Strange

You have a number of threads about this before. Yes, the natural numbers and simple arithmetic may have their origin in a reflection of physical reality. But mathematics goes way beyond that. You have been given (and ignored) many examples of where mathematics does not have any necessary connection to physical reality. What do you mean by "reference point"? Why does mathematics need a "reference point"? In what way are we not using mathematics to its full potential? These sentence fragments make no sense. Maybe they relate to something in your head but we are not mind readers. This is fundamentally wrong, as you have been told many times. When asked to justify this "equation" you are not able to. What is a "4D binary system"? What is to be presented in it?

They don't undergo any change. Remember, this is a purely relative effect. Speed is relative so one observer may say the particle is stationary, another that it is moving at 100km/s and another that it is travelling at 0.99c. These observers will all say the particle has a different "relativistic mass"; the particle itself has not changed.

The concept of age can be defined in many ways. For example, in China a newborn baby is considered to be 1 and so they are always one year older than their European "twin". Congratulations for coming up with a new and totally useless definition of age.

These paths were captured, measured and analysed mathematically to derive objective parameters such as mass, charge, velocity, etc. That is why it is science. People didn't look at the picture and say, "does that look like a balloon/alien/plasma to you". Thanks for making me literally laugh out loud.

The 4D curvature of space-time is "intrinsic" curvature; which means that it does not need to exist in a higher dimension. (This is a hard concept to get your head round, and I haven't seen a good non-mathematical analogy.) If the singularity exists then the density is infinite because the mass is compressed to zero volume. However, most people don;t think the singularity is "real"; it is just a mathematical consequence of the fact our theories are incomplete - for example, not taking quantum effects into account.

Why should anyone take your theory seriously? What double-blind studies have been done? Which journals have the results been published in? Which other researchers have confirmed it? I don't think my water is dated. It is fresh out of the tap every day. Well, that is always good advice. I was puzzled by the reference to magnesium "oil"; turns out it is an aqueous solution of magnesium chloride. The world's first low-oil oil.

Well, if you want a formal proof, you could start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-theoretic_definition_of_natural_numbers Yes it can.

It looks very obviously like rotation to me. What this highlights is that it is pretty pointless trying to form any conclusion from subjective judgments of poor quality images / videos. That is why science doesn't work that way.

#1 looks very obviously as if it is rotating. #2 looks as if it is unfolding/twisting. Of course, it is impossible to discern much from images like these. Especially given how easy it is for the visual system to be fooled into seeing things that aren't there.

There doesn't seem to be anything topologically implausible in those images. As complex-shaped objects rotate, different aspects will be visible which may include a varying number of holes. This is especially true if they are flexible and can twist, thereby changing the number of holes. (There is a scene in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indie is caught up and can only have escaped by defying topology. Or creating a hyperdimensional spacewarp.)

That is an interesting point. I have never thought about that before. However, I suspect a more significant point is that wood is not as reflective as, say, ceramic tiles so you do not get as many distracting echoes. Also notice that there are very few flat, parallel surfaces. This breaks up standing waves and minimizes any unpleasant resonances. (And looks great, too. I am disappointed I have never been there.) The Royal Albert Hall in London, had famously bad acoustics because of its large glass dome. This was fixed by diffusers hanging from the ceiling.

Why do you claim there is a problem with modern science? What is the nature of this problem? As intellect is a property of the mind, it is hard to see how it can hold the mind prisoner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellect Does softness hold pillows prisoner? Do colorless green sheep dream furiously?

What is the difference between "no answer" and "answer doesn't exist"? I guess the difference is too "profound" for my feeble brain. No it isn't. There are an infinite number of such questions and most of them are just stupid.

It is obviously wrong because atoms are motorbikes driven by pink unicorns.

No. There have been attempts to test this. As far as I am aware, all observations show the constants to be constant. G is difficult though: it is hard to measure accurately so it is difficult to rule out the possibility that it might chnage (over time, or even in different places). Also, some researchers claim to have found evidence that alpha (the fine structure constant) has changed in the past and in space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Is_the_fine-structure_constant_actually_constant.3F Maybe. It depends if we could produce a model explaining why they changed (if they did). Maybe. Or they may have changed very early on and then "froze" to their current values at some point. There is no evidence for that. Apart from the fact that dark energy seems to increase as space expands. No. The expansion of the universe is measured as 1/t, not d2/t2. And the early universe had a much higher energy density, so I'm not sure why you refer to it as "low energy". What does "almost free space" mean? There was one study that appeared to show a small bias in the orientation of galaxies. But I don't know if it has been confirmed or not.

Good point. There is value in learning to ask the right questions - the ones that really test an idea or a belief - even if this doesn't actually get you any closer to "the truth" (it might just demonstrate that there is no such thing). This is one of the things that makes philosophy useful as a discipline.

Surely, if they changed in this way then they would be variables, not constants?

There is no evidence that there was any such singularity. The big bang modeld escribes the evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state. What does "reorganization" mean in this context, and how is it different from evolution? It isn't known whether the universe is finite or infinite. There is no reason to think there was a singularity. No one knows what happened before the time when our theories can be applied (ie. where the hot dense state "came from").. I can't answer that as I don't know what the question means. (Sorry, cross-posted with swansont.)

There is no evidence that G depends on the total mass in the universe. There is no evidence that mass increases as space expands.

They are nonexistent, made-up nonsense.

Looks like my odometer is broken then.

Thanks for confirming that your previous post was incorrect.

Do you have any evidence for that? Just more baseless claims. (This is getting very boring. And has nothing to do with physics. Or even science.)

Why should it change? It is a constant because it doesn't depend on the amount of mass (or energy) involved. No. There is evidence that the amount of dark energy may be increasing. Apart from that, there is no requirement for mass-energy to be conserved in GR.

Why not? I have no idea what that means.