Strange

If that were true, you would be able to construct a logical argument free of logical fallacies. That is not a philosophical implication, it is a scientific conclusion. Based on maths and evidence. Age is not defined for a photon. It does not have a valid frame of reference. And not all the properties are absolute. As you are a "philosopher" you will recognise your statement as argumentum ad ignorantiam. There is no universal clock. What you believe is irrelevant as you are totally ignorant of the relevant science.

So quantum theory has no differences at all from classical theory? That sounds implausible.

You believe something (your personal theory of the universe) that is (a) not supported by science and is (b) contradicted by evidence. I am not sure what else to call this sort of irrational belief. Maybe "quasi-religious belief" is more accurate, but is too much to write every time. You behave just a like a Creationist: make an argument from ignorance; ignore or deny any evidence that shows you are wrong; repeat the same arguments as if no one has pointed out they are wrong. This type of argument from faith is deeply dishonest.

The maths is the theory. The maths makes predictions that are confirmed by observations. This confirms the theory. Your baseless assertions that it must be wrong because of your religious beliefs are just silly.

That makes no sense. The second statement does not logically follow from the first. The first one is correct. The second is false. And there is no preferred frame of reference. Did anyone say there was? There is a convention used for measuring the age of the universe. (You are, of course, ignorant of this fact.) But lets take an example. Lets say we have an astronomer who is orbit close to a black hole and whose time dilation, relative to us is a factor of 2. She will see changes in the universe happening twice as fast as we do. She will see the CMB blue-shifted so it is warmer and not as old as we see it. Taking all this information, she might calculate that the universe is about 7 billion years old. We could use either as the age of the universe. Not surprisingly, we use the one that corresponds to our frame of reference. Why is that a bad thing? We do it for all measurements of time. Do you think this invalidates the Big Bang model and our calculation of the age of the universe? Of course not. Because when we communicate with this astronomer and share our measurements, we can take relativity into account and work out that our different results are consistent. So the different measured ages do not disprove the Big Bang. It is no different than one person measuring the age using Earth years and another person using Jupiter years. Do you realise that the Big Bang is a prediction of General Relativity? Do you think you can use one result form GR to disprove another result from GR? Do you realise how illogical this is? (Presumably not. Because like Creationists and other religious fundamentalists, your are blinded to reason by your faith. Should we ask the mods to move this to religion? That seems to be where it belongs.) It is like trying to use arithmetic to prove arithmetic is wrong. You are saying "2+2=4 therefore 2+3 <> 5". INSANE.

Exactly. And we could, if we wanted to, calculate what the difference in the age would be. Prove it. Why don't you do the necessary calculations and show what a massive error we are all making? Go on: I dare you to prove us wrong using actual mathematics, rather than baseless assertions and logical fallacies.

Just to highlight how silly this claim is: if you combine sodium and chlorine, they will always combine in equal quantities to form salt. You will never "by pure chance" get sugar or a potato. The universe behaves deterministically. If you want to believe that deterministic and consistent behaviour is because of a god, then go ahead. It can't be disproved (because it isn't science; it's faith). That is a reasonable application of faith. But don't try and pretend that your faith trumps reality. (I did read once about a US preacher or politician who said that "if the Bible and Reality disagree then it must be Reality that is wrong." But that is not faith; it is pure insanity.)

Exactly. Just because there is some immeasurably small difference between different observer's age of the universe doesn't invalidate the measurement. You are the one who is doing this. You are saying that ignoring a difference that is immeasurably small invalidates the measurement.

