Strange

But when you are out walking with 1 dog, you are also walking with 0 cats.

That is all we ask. You need to quantify this. As we know the mass in our local environment, we can calculate the amount of gravitational time dilation it will cause. If you do that, you will find that: 1. It is too small 2. It is in the wrong direction (blue rather than red shift) 3. It is independent of distance. And this doesn't appear to have any connection with including "mind" in the theory.

Let’s take a physical example: a £1 coin. The number of them I have is 0; in other words 1x0 = 0 pounds.

So 18 years after Einstein did this (for which he got the Nobel prize). I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. No one is denying that light is quantised. Really?

The properties of zero are defined by the rest of the axioms. Why do you think they do?

It is possible to formally define, and prove, the properties of numbers, and the operations on them, starting from a few basic examples. One of the first examples was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

It is one the ways that we perceive the curvature of space-time in the presence of mass. As an analogy, imagine two people walking forwards, side by side, on a flat plane. Their paths will remain parallel over time. In fact, we can consider the direction they are walking as the "time" dimension (they are moving steadily into the future) and the distance between them as a space dimension. On the the flat plane, the distance between them doesn't change over time. Now put them on the surface of the Earth and have them both walk towards the North Pole. As they move forwards (in time) they get closer together. No force is acting on them, it is just a consequence of the curved geometry they are travelling in. You can consider them falling towards one another because of the gravity of the curved space-time they are in. More here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/einstein.html

Why? You admit it won't make any difference to the results, so it is unnecessary (see also: Occam's Razor).

You said there could not be any observations. Therefore it is not science. It has already been explained several times in this thread (and hundreds of times in your own stupid thread) why science does not require faith. If you are incapable of understanding this, I think you should find a more appropriate forum.

I don’t think many people understand the relationship between photons and the wave. (I’m not entirely sure I do!) A lot of people seem to think a photon is one cycle, for example.

Really? You are struggling with basic arithmetic now? This and your moronic comments about religion suggest a science site is not the best place for you.

Then it’s not science. Stop posting such stupid comments. If this happens then theory is adjusted or replaced.

I think the distinction being made is between the classic view (light slows down) and the quantum view (photons don't individually).

What did you expect? That you would say what you believed and everyone would fall down in awe and follow you like a prophet? So you have, like every other Creationist, simply repeated things that you have been told are false: There was no singularity We can know things without having to witness them directly. Following the evidence is not faith Didn't your mum ever tell you that repeating things that are not true is called "lying" and it is wrong? Just like science. Why repeat another lie? ("100% certainty and no doubt whatsoever") What is wrong with you? Do you belong to The Church of Jesus Christ Compulsive Liar? Of course not. Science doesn't work that way. (As you have been told several times.) I wish this were true. I really do. I would love to help you understand the universe (your god's creation) better. But I know you are not interested in learning anything.

PaulP, can I suggest that before responding you think about what you say so do not repeat (again) things that you have already been told are not true. For example: Science is never 100% certain about anything. Science doesn't deal in "truth". We don't need to be at the scene of a crime to work out what happened. We don't need to reproduce something in a lab to test it. We don't need faith to compare mathematical predictions with observations. Science doesn't say the universe was created. Science doesn't say the universe was created from nothing. Science doesn't say anything happens by "pure chance". And so on. I hope you are here to learn, rather than just preach at us. I will be very disappointed if you turn out to be yet another Creationist who lies for their religion and refuses to accept corrections to their mistaken ideas. I mean, honestly, is their god proud of them for deliberately lying?

I thought he meant "us old geezers".

Yes. The Big Bang is a mathematical model about the expanding universe. It makes many detailed predictions, many of which have been tested. We have simulated it, yes. As for actually "doing it in a laboratory" that is a silly objection only used by people who don't understand science. Yes. Galaxies and stars in various stages of development have been seen. But, again, you are relying on a rather dishonest depiction of how science should work. Science NEVER claims absolute truth. (Only religion does that.) We are observing it now. And we do know with a high degree of accuracy. Your arguments based on your personal ignorance of the subject, and how science works, are not very compelling. We cannot know 100%, certainly. But it doesn't require "faith" to accept the evidence.

There is zero evidence it came from nothing. (It is a popular hypothesis but there is no evidence for it.) There is zero evidence the universe was created at all. No one believes that. One is a mathematical result that says we don't know what happened. The other is a guess about what happened.

Why do you need to assume 5 dimensions? Four seems enough. None of the rest of your post refers to 5 dimensions. Nope. A photon doesn't have a valid frame of reference so you can't make this assumption. If you assume that a photon has a valid frame of reference you get nonsensical results like other photons have to be moving at the speed of light relative to it. Even if they are all moving together. And you end up dividing by zero. No.

Most scientists acknowledge that we don't know if it began and, if it did, how. So no faith involved. (Unless you think that saying "I don't know" is a statement of faith. But that would be weird.) Still nonsense, for the reasons stated above. Nope. Science is based on evidence. And why does it have to be an either/or? Why not accept reality and keep your faith? Science doesn't prove anything. It comes up with detailed, mathematical descriptions and then compares them against observation.So we know the model matches reality. You can of course, ignore that. So there is overwhelming, and very detailed, evidence for how the universe went from a hot dense plasma to the current state we see. The fact you choose to ignore that (as you have chosen to ignore the answers to your first post) just shows how narrow minded you are. I imagine your god face-palming as he reads what you write.

As Mr Skeptic hasn't visited for 7 years, let me have a go... Axiom 1: The natural numbers are defined to start at 1 Axiom 2: 0 is defined to be the first natural number. There you go. Two reasonable axioms that contradict one another and so can't be used at the same time.

There is an extension to Einstein's theory called Einstein-Cartan theory which includes torsion; this (apparently) removes singularities from black holes and the early universe. (And that is all I know about it!)

Torsion. That’s the word I was trying to think of.

So what. No one is doing this. You are making ridiculous claims based on near total ignorance. The age is defined relative to whatever clock you choose to use. The age is different in seconds and years. Does that mean there is "no definable age"? Of course not. There is no absolute age. A photon is not a valid reference frame. No it isn't. It is not a valid reference frame. There is no absolute reference. No it doesn't. For example, if the two observers are moving relative to one another then they will measure the photon having different energy (or wavelength). Similarly, if they are at different gravitational potentials. There are no measurements that can be made independently of a reference frame. Stop lying.

Some materials (e.g brittle rocks) will shear before they can be distorted by twisting. I wonder what the technical term in materials science is for deformation caused by twisting? I wonder if there are rocks that are malleable enough to be twisted without shearing or shattering?