Strange

Although this has now been validated to very high levels of accuracy. Why doesn't this rule out your theory? And yet you reject every piece of evidence that contradicts it, you reject all attempts to explain why it is based on false principles, and you reject all discussion other than people agreeing with you.

Yes. (Although it wouldn't be a single spot, there would still be a slight distribution as it is not possible to specify the position that exactly). As you are not illuminating all slits / holes, there will be no interference pattern. (Apart from that caused by diffraction at the edges of the hole. Unless the hole is large enough that this doesn't happen.) You no longer have a two-slit experiment. You have a one-hole experiment. I'm not sure I see the point of this. Interestingly, if you wanted to use QED to calculate the results, you would have to include the paths through the other holes (as well as the photon bouncing off the moom, etc) but these contributions would be cancelled out in the final result.

OK. We will have to wait and see. Your calculation for this was given in post #67: I'm not going to try and get to grips with the full reasoning behind this claim, but I will just point out a couple of problems: One is that it is not possible to accelerate something to the speed of light. The other problem is that if you provide that constant force for one second, the final speed will be significantly less than the speed of light (I am too tired to work it out right now). It would require either an infinite time or an infinite force to approach the speed of light. Also, why 1 second? That seems completely arbitrary. But apart from that, your calculation consists of dividing 300,000,000 by 9.81. (I make this 30,581,040 but the difference is insignificant, given the possible range of values for g.) There is nothing to argue about in this calculation. One could argue about the reasoning behind it, but ultimately it comes down to measurement. So far, all measurements are consistent to a high degree of accuracy with existing theory (and therefore not with yours). Take from that what you will.

<raises hand>

Two problems with this: 1. There is no connection between the universe being spatially infinite (or not) and it being temporally infinite (or not). 2. If the universe is temporally infinite, then it does not imply any sort of "time loop". It could just exist eternally. 3. The last part is meaningless. But you are concluding this from a baseless assumption. So it can be ignored. I think that if the universe were infinite, then it could contain an object of infinite mass (infinitely far away). In fact, it could contain an infinite number of such masses. Why not? Why?

"Simple logic" is of no value. Can you demonstrate, mathematically, that your model predicts the appropriate conditions? Also, the big bang did not "catapult all matter on in the universe". Perhaps you could start with a summary of the relevant maths? IF that were a valid explanation, then it would be equally true for the big bang. Unfortunately, it isn't. (Why would it happen equally throughout the universe without some causal connection?) Can you show how that is calculated? How do you calculate the size of the visible part of the universe in your model? And everything you say there is equally applicable to the big bang model. (Except that the big bang model can calculate the size of the visible universe.) ... mathematics. Therefore you don't have a scientific theory.

Do you have any evidence for any of those things? Or is it just a fairy tale?

It would fall into the Sun! You suggest that the universe is moving round the Earth. It isn't. That is not how we measure time. Where I live, that is on Tuesday afternoons between 3:10 and 3:15.

I skipped the "probability of creating a protein" bit on first reading. Anyone who is that dishonest (or ignorant) is not worth arguing with.

But you don't know where it will land until you detect it. There is just a probability of it landing somewhere (anywhere) within the area illuminated by the source. And if you limit the range of possible positions (e.g. by using a laser) such that you know which slit it will go through, then there will be no interference pattern.

The only thing that can vindicate or disprove it is by testing it against experimental data (as with any theory). I have suggested ways that this could be done. You say these are irrelevant because they are based on a misunderstanding of your theory. Fair enough. Maybe you can suggest a way to test your theory? But you do say that acceleration caused by gravity will be (may be) different from that caused by a force. (I think.) You suggest that this could be different by a factor of 1 in 30,583,019. That is exactly what would be detected by tests of the "weak equivalence principle". This is actually easier to test than the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, which is why it has been done to such high accuracy. But again, if you think those tests are not relevant, perhaps you can suggest a test that will potentially disprove your theory? That is how science proceeds. There is a request, on the previous page, for you to provide some sort of testable scenario. That is all I am suggesting, as well.

It is fiction.

That is the only mechanism to convert all the mass to energy, yes. I would avoid thinking about "relativistic mass"; it is an unnecessary and potentially confusing concept. There is just (rest) mass and energy. See the other thread for answers to this.

