[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;382732]I notice that you still haven't explained the discrepancy I pointed out. Not that I expected otherwise, mind you.[/QUOTE]

Please remind me. Do you mean the dimensionality issue?
The fourth spacial dimension is like the fourth vertex of a
regular tetrahedron - not in the same plane, and with any two
of the other vertices defines a plane. Thus does the skin plus
two of the other three spatial dimensions define a 3--d space
for traversing, but the skin itself has only one dimension, a width.

Or was it something else?

[QUOTE=xilman;382733]Why? If nothing happened before, because "before" is a meaningless concept, then by definition the BB is the origin.[/QUOTE]

But something did happen before any proposed BB - an eternity
of things. That led up to the formation of the proposed dense
singular entity.

I didn't say "before the BB" was meaningless, I said :

Either there is no first moment and time can be tracked back
indefinitely, < this monograph's thesis >
or there was a moment "before" which the concept "before" had no
meaning. < which is not tenable by the following >

Time and Substance are co-existent; neither precedes the other.
<demonstrated in the monographh.>

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.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;382735]I've read a Stephen Hawking book recently I'm guessing you're trying to get away from the no boundary condition that leads Hawking to the conclusion of imaginary time ? I haven't really paid much attention to what you've said so far or the book completely.[/QUOTE]

I recommend his book A Brief History of Time, which I just read this year.
However, the A New Cosmology monograph takes issue with much of his
standard i.e. BB cosmology.

As to your good point, the monograph's point of view excludes all
singularities as physically impos[I]sible. [/I]Including the BB's
theoretical initiation of time. The Universe and Time always exist.

[QUOTE=davar55;382823]But something did happen before any proposed BB - an eternity
of things. That led up to the formation of the proposed dense
singular entity.

I didn't say "before the BB" was meaningless, I said :

Either there is no first moment and time can be tracked back
indefinitely, < this monograph's thesis >
or there was a moment "before" which the concept "before" had no
meaning. < which is not tenable by the following >
[/quote]I do not agree that it is intenable. You assert it; you do not prove it'
[QUOTE=davar55;382823]
Time and Substance are co-existent; neither precedes the other.
<demonstrated in the monographh.>

So something would have to exist at that first moment.
[/quote]Again an assertion, not a proof.
[QUOTE=davar55;382823]
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.[/QUOTE]
Yet again, an assertion. It is not clear to me that "nothing comes from nothing". On the contrary, quantum field theory asserts that the vacuum is seething with activity with particles and antiparticles spontaneously appearing from "nothing". QED in particular has truly remarkable predictive powers, good to well over 10 significant figures in some cases. Your theory has to be at least as good as QED if it is to supplant it.

OK.

[QUOTE=xilman;382828]I do not agree that it is intenable. You assert it; you do not prove it'

-- What are you disagreeing with? The middle of the proof?

Again an assertion, not a proof.

-- Again the middle.

Yet again, an assertion. It is not clear to me that "nothing comes from nothing".

-- This is philosophy, Aristotelan metaphysics, and is prior to science.

On the contrary, quantum field theory asserts that the vacuum is seething with activity with particles and antiparticles spontaneously appearing from "nothing". QED in particular has truly remarkable predictive powers, good to well over 10 significant figures in some cases. Your theory has to be at least as good as QED if it is to supplant it.

-- There is no vacuum? True! Because there is something everywhere.
Also Aristotle.

You're missing the proof for the trees.

Time does regress infinitely.

[/QUOTE]

A statement within a proof can be either supported or
unsupported. I assume your criticism of the statements
in my proof that the Universe has existed eternally, calling
the steps of the proof mere "assertions" is your way of
saying they are unsupported. Nevertheless, they are not
unsupported. The fact that "nothing comes from nothing"
is well accepted. The fact that Time and Substance are
co-existent and co-necessary (so that something would have
to exist at that first moment, if there was a first moment) is
established in the section of the monograph entitled "Facets
of the Universe". The fact that there was not a first moment
is not merely asserted but proven by the subsequent steps.

Quantum-electro-dynamics (I love its acronym) is not at
issue from me at this point. The argument you were
critiquing referred to the origin paradigm, the issue of
whether the Universe had a beginning. The BB theory
basically implies yes, the New Cosmology emphatically
denies this.

We agree that the so-called vacuum is full of fields, matter,
activity. I explicitly reject the existence of macrovacuums
(as Aristotle did), and have no quarrel with your descriptions
of what's happening in so-called-"empty" space. If that's
QED, more power to it. But I don't think QED and BBT are
necessarily co-explanatory. QED can survive even in the
absence the Big Bang origin explanation.

[QUOTE=davar55;382822]The fourth spacial dimension is like the fourth vertex of a
regular tetrahedron - not in the same plane, and with any two
of the other vertices defines a plane.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, I understand the concept of dimension quite well already.

[QUOTE=davar55;382822]Thus does the skin plus
two of the other three spatial dimensions define a 3--d space
for traversing, but the skin itself has only one dimension, a width.

Or was it something else?[/QUOTE]

I want a formula for the content (hypervolume) of the skin, in order that I might better understand its shape and the shape of the universe you're proposing.

Even better, give a mathematical definition of the shape it takes. If you have figures -- even estimated -- for the "width" (you've mentioned this, but I'm still not sure what it is) of the skin and its mass, they would be welcome.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;382895]Thank you, I understand the concept of dimension quite well already.



I want a formula for the content (hypervolume) of the skin, in order that I might better understand its shape and the shape of the universe you're proposing.

Even better, give a mathematical definition of the shape it takes. If you have figures -- even estimated -- for the "width" (you've mentioned this, but I'm still not sure what it is) of the skin and its mass, they would be welcome.[/QUOTE]

Please don't feed the trolls.

The new cosmology I presented may not be perfect yet,
but it has much to commend it. Dismissing it is
essentially a blanket endorsement of the BBT.
Which I'm sure is not your aim.

[QUOTE=davar55;382962]The new cosmology I presented may not be perfect yet,
but it has much to commend it. Dismissing it is
essentially a blanket endorsement of the BBT.
Which I'm sure is not your aim.[/QUOTE]I do not feel that dismissing your theory endorses another theory. My primary complaint has been and still is that your theory sounds to me like a "just so" theory like Rudyard Kipling's stories: how the elephant got its trunk,etc.