Strange

1. Thinking that you can prove or disprove anything with a thought experiment. 2. Thinking that your misunderstanding of a thought experiment has any significance. 3. Thinking that the theory is based on relativity of simultaneity 4. Thinking that your misunderstandings of a popular science book trump experimental evidence. 5. Oh, I give up. Like all the rest, you will just ignore all attempts at explanation and assume you know best. Good luck.

That is exactly what has happened with dark matter. Initially, it was just a "place holder" name for whatever-it-is that causes the observed effects (See also: dark energy); that could have been a change to the way we understand gravity, extra normal matter we just can't see for some reason, black holes, some new physics, huge numbers of Dyson speheres, a formerly unknown particle or particles, etc. All of those are things we have come across before. (with the exception of one - guess which - and therefore, guess which is ruled out by Occam's razor.) Now, the multiple strands of evidence overwhelmingly point to non-baryonic matter. Obviously, people are still looking at alternatives (MOND-type theories keep coming close but just not close enough). But they do that by doing a detailed analysis of the likely effects and comparing those with observation. Your cherry-picking of bits of information that appear to bolster your idea, and ignoring those that don't, does not meet the necessary standards to be compelling. By the way, I assume you wrote the article you keep referring to?

Clearly, I was wrong. Again! I also need to read those articles...

Yes. But you will ignore it all.

Run at the same rate as what? Each other? That is because they are not moving relative to one another (*). I'm not sure where deformation of the Earth comes into it. (*) Well, unless they are, of course. And the altitude will have an effect.

Put clowns and lions on the racetrack. Armed with lasers.

Is that from the laptop or the power adapter? If the latter, it could be the switch-mode converter. If the former .... I can't think of anything. Tinnitus?

No, space-time is still a single "thing". But there is no reason why if one is infinite, the other has to be. Space could finite or infinite. In either case it could have been created at time 0 or it could have always existed. In any of the above cases, it could continue forever or it could cease to exist at some point. (I am somewhat sceptical about the idea the universe was "created" but as we have no evidence either way, I will keep an open mind.)

Effectively, yes. There will be a Doppler effect due to the object moving towards/away from you. As well as that there is relativistic time dilation. Of course. All of them? None of them? It depends how you define "true". But that is a philosophical discussion, nothing to do with science. This is why science and maths trump imagination. I am still waiting for you to demonstrate that this is significant. And this is why science and maths trump imagination. You do realise it is fiction? For entertainment purposes? And this is why science and maths trump imagination.

Infinite space does not imply infinite time. The universe could be infinite on finite. It might have been created or not. It might have a finite life or be eternal. We just don't know.

Sounds reasonable. There is no real reason to think the universe began.

That is significantly warmer than the background. And as you are assuming that there are 5 times as many of these spheres as there are visible stares, that would be readily detectable. The discussion you link to is about hiding a single Dyson sphere by pumping all the excess heat to, say, another nearby planet. So you still end with 6 times as many heat sources as there are stars - just not co-located with the Dyson sphere. So now you have twice as much chance of detecting them: gravitational lensing and occlusion by the Dyson sphere (easily detectable but not found yet) plus these extra heat sources at some distance from it. Once again, you are proposing a civilization with "sufficiently advanced technology" to be spread throughout the universe on a massive scale (5 times as many spheres as stars, remember) but keeping themselves completely invisible. And you think this is simpler than the rather mundane idea of yet another type of particle that does not interact with other matter? I wonder what fantastic explanations you would have come up with before Neptune and neutrinos were discovered. Invisible alien spaceships pushing Uranus around? Teeny-weeny aliens taking energy away from atomic nuclei? And you are ignoring the half dozen or more fundamental reasons why it cannot work. It's not like no one has ever thought of it before. The difference is, they did the math and found it doesn't work. Can you show us the math you have done to convince yourself this idea works?

I don't know the details, but it is because the gas and dust in the galaxy interacts with itself (as we expect gas and dust to). This means that energy can be dissipated and this, along with the conservation of angular momentum, means that it becomes a flattened disk. This might explain it: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25950/why-are-some-galaxies-flat Because dark matter does not take part in electromagnetic interactions this doesn't happen. (Remember, it is electromagnetic force that makes things appear solid, allows molecules in gas to exert pressure, etc.)

Time dilation is in addition to any Doppler effect.

Not just a new species but possibly a new phylum... Puzzling New Animals Look Like Deep-Sea Mushrooms http://www.livescience.com/47668-weird-species-deep-sea-mushroom.html

Please show your analysis that including Dyson spheres in the model produces the amount of deuterium we see.

