Strange

Light has energy. That energy can be transformed into other sorts of energy. So, for example, when light is absorbed ("destroyed") by a dark surface, the energy of the light is changed into heat energy in the surface. Also, conservation of energy is too specific. We now know that energy and mass are interchangeable So energy can be converted to mass and vice-versa. So it is the total mass-energy that is conserved.

You might be interested in the work of Nikodem Poplawski: https://www.insidescience.org/content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566 But note the big difference: what you have is a vague idea, what he has is a theoretical idea that can be justified with math and, potentially, evidence.

What do you mean by "gravity force"? Gravity then would have been exactly the same as now. Gravity is only relevant where you have concentrations of matter. When matter is homogeneously distributed then it becomes irrelevant and expansion occurs. This may seem counter-intuitive but if so, the only answer is to understand the maths. But, roughly, if everything is pulling on everything else with the same force, then there is no net force on anything. The universe was filled with a homogeneous gas and so there was no net force on any part of it. It is not your analogies. It is the analogies like "expanding space" and "clusters are held together by gravity" and "red shift caused by speed at which galaxies are receding". And basically everything other than the FLRW or Lamda-CDM model itself. You are being misled by trying to extrapolate from the pop-science stories. All they can do is try to crudely explain roughly what is happening. They are not "the theory". If you want to really understand (or challenge) the big bang model, then you need to understand the theory (i.e. the mathematics).

OK. You original sentence was very ambiguous - it could have meant the exact opposite!

That doesn't make much sense.

It is a simple substitution cypher (arbitrary digits for letters). I have no idea what the point is though.

Is that because you are unaware of the large amount of research in this area, or because you think it is all flawed?

Reminds me of: https://xkcd.com/327/ I don't doubt this is possible with ID cards. I was just interested in the details.

No. It is all the same expansion. It is the same expansion. But where material is held together by local gravitational forces, that will prevent them moving apart. That is what gravity does. Where the gravitational force is not enough to stop things moving apart, then they will move apart. I think you have the wrong model in your head; it isn't that the space between clusters causes expansion, it is that the concentrations of mass in galaxies prevent it. Obviously not. Because the uniform plasma and the uniform space between clusters are equivalent: they are homogeneous, in other words no local concentrations of mass. The same is true of the universe as a whole on very large scales. So the universe as a whole undergoes expansion, but the bits held together by gravity don't. But the real problem is that all these descriptions are just informal analogies. You either have to look at the underlying models and understand them, or just accept that these analogies describe something interesting. You can't really understand the theory, or attempt to show it is wrong, based on these analogies. You can't extrapolate from these analogies to more complex cases or different scenarios. This might help: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380 Read the paper several times, very carefully. After you have read it at least three times, come back with questions about anything you don't understand. And if you want an easy, informal, introduction to the mathematics behind it, this is a good place to start: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

Of course. It was the was the expansion that caused the universe to cool enough that light could escape and cause the CMB, There were no clusters because there were no stars at that time. Stars didn't form for another 300 million years. http://patrickgrant.com/BBTL.htm Neither. As the hot plasma expanded and cooled small variations in density caused some areas to start to collapse into slightly denser clouds. These eventually formed stars, galaxies, clusters and the large scale structures we see now. http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/group.html http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/filaments.html

Do you have a reference to more information on how that can be done? And, although it is off topic, do have a reference for this, as well?

Not quite. http://pages.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/chin/hbcalendar-u.html The modern version of the calendar includes intercalary lunar months to keep things in step.

Only approximately. It is actually 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes and 3 seconds for the Moon to complete one lunar month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_month Except that is not exact. The solar year is 365 days 5 hours 48 minutes 46 seconds. http://www.britannica.com/science/solar-year So we must ignore your proposal.

Many PCs, even very new ones, can't be upgraded to Windows 10 because the manufacturers haven't produced the necessary drivers. (Yes, Sony, I'm looking at you.) The continuous pestering to upgrade is rather annoying when you know it will break your machine.

True. It is a replacement. I suppose that is more likely to affect all (or a large proportion) of the cells in the body. (If that was part of the original question. Which it doesn't seem to be.)

It is, in the cells affected.

That is true of many mathematical structures, I suppose. It relates to the old question of whether mathematics is discovered or invented. But do we know that infinity does not exist in our world? The universe may be infinite, after all.

So that was a lie, then?

What evidence do you have for this? What evidence do you have for this? How do we know this? What evidence do you have for this? What is magnoflux spin? What evidence do you have for this? This is the fallacy of "begging the question". Gravity is not a magnetic force. And assertions are not evidence.

Shouldn't that be 351765 ?

Was that part of the question? Bone marrow transplants can have surprising effects; people have ended with different blood types afterwards.

Good point. It doesn't. (But I didn't say it does. )

Radiation. Various toxic chemicals. Random errors in cell reproduction.

Of course. (I was being generous: EE is convinced he is moving it. So I assume he will say "I am moving it now" rather than "I am trying to move it now".) But the words don't matter. The important thing is that a different person records when the attempts are made and when movement occurs.

I have in my first post and in my last post explaining the meaning of blind vs double blind.