It has a location--a lot of them, actually because that's what space is. — Terrapin Station
would probably need some mind altering drug to really enjoy the idea. Dead sober, I don't like it. — Bitter Crank
If galaxies were moving apart themselves then there should be a centre to the expansion. With a centre to the expansion, the rates of expansion would vary according to distance from the centre - things on the edge of expansion moving faster that things close to the centre. — Devans99
o, if there are other boxes, doesn't there have to be a larger container? — Bitter Crank
Though it would be fair to say, in those scenarios, that what you are calling 'our univerise' is a portion of The Universe, the whole shebang, rerasing the issues and answers related to where everything is.So the answer is that our universe can have a location if it's in some sort of spatial relation to other universes. — Marchesk
Does the universe have a location?
Everything, whatever that may be: does it have a spatial or temporal location?
I argue no, there would have to be space and time beyond it for that. — frank
If space itself is not expanding and it is a regular explosion instead then I would have thought it would have to fit in with one of the following patterns:
- The edges of the explosion are moving faster the the centre parts. In which case matter might be evenly distributed (homogeneous) like we observe, but we do not observe differing rates of expansion.
- Everything is expanding out at the same rate from the centre of the explosion. In which case the galaxies would form a spherical shell, which is not what is observed. — Devans99
Are you suggesting that you or anyone else is presenting arguments or observations? Just curious. — Terrapin Station
You've got to be joking. You observe "unified space"? Can you point to what you're looking at? — Terrapin Station
Explain how you're observing that "here and there are parts of space," please. — Terrapin Station
. Neither is bounded by its own individual space. — AJJ
. Neither is bounded by its own individual space.
— AJJ
What does this phrase refer to? What would that amount to, to be "bounded by its own individual space"? — Terrapin Station
Theory should explain observations, not dictate what can be observed, and then require fanciful inventions to not have to discard the theory.
We can say that the movements are "as if" the objects in question were on the surface of a balloon, but to then posit the balloon as a real, independent thing isn't justified. The "as if" is simply to help us picture/understand what we're observing. — Terrapin Station
There’s no empirically observable reason why the space I occupy — AJJ
It holds me up because my atoms interact with its, but why should they? That they do seems to be because the cosmos is unified; it occupies a unifying space. — AJJ
The theory predicts what we observe: — Devans99
Because stuff is invented (space as a separable thing) to make it work. It's akin to epicycles re planetary motion. That theory fits what we observe, too. It's just that it's wrong. But it was adopted so that we wouldn't have to change the theory. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.