Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No longer much used? Not in my house. Spinning wheel in the bedroom, spinning wheel in the drawing room, spinning wheel in the hall. Raw wool everywhere. The constant click of the wheel. The incessant bleating of the sheep!It appears that you are missing the option that both are possible. For example, "spin" means to revolve or twirl. It also denotes a property of fundamental particles which does not necessarily involve literal twirling. It can also mean using a spinning wheel, a definition which is no longer much used.
What if space is vaster then the scope of infinite matter?
What if space is growing?
The shape of space time doesn't have to be flat.
Think about about an element able to move freely in two dimensions but is on a surface of a sphere... no walls necessary, but limited space.
Not space.It is; but you haven't demonstrated that matter is infinite. Scientists can approximate the quantity of matter in the Universe; by the same logic that scientist approximate its' age.
Growing into what? Space? Again, what do you suppose is on the other side of your imaginary boundaries of space?
We "live" in a three dimensional mental construct. That does not mean that space is three dimensional.If you take time to read my previous posts; you'll see my arguments that space is three dimensional. We live in a three dimensional world; which occupies three dimensions of space. Space = 3D. Area = 2D.
I suggested you stop digging as you are making yourself look more and more foolish. Seriously, stop! You've made an erroneous claim which everyone except you can see. Learn from it and move on.What's the difference between
a. Words change meaning over time
b. The earlier definition has fallen out of use
Perhaps I'm missing something.
I've already told you that Newtonian physics has been superceded by general relativity
Not space.
Did you tell me that before or after I mentioned that GR is flawed?
General Relativity Does Not Respect Local Energy-Momentum
There are serious problems with local energy-momentum conservation in general relativity (see [1] for a review). It is well known that Einstein's theory does not assign a definite stress-energy tensor to the gravitational field. This property is extremely unsatisfactory, because one knows that all other fundamental interactions in nature actually do respect the principle of local conservation of energy-momentum. Essentially, the non-existance of a stress-energy tensor is a consequence of the purely geometrical interpretation of gravity as curvature of space-time.
General Relativity Predicts Space-Time Singularities
Space-time singularities and event horizons are a consequence of general relativity, appearing in the solutions of the gravitational field. Although the "big bang" singularity and "black holes" have been an topic of intensive study in theoretical astrophysics, one can seriously doubt that such mathematical monsters should really represent physical objects. In fact, in order to predict black holes one has to extrapolate the theory of general relativity far beyond observationally known gravity strengths. Quoting Albert Einstein shows that he was quite aware of this conceptual problem: "For large densities of field and of matter, the field equations and even the field variables which enter into them will have no real significance. One may not therefore assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and of matter, and one may not conclude that the 'beginning of the expansion' [of the universe] must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions." [2] Many physicists would prefer a gravity theory without mathematical anomalies in its field solutions.
General Relativity Failed to Be Quantized
Quantum mechanics can be said to be the cornerstone of modern physics. For every physical field theory it should be possible to formulate it as quantum field theory. Actually, it is generally accepted that the field theories of electromagnetism or gravitation are but an approximation, the "classical limit", of more fundamental underlying quantum field theories. It is also assumed that interaction theories have to be gauge theories. The possibility of formulating gravity as quantum field theory is essential in the context of the unification of all fundamental interactions. However, all attempts to find a consistent quantum gauge field theory of general relativity have failed. This indicates again that general relativity can hardly be an absolutely correct theory of gravitation.
Towards a Consistent Theory of Gravitation
It appears that general relativity is not an adequate theory of gravitation, and that it has to be replaced by a new consistent theory.
The Flaws of General Relativity
I see your point. IMO I think it would have been better to have simply said the term has been expanded to mean something else as well.It appears that you are missing the option that both are possible. For example, "spin" means to revolve or twirl. It also denotes a property of fundamental particles which does not necessarily involve literal twirling. It can also mean using a spinning wheel, a definition which is no longer much used.
"Universe" is similar. It has a variety of meanings, depending on the context. If you wish to employ a specific definition for purposes of argument then it is up to you to specify it.
Observable universe. Different concept.It is; but you haven't demonstrated that matter is infinite. Scientists can approximate the quantity of matter in the Universe; by the same logic that scientist approximate its' age.
Stretching, growing in size.Growing into what? Space? Again, what do you suppose is on the other side of your imaginary boundaries of space?
Okay, it seems you are unfamiliar with discussions and terminology about space time topology. I recommend looking up a little, even for a layman it can be fascinating.If you take time to read my previous posts; you'll see my arguments that space is three dimensional. We live in a three dimensional world; which occupies three dimensions of space. Space = 3D. Area = 2D.
It's an example of how a space can be limited without needing walls or barriers.Your example is an example of limited limited area, not limited volume. If the element was able to move freely throughout the sphere; that would be an example of limited volume. The surface of the sphere, defines the volume of the sphere. There is still space outside of the sphere; whether or not your element can travel into that outer space.
That would be philosophy (although there are philosophers of science): "Philosophers ask questions like children, answer them like lawyers"Sometimes you just have to take all of your science books, and throw them over your shoulder; forget about everything that you think that you knew; and question the reality as a child.
Yeah, this trend literally has me climbing the walls and tearing my hair out.While I understand your point, and I even agree with you to quite a large degree (the phrase "very unique" really bugs me - is there such a thing as only a little bit unique? I don't think so!), the fact is that English does change over time. Decimate once meant to reduce by one tenth, now it means to destroy the majority. Gay once used to mean happy, but now if you say you're gay people will think you mean something else. The word "unique" is going through a similar change.
Well, there's your problem.It took me about 30 years of intense study, excelling in my career, and teaching engineers, to realize that the more that I think that I understand, how so very little I truly understand; and that as soon as I've convinced myself that I know something; that I've resigned myself to ignorance.
If Science proves Creation, why are there a disproportionate number of scientists who don't accept creation?
Which in turn proves that we went from nothing to the universe, the definition of creation.Well, your wait is over.
I just pointed out to you that "the universe can't have existed for eternity" does not automatically translate to "therefor, some being created it".
It just translates into "therefor, the universe has NOT existed for eternity".
Evolution does not have anything to do with creation. Creation, by definition says the universe started from 0, or in the terms of the Bible "God called not being being". Evolution on the other hand talks about how something can change over time. It never begins with nothing.There are more scientists, in the appropriate fields, named Stephen (or variants of) who accept evolution than there are scientists in all fields who dismiss evolution.
It doesn't say that in the Bible.Evolution does not have anything to do with creation. Creation, by definition says the universe started from 0, or in the terms of the Bible "God called not being being".
In this case, evolution talks about how life has changed and diversified since it began. Other branches of science treat of those other matters.Evolution on the other hand talks about how something can change over time. It never begins with nothing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?