere. Could you please make it clearer what is your own material and what you are quoting (and where from). Thanks.

Why would you assume that? Perhaps you should learn a little bit about modern cosmology. Or even just ask queations, rather than making silly assumptions. As it expands it gets cooler. Yes, it is a working assumption that the rest of the universe behaves largely the same as that which we can see. (Because we have no evidence that tells us otherwise). By definition, we are in the observable universe. Because that is the part of the universe that we can observe - i.e. a sphere of about 90 billion light years diameter around the Earth.

Doesn't explain it at all. It appears to be completely irrelevant.

Citation needed. I don't see how. You can't create matter and antimatter from nothing. I don't know what the LHC has to do with it. Creating antimatter doesn't require very high energy events, it happens all the time. It is widely used in industry and medicine. This sounds like a classic "argument from incredulity". Not very convincing. Judging by the "intelligent design" he is supposed to be responsible for, I wouldn't even rate him that high. The "angular momentum of gravity"? What is that? And by a huge number of other tests. There is an ongoing experiment to create enough anti-hydrogen to confirm that it behaves the same way as ordinary matter, as far as gravity is concerned. Although the data on that is not yet conclusive, all other properties appear to be identical to normal matter. Most people seem to think that the singularity will disappear when we have a theory of quantum gravity. Why wouldn't the point where your two timelines start be a singularity?

Is there such a thing? What things would this resolve? And can you show (i.e. mathematically) that this would resolve many things? It doesn't. And looking for it isn't pointless as we have found it.

It has nothing to do with the homogeneity or otherwise of individual galaxies and galaxy clusters and superclusters. These are all different sizes, and varying distances apart. Rather like the atmosphere contains many different size atoms, molecules, grains of dust, droplets of water and even insects. But, on a large enough scale, the atmosphere can be treated as a homogeneous fluid and those components are irrelevant. Similarly, on a large enough scale, the universe is roughly the same everywhere. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l10_p6.html

So this is one example where negative feedback is known to be important. There is thought to be a maximum rate at which black holes can grow. If a very large amount of matter starts falling towards the black hole then it will be heated (by friction) and generate huge electric and magnetic fields. The heat will blast away some of the material, the spinning electric and magnetic fields will create massive jets of material at the poles. At some point this stabilizes and the black hole accretes at a fairly steady rate. Is that the sort of thing you are thinking of? There are, I am sure, many other examples. So is the purpose of this thread to gather and understand such examples?

I think you are wrong. No one takes such a simplistic view of things.

I assume travelling salesman problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem#Asymmetric_TSP The difference is that the distance between nodes of the graph depends on the direction you travel. So the distance from A to B is not the same as the distance from B to A. This obviously makes it harder to find the shortest route.

Is that positive or negative feedback?

So that conforms that it is something mundane, like a change in the way that you are breathing that causes the effect. Well done. (You could be really thorough and investigate exact;y what it is that caused the effect and lead you astray.)

10/10 for chutzpah.