Strange

We can, and do, say it is expanding. There is a mountain of evidence for this. It is not quite that simple, as already noted. If you make this transformation then you no longer have a constant speed of light, and you need to make many other changes. This makes the model much more complex. And it is also less intuitive (apart from, apparently, to a few odd people).

The challenge with that interpretation is that, in all other contexts, photons (and electrons and C60 molecules) are indivisible so it is hard to understand what "through both slits" really means. To answer the original question: nothing has changed in the last 8 years in our understanding of quantum theory. In fact, as far as I know, nothing significant has changed since modern quantum theory was formulated about 90 years ago.

If there were specific evidence that was not in agreement with relativity, then it would be useful because that evidence could point to what new physics is required.

If you could create force from nothing, you could use that force to generate energy. Which is why you are obviously wrong. It doesn't increase without bound. It is just (decaying) simple harmonic motion as with any spring or pendulum. Your magic magnets don't make any difference.

You seem to be ("force from nothing"). Of course it does: there is a magnet moving backwards and forwards, exerting a force on it. And yet:

I said "if". The point was to show that claiming you can have a force in one direction (because you cancel out the magnet's force) is nonsense. The force between a piece of iron and the magnet is the same as the force between the magnet and the piece of iron. I don't see what value the magnets add. You are cancelling the force due to the magnets and relying on the spring to keep the system oscillating, temporarily. Then I don't see how the magnet is supposed to exert a force on it ... ?

So if we replace 3 with a non-magnetized metal bar and get rid of 1 and 2, then you are in the same position. But you will still have the same force between 3 and 4 as between 4 and 3. So the magnets don't do anything. You could get rid of all of them. All you need is a perfect spring, zero friction and weight. Totally pointless.

In that case, I will borrow the words "work of genius" but use them to mean something slightly different...

Errr .... I don't think we are in the world of physics any more. As I say, if you want to invoke magic ...

You said "I don't have any evidence to support this claim". So please stop repeating this if it is not true.

That doesn't make sense. If you are cancelling the force between 3 and 4, how can there be a "new" force between 3 and 4? Also, why would the force on the grey surface change? (I assume that is supposed to be some sort of metallic surface? All you are doing is changing the position of one of the magnets underneath it. Therefore, you need to exert a force to make it move (f = ma).

How do you calculate that? You can't equate acceleration (m/s2) to velocity (m/s). That is like trying to express your height in kilograms. It is meaningless.

Surely you will have to apply a force to move the magnets as they are attracted to magnet 4? I don't see any "new" force here. Just you moving magnets around. But on the other hand ... ... if you invoke magic, I suppose you can do anything.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? And how do you relate spin speed to metres/s? Are you talking about the speed at the circumference?

It sounds more like the salt caused the gas to come out of solution rapidly by providing sharp edges where nucleation can occur. You could test this by doing the same experiment with (clean, dry) sand. I suspect you will get a similar effect.

But falsifying established science requires evidence that contradicts that science. Your failure/refusal to understand does not constitute evidence. And it is this wilful and deliberate refusal to learn that causes the "aggro" (not that there is any).

The expansion of space does not require it to be expanding "into" anything. The universe is all there is, so there is nothing for it to expand into. You can choose coordinates in which that is true. You (i.e. the big bang theory) can say a lot more than that. That is why it is such a successful theory. Also "the ratio of mass to space" does not make much sense. You can only have a ratio between things which use the same units. You are not just comparing apples with oranges, but more like the weight of an apple to price of an orange. A little bit. But it rather oversimplifies a fairly complex theory.

You can do much better than that, a sub-orbital ballistic trajectory could get you from Europe to Australia in 90 minutes. (But still has nothing to do with the Coriolis force.)

Don't mind xyzt, he is like that with everyone. But he does know his stuff.... So, if we ignore acceleration (and therefore never bring the spaceship back to Earth) then Bill will see Bob age more slowly that him, and Bob will see Bill age more slowly. The theory of relativity s about relative observations / measurements. This is what Dingle fails to understand: his "paradox" is only a paradox if there is some absolute time that we can use to determine who "really" ages more slowly. (No one does.) And if you do bring Bill back to Earth, then he will have experienced less time and will be younger than his "twin" on Earth. This is a bit subtle but the Wikipedia page has quite a good explanation.

Do you mean the FLRW metric? Yes. I have tried to explain what the math says in a very basic way.

So are you saying that every technology or product for which there is no evidence of danger (and some evidence of safety) should be considered a risk?

There is no cosmological "force". It requires no force for expansion to happen. It requires a force to stop it. Expansion only takes place where there is a homogeneous distribution of mass (which is true on very large scales). On small scales, galaxies are held together by gravity. Or, rather, the curvature of space-time caused b the galaxies prevents expansion.

I'm still not sure what you are trying to say ... OK. Is this it: 1. We are on Earth watching a spacecraft fly away from us.. When it is 1 light year away, the spacecraft emits a flash of light. That light will take 1 year to get to Earth, even though the spacecraft is moving away. This is because the speed of light is the same for all observers and independent of the speed of the source. (But the light will be red-shifted because of the Doppler effect.) 2. In cosmological expansion, the light leaves the distant galaxy and starts travelling towards the Earth. But the space between the galaxy and the Earth is still expanding and so the light has an ever increasing distance to travel. So, for example, after the light has travelled half way to Earth, expansion means that it now has more than half the original distance still to travel. This is why it is wrong to think of distant galaxies as moving away from us: it is more accurate to say that the space in between is increasing. This is also why trying to calculate cosmological red-shift using the Doppler effect gives the wrong answers.

They are not travelling exactly in the radial direction. The line that is tangent to the circle may be parallel to a radial line (and never meet it) or be at some other angle (depending which radial direction you choose). But they can never be the same because they start from different points. I don't see how the force could sum to an outward direction as the ring is always outside the ball, and therefore the forces are always inwards. (Which is the answer to 90% of the questions in this thread!) The negative points are not for being wrong (otherwise you would have an even larger number ) but for refusing to accept you are wrong, refusing to understand how you are wrong, for remaining wilfully ignorant of basic(sorry) physics.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. But if two objects are moving apart then the time it takes light to travel between them will increase (because the distance is increasing). Because there is no change in distance. So why would the time increase?