On 29-Jul-08 22:09, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> No you gave a website that discusses the 'observable universe' which 
>> is a totally different beast than the size of the universe at some 
>> moment in time.
> 
> Two fallacies: (1) "observable universe" technically is the same as 
> "universe".  

why? For many people God is part of this universe, yet not part of the 
observable universe. (I know you did not mean that).

> (2) "moment in time" is a meaningless term, even for things 
> fairly close together, let alone separated in a spacelike way.

yes. I am aware of that. Here informally meant to mean every point in 
space time that has the same value for the time component. So rather 
undefined indeed.

> In other words, define "universe" first. This gets you into Clinton 
> areas, of trying to define what "is" is.

Hmm, I did not know he once tried to define the universe. I know that 
his definition of sex was peculiar, so I assume you refer to that.

Post a reply to this message