Strange

For example? This is certainly not novel. It also appears to be wrong. There is NO evidence that "all things are made up of smaller constituent particles". There are various theories (hypotheses) that fundamental particles may not be fundamental but currently there is no evidence for any of them. Galaxies rotate in all directions. There is no "normally seen" direction. These are not theories, they are just random unsupported (and untestable) speculations. Not science. Why? This is not a very scientific attitude. You should look at the evidence and develop a theory based on that. If you want to show that the big bang model is wrong then you need to show that either General Relativity is wrong (that is going to be tough) or show that all the accumulated evidence supporting the big bang model is incorrect (which is also going to be tough). Nobody says the universe is "flat like pizza". I have never heard of described as rolled up like a tube, either. Can you provide a reference for either of these claims? We see almost exactly the same thing in every direction. This is part of the evidence for the big bang model. That is not how science works. The only people who would do that are Internet cranks with their own pet theory. But then they rarely have any mathematics.

We can call it matter because, so far, it definitely behaves like matter. What is "clear antimatter"? What hypothesis of Hawking are you referring to? What evidence is there that antimatter is produced by black holes? I think you have that backwards. We have to understand what we are dealing with, and then we can give it a better name. (Although, as is often the case, the old name will continue to be used even when it is no longer accurate.)

There are a number of theories that attempt to provide a quantum theory of gravity that would seem to fit the general description of "the universe being made up of different possible units" such as String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Causal Dynamical Triangulation, and others. These all seem to be good physics, so I don't see why the thread shouldn't be here. (Just noticed that the OP has added a Whole Load 'O' Text while I wasn't looking. I will read it and see if I change my mind!) Edit: yep, you are right. It might be better under philosophy, religion or speculation. It doesn't appear to be science.

Thanks for that clarification. I have never needed to lubricate one; that explains why!

The most likely consequence is that you will permanently jam the fan (until you open it up and clean it out). It might not be that the fan is failing. It may just need cleaning or a bit of lubrication.

What is the relevance of that? You were asked to use "x + 1 = 2" to derive the altitude of a geostationary orbit. It is not a hypothesis as it appears to have little basis in reality. It certainly is not heading towards a law. This is trivial (x = π - 2). And useless. And totally fails to address the point. Please show how you can derive the ration of the circumference to the diameter of a circle using just "1 + x = 2" (or, if you prefer, "a + b = c" where a, b and c are integers). Gibberish. So you keep claiming. Please provide some evidence by showing a worked example where you derive something related to the real world (something testable, preferably) from "1 + x = 2". <long irrelevant drivel deleted as it has no apparent connection to the mathematics of "1 + x = 2"> Not the same thing at all. From 1 + x = 2, we know the value of x is 1. Not exactly an exciting result. From a + b + c, we can say nothing about a, b or c. Not a result at all. Pointing out that you don't even appear to understand basic arithmetic is not really being picky.

This is certainly not novel. It also appears to be wrong. There is NO evidence that "all things are made up of smaller constituent particles". There are various theories (hypotheses) that fundamental particles may not be fundamental but currently there is no evidence for any of them. There have been several paradigm-shifting new theories since the beginning of the 20th century. Several of them in my own lifetime. So, again, the evidence shows you are wrong. I thought we were talking about science. There are many religious scientists. But again, this is nothing to do with science. Really? Are you really that ignorant? No wonder you post so much nonsense. I'm not sure what you mean by "recent" but how about quantum theory, relativity, plate tectonics for starters. Obviously it is harder, but not impossible, to get funding for more extraordinary ideas. But to suggest that funding is only available to repeat the same work over again is not just wrong, it is ludicrously wrong. Quite. Because, contrary to your idiotic statements, science works.

Thank you. That quote supports exactly what I said: dark matter is mainly in (and around) galaxies, with the density increasing towards the centre of the galaxy, and in the large scale structures. There is dark matter between galaxies, but far less than in galaxies. What evidence do you have for "pockets of dark energy"? As it has not been detected yet, and no one knows what it is, I am curious what you base this on.

