Strange

Should this be moved to the biology/evolution section?

I suppose in an infinite, or near-infinite, universe something like this is possible. But the idea that an exact replica of "you" will be created is just very, very, very improbable. I doubt there would be two identical fleas in the universe, never mind someone thinking the same thoughts as you.

My simple version: the gravitational field of the black hole provides the energy to create a pair of particles - this is equivalent to the mass of two particles. One of the particles then falls through the event horizon contributing its mass back to the black hole. The other escapes taking its mass/energy away. So the black hole loses the net mass of one particle. This can only occur near an event horizon where the pair of virtual particles can be permanently separated. In the vacuum of space the pair immediately annihilate again. And, from the other thread, a much better explanation:

Your question was very broad, so it is not surprising that you got rather broad and unhelpful replies. Can you be more specific about what aspects of plant evolution you are interested in? The earliest known plants? The first trees or grasses? Plants have been around for about 450 million years, after earlier life polluted the atmosphere with oxygen. They have been evolving for all that time, so it isn't easy to give a short answer. Wikipedia seems to have a good summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_plants Perhaps you could use that to come up with more specific questions, if you don't find what you want there. That is not possible. Evolution is a slow, incremental process.

Why? Why not? Your entire question seems to be based on two assumptions which may not be true.

Instead of repeatedly stating this, please provide some evidence. It is a rule of this forum that you are required to support your claims. No it doesn't. For example, they have a range of velocities. For another, the velocity of the "arm" (the density wave) may be different from 230 km/s. Please provide a reference that supports this claim. Alternatively, show us the calculations for the amount of colour-shift required, the time scales involved and therefore changes in velocity required. Then provide a mechanisms that can throw stars around like pinballs. Alternatively, stop making up nonsense just to try and support your ideas. Of course they aren't moving randomly. This is how we are able to infer the presence of dark matter.

Use mathematics. Without this, all you have are some vague, muddled thoughts that might or might not make sense. You need to refine and formalise your ideas so they can be understood and tested. This may require several years of study and hard work. That is what it costs to be taken seriously.

Do you mean, what causes the accelerating expansion? No one knows. Why isn't the curvature of space-time an "underlying mechanism"?

This has been discussed recently: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87841-hawking-radiation-question/

Expansion (like gravity) is already explained by GR. If you suggest an alternative cause, then you need to explain why GR is wrong. (When it works so well.)

Particles do not refract or reflect light. A nucleon is, by definition, a sub-atomic particle. They aren't. (You have been told this many times now.) Reflection and refraction are effects of bulk matter caused by the intereaction fo photons and electrons. Nothing to do with the nuclei. And, again you have been told this multiple times: dark matter cannot be baryonic, by definition.

The Casimir force has nothing to do with gravity and space-time curvature.

Doh. Of course. I am not aware of any connection between the geometry of space-time and virtual particles. Do you have anything that explains that?

And that is a large part of the problem. What you write apparently makes some sense to you but is gibberish to those with even a limited knowledge of physics. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. "Management of photons"? "Fairly"? Example of what? A relative value of what? To what particle? And how will you do that?

Particles do not (cannot) have a refractive index. Not really. I assume your unwillingness to provide any maths is because you know almost no physics. As particles can have neither refractive nor reflective properties, then you might want to reconsider embarrassing yourself in public like this.

OK. I see what you mean. All parts of the object would be undergoing acceleration except that central point. Which, ironically, would be the point of greatest gravitational potential (or, equivalently, space-time curvature).

It is not up to others to attempt to extract maths from your incoherent rambling. Perhaps if you provided mathematical definitions of the things you were attempting to explain it might make more sense.

Claiming that particles cause refraction is not mathematics (providing equations showing how that refraction can be calculated, would be). Apart from that, the idea of "refractive index of [a] particle" is typical of the meaningless gibberish you post.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Because you always refuse to provide any mathematical support for your claims. So how can it be criticised. Have you? Where? To be quite honest, the only thing that can be extracted from that post is "the piss".

I can't see anything in that sentence that bears any connection to the post in question. But that is typical of your posts.

There isn't one. Irrelevant because of the above. No. I don't know if that is true. There are three colour charges for quarks it is not clear what "opposite" would mean in that case, for example.

Then it couldn't be in free fall.

I wrote a very long post in that thread asking a series of questions which were intended to show you that your statements were just a meaningless jumble of words. Unfortunately, by the time I had finished it the thread had been locked.

Which appears to be irrelevant to the OP. It doesn't. But the thread was about infinity.