info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Shape of the Universe.
116 views
Skip to first unread message
The Starmaker
Apr 18, 2018, 2:36:53 AM4/18/18
to
The Shape of the Universe.
There seems to be a question whether the universe if flat or curved.
The answer is very simple..the universe is both flat and curved.
If you go very fast in one direction at eye level...you will return and
see the back of your head. Because the universe is curved.
But the flat part of the curved universe can easily be seen...
if you look down, or go down you will quickly hit the floor of the universe...and
if you go up, you can touch the top of the universe.
But if you move at eye level straight, it curves.
But here is the catch..
in order to get pass the curvature of the universe to get pass the curvature..where
the universe is infinite, you need to get pass the curvature 'ring' of the universe.
Just simply picture a medium size pizza (with pepperoni) inside a very large infinite size pizza flat box.
There seems to be a question whether the universe if flat or curved.
The answer is very simple..the universe is both flat and curved.
If you go very fast in one direction at eye level...you will return and
see the back of your head. Because the universe is curved.
But the flat part of the curved universe can easily be seen...
if you look down, or go down you will quickly hit the floor of the universe...and
if you go up, you can touch the top of the universe.
But if you move at eye level straight, it curves.
But here is the catch..
in order to get pass the curvature of the universe to get pass the curvature..where
the universe is infinite, you need to get pass the curvature 'ring' of the universe.
Just simply picture a medium size pizza (with pepperoni) inside a very large infinite size pizza flat box.
Chris M. Thomasson
Apr 18, 2018, 3:12:34 AM4/18/18
to
___________
It might resemble a 3d dual cardioid like shape torus thing...
;^)
SolomonW
Apr 18, 2018, 3:33:28 AM4/18/18
to
> If you go very fast in one direction at eye level...you will return and
>
> see the back of your head.
If you consider the expansion of the universe, this will not happen.
>
> see the back of your head.
> Because the universe is curved.
The Starmaker
Apr 18, 2018, 3:42:09 AM4/18/18
to
equally different directions..outwards..it formed a circle.
The edge of the circle (i call the ring curvature) is the curvature of the universe...but
beyond the ring..is the ocean flow of the tide of the infinte universe...the flat infinite universe.
I guess you guys can only see up to the...ring.
Daniel60
Apr 18, 2018, 8:27:42 AM4/18/18
to
The Starmaker wrote on 18/04/18 17:42:
different directions..outwards ... it formed a SPHERE.
> The edge of the circle (i call the ring curvature) is the curvature
> of the universe...but beyond the ring..is the ocean flow of the tide
> of the infinte universe...the flat infinite universe.
>
> I guess you guys can only see up to the...ring.
--
Daniel
> The edge of the circle (i call the ring curvature) is the curvature
> of the universe...but beyond the ring..is the ocean flow of the tide
> of the infinte universe...the flat infinite universe.
>
> I guess you guys can only see up to the...ring.
Daniel
The Starmaker
Apr 18, 2018, 1:18:11 PM4/18/18
to
Mark Earnest wrote:
> Please clarify exactly what you mean by the universe being curved. The planet Earth is curved. The Moon is curved. Women are curved.
The pizza in the box is curved all around.
Didn't you bother to look into the box?
The pizza in the box is curved all around.
Didn't you bother to look into the box?
The Starmaker
Apr 18, 2018, 1:27:31 PM4/18/18
to
It goes around in a curve...
I'm from New York...you drive around the curve..
you get into the car and you drive at the edge of the pizza pie
you tell your wife, "Drive around the curve."
She'll say, "We're back where we started!" "WE GOING IN CIRCLES, DUMNASS!!"
The ring, the curve is.. is the edge of gravity.
Beyond the ring...there is no gravity, just more space.
The big bang did not create space...it expanded to more space.
It knocked down the wall and got a bigger office...
it's called, "We're expanding!"
benj
Apr 18, 2018, 1:33:25 PM4/18/18
to
about science and math.You just babble one like Mitch figuring that if
you can make as little sense as possible people will mistake it for the
hard to understand theories of Einstein. Sorry, Faker but people who
understand science will spot your babble right away. The only people you
are fooling are people dumber than yourself. (which isn't many)
Only human stupidity is known to be infinite.
The Starmaker
Apr 18, 2018, 8:02:20 PM4/18/18
to
you get one in a pizza box.
SolomonW
Apr 18, 2018, 10:19:37 PM4/18/18
to
speed.
The Starmaker
Apr 20, 2018, 2:50:49 AM4/20/18
to
standing...it's curved.
It can be a large pizza, medium size pizza, small size pizza...it circle
all the way down.
And I don't see what effect the speed of light has if i go around any
circle...
The Starmaker
Apr 20, 2018, 2:53:08 AM4/20/18
to
casagi...@optonline.net
Apr 20, 2018, 7:38:35 AM4/20/18
to
The Universe means by definition EVERYTHING, so it doesn't have a
shape, in any reasonable sense.
If e.g. you say it's a sphere, then outside the sphere is by
definition also part of the universe, hence the whole has no shape.
shape, in any reasonable sense.