Not really. You just make a few assertions and invoke "magic" (unknown advanced technology) to make the spheres invisible. It is speculation piled on speculation. You also fail to account for the mass and distribution of dark matter. Or address the other problems that dark matter solves. Also, no Dyson spheres have yet been detected. So, overall, your idea seems to be a worse fit for the available evidence than dark matter. More reasons why it won't work: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2872/why-cant-the-missing-mass-evidence-for-dark-matter-be-matrioshka-brains-dyson And what about the dark matter distribution around galactic clusters? Does this imply that your hypothetical advanced civilisation has not only moved stars out of the plane of the galaxy, but also into intergalactic space?

So, rather than the idea of a new form of matter (which is not an unprecedented event) you the author proposes some sort of advanced technological civilisation that has converted 5/6ths of the stars in the galaxy to Dyson spheres and moved them out of the plane of the galaxy? And, of course, they have managed to make these spheres perfect insulators, which would probably require ... a new type of matter.

As you don't provide a link and that is a really badly organised web site, I can't be bothered to try and find it. My understanding is that Dyson spheres are built around stars. Where does all that energy go, if no radiation leaves the sphere? The temperature inside would just keep getting higher and higher. I don't know where you the author gets that idea. These Dyson sphere would cause gravitational lensing and would also occlude other objects. If there were enough invisible stars (which is basically what you the author is proposing) to make up the required mass then they would be readily detectable. Do you Does the author provide a quantitative analysis? Also, how do you does the author account for the fact that dark matter is distributed in a sphere around the galaxy, rather than just in the disk where the majority of the stars are. And the existence of dark matter solves a number of other problems in cosmology. How do you does the author adress those? And ... oh, I give up. So, rather than the idea of a new form of matter (which is not an unprecedented event) you the author proposes some sort of advanced technological civilisation that has converted 5/6ths of the stars in the galaxy to Dyson spheres and moved them out of the plane of the galaxy? I think your razor needs sharpening. And as for the author ...

Probably the fan bearings or something.

These are not the assumptions that special relativity is based on. We already know that times and distances are observer dependent and not necessarily the same for all observers. The thought experiment you are referring to (and making a bit of a hash of) is intended to demontrate that the concept of "at the same time" is also not the same for all observers. So if you say "at the same time" you need to specify which frame of reference this is in (I think that if you go back to Einstein's orginal description, you will find he does that). Similarly, you need to specify which frame of reference you are referring to when you say where the lightning strikes happen (again, I think you will find Einstein does this). Correct. This contradicts what you previously said. This has nothing to do with the movement (or otherwise) of the source. It is purely that the man on the train is moving towards (and away from) the place where the lightning strike happened. As you previously said. Of course it isn't. This is a thought experiment, therefore it cannot prove or disprove anything. It is purely a teaching aid (failed in this case, apparently). Then maybe you shouldn't have reproduced it. I am not familiar with physicsforums but some forums don't allow people to present "personal theories". You might have had a better reception if you had presented your confusion as a question, rather than appearing to try and show relativity wrong. I don't mean to be rude, but that is obvious. I also don't get why you think your failure to understand something means that a very well-tested and practically useful theory should be wrong. I think you might need to reconsider where the problem is. Your computer wouldn't work if special relativity were wrong. It is an example of argumentum ad absurdum; you set up a scenario and show that you get contradictory results and therefore one or more of the assumptions must be wrong. This pedagogical example is not intended to prove anything, merely to explain it. Also, science never proves things. It can only disprove them (if that). Maybe you should start a new thread called, "Could someone help me understand relativity of simultaneity" I find videos completely unhelpful, but I know some people like them so maybe this will help:

I am really not sure what you are trying to say. The experiment was carried out to test the predictions of quantum theory: specifically, how the wave function changes over time. The experiment was found to be completely consistent with the calculations of the theory. What has this got to do with myths or mysticism? The experiment may be in conflict with your (apparently very confused) understanding of theory but I don't suppose anyone cares about that. The entire reason for publishing the experiment in a peer reviewed science journal is to encourage scrutiny and criticism from experts, and to get others to try similar experiments. I don't know about anyone else here, but I am certainly not qualified to comment on the validity of the experiment. (I will repeat: if you had posted this in the appropriate forum, you might have got answers from people with a greater level of understanding. Perhaps you should use the "report" function and ask a moderator to move it.)

Do you hear a sloshing noise?

There was a recent experiment which used weak measurements to minimize the observer effect to almost zero. They showed that the measurements were still limited by uncertainty. (I will have a look, but I doubt I can find it again...) Edit: this might have been it: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-measurement/uncertainty-over-the-uncertainty-principle (the conclusions are somewhat subtler than I remembered).

There is a "gross" adjustment made in the design of the satellites by setting the clocks to run slower than an Earth-bound reference. This means that the regular adjustments made from the ground are much smaller. The satellites are adjusted to stay synchronised to the Earth's coordinate system. The receivers then have to adjust for any further differences between the satellites (the receiver has to use at least 4 satellites to calculate its position) and the receiver's frame of reference (which may not be the same as the Earth reference).