Creation Ex Nihilo

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />To all,

The confusion following my first post today is part of what I'm trying to clear up by proposing definitions for things like the various kinds of boundaries that might exist (either in reality or as concepts ...).

Try thinking before you write?

LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Sure, but I think too fast and write too slow, and there is a problem of writing proper English at the same time.

heusdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>The current settlement for the issue, at least in the field of science and physics, is that spacetime itself is unbounded and has no edges.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Herein is, I believe your falicy.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b> A finite universe is bounded by has no edge.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Let me try this one more time.

The universe is not a bubble of existance in some great void. It is a bubble bounded by a limit of the existance of time and space.

In that view there is no "What is beyond the boundry". It is not an edge or egg shell boundry that there is anything beyond, yet it very clerly forms a bondry. One simnply cannot go and there is no physics where there is no time or space.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Hello Mac,

It seems clear that you are not talking about a Type A boundary (the kind of boundary in the Webster definition you quoted earlier).

It is less clear, but likely, that you are also not talking about a Type B boundary. Most likely you are talking about a Type C boundary. Can you confirm?

===

FYI, the definition of "universe" that Dr Van Flandern uses (and that I have adopted) precludes (does not allow) any boundary, not even a Type C boundary, to exist.

Again, if you want to use some other definition of the word "universe" in this message board you should be explicit about it. Otherwise we are likely to (continue to) have a communicating problem.

Suggestion - call the universe in your UNIKEF theory a "C-bounded universe". While you are here. On your site you can call it anything you like, of course.

Regards,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />heusdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>The current settlement for the issue, at least in the field of science and physics, is that spacetime itself is unbounded and has no edges.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Herein is, I believe your falicy. A finite universe is bounded by has no edge.

Let me try this one more time.

The universe is not a bubble of existance in some great void. It is a bubble bounded by a limit of the existance of time and space.

In that view there is no "What is beyond the boundry". It is not an edge or egg shell boundry that there is anything beyond, yet it very clerly forms a bondry. One simnply cannot go and there is no physics where there is no time or space.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Finite does not imply having a boundary. It is sure that spacetime as far as it can be masured, contains finite values ONLY, there is no difference of opinion there.
The difference is about wether or not it contains a boundary.

My position - and that of a majority of the science community - is that spacetime contains no boundary and no edges. Hence there are no "sepcial points" in spacetime that could signify a "begin" or "end" of any sort.

LB

There is no boundary between "extistence" and "inexistence" or between "being" and "nothing". See my linguistic remark. If something is bounded by nothing, this just
means and is exavtly equal to saying that it has no boundary.

Simple but effective logic. Else you are using "nothing" in the context in which it means a 'something', which is semantically incorrect.

There is no and can not be a boundary between "existence" and "inexistence" cause by definition existence is at any time and any place. There is no time and no place in which or at which the universe is not.

huesdens,

<b>So, I hold your claim for absurd, and none of your previous links to scientific texts, provide any real foundation for such an idea. The idea is just what it is: an idea, without the existence of ANY foundation (the idea itself already claims that no foundation in physical phenomena CAN be given).</b>[/qwuote]

ANS: Pardon me for getting blunt. But having you proclaim I am being absurd and that all the links and infomation I have posted as not supporting my view is outright Bullsh_t".

I have posted numerous quotes, papers etc that show indeed that within the mainstream scientists envision space as being created by energy. Further that energy flow creates time. I have posted nothing nor claimed anything that is in opposition to MOST mainstream science.

You are stating your personal opinion (and perhaps the view of some others) but that does not make your or their views any more correct than mine or that of scientist like Stephen Hawkins.

Space s not viewed as some unbounded (infinite) "Nothing". Your asertions are absolute fabrications without any merit and I will not argue the point further. I have stated my view. You have your view and that is about as far as one can pursue the matter since veither view can be formally proven or even granted a superior logic.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien