|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |