Summations Only

I'll let others comment on the physical laws stuff for awhile. If cavediver or Son Goku don't show up, I'll bring the physics later. I'd likely start with a discussion of SN1987A.But I did want to comment on this alternate reality stuff, because I see a contradiction. You postulate an alternate reality that is undetectable, yet has noticeable and significant impact on this universe. I think such a concept is an oxymoron. Non-physical beings with a physical impact sounds like just magic to me.

How is commanding matter into existence not magic simply by nature of who does the commanding or when the commanding was done? I think you are trying hard to make a difference where none exists.

That's magic with star trek technobabble attached to it.

As best as I can tell, this statement is nonsensical and untrue. Nobody considers mathematics to be empirical. Mathematics is used to model, to encapsulate the logic of an argument or the description of a theory, and to make predictions from a hypothesis, among other things. Accordingly, scientists rightly find mathematics useful as an aid to communication and thinking.But nobody [make than nobody credible] believes that mathematics is a substitute for actual observation.If you believe that there is an improper use of mathematics in science, I'd appreciate reading your citation of an example of such a misuse. Perhaps then I will understand why your original statement is not pure nonsense.

Really? Which galaxies have atoms that emit light at tiny fractions of the frequencies of their modern counterparts? My understanding is that the largest red shifts ever measured cannot be characterized as shifting visible light by this amount.See below for some example observations and calculations:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/redshf.htmlEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It is interesting enough to know that the speed of light in as measured using modern days is a constant. That means that when we measure the distance to objects in modern units, we can know that the distance to those objects is enough to prove that light from those objects could not have reached us in only 6000 years.Note that the distance to distant objects is NOT measured using the speed of light at all, but is determined independently of the speed of light. With few exceptions, we cannot obtain any direct measure of the flight time of photons from distant astronomical objects. So your purported linkage is simply wrong. There is a sense in which the above statement is correct, and another in which it is completely wrong and off-base.While it is true that the current definition of the meter is based on a a distance light travels, that current definition is not the definition that was in use when the constancy of the speed of light was observed experimentally back in the late 19th century. So we know that your conclusion that constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum is only an artifact of our current method of defining the meter is completely wrong. We know from history that constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum was established first, and only then used to define the meter.We also know that making the assumption that the speed of light is constant and that the laws of physics are invariant in form, with no other assumptions, leads directly to the predictions of special relativity which have been verified in countless experiments. So we are not simply guessing and making assumptions regarding the constancy of the speed of light. We know.As for your observation of local clocks nonsense. We have observed that even local clocks (meaning clocks at relatively short distances) vary in rate as predicted by special and general relativity. That is, we know from observation that that clock frequencies do vary both because of the velocity of the source relative to us, and because of difference in gravitational field potential for distances of only a few hundred feet. So we know that the variation in the speed of clocks as observed from our reference frame is not simply a function of distance. We also have observed that for those clocks which appear to run slow in our inertial reference frame, do not seem to run slow from reference frames in which they are at rest.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well no. You are making this stuff up. Einstein did not imagine that gravity was a force at all. Where are you getting this nonsense?

I don't know your motivation, but your nonsense is not supported by observation or evidence.As a matter of fact, galaxies, as viewed from earth, may show either red shift or blue shift. And in fact there are galaxies which present both red shift and blue shift (and of course no shift at all) from different portions.The Andromeda galaxy is 2.6 million light years away from earth and yet exhibits a blue shift. That alone ought to cause you to do some re-thinking.The redshift and blueshift of distance galaxies is well understood, and predicted by real cosmology including general relativity. On the other hand, by your own admission, your nonsense posturings do not explain ancient blue-shifted galaxies. You are spouting nonsense. No Einstein did not imagine that vacuum was bent. What would that even mean? So what? Have you ever fallen while skating and hurt your boom-boom? Did you really mean to talk about gravity waves? You are clueless. Absolutely clueless.Have you ever calculated the net work involved in causing a body to travel in a Newtonian circular orbit? As a hint, the body returns each orbit to positions having exactly the same gravitational potential with the body having the same kinetic energy on each orbit. The calculation should not take you too long. Answer in ergs, please. Let's be brutally frank about godsriddle. People with goofy, but hard to disprove crank physics formulations can be found all over the internet. You have not yet managed to attain the loft status as certified internet crank, despite having your own crank's page. Your nonsense is easily identified as nonsense. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You have got a bit over-zealous here. We cannot "see" this far back using any known means.

Time wise, I'd suggest that the CMBR dates from several hundred thousand years after the period of huge expansion from whatever was present initially. Prior to that time the universe would have been opaque.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your claim was that we can see the singularity. Even 13 billion years ago is hundreds of millions of years after the big bang.I'm not even willing to commit to there ever having been a singularity. The universe was once hotter and littler, but who knows what existed at T=0? I surely don't.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Uh, say what?? Can we, in fact, look back to find something devoid of matter? Does a plasma of ionized particles not count as matter? Because we cannot look back past the point when matter became largely un-ionized and transparent to light.That would have been well after any singularity, as the term might be understood by anyone who was not reading the face saving redefinition of the term you are using, would have existed.

You didn't encounter Mr. riiddle's crank page? This tripe is all over it.

Hilarious!

FWIW, I did follow the link.The link leads to more of exactly the same stuff about atoms shining with a different light, galaxies connected with rivers of hydrogen crap that you can read over and over again in the Riddler's posts here.Please don't encourage him to paste that tripe into yet another EvC post.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.