Leaderboard

The only centers and boundaries we can logically speak of, is the center of our "observable universe"...which of course anyone can legitimately claim, from wherever he is. While knowledge and data of BB model only goes back to t+10-43 seconds, cosmologists are able to reasonably speculate re those early times. During those early times, the four forces we know of today were united in what was called the "Superforce" As space expanded and temperatures and pressures dropped, this superforce started to break up or decouple, gravity being the first. This created what we call phase transitions and false vacuums. eg: the phase transition of ice to liquid water. These false vacuum states may also be responsible for the Inflation epoch. http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/bmendez/ay10/2002/notes/lec19.html During this epoch as temperatures and pressures continued to drop, excesses of energy went into creating our very first fundamental particles, quarks, electrons and such. At three minutes the first atomic nucleus was formed [protons and neutrons] The rest is pretty reliable history. The universe over large scales is homogeneous and isotropic. The same can be applied the the expansion rate...that is, it is only applied over large scales.

! Moderator Note You did not post this in speculations (and if you had, it would be locked for not meeting the requirements) You can ask questions, or come up with your own conjecture. Not both in the same thread.

It is certainly much bigger than we ca observe. The observable universe is about 90 billion light years in diameter. The whole universe is probably several orders of magnitude larger, if not infinite. I don't know if you can imagine that or not. Don't bring your speculative ideas up in someone else's thread. On large scales it is. The current large scale structures probably evolved from quantum scale variations in the early universe that expanded.

Again, you post a meaningless obfuscation of the OT....

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/delusion?s=t First example: Misconception, misbelief, Other words that struck my fancy.: Deception, fantasy, chicanery, Self deception. I would think it's just another attempt to obfuscate this thread and draw it away from religious belief. If you believe that smacking your finger with a hammer will feel good you are delusional but not in the religious sense. I can demonstrate with your finger and a hammer how delusional you are. If you believe in god and give your money because then you think god wants your pastor or church to be rich then you are delusional in the religious sense and there is no way to demonstrate god is real much less want you to donate money to him.

Zealous pursuit? Gee Dim, I’m not pursuing anything, it looks like another strawman from you. I think that people who donate money to and pray with a guy like in the interview I posted are delusional hence faith in itself is delusional in many if not most cases (not alwawys, I agree) I think. This has nothing to do with me having the same faith or not, I do not label people delusional just because they believe in something I don’t or have a different opinion from me - 2 strawman in one post Dim, youre going for a record? Edit: @dimreepr, please dont take delusion/faith personally. I think most people are delusioned by something or into something at some point in their life. I’ve been delusioned by my ex wife into believing a reality which didn’t exist, fortunately that delusion is over for me. Theres no shame in this, the shame is in consciously pursuing delusion for profit and doing harm to people by consciously using it - like reverant dickhead does.

Okay, so you have an issue with using the word delusion in the context o faith, I can understand your concern. I would like to know what word would you rather use to describe the worshipers who donated their money to this guy:

Definitely not. For the study of reality we have the sciences. Philosophy studies the ways we actually think, and the ways we should think to come to valid or practical results. I assume they called you that because you have shown these people that you ask questions that go beyond what we normally think about. That's fine. But what I miss in your postings is philosophical rigour. To name three examples: you are not precise in the definitions of the concepts you use; and as my remark above, you mix up science and philosophy; and then you should counter other philosophers who have well argued viewpoints that differ from your's. So I think it is no wonder that in the list of kinds of people you mention one category is missing: academic philosophers.

Do you have any evidence for that? What do you mean by "fractal" in this sentence? A fractal is a mathematical abstraction. How does that "balled up"? You haven't cooked a fractal. You may have cooked algae (some of which are toxic, so be careful). If you have boiled the water (or even heated above about 65°) then you have already killed the bacteria so there is no point adding chlorine. What "small fractal things"? Why would pressure get rid of them? Stop posting this drivel.

Neither the original question, nor any of the 'answers' are compatible with time being a coordinate axis for a physical dimension. The all refer to some function or property being measured or plotted against this axis. As with all such axes, direction is just a convention. It is gratifying that the aussies have the same convention for which way is up that we do. Further I think this is an issue of the philosophy of Science rather than the subject of relativity.

Unlike motion in space, where you can move in the + or - direction on a set of axes, your motion in the time dimension is only in the + direction.

I like turtles

Difficult to determine. What is against it? What was the BB then? Not an explosion, rather a singular event from a point. (evolution of empty space-time with a certain rate for example). Note please, that calling the event the Big Bang suggest an explosion (radical radial expansion).