Andrew:
Thanks for the comment:
“Infinity is a process that is not yet finished. There are no infinities in nature. So, the universe must be finite. Explanation by the end of my article http://www.eioba.com/a/34hz/what-is-nothing
The same refers to the micro-world. I dare say that the smallest physical entity is a constituent of magnetic field. More:http://www.eioba.com/a/38yy/what-is-magnetic-field
There is of course, equilibrium. Omnipresent universal magnetic field beyond universal nucleus (materialized part of the universe) counterpoising universal nucleus (all physical entities along with magnetic field within it).”
You have clearly shown how the concepts of empty space and matterless magnetic fields are logical extensions of the indeterministic assumption of finity. On the face of it, your view that the universe actually has no empty space is similar to that of univironmental determinists. However, you get empty space by putting it outside your finite universe, along with your matterless magnetic field, which, I gather, is responsible for the existence of ordinary matter.
In link #1 you write: “Space, apart from the question whether it has its subatomic structure, or not, contains SOMETHING. It contains a variety of radiation. In my opinion, it contains also a medium for propagation of waves, but that's another story.”
Note that your first two sentences objectify motion. Radiation does not exist, it occurs. Radiation is motion. Space cannot “contain” radiation (see EMIPE). I agree with you, however, that space contains a medium for the propagation of radiation. This medium is physically and logically necessary. Once we have such a medium, we do not need to objectify the motion that it transmits.
In link #2 you write: “Magnetic field is a physical entity that has no creator in contrast to the remaining physical entities…” and 1. Magnetic field is primordial, because there is no evidence it could be composed of any other simpler forms of matter as, e.g. atoms are. 2. Thus from item 1 can be drawn a conclusion that magnetic field can be the elementary building blocks of all forms of matter.”
Here you give special properties to the magnetic field, which amounts to an objectification of motion. Magnetic fields contain aether particles, which are physical entities that serve as the medium for the motion that we observe as magnetism. There is no such thing as a matterless magnetic field, and certainly not something that “existed” “prior to the existence of the universe.” In UD, we are careful to define “existence” as that which contains matter and has xyz dimensions and location with respect to other things in the universe.
In link #2 you also write: “I obviously have my own hypothesis on the beginning of the materialized part of the universe as the universe has no creator and existed before birth of matter too.”
This shows the logical struggle you are having by maintaining your belief in finity, as clearly shown by your comment that: “There are no infinities in nature. So, the universe must be finite.” You must realize that, as shown in Borchardt (2004) and Chapter 3 of Borchardt (2007b), this is purely an indeterministic assumption, although it is surely popular with the mainstream. Nature actually is filled with infinities at every turn. That is why there are never two identical snowflakes, no really identical twins, and a plus or minus for every measurement. Each person and each microcosm is unique because each consists of an infinity of smaller and smaller submicrocosms and exists within a macrocosm that contains smaller and smaller supermicrocosms. The signs of infinity are everywhere.
In defending the finite universe idea in link #2 you also wrote: “Sure it is extremely difficult to imagine such an “empty space” that could end up sharply at the plate with the inscription “The End of the Universe” :) Well, it can and must even though it is difficult for man to comprehend.” Of course, it is no more difficult to comprehend an infinite universe. And, as Steve and I showed in UCT, the final frontier in physics requires the assumption of infinity [(see also Borchardt (2007a)].
References:
Borchardt, G., 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.
Borchardt, G., 2007a, Infinite universe theory: Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 4, no. 1, p. 20-23.
Borchardt, G., 2007b, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.