Strange

How would you propose to do this? What does "directly" mean? Generators in the sun with long cables down to Earth... Or?

At the distances where we see expansion, we still see the effects of gravity: distant galaxies held together by their gravity, the large scale structures, eyc. Dark matter solves that dilemma. Ah, maybe I misunderstood, do you mean: "Mass is not a quantity of matter; mass is energy"? If so, I would say you are twice as wrong, as both parts of that statement are wrong! Mass can be considered a "quantity of matter" (but so could volume or number of atoms - "quantity of matter" is not a well defined term.) Mass is not energy. Mass can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to mass but they are not the same thing. As mass is not energy, then this argument is moot. No, it means that to me, ideas you make up with no evidence or theoretical basis are not science. Please provide a reference to evidence that "before inflation there wasn't any matter whatsoever". Sigh. Expansion is not a speed. You really need to learn a little basic physics. This is so wrong, I don't know where to start. I'm sure Mordred can suggest a good introductory text.

What evidence do you have for that claim? (I agree that your post is largely incomprehensible.)

This is a typical anti-science argument: "if you can't do it in a lab, it isn't proved". Apart from the rather obvious fact that many branches of science are unable to do reproduce things in lab experiments, nothing is ever "proved" in science anyway. Not only is it pretty obvious it did happen, it is also visibly happening now. That is due to diet and nutrition, not evolution.

I repeat: This is what is known as a "straw man" fallacy. No one says that zero apples means nothing; it just means no apples. And, again, I repeat: the fact that it is impossible to have "nothing" (a pure vacuum or whatever) in our universe is irrelevant. There is nothing that says that mathematics has to be limited to what is physically possible in reality. So if I choose to use 0 to represent the complete absence of anything (i.e. nothing) then I am free to do so.

Close... And I'm not sure about electrons, for example, which appear to be zero-sized, point particles. Does that make them zero dimensional?

Correct. There are no real objects which have less than three dimensions. Space-time can be described as a four dimensional object. But whether you think that only exists in mathematics or is a real "thing" is not clear (as I say, it depends what you mean by "real" or "object").

Well, gravity depends on the presence of mass-energy, so it will obviously vary in different places. I'm not sure what that means. The reverse is certainly true: we don't observe expansion where gravity is strong enough to hold objects together. I have no idea what that means. Gravity is not local. Its effects do not "end" anywhere. Special relativity says nothing about gravity. You are wrong. GR can be used to describe the behaviour of the universe. That is a pretty good definition of "universality". Sorry. I can't get away from this pesky scientific idea that we can't know anything for certain and further observations can always change what we know. It appears flat. I don't understand what you are saying: you say it is energy that is the quantity of matter, not mass and then deny you said that... Mass, not energy, is a "quantity of matter" (as much as that phrase means anything). That binding energy is the main source of mass in an atom. So I'm not sure what your point is ... :confused: I'm not sure why you say it doesn't have to be explained. Why isn't the Higgs mechanism an explanation? :confused: I shall suggest the moderators move this to the Speculations part of the forum then.

So why bring it up? This is what is known as a "straw man" fallacy. No one says that zero apples means nothing. But, of course, because mathematics doesn't need to have any relation to the real world, it is quite possible to use 0 to represent nothing.

It would be illegal to use your access to those records to do a study. (Certainly in Europe, and I would hope in most places.)

That is not true. Where did you get that idea? 0 in binary is exactly the same as 0 in octal, decimal or any other base. That is not true either. 0 is very well defined. I don't think I can put into words what I think of that argument. Irrational is probably the closest I can get. If the number of apples you have is zero (in binary or hexadecimal) then that means you have no apples. That's all. It doesn't say anything about the number of oranges, dubloons or zebras you have.

