[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]You phrase your language as though you were presenting objective facts, but you're actually just presenting arguments without objective evidence to support them.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;349830]You phrase your language as though you were presenting objective facts, but you're actually just presenting arguments without objective evidence to support them.[/QUOTE]

The statements I make in posts (such as what you just quoted) are
based on arguments and discussion IN THE MONOGRAPH. I venture
to say you probably haven't even read it yet, and yet you criticize.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;349828]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.[/QUOTE]

Pretends? This post is self-invalidating. The evidence is the entire
monograph, which presents in a logical order, and not merely in this
excerpt from near the end.

Judge the thing as a whole, not just a few parts.

[QUOTE=davar55;349833]The statements I make in posts (such as what you just quoted) are based on arguments and discussion IN THE MONOGRAPH.[/QUOTE]Of course they are!

But arguments and discussion are not [I]objective evidence.[/I] Don't you know the difference?

[quote]I venture to say you probably haven't even read it yet, and yet you criticize.[/quote]You could have done me (and yourself) the courtesy of [I][U]asking[/U] me whether I've read the monograph[/I] ... but you don't. Instead of [I]obtaining evidence[/I] about whether I've read the monograph, you just spin speculation and insult.

[QUOTE=davar55;349835]The evidence is the entire monograph,[/QUOTE]What utter crap. You apparently do not understand the definition of "evidence", because you keep claiming that your mere [U]arguments[/U] are "evidence".

A measurement of a line in a spectrogram is evidence. A bald assertion that, for example, "the overall density of the substance of the Universe remains fixed" is a claim or a statement, but it is NOT evidence.

Evidence is something real, not just words you write in legible paragraphs.

[quote]which presents in a logical order,[/quote]Presenting arguments in a logical order may make them easier to understand, but that is not a presentation of [U]evidence[/U].

[quote]and not merely in this excerpt from near the end.[/quote]Okay, so where _is_ the evidence in the monograph (and please don't repeat your false claim "The evidence is the entire monograph")?

- - -

How about this: where, in your monograph, do you present factual data that supports your arguments? (Do you understand "factual data" better than you understand "evidence"?)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;349908]Of course they are!

But arguments and discussion are not [I]objective evidence.[/I] Don't you know the difference?

You could have done me (and yourself) the courtesy of [I][U]asking[/U] me whether I've read the monograph[/I] ... but you don't. Instead of [I]obtaining evidence[/I] about whether I've read the monograph, you just spin speculation and insult.

What utter crap. You apparently do not understand the definition of "evidence", because you keep claiming that your mere [U]arguments[/U] are "evidence".

A measurement of a line in a spectrogram is evidence. A bald assertion that, for example, "the overall density of the substance of the Universe remains fixed" is a claim or a statement, but it is NOT evidence.

Evidence is something real, not just words you write in legible paragraphs.

Presenting arguments in a logical order may make them easier to understand, but that is not a presentation of [U]evidence[/U].

Okay, so where _is_ the evidence in the monograph (and please don't repeat your false claim "The evidence is the entire monograph")?

- - -

How about this: where, in your monograph, do you present factual data that supports your arguments? (Do you understand "factual data" better than you understand "evidence"?)[/QUOTE]

I can't cherry-pick the manuscript for anyone. Why do you need me
to tell you where to look in the manuscript, when you could just
read the whole thing in a half hour? Then judge for yourself what
scientific evidence supports my POV and what may still need evidence?

[QUOTE=davar55;349924]I can't cherry-pick the manuscript for anyone. Why do you need me
to tell you where to look in the manuscript, when you could just
read the whole thing in a half hour? Then judge for yourself what
scientific evidence supports my POV and what may still need evidence?[/QUOTE]
Surely you are the best person to point out where in your own manuscript the general discussion you give is backed up by hard evidence? Just an example or two would be better than nothing.

Speaking for myself, such an indication from you might provide me the motivation I need to read your manuscript fully and properly instead of just skimming through it as I have done. The views you express, which I pick up from my skimming, tend to jar with my own views on many points. To achieve the motivation to read something which goes against previous convictions which I have held, and thereby learn from it, requires from me the initial assurance that the writer is presenting serious evidence for the assertions.

OK.

"the overall density of the substance of the Universe remains fixed"

This line appears in the two paragraphs you read.

Density of Universe = Mass-Energy of Universe / Volume of Universe

Since by conservation of mass-energy this quantity never changes,
and is finite,
and since the spatial three-dimensional volume of the universe is
fixed and finite,
the ratio, i.e. the density, is finite and fixed over time.

The assertions in that argument are discussed further in cosmo3.txt.

[QUOTE=davar55;349926]OK.

"the overall density of the substance of the Universe remains fixed"

This line appears in the two paragraphs you read.

Density of Universe = Mass-Energy of Universe / Volume of Universe

Since by conservation of mass-energy this quantity never changes,
and is finite,
and since the spatial three-dimensional volume of the universe is
fixed and finite,
the ratio, i.e. the density, is finite and fixed over time.

The assertions in that argument are discussed further in cosmo3.txt.[/QUOTE]OK, let's analyse those statements in detail.

First: in GR there is no way uniquely to specify the mass-energy of the universe. The best you can do is to say that within a particular region of spacetime the curvature [b]as measured from outside that region[/b] would be that created by a specific amount of mass, energy, pressure, etc. Where do you position yourself outside the universe in order to make that measurement? Incidentally, there is more to Einsteinian gravitation than mass-energy. You must consider the stress-energy tensor which contains mass-energy as only four components of sixteen.

Secondly how, in practice, do you measure --- or even define --- "the volume of the Universe"?

I'll grant you the conservation of mass-energy for the time being. The experimental evidence is pretty good.

That the universe's mass-energy is finite is an assumption, not an observational result. We simply do not know one way or the other.

Likewise "the spatial three dimensional volume of the universe is fixed and finite" is an assumption with no observational evidence one way or the other. Further, In GR the 3-d spatial volume of a region of spacetime depends on how you measure it. There is no unique way of saying "this is space" and "this is time".

On the basis of those assumptions you can deduce your result about density. If either or both assumptions are incorrect your deduction is questionable at best.

Believe it or not, I have read your manuscript --- all three versions of it. Why do you think I'm spending so much time and effort in trying to point out where you need to concentrate your attention so that you may stand a chance of developing your ideas to the point where you may be able to make predictions? Your proposal will not be taken seriously until you use it to predict phenomena which can be checked by observation and/or experiment and which, crucially, differ from predictions made by currently popular theories such as the hot big bang.

@ cheesehead, Brian-E, and xilman- :tu::bow:
Well Said!

[QUOTE=davar55;349760]Nothing 'gave rise' to the universe. It has always existed.[/QUOTE]

Isn't this essentially St. Thomas Aquinas' [URL="http://www.harryhiker.com/re/r-b2--00.htm"]First Cause[/URL] argument redirected?

[QUOTE=xilman;349929]Incidentally, there is more to Einsteinian gravitation than mass-energy. You must consider the stress-energy tensor which contains mass-energy as only four components of sixteen.[/QUOTE]Doh! :doh!:

Why did I type that? The mass-energy density is only one (the time-time component) of sixteen. For some inexplicable reason I was thinking about the 4-momentum density, only one component of which is the mass-energy density.