Strange

Just because it is English doesn't mean it makes sense. (It doesn't.)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/idegas.html

It is being intensively studied. And, although I haven't been following it recently, I haven't seen anything to suggest it will have any great impact. These seem typical: http://fukushimainform.ca/2015/02/23/most-recent-measurements-of-plutonium-in-pacific-fukushima-fallout-undetectable/ http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es202816c And a very detailed article here: http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/how-is-fukushimas-fallout-affecting-marine-life

Theories are never proved. Never. As far as I know, all the evidence is currently consistent with density wave theory.

I don't think there is a requirement for all singularities to have an event horizon. And not all event horizons are associated with a singularity; for example the event horizon seen by an accelerating observer. But I may very well be wrong. In fact, there is an event horizon for the observable universe (the largest distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future) - but we are "inside" that horizon.

I think you should get a blog. You could call it "Word Salad".

What needs editing?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking... There is only a singularity in the future of the universe if it collapses again and, as you say, the observed acceleration seems to make that unlikely. Interestingly, when you fall through the event horizon of a black hole, the singularity (which, again, probably isn't a "thing") changes from being in front of you, to being in your future.

This is not quite true. You wouldn't see it cross the event horizon, but you would see it disappear. And, as far as I know, there is no event horizon associated with the big bang singularity.

I don't think many people think the singularity was a physical "thing". We need a theory of quantum gravity to better understand what happened in the early universe. Here is one attempt to address the question: https://briankoberlein.com/2015/02/10/beginning/

Although it would get diluted and broken down (chemically) so the effect will be greatly reduced.

What is the connection with this thread?

Yes.

You are probably right; hypothesis isn't the right description. Perhaps a better way of stating what I was trying to say is: the only untested theory I can think of is string theory. (There may well be some others ... I just can't think of them right now!) That use of "theory" seems to be more common in the mathematical / theoretical physics world and is rather different from the usual use of the word in experimental physics.

I can't think of any cosmological theories that are actually hypotheses. The only hypothesis I can think of that is regularly referred to as a theory is "string theory". You have invented the terms "Dark matter Theory" and "Dark energy Theory". There are no such theories.

Does it? It doesn't suggest that. And also, matter has mass. Light doesn't. Please demonstrate, quantitatively, that this "aetheric pressure" produces the same results as Maxwell's equations and the Einstein Field Equations.

But you can sort of understand why people prefer "dark energy to "some of the past assumptions about the dynamics of the universe on the largest scale appear to be inaccurate". Especially headline writers ....

You picked up the "floating rock" possibility that I missed (Icebergs ahoy!)

Special relativity is based on one principle: the "laws of physics" (including the speed of light) are independent of the state of inertial motion. General relativity adds the equivalence of acceleration and gravity. The only place the nature of mass comes in is that inertial mass equals gravitational mass (because of the equivalence principle). So nothing to do with the big bang or baryogenesis.

Good point. Almost certainly true. Although I have no idea what proportion of CO2 is taken up by plankton. And then you have the knock-on effects on the rest of the food chain.

From looking into your other questions, it looks like about half the atmospheric oxygen is produced by phytoplankton (I haven't looked to see where the rest comes from) and the Pacific makes up about half the area of the world's oceans. So, in principle, this would reduce the oxygen production by 25%. Which would be pretty bad. I'm have no idea what the lifetime of oxygen in the atmosphere is, so I don't know if we would all be dead in a year or if we would have centuries to try and fix the problem ...

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm He then used his formula to derive Kepler's laws and thereby confirmed the model. A basic education in maths might be a better start. There are some good on-line resources. Take a look at Coursera, for example.

There are only theories which have not been disproved yet and (old, incorrect) theories which have been disproved. An "unproved theory" is a hypothesis. Correct. They are not theories: they are hypotheses. In fact, they are generic names for several different hypotheses. So, for example, here isn't one dark matter hypotheses, there are many - some of which do not involve any "matter". BTW you will find the word "theory" being widely misused to mean hypothesis, typically in the popular press but also sometimes also by scientists (e.g. "string theory" is not really a theory; but that is because it is very maths-dominated and they use words slightly differently).

Here is one: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/coop/scripps/o2/o2.html There may be others.

No, I didn't say that. (Is it "International Misunderstanding Strange Week"?) But I think your misuse of language is almost as bad. (And there really is a good thread on what these words mean.)