Strange

But that is irrelevant. You might as well argue that "people had to move to build the clock, therefore time is motion." You can't get away from the fact that the reference for defining the second does not involve movement. And, of course, even though it only takes one counter-example to prove you wrong, there are other examples of time passing with no movement involved.

Well put. Of course, that might not be true in somewhere like North Korea...

You'll forgive me if I find that somewhat implausible.

I can't even begin to imagine why you would think that. (And why is this in politics?)

Someone making claims like this had better have some pretty impressive evidence. What data does she provide to support this idea? What experiments have been done to produce this data? How well does that data match the predictions of her theory? How much more accurate are these predictions than existing theories? Why is it presented as a video, rather than a scientific paper? I haven't watched the video because its a video, and that is rarely, if ever, a good medium for scientific data.

I have a vague recollection of an SF story (from the '50s, '60s?) that used his idea to build a powerful telescope that could observe life on other planets ... or something. Of course it would be less effective than, say, a mirror or lens, as most of the light is lost. Although, I have another vague recollection of seeing something else recently using carbon nanotubes...

You might like this: http://iai.tv/video/how-to-find-a-multiverse (Note: I haven't watched it and don't endorse her ideas, but they are interesting.)

You just quoted from a text that explains (albeit informally, by way of analogy, without mathematics) how QED accounts for these effects. So how can you possibly say that QED does not work? Are you claiming that Feynman lied? It always treats it the same way. I have to second swansont's suggestion that you reconsider where the error may be.

Orignal Poster (or Original Post). Often used to refer the originator of a thread, or their first post.

You would think so. But apparently the OP considers it a novel breakthrough.

What do you mean by "real parameters"?

Not mine! Found them online.

Well, I wasn't really saying what the Sun sees but just what you see if you consider the Sun to be stationary instead of our normal view (for the Moon's orbit) of the Earth being stationary. If you were on the sun, you would see the moon going round you but getting closer and further away as it went round the Earth.

For example, consider the orbit of the moon when seen from the frame of reference of the sun: If the Earth moved faster, then the orbit just becomes a wiggle:

Having skimmed the vixra paper (why do I do these things) it appears to be an extended and pointless statement of the obvious. Apparently, if you view an orbit from a moving frame of reference, it no longer looks like a circle or an ellipse but a wiggly line. Who knew.

The comet is moving at up to 135,000 km/h and From: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Frequently_asked_questions

Maybe. (Although with no evidence, maybe not.) But if so they are, by definition, nothing to do with ours.

And that is exactly what they are used for. As all motion is relative, it is entirely reasonable to choose a Sun-centered coordinate system (or Earth-centered) when appropriate. Er, no thanks. Occasionally vixra papers are funny, but they are usually just very, very sad.

I would have thought that almost "anyone in North America or Europe with a small satellite dish and some hardware" would already have Internet access.

Time does not come first. There is time and there is distance (that is why GR describes the universe in temrs of space-time). From these you can calculate things like speed and acceleration. Only at some specific speed (0.277 miles per second). At any other speed this is no longer true. So, again time is not equal to, or even equivalent to, distance in any fixed way. You can choose any two points to measure distance: inches, millimetres, parsecs, furlongs, ... Distance is equal to speed times time. This is basic, primary school arithmetic.

Wrong. The units of time might have been derived this way. But time wasn't. Time is NOT equal to distance. The only reason the math works is because you don't understand what you are doing. You are just relating time, distance and speed. This is primary school stuff: speed = distance / time. This means that time = distance / speed. Therefore: time is NOT equal to distance. Because it is equal to distance divided by speed. Therefore: time is NOT equal to distance. Can I make it any clearer? Dripping water, burning candles, swinging pendulums, heartbeats, ... wrong. This.

The universe is ussally considered to be "everything there is".

Yes. But AGAIN: Time is NOT equal to distance. Imagine people living on a planet that did not rotate. They could still use clocks, including atomic clocks, to measure time. They would still see time dilation and all the other effects of relativity. The size and rotation of the Earth are irrelevant.

What maths? What calculation?

Because you are starting from a false assumption. Time is NOT based on distance.