[QUOTE=davar55;349652]I've been assuming you read cosmo3.txt, my monograph on cosmology.
There's supporting evidence there.[/QUOTE]There seems to be a mirror of mersenneforum.org out there. Google search shows me this:
[QUOTE]Elemental Puzzle - Page 33 - mersenneforum.org
wynnesoccer.org/showthread.php?p=348687‎
Apr 6, 2013 - Here is the latest version of my "A New Cosmology" monograph. It's been given a partial ... File Type: txt, cosmo3.txt (63.5 KB, 30 views) ...[/QUOTE]
Here is our forum's post of the sekret document:
[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=336305&postcount=353[/url]
[QUOTE]Here is the latest version of my "A New Cosmology" monograph.
It's been given a partial makeover, and updated to include some
additional material. It's ~ 20 pages long. It's still a work in progress.

The cosmology it presents is indeed a kind of steady-state
explanation of the Universe, but with the concepts of a
porous fourth spatial dimension and the fixed finiteness of
the Universe, it explains HRS, CBMR, and the neutrino background
bombardment, while avoiding positing expanding Space.
Attached Files
File Type: txt cosmo3.txt (63.5 KB, 30 views)
[/QUOTE]I'm not going to read it, mind you. I leave that to inquiring minds.

Perhaps this part?


[QUOTE]
To see that the Universe had no beginning in time and has always existed, imagine trying to "push time" backwards to a first moment. Even the BBT and Creationism require a process for the Universe to form, and a process or sequence of actions takes time. Either there is no first moment and time can be tracked back indefinitely, or there was a moment "before" which the concept "before" had no meaning. But Time and Substance are co-existent; neither preceeds the other. So something would have to exist at that first moment. Then since "nothing comes from nothing", there must have been a preceeding moment which caused that one and its existents. By repeating this argument over and over, every possible first moment leads to an earlier "first" moment, so the infinite past is proved.

The fact that the Universe will always exist and will never have an ending in time is not hard to demonstrate. Because of conservation of the mass-energy of the Universe, and the finiteness and constancy of the total quantity of Space, the overall density of the substance of the Universe remains fixed An end of time could not be foreshadowed by universal loss of mass-energy (it doesn't change quantity) or a shrinking of the Universe's size (it's constant) or by a universal dispersion of matter and energy due to spatial expansion (it doesn't expand), or some such other cataclysm that can't occur. With nothing universal changing, time itself would have to just stop in the middle of "nothing happening". And this couldn't happen, by the principle of cause and effect.[/QUOTE]

Thx, chappy - so the argument rests entirely on "physics as we know it in our universe" ... things start with something eminently sensible:

[quote]Either there is no first moment and time can be tracked back indefinitely, or there was a moment "before" which the concept "before" had no meaning.[/quote]
...but Dave immediately dismisses the 'or' possibility by [incorrectly] restricting to known physics:
[quote]But Time and Substance are co-existent; neither preceeds [sic] the other. So something would have to exist at that first moment[/quote]

First off, the "neither precedes" bit is pure speculation - but even if true, so what if both come into existence simultaneously at the postulated first moment? And how does it follow from "something would have to exist" that the "something" resembles anything we know? All we need (or perhaps can) say about the "something" - call it the "primal field", if you wish to use familiar-sounding terms without imposing any nonsensical [i]a priori[/i] rules - is that it was capable of giving rise to our proto-universe at the "first moment" [which starting point is only relevant for the thus-instantiated universe"], and only after said moment does it makes any sense to speak of space, time, mass, energy, etc. Perhaps the primal field does this sort of thing infinitely often, with each newly created "subspace" being causally isolated from the others. Perhaps even such "generalized physics" is not adequate to describe the primal field. Who knows?

