Strange

Just to add a bit more... Gravitational lensing (and the force of gravity we feel) is caused by static curvature of space-time. Gravitational waves are a dynamic change in the curvature, spreading out like ripples from a changing source such as two black holes orbiting and merging.

We can see this. Look at the Pound-Rebka experiment for example. But note that nothing changes in the atom itself, only as seen from another frame of reference. I'm not sure how realistic that analogy is, but I guess it is the same thing.

Actually, in GR things aren't that simple. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ The reason that nothing can escape a black hole is not because of the speed of light, it is more that space-time is so curved that there are not paths that go in the direction "out" (think lobster pot as an analogy). That seems to be what the evidence shows (which was a surprise, people generally expected it to be slowing, I think). I'm not sure that works. The time isn't important, just the difference in gravitational potential between source and receiver. Note that both black holes and the big bang model are based on the predictions of GR. Before the big bang model was accepted, there were many attempts to explain red-shift due to the time it had travelled. None really worked (and none fitted with the other evidence). Unfortunately, this is impossible to test directly. However, the temperature is exactly that predicted by the big bang model. And it is not clear how your idea would explain the CMB at all (which was the real clincher for the big bang theory). However, if the universe were in or created by a black hole, what happens when black holes collide!? (As we now know they do.)

The reason that this is significant is that it confirms an important prediction of general relativity. This says a lot more than simply "it will be a wave". The exact shape and frequency of the wave can be calculated and compared with what is observed. The challenge is that the wave is very, very weak by the time it arrives here so it requires some amazing technology to detect it. So this detection not only confirms the mathematics of general relativity and the existence of black-hole mergers. But it also opens up a new type of astronomy, observing things that are not otherwise visible and telling us more things about the universe. I would suggest starting with the New Scientist article. It is easy to read but still accurate.

Two fairly big black holes colliding. One 29 times the mass of the Sun, the other 36 times the mass of the sun. This is known from the frequency of the signal and the speed at which it changed, which tells you their masses, distances and how fast they were orbiting each other (75 times a second at the end!). Nothing else could get so close before merging. And there was a characteristic "ringdown" after they merged. New Scientist has a good overview: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2077162-revolution-in-physics-as-gravitational-waves-seen-for-first-time/ The paper says it puts an upper bound on the mass of the graviton - but not any more than other approaches. But at least it is consistent with those.

Relative to what? But, yes. Temperature is observer dependent. Which is why observers in the past would have seen a higher temperature (and therefore a younger universe) and observers in the future will see a lower temperature (and therefore an older universe).

It seems very different to me. The original is conditional (it implies, "if we consider ..."). Yours is a statement (and incorrect). You were arguing that it was a single frame. You admit you were mistaken now? Why just time? we should agree on what is space, because we have 2 options: something abstract, defined and used by us, as it is pressure or temperature, or something very real, as the notion of spacetime fabric suggests. If it’s real than we should be able to show/explain how this real "thing" determines rulers and atoms "behaviour" (as quantum physics does explain interactions). If it’s just abstract, a result of our measurements, than we should be able to show why our instruments return different distance intervals in different situations. This is explained by the geometry of space-time, as described by the theory of general relativity. You should study it. If three cars took different routes through space, you would not be surprised when their odometers recorded different distances. If they take different routes through space-time then their clocks will show a different elapsed time as well. Shocker. we have one. Although I will admit it is not that simple. Which is presumably why so many like you reject it.

The paper is available here: http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 For some reason the server is rather slow at the moment ...

Very true. There are cases where two traditional characters (often with completely different meanings) have been merged into a single modern character so the semantic content is lost completely. Personally, I think China should just switch to pinyin. But it is never going to happen. Too much cultural "baggage".

So you have no justification for the claim at all, other than your beliefs. That is not science.

Then you should be able to provide some references to the empirical data to support your hypothesis. If not then you don't have a hypothesis, you have a series of guesses.

Event horizons are purely a consequence of general relativity. They have nothing to do with quantum theory. They might even disappear in a theory of quantum gravity. That idea has been pretty thoroughly debunked. (By science.) I assume you mean: unknown to you. You could fix that by learning some science instead of making things up.