Ironically, it is those who have their own personal (and baseless) "theories" who are least likely to accept any new or alternative ideas. They are convinced that whatever they have thought of (whether a meaningless "theory of everything" or a fantasy of the origins of human language) must be True because they thought of it. On the other hand, those who base their understanding of the world on a scientific approach are always open to new ideas by definition. Just provide the evidence to support it and it will be accepted.

Then perhaps it is a good job we have scientists and engineers who are trained and paid to create and test new ideas. Obviously not. Otherwise science would not have progressed as rapidly as it has.

I'm not sure what you mean by "why" but ... The FLRW solution to the Einstein Field Equations (EFE) are based on a homogenous distribution of matter and show that, in such a case, space must either expand or contract. On a large scale, the universe is approximately homogeneous and so, not surprisingly, we observe expansion on that scale. Solutions to the EFE for non-homogeneous distributions of matter do not describe space as expanding. And, again, that is what we observe. It isn't. Gravity does have an effect in time. In GR, space-time is a static construct. I'm not even sure what "expanding time" would mean. That time changes over time?

But it isn't. It is mainly in galaxies. And in the large scale structures of the universe: galaxy clusters, filaments, etc.

Of course it should be. How could anyone even formulate a unified field theory without math? True. (But not very interesting.) And, as I think has already been said, the fact that science is conservative is a good thing; that is why science works. Really? Can you provide a reference to geologists who do not accept plate tectonics? I don't know what that means.

Are we talking about the beliefs of people in general? Or are we talking about science? I assumed the latter. I don't really know what you mean by "real knowledge" or "visceral knowledge". Again, neither seems to have much to do with science. I would suggest that "knowledge" based on personal experience is a belief that may or may not have any basis in reality. Scientific knowledge is supported by well-tested evidence and therefore has a higher level of confidence. Nonsense.

Then your "strong belief" is obviously wrong. Firstly, the purpose of science is not to "discover reality". That is the job of religion or philosophy (or maybe art). Perhaps you could enlighten us as what alternative techniques are as productive as the scientific reliance on objective evidence? Bollocks. (I can't think of any more appropriate response.)

Have you seen the button labelled "Quote"? It is amazing! So what you appear to be saying is that all simple integer arithmetic can be represented as a series of additions. That is (trivially) true. However, you will run into problems with irrational numbers. Please demonstrate in detail how your "universal" equation can be used to calculate the ratio of the circumference to diameter of a circle. Or, perhaps simpler, how to caclulate the exact length of the diagonal of a unit square. There is no connection between subtraction and any law of conservation. This is very obviously not true. You keep saying this but have yet to show it in any way. You may think you have but, really, you haven't. This is an assertion, not an explanation. What about continuous change? Your claim would make most of modern mathematics including general relativity impossible. So your equation was not even correct? I assume a more accurate version would be a + b = c?

This is a very common strawman argument. NO ONE expects that of a new idea. What they do expect is some mathematics (for the obvious reason that a new theory cannot be tested without it), some supporting evidence (otherwise why should I take any more notice of it than I would Bignose's baby stegosaurus), some knowledge of current science, some attempt at rational argument and critical thinking, etc. The evidence would appear to contradict this. When potentially paradigm-shifting new ideas are presented that do have some support then people will engage with them as exciting possibilities, rather than dismissing them. Perhaps sadly, pretty much all such new ideas are those reported from mainstream science. This is because real scientists know that a new idea needs (some) mathematics and needs (some) evidence before it will be considered. If that were true, science would never advance. Therefore it is clearly not true.

