Strange

I would blame your teachers for giving a very poor education.

Of course it doesn't make sense: you have chosen the description where the effect is caused by the atom emitting a different frequency. If you choose that description then that is the explanation. If you chose the alternative explanation then there is no change to the atom. And just to be clear: neither of these are "true". They are just alternative explanations of what we observe. They are both equally wrong. And that is the problem.

You have made a number of fundamentally incorrect statements statements about GR. This is evidence that you don't understand it. Irrelevant. Irrelevant and not science. Without quantitative, testable predictions, this can't be done. How can you say "almost exactly" if you have no maths. Your theory might produce a result much bigger, much smaller or even of the opposite sign to what we observe. We don't know. You don't know. Repeating this lie does not help your case. Without the math, that is just a guess. And the same is true of all your "predictions". You have, like all people of your ilk, completley ignored the criticisms of your idea. I assume you will continue to do so. Look, here is the thing: science forums like these attract hundreds of people who have a "theory" that they have been working on for years or decades. None of them have any math. They all claim to predict what we see around us (in a purely qualitative way). All of these personal theories cannot be right. We need some way of finding out which are possibly correct and which aren't. The only way of doing this is to have qantitative predictions that can be tested. This was worked out by LeMatitre. Did anyone say that? And another example of your ignorance of GR. Because that is what mass is. Very obviously not. All of the examples you give of GR "not working" are pure ignorance. That is not the job of science. How do we use these numbers to test your theory? Just so you know I did go back and re-read your previous posts to see if there was anything credible in there. I spotted this howler: The proton is stable and, despite attempts, no proton decay has ever been observed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

This is not true as you previously said: "then it does make sense to ask why the photons are not affected by this geometry on their way". It doesn't make sense to ask that if you are choosing to use a different description of what is happening. You can choose one description or the other, not both. Because they are both describing the same thing. Sheesh.

To give a more concrete example. We could describe the difference in height between me and my brother in two ways: (1) he is 6 inches taller than me or (2) I am 6 inches shorter than him. You seem to be saying that if he is 6 inches taller and I am 6 inches shorter then the height difference must be 12 inches. And this is obviously wrong, therefore I don't have a brother. You see: it makes no sense.

Then your question makes no sense. If you are considering the difference to be due to the atoms emitting the photons at a different frequency then that is the explanantion of the redshift that you have chosen. OR you could choose the alternative, where the redshift is described as being due to the effects on the photon. You can't choose both.

There is a difference in frequency. You can either describe this in terms of energy lost by the photon (i.e. the light "being affected buy the curvature" as you put it) OR in terms of the atoms emitting light at a different frequency. These are the same thing.

But this isn't true.

And the equation is identical for both descriptions.

If you are unable to do the maths, how can you say that a description does not match the mathematics? You can only rely on your "gut feeling". And that is obviously misleading you. So you have to learn not to trust it.

Or, "I've forgotten, thingy must be setting in. You know that whatsit where you, um, lose your thingy. You know. It's on the, um, of my errr... "

What sort of objects are you thinking of that can have a significant mass increase in the short time that a photon passes by? Also, when we look at and measure the red-shift of distant galaxies, they are not usually obscured by objects in front of them (because that would make it hard to measure the red shift) and so the effects of any intervening mass will be very small or non-existent.

In that case, it seems you will just have to accept the word of those who can do the maths (not me, by the way ) when they tell you that these two descriptions are simply different views of the same model. If you want to argue that is not the case, then you will have to come back when you have mastered the maths. Would you tell your surgeon that all his years of study are wasted because you don't think the simple descriptions you read in a newspaper make sense?

You need to produce a mathematical model and show that the predictions that it makes match observation. It should do this as well as, or better than, existing theory. So the singularities in the middle of black holes and the the start of the universe?

If light enters a gravitational well it will be blue shifted, and when it leaves it will be red-shifted. In the end, it will be back where it was. When Hubble first observed the redshift-distance relationship many hypotheses were proposed and tested. None survived except the big bang, because it was the only one (so far) to explain all, the evidence.

Having the shape it has now, it would not rebound to a spherical shape if it were not spinning (I suppose it might, over a very, very long time). I think it is useful / interesting to separate the effects of "centrifugal force" and distance from the centre.

But that's the point: it isn't circular. There are two different effects: the spin, which causes the shape of the Earth and, separate from that, the lower gravity at the equator because it is further from the centre. So, for example, things would still weigh less at the equator, even if the Earth weren't spinning.

There is nothing to suggest that your judgement about the state of the intellectual world is of any value. You seem very proud of your ignorance so why I'm not going to take your opinions seriously.

If you want to collect the one million pounds I offered, you need to be at the right place and at the right time - which I am not telling you because you don't need it. Anyway, this is a strawman argument as the word "need" does not form part of the theory of relativity. If you don't want to use the word, you don't need to. (See what I did there)

No one says that these things a perfect. Or even that they reflect the underlying reality (if that even means anything). They are scientific models and theories. In these models, space and time are dimensions that can be used to measure the location of events. It seems that a lot of people object to relativity (or quantum theory, or whatever) because it is not some metaphycal explanation of "reality". No. It isn't intended to be. That is not what science is for. As someone else said, "You want Philosophy. Second door on the left."

Does that mean you don't need a where, either? You just use the place as a tool. You don't need a where, but it would be better to say that you use a where, to keep track and calculate the movements. To prove that you are wrong: I will meet you at Hyde Park Corner in London and give you a million pounds. (I am pretty sure my money is safe.) Nonsense. Otherwise you would be knocked down by traffic even when crossing a now empty road.

I am glad you have managed to come to some sort of resolution of your doubts. On this specific point, I know there are people (including very serious philosophers of science) who think that time might not be "real" in some deeper sense (whatever that means). But you cannot get away from the fact that, even in everyday life, time is a dimension. If you want to organize an event (e.g. to meet someone) you need to specify 4 independent coordinates: 3 spatial ("where") and 1 temporal ("when"). This is nothing to do with relativity. Even if you think time is just movement (*) or a psychological artefact, you can't get away from that fact about the world we live in. (*) This is trivially wrong, but that has been thrashed out in thousands of posts in dozens of other threads so lets not discuss it here.

Exactly. So I don't understand why you think that is a non-answer. It seems a really good answer (to me).

At the basis of computers is semiconductor physics and the movement of charge carriers. But you don't need to worry about this when writing software.

That would be neurology or possibly philosophy, not physics.