Strange

Quite. Like everything else you say, it is a figment of your imagination. So it isn’t the evidence you were asked for.

Then it wouldn't be science. You might as well join a golf club and then ask why you can't ignore the ball and just run round the course much quicker on a motorbike. Guessing and making up stories is not science. It is fiction. Write a blog or a book. Then you can find out if anyone cares about your beliefs.

Very good. I hadn't seen that before.

To point out your errors. This is a science forum, after all.

Not really. But imagine something that has existed for an infinite time and then disappears. (No, I can't imagine such a thing, either.) If the universe is infinite in size, then it is a non-mathematical example of something infinite. If the universe has always existed, then it is an example of something eternal (infinite in time). If the universe was created (there is no evidence for this) and it will last forever, then it is still evidence of something eternal (infinite in time).

I'm not sure why you think anyone cares about your beliefs. Or why you are discussing them on a science forum.

A lot of other religious people don't see these as incompatible, either. It just depends what sort of creator you have invented.

Of course it would. If you go round endlessly (you can always make one more loop) then that is an infinite journey. (You seem very confused about what infinite means.) Note that something which is infinite can have a beginning (or even an end - but not both). The sequence of natural numbers is infinite but starts at zero. If the universe was created (something for which there is no evidence) then it could still last for an infinite time.

Thanks but no thanks. There is a lot of good science fiction I haven’t read yet.

Typing on the phone: it forces me to be brief! But I like your extra detail.

Scientific people might be interested in discussing things you make up (although I can't imagine why; your fantasies are quite banal). But a science forum (dedicated to discussing science) may not be the place for it. Try an SF forum.

What thought experiment? The nonsense about trying to count to infinity? Infinity is not a number so I just ignored that as irrelevant nonsense. So what. It still demonstrates that you can have a finite subset of an infinite series. If that is not what you were asking, you need to ask a different question. There is no physical evidence for an infinite universe. The fact that it appears to be flat, is consistent with being infinite (which is often as good as it gets in science). Your "thought experiment" doesn't appear to have any relevance. What does it mean for it to be "applied everywhere"? Infinite just means it has no limit. How would "no limit" be applied everywhere? Is the fact that the integers are infinite "applied to 5"? This is close to the definition of infinity: however much time you have, you can never count all the integers. There is always one more.

The event horizon will not remain spherical as something falls towards it; it will bulge out to meet the object. I don’t know if this by itself is enough to answer your question. Also, the object will be moving at the speed of light as it crosses the event horizon, which may be relevant. (My answers are a bit vague; I think you would need someone with a good understanding standing of the math to fully answer your question. Trying to apply “common sense” or even Newtonian physics is almost bound to fail)

Because, whatever largest number you chose, you can always add 1 to it (this is part of the definition). Therefore there is no largest integer (which is the definition of infinite). What is wrong with you? Didn’t you read the answer to this? There are an infinite number of integers but we can still use a finite range of integers. Why not? This is getting tedious. If you don’t understand the previous answer to your questions, don’t just ask the same thing again. Instead you need to explain why you don’t understand. Otherwise you will just get the same answer.

The problem is not the “if” or even the question. There is zero evidence for the existence or nature of heaven. Your bizarre fantasies are not a basis for scientific discussion.

More just because light hasn’t had time to reach us from that distance - and, with expansion, never will because the source is receding faster than light can move forwards.

It adds to the mass of the black hole as soon as it passes the event horizon - which includes the horizon expanding to meet it when it passes the point of no return. It isn't possible which shows there must be something wrong in your reasoning. Note that the event horizon is invariant so the distant observer will see the size of the event horizon increase as the object falls through it.

Absolutely no difference at all.

It could be argued that mathematics was not created by man but was discovered. Even if we are imperfect, we can discover something perfect. One could argue about whether math is "perfect" or not, but that probably depends on what you mean by "perfect". The fact that we can prove things in maths (and no other subject) may mean it is perfect. But Godel's incompleteness theorem might mean it is not perfect. I don't think so. It doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough to be useful.

It matters a lot to those who are aren't killed! And problems like starvation, malnourishment, disease, etc have also been decreasing over recent decades.

Sorry, I was responding to your “gravity is another dimension” statement. Whether there are 4, 5, 11 or 26 dimensions is indeed a matter of scientific research.

No. Because it appears to be a misunderstanding on your part. The Kaluza-Klein model extends GR to 5 dimensions so it can include electromagnetism as well as gravity. In the natural units where G = 1, c is also equal to 1. G is the measured constant of proportionality between force and mass, in Newtonian gravity, or (simplifying massively) between mass and the amount of curvature of space-time. I guess you could think of it as one of the things that defines how "stiff" space-time is.

Weirdly ... ... no.

Exactly the analogy I was as going to use.

But you said it was meaningless so how can it be relevant to anything.