You say that and then insist it must be wrong based on "gut feel". Sorry, but if I have to decide between quantitative theory supported by measurement (AKA reality) versus "gut feel" (AKA imagination/delusions) then I will always choose theory and measurement. But maybe that is because I am an engineer who has to get things done and make them work. Feelings and intuitions are of no use in our business and I would refuse to have someone with an attitude like yours on any project. My "feeling" is that this means you do not understand (despite your claims to understand). That is good. But you need to understand where the problem lies. You cannot address this problem by making up your own ideas or denying well-tested science. You can only address the problem by doing the hard work of understanding. You continue to take the lazy route of saying: "it doesn't make sense to me so it must be wrong". What you should be saying is: "it doesn't make sense to me so I have some seriously hard work to do in order to understand it" But maybe a compromise is: "it doesn't make sense to me but I am too lazy to do anything so I will just have to shut up and accept it" While you stick to your current attitude you will continue to attract harsh criticism. But it is your choice. Maybe to you. It seems like a long string of irrelevant anecdotes with no scientific value.

Then it doesn't seem to be very useful. So you claim. But you seem unable to explain or justify that. Can you show ho that relates to your "x=1" equation? Can you show, in practical terms, how your equation describes this?

That may be true. But ideas are cheap. Anyone can have an idea. Billions of people have thousands of ideas (very few of them are new). Scientists have ideas. Artists have ideas. The difference is that a scientists first thoughts are, "How can I test this? What might be wrong with it? What other ideas might explain the same thing? How can I distinguish them?" They then look for data to answer these questions and test (disprove) their ideas; either from existing observations or by designing experiments to get the data. But in order to use any such data the idea needs to be formalised to a hypothesis: a mathematical model which can make quantitative predictions to be compared with the data. If the hypothesis passes such initial testing it may be written up and published for others to attack (try and disprove). If it still isn't shown to be wrong, then it might be, provisionally, be accepted as a new theory. But, in practice, I suspect that scientists drop 90% or more of their ideas after a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows it to be implausible. I wonder how far down this road you want to go? Galileo and Einstein (we can ignore Da Vinci as he was not a scientist) also had great mathematical skills and used these to develop and test their initial rough ideas. So your idea is that things can be broken down into smaller constituents? If so this is neither novel nor, as far as we know, correct. There appear to be a number of fundamental particles which appear not to be made of any "smaller" constituents. Your idea of "disintegration" seems too vague to be useful. Unless you can quantify it so that it can make some useful predictions ... There are only two types of particles that make up a proton: quarks and gluons. I'm not sure why you think the Higgs boson is "very special". It is not the first particle to be theorised before it was detected; that is pretty common. And it is not part of the proton.

You could work out exactly how different the positions seen by each observer would be (*). From that, you should be able to show whether or not the difference was significant. Of course, we would have to agree what "significant" means, in advance. I would suggest "larger than the measurement error in their measurements". (*) I don't expect you will, though.

Hard to say. Can you show us how you would use this to calculate something, then this can be compared with observation. From that we can tell if your model is accurate or not. That is how science works.

They don't know but you do?

As noted, curvature of space-time has been experimentally tested (but not "proven"; this is science: things are never proven). Gravitons are required if you want to describe gravity using quantum field theory (which may not be possible). It is well understood. See General Relativity for details. Gravity is the curvature of space-time (it doesn't "cause" the curvature of space-time). The presence of local concentrations of mass causes the curvature of space-time (or, arguably, the presence of mass is the curvature of space-time) which we then perceive as gravity. In a uniform distribution of mass, space will expand.

The key thing to understand (and this was more obvious in the original formulation of quantum mechanics) is that certain pairs of observables are related by a Fourier transform. The Fourier transform is also commonly used to in signal processing transform between the frequency domain and the time domain. Exactly the same sort of relationship exists between things in this context as well: a sine wave of a single frequency must be of infinite duration: i.e. when the frequency is exactly known, then it cannot be specified to a point in time As the pulse width is reduced, the range and amplitude of other frequencies increases: i.e. when the temporal position is more accurately known, the frequency is less definite