Lasse

That is space. 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?

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

Than what is the speed of light?

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)

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.

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

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)=

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/

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)

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.

I can not at some level. Mathematics seems to be so fundamental. I think so too and I wonder why and how? Exactly this ability of precision and "infinite" option for application what amaze me about it. I agree with you. Zero mathematically perceivable. Does zero communicate information? What?

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

Yes. 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....

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

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.

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?

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...)

It is science until you apply it. The comment is not stupid. You might not understand it but that not makes it invalid. Specially when you do not reason. I trust this is true. I believe you.

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?

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

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...