You have not "explained" this. You have asserted it. You appear to be incorrect. Show the maths that shows the effect is large, or withdraw the claim. You do if you are going to quantify them, even if only as "big". So how do we test your theory if it is indistinguishable from GR? You will need to quantify these "small variations" so that the idea can be tested.

Please provide some evidence to support this claim. What is a "human in an unevolved state"? What is "highly entropic"? And how is it measured? How do you quantify "indisciplined"? Please provide evidence that a "human in an unevolved state" is quantifiably higher in those measures. Please provide some evidence to support this claim. Please provide some evidence to support this claim. Another of your posts full of invented facts, unsupported assertions and no substance. Why?

No. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1212 And it doesn't associate "every word with a shape". Nearly all words require two or more characters. Characters generally have a phonetic and a semantic component. These usually give you an idea of how it is pronounced and what it means. Of course, if you know Chinese well then you are more likely to be able to guess. It is also important to separate the writing system from the language. When I started learning Chinese I found the biggest problem was simply vocabulary. When learning a European language as a speaker of another European language, for example, a lot of vocabulary comes for "free" because they are similar to, or related to words you know. When learning a language from a completely different family then you are starting from scratch. Chinese seems to be very idiomatic (like English) so there are a lot of phrases that don't mean what they appear to mean. Apart from that, it is grammatically fairly simple and regular (more so than English) so not too difficult to learn. I learnt quite a lot (even surprised myself by having a simple conversation when in Asia one time) but am not able to read anything in Chinese (even though I can read Japanese).

See post #7, for example.

So all you are saying is that you like his music and find it exciting. That is neither new nor a discovery. I'm sure you can find people who said exactly the same about Elvis or Beethoven.

1. There is no evidence FOR your theory. So there is no reason for anyone to consider it. 2. As noted there was no life before the moon, so that question is meaningless.

Doesn't that mean the teacher is right: "what my chemistry teacher told us is that when you add more mass it won't increase the volume" ? I assume the answer to the question is something to do with the way the molecules of agar-agar form a gel, rather than dissolving (and so don't exploit the gaps between molecules of water). But I don't really know.

I like the fact that a really short and simple post highlights how inadequate David's naive extrapolations are.

Spacetime is described as four dimensional manifold; I suppose you can think of a manifold as a surface (a hyper-surface, perhaps).

If I get it to display the result in kg/m3, it shows it is spot on: "(3 * (23257.149 * 67.9 km/sec/Mpc)^2 / (8 * \pi * G) ) in kg / m^3" = 4.684x10-18 kg/m3 Brilliant! I am constantly amazed at the things you can "get way with". I have used things like "mass of Earth" or "distance to moon" in equations before now.

Doh. Missed that. So now Wolfram Alpha gives me 0.42 J m-3 Is that more like it? David, I recommend Wolfram Alpha when your math skills are not great (like me!) - it understands all sorts of symbolic representations which saves having to look things up. In fact, I could probably have put H0 in there... Yep: "(3 * (23257.149 * H_0)^2 / (8 * \pi * G) ) * c^2 in joules / m^3" works. Cool. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%283+*+%2823257.149+*+67.9+km%2Fsec%2FMpc%29^2+%2F+%288+*+\pi+*+G%29+%29+*+c^2+in+joules+%2F+m^3

Stop avoiding the question. what exactly are you claiming that Dr Dre "discovered"?

I can't understand what you have done, but it looks wrong and the result seems to be wrong. If I stick "(3 * (13249 km/sec/Megaparsec)^2 / (8 * \pi * G) ) * c^2 in joules / m^3" into Wolfram Alpha, I get 2.964 x 10-5 J/m3 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%283+*+%2813249+km%2Fsec%2FMegaparsec%29^2+%2F+%288+*+\pi+*+G%29+%29+*+c^2+in+joules+%2F+m^3 If you have used the mass-energy of the visible universe in the volume of the visible universe then the density should be the same for the whole universe.