We accept the scientific method, just not the $cience industry, which is full of quackery. Jame’s affectance is real, but we disagree on whether or not it is spread throughout the infinite universe infinitely (I believe it may be a finite substance.)
What points do you have? Ask so we can shoot them down.
Mathematically/Logically, with extended empirical evidence of a computer and what science agrees on (not the many things that they disagree on).
You can add 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 together can’t you? How do you know that your answer is correct? Are you going to count them?
That conclusion is called a “non sequitur” - a type of logic fallacy.
I have have proven that there is no homogeneity period. It is an impossibility … anywhere.
Relative homogenity is the only thing that proves the universe is infinite. Without relative homogeny the universe is unbalanced, if it is unbalanced it means that it the potential for less density in some places, which means that it has empty spaces in some places.
Please provide evidence, even computer evidence or shoddy evidence I will accept, please provide evidence that the universe is infinite, because quasars imply it isn’t.
Relative homogenity is the only thing that proves the universe is infinite. Without relative homogeny the universe is unbalanced, if it is unbalanced it means that it the potential for less density in some places, which means that it has empty spaces in some places.
Please provide evidence, even computer evidence or shoddy evidence I will accept, please provide evidence that the universe is infinite, because quasars imply it isn’t.
What is that term supposed to mean?
No. It doesn’t mean that. Where did you get that? Variation does NOT necessitate absence.
Quasars don’t imply anything of the sort. Again, merely a non sequitur.
Just as every event requires a cause, every lack of event also requires a cause.
You know that the universe is infinite because there is nothing to prevent it. No matter how far away you go, merely add another inch. What is going to stop you from adding an inch?
If your spaceship finds itself still moving past the outer rims of the universe, it is probably because it is dragging aether along with it. An object cannot move without being connected to aether.
We have no gaurantee if the outer rims are near or far, My guess is they are not much further past the quasars but I am not sure. You go to no evidence the universe is infinite.
What is relative homogeny means a universe with relative homogeny would have galaxies everywhere, planets everywhere, no matter how many thousands of lightyears you travel, its repetitive scenery, nothing novel, just slight variations of the same theme - planets, stars, nebulas and galaxies.
But since there are quasars, this means the universe is not relatively homogenous.
Trixie
There is no outer edge of the universe e.g. where you could be say, on a planet looking up at the night sky, and the sky would only have stars in one half of it or not at all in some areas. In other words there is no point where you can look out beyond the edge of space. The brother [a physicist] says the universe is expanding within itself, such that every point is at its centre or epicentre if you like.
It gets stranger if we imagined there were only a handful of stars, and still there would be no edge. the light would curve around space [seeing as it has no ends], which would be curved to the point that those few stars would always appear to be all around you ~ even if they were all in front.
This warped nature of space is further distorted by relativity and quantum mechanics.
In a sense there are only curves, and some spatial locations [centre’s/epicentres] curl or spiral inwards or outwards. This is why magnetism and particles behave also like that. Now consider once more that every point is at the centre, that means they are necessarily connected together at the quantum scale, and that everywhere is ultimately as near or far as anywhere else. It is also the reason why there is entanglement; a particle is in the centre and is also in a given spatial location, now multiply that by a denumerable amount and you have a mesh of particles all in superposition.
This is not ‘affectance’; causes in the universe denote derivative informations, which become potentiality held in all the particles existent or in superposition. Guess what happens next! Yes the next set of caused manifest particles THEN exist. We experience this as the flow of time.
There is no subfield of affecting particles, because the informations generated are relative; specifically that the mathematical values of existent particles, ARE the result of the equation ~ the effect, and not the cause. Otherwise we are expecting particles to be self causing [be the thing which makes its own potentiality], which is ridiculous and not what observable phenomenon IS like.
_
That part is right.
That part is not.
Nor is that part.
Both of those are merely tools to use to predict. Neither are ontologies of existence. Both have limits of their use.
You are seriously conflating the map with the terrain.
“Spacetime should NEVER be regarded as physically real”…Albert Einstein.
Light can travel in vacuum without this imaginary substance you think exists
Light IS that substance.