Strange

He didn't make him leave. Bluemercury petulantly said he would leave because people disagreed with him and pointed out his nonsense was ... nonsense.

These are philosophical questions, not sceintific. Perhaps you need to join one of the hundreds of "what is time" threads. (Personally, I see no need, or even meaning, for there being a "mechanism" for time.) But they work. That is all that matters.

Mass is related to energy through the well-known equation E=MC2. However, it is less well-known that the full form of this equation includes momentum. Magnetism is related to the orbital angular momentum of (unpaired) electrons in the atoms of the material. When these orbital spins are randomly aligned the material is unmagnetised (because they all cancel out) and also the net angular momentum is zero (because they all cancel out). But when you align them, the material becomes magnetized and the total angular momentum increases. This increases the mass of the material. (I mainly wrote this to see if I have got it right. )

The only "assumption" in your post that is even close to the postulates of relativity is that the speed of light is constant in all frames. This is simply based on the, quite reasonable, assumption that the laws of physics, including Maxwell's equations, are the same whether you are moving or not. (As the fact that all motion is relative had been established by Galileo many centuries earlier, this is pretty obviously the case.) The rest of the theory was derived purely mathematically from this starting point. The thought experiment you mention, and others, are ways of visualising or explaining what the maths says. They are obviously not the basis of the theory because thought experiments. You need to show (mathematically, not by silly analogies) that one or more of Maxwell's equations, Noether's Theorem or Enstein's derivation of SR is incorrect if you want to show that SR is wrong. And then you need to come up with an alternative explanation for the mountains of evidence (including your functioning computer) that shows that SR is a very precisely accurate theory. Good luck with that. (Note that there are so many errors in your OP, I really can't be bothered to go through it in detail. Life is too short.)

As the others say, the universe is not like an exploding grenade. However, there are variants of the big bang model with multiple universes. You could look up "eternal inflation", for example. And I think there are a number of others.

It is possible to describe the expansion of space in terms of the metre shrinking (and the speed of light changing, etc.) Although, I am told it is quite complex, counter-intuitive and has no benefit. So no one does it. But what does that have to do with comparing clocks or rulers now, with clocks and rulers in the early universe?

Presumably you are American? I gather this is considered too strong a word to use on, say, television in the US. Hence the euphemism BS, which itself seems to be considered pretty offensive. In the UK, it is not really any more offensive than "nonsense". But if you are truly offended by it, report the post to the moderators. I'm sure they will take your general attitude into account when judging the case ....

Although I imagine the effect described by xyzt would result in an immeasurably small change in mass.

I replied to the part I could understand. I'm not really what reply to me was supposed to mean. You appear to be saying that logic is subjective. This is obviously wrong so I assume I have misinterpreted it.

I don't think he was being pedantic: the post was just plain incomprehensible. (If he were being pedantic he might have just pointed out you have a comma in the wrong place). And he wasn't being sarcastic. If he had been sarcastic, he could have been much briefer (e.g. "well that makes a lot of sense").

Nor can I. Luckily, there are people who can. How would you ever know? Relativity only talks about relative differences (hence the name). You can't compare a clock now with a clock then, or a ruler now with a ruler then. If someone back then had a metre rule and a clock, they would measure metres and seconds just like we would. On the other hand, in the case of time dilation between the Earth and a GPS satellite (due to gravity and velocity) we can measure the difference. But a second on the GPS satellite is the same second it has always been, and the metre is the same as ever.

It is true that science never 100% proves anything there is still a big difference. There is overwhelming evidence for quantum theory and it is used in technology such as the computer you are using. There is also no evidence that shows it to be wrong (yet). So accepting quantum theory is NOT an act of faith. However, there is zero evidence for (or against) gods or unicorns so if you believe in them then that is 100% an act of faith. I have no problem with that, as long as you don't try and equate your evidence-free faith with science.

It is not faith, it is evidence. As noted, the fact that your computer works is some (small) evidence for it. Without evidence, I find this claim highly unlikely. And "go check yourself" is not a scientific argument. (Even when spelt properly.) No it isn't. It is a shame you are unwilling to learn (both about science and how to write like an adult).

How can you equate informing something that they are not in possession of some, possibly quite specialised, knowledge with calling them an idiot. There are vast areas of knowledge I am ignorant of, does this make me an idiot?

Correct. Science can't prove that Zeus, Thor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the tooth fairy or invisible pink unicorns don't exist.

How can he distort it? According to you, everything is logical and logic is subjective. Which is complete nonsense, of course.

The whole point of the scientific method is to eliminate emotional and psychological biases. In general, it does this extremely well (with occasional, temporary, glitches). I still don't see why you think some sort of emotionless AI (even if such a thing were possible) would make any difference. It is not as if science is a purely intellectual activity which could do without experiment to achieve its goals. How would these AIs be able to run an experiment faster? How would they get to Mars quicker? How would they detect more neutrinos than we can currently? If these AIs were so cold, why would they even bother doing science (or anything). Advances are made by people (emotionally) driven to answer questions and make discoveries.

Who knows. Maybe it wasn't created, it has always existed. Or maybe it wasn't created by anyone/anything it just came to be. Absolutely nothing. Although science does disprove some of the claims made bythose who believe in God (such as young Earth creationsts).

Sorry, didn't mean to sound as if I was criticising you. Just curious where the idea came from ...

No, it took 13.7 billion years to get here because of the the expansion of space. You can think of it (crudely and incorrectly) as it being dragged backwards. It is more accurate to say that when it started, it only had 44 million light years to travel but after it had travelled half that distance, the remaining distance had increased enormously. By the time it had travelled half the remaining distance, the distance had increased a bit more. And so on.

I'm not convinced of that. There are always people who will reject such explanations as being too "dry", too mechanical, not having any "soul". They will always insist "there must be more to it" (whether "it" is consciousness or the ewather). You must have come across them posting on science forums? And there are (apparently) other forums totally dedicated to such ideas.

It will never stop (until it is absorbed by some object). I am also curious why you draw a distinction between a ray of light and a laser. Not sure why you think it has to be considered from the frame of reference of the photon (which doesn't exist). You could consider it from our frame of reference (although that gets complicated if you want to take GR and expansion into account). Or the local frame of reference where the photon is passing by.

Does a magnetixed object have more energy than an unmagnetized one? (I don't know the anser to that.) If it does, then that would make a minuscule difference to the weight. But the arrangement of the disks would not.

Good question. I don't know. Much, much smaller than now. But, because of expansion, it has taken those photons about 13.7 billion years to get here. The surface where those photons were emitted is now about 46 billion light years away. As I understand it, that would not give us the near-perfect black body spectrum we see.

What is a "higher gene pool"? There is no such push. (Who would be pushing?) It is still the only model we have (with a few minor tweaks from modern theory). What is your alternative? Despite a few people misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Darwinism" to support things like eugenics or unpleasant business practices, you are right: society obviously doesn't run on Darwinian principles. Why would you expect it to? And what does that have to do with natural selection?