Just no. (Which doesn't bode well for your claim "I know all about ...") No one nows. We don't even know if it "came about" (if by that you mean "was created"). It could be infinitely old. I suppose you can fill that gap with a god of your choice, if you want. That would only be a better question if there was some evidence that it was done by someone. If someone is murdered, it makes sense to ask who did it. If someone is killed in an earthquake, not so much. You can of course refuse to accept facts. It is a bizarre way to choose to live your life but it is up to you. Does you faith have to be inconsistent with reality? There are plenty of people who have faith (in Jesus, the christian gd, other gods and prophets) who can accept the reality of the way the world is. So it doesn't seem to be faith itself that is the problem. It seems that you have chosen not to accept reality and then are trying to use "faith" to justify your ignorance. Would your god be proud of this stance? Would he want to ignore the reality and beauty and complexity of the universe he has created for you? Just because you find it hard to understand; wouldn't he want you to work to fully understand his creation? No. Because one of those is back by evidence and the other is just your opinion. (And, again, there are plenty of people who accept evolution and the Big Bang but all believe a god created everything. So the problem here seems to your own personal problem, not one of faith, religion or science.) On that basis, many criminal convictions are not valid because the jury did not have a time machine to go back and watch the crime being committed? No. Instead they use the available evidence to reach a conclusion. (And, like science, they can't be 100% certain.)

This makes no sense. We constantly have different views of time because of relative velocity and different gravitational potential. Does this prevent us saying when the year started? Or when the century started? Or when The War of the Roses happened? Or when the calendar started? Or when dinosaurs ruled the Earth? Or when the Earth formed? Or when our galaxy formed? Or when the CMB was emitted? Or when the Big Bang happened? Please show, in mathematical detail, which of these timescales are impossible to measure and why. It has been explained multiple times. You either refuse or are incapable of understanding. I have no way of knowing which. Although the things you have said in the thread indicate that you know almost nothing about the theory you are criticising. Nope. Because they understood the theories they were criticising, they were bale to provide theoretical and mathematical justification for their ideas. And the ideas could be confirmed by evidence. None of these apply to you: You don't know what you are talking about; your only justifications are baseless assertions; and the evidence proves you wrong. (Note: you have been told about your errors multiple times so now you are deliberately lying by repeating them.) Yes. (And certainly they know more then you do.) They mean there is a singularity. This is described (for the benefit of the general public) as "the beginning of time and space". No it isn't. Again, all you are doing is demonstrating your profound ignorance. If you understood it, you could quantify this alleged difference and who us how important it is. You can't do that. Really? Do you always use relativity to calculate times and distances when planning a car journey?

Do you know what that word means? We have detected it, indirectly. And we know a lot about it. You seem to confuse "not knowing everything" with "not knowing anything". It took years to detect Neptune (also only originally known by its gravitational effects). It took decades to detect neutrinos "directly" (originally only known because of "missing energy"). And this is kind of inevitable. If it was easy to detect dark matter, we would have known about it already. We have already discovered all the "easy stuff". But it is not clear what directly detecting something means in this context. We don't really directly detect neutrinos (we observe flashes of light caused by other particles they create, or other "indirect" methods). Once you start looking for subatomic particles, all detection is indirect. So, "directly" detecting dark matter particles (if they exist) will tell us more about its properties. But we already know quite a lot. Of course. But that doesn't reduce what we know currently. Really? Citation very much needed. I must have missed the world-wide headlines that would have appeared if this were the case. Who is this "we"? Do you mean "I"? And it is very unlikely that much of what we currently know will turn out to be wrong. I can only think of two examples of scientific theories, in the history of science that have turned out to be completely wrong.

Because they are massless. And dark matter is "cold" (ie. not moving anywhere near light speed). And there is no evidence gravitons exist. But apart from that ...

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-dna-computer-program-puzzle-solution-20180427/

You should probably start a new thread but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo http://cdms.berkeley.edu/Education/DMpages/FAQ/question36.html

Is this a homework question (for a marketing course, or something)? I can't imagine anyone actually being interested in who uses this buzzword most. Is it still being used even? Anyway, there is more than you could ever want to know about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

Actually, it is all around us. We know a lot about the amounts and distribution of matter in the solar system, the galaxy and the observable universe. Given the amount of dark matter that we know must be present, we also know that if it does interact electromagnetically it must only do so very, very weakly. There are (at least) two lines of evidence for this. One is simply the fact we can't see it. The other is that it behaves (in terms of its distribution) like something that only interacts gravitationally - if it interacted strongly then it would tend to form "clumps" and structures in the same way that matter does. There is nothing particularly special about that: neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically either.

