Strange

Welcome back, Markus! I assume the reason that Einstein specified the invariance of the speed of light as a separate thing, is because it was unexpected (and the time) and because it is key to deriving the Lorentz transform, etc.

That isn’t true. As far as we know, currently, the physics inside a black hole is the same as outside. Obviously we have no way of testing by this. And, if black holes are as described by HR, then we can never test it (or, we can but can never tell anyone outside what we found!) Obviously SR only applies in certain cases. But the speed of light is invariant in GR too, it is just less obvious what that means.

What do you base that on? ALL theories are approximations. In the cases where SR applies, yes. Otherwise it would make different predictions than SR and would therefore be wrong. Well, the benefit could be (or it could be a disadvantage) is that you appear to know more than you do by showing the equation for space-time intervals. But that isn't relevant: If you quote something it is good manners to both your audience and the person you are copying to (1) make it clear you are copying something and (2) provide the source.

There is no reasoning. You just believe it to be true. Please show the mathematical proof of this. Then you would need to provide evidence that consciousness has always existed. If it is not supernatural, then we should be able to use technology to detect and measure this higher power. When you have done that, you can come back with the evidence. Until then, claiming that "something created everything around consciousness" is supernatural. Can you show us the mathematical proof that they are statistically unlikely?

You may believe that, but I doubt many other people do. I am not about to start worshipping the Number 5 (and certainly not Number Twos). That is not "reasoning", it is just a statement of what you believe. What you said was: "Consciousness creates reality because consciousness creates reality". http://grammarist.com/rhetoric/begging-the-question-fallacy/ Nothing. As long as you accept it is just a baseless belief. There is no EVIDENCE for it and so no one else is going to accept it. Phi doesn't occur very often. Other numbers such as Pi and e do. But that is for very simple reasons to do with symmetry and so on. Now maybe you think symmetry is a "higher power"; it certainly seems to be fundamental to our understanding of the universe. But there is no reason to invoke god/superman/magic to explain it. It is only evidence for your gods if you already believe in them. I don't therefore I don't see it as evidence. If it were really evidence, then anyone seeing it would acknowledge that you were correct. That is how evidence works. It isn't evidence, it is just a (delusional?) belief. "Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. ... Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia Perhaps you can show us the mathematics behind this claim? Or is it just another baseless belief?

I wonder if that is a US thing. In the UK, I have heard it applied to men (by men) pretty frequently. It is just a swear word like any other.

Are there? Citation needed. Quoting something without credit is called plagiarism. It is generally considered a Bd Thing. Oh good grief, really... Here: It took a long time to convince you that you were wrong.

I did mean "no knowledge", thanks. You were told, repeatedly, that various observations of distant objects would give us information about the fundamental constants at that time. You refused, repeatedly (1) to accept that such differences occurred (2) or that we are actually observing effects from the past (3) invoked non-existent physics to hide any effects. I didn't say that you needed to provide a reference to the postulates of special relativity. But: YOU QUOTED SOMETHING. 1. It was not obvious you had quoted anything. I assumed that equation and the surrounding text was your own work. 2. Even if I suspected that you had quoted / copied something, I would have to do a Google search of the ENTIRE FRICKING WEB to try and work out where it had come from. If you quote something, provide the source. It is as simple as that.

Reading some of the comments on Twitter, I don't expect anything much to come of this... Sadly

Make sure you buy a flea treatment for a CAT ! (it may sound stupid, but some dog flea treatments are highly toxic to cats)

I have no idea what you mean by "number alignments". Synchronicity is superstitious nonsense. And, even if these tings existed, there could be multiple possible explanations. You would need (wait for it) EVIDENCE to decide between them.

It doesn't matter whether you call your belief "god" or "higher power" or "batman". It is just a belief. There is no evidence. And you have shown no reasoning beyond: "I believe therefore it must be true" There is no reasoning to refute. We get it. Really we do. You believe in god/higher-power/supeman/magic/whatever. So what? Until you have some evidence, we don't care what you believe.

Simply repeating your beliefs is not "reasoning". Reasoning would require an argument from generally accepted premises or axioms, using the rules of logic to reach conclusions that must be true of the premises are true. Your premise is simply that you believe in a god. Your "logical" argument is that, therefore a god must exist. This is called begging the question and is a logical fallacy.

