Strange

Apparently, yes. (Until we find evidence to the contrary. So this is purely an argument from incredulity and ignorance: you don't believe it and don't know how it happened therefore it can't be true? So provide some evidence they are much older than that. And yet it seems to have happened. Have we? Could you provide a reference for these improved detectors? Can you provide evidence that they are not trying to do that? Did you miss the reference to the James Webb telescope in the article? Do you know how the age of stars is estimated? We can see "the big bang itself". It is called the cosmic microwave background. It appears you are wrong. what you expect is not evidence and does not disprove the big bang. Given the level of knowledge displayed in your posts, I think it is unlikely you will have the real solution for anything. But if you think you do, why not start a thread in Speculations, presenting your solution and the evidence for it? So far all I have seen you do is try and pick holes in existing models, purely based on the fact you don't understand them. You haven't presented your solution so no one can take you up on this ridiculous offer. And, as there is no such thing as a "proved theory" (which has been explained to you at great length already) you are obviously cheating.

1. dx has units of lengt, while c has units of length/time so you can't just replace c with dx 2. dx is undefined unless you define dt; what is the value of dt?

What is "'dx' of light"?

Be sure to let us know when you have evidence for such stars (rather than supposition) and we will have the big bang theory cancelled immediately.

As already noted, the distance between them is more like 90 billion light years. No. Don't you think someone would have noticed, if that was the case.

The cosmic neutrino background is only about 360,000 years older than the microwave background. I think that is about 1% of the error in the current estimate of the age of the universe, so it doesn't sound like it would make a significant difference in that sense. But it would obviously give us a lot more information, if it were detectable.

A couple of points, the galaxies that we see at about 13 billion light years away are now more than 40 billion light years away. There are, beyond that, almost certainly galaxies which are even further away. Probably including 500 billion light years away. But we can never see them because there hasn't been enough time for the light to reach us. (And the light never will reach us because the universe is expanding.) So, if we detected a galaxy that we thought was more than 50 or 500 billion light years away (or more than 14 billion years old) then, yes, obviously that would challenge existing models. Which would be very exciting.

Radio programme, actually. Thank you.

Yep. It is called mathematics. The Wikipedia page you link to says: Which is pretty much what everyone has been trying to tell you.

Sorry, sold out. Might have some more in a fortnight.

You take this course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/calculus1 It is not too advanced and will give you some great insights into all sorts of things.

In the UK, that is pretty much the only place we still use gallons. Even the petrol is priced in pence per litre. It still sounds odd when I hear Americans talk about buying a quart of milk. Would you like a bushel of cookies to go with that, to sustain you on your journey of several furlongs?

For things on the surface (which is what we are discussing) it is the whole answer. Actually, no it isn't the whole answer because someone has already mentioned the inhomogeneity of the Earth, for example. But we are dealing with idealisations here, surely. Because the Magritheans made it that way for the purpose of this thought experiment. Talk about herding cats! This is worse than trying to manage a team of software engineers.

But to go back to my point, if you were to have a non-rotating planet (not Earth, because we don't want to get sidetracked by the physical effects of stopping rotation) with the same mass, size and shape as Earth then things would still weigh less at the Equator because they are further from the centre, even with no rotation.

So you are saying that you don't want to apply a scientific approach and critical thinking because it might prove you are right, and that would be scary? I assumed you didn't want to do it because it would prove that you were wrong. Ho hum.

Or for measuring who wins a race over a fixed distance ...

Well, t/d is not speed it is inverse-speed (I don't think this unit has a name). There is no particular reason that the rate of movement couldn't be defined in those terms; I guess it is just less intuitive to have a unit that gets smaller the faster you go. There is also the practical problem: what is the value of your inverse-speed when you are stationary?

Same here. Which is why I think it is an interesting way of looking at the two different effects: the forces flattening the Earth considered as a reduction in weight; and the extra distance from the centre considered as a reduction in weight. But it is important to realise they are different. (which is why the answer that started all this is not a non-answer!)

Alternative 2 says nothing about the rate of flashes. Actually, neither does 1. So this is doubly irrelevant.

The interpretation is the ONLY difference. They both describe the same thing from different points of view.

Correct. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. They obviously do describe the same thing: the underlying theory. Nonsense. Because explanation 2 is about photons not about ticking cloks and so is not applicable to this case. This is the problem when people who are ignorant of the theory try and extend analogies beyond where they can be applied. Next you will be telling us that the "rubber sheet" analogy proves GR wrong:

Visible in the UK as well. Indexed on the appropriate pages, etc. And searching for a random sentence from the first post bring this thread up as the 3rd result in Google. It does look like most comments by posters other then Enthalpy are hidden though.

A few points from the Wikipedia summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science#Science_in_the_Middle_Ages So clearly no shortage of advances in science and mathematics, even if you just pick a few points from a summary.

Are you planning to provide any evidence for your claims? Or shall we just ask the mods to close the thread? You need to provide evidence that they are magnetised.

Actually, that was a bit unfair. I didn't learn anything about history of science at school (I think it should be a core part of the science curriculum). But there has been no period when there have not been advances in science and mathematics. How do you define "important"?