Recent content by goodoldrebel

I see your perspective yet I have a resistance to accept this 'pigeon hole' definition of anti-matter as if it came from the 'burning bush'

very good sights, yet antimatter is still an elusive concept.

Technically, we reject Newtonian mechanics as they relate to time, length and mass at speeds < the speed of light even though differences are infinitesimal.

A very good point indeed. That's is a valid reason to have something more direct as a description.

Its somewhat indirect. Its like defining a liability as the 'opposite' of an asset.

Are you referring to more than just time dilation?

Can you detail a bit more about three-dimensional universe curvature as it relates to infinitely? Many thanks.

Two excellent points. I presume the calculated age reflects 'detectable' data.

Yet, a two-dimensional theory does not directly address the question. Pinning 'no beginning and no ending' on "Spatial curvature" does not solve the three dimensionality dilemma of the infinite universe

I understand that but its use has only been documented in the late 18th century (see above). Being used earlier in its complete format lacks verifiable evidence.

Thanks for the input. I suspected that it's been a relatively recent form.

If the universe is finite then what is beyond? If infinite then how can humanity conceive the 'big picture'?

Without using ' opposite charges of matter' explanation as a foundation for defining anti-matter, I wonder if anyone can present a more direct definition and examples.

Since Calculus has supposedly been around for a long time, when is there actual evidence of the chain rule first being used?