[Rufus]

Originally Posted by dipayankar The Universe has to have some sort of a center if the Universe has a geometry. Else mathematics would be wrong. Now we need to find a TOE between mathematics and Relativity..

Dip Yanker (what??)

Else mathematics would be wrong. {You said this}

Would you mind explaining this further. (No heavy math I'm almost illiterate in that field) keep it simple.

And do something about that nic

Rufe the root Yanker (gardener ..ya that's the ticket)

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by Rufus I'm sure that Silly Sally could respond to that! rufe

The closest I got to caramel was eating shampita yesterday at the Indian buffet (it's called something else in Indian). Except the caramel wasn't in the center, eggs were the main center ingredient and I drizzled the caramel on top.

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Rufus Dip Yanker (what??) Else mathematics would be wrong. {You said this} Would you mind explaining this further. (No heavy math I'm almost illiterate in that field) keep it simple. And do something about that nic Rufe the root Yanker (gardener ..ya that's the ticket)

How bout the Big Dipa?

=
MJA

[gautam]

I think the mathematics based on an assumption called zero has to be finally wrong. If there is something called zero, universe must have a center. In Mest theory, there is a small scale infinity at every point of this universe making it a centerless sphere like it is boundaryless. You are the centre of the universe,right! It is rather deep down into you,impossible for you to look at ,or find it. As we are bestowed or damned to look only outward.
We are thus on the inner surface of a ball, always at the centre . The surface is not again real. You cant look at the surface since it is an unknown dimension. The day someone finds it may attempt to jump out of the universe.
regards
Gautam

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by gautam I think the mathematics based on an assumption called zero has to be finally wrong. If there is something called zero, universe must have a center. In Mest theory, there is a small scale infinity at every point of this universe making it a centerless sphere like it is boundaryless. You are the centre of the universe,right! It is rather deep down into you,impossible for you to look at ,or find it. As we are bestowed or damned to look only outward. We are thus on the inner surface of a ball, always at the centre . The surface is not again real. You cant look at the surface since it is an unknown dimension. The day someone finds it may attempt to jump out of the universe. regards Gautam

Gautam
The sign infinity is nothing more than a question mark.

One of the 'Laws of Reality' states:
Reality is a globe we are within, not upon.

Again I agree with you wholeheartedly

rufe

[dipayankar]

Lets look at it this way. Any two or more dimensional figure can be derivated for one / multiple centers. Our Universe certainly is not zero or single dimensional.

Originally Posted by Rufus Dip Yanker (what??) Else mathematics would be wrong. {You said this} Would you mind explaining this further. (No heavy math I'm almost illiterate in that field) keep it simple. And do something about that nic Rufe the root Yanker (gardener ..ya that's the ticket)

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Lets look at it this way. Any two or more dimensional figure can be derivated for one / multiple centers. Our Universe certainly is not zero or single dimensional.

Dipayankar

I think you are speaking as if conventional reality were proved. A three dimensional reality based on sentient matter is purely theoretical. Considering time as a forth dimension is a theoretical perspective and also unproved. A two, one or zero dimensional reality are perspectives of unproved conventional thinking and patently ridiculous.

The only proved and reliable perspective is thought as the only process. The conventional thinking of the universe being composed of 'real' matter and having no bounds leaves us with no location whatsoever. Likewise the model of a finite universe requires a container and has no real theoretical following (nor can be expressed).

Incedently both the finite and infinite universe models cannot be expressed in any language.

My apologies for the joking comments previously

rufe

[dipayankar]

Your comments seem as if we cannot have either a bounded or an unbounded Universe. Is there a third possibility???

Originally Posted by Rufus Dipayankar I think you are speaking as if conventional reality were proved. A three dimensional reality based on sentient matter is purely theoretical. Considering time as a forth dimension is a theoretical perspective and also unproved. A two, one or zero dimensional reality are perspectives of unproved conventional thinking and patently ridiculous. The only proved and reliable perspective is thought as the only process. The conventional thinking of the universe being composed of 'real' matter and having no bounds leaves us with no location whatsoever. Likewise the model of a finite universe requires a container and has no real theoretical following (nor can be expressed). Incedently both the finite and infinite universe models cannot be expressed in any language. My apologies for the joking comments previously rufe

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Your comments seem as if we cannot have either a bounded or an unbounded Universe. Is there a third possibility???

Dipayanker

I was wondering what your response would be

You, my friend are a realist or perhaps a materialist depending on which label you wish to use (neither sound like what they are supposed to refer to)

The third possibility has been mentioned in a previous post and unfortunately for any conventional realist it requires that you abandon the idea of the Universe being an external thing. The Laws of reality (based only on absolutes) states that "Reality is a globe we are within, not upon". and "The cosmos are created of apparency".

I doubt if you can accept this

rufe

[dipayankar]

Hi Rufus, you are probably right. I am a realist, though my friends claim I am a dreamer. But my dreams are always shattered by reality.

I also do have a slight problem in digesting your post. The cosmos is a reality based on physics. But is apparency based on the laws of physics???

Originally Posted by Rufus Dipayanker I was wondering what your response would be You, my friend are a realist or perhaps a materialist depending on which label you wish to use (neither sound like what they are supposed to refer to) The third possibility has been mentioned in a previous post and unfortunately for any conventional realist it requires that you abandon the idea of the Universe being an external thing. The Laws of reality (based only on absolutes) states that "Reality is a globe we are within, not upon". and "The cosmos are created of apparency". I doubt if you can accept this rufe