Socratus, I was hoping you would enlighten me rather than
just make a categorical statement.
I have never been able to accept that even Schaffner's
interpretation of Einstein's second postulate could establish an absolute F of R.
Does an absolute F of R exist?
Hmm?
1.
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
is so small (the average density of all substance in the
Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3 ) and it cannot
‘close’ the Universe into sphere and therefore our Universe
as whole must be ‘open’, endless
2.
The cosmological constant / the critical density of Uuniverse
is very small and cannot ‘close’ the Universe into sphere
3.
Now (!) the physicists think that the Universe as whole
is: T=2,7K . ( Nobel Prize in Physics 1978 for discovery
of cosmic microwave background radiation)
and in the future ( in the Future ) it will be T=0K.
4.
The Universe as whole is Empty.
But the Emptiness isn’t emptiness because it is filled with
dark matter and dark energy.
5.
What is a vacuum ?
The empty space between stars ( Galaxies )
Is this space really empty?
. . . . .
Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
/ Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
6.
Does an absolute F of R exist?
Hmm?
If ‘ yes’ , what to do with this Infinite Empty Absolute ?
?
==.
