pwagen

This is what I mean. Say scientists spent time and effort on your idea, what would we expect to find that gives credence to your idea rather than current theories? It's all and well to say it's the ultimate theory of everything. But until your ideas can predict something better than what current theories do, it won't even reach the state where it's an actual theory.

Do you have any evidence to back up any of your claims, or any kinds of predictions on what we would be able to see, should your claims be true? How is this hypothesis any more accurate than our current theories of Big Bang and the expansion of the universe, as well as our understanding of how stars form?

Oh sorry, no formulas included in the last post. Speed in m/s is Speed in km/h * 1000 / 3600 Time per lap is lap length / speed in m/s Number of laps, naturally, is number of laps * time per lap Am I guessing right when I think you'll use this for your animated project? If so, I'd suggest changing two variables: lap length and the speed of the vehicles. Lap length because, even today, with our sub sci-fi speeds, are way longer than 500 m. For example, the Talladega Speedway (which is just a weird oval shape) is over 4 km long. So unless there's some dramatic change in racing culture, you probably don't want to make it shorter. One reason, I can imagine, would be that the spectators should be able to see the whole race track, but that's what race monitors are for! Speeds because, as audience, you won't see a thing when the vehicles come whipping past at almost supersonic speeds. Lowering that speed would make it way more entertaining, while still being dangerous enough to be worth looking at.

As of yet, thought crime hasn't been implemented. The age of the universe is less than 13.66 billion years? If not, the age of that star doesn't conflict with the age of the universe. Sure. So because we don't have exact measurements of the age of stars, does that mean the BB theory is invalid? No, science makes models and then tests them against reality. What you feel is totally irrelevant as long as the models make accurate predictions. Which theory specifically? They're attacking your ideas, not you. If you can't differentiate yourself from your ideas, keep them to yourself. Unless you posted this from a stone tablet, you're wrong. Why don't we see matter being created at the center of the galaxies? If stars only form in the center of the galaxy, how do you explain the seemingly abundant star formation in such places as the Orion Nebula? This is obviously false, as we're moving in an orbit. How would the spiral arms increase the speed of the stars, exactly? Sounds like pseudoscience bunk. How would a quasar form the mass for a whole spiral arm, and what is a megnator? Which galaxy is our Mother spiral galaxy? It's a well supported theory. You might want to read up on the difference. Life on this planet started a little less than 4 billion years ago. That's our only data point, but I would be interested to know what other kinds of life you know of.

Absolutely, they're 2D representation of something that describes our 3D world. If you have 12 minutes, I'd suggest you watch "Imagining the Tenth Dimension". I know there are some that think it's incredible unscientific and should be taken off the web for eternity. But for what it's worth, it helped me understand how dimensions relate to each other, which in the end made it possible to understand how a 3D universe can be curved.

Unless you're impregnating the sister of your girlfriend, why even bring her into the equation?

Are you sure about this? 1000 km/h = 278 m/s 500 m with that speed takes 1.8 seconds 30 laps at that speed takes 54 seconds The audience might be a tad disappointed.

Sporange!

They're not far apart as they don't exist. They're an image in your eyes due to the way the light is reflected in the water drops. Distance of the water has no impact on where the rainbows appear to be. Only thing that matters is the angles of which the light is reflected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow

As far as the shape of the universe goes, I'm not sure. You're probably better off reading up on the details on your own rather than have me feed you information that is pretty likely to be false. But basically, it seems to have to do with how mass bends the universe locally (such as the Sun creating a gravitational field which allows the planets to orbit it), and then looking at how all the mass in the universe bends the universe as a whole. But again, you should probably double-check that one. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question35.html http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html As for dark matter, we've measured stars' movements, basically. Thanks to our understanding of physics, we know how large bodies behave when it comes to orbits and whatnot. A good example is our solar system, which is well understood in that sense. And we know how bodies would behave on a larger scale, such as stars in a galaxy, or even galaxies effecting each other in a galactic group. What we've seen then, is that stars move as though there is more mass around than what we can see (or detect in other ways, such as different kinds of radiation). This suggests there is matter out there that only interacts with other matter by its gravitational influence. This is what's come to be known as dark matter.

While you can't truly defy physics, there are some things that seem to do just that, at first glance. Like this:

I didn't even see the linguistic problems in the OP until daniton's reply. It seems you can interpret "3 feet every second" and then "down 2 every other second" in (at least) 3 ways: 1. Presumably the "normal" interpretation 3 feet up the first second, down 2 the next second, which would give the answer I gave above. 2. The literal interpretation Up 3 feet the first second. Up 3 feet the next second, while simultaneously slip down 2. In effect, the monkey climbs 2 feet per second until he reaches 28 feet on second 14 (assuming he slips and climbs at the same time, otherwise he would reach the top in 14 seconds). Then he would reach the top in 14 2/3 seconds. 3. The I have no idea what's going on interpretation The monkey climbs 3 feet every second. But the second after "every second", he slips down 2 feet. This would mean that he would slip 2 feet down every second, while climbing 3. I don't know where I was going with this, and it looked better in my head, but there you go.

