Strange

AchillesIsGoodNow has been banned as a sock puppet of former member Achilles

! Moderator Note Stop telling people to read your text. You have to accept that if people are asking questions it is because your text is not clear, not because they have not read it. You need to answer the questions by explaining what you mean, not just repeating the same thing.

Nonsense. There is (was) a theory called Lorentz Ether Theory that did this. However, as the ether part of the theory was completely irrelevant (it didn't appear anywhere, except as an assumption, and remained completely undetectable by definition) this theory was ignored in favour of SR (Occam's Razor). You are still ignoring the invariance of the speed of light. Which is the reason for length contraction and time dilation. And has nothing to do with a mythical ether. If so, can can you show how this is modelled mathematically and how it can be detected experimentally?

No it isn't. Sound waves require a medium. The speed of sound waves is observer dependent. Apart from the fact they are both described by wave equations, they don't have much in common. You seem very fond of these straw man arguments against current theory. Which is odd as you starting out saying that: This is, of course, false. But it is exactly the argument you are making: if there is something wrong with relativity, then your model must be right. But, apart from the fact there are no flaws in relativity, this logic is bogus as you rightly point out. Nonsense. You could, of course, are claim that the electromagnetic field is the "aether" but it has none of the physical properties of the traditional luminiferous aether. So the analogy is fatally flawed. You seem to be claiming that because light is a wave then there must be a medium. This was the false reasoning that led to an initial assumption that there was an aether. It was wrong then, and you are still wrong.

Victor John has been banned as a spammer.

Of course.

F = ma IS the theory. Of course. Because gravity is purely attractive. So you can say a spaceship is attracted to the Earth by gravity. And when it travels to the Moon, it will also be attracted to that. And the Moon will be attracted to the Earth. That doesn't work with electric charge. If the spaceship is attracted to th Earth, then they must have opposite charge. If the spaceship is also attracted to the Moon, then they must have opposite charge. That means that the Moon will have the same charge as the Earth and they will repel one another. And so the Moon will fly off into space. Gravity and electric charge are completely different for this, and many other, reasons.

If the OP were correct that SR is wrong, then GR would have to be wrong as well. In which case there are no gravitational waves and the CMB does not exist. So I suspect the OP may be incorrect.

@lidal has talked about the constancy of the speed of light, but this is less important than the fact that is it invariant. That does not appear to be mentioned in this "theory".

How about you present some evidence that 1. Relativity is wrong, as you claim 2. Your hypothesis is correct. Without that evidence there is no reason for this thread to stay open.

And what are the results of these experiments? Which peer-reviewed journals have they been published in? It is trivially and obviously wrong. A notorious crackpot

physicaldivide has been banned as a sock puppet of scifimath.

Quite a lot of different but related reasons. For example, if infant mortality is lower then there is less incentive to have more children. As a society gets wealthier there more opportunities for education and paid work. If people are healthier and better educated, they no longer live at subsistence level, and have less need for children to work the land and support them. And so on.

Well, they obviously know something you don’t. The average global birth rate fell below the replacement level years ago. So fewer people are being born than will die each year. So the population will level off in a few decades. Again: evidence?

Do you have any evidence for that? Because we don't like crazy conspiracy theories here.

So not common. And, presumably because it isn't used, not cheap (or not practical) either.

What do you mean by an "exit point" for black holes? Some stars turn into supernovas and form black holes. Is that what you mean? In what way?

! Moderator Note Quantum theory is perhaps the best and most accurately tested theory ever created. If you repeat nonsense like this, the thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note These (and other statements you have made) are incorrect and demonstrate a profound ignorance of physics. If you keep making factually incorrect statements such as this, the thread will be closed.

You could try: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49486980

dispiki has been banned as a sock puppet of franco malgarini

I would “save as” PDF and upload that. Or, better still, post the information on the forum directly.

! Moderator Note As always, I will warn people to be very careful about downloading Microsoft Word documents from an unknown source. (I certainly wouldn't do it.)

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

scifimath has been banned for repeatedly bringing up their pet theory despite being told (repeatedly) not to do it.