[Fredrick]

How embarrassing, Austin!

[dipayankar]

Thanks for assuring me of my uniqueness Fredrick. I am also of the opinion that if there are other Universes, then what lies between them? Space? Then what would we call that space? Another Universe??? I am confused...

Originally Posted by Fredrick

You are funny, Dipayan,

Now, if there would indeed be a copy of you somewhere out there, would that copy then be wishing you weren't here? I think you have nothing to worry about, Dipayan, I think you are quite unique.

I consider the universe a conglomerate already, Dipayan, so having multiple versions out there of the multiples I consider our universe to be already does not bring me anything extra.

Just because I can have multiple doors opening up to the same room, I do not consider these multiple doors as pointing to multiple rooms; they open up to the same room (the German word for space is Raum, the same root word as room). Of course other rooms can exist, but the idea of a room is already captured; the space is already framed (even when the doors are the ones that make it impossible to keep the space captive). I do not care about the theory because it does not provide anything extra, except for the fact that multiple theories can indeed get created with the same set of information.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Thanks for assuring me of my uniqueness Fredrick. I am also of the opinion that if there are other Universes, then what lies between them? Space? Then what would we call that space? Another Universe??? I am confused...

Excellent point, Dipayan,

It is always possible to dig deeper into a hole in the name of science (or in the name of whatever), but expecting a greater view from the deeper position is as smart as digging deeper when the view does not fulfill the expectations.

[dipayankar]

So do we both agree that Multiple Universes do not exist since they are not required by science?

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Excellent point, Dipayan,

It is always possible to dig deeper into a hole in the name of science (or in the name of whatever), but expecting a greater view from the deeper position is as smart as digging deeper when the view does not fulfill the expectations.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

So do we both agree that Multiple Universes do not exist since they are not required by science?

I ignore the information of Multiple Universes based on the grounds we discussed; so, yes, we agree.

[dipayankar]

Only one query... do you think the Universe has had the time to expand to such great lenghts? Or does the Universe have an edge?

Originally Posted by Fredrick

I ignore the information of Multiple Universes based on the grounds we discussed; so, yes, we agree.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Only one query... do you think the Universe has had the time to expand to such great lenghts? Or does the Universe have an edge?

Dipayan, there are no bad questions, and of this one I must also say: not bad at all.

My personal view on our universe and the current configuration is that it did not all came out of a single pinpoint in time and space. I call this theory Empty Nest in which, if we view the movie backwards, all matter is already gone before we reach this so called Point X, the 'center' of our universe.

With this idea, materialization started not when scientists think it began; rather, it started more recently, though I have no problem placing it not much later than what scientists claim right now (13 - 15 billion years). If you want me to put a number there? Okay, I'd say 1 billion years younger. But I am just putting a number there where in reality I do not have the tools to calculate anything precise.

Having the universe start from an Empty Nest allows us to view the universe as younger, but also means the inflation theory can be deflated somewhat (I believe too that there was something like inflation), and that the rate of acceleration of our universe may be lower than what is considered (but I don't care too much about this specific difference really). It also means that objects are at a greater distance from 'the center of the universe' than what they travelled from their own origin.

If it took the light from a distance object 13 billion years to reach us on the other side, but matter did not come into being until 12 billion years ago, then a gap of 1 billion lightyears would be the dimension of the initiation stage of our universe. Empty Nest would be 1 billion light years in diameter.

The fun part: we cannot know what the dimensions are of this Empty Nest (unless we find specific information that are telltale signs of Empty Nest), because -after materialization took a hold- that central space of nothing much became part of our universe in which we have a whole lot of nothing much.

The universe has no edge in space, but it may very well have an edge in matter, yet for us to overcome our disability of not seeing all is quite a paramount obstacle.

Let me ask you again the same question: and you, how do you view this?

[dipayankar]

Fredrick... does your empty nest imply that matter came from nowhere? Or was there any precursor to matter?

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Dipayan, there are no bad questions, and of this one I must also say: not bad at all.

My personal view on our universe and the current configuration is that it did not all came out of a single pinpoint in time and space. I call this theory Empty Nest in which, if we view the movie backwards, all matter is already gone before we reach this so called Point X, the 'center' of our universe.

With this idea, materialization started not when scientists think it began; rather, it started more recently, though I have no problem placing it not much later than what scientists claim right now (13 - 15 billion years). If you want me to put a number there? Okay, I'd say 1 billion years younger. But I am just putting a number there where in reality I do not have the tools to calculate anything precise.

Having the universe start from an Empty Nest allows us to view the universe as younger, but also means the inflation theory can be deflated somewhat (I believe too that there was something like inflation), and that the rate of acceleration of our universe may be lower than what is considered (but I don't care too much about this specific difference really). It also means that objects are at a greater distance from 'the center of the universe' than what they travelled from their own origin.

If it took the light from a distance object 13 billion years to reach us on the other side, but matter did not come into being until 12 billion years ago, then a gap of 1 billion lightyears would be the dimension of the initiation stage of our universe. Empty Nest would be 1 billion light years in diameter.

The fun part: we cannot know what the dimensions are of this Empty Nest (unless we find specific information that are telltale signs of Empty Nest), because -after materialization took a hold- that central space of nothing much became part of our universe in which we have a whole lot of nothing much.

The universe has no edge in space, but it may very well have an edge in matter, yet for us to overcome our disability of not seeing all is quite a paramount obstacle.

Let me ask you again the same question: and you, how do you view this?

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Fredrick... does your empty nest imply that matter came from nowhere? Or was there any precursor to matter?

Empty Nest refers to that stage in our materialized universe where the development towards materialization had already started, but where no actual materialization had yet taken place.

In my belief it is only logical to have matter come from something, and I place the source of matter with the previous state. I too mention the appearance of matter as the beginning of our universe. There is no materialization within the previous state, but the previous state was capable of getting itself set up with conflict. Materialization is the end part of this conflict of the previous state.

The outward movement existed already in the previous state due to the conflict. When materialization occurred it occurred in that ongoing outward fashion. So, at the center of the newly materializing universe there is at that moment an Empty Nest of no-matter in the middle.

Yet matter also contains an additional conflict within itself that did not exist in the previous state (so there are now two conflicts at work). That put additional local accelerations in the picture. Those local accelerations could in my opinion have gone into any direction (on top of the outward direction).

[dipayankar]

So how would you define the 'previous state'?

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Empty Nest refers to that stage in our materialized universe where the development towards materialization had already started, but where no actual materialization had yet taken place.

In my belief it is only logical to have matter come from something, and I place the source of matter with the previous state. I too mention the appearance of matter as the beginning of our universe. There is no materialization within the previous state, but the previous state was capable of getting itself set up with conflict. Materialization is the end part of this conflict of the previous state.

The outward movement existed already in the previous state due to the conflict. When materialization occurred it occurred in that ongoing outward fashion. So, at the center of the newly materializing universe there is at that moment an Empty Nest of no-matter in the middle.

Yet matter also contains an additional conflict within itself that did not exist in the previous state (so there are now two conflicts at work). That put additional local accelerations in the picture. Those local accelerations could in my opinion have gone into any direction (on top of the outward direction).