Strange

As imatfaal says, I don't accept that this works in the general case. Also, I don't see how this works in more than 1 dimension. Extend your traffic lights to a cross roads. Now there are cars accelerating past you as well as in the same direction as you. How is it you see those cars passing in front of you to be moving away? Also, F=ma. Where is the force coming from to accelerate all these galaxies? So having been shown that it doesn't work, you are repeating it anyway?

I don't see where the delay comes into it. I am also still not convinced there will be a linear relationship between distance and speed. Perhaps you need to show us the maths for that. Although I have no idea why you would claim that, you are back to only being able to see galaxies in a one dimensional line. This still doesn't match the universe we live in. But if there are galaxies all around us falling to a common point then there is no reason we would not be able to see those which are not directly ahead and behind; these other galaxies would be getting closer to as as we all converge. And that doesn't match what we see either. This model doesn't appear to match reality. Also, how long have these galaxies been accelerating towards some central point without getting there? And, if you are rejecting General Relativity (the current explanation for expansion) you need a new explanation for gravity.

Indeed. Not only is there no internal structure, there is no room for internal structure.

If it does, it is not a very accurate one as the muon decays at a random time (centered around an average of about 2 us)

The same is true of the three spatial dimensions. You can only measure distance by changing the position of something over time. In fact, every time this particular argument comes up, all I do is replace "time" with "space" in all of your examples. Why not save us all time by doing that yourself. Sounds like the usual objection by those with this (quasi-religious) belief: "the muon can't be fundamental because there must be something moving" Why must there be something moving? "because it measures time". This is the highly popular logical fallacy of Begging The Question. That was in response to a different question about beams of light.

There is a whole class of big bang models which involve local expansion and/or multiple "bangs". My (limited) understanding is that in most these these, the separate universes would be causally disconnected by distance (and speed of separation). Mersini-Houghton's model seems to one of the exceptions.

I wasn't being facetious. It is a fairly obvious example of "where time can be physically counted (not inferred) without a beam of light being used at some point in the process".

And why do you think that atheists do that more than anyone else? Why would you expect that? Why wouldn't you want the other 90% of the population to achieve the same? It is the fact that you are picking on atheists. Why not people who don't play the saxophone? After all we non-sax players need to have higher standards.

A single muon decaying is an example of that.

Or, one could say, the wrong way and the right way. Fairly obviously it is looking at the state of the universe now and comparing it with the state of the universe at some time in the future. As none else shares your warped view of how time works, you can be fairly certain that no one will be basing models on it. There is some speculation and imagination involved, I suppose. But you imply it is a fairly meaningless guess. That is obviously not the case as it is quite carefully calculated from a large amount of data and scientific theory (which you haven't bothered to question, so I assume you accept it all). The only sensible one, of course (i.e. not yours).

I have a talking clock: no moving parts, no light. Just press a button on top and it speaks the time.

This is a reasonable informal characterization of what singularity means (even though not strictly accurate) but it is not a valid description of wormholes. Whether they actually exist or not, they are valid solutions to the equations of GR. (They may not exist because they are unstable except in the presence on non-physical things like negative energy, for example.)

Another popular example of time passing with no movement involved: take an individual, stationary muon (i.e. observed in its own frame of reference). It is a fundamental particle so there are no internal components and therefore nothing to move. And yet, after a few microseconds, it will decay. So time passed with no change and no motion.

No, those are what your read to determine the elapsed time. What is measured is the rate (i.e. time) at which the water drips. No it doesn't. It measures frequency (i.e. 1/time).

Well, it tells you that gravity is pretty uniform. Although variations in the level could perhaps be used to map variations in the Earth's gravitational field. And it tells you that water is a fluid (is that an inspiring insight? I'm not sure). Bot. Gravity pulls it down and creates the flat surface. The molecules are also bound to each other, which is what makes water a liquid rather than a gas. I fail to see any relevance. Unless you have seen water flying around like a school of fish?

I can't think of an example. I was going to suggest a clepsydra or using a candle to measure time. But these use the rate at which water drips or the rate at which the candle burns. Clocks measure time, not distance. The second is explicitly defined with no motion and atomic clocks (as I'm sure swansont will tell us in more detail) attempt to reduce movement and then correct for errors due to any residual motion.

No. What gives you that idea?

Someone (maybe the OP under a different name) asked a very similar question on another forum; suggesting that all galaxies were falling towards a common point and that their increasing separation as they fall is what we observe. It was easier to understand what was meant, but that fails for the same reasons outlined here but even more so - not only does it only work in one dimension, but the galaxies at right angles to the direction of fall would be converging.

Yes. Distance does not depend on us measuring them - otherwise the universe could not have evolved in our absence. And if you are using "measure" in a more abstract sense of something like it requires light to be able to travel for a distance to exist, then there was a time (the first 380,000 years) when the universe was much, much larger than the mean free path of light.

This is only true for particles which follow Bose–Einstein statistics (bosons). Two identical fermions cannot occupy the same quantum space. Vague and unsupported (i.e. not a theory) and mostly wrong.

Except you claimed that the existence of neutrinos supported your theory. If you don't know anything about neutrinos (as suggested by your vague and largely incorrect comments) then it is hard to see how you can know whether they support your (equally vague) theory. As we have a very successful theory which says it does, it is not clear why this claim should be taken seriously.

So why are you picking on atheists?

I have seen very little popular science presentations by any of these. But because so many people have made bizarre claims based on thinks Kaku has said, I have gone out of my way to find articles/videos by him. He seems more interested in being sensational, rather than accurate. He appears to spread a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. (And some of what he says, outside his area of expertise, is just plain wrong.)

So you have found that religious people usually agree with your views then? So you think disagreeing with people is a sign of intolerance? Does this mean that you never disagree with anyone? I think the word "repugnant" is a bit strong for not agreeing with someone. However, I would have thought the points of disagreement were fairly obvious. For example: Your attacks on atheists. Your attacks on the religious. Your assumption that all atheists should behave the same way.

Are you open to the possibility that religion can cause hatred toward atheists? Your claim, your burden of proof. There's always a possibility that their being religious did cause them to persecute non-believers. Again, please keep an open mind to possibilities.