What if there is NO distance between events because all events occur in the "universal NOW"? Time is not like a river because events are always in the 'now'. Then there is no need for a dimension called 'time'. There is only need for a useful-but-imaginary measuring concept. Hey, maybe that is...
"Well, physics doesn't much care what you or I think. Current comosmological theory describes the big bang AFTER t=0, and does not require God"
Doesn't AFTER t=0 presuppose a t=0? I should think that the physics of the Big Bang would be very interested in t=0 and what kind of magic/god is...
re."You need to look up "finite but unbounded" on the Internet"
The problem with the definitions of "finite but unbounded" is that they always rely on transference from 2D concepts through to 3D concepts. Example: a square has boundaries but a sphere does not...so the OU is a like a sphere...
there has to be some kind of "friction point" where 'stuff' from other dimensions interact with our 3 dimesional Observable Universe. If there is no "friction point" then why do we care about these mathematical creations called dimensions? They don't have an effect on us. If they do have an...
in discussing the "size" of the universe I read in a post, "And because it is simply the distances between things, it doesn't need to have a boundary. It is too simple an idea to need a boundary or some other kind of "space" to live in. It can expand in a pure simple way without any of the usual...
You are right when you say physics uses mathematical models to attempt to predict and explain the OU. I should have said "imaginary mathematical models" instead of mathematical universes. You use "dimensions" and "points" to explain why there is no location in the OU where the Big Bang occured...
I think I grasp the concept but it is not a concept that seems to apply to the "observable universe". It applies to a mathematical universe...an imaginary universe. In the "observable universe" things are expanding at a measurable rate and should be backwards measurable to a specific point. My...
It seems to me that saying the observable universe is expanding because we can observe it traveling away from us...but then saying the observable universe did not originate in anyone point in observable space is very confusing. I think physics seems to attempt to describe the observable universe...
The "the Philosophy of Vacuum" book attacks vacuum from the wrong end. It should have included discussions of vacuum beginning from "Pure Vacuum" which is the concept of nothingness. Instead it discusses vacuum from a "what does it entail" point of view. This leads to endless discussion of what...
Actually, I think this is one of the most important concepts that Physics needs to address. "Pure Vacuum" and what it means. For example, can you have motion in this Universe without "Pure Vacuum" to move into. I think Physics needs to come to grips with the concept of absolute nothing ..."Pure...
there is also a difference between an artificial creation such as Mathmatics and the real world of matter and energy. To say that an empty set is different from a set of [0] and then comparing that to the "Pure Vacuum" of the real world is comparing apples and oranges. My guess is that...
If a vacuum is so easy to understand then why do we have "Pure Vacuums" versus "Perfect Vacuums"? And, to my mind, a "Pure Vacuums" contains nothing...not matter, not energy, not matter/energy...just nothing. Can we discuss "existence" with such a thing?