Strange

It is nothing to do with “not detailed enough” or “relative perception” (whatever that means).

Then why say it? Are you deliberately wasting our time?

No. No. No. The observable universe (a sphere about 95 billion light years across) is finite. The whole universe could be finite or infinite. Being finite does not imply a starting point. And what does “lowest possible physical state” mean?

Huh? What are you talking about? The observable universe is FINITE. You could, in principle, count the stars or even atoms it contains. (There is another thread where a forum member regularly updates his estimate of the total mass of the observable universe.)

Well, the apparent flatness of the universe could be such a sign. I don’t know how the existence of mathematical infinity is paradoxical or even relevant.

You right; It is widely assumed that space-time will be discrete but currently there is no evidence for that nor any clear idea of how to describe it mathematically. (Wanted to say that before but typing on phone too tedious!)

It describes gravity in the same way as GR but the n from ve dimensions, what ch allows it to include gravity and electromagnetic interactions in the same equations. This reduces to either GR or Maxwells equations in 4D. And gravitational waves are cyclical changes in that curvature. No. But I think it is only needed because of the arbitrary human units of measurement used. You can choose a system of units where G=1.

That doesn’t change the length of a second though.

Yes, if the universe is infinite then it must contain infinite matter and energy.

You can use an imaginary grid of any size to count points in space. Like graph paper; it can have lines every mm or cm or metre or km or ... Well I suppose you can measure anything you can perceive. Of course not.

OK, you can choose any units you like (millimetres or light years) and divide space up like that. But it doesn’t really mean anything.

I don’t think quantum theory says that space is (or needs to be) quantised - quantum field theory is based on special relativity, in which space is continuous.

Well ... gravitational effects are the curvature of space-time so ...

Then there is nothing for you to see falling into it. But as each photon falls in, the event horizon expands to meet it. BTW the Schwarzschild description of a black hole only applies to a black hole that has always existed and is unchanging (in an empty universe) so situations like these need to be modelled by numerical methods (I think).

The fact that you cannot make a one-to-one mapping from integers to reals; however close two reals are, there are always an infinite number of reals between them. What I like about this proof is that it is entirely based on logic (proper logic, not the crank logic of “it makes sense to me”) and is therefore irrefutable. As far as we know, space is continuous so you could not do this.

I’m not sure why anyone would accept your beliefs in preference to the evidence. (Your repeated references to “proof” demonstrate that you don’t have a clue about science - nothing is proved in science.) It works very accurately, right up to the scale of massive black holes orbiting one another at near light speed. Many people have tried, and are trying, to find modified theories of gravity. But, so far, none of them fit all the evidence (unlike dark matter). And there in a sentence is your lack of understanding of how science works.

The number of real (uncountable) numbers is infinite and infinitely larger than the infinite number of integer (countable) numbers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

That last point is part of the answer why the image won’t be “frozen” there forever. At some point, the event horizon expands to include the location of those final photons. Also, there can only be a finite number of photons emitted before the object falls through the event horizon so, again, it can only be visible for a finite time.

For counting things. These are the same size infinities. This is larger than the infinite number of integers (infinitely larger, in fact).

Here are a couple. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life Note the first sentence: “a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that do have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased, or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate.” Hydrogen atoms and crystals are (obviously) inanimate. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life Nothing there describes a hydrogen atom. “Sustaining” implies some action is required to prevent decay or death. That is not the case with a hydrogen atom; it is stable and unchanging - it does not require anything to keep it going. Unlike a living thing. If you want to extend the word “life” to include everything, then the word becomes meaningless as it do longer makes a useful distinction.

Crystals and hydrogen atoms are not capable of knowing anything. Or do you think it is cruel to use compounds containing hydrogen? Try looking up the definition of “life”. It involves things like metabolism, excreting waste products, reproduction, etc. Existence is not equal to life.

Because all you have on your side is your belief/faith. The only difference is that you have invented your own religion instead of copying another (although, of course, you have copied a lot, such as your ideas on geocentrism). But it is, by definition, a religious belief.

Surely awareness requires some sort of life and, even more so, some kind of brain/neural system.

The arrogance of this statement is stunning. Why do you assume that people who don’t agree with you are somehow ignorant and “need to do research”? Maybe they are already very familiar with the subject . If you are unable to provide any evidence supporting your beliefs then there is no reason for anyone to take them seriously.

We know (from scientific evidence) that the brain cannot be trusted.