Strange

Sea salt comes from the sea, not lakes. Natural evaporation is slower and may cause different salts to be crystallised out at different rates.

The words 'aether' and 'other' are totally unrelated. The former is from the Greek word 'aithein', to ignite. So your proposed meaning is just something you made up. Ridiculous. Irrelevant. We are talking about physics, not ancient philosophy. Your analogy is wrong. It is like treating the location in memory as a pointer to its content. Which is obviously exactly what it is. More fake etymology. Your exclamation marks don't make this claim any more plausible. That is a non-sequitur. If space is simply a set of measurements, that doesn't stop matter being real. (Depending, of course, on what one means by 'real'). Does anyone else? Do you have any qualifications? Published papers? I haven't found any posts by you containing any physics (some vague waffle based on a misunderstanding of relativity and quantum theory was the nearest). No one said that. Is that a deliberate (dishonest) straw man or an inability to understand written English? Movement is relative (as Galileo observed). So, in some sense everything is moving (relative to something) but also everything is (can be considered to be) stationary relative to something. Looks like they should go straight to Trash.

I got those wrong too, for similar reasons. So I don't feel so bad now!

Sigh. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light Why is the temperature of the universe 2.7K? Why is it the same everywhere? What radiates this black body radiation? How much matter would be required to radiate this? How do you explain the primordial proportions of the elements? As you are rejecting General Relativity, what are you replacing it with to explain gravity?

I have worked in computing/electronics all my life. All the teams I have worked with have included some people with PhDs, some with masters degrees, some with bachelors, and some with no formal qualifications at all (that includes me). So I don't think there is any clear answer to this. It depends whether you prefer to study or work. What sort of work you want to do. Etc.

Why can't it just keep going back forever? What was before your supposed start? Nonsense. There is no reason that some or all of those edges could be unbounded.

Hang on. You said: So if "base reality" (whatever that means) always existed then it didn't have a start and therefore it can't exist. You don't seem to know what "logic" means. How can it be permanent and finite. That makes no sense. You might as well say it is both big and small. This is just a series of assertions with no evidence. It has no place on a science forum.

But this is still pretty meaningless. The part assembled car is within you "time window". As is the paper design and the components in the warehouse(*). And the design and manufacture of the components is all within the start "time window". The mining of the metals used is within the time window. The construction of the mining equipment is within the time window. We can go back all the way through the industrial revolution, the formation of the Earth, the galaxy and on ad on. There is no "start" at all. It is completely arbitrary. (*) Yes, I know they aren't warehoused in JIT environments.

It was, originally (we know this because it was the same temperature everywhere). But now it is expanding. The most likely end of the universe is a "heat death" (back to thermodynamic equilibrium).

So what was there before that?

Well done!

So the car doesn't exist until the final item (lets say the badge) is attached? So a car complete with wheels, engine, seats, doors windows, bodywork etc. is not a car because it doesn't have the badge on the front. I think you have successfully demonstrated how stupid your argument is.

As this thread looks like it is a repetition of all your other threads ("I believe the universe is finite and will make up any old nonsense to support my faith") I might report this to the mods for closure. OK. As you are not prepared to have a serious discussion: reported.

Bazinga!

So what. Your only argument is a religious one; ie not based on evidence or logic. If the transfinite numbers are magical/spiritual then so are the integers (and the reals, complex numbers, and all of mathematics). How is that relevant to anything?

That is not axiomatic. It is a belief or an opinion. Stop using the word "logically" when you have just admitted it is not a logical argument. You have no logic behind this. You are using "logical" to mean "this is what I believe". This is dishonest and very annoying. Why is is necessary? Because you say so? Pathetic. Not fully defined is not the same as undefined. As you are unable to make a logical argument, you should definitely stop using the word "logically". That is almost as bad. There are plenty of things that cannot be defined but that definitely exist; art, religion, consciousness, obscenity, ... The universe (according to some scientific models).

No. However, it would be very low down the list of possibilities because (a) we have no evidence for magic and (b) we have no evidence for the creation of the universe. Infinity is not a magical/spiritual concept, despite your religious beliefs. Why is it off topic, as all your arguments are religious.

Yep. That's my excuse too!

If you can choose any point as a start, then it doesn't have a start. For example, you could say that the book I am reading starts at page 127 but that would be silly. Well, the universe might be one such example, we don't know. This is the "black swan" fallacy. That is not very convincing. Once upon a time people thought all swans were white. For thousands of years no one had seen anything but white swans. But they were wrong. So your personal experience doesn't have much value as evidence. Please show the premises and logical steps that lead to that conclusion. Unless by "logical" you mean "well, it makes sense to me". In which case we can ignore it, This is the fallacy of begging the question. Is it? Please show your working. Otherwise this looks like a baseless assertion. That is not a counter example because (1) the concept of "start" applied to infinity is meaningless and (2) infinity does exist. Again, begging the question. You could equally validly say: There are real things without a start and the universe is real so it follows in didn't have a start; both logically and empirically. You have no empirical evidence that the universe had a start. So this is dishonest as well as fallacious. It might be. But there is zero evidence for that.

From the Perimeter Institute: https://insidetheperimeter.ca/a-quiz-with-questions-from-quantum-to-cosmos/ I got a very disappointing score (10/15). Let us know how you get on!

That's not a bad analogy. As long as you realise that there is only one spatial dimension which goes across the conveyor belt (not along it). So, when you are don't move, the conveyor belt carries you steadily into the future. When you move through space (ie walk across the conveyor belt then you still move steadily into the future but now the line you make is at an angle (because you are moving across the belt as well as along it). This is very confusing/confused. Who do mean by "he"? It can't be me because I never mentioned spacetime, but you did. So are you saying that your own comment makes no sense? In which case, I would agree. You are the only one who has mentioned spacetime or "linear time". What is "linear time"? Can you provide a reference?

What is "Linear Time"? Can you provide a reference? You seem to be confusing time and space. If you stop walking, you are still advancing through time but not through space. The direction you are walking is a spatial direction, changing the direction you are walking has no effect on time. Ah, I see. You are trying to be as wacky as the Time Cube guy. (*) Sorry you only score 1/10. But feel free to try again. Remember, to score more than 4 your text needs to be completely deranged, not just a bit silly. To score more than 6 you will need to bring in more conspiracy theories, and some random changes of font and colour. I don't think anyone else has scored more than 8 when compared to the Time Cube. (*) Just in case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

You can probably find some expert advice on the internet http://lmgtfy.com/?q=which+fragrance+carrier+oils+mix+with+alcohol

Or maybe the unicorns are interfering with it! But, more seriously, kudos for trying different experiments. The next step is to learn some physics so you can understand what you observe.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=best+carrier+oil+for+fragrance