[Mr. Scientist]

Of course anyone making a theory is free to define Universe as they like.

Well, to a point!
I've noticed some individuals on this site have a habit of using scientific terms (like Light) to mean just about anything they like!  IMO, this seems dangerous to accept this habit as it then undermines any sensible debate on their ideas.

Talking of which, M-theory & multi-universe theory are completely different concepts, are they not? [I think I got them confused earlier there myself!]

Dimensions ?
we got 12 dimensions.
we know only 4d ??

There is only direct evidence for 4 dimensions at present.

Time being a physical direction is not so direct, i must had however.

[LeeE]

There is only direct evidence for 4 dimensions at present.

I'm not so sure of that.  Consider two bodies, one that undergoes no acceleration and one that does.  The body that accelerates will experience time dilation.  After a given period of time t for the non-accelerating body, the accelerating body will not have existed for the same length of time i.e. the non-accelerating body with be t old but the accelerating body will be < t old.  If they both occupy the same time dimension then it would seem that after the period t the accelerating object will not yet exist whereas the non-accelerating object will.  In practice of course, both bodies exist simultaneously, regardless of their rate in time i.e. they share the same instant of 'now' even though they're traveling at different rates through time, which in turn suggests that they are at the same point in at least one temporal dimension, even though their own temporal dimensions have diverged.

[Mr. Scientist]

There is only direct evidence for 4 dimensions at present.

I'm not so sure of that.  Consider two bodies, one that undergoes no acceleration and one that does.  The body that accelerates will experience time dilation.  After a given period of time t for the non-accelerating body, the accelerating body will not have existed for the same length of time i.e. the non-accelerating body with be t old but the accelerating body will be < t old.  If they both occupy the same time dimension then it would seem that after the period t the accelerating object will not yet exist whereas the non-accelerating object will.  In practice of course, both bodies exist simultaneously, regardless of their rate in time i.e. they share the same instant of 'now' even though they're traveling at different rates through time, which in turn suggests that they are at the same point in at least one temporal dimension, even though their own temporal dimensions have diverged.

Just to add, the point of ''now'' in time has a special name. It's called asymptotic time.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

asymptotic would mean no symtotic time to me.  Does it have a different meaning in scientific parlance?  Joe L. Ogan

[Mr. Scientist]

asymptotic would mean no symtotic time to me.  Does it have a different meaning in scientific parlance?  Joe L. Ogan

Yes it has a different parlance.

What is the time that every human being on the worldd comes to agreement on? This is the time that is called asymptotic.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Interesting.  I did not think that one could ever get everyone to agree on anything.  Grin.  Thanks for the definition.  I had never heard the word before.  Joe L. Ogan

[Mr. Scientist]

Interesting.  I did not think that one could ever get everyone to agree on anything.  Grin.  Thanks for the definition.  I had never heard the word before.  Joe L. Ogan

Of course we can. It's called syhncronocity.

[Mr. Scientist]

Then we just come to accept that time we experience is asymptotic... meaning that our time we have come to agree on (lets say) the UK, can be made sense of the time experienced by the US, which is about 7 hours behind us.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Mr. Scientist, You are surely increasing my vocabulary.  (Syhncronocity)  This is the closest that I could find to the spelling (synchronicity).  Is that it? Thanks.  Joe L. Ogan 

[Mr. Scientist]

You're welcome. Anytime.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

You're welcome. Anytime.

I am not sure that you will get the question that I asked above:  The closest that I could find to the spelling was Synchronicity.  Is that the correct spelling of the word that you used?  Thanks, Joe L. Ogan

[Mr. Scientist]

Synchronicity - yes... how did i spell it last time... either way, sorry for the literal mistake.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

I believe that you spelled it as:  syhncronocity.  No problema, we have the correct spelling now.  Thanks, Joe L. Ogan

[Mr. Scientist]

fine then.