Strange

Nope. It is still in Speculations. Yep. Science relies on evidence not vague "conceptual arguments". I don't they are sacrosanct at all. Produce evidence that shows them wrong and people will modify/reject existing theories. We see this all the time. However, you consistently refuse to acknowledge the existence of evidence that falsifies your theory.

Well, that's a shame. <shrug> I don't believe that, at all.

Newton's 3 laws. If something is in uniform motion, it will continue unless acted on by a force. Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. Then you will need some evidence to support that. All experiments to detect some absolute frame of motion have not done so. As always with science, no one just assumes relative motion to be a fact; it is constantly being tested. (Search for tests of Lorentz invariance.)

Does there? Although that is not a physically realistic scenario, I would say exactly that. I don't think I can explain it any more clearly. Imagine you are in empty space with nothing else visible anywhere. - Can you determine if you are moving or not? No. Then another spaceship goes flying by. Your sensors tell you that it passed by at 500 mph. - Can you tell if you are stationary and it flew by at 500mph? No. - Can you tell if it was stationary and you flew past it at 500 mph? No. - Can you tell if you both passed each other at 250 mph? No. All you can measure is your relative speed. Now that other spacecraft is gone. - Can you determine if you are moving or not? No.

Your first sentence was ungrammatical and ambiguous to the extent that it was impossible to understand it. Therefore it cannot be logical. It may mean something to you, but you have failed to express that. No they aren't. They seem to be a confused mix of misunderstood grammar and the confusion of different homographs. Now you might be beginning to make sense. You are saying that there are two different verbs, with the non-finite forms lie and lay. That is hardly news. No they can't. The past tense of lie (in one sense) is lay. I assume this is the source of your confusion. However, there is no verb for which the past tense form is lie. And, of course, as you have already said, they are different verbs with different meanings. And, of course, English has no future tense. So, again, wrong on multiple counts. No one invented the rule and it doesn't relate to matter. I have no idea why you think you can extrapolate from a couple of words which have overlapping forms in one very ordinary language to some meaningless ideas about gravity. Try doing this in French or Japanese and your entire argument falls apart. Unless you are claiming that God spoke English (and not just English, but a specific dialect of modern English) when he created the universe. And why those particular words? Why not compare still (not moving) and still (a vessel for making strong liquor) and prove that gravity is caused by people getting drunk and falling down. Or maybe you could extrapolate from the fact that cleave means the opposite of cleave to some idea about the nature of matter and antimatter. Those two ideas make exactly as much sense as yours. (If not more so.) Or, just maybe, you could stop and think a bit more carefully about (a) the content of your ideas and (b) how you try and communicate them.

Motion is not a property of mass. It is a measurement of change of position of one object relative to another. If there is a single thing, then there is no concept of motion or speed. If there are two things, then you can say that A is moving relative to B or that B is moving relative to A. There is not way in which you can say, in an absolute sense, that A is stationary and B is moving. All motion, and therefore all velocity, is measured relative to something else. We measure the speed of cars relative to the road, ignoring the rotation of the Earth. We can measure the speed of the Earth around the Sun while ignoring the movement of the Sun through the galaxy. There is not such thing as the "real" speed of the car or the Earth; just what we choose to measure. And, therefore the same is true of kinetic energy. The kinetic energy of an object purely depends on who measures it and how they define the velocity of the object.

<shrug> Science doesn't really care whether people think the results are ridiculous or not. There are a lot of scientists who are not happy with what science tells them. Some of them, e.g. Einstein, spend much of their lives trying to show theory is wrong for that reason. But you have said that acceleration (in a lift) is not the same as gravity. This has been tested to levels of accuracy that completely rule out your "1 in 30,583,019. the difference". (You keep ignoring this.)

