Strange

What do you mean by "universal makeup"? Do you mean the chemical elements, or the fundamental particles, differ from one place to another? What evidence do you have for this? That is exactly why relativity is relevant. Your house is in the same position as yesterday in one frame of reference (the Earth) but not in another (the Sun). Our measurement of time doesn't. Measurement of space might, I suppose. I don't even understand what that question means. In what sense does a year consist of something? The historical events that took place? Or ... ? True. Which is another reason that relativity is relevant. Sigh. This again. Obviously not. There are dozens of threads of people claiming this is true (when it is blindingly obvious it isn't). Please go and read them. I don't really want to see the same stupid argument again.

That was, as far as I know, still a scaling process so it is meaningless to talk about it in terms of "the speed of light". How does it do that? Can you quantify this in any way? Do you mean imaginary numbers in the sense of square root of -1, or in the sense that you have made them up? And how do these imaginary numbers differ from conventional math? Are any numbers dependent on 3 dimensions? They are purely conceptual and can be applied to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or N dimensions. This is a well-defined mathematical operation. (The answer is [math]i \sqrt 2[/math].) It is still not clear what you are trying to propose nor how it can be used. You should read Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe by Lineweaver and Davis. From the abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

I think Godot has that data too...

This sounds like the worst sort of Orientalism. I would politely request that you tone down this grossly offensive attitude. No the "western" (let's say scientific) approach is to see if there is any evidence that will decide between these two choices. There are, by the way, plenty of areas in science where the correct answer is "mu"; i.e. the question has no answer (and possibly even no meaning). So your dismissal of "western" ideas as being stuck in this dualistic mode appears to be incorrect. Which leads to what, exactly? Again you make vague claims that we can dismiss the two extremes but provide no clue as to what to replace it with. (And what does "sublate" even mean?) So you have changed your mind? As a reminder, you previously said: "it would shed light on evolutionary processes and answer questions about the origin and nature of the universe. It would explain why science cannot find matter when they go looking for it, and in my opinion would help to make sense of nonlocality and other weird phenomena." Those sound like pretty significant scientific contributions. Well guess what. It happens. And people do their best to provide summary answers appropriate to the forum. And provide specific references to more detailed information (not just a dismissive and [deliberately?] unhelpful "go and read something somewhere"). I will try not to mention the apparent negative correlation between rational discussion and the ability to use the quote function, instead I will just point you to this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/ (See, specific. Not just "go and read the instructions".) You were asked one simple question based on your assertion that "it would shed light on evolutionary processes". So, there you go: one clear question which is a challenge to a quoted assertion. But feel free to keep avoiding it. And then say you are too busy keep posting here. Until you come back in a few months and the whole damn cycle starts again.

It is possible that the universe will continue expanding for ever. However... These voids would simply be empty. Not black holes (or worm holes, even if they exist). The creation of black holes requires a concentration of matter, not empty space. You seem to be proposing something like Hoyle's continual creation model. This doesn't work for a number of reasons. One bing that it doesn't explain the strongest evidence for the big bang model, the CMB. But there are (highly speculative) models where black holes create new universes (which would be pretty cool, if true). Look up Nikodem Popławski's work for more detail.

Well, makes a change from "God did it".

Good answer, but I think it is the answer to a different question (can two objects occupy the same position in space).

Isn't all philosophy undecidable? That is why it is philosophy and not science. I think philosophy in the sense of analysing problems and asking rigorous well-formed questions is an essential discipline. But when it comes down to individuals promoting their personal beliefs about the nature of reality, less so. I find it odd that you are convinced that your metaphysics will change so many areas of science but are unable to explain how it will do this, or even justify your belief that it will.

Don't confuse the speed-distance relationship with acceleration. The acceleration appears when comparing the observed redshift-distance relationship with that predicted by constant expansion. (I am not intimately familiar with this research, so I will just point you to this as a starting point to read more: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/press.html) Well, it was the discovery of the CMB, with its precise match to theory, that really killed off other models. But there is also the observed proportions of hydrogen and helium, and the large scale structure of the universe. http://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/ http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm

1. Everything is in motion with respect to some frame of motion. You are currently moving at 99.99% the speed of light (relative to some subatomic particle whizzing past) while also moving at 30mph (relative to that car outside) while also being stationary (relative to your chair). That is well understood. Can you explain (preferably mathematically) how this is incorporated into your model? 2. What do you mean by "constency"? (Is that constancy or consistency? In either case, what does it mean?) And how does this relate or follow from the first point? 3. What does solidity have to do with it? We can see motion of subatomic particles (arguably not solid) and fluids (definitely not solid). 4. In what way, exactly, are we a "series in a pattern"? Can you describe this pattern more precisely, preferably mathematically? Can you describe this series within the pattern more explicitly, preferably mathematically? In short, this all seems very vague. It is not clear what it means and how it is supposed to help. Or even what it is supposed to help with. Perhaps you need to add some detail (preferably mathematical). BTW, I guess you might not see it this way () but I am trying to help you - by pointing out what parts of your ideas are not clear, I hope you can clarify them and then get some more constructive feedback...

I suppose some areas of science do start from form. For example, why do spiral galaxies have the shape they do. After all there is no real 'function' to that shape, but it emerges from the dynamics of the system.

I'm not sure why height above or below you is relevant; they would still be stationary, relative to you. Unless you are taking gravity into account, in which case they would be in different frames of reference and it all gets much more complicated. But perhaps you could explain what different predictions your model makes that would allow it to be tested and compare to other models?

Relative to what?

And I assume this "massive" comet would have caused similar earthquakes all around the world, do you have reports from other places that correspond to this event? Or are you know claiming that it was all caused by a meteor impact and not the passing comet?

I don't see why it is "word games". I tried to be as clear as possible. Absolutely stationary relative to what?

Sigh. Expansion is not a speed but a scaling. Which means that the speed of separation is proportional to distance (from basic arithmetic). There are now, and always have been, points that are sufficiently far apart that they are separating at greater than the speed of light. I don't see how you have a model or how it can explain anything. What equations? And how are they "failing"?

That implies you think there is some sense of absolute motion, which is not true. Motion is always relative, so what are defining the motion of things relative to? Any object can always be considered stationary in its own frame of reference.

And your evidence for this is ...

It is hypothesized (but not generally accepted) to solve the "horizon problem". There was no matter and antimatter during the inflationary period. As for the rest of your post, all I can say is ... Huh?

Why would there be no data? If there is no data, then you cannot claim that there was an excessive concentration earthquakes. That is what I am asking you. I have no reason to think the number was in any way extraordinary. There appears to be nothing to investigate. As there is no data ...

You may have some interesting comments or questions. But as you are too lazy to use the quote function and make your posts readable, I am not going to waste any more time on it. Maybe others have more time to waste on you.

So you keep saying. So where is the data to support this?

Citation needed. You haven't presented any scientific data. People are telling you what they think. You appear to be ignoring it. You seem to have been blinded by your quasi-religious belief in the importance of coincidence.

Expansion is not a speed, it is a scaling. Therefore "speed" depends on how far apart two points are (this is just basic arithmetic, nothing to do with cosmology). There are now, and always have been, points that are separating faster than light.

I think Shelagh was being self-deprecating. I hope she is also open-minded enough to consider the weight of evidence. On the subject of consilience, I heard a while ago that a team had done an analysis of economic growth over (something like) the last century. This is, of course, closely related to energy use (and therefore CO2 production) and they found that this matched very closely all the other measurements of CO2levels. (Too long ago and on the radio, so no source I'm afraid.)