Wow...what a beautiful argument. I'm not going to take sides, because it is rather difficult to distinguish them anymore. So I'll stick to correcting inaccuracies...
It's pedantic time, baby.
[pedantic]
By Clyde, I think
Quote:
Mathematics cannot by definition have "limits", it can be impossible to predict phenomena with maths (Chaos theory), but maths itself cannot reach a point where it no longer "works". And don't give me this "assertation" nonsense either, if you think maths has "limits", explain how maths can POSSIBLY HAVE "limits".
That is false in the sense that there are true theorems in a system that cannot be proved within the system.
By Clyde
Quote:
but i do know that they can track the universes age back to a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth......... of a second.
Wouldn't that be (10^-9)^6=10^-54? That is 10^12 times less than the Planck time, so unless I haven't heard about new research that is wrong.
By Clyde
Quote:
No i'm not describing the properties, i'm describing the observations, you go to your wavelength machine and you measure the wavelength, you get an answer, doesn't matter who makes that measurement they will get the same answer, hence objective.
Incorrect. If I am getting closer to a star and you are getting farther away, and we pass by each other and at that moment measure the wavelength, we will not get the same answer.
By Clyde
Quote:
Say you go from 0 - half the speed of light, your mass doubles, then you go from 1.5 *10^8 to 2.25, your mass doubles again, then to 2.625 your mass doubles again....
I do not think so. At 0 m/s, my mass is around 70 kg. At 1.5*10^8 m/s my mass is going to be around 80.3 kg, not 140. To my knowledge, relativistic mass is (rest_mass)/sqrt(v^2/c^2), where v is velocity and c is the speed of light.
By Clyde
Quote:
....... the laws of physics are the same everywhere.
No, the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
[/pedantic]