Lasse

1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

But a timedimension always need a referenceframe;

That is space.

1 minute ago, Maartenn100 said:

observers will always disagree about the rate of time passage

True but how does the different observers could have impact on the fundamental age of the universe?

Lets assume you are 40 years old.

We ask 3 unknow persons: 5 years old Sara, 40 years old Jack and 70 years old Mary to guess your age. Sara says you are 28, Jack that you are 42 and Mary says you are 35.

Did your age changed because of their relative perception?

4 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Spacetime is, in my opinion (and I can be wrong) a non-dimensional conceptualised 4D-object.

We cannot measure it (only indirectly), we can only deduce it, mathematically. To us, it's pure a conceptualised non-dimensional idea of a 4D-object. Such an object has no spatial and timeproperties. It''s a Platonic entity, very real, even more absolute then our relativistic observations of space and time, but it can only be conceptualised.  Such a conceptualised object cannot expand. It has no dimensions. It's a concept. Very real, even more real then our observations, but it has no spatial or timeproperties.

You always need a (arbitrary chosen) reference frame to determine the velocity of an object, in my opinion.

In every reference frame, the laws of Newton (for motion) work just fine. There is no difference between my idea and scientific theories about motion.

I only say: all these statements about age and motion are relative, reference frame dependent. That's in line with the premisse of relativity. The use of a convention to define a frame to make universal statements about the universe is violiting the premisse of relativity. (see above).

The only purpose of theory of relativity is to better understand reality. Spacetime is part of the Natural Reality.

If spacetime does not expand and i quess by that you suppose it is infinite.

Could you explain, how every single physical entity observable has some velocity? What is the reason for the overall implied velocity in your theory, and which force maintain the observable and measurable velocities of any object?

10 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Only the speed of light is absolute, relative to every observer.

Isn't every observer can perceive it the same. Than it is not relative. 

10 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

There are three main constants in the universe:

an observer (a mind)

the speed of light

mathematical entity 4D-spacetime (non-dimensional conceptualised 4D-object).

The mind can not be constant. Mine is constantly changing...i learn and forget things... I do not get your concept...

Speed of light ok.

Space time is a physical entity expessible with mathematics. Could be 4D. 

To what?

10 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

no absolute standard for motion in the universe possible

Than what is the speed of light?

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

Some historians argue that The Protestant Reformation was necessary if the Renaissance was to be successful in Europe, as the movement was more inclined towards mankind's own

Protestant Reformation seeking the direct connection to God. The movement tried to clean the Christian religion from unnecessary aspects and seek to connect the individual directly to the Higher Intelligence (through Christianity) 

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is a problem with you, not zero. 

There is No problem with me or the concept of zero. My path to understand concepts is different from your path. What is important, that the concept is clear and easily perceivable. 

7 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

Where in nature and, specifically, how does that perspective support your belief?  

In every atom and electron present in the currently observable space time. I.e everything evolved to the current state through a continuous, cause and effect based process.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is nothing supernatural about zero. 

For you. For me it is even a bit mystic...

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

So, if it can be evidence of anything whatever, then it can't be evidence for your god.

The only supernatural I can perceive is the state of the physical zero. Everything else can be part of the system and choose your god or don't if you do not feel like. Aliens are God like Natural components  (for me)

Everything Nature has to offer Now has connection to the first moment of existence on the level of information (at least through spacetime.)

Whatever is there at the first moment, call it singularity, God, basic information, whatever, it will be part of nature if it is present at T0. 0*1(something)=

9 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 Unicorns as described in the Holy Bible are real and i can prove it... 

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=KJV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_rhinoceros

The whole Unicorn thing we usually think of is a medieval fantasy and nothing to do with the unicorn of the bible...   

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-unicorn.html

 

The whole unicorn concept is most likely based on rear observation of genetic mutations and their misinterpretation by humans.

Similar to the dinosaurs skeleton based dragon fantasies.....

http://www.momtastic.com/webecoist/2010/09/21/honking-their-horn-10-amazing-real-unicorns/

32 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

faith is needed in science

No. It point some of the gaps and inconsistencies Science has. (I.e separated physical and mathematical value recognition). I do not want to be religious. I want to know and understand because I think life is a possibility One can consciously use. 

Science serves Humanity and not humanity serves science.

Certain level of Consciousness every single individual has. Science can not just neglect that and give axiomatizations 99.99% of the population does not understand. (Tested ca 2000 sample)

6 hours ago, studiot said:

The mathematical object 'zero' follows certain rules (yes Peano's are as good as any) which require 1*0 = 0*1 = 0

Here comes the problem.