What is just stunningly bizarre about this is that Maartenn has already shown that he barely understands either GR or the Big Bang model that he is pretending to have disproved. I think even Dunning and Kruger would find this behaviour implausible.

Yes we do. The only way you could get monoatomic gold would be as a thin (and hot) gas. As soon as it cools and forms a liquid or solid, it is no longer monatomic. Claims that it is are just mumbo-jumbo. You can't claim that science (eg the study of the physical and chemical properties of matter) has to be on an equal footing with made-up fairy tales. ("Ah, but it might be true" is just not a rational argument.) It's, you know, part of the definition of dark matter. We see that it doesn't appear to interact electromagnetically. Why does some made up nonsense need more research? If there was some evidence behind it, then maybe it would be worth looking into. But not when it is just nonsense made up by some random idiot. The discussion seems to go: "Hey tell me about the science" *SCIENCE* "Yeah. But you don't really know it's wrong" *SCIENCE. LOTS OF SCIENCE* "But there isn't really any evidence against it, is there" *EVIDENCE. AND SCIENCE. AND MORE SCIENCE* "But there could be something to it" *HEAD. DESK.*

Mainly because they would not be visible from high latitudes. The satellites tell the receiver their location and that can be used to work out the position of the receiver. (You can think of it as a position relative to the satellite that is then corrected for the position of the satellite.) All the satellites share this information, every so often, so once you have found one you can quickly find any others that are in view. Finding the first satellite from a cold start can take some time because (a) you don't know the exact radio frequency to look for (because it will be Doppler shifted by a "random" amount because of the satellites relative speed) and (b) each satellite encodes its signal by mixing it with a different pseudo-random pattern. So you have to search (using a correlation) for each possible encoded signal while simultaneously sweeping across the range of possible frequencies. Once you have found one satellite, you can download the information about the other satellites, see which others that should be visible and their approximate speed, and hence find them. Once you have four (or more) you can do the location calculation. (Having ore than four can slightly increase accuracy and allows for temporarily losing satellites due to shadowing or reflection of signals.

You have still only answered half the question. How does this differ from "expansion of the universe"? (Clue: it doesn't. That is what "expansion of the universe" means.) You cannot use an argument from a theory to show that the same theory is wrong. Unless you can show that the theory is mathematically inconsistent (it isn't). Time may be "relative" (observer dependent) but that doesn't mean it is random or arbitrary. Different observers can calculate exactly how much their measurements will differ from one another and agree on an age for the universe. The fact that in their frame of reference the measurement might be different (by an immeasurably small amount) doesn't mean their is no age; it just means the measurements are different. To go back to GPS: each satellite will measure time differently (and differently from each GPS user on the ground). That doesn't mean it is impossible to measure time. Quite the opposite, in fact: many people use GPS as a time standard. Because we know how to adjust for all the clocks having different ("relative") times. Don't be ridiculous. If you are building a house, do you have to measure the construction to the nearest femtometer? Of course not. Because differences that small are ... negligible.

I think that about sums it up.

No. But it does seem that "zero point energy" attracts a large number of crackpots. The Wikipedia page seems to have a very dodgy edit history, so I wouldn't like to vouch for its credibility at any point in time (maybe there is some sort of uncertainty principle attached to the quality of information on Wikipedia pages). It looks pretty messed up on the issue of whether the energy is infinite or not. At one point it says that renormalisation makes it finite. Then in other places it continues to suggest it is infinite. This looks like a slightly better article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state Basically, the energy of the vacuum is non-zero. One way of thinking of this is that there is some inherent quantum uncertainty/variation in the energy level. It can't go below zero so the average must be above zero. (Probably not strictly accurate, but gives you an idea, maybe.) Yep. Both of those are pretty bogus.

It isn’t infinite. But is non-zero. That sounds like the zero point energy. Or, possibly, dark energy. Which can also be described as the inherent energy of space.

not individually measurable.

Is there such a theory? Dark matter does not interact through the electromagnetic force. Atoms do.