Nope. The theory came first and was later confirmed by observation. 1. How can you be certain if you are unable to do any of the relevant math to test it. Science doesn't rely on "gut instinct". 2. You haven't given anyone any reason (or enough information) to do your work for you. As you have repeatedly shown that you have a pretty poor grasp of even the pop-sci versions of the big bang theory, that argument doesn't hold much water. All you are saying is that you understand something you made up better than something you have failed to understand. This is a common fault with people who make up their own theories. Many of the following points just expose your ignorance of the big bang model. Not at all. The origin of the CMB is everywhere in the universe. No. The CMB didn't exist at that early stage. As noted earlier, if that were a valid explanation, it would apply equally to the big bang model. (Ignoring the fact that the telephone means we are in causal connection ...) Except they very obviously won't. He will have different types of tree than we do, the wood will be in logs of different sizes, they will have been seasoned for a different amount of time, the wind will be different, etc. So while I am standing in front of a blazing fire, he is watching a pile of damp logs with a trickle of black smoke coming out of the top. The only way we could get identical fires is to spend some time in communication agreeing on what wood to burn, how long to season it, how to cut and stack it, and what weather conditions to wait for. Only by ensuring that the starting conditions are nearly identical, can we get similar results. There is no reason for a black hole to form. A black hole requires mass to to be concentrated in a small volume. The universe had the same density everywhere; in other words, matter was distributed evenly throughout all space, not concentrated at one point. (This might be the one part of your model that agrees with the big bang.) p.s. I was going to comment on the length of your post, but it seems to be the same thing repeated. You might want to tidy that up...

But earlier, you said: So it sounds like you don't even understand your own theory. I have just provided example sentences which show that you claim "lie and lay can never appear in the same sentence" was wrong. Your sentence is so ungrammatical and ambiguous that it is meaningless. To claim that a meaningless sentence expresses logical thought is clearly wrong. As you can't use your "theory" to caclulate anything it is not a theory and apparently useless. That is a question of philosophy that there doesn't appear to have a definite answer. Like most philosophical problems it goes away when you define what you mean by "truth". (In other words, philosophers just replace it with a different problem.) Perhaps that is why you can write a grammatically incorrect and meaningless sentence, but still think that it makes sense. Perhaps you need to learn to harness this imaginative thought process by applying some critical thinking to the ideas that pop out of nowhere. Just because they pop up does not mean they are right, or even make sense. You need to spend a bit of time analysing them and working out which, if any, have any validity or usefulness. And then a bit more time in explaining them in terms others can understand. You mentioned context in the first post. One problem is the total lack of context (I assume it only exists in your won head). So I have no idea which of the many meanings of "lie" or "lay" you are using in your example sentence (nor why those verbs should be significant) and it is impossible to work it out from context (because ungrammatical and ambigiuous). If you continue to splurge ideas here as soon as they pop up, you will continue to get a pretty negative response.

Of course they can. "I lay the table while you lie about your affair" "I lie down while the chicken lays an egg" And so on. If you really think you can derive gravity from English grammar then feel free to go ahead and show how you can calculate the bending of light as it pass a massive object starting from "to be or not to be". I assume you can do that?

But Therefore nothing has any mass. I don't think this is going to work.... What is wrong with the current answer, which seems a lot more practical and useful than yours?

1. Search for a suitable job. 2. Fill in form. 3. Forget about it as you will never here back from them. 4. Go to 1. Alternatively, ask friends and colleagues if they are aware of anything. Write to companies that you are interested in working for and tell them about your interests and sklills. http://www.bookdepository.com/What-Color-is-Your-Parachute-2015-Richard-Bolles/9781607745556

No it doesn't. Another sentence that doesn't make sense. Substitute "fractal" for an equivalent noun or adjective and you can see why: - Here language is a banana of reality. - Here language is a red of reality.

There are no "laws" of English. There are rules agreed by convention and usage. Which you seem to be largely unaware of. "Will" is the present form of the verb and so this sentence is ungrammatical. Also, "lay" is a transitive verb (apart from a few specialised meanings where the object is implicit, such as "lay [eggs]") so the sentence is doubly ungrammatical. So much for the "laws of English". And what will you lay? A table, a bet, your wife? And do you mean lie as in lie down or lie as in not tell the truth? It is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Not a great start. Still ungrammatical. And why have you switched from "and" to "or"? SpaceTime doesn't appear in your sentences, and it's a noun not an adjective; you wouldn't say, "that's a very spacetime dress you are wearing" Pronoun. Those three statements have no logical connection. There are languages that are read right to left, boustrophedon and top to bottom. That has not connection with the flow of time. And neither have any connection to the final (unsupported and probably false) assertion. It gets increasingly incoherent after this, with your meaningless assignments of parts of speech to random concepts, so I gave up trying to make any sense of it.

