Strange

It is at least 4 billion years. Possibly far more.

When we use geological information on the Earth or lunar meteorites, the speed is approximately zero. (Edit: beaten to it!)

You have said this. Repeatedly. But you have not provided any supporting evidence (so I assume it is not true). I already gave examples of research into the entire metabiome; i.e. trying to understand and model all molecular pathways. All you have is empty claims. (Which is why this is in speculations.) In other words, you can't give any examples. So we can dismiss that claim as well.

Um... it's wrong? There are plenty of material objects that do tell us about the universe. (And arguably, even dinosaur fossils tell us about the universe in the past.)

No. Just incompetent.

Looks like Eise will need a hand moving those goalposts again...

You sound almost proud of having failed (refused?) to learn anything in 15 years. Not impressive.

Citation needed.

There is no force involved, it is just a consequence of the geometry of space-time. As an analogy, think of two people near the north pole. They both start walking south (towards the equator) in a straight line - i.e. along (different) lines of longitude. They will initially think they are walking parallel to each other but the further they go the further apart they get. There is no force making them move apart. It is just because they are on a curved surface. Space-time is curved (by the presence of mass in the universe) which also causes things to move apart over time. A good description (and diagram) here: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/webscope/activities/pdfs/galaxiesT.pdf

Nothing like a big bang. A quasar is powered by material in the accretion disk being pulled into the black hole. The big bang was an expansion of space uniformly filled with hot dense matter. So they have nothing in common. Citation needed. That is, of course, true.

It may have sounded, earlier, as if you and I were describing time differently (after all, I said that time and spatial dimensions were similar). But I think you have been very clear here. If you compare [a moment in] time and position, then they behave very differently. As you say, you can't move from one time to another, but you can move from one place to another. However, if you compare extent in time (.e.g lifetime) with extent in space (e.g height) then they seem more similar: you occupy all points in time corresponding to your period of existence, and you occupy all points in space corresponding to your height (and breadth and depth). Quite. "I find that absolutely grotesque" is no substitute for a working, tested, scientific model.

Yep. Talos has clearly confused cause and effect.

... are based on observation and can be objectively tested. None of your ideas fit that description.

It is true that it is undefined on every planet. But that is not very useful. It might help if you defined, precisely, what you mean by "KE of the universe" and show how you think it would be calculated.

I don't really know what you are asking about (what is GLUT/GL and QT/GL) but endianness wouldn't affect whether a pointer is incremented or decremented. That is determined by the order of the data structure in memory, which is compiler, application and, possibly, architecture dependent. Endianness would define whether the pointer points to the least or most significant byte.

Well, not really. That work (and the other work mentioned that says there are 4, 8, 12, 64 or whatever "basic emotions) is based on science. There is no evidence that the business you link to has any science behind their money making scheme. Also, the fact there is no rigorous way of defining what these basic emotions are makes it sound like pretty poor quality, "soft" science anyway. So perhaps you can just make up your own number after all.

Well, for one thing, everything we know about black holes is from theory. And that theory is based on them having mass. Also, mass is (in this context) defined by its gravitational effect.

Where do you get the idea that black holes have no mass? Mass is one of the defining characteristics of a black hole (along with charge and angular momentum). Obviously any answer can only be based on what we know now. That may change in future (but what we currently know will have to remain valid) but there is no way to give an answer based on that. It would certainly be useful. But that doesn't mean that we will ever be able to.

There is no evidence that the big bang created the mass of the universe. Energy is observer dependent. So it depends what reference frame you measure it from. Also, there is no universal definition of energy in GR, so I doubt the "kinetic energy of the universe" is even defined. Finally, we have no idea how large the universe is (it could just be very large or it could be infinite) so, again, there is no way to calculate the kinetic energy.

You might want to read some science on the subject instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

That would require evidence, rather than unsupported assertions.

From computability theory, we know that anything that can be computed by any (Turing equivalent) computer can be computed by any other. So switching from silicon to carbon (or from electronics to brains) doesn't change what a computer is able to do.

But you are seeing galaxies billions of years after that. Do you really expect galaxies to fit into a grapefruit. Even the CMB comes from 380,000 years after the "grapefruit" phase. So maybe it is just that your expectations are unrealistic.

Ahem. What displaces the air? It wouldn't be the balloon, by any chance . . .

What causes this "downwash"? What causes it to stop? Why isn't there an upwash or seidewash?