In this case "an individual machine instruction" is simply one instruction that the computer can understand. It could be, for example, to add a number to another, or move a value from one place in the memory to another.

If we measure two supernovas going off at the exact same time, with the same red-shift, then yes; we can reasonably assume they went off at the same time in the past, and were, at the time, the same distance from us. Now, if we measure two supernovas going off at the same time, with different red-shifts, it would be equally reasonable to assume they went off at different times, at a different distance from us. We know they are not where they are today as they were when the supernovas actually took place. What you seem to mean by "distortion" seems to be the fact that the galaxies are not where they were when they sent out the light. Which is true. But again, we know that, and can adjust to it. It doesn't change the measurements. We can say "there was a supernova 5 billion light years away", which, as you point out, means the light has traveled for 5 billion years, not that the supernova remains are currently 5 billion light years away from us.

I'm fairly sure I didn't. Imagine a 2D universe, let's say a totally flat paper, which you roll up to make the ends meet, effectively creating a wormhole in 2D space. This will work as an analogy that could theoretically be possible in 3D space, folding space to make two points meet, creating a wormhole. But it's important to know folding a paper isn't an exact model of what the 3D space would look like. Another example is gravitational lensing, which you mention yourself. You might have seen the pictures of heavy objects bending space much like a ball would bend a rubber cloth. If you accept the ball on a rubber cloth analogy, which is a 2D visualisation of something happening in our 3D universe, why is folding a paper any more far-fetched? What is heavy objects sinking into, to bend light? You're right. The size we're seeing right now is not the size of the universe at this very moment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Size How are they distorted? Do you mean the fact that they're red-shifted? Then yes, we know they have been red-shifted, which is one of the reasons we know the universe is expanding. Even assuming you mean red-shifted when you say distorted, I'm not following this, so you might have to clarify what you mean. Same as any other science really. You see something, build a model of it, then test the model to see if it fits. So far, everything fits. It doesn't matter what you or I believe in, or can accept, the models we have now are our best explanation for what we're observing, and they'll be used as such until better explanations emerge.

Thanks for the reminder. The preface has been very interesting thus far. Will get to it A.S.A.P!

Then you're interpreting it wrong, and it's no wonder you have a hard time accepting it. There was no "before" the BB, just as there's no north of the North Pole. There was no particle that exploded. Particles weren't formed until the universe had cooled off enough for them to actually be created. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Hadron_epoch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fluid

The problem, however, is that you're trying to describe it as an explosion. There's no void at the center, since there's no center. Matter (galaxies and whatnot) are roughly at the same place as they were when the universe cooled enough for matter to form billions of years ago. As you say, it's space itself that is expanding, making matter be further away. But that doesn't mean matter itself is flying away from other matter with the expansion. Think of a cake with raisins in it, which you bake in an oven. The raisins aren't actually moving, but since the cake itself is swelling, they will end up further from each other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Sure. And with enough curvature, we could be a few light years away from a black hole, which appears to us to be at the other end of the galaxy. However, real distance in that sense doesn't mean anything, since for all practicalities, the actual distance to that black hole has to follow the curvature of space. So regardless if we're trying to observe it or actually travel there, the distance would be "at the other end of the galaxy".

This question? What do you mean "what if..."? Are you asking for permission to build your fictional universe in your own way? Of course one could imagine their spaceship crash landing in Canada, then their life support keeps functioning for a few hundred years until they're found by humans. Question is, if a small bunch of reptilians were found at a crash site anywhere, do you really think they would not be sensationalized? I doubt they would ever have much free time in between lab tests, linguistic research and press conferences to ever excel in a sport.

What about a point like particle? Can a singular point be divided?

Are there any galaxies approaching us, that are currently more than 1 billion light years away? If the model predicts nearby galaxies won't be expanded away from us, what part of the model is fantasy?

Your objection was that the Andromeda galaxy is approaching us, thus the Big Bang theory is invalid. Has that objection been rectified to your satisfaction?

Exactly, only two galaxies, which are relatively close to each other. The expansion works on such a huge scale, you'd have to go further away to actually notice it. And notice it you will, as there is no point that is, for example, 5 billion light years away, that is closing in on us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Is_the_expansion_of_the_universe_felt_on_small_scales.3F

Give her a beard and a lumberjack shirt. In all seriousness though, there's probably no good way to make a green creature with a tail appear "more Canadian". Is this the only species who live here as Canadian citizens? If there are several, you can probably get away with people accepting aliens as inhabitants of Earth without making an effort trying to make them fit in.

I've had run-downs with both Spanish and German, but can barely say hello in either language. So now I'm stuck with English and my native tongue.