Strange

Whether they could exist is not the point. The point was that space-time (a construct of GR) exists in models (based on GR) with no mass or energy. This is why one's intuition is not reliable on these things.

Time dilation IS the curvature of spacetime. Mass-energy is the curvature of spacetime. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime.

Yes. How can we possibly answer that? We (well, Mordred and others) could give you the full mathematical treatment. But you wouldn't understand that and would ask for simple explanation. You have had the simple explanation and either don't get it and/or reject it. I don't think anyone can invent a model that would satisfy your particular intuition. There is no "frozen" description. We have a model of the evolving universe. You can look at conditions at particular times (e.g. temperature, pressure) and work out what would be happening in terms of plasma, particle interactions, etc.

And another example: Newton's theory of gravity was found to be inaccurate (it couldn't correctly explain the precession of Mercury). Now we have a new theory (relativity) which is much more accurate. But Newton's theory is still good enough for most uses, even though it is "wrong". And one day, we may have a better theory than relativity. But relativity will still be as accurate as it is now. And Newton's theiry will still be just as good. The number of cases where a theory has been completely overthrown is vanishingly small.

It applies to all black holes.

Will you at least answer one question: Do you understand that the big bang theory does NOT say anything about "creation"? Yes or No.

Definitely not. (I mean definitely not knocking art!) You have said, and shown, some interesting things regarding art and even its relation to science. But art is not science and never can be. Part of me want to say, "it's just a circle" but I will be intersted to see what you come up with.

Thanks for asking. It seems to be a misconception on my part (and others, I think) that Newton himself calculated this. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/light_deflection But I believe the reason Newton and Soldner reasoned that this was the case is because the acceleration of a body caused by gravitational force only depends on the mass of the attracting body, not the falling body (see also, Day Trip to Pisa, Galileo et al.) Taking the limit as mass approaches zero tells you that light should be affected equally. At the Schwarzschild radius, the photon will fall into the black hole. The smallest stable orbit is at 1.5 x rs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere

That is certainly true of lifting water by using air pressure (sucking it up a tube, for example). Capillary action complicates things. For example, trees are obviously able to lift water hundreds of feet. But this is a complicated process with many factors involved. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-large-trees-such-a/

I have already said that there are solutions to the equations of GR that describe universe with no mass or energy, but still with space and with curvature. I'm not sure what else you expect me to say. I only provided the links so you wouldn't think I was just making it up. Obviously, you can choose not to read them (a couple of them are pretty mathematical) but there is some interesting stuff in there.

No one knows. There are a large number of different hypotheses. In GR there is no "before" but it is assumed we need a theory of quantum gravity to udnerstand the earliest stages (and, perhaps, before).

Nope. That is why the maths is so useful, it tells you when your intuition/guesses are wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasner_metric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taub%E2%80%93NUT_space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluidity (Actually, it wouldn't work because the helium would climb over the sides of each funnel as well as through the tubes.) I rarely link to YouTube, but you can see it in action here:

This is slightly ambiguous. At the beginning it sounds like you are saying that space-time doesn't exist until you introduce mass, at the end it sounds as if you are just saying that there is no curvature until you introduce mass. The first is definitely not true, as it is entirely possible to solve the Einstein Field Equations for a universe containing no mass or energy. Perhaps surprisingly, the latter isn't actually true either; space time can have some intrinsic curvature even in the absence of mass and energy. Which is rather like the EM field having a non-zero value even in the absence of charge. (Which it does.)

It might work with superfluid helium...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity The fact that you drag this into the discussion is typical of your woolly, unfocussed thinking about science. Your approach may be great for art but not so much science or engineering.

Absolutely not. Space-time curvature. There are no paths that lead from the inside of a black hole to the outside. Whatever direction you move, you get closer to the centre of the black hole. (In fact, space-time is so curved that the centre of the black hole is no longer ahead of you, it is in your future.)

I am sure you have not upset anybody. But thanks for your concern.

That is why it is wrong to think that it is the escape velocity that prevents light escaping.

That's the difference. The projects I have worked on have had teams of 10 or more (nearly 100 in some cases), often spread across multiple countries and with different specialist skills and extend over months or years.

But this is one of the fundamental aspects of science: if it is undetectable, it is assumed not to exist. (After all, science is about the objectively testable and measurable, not belief in the undetectable.) For example, there is a thing called Lorentz Ether Theory which is indistinguishable from Special Relativity in all ways: they both predict exactly the same results, there is no experiment that can tell them apart. The only difference is that LET includes a mysterious "thing" called ether while SR does not. As this ether makes no perceptible difference to anything, no one considers it to be real and the theory is of no more than historical interest.

The thing is the model, the theory, doesn't require these things to be real or to be made of something. As such, saying that they are made of something (which has no effect on the theory) contradicts Occam's Razor. If someone comes up with a new theory that requires space-time or the EM field to have some physical properties (mass, tensile strength, flavour, whatever) then that is a different thing. Features aren't added to theories to satisfy someone's aesthetic sense (after all, someone else might just as well say, "its not gluons but neutrinos/Higgs bosons/photons" - all of which have been suggested in the same way) but because the theory doesn't work without them. If you want to say that space-time is gluons then you need to develop a theory that requires spacetime to be made of gluons - not just the existing theory with gluons stuck on the side like an unnecessary wart.

No, same thing. By writing the tests first you validate the spec before coding starts (make sure there is a spec in most cases). As coding proceeds, testing can be done incrementally instead of being left to the end. And so on. I doubt any really does it that way but it is a good target to aim for. The better your spec, and the earlier you start planning and doing testing, the less likely you are to have bugs and the sooner you will finish. And was there a detailed functional, architectural and implementation spec before the project started? I am guessing not...

Reduce the size to zero, is the only thing I can think of. Actually, the same thing is true of the EM field: if you screen the room you won't get rid of the field, just sets its value to zero. This is more akin to making sure the space-time in the room is not curved. I don't see why. (Have a read of the John Baez thing: even if you skip the maths you should get something out of it.)

Excellent! I have seen some of that before, but not all of it. Good old John Baez. (This weeks piece of trivia: he is cousin to Joan Baez, the singer.) Gravitons are massless and therefore travel at the speed of light. As such, they are as likely to form "blobs" as light is (i.e. not at all). BTW, Kramer, you should read that article by John Baez. It gives a reasonably non-technical description of how gravity works and how exactly the same thing accounts for the expansion of space (aka big bang).