HAL9000

In my opinion it is really hard to become a polyglot unless you actually study languages (e.g. at a university) for your future profession(...or you are one of those hal9000-type machines stuffed with all the knowledge of the world). Even then it is usually a tough task to keep the knowledge of all the languages you study at the same level of fluency, i.e. to be no less fluent than you are in your mother tongue. I see myself as an example of someone, who speaks three languages (including my mother tongue) but does not have full command of any of them. In fact, my knowledge of the mother tongue has deteriorated dramatically ever since I left the country where it is spoken. But that is a price we have to pay if we wish to establish a really global community with a fully new means of communication, which is "multilined" and not fixed on one single language environment.

I'm not a creationist either, but I do believe that anybody, who asks questions about the origin of the universe, tells the same old story in modern verse, so that it is poetry at best and not science. By asking, why it is assumed that the universe has no centre, you expect an answer from science. But science cannot enlighten you about its own assumptions, it can only provide consequences from these assumptions. In my previous post the meaning of the word "locate" must have surely mislead you, just like the word "birth"...that is why I hold that any analogy expressed in common language is actually misleading here. You claim that there must be the centre. So you can think of the possibility of a centre (that is what I meant by "locate"). But then you take pieces of scientific arguments and try to argue for the converse assumption analytically, on purely logical grounds, i.e. you try to generate a contradiction. For example here: But purely logical analysis of scientific arguments produces tautologies, because any scientific inquiry needs premises that evolve on reasonable grounds, not by logic. Otherwise you get rationalism, that leads once again to metaphysics. You cannot argue for the assumption "there must be a centre" by using the evidence of the theories, which are based on the converse assumption. All that is left is the obligation to derive a consistent theory from your own premise. This is the only way to prove the validity of the converse assumption. And I bet that will be a task too tough to cope with!

Time is not a concept. It is a form of inner sense. It is the shadow of space so to speak, just as space is the shadow of time. Sorry, that I cite a philosopher at this point, but science cannot provide any reasonable account of time as an entity, and so time is beyond its scope. Neither do I claim, that the above statement is a valid definition. In fact, it is not a definition. It just allows to reflect on many things, which otherwise would have been kept away as pure nonsense.

No, you didn't give an answer, because you didn't formulate the question. And if you try to formulate one, then the question and all the attempted answers will be necessarily metaphysical, and thus meaningless. The premise of a Big Bang (call it Creation if you like) is not a consequence of modern physical theories, it is their basis. This is the ultimate reason that justifies the validity of all the scientific inquiry that uses it as the main principle, and as such it does not explain anything. It is just rational to suppose that really everything, including space and time, came out of nothing. Because if you negate everything, it is always a good place to start to think about that very everything. Observe, that you can't imagine the absence of space, because your intuition is already inevitably spacial. And without intuition you cannot provide any reasonable statement concerning the origin of space. Although I am not completely sure whether we can consider any good analogy to this problem, but I would advise you to imagine that the universe, and hence space, began with your birth. Can you or anybody else locate a point or time instant where YOU came into (conscious) being? This is a typical example of a meaningless question.