[michellemfry]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Hi Thomas cuny welcome to the TOE, When you say universe has a center and no spatial dimensions, then I should like you to know that center also implies a origin just like a graph sheet with X and Y planes. I hope you get the point.

If the center had dimensions, we would be able to threaten it's existence, couldn't we? It would not be the first time we have threatened to annihilate something if we do not get our way. But rather the dimensions has center, allowing the time travel of all things through space giving us spacetime. Yet, keeping the past intact to be viewed through the telescopes that view and do not threaten to annihilate.
The universe has gone from there to here and now, and may have used a center to orient itself. Would that be so terrible? So the universe had a constant embedded in it? A center. That would explain the static theory and the big bang. The center was static, always there, and the rest just blew up around it. The size of the bang only limited by what the center could handle and support.
Since the expansion is accelerating, I'd say that the center is stronger and supporting more universe. Whatever the outcome, never a dull moment around the place, is there?

[dipayankar]

How can we threaten the existance of the Universe if we know the centre??

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by dipayankar As I see it (and I also believe in it) is that the Universe was created by the collision of two two dimension branes. It was not a single collision but multiple collisions. However one question remains... If there were multiple collisions, then the Cosmic Microwave Background should have multiple microwaves (one from each collision) and hence probably multiple phase difference. How do we address that??

May be this collisions occured too close to each other that the phase difference could be neglected or could not be detected. Or may be the phase difference was too large to be observed. And the collisions may have occured at the same time. But then, if that is so there really must be a time=0

Originally Posted by michellemfry If the center had dimensions, we would be able to threaten it's existence, couldn't we? It would not be the first time we have threatened to annihilate something if we do not get our way. But rather the dimensions has center, allowing the time travel of all things through space giving us spacetime. Yet, keeping the past intact to be viewed through the telescopes that view and do not threaten to annihilate. The universe has gone from there to here and now, and may have used a center to orient itself. Would that be so terrible? So the universe had a constant embedded in it? A center. That would explain the static theory and the big bang. The center was static, always there, and the rest just blew up around it. The size of the bang only limited by what the center could handle and support. Since the expansion is accelerating, I'd say that the center is stronger and supporting more universe. Whatever the outcome, never a dull moment around the place, is there?

A center do not have dimensions. It is a point of singularity. With nothing. But instead dimensions originate from the center. Dimensions as I have understood is different points of view. The different probability of the way you look at it. One dimension always dominates on the others depending on how we look at it. If the universe has a single center then the universe should be acelerating away from the center, but that is not so. It is moving away from itself. And hence it must have different points of collisions or expansions. And hence you cannot find the center of the universe.

[pbecke]

It seems to me that the fact of the speed of light being constant and the rest of our space-time universe, intra-relative, necessarily entails that:
a) light belongs to another order of reality, and
b) this order of reality is as superior to that of space-time as it is possible to be; signifying that, while light clearly interacts with space-time, being absolute in its nature and not contingent or relative to any other entity, its essential nature must be divine - be by some manner or means, a deity, just as most of mankind's religions, from the most primitive religions to Christianity, have always held.

I was baffled why no scientist or philosopher had addressed this subject, since, in the overall and ultimate scheme of things, it relegates our universe of space-time to a very footling status, and consequently our scientific questions to a similar level of inconsequentiality. However, I think that is itself the answer to the question. We tend to concetrate on what makes sense to us, to what we can use - and nowhere is this reductionism more extreme than in the sphere of science. Yet it seems that now our physics, finally approaching philosophy and theology in its focus, has at least proved our insignificance in the presence and under the influence of some kind of absolute, some kind of deity.

It has been said that Neils Bohr became fed up with Einstein's repeated references to God, and rebuked him for it. Which makes one suspect that, on on a certain level, he was well aware of the implication of light being an absolute entity. But isn't light held to be quasi-physical, rather than physical. Only Christianity, among mainstream religions, countenances the notion of God having become incarnate in some mysterious way - without leaving Heaven, moreover. Little wonder, perhaps, that even the most innovative of scientific thinkers should prefer to concentrate on the area "proper" to his discipline.

I originally thought this might be an appropriate thread, but now I can't imagine why. I'm going to try to find for a more appropriate thread, post it there, and delete this.

[dipayankar]

You were baffled that no scientist thought about your 'idea' is because scientists think logically and dont like nonsense.

Originally Posted by pbecke It seems to me that the fact of the speed of light being constant and the rest of our space-time universe, intra-relative, necessarily entails that: a) light belongs to another order of reality, and b) this order of reality is as superior to that of space-time as it is possible to be; signifying that, while light clearly interacts with space-time, being absolute in its nature and not contingent or relative to any other entity, its essential nature must be divine - be by some manner or means, a deity, just as most of mankind's religions, from the most primitive religions to Christianity, have always held. I was baffled why no scientist or philosopher had addressed this subject, since, in the overall and ultimate scheme of things, it relegates our universe of space-time to a very footling status, and consequently our scientific questions to a similar level of inconsequentiality. However, I think that is itself the answer to the question. We tend to concetrate on what makes sense to us, to what we can use - and nowhere is this reductionism more extreme than in the sphere of science. Yet it seems that now our physics, finally approaching philosophy and theology in its focus, has at least proved our insignificance in the presence and under the influence of some kind of absolute, some kind of deity. It has been said that Neils Bohr became fed up with Einstein's repeated references to God, and rebuked him for it. Which makes one suspect that, on on a certain level, he was well aware of the implication of light being an absolute entity. But isn't light held to be quasi-physical, rather than physical. Only Christianity, among mainstream religions, countenances the notion of God having become incarnate in some mysterious way - without leaving Heaven, moreover. Little wonder, perhaps, that even the most innovative of scientific thinkers should prefer to concentrate on the area "proper" to his discipline. I originally thought this might be an appropriate thread, but now I can't imagine why. I'm going to try to find for a more appropriate thread, post it there, and delete this.

[pbecke]

Another techno-drudge, dipayanker... Mr McGoo reigns! Zzzzzzzz...

[Mohan.C]

Dipayankar Now do you know about the multiple phase difference you were talking about. If you have found out do tell me.

[dipayankar]

I am trying to find out... will let you know surely..

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Dipayankar Now do you know about the multiple phase difference you were talking about. If you have found out do tell me.

[JCarmignani]

I think the universe may be discrete... and shrinking at the Plank scale. What make it seem like expending, and the phase difference collisions are happening there. A simple plasma experiment can prove it.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by JCarmignani I think the universe may be discrete... and shrinking at the Plank scale. What make it seem like expending, and the phase difference collisions are happening there. A simple plasma experiment can prove it.

I don't get what you mean. What iss this plasma experiment.