You can't visualise it because we live in (and have only evolved to understand) three dimensional space! But I wonder if you mean 4D space-time? In which case there are the three spatial dimensions we are familiar with plus time. I don't think any 1D or 2D objects actually exist. They are mathematical concpets. For example, the surface (area) of a sheet of paper or a sphere are two dimensional. And your height is one dimensional. To some extent, this depends what you mean by "real". But I would say three spatial dimensions are real. You need to specify three spatial dimensions to identify a location (x,y,z or lattitude,longitude, altitude or left,right,up, etc). And if you want to meet someone at that location, then you need to specify the fourth dimension: when.

Not sure why you say the task seems to be impossible. The angle of deflection is: [math]\theta = \frac{4GM}{rc^2}[/math] Where M is the mass of the object, r is the distance at which the light passes it, c is the speed of light and G is the gravitational constant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#Explanation_in_terms_of_space.E2.80.93time_curvature Practically, if you want to use gravitational lensing to observe a planet then you would need a very massive, compact body that emits no light. In other words, a black hole (with no accretion disk). You can use the formula to work out what the effect of a black hole would be. Note that the light would have pass outside the photon sphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere Because the light passes round the outside of the lensing object (rather than through a normal lens) the image is highly distorted and needs to be corrected. Also this black hole would have to be precisely aligned to lens something like a distant solar system; so obviously it would only be a transient effect. Some more info here: http://news.discovery.com/space/hunting-black-holes-with-gravitational-lenses-120210.htm

Thanks. I was hoping it would have a fancy Latin name (argumentum anecdotum)

You said: My question is about the topic on the title. That is what people have been discussing. Don't blame them. Who do you think is to blame for your lack of clarity?

Does anyone know what this fallacy is called? You know the sort of thing: "My grandmother smoked 100 cigarettes a day since she was 3 years old and lived to 120 so it is obviously not true that smoking causes cancer".

This is a good intro to calculus: https://www.coursera.org/learn/calculus1

It won't reverse it. It will help prevent more microbes becoming resistant. In other words, it won't make thinbgs better but might stop them getting worse. I don't see why. Giving antibiotics to animals has nothing to do with our survival. However, running out of usable antibiotics will limit people's ability to survive minor infections and essential surgery.

Reminds me of: Two men meet at a party. One says, "I'm writing a novel." The other ones says, "That's interesting. Neither am I."

Is this direct enough: No.

What is the difference between "0 in binary" and "0 in mathematics"? 0 in any base is 0. Why would binary zero be different from decimal zero?

Sorry, I didn't mean to appear confrontational. But you are making what seem to be erroneous statements mixed up with your own speculation in the mainstream physics section of the forum. When questioned on them, or asked to provide evidence, you just repeat the same claim. I don't know that, and it appears to be contradicted by the fact that GR is used as the basis of cosmology. Special relativity describes local space-time. I would be happy to be shown to be wrong; could you provide a reference that says that GR only describes local space-time? There didn't seem to be much to say: the universe as a whole appears to be flat. Yes.

Why would we assume that? What evidence is there for it? And what is it moving relative to? And which direction is it moving? Why would that happen? There are particles with mass but no charge. How do you explain that?

While mass and energy are equivalent, they are not the saem. You can't really say that energy is a quantity of matter. Would you go to the market and ask for 5 joules of apples? No, you would use kg. No one says it is. That is why I think you are confused. Simply repeating that doesn't make it any less wrong. Correct. Pressure and momentum (which is already defined) have to be included in the EFE. We don't have an explanation for the "origin" of anything (in physics; that is the domain of philosophy and religion). It seems to work pretty well in cosmology. So, again, you seem to be wrong. I think you need to start by learning some physics first before inventing stuff that appears to have no basis. What is the difference? A sphere has volume. I don't think many people have a problem with the name or the analogy. Anyway, no one is going to change the name just because you find it confusing. There is no might about it. They are completely different. GR describes exactly what happens at the event horizon. The only uncertainties are when people attempt to combine this with quantum theory. No, what we have are precise mathematical models. Perhaps you could show the evidence or maths that supports that belief? Then why do you keep making statements that appear to be inconsistent with GR.

There are photos of exoplanets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets http://www.eso.org/public/images/archive/category/exoplanets/ That was worked out in the article the OP originally linked to...