Strange

Can we have that added to the rules?

Not equal values. But the same thing - the same mechanism. It depends on the energy density of the universe. It used to be assumed that an eventual collapse and "big bounce" was a possibility, but the discovery of dark energy makes that seem unlikely now.

That would be true if you measured the wavelength in the same frame of reference. So, for example, the Sun is emitting the same wavelengths of light (as measured by us) as it always has. However, we measure the the light from distant stars in a different frame of reference from where they were emitted. Our "meter rule" is no longer the same as theirs. Galaxies, etc. do not expand because they are held together by galaxy. In the absence of any such force, objects will tend to move apart. (For exactly the same reason, by the way, that objects with mass will tend to get closer together - aka gravity). Light is not an "object" and so is affected by the scale factor. Hence we see a different wavelength for distant light.

Ignoring the problems with that paper, you have done nothing to show that it bears any relationship to what you have claimed. It is not clear what you have claimed as it is very vague, so the problem is you can claim almost anything supports it. It depends on the overall energy density in the universe and, now, apparently the nature of dark energy. Currently it appears that nothing will stop expansion. They are already know to be exactly the same thing, so I am not sure what there is to prove. I though you were claiming they were not the same thing. If none of the math needs to change, then I don't see much value. Also, if you are saying that your idea uses the existing standard mathematics of relativity then it is not enough just to claim that, you need to demonstrate it. Otherwise it is just another unsupported claim. Acceleration of the universe should be provable mathematically. Then give us the full explanation. So you are happy if we just dismiss it as unsupported nonsense? The value of c is 1 in Planck units. But in those units the mass and/or energy of the universe (which is unknown, and may be infinite) is not 1. You need to show that there is a meaningful and consistent set of units where the total mass of the universe can be 1 while c is also 1. In which case, c cannot be -1 (as that is not a physically meaningful speed). So you are assuming that these two forces originate from, or act towards, a single point? Where is this point? How would we identify it? This contradicts the apparent homogeneity and isotropy of the universe. (Which has been measured very precisely.) No. That is mathematically undefined. Note that it is your use of infinity that is rejected, not the use of infinity. There are ways of using infinity in equations, just not the way you do it. And that is the problem: you don't care that what you are doing is mathematically invalid. You don't care that your claim of a centre of the universe is contradicted by evidence. You don't care about science. You only care about people accepting your idea despite the obvious flaws. If anything, the opposite appears to be the case (based on those pesky observations): the energy of empty space is causing expansion to accelerate not slow.

Possibly. (Although I'm not sure what you mean by condensing.) There are many alternative ways of describing the same thing. However, you have to make all the changes associated with making a different coordinate choice (e.g. varying speed of light, or whatever).

I hate to be picky (*) but: caloric. Phlogiston was something else. (*) No, you're right.

It has been common and generally accepted for most of my lifetime - ever since Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMB in the 60s. The description of expanding space has a parameter called the "scale factor" which relates distances at one time to another. The scale factor now is greater than when the photons were emitted. This means that lengths, including the wavelength of the photon, are greater. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Expansion_of_space

Or provide a link: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6607 http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/03/31/guest-post-jaroslav-trnka-on-the-amplituhedron/ This isn't "new math" though. And it isn't clear yet if it is actually useful.

It may require a black hole to do this, but yes it is possible that some light would be sent back to the source (that's 180º by the way). This is the nearest reference I could find: http://apod.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/gotops.html "A photon could leave the back of your head, go once around the black hole, and be seen by your eye - you can see the back of your head."

It is not a moot point, because you are making a claim, and therefore you need to supply some evidence. Sigh. I kind of assumed that the phrases "according to our best theory" ... "there is no evidence that" ... "does not appear to be" etc were implied because this is a science forum. So let me try again: according to the theory that explains expansion there is no force causing expansion. This is a very accurate and well-tested theory that makes precise predictions, and unifies a number of different phenomena. You have a long way to go from your vague statements to something that improves on GR. That is a very unscientific approach. You should be concerned with what best fits the evidence. But if you can make equally good, or better, calculations of the CMB, the proportions of elements in the universe, red-shifts, etc. then go ahead.

There is currently no evidence that universe is infinite. Unless you have some .... ? There is no force causing expansion.

