Strange

I would say logic/reason is one of the tools we use to understand the universe. Suggesting there is logic behind the universe implies some sort of intelligence behind it. There is no evidence for that.

Nope.

And then he blames the victims for what he has done. So perhaps not just evil but a psychopath.

OK. Lets take gravity as an example.Our best theory of gravity is described by the Einstein field equations: [math]R_{\mu \nu} - \tfrac{1}{2}R \, g_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G }{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}[/math] So when you say "where is that", what exactly do you mean? It is there on the page in front of you. You can find it in text books. Some people hold it in their heads. But you won't find it written in space. So what are you asking? BTW if you want a good overview of what the equations mean, you can find it here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ There is some math, but you can understand a lot even if you just skip that.

I think you have blown your chances, there. I don't even know what you want to know. What do you mean by "the laws of the universe"? What sort of answer do you expect to this question? "Behind the sofa"? "The dog ate them"? "In our heads"? Where are the laws of the USA? This doesn't make any sense. It is a meaningless question.

In text books. Oh the irony.

Why not? There is a large amount of experimental and observational evidence out there you could use. Also, if you have no evidence, then you have no basis for whatever claims you are making, and therefore shouldn't;t be making them. Then why try and make claims about a subject you don't understand. Spend your time studying instead of making stuff up. I know it is harder, but it is more rational. How can you find flaws in something that you admit you don't understand? If you think you have seen a flaw, shouldn't your first question be: "Is this something I don't understand?" Isn't that more likely than the idea that millions of people (who do understand it) have not spotted the flaw? Why do you expect the moderators of a forum to give you answers? Wy don't you go and study the subject? And there are plenty of real scientists looking at models for sub-particles. Why don't you go and look at their work, which will be based on real physics. Surely that would be better than making things up about a subject you don't understand? How can that possible be useful? As far as I can see, you have been given perfectly satisfactory answers. Either you don't understand them or you just reject them because you don't like them. Neither of these is an acceptable reason. So don't try and blame others for your wilful ignorance, refusal to learn and intransigence.

There is no reason to think it did. But you jump around from one subject to another like this all the time. There does seem to be. That is what we try and capture in our theories and laws. No you aren't. You are repeating your opinion over and over but not providing any evidence to support it. That is the definition of soapboxing. You have repeatedly copied the Wheeler quote, even though it is hard to see its relevance. You repeatedly assert that your "pixels" idea can do things that it cannot. You repeatedly ask the same questions then ignore the answers.

Why do you think they need to be enforced? You are going round in circles just endlessly repeating the same things. You provide no evidence to support your opinions. You do not engage in discussion. You refuse to answer questions. You refuse to explain your idea. Reported for soapboxing.

Why does it need enforcing?

I think this is one of Christianity's big problems. They don't really have an explanation. They sometimes try and fudge it with free will ("its your fault") or "God moves in mysterious ways" (in other words, "we don't have a clue"). Other religions have plausible explanations; such as there is a good god and an evil god (or several gods of each type). Of course, that just pushes the question back to why this gods are good and evil. The obvious answer is because they were invented by humans.

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/index.php

You are the one claiming you can do it. Do you have any comments on my answer to your question? Was it too long? Are you only able to respond to single sentences?

Nonsense. Do you have any comments on my answer to your question? Or was it too sensible for you? Are you not interested in a serious discussion? Or do you just want to repeat your opinions endlessly, pretending they have some basis? No you can't.

Any maybe our math is not able to fully describe the universe. Who knows. But you can't prove it doesn't exist. So you are still just repeating the same claim without evidence. This is just reaching your personal (religious?) beliefs. Stop it. Not all of them. The universe may be finite or infinite. No one knows and it makes no difference to cosmology. And unsubstantiated beliefs are akin to religion. Your belief that the universe is finite is basically a religious belief.

The Himalayas are not a crater. They are also successfully explained by plate tectonics. Apart from that, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I would turn this around: why wouldn't things behave the same wherever (and whenever) they are? After all, location (and time) can only be defined relative to something else, so objects don't "know" where they are and wouldn't "know" how to behave if the rules changed in different places and times. Also, the rules being the same in time and space nicely results in conservation of energy and momentum. I'm not sure why you think there is a problem. But perhaps you think there is some sort of "communication" problem: perhaps the rules need to "transmitted" from one place to another so they can be the same everywhere? If so, that is similar to the questions: why is the universe uniformly full of matter and why is everywhere the same temperature (on average)? The answer to these questions might also answer your question: the universe used to be much smaller. It was always completely full of matter, even when it was tiny. And it was small enough for everything to reach the same temperature. And, I guess, this would allow the rules to "settle down" to be the same everywhere before space expanded and took the rules with it. Does that make sense? So, rules were never "added" to empty space, in the same way that matter was never added to empty space. There never was any empty space. And all of spaces was once all in one place (or very close together, at least). (Unfortunately, this explanation depends on the Big Bang model which you don't accept. But as you have no basis for not accepting it, other than your emotional dislike of it, we can ignore that.)

Why?

Then you will have a long wait. That is not science's answer. Not sure why you think it would be. Why is it a problem? In text books. They are a human invention.

And yet again, you have changed the subject instead of engaging in discussion. This thread will not remain open long. Why is it the most important problem in physics? I can't see it making a significant difference to anything. We don't even know if it is true. So far the evidence is consistent with physics being the same everywhere but that may be a limitation of our measurements. And things might be different beyond the observable universe. (In which case we will never know.) You are unable to explain why the laws of physics are the same everywhere so there seems little point talking about it.

Your opinion is that the universe is pixellated or cellular. This is an opinion because there is no evidence for it. Note that the idea has been suggested many times (so this is not some great insight you have come up with). And then people have come up with mathematical models based on the idea (something you have failed to do). They have then used these models to make testable (quantitative) predictions (again something you cannot do). Experiments have then been done to test these predictions. No evidence for the pixellated nature of space has been found so far. This process is called "science". Asserting that your idea must be right because it seems obvious to you is not called science. This is a science forum. Do you see where the problem is? By your definition of "objective fact" as in the table example, we should all be able to see and agree that the universe is pixellated, but in fact we can't. So it is not a fact. As you say there are only two choices, it must therefore be opinion. And can you use this to calculate the orbital height of a geostationary satellite? That would allow us to check the accuracy of your theory. Then you are on your way to getting this thread closed and maybe banned from the forum. That seems a very silly attitude.

We know that. If the point you are trying to make is that you cannot treat infinity as a number (in combination with the natural numbers, for example) then obviously this is correct. As pointed out in the article linked in your OP. Of course, there is arithmetic defined on the trans-finite numbers. Properties of the natural number system don't define the nature of the universe.

It follows naturally from the definition of the natural numbers

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. But it doesn’t appear to be related to the topic of the thread. Please stop posting irrelevant nonsense.

They seem almost as bizarrely off topic as your initial rant. But maybe you can explain what, exactly, each of them has to do with the topic. It is not my job to look for support for your nonsense. What are you on about? What has this got to do with the topic? (But yes, I can see that you were disguising a pathetic personal attack with this little fantasy.)