Strange

Sadly, we have encountered your kind before. Full of assertions but lacking any sort of model, evidence, predictions or even the veneer of science. You have been unable to provide meaningful or quantitative answers to any of the challenges put to you. As such, you provide no reason for anyone to consider these ideas.

While physics is more mathematical than some sciences, there is no branch of science that does not use mathematical models (it wouldn't be science if that were the case). You imply that description 2 is incompatible with experimental results. Please provide evidence for this. They are not models because they have no mathematics. They are alternative descriptions of the same model. Of course they are not "more elaborate". They are gross simplifications with no predictive power.

If you only use simplified (and therefore largely incorrect) descriptions of models, then you are bound to get confused. You can't extrapolate from these simplified analogies in any meaningful way. You certainly can't argue that because two different analogies seem contradictory that the underlying model must be wrong. I don't think there is any branch of science where "model" does not mean "mathematical model".

In other words, it is undetectable as communication. When I first pointed out that you need to define objective criteria to discriminate these "ambiguous" communications from random chance, you agreed that was a very important thing to do. But now you have reverted to the same subjective waffle. But trying it out is meaningless if all you are going to do is look at some arbitrary random event and label it "communication". "Oh look, a bird flew past; that must mean something" "Oh look, a bird didn't fly past; that must mean something." "Oh look, it started raining; that must mean something" "Oh look, it didn't start raining; that must mean something" I agree with Spyman, you are deluding yourself based on wishful thinking. Any "communication" that you discern is just selection bias and confirmation bias. As it is, this is probably just harmless fun that keeps you amused. But it is a small step from there to delusional behavior. The only way to avoid that is to apply critical thinking and objective criteria. Sadly, that will make these "communications" disappear which is, I assume, why you don't want to employ those tools.

Only if you try and take these descriptions (which are, ultimately, just analogies) too literally.

That is what I thought you were implying but I don't understand it. The surface at the equator is further from the centre because it is being spun more, not because it weighs less. I suppose you could argue that it weighs less because of centrifugal forces and is therefore further away and therefore weighs less. That is not a non-answer, it is a very interesting answer (in my opinion).

Not very helpful as the article on Determinism points out that there are many different meanings. I was asking what you meant by the word. However, that page does contain a useful definition: This corresponds to your toy simulation algorithm. Which is why I assumed you were describing a deterministic universe. This is a reasonable description of our universe with a couple of caveats: some "next states" are probabilistic and some are (apparently) a causal. (So not completely deterministic.)

The difference in gravity (and therefore weight) at the north pole and the equator is because the north pole is nearer the center of the Earth than the equator is. This is because the Earth is spinning, causing it to be flattened. So that was not a non-answer.

Rules of English morphology, would perhaps be more accurate. And you do know them. And the rules of English grammar. And phonology. And the amazing thing is that you worked them out all by yourself, without any help, and mostly before you were able to talk.

There might be. But there is zero evidence for this. The best you have come up with is that some (unspecified) coincidences are meaningful (to you) in some (unspecified) way. As you refuse to provide any objective definition of what would make a coincidence meaningful, there is no reason for anyone else to think this is anything other than your imagination / wishful-thinking.

Neither of them predicts anything; they are just alternative ways of describing the predictions of GR.

Impressive. GR predicts an static or collasping universe: WRONG in the last 10 years we know according to redshifts that we are in an expanding universe: WRONG Hence Dark energy: WRONG Perhaps you should learn a little bit about GR before trying to criticise it. 1. Please show how your theory predicts the observed red shifts. That has nothing to do with GR. 2. Please show how your model predicts the velocity curves of galaxies. 3. Please provide a reference to support this claim. What? We will ignore that as meaningless. That has nothing to do with GR. So the "flaws" in GR seem to be flaws in your understanding. Disappointing. Without the math, you have no way of knowing if your "theory" is correct or not. And there is no reason for anyone else to take it seriously until you can provide such evidence.

To be fair, I assume he is not a native speaker and gave him some slack for the writing.

