Strange

They are not an "improvement" on the EFE, they are a solution of the EFE. There is no reason the FLRW metric should explain that. The FLRW metric only applies to a homogeneous distribution of mass. On the other hand, simulations do predict the shape of clusters pretty well. Again, nothing to do with the FLRW metric but we have no reason to think that gravity works any differently at the subatomic scale, so I don't know what your point is. Well, there is gravitational lensing. That is the only effect of gravity on the cosmic background that I am aware of. And explained by GR. Then you had better come up with some maths and some evidence for this.

Then she is almost certainly wrong. (The theory has come on a long way since Darwin and there are mechanisms known now that weren't known to him, etc. But, basically, he was right.) I am not going to waste my time watching a video. Please let me know the scientific journal where this work is published.

You seem to use the word "logic" to mean "it makes sense to me". This sort of "common sense" approach is the antithesis of science.

No. But your arguments just consist of a series of unsupported assertions and personal beliefs. Not a good way to do science.

Citation needed.

Why? Why can't it be without cause, as so many things seem to be at the quantum level? But I assume you will just say, "they must all have a cause even if we don't know what it is yet". Just to bolster your personal preference in the face of Science.

It is an average. (Of the top of my head, I'm not sure what the spread is.) I don't know if that is better or worse for your case.

Citation needed. Citation needed.

Assuming that something exists for which there is no evidence, so you can use it as evidence to support your initial premise... Still begging the question.

If there were an absolute frame of reference, then that frame of reference would see the same speed of light as every other frame of reference. However, there is no reason to think that there is any such absolute frame, is there?

You still seem to think they are either particles or waves. You need to get over that. But the answer is that a proportion of photons would be absorbed passing through the slit. The proportion that are absorbed is exactly the same as the proportion of energy that would be absorbed if you treat it as continuous waves. But any individual photon will either get through or be totally absorbed. (Because they are quanta.) QED tells you how to work out what proportion of the photons will be absorbed.

No. But I am not talking about the decay itself. A muon, for example, is unmoving and unchanging for a period of time and then it decays. So time passed for it with no motion involved.

Of course not. Cesium clocks, used to define the second, do not involve motion. Decay of fundamental particles does not involve motion. A space-time universe can be defined with no energy or matter: by definition it includes time but with nothing to move. And so on, and so on. Unless your definition of "movement" is "anything vaguely related to time in any way whatsoever". In which case, I refer you again to "Begging the Question." Furthermore, any argument you make about time being dependent on movement is equally true of space. So if neither space nor time can exist without movement, then how can movement occur?

Because of the varying density of the Earth, the force of gravity initially increases slightly and then decreases to zero at the centre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Depth

So your argument is that: 1. Time depends on movement. 2. Muons appear to have no internal parts but still "experience" time 3. Therefore muons must have internal structure. 4. Because muons have internal structure, this supports the argument that time depends on movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Radioactive decay. (Which is also one small contribution to mutations and therefore diversity.)

Indeed. If string theory is correct.

Good point!

There are a number of problems with this idea. Large lumps of matter would be heated by radiation and would then emit their own thermal radiation. As there would have to be a large amount of this "stuff", this would be detectable (even if any individual piece were too small to see). Also, they would tend to interact (virialize) and settle down into the plane of the galaxy; that is not how dark matter is distributed (because it doesn't interact except via gravity). My limited understanding is that over time they would collide and break up, likely forming a plasma and distinctive radiation. Also, where would all these large lumps of rock and ice come from? Remember that basically all elements above hydrogen come from supernovae. Note that many possibilities have been considered and tested for explaining dark matter. From clouds of gas, to dust, to larger objects, to black holes. None work, for a variety of reasons.

It wouldn't affect some things. For example, gravity would still work in the same way. But the material of the Earth would have to be implausibly dense and strong. Modern seismology allows us to "see" the interior of the Earth. It isn't hollow.

Didn't some guy called Einstein describe this in terms of the thermal movement of atoms? Are you (in your usual vague and evasive way) trying to say that atoms don't exist?

Hubble's observation was the first hint that this prediction of General Relativity was correct. The evidence that completely destroyed the alternative "steady state" theory was the discovery of the cosmic background radiation. It is kind of inevitable in GR. In the same way that lumps of mass will curve space time and cause the effect we perceive as gravity, in a homogeneous distribution of mass stuff will tend to move apart. (The early universe was thought to be homogeneous because it was too hot and dense for any structure to form and, on very large scales it is still homogeneous). There were no atoms at the earliest times we can talk about. I'm not sure if it is known exactly what there was. Something like a quark-gluon plasma, perhaps. Yes! Perfect. Our theories only go back so far. Before that, who knows. There is certainly no "creation" event in the theory. No significant differences that I am aware of. IT is a very advanced (and pretty complex) theory. It makes quantitative predictions (for example, the balance of different elements that should be present) which are largely correct. As with any theory there are things that are still not understood (e.g. why more matter than antim,atter, why more lithium than predicted, etc.) But that is what makes science fun. No one knows. It may be unknowable. I don't know. (But I doubt it.)

This is the fallacy known as "begging the question".

Well, that depends where that observer is and how they are moving with respect to the sun. Their observations will still be "apparent". Or equally "real". Are you talking about the Sun's movement around the galaxy? I tried. But when someone says something as silly as this ...

That may be true for the human definition and perception of time. Which, again, is pretty irrelevant. Decay of fundamental particles? For example, a muon will do nothing for about 20 microseconds and then decay. Nothing in the muon moved, because there is nothing in the muon to move.