There is nothing in the postulates that says they don't. But as we don't know anything about the universe at that time, we don't know if current theories apply or not. You may need a theory of quantum gravity (among other things) to describe the universe at that tine. No, SR does not apply in that situation. SR only applies in flat space-time. So, yes, we know SR is incomplete. That is why it is called "special" relativity. For a more complete theory (and to describe black holes) to need to use GR ("general" relativity). And, before you ask, yes general relativity is probably incomplete as well. That is in the nature of scientific theories. Asking questions is not the problem. Refusing to accept answers because you have knowledge of the subject and therefore no basis to reject them is the problem. You either need to accept current science (which means either learning it yourself, or taking on faith the answers of those who have) or you need to propose an alternative. I don't see what other choice there is. The trouble is, all these constants appear in multiple places and in different combinations. It is impossible to tweak them to get one result to stay the same but not have other results change. So, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is simpler to assume they haven't changed. Note that people have looked for evidence of fundamental constants changing over time. So it is not like there is some "dogma" meaning it can't be considered. It is just there is not evidence for this at the moment. Then you should have provided a link, or at least a reference. (I assume "wiki" means Wikipedia?) How is anyone supposed to guess that (a) you copied it from somewhere and (b) where from.

Nope. It’s just what you believe. And your claims of “reasoning” are totally bogus. Your only “reasoning” is to simply repeat what you believe. There is no reasoning. Therefore no value.

Obviously not. The whole reason that dark matter is proposed is to provide the missing mass in and around galaxies. This requires it to have normal (positive) mass. It causes gravitational lensing, which requires it to have normal (positive) mass. So your idea is dead in the water. Which is good because it means I don't have to wade through your incoherent and error filled nonsense.

That doesn't correspond to anything we see. So why did you say: How does it explain this? So you are just going to ignore all the conservation laws? What is it with anti-science crackpots and their dislike of any sort of education? I suppose it is too much like hard work to actually study science from a book? I guess it is easier to just make up stories, even if they bear no relation to reality. Do you think that studying science just mans memorising facts from books that must be true because "Einstein [or whoever] said so"? The whole process of studying science is learning how to test ideas to see if they work. This is, perhaps, the biggest problem with people proposing personal theories. It is not that they are ignorant of basic science (although that doesn't help) but they have no ability to question and check that an idea works before presenting it. Some may do. Many don't. It may surprise you to know, that scientists are a very varied bunch of human beings. Not that this is the least bit relevant to science or your personal theory. Well, obviously.Duh. The universe existed for billions of years before life arose. Why on Earth would anyone believe that? I guess some religious people might. But that has nothing to do with science. If the universe had an edge and a centre, then it would not be homogeneous and isotropic. And what would be beyond that edge? More space? Why wouldn't that be part of the universe? Having an edge makes no sense. Apart from that, we don't see the universe "imploding" (and your warped logic to "explain" how imploding means that things are getting further apart makes no sense, either). With that, I'll leave you to it. Maybe someone else will have something more constructive to say.

Absolutely. If Endercreeper01 preceded all their claims with "I believe ..." then I would have nothing to say. I would just shrug my shoulders and be amazed at human diversity!

You have provided no reasoning other than repeating your beliefs. (In three different threads.)

Yep. That's what I said: if you already believe in a god, then you will accept the arguments for a god. This is not a rational argument, it is just an assertion of your beliefs.

In other words, you only believe it if you already believe it. Reason and, in particular, logic is supposed to be independent of your beliefs. Clearly you believe that. But you haven't given any reason for anyone else to believe it. I don't care what you believe but you shouldn't just keep repeating your beliefs without providing some sort of justification.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/evidence-found-for-a-new-fundamental-particle-20180601/

As an outsider (who doesn't know much about most of the people involved) ... It is interesting because Samantha Bee used an extremely offensive word (one I would never use myself but which I hear fairly regularly) to insult someone. But the forcefulness of the word does not (in my opinion) make the insult much worse than if she had said "bitch" or "idiot". If I were in charge of the TV station, I might feel the need to suggest that she moderate her language but no more than that. One the other hand, none of the words used by Roseanne Barr are themselves taboo or offensive. However, what she said is so extraordinarily offensive that I find it hard to believe anyone would say it. It is completely and utterly indefensible. No apology after the fact can take away from that. I am not surprised that the show was cancelled instantly.

It may make some sense to you, but it makes no sense to me. And it making sense to you is not evidence and is not a logical or rational argument. It is just a statement of what you believe.

So it is just your personal belief. No reason for anyone else to take it seriously. That's fine.