I can't see any connection between that and what you wrote in your first post. What evidence is there for your theory? What predictions does your theory make that would allow it to be tested?

No one knows. There is no reason to think there was nothing.

If the explanation involved unknown forces affecting the clocks (as you suggest) then it is hard to see how it could be a relative effect. So for example, the time from GPS satellites has to be adjusted for the difference in gravity and speed. But if you were sitting next to the satellite then no such adjustment would be necessary. So there is no "real" change taking place, in that sense. Remember, because it is relative two different observers will see your clocks slow by different amounts.

OK. So if you are on train moving at 90% of the speed of light (relative to someone on the platform - there is no such thing as absolute speed) and you run through the train at 90% of the speed of light then the person on the platoform will see you moving at 99.4% of the speed of light. I'm not sure what you mean by "how". You will be observed to age more slowly. This can be described as a rotation between space and time dimensions. No. It doesn't require unknown forces. I wouldn't say it is explaining the universe, just the measurements we make.

No. That would be metaphysics (or religion). Science just builds the best possible models of what we can observe. That doesn't mean they are describing "fundamental reality" just that, at the moment, those particles are thought to be indivisible. There are a number of theories proposing that they are in fact made up of "lower level" particles. Perhaps you could identify one of those objections so it can be discussed?

What "bends" is the geometry use to define the measurements of space and distance between events. So, you are right, there is no physical "space-time" that bends. It is just that the mathematical model describes the curvature of geometry. (Did you ever come across non-Euclidean geometry in your studies?) The physical explanation is that the geometry of space time is affected by mass, energy etc. If you don't find that sufficient, there isn't much anyone can do. You are just saying you don't like the way the theory works, not that the theory is wrong. As we can only observe quarks indirectly, it is possible that they don't really exist and are just a good model for how protons and neutrons behave. Actually, we can't observe anything directly, which is why science is all about creating useful models rather than "truth" or "reality".

And that is true for all scientific theories. That is how science works. As the only way we can know about the universe, that is why a theory based on those observations is considered a good description of the universe. (Obviously, religion or metaphsyics may say that there is more to the universe than what we can observe. But they have the luxury of not being constrained by evidence.)

Remember all motion is relative, and relativity only describes relative effects. You are not moving relative to yourself and so nothing will happen to your clocks or your body. From your point of view, you are always stationary. (On the other hand, you are always moving at some speed relative to something else.) A couple of points. Firstly, relativity is not about what Einstein "proclaimed". It is a scientific theory and therefore based on maths and evidence. We can completely ignore what Einstein may or may not have said as it is completely irrelevant. I'm sure there are things he was wrong about. And he certainly never said that "you do not have a faster velocity when in a train and walking inside it than the train itself" because it isn't true. What you might be thinking of is the fact that if you are in a train moving at a constant speed, then that is no different from being stationary (because all speed is relative). So if you are on this train and throw a ball vertically upward, then it will come straight back down to your hands (just like you were not moving). OK, so what you may be thinking of is the fact that speed does not add linearly. For example, we "know" that if you are on a train going at 40 MPH and you run towards the front at 10 MPH then your total speed (relative to the ground) will be 50 MPH. This is only approximately true. Your speed will actually be very slightly less than 50 MPH (the difference is immeasurably small at everyday speeds, which is why we are not aware of it). Once speeds get to a significant proportion of the speed of light, then the simple addition of velocities no longer works.

I don't see why. They are just different descriptions of the same effect. That one effect is described by GR.

Gravity IS the curvature of space-time, not formed from it. And there is energy associated with the gravitational field. And energy is not conserved in GR.

You haven't answered my question either.

Have they? Do you have any examples? If your rocket is travelling at a constant velocity relative to Earth, then the people on Earth will see your clocks run slower than theirs and, therefore, see you age more slowly. You are not going to like this next bit but ... you will see the clocks on Earth slower than yours and, therefore, see them age more slowly. (It gets slightly more complex if you decide to turn around and return to Earth.)