If there was in fact a moment "before" which the concept "before" had no meaning, why should the no-longer-existent "before" resemble anything we know? If there is no "space or time", how would "mass/energy conservation" be in any way relevant?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;349744]Thx, chappy - so the argument rests entirely on "physics as we know it in our universe" ... things start with something eminently sensible:


...but Dave immediately dismisses the 'or' possibility by [incorrectly] restricting to known physics:


First off, the "neither precedes" bit is pure speculation - but even if true, so what if both come into existence simultaneously at the postulated first moment? And how does it follow from "something would have to exist" that the "something" resembles anything we know? All we need (or perhaps can) say about the "something" - call it the "primal field", if you wish to use familiar-sounding terms without imposing any nonsensical [I]a priori[/I] rules - is that it was capable of giving rise to our proto-universe at the "first moment" [which starting point is only relevant for the thus-instantiated universe"], and only after said moment does it makes any sense to speak of space, time, mass, energy, etc. Perhaps the primal field does this sort of thing infinitely often, with each newly created "subspace" being causally isolated from the others. Perhaps even such "generalized physics" is not adequate to describe the primal field. Who knows?

If there was in fact a moment "before" which the concept "before" had no meaning, why should the no-longer-existent "before" resemble anything we know? If there is no "space or time", how would "mass/energy conservation" be in any way relevant?[/QUOTE]

For the basic relationships of Space to Time to Substance, see the
first five paragraphs of chapter OVERVIEW (after INTRODUCTION).
This should answer your first 'question'. Time and Space and Substance
are co-necessary and fundamental to the universe. (See cosmo3.txt).

.

[QUOTE=only_human;349727]There seems to be a mirror of mersenneforum.org out there. Google search shows me this:

Here is our forum's post of the sekret document:
[URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=336305&postcount=353[/URL]
I'm not going to read it, mind you. I leave that to inquiring minds.[/QUOTE]

Oh Only, it's written to be read, try it, you'll like it.
At the very least, it's a different point of view.

[QUOTE=davar55;349748]For the basic relationships of Space to Time to Substance, see the
first five paragraphs of chapter OVERVIEW (after INTRODUCTION).
This should answer your first 'question'. Time and Space and Substance
are co-necessary and fundamental to the universe. (See cosmo3.txt).[/QUOTE]

But even if so, it does not follow that they are necessary to that which gave rise to the universe. It's a non sequitur. No amount of "explaining" can fill a gaping logical hole at the very outset.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;349759]But even if so, it does not follow that they are necessary to that which gave rise to the universe. It's a non sequitur. No amount of "explaining" can fill a gaping logical hole at the very outset.[/QUOTE]

Nothing 'gave rise' to the universe. It has always existed.
What gaping hole? The five paragraphs you wouldn't even read?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;349759]But even if so, it does not follow that they are necessary to that which gave rise to the universe. It's a non sequitur. No amount of "explaining" can fill a gaping logical hole at the very outset.[/QUOTE]

"It does not follow...'

Why yes, it does.

"Does not!"
"Does too!"
"Neener neener neener- My theory can beat up your theory!"

[YOUTUBE]RDjCqjzbvJY[/YOUTUBE]

Ah, children. So nice to hear they're interested in things.

[QUOTE=chappy;349728]Perhaps this part?

[quote] To see that the Universe had no beginning in time and has always existed, imagine trying to "push time" backwards to a first moment. Even the BBT and Creationism require a process for the Universe to form, and a process or sequence of actions takes time. Either there is no first moment and time can be tracked back indefinitely, or there was a moment "before" which the concept "before" had no meaning. But Time and Substance are co-existent; neither preceeds the other. So something would have to exist at that first moment. Then since "nothing comes from nothing", there must have been a preceeding moment which caused that one and its existents. By repeating this argument over and over, every possible first moment leads to an earlier "first" moment, so the infinite past is proved.

The fact that the Universe will always exist and will never have an ending in time is not hard to demonstrate. Because of conservation of the mass-energy of the Universe, and the finiteness and constancy of the total quantity of Space, the overall density of the substance of the Universe remains fixed An end of time could not be foreshadowed by universal loss of mass-energy (it doesn't change quantity) or a shrinking of the Universe's size (it's constant) or by a universal dispersion of matter and energy due to spatial expansion (it doesn't expand), or some such other cataclysm that can't occur. With nothing universal changing, time itself would have to just stop in the middle of "nothing happening". And this couldn't happen, by the principle of cause and effect. [/quote][/QUOTE]No. There's no [I]evidence[/I] there -- only arguments, unsupported by evidence, to which there could be equally-valid counter-arguments.

The second paragraph pretends to be evidence based, but it's not. Its "demonstration" is merely a challengeable argument based on unexamined assumptions rather than objective evidence.