Strange

It isn't clear whether one is a result of the other, or vice versa, or neither. Causality could be the result of time being irreversible. Or the one-directional nature of time could be a result of causality. Or they could both be due to something else. Or they could both be an illusion caused by the way we experience the world. But this is more philosophy, than science. Causality appears to be a fundamental principle and so physics uses it as a working assumption. Which is similar to mirrors: they don't reverse left and right. If you hold up a piece of paper that has a red dot on the right and a blue dot on the left and look at it in a mirror then red will still be on the right and blue on the left. It is only when our brain interprets what we see (the front of the object facing away from us) and tries to make sense of it, that it rotates its mental model. It rotates this around the vertical axis, because that is how we turn. (Possibly with some effect from our bilateral symmetry.)

Or maybe this is just a discussion forum and people are not being as rigorous in expressing their thoughts as they would be in a more formal report. I see nothing woolly or New Age, about assuming the default position in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

That assumes that all opinions or beliefs have equal weight. That is obviously not true. There is evidence that consciousness could arise from arrangements of matter. There is zero evidence that consciousness exists independently of matter. Therefore, on balance of probabilities, we can assume that consciousness is an emergent property of our brains ... until some evidence is presented to contradict that.

What do you mean by "something useful"?

Isn't this implicit in the fact it is measured by a single clock? I think so.

I'm not sure there is a discrepancy. Proper time is the the time measured by a clock (between two events); i.e. the time that elapses for that clock. If that isn't what I said then it is what I meant. I assume that by "So not all inertial frames can measure proper time" you mean that a clock measuring (its own) proper time may not (always) be in an inertial frame. That is true. (But I thought we were discussing inertial frames.)

Actually, its not that simple (which is one reason we know that red shift is due to the expansion of space and not the Doppler effect, which would give different results. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

What question was that? There is only a question for michel123456 in post #77

As you haven't responded in any meaningful way yet (i.e. answer any questions about the flaws in your idea) I don't think this will make any difference. That is exactly what I am doing by pointing out errors and asking questions. Rather than modify your speculation or answer the questions, you decide to ignore me. I suppose that is one way of "remedying the situation".

It is in their frame of reference (1) but not in ours. (1) Interestingly, it will still look round in theirs, but that could be described as an illusion. Maybe the problem is what you mean by "reality". We can only know about anything by observation. Therefore what we observe is reality.

Note that expansion is not measured by velocity, so this statement is meaningless. Expansion is a proportional increase in distance between two points. This is why the separation speed is proportional to distance. As a result there are inevitably points that are far enough apart that their speed of separation will be greater than c. We can see galaxies that are receding at more than the speed of light. Also worth noting that the light speed limit comes from the (special) theory of relativity while the expansion of the univers is described by the (general) theory of relativity. Therefore there cannot be any conflict.

The correct term for what you are calling "true" values is proper length, mass, etc.; i.e. the value measured in the objects own frame of reference. You still haven't answered the point that there are infinite number of frames of reference and therefore none of them can be considered preferred.

I assume you mean [math]\pi[/math]? This is the Greek letter Pi, which is used to represent the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter. It is approximately 3.14159...

This is not a single preferred frame of reference. There are an infinite number frames of reference with the same properties. Therefore there is no preferred frame. There is no interpretation involved. Your computer works. It continues to work despite your attempts to "interpret" relativity differently. Therefore relativity works and you are wrong.

Compression isn't a force. It is a consequence of applying a force. What do you think is causing the compression? Also, even if it is the strongest force in the universe, why would it create mass? Maybe you need to explain what they are meant to mean. It isn't clear. Are you multiplying force by area? Are you trying to equate "a" (acceleration) to "A" (area)? What box? E=mc2 has nothing to do with vectors or spheres.

