Strange

OK so far. Not necessarily. There are many other possibilities. For example, it could have been expanding at an exponential rate so it was never zero sized, even an infinite time in the past. Or it could have contracted from a previously larger size and then "bounced" before it reached a point. Or it could be that there is one area that is expanding while another is contracting. Or it could be ... There are many possible cosmological models. The scientific ones make testable predictions. Can you do that? Can you show us the maths behind your model? Definitely not: we know that there are acasual events and we know common sense is frequently wrong. That is why we use the scientific method, instead of making up stories. Not necessarily. The universe could be infinite. The universe could be finite but unbounded. There are, again, many possibilities for the geometry and topology of the universe. These, of course, depend on mathematical models. Then you need to provide some evidence of that. Then you probably want religion or philosophy, not science.

Please stop lying. They all confirm that there are stars between the arms. If you disagree, please provide some evidence. Saying "I don't believe it; all astronomers are liars" is NOT evidence. Just one scientific paper that says "there are no stars between the arms" would do. Except, of course, we can: that is why every article says there are stars between the arms. If you disagree, please provide some evidence. No. This is not a matter of opinion where we can choose to disagree. YOU ARE WRONG. The evidence is that there are stars between the arms. If you disagree, please provide some evidence. You have offered NO evidence. All you have is your irrational beliefs. Please do not bring it up again until you have evidence to support your claims.

You can, of course, use "string theory" to overcome gravity: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/String

Our current understanding says nothing about how or if the universe started. So, again: WHERE is this claimed centre? What evidence do you have for it?

Just because we have intelligence, does not mean that the atoms we are made of have intelligence. Nor does it mean that other things made from those same atoms (rocks, stars, planets) have intelligence either. If you claim all those things have intelligence, then please provide some evidence. That does not mean that matter and energy didn't always exist. I am not claiming anything. I am asking you to provide some support for your claims. Does it? Why? Then again: please tell us where the centre is and what evidence this conclusion is based on.

Perhaps you are confusing isotropic and homogeneous? On large scales, the universe is both homogeneous and isotropic, to a good approximation. No. But you are talking about the centre of the universe, not the center of the solar system. So, again: where is this claimed centre? What evidence do you have for it? You are the one making claims, therefore it is up to your to support them. I don't understand the relevance. Are you saying that the centre of our galaxy is the centre of the universe? Or fixed in relation to the centre of the universe? Or ... what?

I have always assumed this was just chance. As you (*) say, molecules of the wrong chirality are not synthesized and are destroyed when encountered. It is a form of natural selection: once early life happened to use one form, then it was stuck with it. If it had been the other way round, the question would be the same. It is like tossing a coin once and then saying it is an unsolved mystery why you got heads not tails. (*) I have just realised it wasn't you. Did you really need to copy the entire (copyrighted) page?

Perhaps you should learn a little basic mathematics before spouting off about 0 and infinity. The smallest non-negative integer. The cardinality of the empty set.

These are both incorrect. So it appears you are mistaken about people using infinity "to keep up the option to say what ever they think." Evidence of this also needed.

Who is working with infinity? To do what? How do you know that? Please provide some evidence. Please explain what thius is supposed to mean, in mathematical terms.

What does your notation "0x1=1" mean? Is the "x" supposed to represent multiplication? (In which case it is trivially wrong.) Or does it mean something else, in which case you need to define it. At least we agree on that. The universe is still expanding. Where is this center? Why does the universe appear isotropic if it has a centre? Then it should be possible to detect motion relative to this fixed centre. Please provide some experimental support for this claim. Apophenia. What you "see" is irrelevant. Please provide some objective way that this "intelligence" can be measured. Why not? Please provide some evidence to support this. Without evidence, your opinion has no value.

Kudos for doing some analysis. If only more people would do that.

It doesn't exists. And there is the problem.

What you "see" is not very helpful, unless you can provide some evidence to support it. No one, I guess.

