Strange

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/30064-why-push-gravity-does-not-work.html Even if it could reproduce Newtonian gravity, it seems very unlikely it could be forced to match GR.

This looks like "push gravity" which was falsified centuries ago. People do keep trying to add new ad-hoc excuses to try and make it work though.

You seem to be thinking of the electron as a little ball in orbit (it isn't). You are also assuming that this will affect the direction of the photon (I have no idea if it does or not). But I'm not sure either of those make much difference. The time at which the electron changes its energy level is random and therefore its position/direction will be random as well. A wavefront applies to the classical view of light. This requires large numbers of photons. A single photon doesn't have a wavefront, it is a point particle. The probability distribution of the photon (before it is detected) will be a sphere (*); but the photon will only be detected at a single point within that. (*) Unless it is modified by your comments about the position of the electron in the atom. Does the shape of the electron orbital affect the direction that a photon is likely to be emitted? I don't know.

I'm afraid I could not parse the sentence in question to even begin trying to extract any information from it.

You can interpret this sort of vague comment to mean anything: matter and antimatter, solids and fluids, electrons and protons, software and hardware, bosons and fermions, acids and bases, matter and energy, bitter and sweet, quarks and gluons, ...

It goes in a random direction. When you have enough of them you see light transmitted in all directions.

Distance divided by time. I'm not sure what you are asking. The speed of light is defined to be a constant: the metre is defined in terms of the speed of light.

it is just a convenrtion. I think it is quite possible to choose alternative coordinates where, for example, the universe does not expand but the speed of light (and other constants) changes over time. The convention chosen (expanding space) is simple and intuitive. They don't. They always move at the same speed. For objects far enough away from us, space between us and them is expanding fast enough that light from there will never reach us.

I suppose it is possible in principle. Maybe using a virus to infect and modify all your cells. But it is decades away, I would assume, at best. Maybe centuries. I don't know (predictions are hard, especially about the future). I am not aware of research in the area (but that doesn't mean much).

If you have this hypothetical magic therapy that "fixes" the genes in all of your cells, then that will, by defintion, include the cells that create your sperm (or the pre-existing ova for a woman). Therefore the defect will not be present to be passed on.

It seems your "simple examples" fail. We have a very good explanation of how gravity works, based on the geometry of spacetime. That is the mechanism. Precisely, it is the current mechanism. It is possible that a future theory will have a different explanation (although it will, obviously, have to produce the same results). Every test of QED has agreed with experiment to extremely high degrees of accuracy. It sounds as if you are making up a thought experiment, then making up the results and saying this contradicts theory. That is not how science works. You need to perform the experiment and do the calculations to show they are inconsistent (they aren't). So you can't do the calculation but you insist it produces the wrong result. All of this is explained in great detail in the Feyman QED lectures.

P = F / A What is "EP"? Pressure is equal to energy per unit volume (P = E / V) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/press.html

In which case, no. Presure is force / area.

Because atoms and molecules really move?

Of course sweat can escape the body in space. It has nothing to do with pressure. Sweat is produced at the surface of the skin and would evaporate almost instantly in space. What are F and E?

So you are looking for philosophy, not science. Try two doors down the hall on the left.

Multiple paths are not the reason; they are a way of describing the reason. The reason is non-locality. "Multiple paths" and the calculation in QED is just a way of accounting for the nonlocality of quantum effects. How else would you quantify the effect of everything in the universe, other than by summing every possible path and interaction (with the appropriate weighting). It is like the way any sound can be represented by the (weighted) sum of sinewaves of different frequencies. The more frequencies you include (with ever smaller contributions) the more accurate your representaiton will be. That doesn't mean that a car engine has an infinite number of sinewave generators. Similarly, I wouldn't say the ,multiple paths are real. As the theory works and you are therefore wrong, your points are not valid.

Syntax error at line 2.

Imagine standing on a skateboard (or, better, an air-hockey puck) and throwing oranges backwards. You will move forwards, not because the oranges push on the air (they have left your hand by then so that can't have any effect) but because you "psuh" against the oranges and they push back. Or, conservation of momentum - same thing.

That is as misleading as saying that entanglement involves instaneous communciation (it doesn't). Eppur, si muove. <shrug> Nature doesn't have to appeal to your intuition. Especially when your intuition ultimately derives from the survival requirements of apes living in jungles (or whatever). You seem to be taking my crude appoximation of what the calculation involves a little too seriously.

I don't see why the many paths explanation isn't equally applicable to that: you consider all the paths taken. "Proceeding side by side" is irrelevant because the outcome of the double slit experiment can be changed by things that happen after the interference pattern is formed (the delayed choice version of the experiment). So timing is irrelevant. We know (from theory, from experiments like this, and entanglement and ...) that quantum effects are inherently non-local in both time and space. They are affected by things that happen elsewhere and in the past and the future. That is why the QED calculations work: every path and every possible interaction has to be considered because it will have an effect on the outcome. At the simplest level things that are closer (the other side of the galss) will be more significant than, say, reflection off the surface of Pluto next Tuesday.

The things that the time dilation effects you are thinking of are relative effects; i.e. the time of someone moving versus someone stationary; or the time of someone approaching a black hole as seen by someone else at a distance. That doesn't apply to the early universe because everywhere was affected the same way. So there was nothing to measure any change against. Also, you may be thinking of the "bang" as implying some sort of explosion or rapid kick-start. The name is very misleading in that respect. There may have been an initial period of very rapid expansion ("inflation") but the jury is still out on that, and it stopped almost immediately. Apart from that, the expansion has been continuous at a fairly steady rate (it appears to have slowed slightly at first and then accelerated slightly after that).

The name was coined by Fred Hoyle, an astronomer who supported the "steady state" model. In the 1950s he did a BBC radio program explaining the two models. He thought that "big bang" was a snappy way of characterising the expanding universe model. It is, as you say, inaccurate in all sorts of ways. That is often the case with "pop" terminology. It is sometimes claimed that Hoyle intended it as a disparaging comment, but he always denied this and transcripts of the broadcast suggest he was pretty even handed. He was very good friends with Lemnaitre, one of the developers of the FLRW metric on which tjhe model is based.

Yes, you end up defining motion as anything used to measure time (whether there is anything that is physically displaced or not) in order that you can insist that time is a result of motion. It is a purely circular argument. Space is caused by rulers!

Nice. And if you measure the rate at which the distance between a pair of spots changes as you go up the shell, it should be proportional to how far apart the spots are.