I can take anything around me. My dog walking with me in the forest. She is one in this spacetime even she constantly moving she is one inside of spacetime. 

If I assume that under the smallest possibly measurable time in this space Nothing happened with the dog how I could ever expect that her absolute biophysical values ever could degrade to mathematically zero information. 0. 

I can execute this thought experiment with everything from atoms to the universe itself.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Perhaps your difficulty is in failing to distinguish between Mathematics and Physics.

I can not at some level. Mathematics seems to be so fundamental.

6 hours ago, studiot said:

No thing in the physical world is quite a different concept from zero in Mathematics

I think so too and I wonder why and how?

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Numbers and equations are in the province of Mathematics, which deals in mathematical objects as precisely defined as we can make them

Exactly this ability of precision and "infinite" option for application what amaze me about it.

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Zero is such an object and therefore can be said to exist mathematically.

I agree with you. Zero mathematically perceivable. Does zero communicate information? What?

27 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Lasse, since you can't seem to accept standard definitions, and this bad habit leads you to make soapboxing statements like this one, I don't see how you're adding to the discussions here. You seem to be at odds with our purpose, which is to discuss science using critical thinking and rational discourse, not preaching and blogging and generally forcing your personal religious standards into every conversation. You like it or not, if you keep it up, you will be leaving.

Thank you for your correct handling. I keep your remarks is mind. I always tried... 

5 hours ago, Gees said:

Does anyone really want to know or discuss this?

Yes.

5 hours ago, Gees said:

And would they believe me if I tried to explain it? Not likely.

If you can concentrate your recognitions (write shorter) it should not be a problem. I am curious what you think. I understood you interest in consciousness.

I think at some level everything is conscious i.e. everything has a set of physical attributes determine the entities presence and fundamental functions. Ant vs human. Consciousness for me is the level of awareness about those attributes.

Consciousness needs reference points on the path of recognition. For me those are nothing (0) and everything (1). Anything what I can perceive, falls in between this two perceptions. Knowing them makes easier to set further reference points. For me....

11 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

What have you observed, experienced, or accomplished that supports your faith?  Is that support tangible? 

Nature. Yes it is.

We are at the edge of technological singularity. It could happen elsewhere a billion years ago...

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why do you think they do?

This you already well know.

Because 1*0=0 and physically 0 can not exist since there is something.

This is specially awkward when I describe anything from nature e.g a tree outside, with the natural number One (1) and determin just to observe it and do nothing (0, lack of information for operation) and I should expect that the tree which originally recognized with number One should be gone.

Note please that my observation of the tree, that there is one in the moment of observation, is true throughout the Universe. I.e anyone from anywhere could recognize the same tree with the right technological knowledge.

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is possible to formally define, and prove, the properties of numbers, and the operations on them, starting from a few basic examples. One of the first examples was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

 

0 is a natural number

I agree with that. The rest I need time to understand.

what is 0?

What 0 means in mathematics and physics? How and why the 2 recognize 0 differently. Isn't it a kind of inconsistency?

42 minutes ago, Strange said:

Really? You are struggling with basic arithmetic now?

This and your moronic comments about religion suggest a science site is not the best place for you. 

Mathematical clarity is a scientific necessity. 

The good thing is that my bit disturbed mathematical knowledge does not stop the clear and streight forward provable explanation of the axiom from your side. Which you constantly forget to do when you comment. I wonder why... (because it is a dogma you would try to protect and somewhere you know that...)

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Then it’s not science

It is science until you apply it.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Stop posting such stupid comments

The comment is not stupid. You might not understand it but that not makes it invalid. Specially when you do not reason. 

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

If this happens then theory is adjusted  or replaced

I trust this is true. I believe you. 

6 minutes ago, Bender said:

Why do so many religious people need to belief this? Are they ashamed of their faith? If they are not, why do they project it on those who have none?

Because the claimed scientific clarity and consistency between theory and observation is failing at some points and can be explained just by believes and faith.

Could anyone walk me through on this equation and what proves its validity?

7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

If they do not describe reality accurately they are not valid... 

I know... never observable(true), but widely accepted... 

11 hours ago, Strange said:

We don't need faith to compare mathematical predictions with observations

I can bring an infinite number of mathematical predictions whichones can not have a single observation.

Faith is needed in science you like it or not...