It doesn't really matter what you measure it relative to. Initially, you would probably measure it relative to Earth (or whatever your starting point was). And then you would measure it relative to Mars (or wherever you go). The point is, speed is purely relative. You can always consider your spaceship stationary and other stars and planets whizzing past. Or you can choose one or a series of references points to measure you speed against.

You would be aware of changes in speed (acceleration) because you would feel the force of acceleration (like when you are pushed back in your car seat). But you would have no way of knowing your speed without something to measure it realive to.

Well, while the tidal force is insufficient to rip the nerves apart, I doubt there is any noticeable delay due to time dilation. (But then again, intuitions are often wrong when it comes to black holes). I did wonder how you would continue to feel your extremities when falling through the event horizon because the nerve impulses obviously couldn't pass back through the horizon to your brain. But you would be falling through the event horizon faster than the nerve impulses were travelling back, so they would never have to go back through the event horizon. Which is, kinda, the same reason that you would never lose sight of the the person in front of you as they fell through the event horizon. Their photons could never pass back through the EH, but, instead, you would catch them up. Sorry for the digression. Maybe it is another way of saying: I don't know....

As the normal delays are typically hundreds of milliseconds, the extra picoseconds (or whatever) in your scenario hardly seem relevant. But feel free to do some calculations to show otherwise.

They don't annihilate; they just cease to exist: they are living on borrowed time and borrowed energy. The energy required to split a pair of virtual particles up and "convert" them to real particles is, not surprisingly, the equivalent of their combined mass - that comes from the black hole. When one particle tunnels through the event horizon and one escapes, it means that the mass-energy of one particle is "repaid" to the black hole and the mass-energy of one particle escapes. Net loss: the mass of one particle.

No, virtual pairs are a particle and anti-particle both with (positive) mass. They don't annihilate and produce photons because that would violate conservation of energy. They only exist for a short time as defined by the relationship between energy and time in the HUP.

So let's say someone comes up with an underlying mechanism for mass or charge. Let's call it "X". Would you be satisfied? Or would you say, "what is the underlying mechanism of X? why X?" I am not saying that one shouldn't ask questions or try to understand things more deeply. Just that it doesn't always make sense to ask what the deeper explanation is (the word "mechanism" is particularly troublesome; as if you expect everything to be mechanical at some level - a steam-punk version of advanced physics). I'm sure there will be a theory that goes beyond GR in future. It may (as several attempts currently appear to indicate) describe things in terms of geometric primitives (e.g. causal dynamical triangulation) with space, time, gravity and quantum theory all being emergent properties. (But it will still have to be equivalent to curved space-time at the appropriate level. In the same way that GR reduces to Newtonian force of gravity in the low energy domain.) And then people will ask "why these geometric primitives? why do they have these properties?" etc.

Because that is what mass is. "Why would electric charges have charge? What is the underlying steps of the relationship that ends with the electric field?" They are not accelerating (because in their local frame, they are not moving). Their recessional velocity is increasing (as they must, for purely mechanical reasons if there is uniform expansion) but that is not what is meant by "accelerating expansion".

You can choose a coordinate system in which the universe is described that way. It is more complex mathematically (e.g. you no longer have a constant speed of light), is not intuitive, and doesn't tell you anything different. I see no reason why viewing matter as shrinking rather than space expanding would imply anything about "future matter" having an effect. This would also violate causality and generally not be consistent with known physics.

There are two things here: The recessional speed of (distant) galaxies is proportional to distance - that is just a geometric effect of uniform expansion that can be demonstrated by some simple drawings on paper. The rate at which the universe is expanding is (appears to be) increasing. The reason for this is not known and is labelled "dark energy" (because it is unknown [dark] but can be modelled as a cosmological constant, lambda, representing the energy of space).

Because, as swansont says, they exist for less than the time defined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Therefore no violation of conservation of energy.