Then present the evidence in your thread (not here).

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ Not too complicated. Then it isn't science. And "this is a science forum, and speculations are still to be discussed in that context", from the guidelines. None of the threads you started appear to have been shut down. It is a venue for people to present their ideas and have them vigorously tested - like a gentler form of the scientific process. It also keeps nonsense away from the serious parts of the forum.

See post 3. Or http://www.techtimes.com/articles/10339/20140713/celestial-string-of-pearls-join-two-elliptical-merging-galaxies.htm Ha! Beaten to it.

The Beatles Revolution 9 Number 9 for 9 Minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-NwzozflCQ

Some information on this could be found by looking at plants that are grown outside their native areas: e.g. northern deciduous trees grown in the tropics. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=522037

Maybe. But it provides a very accurate model for both gravity and the expanding universe. All its predictions of the big bang have been confirmed (which is why the theory is accepted). This has to do with the expansion of space as described by the big bang model (and predicted by GR). 1. No other explanation has been able to explain the near-perfect black body spectrum or the temperature of the CMB. 2. It was exactly predicted by GR and the big bang model. (It was the conclusive bit of evidence that killed the staedy state models.) Your theory needs to explain ALL the evidence, not just the bits you want it to. The big bang model predicts the quantities and hydrogen and helium in the universe. Another reason the theory is accepted.

Perhaps you could show what is wrong with General Relativity, or specifically the FLRW metric? And explain the observed red-shift distance relationship? And the existence and spectrum of the CMB? And the proportions of hydrogen and helium in the universe?

Almost by definition, culture is not located in our brains. (Excpet in the most general sense, that all our thought are.) Before my browser crashed, I wrote a long paragraph refuting this with examples of the variety of opinion in the Arab world. This referenced the "Arab Spring" uprisings, the differences between the repressive Saudi regime and more liberal Gulf states, the changes over history where Christains and Jews were treated as equals then repressed and then treated more liberally again. But I can't be bothered to type the whole thing again! Also, in the past there were often pictures of the Prophet in religious books, now many people think that is not allowed (but some people don't). Some women wear the veil and others don't. In summary, your view seems very simplistic. Native speakers are often not a good source of information about their language (perhaps, surprisingly). Especially when the whole issue of language vs dialect and social unity, is a very political one. Also, how many of your informants have been exposed to all Arabic dialects.? They may be thinking of the fact that they can understand both the written form of Arabic and their own spoken language (and some local dialect varieties). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language Similar claims are sometimes made about the Chinsese languages, for similar reasons.

True enough. Although the constants themselves (in whatever units) are probably mroe significant than 9 of anything!

Culture and upbringing. There may be some innate aspects to our morals (e.g. nearly all cultures have similar rules on murder). But if it is in our brain, then it is in our genes. But in that case it is also universal. How do you know that Arab populations are less mixed than others? Evidence? Some other dialects, certainly. Not all. There is as much variation between Arabic languages/dialects as there is between Romance languages in Europe. Not all of them. And not all Arabs are Muslims. I have heard exactly the same (false) arguments made about the Chinese.

And e. And the fine structure constant. And c. And Planck's constant. And ... Every number has interesting properties. It is easy to prove this. Imagine there were numbers without interesting properties. Then the smallest such number would be interesting for being the smallest number without interesting properties. Repeat. The British mathematician G. H. Hardy visited the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan in hospital and later said: “ I remember once going to see him when he was ill at Putney. I had ridden in taxi cab number 1729 and remarked that the number seemed to me rather a dull one, and that I hoped it was not an unfavorable omen. "No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1729_%28number%29

That's a good thing... Think how much more exciting stuff there is to learn! That is what makes science so great.

that's not at all how it works

That speed limit comes from special relativity, in other words it is only a "local" limit. It doesn't necessarily apply to general relativity. There are (and always have been) galaxies we can see that are receding faster than light. I don't really know the answer to this. I think the early value of the Hubble parameter (which is what you are asking about) depends on the amount of matter, energy and dark energy in the universe so may not be known exactly. A quick google shows this: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-early-universe%E2%80%99s-expansion-determined- which says that the rate of expansion 11 billion years ago was 1% in 44 million years. And then there is (hypothetical) inflation, which complicates the picture further. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29