Strange

Who does “their” refer to? I couldn’t get any further. It is totally illegible on my display.

I preferred to ask for a definition. But there you go, we don’t always get what we want.

You could use google ...

The entire universe has always been uniformly full of matter. In the past that was a hot, dense quark-gluon plasma that filled all of space. As the universe expanded and cooled, that plasma cooled and allowed atoms to form, and then structures, etc. You seem to think there was a ball that exploded and filled space. That is not correct. As far as we know, the universe beyond the observable universe is exactly the same as the observable universe. It is not clear what you are calculating: area, radius, diameter? Anyway, the radius is just proportional to the mass: [math] r_s = \frac{2 G M}{c^2} [/math] ... [1] The estimated mass of the observable universe is about 1053 kg [2], which gives a black hole radius of about 1.6 x 1010 light years (so it looks like you were calculating dimeter?) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius [2] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/579-what-is-the-mass-of-the-universe-intermediate

Quantum field theory is based on special relativity (which is what swansont was referring to). But, yeah, you understand it perfectly.

It is up to you to provide support for your claims. You have also moved the goalposts. Reported as a sock puppet.

I had never heard of “finitism” before. If anyone else is in that fortunate position, you can confirm your worst fears about philosophy as an academic subject here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism I do have a lot of respect for proper philosophy. But not this sort of junk.

I think you will find you are wrong there. It has been put on a firm mathematical basis. Your faith just won’t let you understand that. How can an “eternalist” think time has an end? That sounds like a contradiction. I think you need a new name for your religion.

So you have an entire thread about your quasi-religious beliefs about it but you are unable to say precisely what it is. I think this tells us all we need to know. So you are arguing for the non existence of a meaningless concept. Then why do you keep banging on about it. Note that is only you. No one else ever brings it up. So you are arguing against an undefined straw man. Why?

What evidence do you have for a connection between IQ and wealth of countries? But if there is such a correlation, then poverty as a factor seems plausible. As far as I know, nutrition has a far greater effect on IQ than genetics does.

Maybe that is because the concept is so poorly defined as to be meaningless. Can you provide a meaningful definition in your own words - not copying from that Wikipedia page you keep linking to (which I’m sure you don’t actually understand). I think everybody knows that. So how is it relevant or useful to say it?

I have seen lots of studies on this (and it isn’t even a subject I know much about). The problems in developing countries are not to do with IQ. It is more to do with good government, corruption, education, health care, etc.

Obviously one can use a form of set theory where there are no infinite sets. Presumably, that set theory has limitations that limit its use (like not being able to argue about the set of natural numbers or reals)? Hence the introduction of the axiom of infinity.

That is the reason that the axiom of infinity is, uhm ... axiomatic.

To oneself or the building?

Einstein was aware of the Big Bang model. Before that, he preferred the idea of a static (ie. temporally infinite) but spatially finite universe. After the Big Bang model was developed, he dropped the idea of the static universe (it is unstable) but I don't know if he changed his view about whether it was spatially finite or not. The eternal inflation model does assume that each "bubble universe" is finite. Because of the odd nature of infinity, it is (I think) possible to have a multiverse of infinite universes. Whether it is physically realistic or not, is something else. It is probably better not to think of it as an "event" (or at least, not a "creation" event from nothing). Otherwise you end up with problems like this.

The notional singularity in the Big Bang model (which almost certainly does not represent any physical reality) was not at the “centre” of the universe. It is as, if anything, the entirety of the universe at that time.

No. It is well defined. And it is also infinite. Well, if the universe is infinite ... Look, no one cares if you want believe that the universe is finite. After all, it might be. Just stop trying to justify your faith with spurious logic. You are as bad as a creationist.

Thanks for looking that up. (I was too lazy at the time!) They seem to have a limited number of fixed functions. I was thinking more of the "universal" TV remotes which can be set to use one of a large number of different command sets. They could be hardwired but might be easier to make using a simple programmable controller.

Just teasing a little, maybe. I will sometimes complain as well, if people ignore what seem to be sensible questions intended to move the discussion forward.

Excellent answer, @Prometheus On the radio this morning, they were talking about golf (apparently a popular sport, for incomprehensible reasons) and that there is no real peak age. Apparently, people can keep playing and winning major competitions into their middle age and beyond. (Experts: Feel free to correct this; whenever golf is discussed they switch to a different language so I'm never quite sure what is going on.)

Interesting suggestion. The first Google hit for "physical peak" has four definitions. Which one are you referring to? Also, I notice that the search results include a lot related to age. Perhaps you should use google to get an answer.

I didn't think he was responding to you. (But I know how touchy you are about people not replying to you, so maybe better to pretend he was. )

What does"physical peak" mean? How do you measure it? What units is it measured in? If you want a scientific answer, you need to ask a scientific question. You said it is measured in age. So is, you know, age. So by this definition of "physical peak" it equals age.

They are not “designed” for anything.