I'm not sure why you are trying to explain it. It has a perfectly good explanation already. Actually, when calculating the probabilities for where a photon will be found, the velocity is not restricted to c; you have to consider paths where the photon travelled faster and slower than this. That is because quantum interactions are non-local i both time and space. That is why the results of the double slit experiment can be affected by events that happen after the photons have hit the detector. You have gone from the light being being emitted evenly, in a sphere (in which case you have no idea which way the photon went) to sending the photons in a single direction. And, of course, you can't send them in a single direction, just in a narrower range of directions. Within some range, yes. But so what? I thought you wanted to explain the double slit experiment, but now you have moved away from that to projecting photons in a single direction. So I'm not really sure what your are trying to say or explain. But despite all that, if you send a photon in direction D from A and detect it at B all you can say is that it left A and arrived at B. You cannot say anything about what happened in the meantime. You can assume it travelled in straight line if you wish. But then you can't explain things like the double slit experiment (if it travelled in a straight line from the source to a slit and from there to the screen, then how is an interference pattern formed). You have to take into account the fact that the photon is affected by everything around it, even if those things are nowhere near that straight-line path.

This prompts a couple of questions: 1. Do you actually think this makes sense? 2. Do you think Einstein came up with E=mc2 by just writing a few symbols at random and then explaining what they meant? (For that is what you seem to have done). And an observation: as ∞/0 is a dimensionless number (as well as being undefined) it is trivial to see that your equation cannot be correct. Energy has dimesnions ML2/T2 while velocity is L/T. (This is also why there is a factor of c2 in the "traditional", i.e. correct, equation. Funny how things work out when done properly.)

And energy does not have speed, either.

Then it isn't relative, is it. Something can only be relatively bigger/slower/heavier/taller/tastier... than something else. There isn't anything else. Therefore: not relative.

I've heard that length has a flavour.

But you have said that acceleration (in a lift) is not the same as gravity (or gravitation). This has been tested to levels of accuracy that completely rule out your "1 in 30,583,019. the difference".

In a sense, the photon does "know" the shape of the slit. The probability of a photon ending up in a particular location is determined by non-local effects (which is why the whole two-slit thing works with individual photons). After all, this must be true because calculating anything in photon terms MUST produce the same results as calculating it using the classical (EM wave) view. So, in QED when you calculate the possible places where the photon will be detected, you have to take into account the entire shape of the slit, and any adjacent slits, the edges of the barrier with the slits in, the shape of the room, the distance to Jupiter, ... You are still thinking of photons as little projectiles that can be sent from A to B and we know that they went in a straight line between those two points. That isn't how they behave. Absolutely not! You know where the photon started. You know where it is detected. You can calculate the probability of it being detected at any location, based on what you know about the environment. That is it. If you start assuming it travelled in a straight line from A to B, you will cause yourself all sorts of grief (starting with: how does the two slit experiment work). You don't (can't) know what happened in between. If you do anything to find out, then you change the environment and change the probabilities (and, for example, stop the interference pattern forming). Absolutely correct!

Which is nothing like the big bang model. So not an explosion. It is not an assertion, it is a working assumption which is being tested. You seem to be ignoring the scale of the differences. That diagram shows that it is very, very, very isotropic. Almost perfectly so. No it isn't. Maybe you have misunderstood the analogy, which doesn't accurately represent what is going o, anyway.

This is a flawed argument. (Perhaps you realise this, and that is why you deleted it?). Yes, our minds can create neutral images that provoke no emotional response. But our minds can also create thoughts and images that create a powerful emotional response, either positive or negative. Therefore your point 2 is false. It is also false because not everything we experience is created by our own minds; it may be the result of external stimuli which may be positive or negative. I gave up reading at that point as there is no point wading through 1,000s of words based on a false premise. And now I will never know what it said ... On the other hand, think about a beautiful sunset, the day you were bullied at school, being held by your mother, the day you stood on that poisonous fish, stories of the nurses in Sierra Leone, the stories of child abuse. These will evoke a powerful emotional response in most people. (Psychopaths aside.) So, again, your entire argument is baseless. So I stopped reading your updated post at that point too.

Having read a few articles by academics about how they respond to this sort of thing (and having been the "nominated person"{because of my patience, believe it or not} to handle the crank calls at an engineering company) I suspect they were just being polite. Most people will just put this sort of thing straight in the bin. A few will send a standard, bland but polite, reply along the lines of "Thank you for your interesting idea ... Unfortunately I don't have time ... I wish you luck in your future endeavours ..." A very few will engage with the respondent and attempt to explain their errors. There is a fantastic article by a mathematician about the various people he was contacted by who thought they had found a way to trisect an angle (despite the fact it has been proved to be impossible). He even went out of his way to meet some of the people. It is a fascinating and quite touching read. http://web.mst.edu/~lmhall/WhatToDoWhenTrisectorComes.pdf

I assume it is referring to air resistance. Here is a practical demonstration: http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/15447