But it can exist without changing.Originally Posted by Viator
Your explanation requires more terms, arrives at the same result, and fails to fully explain itself. It is a terrible explanation.That is not crappy explanation but that is simple explanation about New Dimension of Time.
Though to give you the benefit of the doubt, don't simplify. Explain it. FULLY.
Not when you use definitions interchangeably. And I agree, 'dimension' is a good way to explain time. But only as in '4th dimension' or 'W axis', not in the sense of parallel as you have been using.Using dimension term is the best way to explain time.
Who says that it is? Of course, the trick isn't the volume. It's the mass.If space/time came into existence with Big Bang, how could the cosmos be of infinite volume?
Ad obfuscatum is not a good way to debate. Elaborate. There are several ways to interpret that chunk of vagueness, and I'd rather not waste time adressing them all.It appears that universe is either infinite, containing an infinite number of finite systems, or, it is finite, containing a finite number of infinite systems...which seems much more difficult to grasp than infinity itself.
And why do you assume 'finite number of infinite systems'. NOTHING infinite has ever been observed. Infinite suffers the burden of proof.
The. Universe. Is. Finite. Until. Proven. Otherwise. PERIOD.The universe is only finite in its infinite capacities




