Leaderboard

Don't be obtuse ...

You have never seen the legendary TimeCube? I think the original website is long gone, but someone may get have archived it somewhere. It was a long, incoherent and multicoloured rant about there being two days in every 24 hours and loads of conspiracy theories. It is almost unique in the level of deranged nuttiness. X-posted with Janus!

That's a cute answer.

Right.

Not 100% certain what you mean. "Can't be contradicted" is not the same as "proven", especially in math. Any unproven theorem in math, say an unproven Millenium Prize Problem, is proof of this (silly pun intended). Because if they could be contradicted (more specifically: we knew a contradiction to the statements) then they were proven wrong. Accepting an argument as true is a much stronger statement than not contradicting it. Taking the liberty to modify your statement to "a proof is an argument that everyone [sane and knowledgeable implied] has to agree on" that is not too far away from what I said. The main question is where "everyone" lies in the range from "everyone in the room" to some infinity-limit of everyone who has commented and may ever comment on the statement. This limit would indeed be a new quality that distinguishes proofs from facts (to use the terms swansont suggested in this thread's first reply. I could understand if people chose this limit as a definition for a proof. But it looks very impractical to me, since I doubt you can ever know if you have a proof in this case (... but at least you could establish as a fact that something is a proof ... I really need to go to bed ... ). Fun fact: For my actual use of mathematical proofs at work, "everyone" indeed means "everyone in the room" in almost all instances. For me, the agreement of that audience would not be enough to call something a fact . (Okay... off to bed, really ....). It is, indeed. Maybe with an extra grain of elitism for not needing observations but relying on the thoughts of peers alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

The omnidirectionally closed universe (analogous to the surface of an inflating balloon) appears to be incompatible with the observations that suggest the universe to be flat. In a flat and open universe, one can talk of two boundaries, both somewhat indistinct. The first one tells how far the matter (the web of galaxies) has expanded. The second one tells how far light and other radiation has propagated. I am not promoting any of these or any other alternative. I just wish to know the reasoning within the frame of standard Big Bang cosmology.

Come on its just wasting time. It is just a 4 page article just read it ones