That would be incorrect… It could be described using mathematical terms, BUT since we are discussing a physical phenomenon (the universe), it is illogical to ASSUME that it has no center or edges.

I assume no such thing. I say we don't know.

Actually YES you do assume aelyn, unless you can provide ANY other physical phenomena that has NO center AND NO edges. Whenever you make a claim, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to provide the evidences (not mere opinion) for said assertions.

If I have to start giving you formal warnings for such misrepresentations, then you will be responsible for that as well.

Premises 1 - The universe is PHYSICAL (therefore it is NOT just “maths”)

But many of its properties can be described using maths. The very concept of "three dimensional" is a mathematical concept. That happens to apply to an aspect of our Universe.

Once again, that is incorrect… Mathematical equations (in the context of our conversation) are merely metaphysical

**descriptions**for the physical phenomena. Height, Width and depth are PHYSICAL phenomena, the “maths” merely describe said phenomena.

Further, it seems, you have forgotten to include premises 2 and 3. But, I’ll let that slide for now.

Premises 4 - We have absolutely NO evidence of ANYTHING that is physical, three dimensional and had an origin that is unbounded.

Indeed. But nor do we have evidence that the Universe isn't such a thing. We do have evidence that the Universe is very unlike the objects it contains in a few ways. For one, it's so much bigger that the largest object in it is a mere speck compared to the whole thing. Also, it isn't euclidean. So we can't just assume that because everything in it is bounded, the Universe itself is bounded too. Nor can we assume the opposite.

Once again, you are ASSUMING again aelyn,unless you can provide ANY other physical phenomena that has NO center AND NO edges. Whenever you make a claim, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to provide the evidences (not mere opinion) for said assertions.

If I have to start giving you formal warnings for such misrepresentations, then you will be responsible for that as well.

Not necessary… But if you can empirically prove your assertion, please do so.

The calculations that allow GPS to determine a location down to a few meters are extremely precise. You won't get a correct value with qualitative concepts like "the effect of gravity on light" or "time moves more slowly in a strong gravitational field". You need to know exactly how slowly time moves in how strong a gravitational field. The equations that allow those calculations are the equations of general relativity.

If you understood how GPS worked (if you do then you are intentionally misguiding?), you’d understand that a GPS triangulates three separate geographical locations to determine the intended location exactly the same as a person with a lensatic compass triangulates three separate geographical locations to determine the intended location. The equations are utilized representing PHYSICAL phenomena. You don’t need general relativity at all for either.

As an aside, I use to teach triangulation equations to determine microwave satellite antenna propagation for the Department of Defense. I have SOME experience in this arena.