Strange

Different observers could differ in their calculation of the age of the universe in their frame of reference. But ... 1. Any difference would be smaller than the errors in the estimated age so are not practically relevant. 2. We use "co-moving coordinates" to define the age, not our own frame of reference. If all observers were to convert their measurements to the same coordinate system, then they would agree on the age. 3. As both the relativity of time and the Big Bang model are derived from the same mathematical model it is not possible for them to be in contradiction.

Define “best”. Largest? Smallest? Prettiest? ! Moderator Note Moved to The Lounge

Is that a quotation? If so, you should provide the source. What image are you talking about?

That is not a programming language, it is an IDE.

Lots of things are unstable. If you mean that "a state consisting of no mass or energy" is unstable, then you need to provide some evidence of this. Are you saying that spacetime is fermionic? You will need to provide some evidence for this, too. Citation needed.

So as I suspected, a version of solipsism: https://www.britannica.com/topic/solipsism This is one of those rather "empty" philosophical ideas that can never be proved or disproved. Similar to the idea that the universe was created 15 minutes ago, but made to look billions of years old. Nothing can falsify the idea, but nothing can confirm it. (Which is why this is in Philosophy, rather than a science section.) These ideas may have some use for training peoples reasoning and critical thinking skills, but no one seriously tries to say they are true. (Well, obviously, almost nobody.) I would turn these questions around. If there are other consciousness (etc.) how can this theory be correct? Other problems: the universe appears to be very hard to understand. Most people cannot understand quantum theory or general relativity. So how can their (our?) consciousness create something they cannot understand? If the author hasn't managed to convince you in an entire book, I doubt anyone on a science forum can (where people will naturally be sceptical of the idea).

Quantum field theory incorporates special relativity. So you need to prove, in mathematical detail, that quantum field theory still works when space is quantised. (I am willing to bet it doesn't.) Also, we already know that GR does not work is space is quantised. So you need some sort of replacement for GR as well as replacing all of quantum theory. And, where is the evidence that space is quantised? If you are saying it is quantised on the scale of matter waves, we should be able to see it, easily. This is the scale of macroscopic objects.

No. It is an assertion. Where is the mathematical model? Where is the mathematical, quantitative (ie. numbers) prediction? Where is the evidence? According to my assertion: you are wrong. See how that works?

Stop making these baseless claims. If you are not able to provide support for your ideas, then a science site may not be the place for you. I can prove your claim wrong by using exactly the same amount of evidence, theory and logic that you have: no it isn't. So, how does science resolve this problem? It requires a new theory to (1) have a mathematical model, (2) make testable (ie quantifiable) predictions using that model, and then (3) show that experimental/observation evidence is consistent with those predictions. You have not done any of those three things. All you do is make claims with no supporting theory or evidence. After two pages of this, I think it may be time to close this thread.

So you are saying that all of quantum theory is wrong. Bold. Why? You are very fond of making these baseless assertions. You need to provide some reason why you believe this is related to simultaneity. And, as there is only one particle, what events are you measuring the simultaneity of?

That is not science.

There is no evidence that space is quantised (experiments have looked for it).

That is not possible. If time is not quantised and space is not quantised, then velocity is not quantised. Therefore relativity of simultaneity is not quantised. It isn't. Obviously.

That is not a very good article. It doesn't really explain that the important problem is the difference between measuring the Hubble constant from the red-shifts of distant galaxies versus the cosmic microwave background. This discrepancy has been known about for quite a long time. This study just reduces the possibility of errors in the red-shift measurements. I think this is a better overview: https://astronomynow.com/2018/07/13/cosmic-mystery-deepens-with-conflicting-measurements-of-hubble-constant/

it could be tidal effects, if we are looking at the alignment of the Sun and Moon. There has been research into whether there is any correlation between the tides and earthquakes. Because, one might imagine a fault line that is at a critical level of stress where it just takes a "butterfly's wing" to tip it over the edge. The last thing I read suggested there might be a correlation, but it is very weak effect if it exists at all. Certainly not enough to predict earthquakes.

You should reference the source for this. All I can add to this discussion is this analysis: From: https://xkcd.com/435/

! Moderator Note You probably need to explain what Biocentrism is before asking these questions. From your questions, it sounds like a version of solipsism. It also doesn't sound like it belongs under Physics. I will move it to Philosophy

! Moderator Note Welcome to the forum. I have moved this to the Speculations forum because, as you admit, it is not mainstream science. Please read the specific rules for this section f the forum: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

I was also going to mention the difficulty it describes of how a "population" is defined for something like viruses. The same applies to all species, where we apply artificial boundaries, but is more extreme in the case of viruses and many single celled organisms where horizontal gene transfer is important (often mediated by viruses!)

https://www.quantamagazine.org/scientists-discover-nearly-200000-kinds-of-ocean-viruses-20190425/

The differing responses of people is due to both genetics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_histocompatibility_complex) and previous exposures.

! Moderator Note Asking for medical advice is off topic for this forum. Check with your doctor if you are worried.

There is no science here. Just meaningless waffle. As you have no model and no evidence I will suggest this thread is closed.

Sprayed it with coffee?

The half-life is longer than the life of the universe. That means the time it would take for half the atoms in a sample to decay. You can calculate the half-life from looking at the rate at which atoms decay without having to wait for one half-life. 1.8x1022 is 18,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ie 18 sextillion years. The universe is merely 1.38x1010 = 13,800,000,000 ie. 13.8 billion years old.