Strange

Nice point. So if the universe were mathematical (in the sense that Tegmark and others seem to say) then it would be undecidable (non-deterministic?) or incomplete. Which, of course, it might be.

So is your belief in "design". If you could show us the math and the experimental tests, it might not be. But until then it is. So you are solving the question of "why is it mathematical" by basing it on a mathematical construct? Which is an example of the fallacy of begging the question. And it doesn't solve the problem at all. It just shifts the question to "why is the universe a virtual reality machine composed of tiny generic polymorphic machines?" It is not a theory until you have a model and it has been rigorously shown to be consistent with the evidence.

Yes, in principle. In fact, our view of the universe is pretty average so it would be hard for any observer to have seen a significantly greater age for the universe than us. But if someone had been in the closest possible orbit around a black hole ever since the earliest black holes were formed then they would see the universe as being only about 8 billion years old (I think - rough bit of mental calculation based on time dilation at the photon sphere). In reality, any differences actually observed would be much, much smaller than the errors in our estimate of the age. So it is not a practical problem.

No. That is not what universal time means. Universal (or absolute) time would mean that all observers would agree about the amount of time that has elapsed sine the big bang. Which they know they wouldn't: it would depend on relative motion, amount of gravitational potential they have experienced, etc. Also, there is no evidence the universe "started" and valid theories that describe that. So the question is moot, really. You can't use the theory of relativity to discredit the big bang model because it is based on relativity. No. Because different observers experience time differently. That would be going back to a model of time that was shown to be wrong by the evidence. What is the point of that? No. For the reasons given above. It is the same event, but different amounts of time have elapsed since then as measured by different observers.

So you can tell us what its mass, velocity, spatial distribution, electric charge, etc. is? No. So that is a silly thing to say. But unless your solution is quantitative and testable it isn't science. You can choose to believe the universe is designed for life. Or in the Tooth Fairy. Neither have anything to do with science.

What objective, measurable evidence do you have for this? We can make measurements, build models and test them. How would you make measurements, build models and test this idea? Also “design” does not mean “suitable for life” in any dictionary I know. Soo you need a better word. How about: “is the universe suitable for life?” Answer: “yes” Can we close the thread now? And yet, despite your dislike, it created a universe suitable for life (or “designed” as you call it). So the Big Bang must have been part of this “design”, like it or not.

Irrelevant.

What does “have a design “ mean? How would you measure or test this?

! Moderator Note This forum does not exist to promote your youtube channel

! Moderator Note Stop doing that. If you cannot follow the rules when you return, the thread will be closed.

Perhaps another way of looking at this is to consider what is seen as the two clocks pass a "stationary" observer. The clock at the front will show some time dilation because of its speed. By the time the second clock passes the same point it will have been accelerating for longer and so will be going faster and show greater time dilation. The relative time dilation between the two clocks in this case must be the same as that seen because of the difference in potential in the rocket's frame of reference. (We had a similar thread a whole ago where it was shown that the time dilation in a centrifuge can be equally well described in terms of the relative speed or the acceleration caused by the circular path.)

Not really. The equivalent would be a pair of socks of unknown and undefined colour. When you look at one of the socks, it becomes either black or white (as does the other one of the pair, even if it is some distance away). But, actually, analogies like this can never really work. But different versions of the analogy might help visualise different aspects of the behaviour.

Excellent explanation. Thanks.

! Moderator Note That is very touching, but was off topic.

Yes, but because the spacecraft is accelerating, it will require energy to move an object from the rear to the front of the craft. Therefore the "gravitational" (due to acceleration) potential at the front must be higher than at the rear, so clocks must run faster. No? I'm not sure why @hu?? thinks there is a contradiction here, though. @MigL has provided a couple of answers that seem to fully explain it, as far as I can see.

Where I used to live, there was a timber merchant who would cut and plane (and profile) wood to any size & shape you wanted.

Consensus is just another word for communism

That is not possible. Many apparent paradoxes are resolved by realising this.

! Moderator Note @nobody Stop posting PDF files with text that you could just post here.

There is also the fact that the rocket is not perfectly rigid so the back end, near the engines, will start accelerating before the front. As a result there will always be a small difference in speed.. Which then introduces the problem of simultaneity: how do you define "when" you make measurements in the two positions (does this mean there is always a difference in acceleration, front and back? Dependent on the frame of reference.)

But they could have started with 56mm sawn wood (which must be approximate, pretty much by definition) and then planed to an exact round number. But I suppose it doesn't matter what the actual size is, as long as it is specified and consistent.

Sub-neophyte (barely capable) wood-worker here. That's a good point. I have always wondered why wood is sold in odd dimensions like 44x18mm instead of 45x20 or something.

Looks like some of our spammers are using bots to generate the text. This example amused me

I'm guessing that manufacturing is done to proper, worldwide, modern metric standards and then marked up for sale in the local primitive units. Perhaps to simplify international trade. (Or perhaps because metric is just the right way to do it. ) In the UK, you can go to a builders merchant and ask for a piece of "two by four" and you will be sold a piece of wood that is 50mm x 100mm. But everybody knows that.

Most pathogens should be destroyed by cooking. One exception may be prions which can cause dementia-like illnesses. Some can form spores that may be able withstand high temperatures. Also, some pathogens will create toxic compounds that won't be destroyed by cooking (e.g. C. botulinum, which creates one of the most toxic compound known. Which is why people like to inject it into their faces!) The prion disease Kuru was transmitted by people eating the brains of their deceased relatives. The Wikipedia page on this does not make it clear if this was cooked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)#Transmission (Not for the overly sensitive.)