So here is the problem: you make statements like this but provide no reason for anyone to accept them. Anyone can make up a story about how things happen but it is only science if you have evidence to support it and you make quantitatively testable predictions. Evidence to support this statement could be as simple as a reference to a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal descrbing how this happens. You have made many claims about fusion and black holes. Several of these (as noted above) defy known physics. Therefore no one is going to think they are credible unless you can provide some evidence. As I said at the beginning, you sound like the typical crackpot who will refuse to they could be wrong. So, again: 1. Can you provide evidence (peer reviewed paper or calculations) to show that if two neutron stars collide they can produce a black hole as well? 2. Can you provide evidence (peer reviewed paper or calculations) to show that fusion of heavy elements occurs inn neutron stars? 3. Can you provide evidence (peer reviewed paper or calculations) to show that fusion occurs in a black hole? 4. Can you explain how a black hole would appear different to us if fusion does occur? 5. Can you provide evidence (peer reviewed paper or calculations) to show why fusion of heavier elements would create a black hole? 6. What evidence do you have that light "spins rapidly around inside" a black hole? 7. Can you provide evidence (peer reviewed paper or calculations) to show that energy escapes from the poles of a black hole? 8. Can you provide evidence (peer reviewed paper or calculations) to show that black holes “die”? And can you explain how a “dead” black hole differs from one that is not dead?

I'm not sure why you think they do not obey these rules. 1. They are attracted, that is why they don't travel in a straight line. 2. Inertia makes them want to carry on in a straight line, which is why they don't fall straight down. (Note that geostationary satellites are not stationary, they are just orbiting at the same speed the Earth rotates.)

You need to do more than just make assertions. What evidence do you have for that claim? If you are referring to the singularity at the center of the black hole, then I think everyone would agree. We do not yet have a theory that tells us what happens. Just making stuff up is not the answer. Science, not even speculative science, is not just about making up stories with no evidence and with no basis in theory. I thought I had already given you a good list of problems to address. So far, you have ignored them.

If you get in your car and accelerate away from your house, you will be pressed into the seat. If you are at home watching someone accelerate away in their car, you will not be pressed into your seat. Therefore, you can always tell who is accelerating.

OK. But ... You have not provided any evidence for this idea. It still contradicts known physics. I didn't even notice the the quasar thing (I had given up reading by then because there were so many factual errors). You should just be able to click the "Edit" link (to the left of the MultiQuote button). Can you provide a reference for that? There is no fusion in a neutron star because there are no atoms of any elements (except, perhaps a thin layer on the surface). What evidence do you have for this? What evidence do you have for fusion in a black hole? And what difference would it make to the black hole if there is fusion or not? And going back to the first post: Why would heavier elements create a black hole? It is the mass within the Schwarzschild radius that defines a black hole. The mass of the star is independent of the elements that make it up. What evidence do you have that light "spins rapidly around inside"? Energy does not escape from the poles. Or do you have some evidence that it does? What evidence do you have that black holes "die"? And the Big One: why do believe that Einstein's theory of General Relativity is wrong? How do you propose replacing it?

You could provide a link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/elegant-universe.html I don't see where that says "everything has a resonant frequency". What baffles me is that people think "everything" has a resonant frequency, when this is quite obviously not true. Is this copied from somewhere? If so, why not say where and, rather than copying and pasting, just provide a link. It would also be useful if you explained why you copied all that text? How does it relate to the subject of this thread (whatever that is)?

As you don't appear to know much about medicine, or the amazing advances made in recent decades, I am somewhat sceptical about your judgement. It already is: http://pcpgm.partners.org/about-us/PM (for example). They are not random chemical reactions. An organism could not survive if that were the case. As for reacting predictably, that is is true to some extent which is why modern medicine works at all. On the other hand, lib=ving organisms are incredibly complicated, with many interactions and feedback loops. So sometimes changing the chemical reactions at one point can have unwanted effects elsewhere (directly or indirectly) - hence "side effects". I'm still not sure what your "new" idea is. We already know a lot about the chemistry involved in most aspects of metabolism, gene expression, various pathologies, etc. What exactly are you adding?

In this case, what reason do you have for thinking that the current models of gravity (either Newtonian or General Relativity) are incorrect? p.s. Are you "theorist"?

Only at the equator. I estimate it is about half that where I live. And zero at the North Pole. Is that significant? I'm not sure, because I don't know what you think the significance of 2.88 miles per second is. The second has nothing to do with distance. It used to be defined in terms of the length of a day. But is no longer. The Mars day is about 1 hour 40 minutes or 88,775.24409 seconds