This is an unsupported assertion and can therefore be simply rejected as such. But, of course, evolutionary theory does explain the complexity we observe (this claim is backed by a mountain of evidence and so cannot be dismissed). He is also relying on the dependence on "mutation" as the driver of evolution. That is not really the critical factor; population diversity is more important (mutation is one factor in that). Again, no support for this claim is provided. However, we can see the evolution of new structures in the fossil record and in the genetic record. Not enough detail to answer this (there might be something on the links below). Of course, one can always pick some examples where the original evidence was wrong or misunderstood. Some of the conclusions that Darwin came to were incorrect (but remember he knew nothing about genes at the time) but that doesn't invalidate the theory. This seems to be some sort of "no real Scotsman" fallacy: conceding that there might be some evolution but not "real" evolution. However, you are wasting you time arguing with someone like this. It is also quite dangerous if you are not very confident about the arguments you make as it is easy to be led into making a false argument. But you might like to point out (perhaps for the benefit of anyone else reading, rather than you opponent, who won't change his mind) that there are many observed instances of new species being formed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Also see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ In fact that is good site for counter arguments to most cretionist claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ See also: http://www2.talkdesign.org/cs/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_formula

I don't understand the statement. Are you referring to a moving charge generating electromagnetic radiation? (You already have two threads on that question.) Or some other sort of particle? And/or some other form of radiation? What do you mean by "rest energy"; is that the energy equivalent of its rest mass? In which case, that should never change (unless you are talking about radiation produced by particle decay, perhaps). And what do anti-particles have to do with it?

OK. OK. Picky, picky. If there were that then difference then it would violate the equivalence principle. Better? Your hypothesis cannot be disproved mathematically (because it isn't derived mathematically, therefore there is no derivation to be challenged). Similarly, the equivalence principle cannot be proved or disproved mathematically. That is why people continue to create ever more accurate experiments to test it. The equivalence principle is a consequence of GR works, so the hope is that by finding that the equivalence principle does not hold, that this will show an error in GR. So far, no luck. However, like any scientific hypothesis or theory, "?" can be tested by experiment. The equivalence principle has been tested in many different ways. If there is a difference between gravitational and inertial mass then it is far smaller than you suggest. There is no way to prove it is zero or to measure it as exactly zero. But, so far, it appears to be zero, within the limits of current measurements. It isn't derived. It is measured. You can calculate it from the mass and radius of the Earth, if you wish. This would use Newton's equation for gravity, which is accurate enough for this purpose. If you want, you can also use the full equations of GR, but I doubt this is necessary. The standard value is: 9.80665 m/s2, which is "a nominal midrange value on Earth, originally based on the acceleration of a body in free fall at sea level at a geodetic latitude of 45°. Although the actual acceleration of free fall on Earth varies according to location, the above standard figure is always used for metrological purposes. (The actual average sea-level acceleration on Earth is slightly less.)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravity So, if it is "derived" at all, that is done by modelling the Earth. Any possible difference must be less than 1 part in 10-14, which is about 1/10,000,000th of the value you suggest. Is that not good enough? Then the difference in acceleration you suggest MAY exist will not exist. I don't know what questions I haven't answered. I certainly haven't refused to answer them (as we are getting picky about word choices now). I have answered those I can and those I understand. I don't understand the difference between the words gravity and gravitation. I googled this. There were several different claims made for the difference. For example, "gravity is used for gravity on Earth, while gravitation is used more universally" - that sounds pretty bogus to me, but what do I know. Another suggestion was that gravity is the general principle (the "field") while gravitation is the force felt as a result of that. Hmmmm.... maybe. And then another site gave it the other way round: gravitation is the more general concept and gravity is the force (as described by Newton). So it seems like different people treat these two words as different in different ways. I'm not sure what distinction you are making. There was a question about the "anomaly" in measuring the newton. I have asked for clarification of what this anomaly is, and what experiment you are referring to so that I can attempt to answer it. But I still have no idea what anomaly you are referring to. Why or how would I do that. I have no such powers. Whatever term you use (gravitation, gravity, gravitational force or anything else) photons produce it. So if your theory says they don't than it is wrong in that respect.

So, nothing then. Then you need to show QUANTITATIVELY that conditions similar to "near a black hole" existed in your theory. Can you do that? Are you saying that the speed of light is not a factor in what we see? You appear to have a gross misunderstanding that the CMB was released from a single location. That is not what the source you quote says (not any other source). You were asked to quantify clumpiness according to your model, not just quote some other source (which you are not in agreement with, anyway). You don't even understand the sources you are quoting: From your first link: "Today, that same spot is 46 billion light-years away, making the diameter of the observable universe a sphere around 92 billion light-years." Sadly, the other two are just plain wrong. This is the problem with relying on popularizations, instead of real science. Wikipedia has a good summary of some of the common misunderstandings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions And please learn to use the quote function. It is almost impossible to pick out what you are saying. Then that is probably the only valid thing about your model (in other words, that is true of the big bang model as well).

Apparently it depends whether they were a Doctor of Eastern Philosophy or a Doctor of Western Philosophy.

The source of the CMB we see is a sphere with us at the centre. As the photons from that surface reach us, the surface moves away (because we have already seen the photons from the old position). That is why I think Lineweaver's analogy posted above is so good.

Of course it is. It is as ridiculous as those who say that GR or quantum mechanics must be wrong because they are too complicated.

And what evidence do you have for any of that speculation? None, I suspect. As opposed to the big bang model which has mountains of evidence.

Hmmm... Like an entire thread devoted to the question...

Why? Look out your window - are there any mammoths or dodos? Our ancestors saw them but we can't. Does that make history wrong?

Ah, that explains why they have to tie airplanes down after they have landed.