Bufofrog

Unfortunately the person you are responding to was banned from this site over 6 1/2 years ago.

Could you define this? What process are you talking about? A property of mass is that it curves spacetime (not just space). The question of why mass has that property is not a science question, it is a philosophical question. No scientist think that is the absolute truth. Relativity is a theory that matches observation and experimentation which is why it is accepted and taught in University. No it isn't, it is just something that makes sense to you based on your level of education and intuition, i.e., a guess. I could ask you the same sort of questions you are asking like "why is space elastic"? So throwing out a new term does nothing to clear up your problem of why matter bends spacetime. But space can't be elastic anyway because space isn't a substance.

That's nice but I know what explode means. The problem is that the big bang is not about an explosion.

As been stated several times the big bang was not an explosion, and it most certainly wasn't an explosion in a vacuum.

Is this just a feeling you have? Nothing you have said gives me the slightest pause about the viability of relativity. Yes, relativity is not a GUT. That's nice, but since your not a physicist your opinion counts for little. That is quite rather glaring dodge, lol...

I noticed that my title is primate so I thought having a smiling amphibian was not proper.

Then I would suggest that you should bring them up!

It was actually the 19th century, I know that is what you meant. If you are asking if "moving rulers are shorter" is just a mathematical 'thing', the answer is no. No. The theory of relativity passes all test so another 'factor' is not needed. Based on all current observation and experimentation; no, no, no, no, no, no. These unsolved mysteries are a problem that you have due to your limited knowledge of relativity.

But nobody who has any knowledge about physics thinks that, so there is no big mistake. The range can be assumed to be infinite but the force of gravity decreases by 1/r^2. That's not a very good conspiracy theory since Einstein did not get a Nobel for relativity. You clearly have little idea of what you are talking about. Why don't you learn a little about a subject before dismissing it.

Your entire reply doesn't make sense to me.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

What's the benefit of understanding our free will? Just the obvious that we are responsible for our own actions.

"What ifs" should be in the Speculations section.

I should not have used the term frame that was not correct. Bob and Alice are in different gravitational potentials and therefore their clocks tick at different rates.

This is a thought experiment so some idealization is ok, I think. It seems to me that this is a classic frame mixing problem. The OP says the photon was emitted exactly 14 billion years ago. But according to who's clock? I think that the OP is assuming Alice's clock. Then for Bob the OP mixes Alice's frame and Bob's frame together to get a nonsensical answer.

So, more succinctly, you wish people were nicer to each other. Me too.

That's correct. They will not agree on the time the photon was emitted nor the distance, even taking into account the extra distance the photon traveled.

Well that's surprising. What are the 'means' by which we can determine the preferred frame?

Ah, so every single person is in their own preferred frame. Another way to say the same thing is moving clocks tic slower and moving rulers are shorter.

There is no preferred frame and what do you mean by aged the most? I will assume you mean ages more rapidly. That would be your frame. IOW in every other inertial frame individuals would age slower than you.

You're welcome.

You have been given answers to your basic questions. Pull your metaphorical fingers out of your ears and listen to the answers!

So you don't have an answer to the question? I don't want to read an entire paper and try to guess which part you think helps your position.

You would learn alot more if you listen to people who have an education in physics.

No, that's not the apparent paradox. Different inertial frames meet? What do you mean by that? That's poorly worded. Let's just say SR predicts that the traveling twin ages less. What frame do you think that is? If you're saying at speeds much less than c, you usually ignore relativistic effects, then I agree.