Strange

Not really. But if you want to use that naive approach, then: multiplying by 1 is adding 1 apple: the result is 1 apple multiplying by 2 is adding 1 apple and then adding 1 apple: result = 2 apples multiplying by 0 is not adding any apples: result = zero apples So stop promoting your crackpot maths. I really don't think the rest of mankind has the same problem with this that you do. Here is an explanation aimed at people who know as little as you: https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/zero.html They even have a children's explanation of dividing by zero: https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/dividing-by-zero.html (maybe this is too advanced for you, though).

That is addition, not multiplication.

I don't think you should be promoting your ignorant nonsense to someone who might think you know what you are talking about.

I assume you failed. Otherwise business schools have even less value than I suspect.

All you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance.

Even if he said that (which he probably didn't), it may have been true 100 years ago but a lot of people educated since then just accept it as the perfectly normal way the world works.

Interesting question. I don’t know why. Perhaps because it raises the question of what is beyond it. Or because it defines unnecessary boundary conditions on the equations.

I'm not sure about that. Mathematical infinity can be proven. And I'm even less sure of that. Basically, it is wrong. In current cosmological understanding, the universe could be finite or infinite, but either way it has no boundary. So "infinite" is only about size.

The universe could be everything and still finite in size. (You can't deduce the nature of the physical world from etymology!) And the Big Bang may be only a local event in a larger universe. There may be multiple periods of expansion from hot dense state in different times and place. I doubt we can ever know. But hence the multiverse concept (a new word, because "universe" may not mean everything!)

If it doesn't;t make any difference then: 1. What is the point of believing in it? (Occam's razor) 2. You admit, therefore, that there can be no evidence: if it makes no difference you cannot tell if it exists or not. Not without evidence, it isn't. Why? And how do you know they don't have it right? Just another belief, presumably. You are beginning to sound a bit like the nutter on the train: "all religions are wrong! Science is wrong! Only I know The Truth!"

A religious tract is not scientific evidence. You might as well recommend reading Genesis or watching an episode of Star Trek. There is no reason to think they got anything right, as it is entirely based on their religious beliefs and the usual creationist lies. Given the title of the thread, I'm not sure why you want to associate yourself with them.

Instantly because I am avoiding getting on with work! And I haven't seen any relevant parts of your posts. All you keep saying is "I believe". Well, hallelujah. What information? You haven't proved any.

Or do you think that inflation is somehow fundamental to the Big Bang model? Is this the level of your ignorance? You don't know this. And why should anyone believe you when you refuse to present any evidence and are notoriously dishonest.

I doubt anyone cares that much - especially as there isn't any evidence. But if there were any evidence, it would probably be seen as an exciting development. Like any "new science". I imagine it is mainly frustration at your "I believe I am right but I won't say why" attitude. There is no reason to think that the Big Bang model is incorrect. There is no reason to think that the Copernican principle isn't accurate. Stop making these dishonest claims.

I'm not worked up. I am just trying to get you to accept that evidence-free, faith-based claims are a pointless way of arguing on a science forum. The ones where you have lied and misrepresented evidence to support your faith? The ones that have been closed for refusing to present evidence and for preaching? Those threads? YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE. Sheesh. In previous threads you have gone so far as to say "this evidence doesn't prove me wrong therefore I must be right". Not exactly a compelling argument.

And again: no one cares what you believe.

If your goal is to demonstrate that faith-based arguments don't work on a science forum, then you are doing well. Wasn't that produced by religious fundamentalists who have been disowned by their own church and who lied to people to trick them into appearing in the movie, and then edited what was said in order to support their delusions. Yes, I can see why that would appeal to you.

You are not going to be more persuasive by not presenting any evidence and saying, "but I believe it is true". Not on a science forum. As a result, I guess that this thread will be closed for "preaching" like all your other threads.

Nonsense. But you have a history of misrepresenting things. For example, when told that GR can't disprove egocentrism you go on to claim that GR supports your beliefs. I have no idea what aspects of history you are misrepresenting but I have about as much trust in your grasp on history as your grasp of science or logic (i.e. none). Go on then, show us where Galileo was wrong.

You haven't presented any evidence. When asked, you have refused to present any evidence. So, as far as I can tell, your "evidence" is based on unicorn shit.

Nobody cares about your feelings or beliefs. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to present some evidence. You are unable to do that and so your beliefs can be dismissed as baseless. That is not a problem with scientific thinking (after all, it has been shown to work). It is a problem with you (and other religious people) who think their guesses are as valid as objective evidence. Hint: they aren't. How do you know that? You are going from making up fairy stories to insulting people. Not a good move. You mean you decided to ignore what people have learned from science and make stuff up instead.

Taking 2 years to make something up doesn't make it more plausible than something invented in 30 seconds.

Another interesting thing I hadn't heard of before! But most of the arguments seem fundamentally flawed (perhaps because they come from philosophers who don't really understand the relevant maths or physics).

But that is because you are blinded by your religion. Because you base your opinions on your personal beliefs and not objective evidence. Yes. You are right.

1. No, that is not where your "conversation" came from, so I still think you made it up. 2. That article is about inflation; I struggle to see the relevance to either a creator or the Copernican principle. Perhaps you could explain. why you think it is. 3. It is about a widely accepted idea being discussed and challenged by scientists, which rather goes against your religious belief that this doesn't happen. Look up the Copernican principle on Wikipedia. It points out that (a) it is a "working assumption" (which means it very much not the same as The Truth) and (b) it has been tested and there are suggestions of other ways of testing it. Why would people be testing an idea if they were so "scared" it might turn out to be wrong.If scientists found evidence that the universe was created or that the Earth is at some special place, then the overall reaction would be "Wow!" (and Nobel Prizes all round). Basically, it looks like you are trying to invent some sort of martyrdom to make your religion more authentic sounding. No one is buying into your faith. You need to try harder. Or stick to science.