Strange

And ... ? Are you thinking of Doppler shift or time dilation? Or something else? Whichever it is, please show (mathematically, no more handwaving please) that this effect (a) exists; (b) is the same as that you claim for objects ahead and behind you and ( c) changes linearly with distance.

I would guess that most physicists just consider it a good model; an accurate description of behaviour. But some claim it has some physical reality. Wikipedia has a good article on different interpretations of quantum mechanics, with a handy table summarising which consider the wave function to be real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Tabular_comparison Of course, that depends on what "real" means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Ontology

It was redesigned as an embedded processor for application-specific microcontrollers. For many years, the vast majority of set-top boxes were based on the transputer/ST20 - as well as applications in DVD players, GPS, etc. I don't think it is in production any more.

I don't think you need to be: what do you mean by "really exist"? How would you tell if something really exists or is just a concept? Do dreams really exist? Do photons really exist? Do electrons really exist? Do atoms really exist? Do tables really exist? For all of these, for suitable definitions of "exist" the answer could be yes or no. This is not really a physics question (because numbers are abstract concepts and don't have measurable properties - which may answer your question). It is philosophy, and there has been a debate among mathematicians and philosophers about this ever since mathematics was invented. Or do I mean discovered. My impression is that most mathematicians think that mathematics (and therefore numbers) exists as a concept that we discover. But there are many who think it is purely an invention of the human mind. And some who would say there is no difference between these two positions.

Why won't you explain how you know this and why anyone else should accept it? I assume it is because you can't?

Why do you think anyone should believe that?

So, by this argument, as there has only been one LHC we should ignore all the science from it? But we don't. We have thousands, maybe millions, of observations over millions of years. But congratulations for coming up with a novel argument. Even if it is even more ridiculous than the usual challenges. The only political spin comes from those denying the evidence. No it should be (and is) based on evidence. In this area, vast amounts of consistent evidence.

Actually, it accelerates the expansion of the universe. The universe would expand without dark energy. Do fields move? Why? And why has dark energy only started to have an effect (relatively) recently?

Is this any different from your previous thread on the subject? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88378-infinity-eternal-life/

What does the Doppler effect (which is due to relative motion) have to do with spaghettification (extreme tidal forces)? Sounds like "tired light". Doesn't work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

You keep saying this but provide no justification. Why would seeing the light delayed by X years cause it to appear to be moving away? Feel free to show the appropriate maths.

I assume so, unless they leave their brain behind! But really, it depends what suits the author of the work of fiction in question. It would make an interesting plot twist if time travel were possible but impossible to experience and/or survive.

There will be increasing separation between the falling objects in one axis but not the others. Also, sooner or later, falling objects will hit whatever it is they are falling towards. So none of this seems relevant to cosmology.

Prove it.

If you are not prepared to share your theory, then there isn't much anyone can say.

I don't see why. You need to understand that "expanding space" is just an analogy and, apparently, a confusing one. What is expanding is something abstract: the distances between points in space. But mass and energy behave identically with regard to gravity.

Is this hypothesis your own idea? If so you shouldn't be bringing it up in the science sections of the forum. It doesn't appear so. Wishful thinking?

I doubt it. I assume you are thinking that gravitational attraction will decrease as mass decreases? But both mass and energy contribute to gravitation (remember e=mc2? mass and energy are equivalent.) The accelerating expansion (attributed to some unknown thing labelled "dark energy") suggest that will not happen. Actually, until the accelerating expansion was discovered, I think this "big crunch" scenario was assumed possible or even likely. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) science isn't based on what you or anyone else finds hard to believe. Einstein laid much of the groundwork of quantum theory. But he never believed what the theory predicted (he was wrong).

And in this (physically unrealistic) scenario it is still not isotropic - there will be increasing separation between the drops in one direction but not the other. (And did you ever show us the maths to prove that speed of separation is proportional to distance? Or did I just miss it?) Also, sooner or later, the drops will hit the ground. So none of this seems relevant to cosmology.

As young Gater is immune to reason or evidence, there doesn't seem much point trying to explain such things to him. He has decided, with the confidence of ignorance, that he is right and everyone else is wrong. It is not even a case of Dunning-Krguer, more "none so blind as those that will not see". He is happy wallowing in ignorance. I would leave him to it. It may be a religious thing. Or just trolling. I neither know nor care.

Not true. Firstly, the drops are all falling at (roughly) the same speed (terminal velocity). And the drops that are side by side are (in principle) getting closer together as they are falling radially.

One problem with this is that gravity increases with a square law against distance as you fall. The rate at which expansion accelerates is not (as far as I know) a square law. Also it changes with time, not distance. However, you are right in as much as the same model that describes gravity (GR) also describes the expansion of the universe. And, indeed, it is thought that dark energy is increasing as the universe expands (it is sometimes described as the "cost" of space). This is why, at some point, expansion started accelerating.

But that's irrelevant to science. It sounds like you are suggesting that scientific journals should give equal time to non-scientific ideas like creationism or free energy. There is no value to science in that. On the other hand, there are areas of scientific enquiry which are not allowed for various ethical reasons. Often these are areas where people have religious objections (see the USA's bans on funding for stem-cell research, for example). I can't think of an area of scientific research which has been stopped by atheists (for reasons of atheism). Can you?

I asked WHY anyone should believe you. Why should they? I have an invisible pink unicorn in the garden. Any suggestion that I don't is just stupid. It is obviously and logically true. Jesus its so simple, im amazed at how many "educated" people don't get this.

I thought we had agreed they are not relevant.