If e.g. you say it's a sphere, then outside the sphere is by
definition also part of the universe, hence the whole has no shape.
The Starmaker
Apr 20, 2018, 1:07:55 PM4/20/18
to
I cannot get pass their...groupthink mentality. I have to work with it...it's first grade science.
I'll lose them if I start teaching second grade science...
The only thing they understand is...pizza.
Now class...i got a slice of pizza in my hand, it has a curve on it...
Like...How Come?
SolomonW
Apr 21, 2018, 8:02:14 AM4/21/18
to
The Starmaker
Apr 21, 2018, 12:25:40 PM4/21/18
to
Why don't you explain how Earth goes around in circles if the ring is expanding greater then light
speed?
curious minds want to know.
SolomonW
Apr 22, 2018, 2:23:20 AM4/22/18
to
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 09:25:27 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> SolomonW wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 23:51:09 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:27:20 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you go very fast in one direction at eye level...you will return and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> see the back of your head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you consider the expansion of the universe, this will not happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the universe is curved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet to be shown.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You see the back of the head because of the 'ring'.
>>>>>
>>>>> It goes around in a curve...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm from New York...you drive around the curve..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you get into the car and you drive at the edge of the pizza pie
>>>>>
>>>>> you tell your wife, "Drive around the curve."
>>>>>
>>>>> She'll say, "We're back where we started!" "WE GOING IN CIRCLES, DUMNASS!!"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
(a)
> SolomonW wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 23:51:09 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:27:20 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you go very fast in one direction at eye level...you will return and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> see the back of your head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you consider the expansion of the universe, this will not happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the universe is curved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet to be shown.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You see the back of the head because of the 'ring'.
>>>>>
>>>>> It goes around in a curve...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm from New York...you drive around the curve..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you get into the car and you drive at the edge of the pizza pie
>>>>>
>>>>> you tell your wife, "Drive around the curve."
>>>>>
>>>>> She'll say, "We're back where we started!" "WE GOING IN CIRCLES, DUMNASS!!"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The ring, the curve is.. is the edge of gravity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Beyond the ring...there is no gravity, just more space.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The big bang did not create space...it expanded to more space.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It knocked down the wall and got a bigger office...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it's called, "We're expanding!"
>>>>
>>>> How do you go around a circle if the ring is expanding greater then light
>>>> speed.
>>>
>>>
>>> The ring is caused by the force of gravity. No matter where you are
>>> standing...it's curved.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It can be a large pizza, medium size pizza, small size pizza...it circle
>>> all the way down.
>>>
>>>
>>> And I don't see what effect the speed of light has if i go around any
>>> circle...
>>
>> I believe you and maybe you should educate yourself.
>
>
> Earth goes around in circles...it doesn't need the speed of light..
>
> Why don't you explain how Earth goes around in circles if the ring is expanding greater then light
> speed?
>
> curious minds want to know.
see (a) above your circle is clearly the edge of the universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Beyond the ring...there is no gravity, just more space.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The big bang did not create space...it expanded to more space.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It knocked down the wall and got a bigger office...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it's called, "We're expanding!"
>>>>
>>>> How do you go around a circle if the ring is expanding greater then light
>>>> speed.
>>>
>>>
>>> The ring is caused by the force of gravity. No matter where you are
>>> standing...it's curved.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It can be a large pizza, medium size pizza, small size pizza...it circle
>>> all the way down.
>>>
>>>
>>> And I don't see what effect the speed of light has if i go around any
>>> circle...
>>
>> I believe you and maybe you should educate yourself.
>
>
> Earth goes around in circles...it doesn't need the speed of light..
>
> Why don't you explain how Earth goes around in circles if the ring is expanding greater then light
> speed?
>
> curious minds want to know.
The Starmaker
Apr 22, 2018, 4:47:48 PM4/22/18
to
"The big bang did not create space...it expanded to more space." That means..
that which yous call the big bang is actually your universe...encircled,
inside the pizza box!!!!
The pizza box is the 'steady state universe'..and inside is your...pizza! (that which you call the big bang is your encircled universe, the actual pizza)
Now, I must add, Albert Einstein believed in the 'steady state universe' but, but..he had a problem...
it didn't fit his relativity theory...so he changed the facts to fit his theory.
He just made a mistake, that's all. I'm correcting his mistake!
He shoulda just said the big bang occured *inside* the steady state universe.
Instead, he threw out the 'steady state' to fit his theory.
You know...what Einstein always said, 'If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.'
Your job today is to correct the mistakes others have made in the past...and you move forward.
SolomonW
Apr 22, 2018, 8:35:33 PM4/22/18
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 13:48:01 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> Now, I must add, Albert Einstein believed in the 'steady state universe' but, but..he had a problem...
>
>
> it didn't fit his relativity theory...so he changed the facts to fit his theory.
Actually he changed his theory to fit the facts as he saw it. We all do
> Now, I must add, Albert Einstein believed in the 'steady state universe' but, but..he had a problem...
>
>
> it didn't fit his relativity theory...so he changed the facts to fit his theory.
that as you are too.
The Starmaker
Apr 23, 2018, 12:13:35 AM4/23/18
to
So, what theory did he change and when?
The Starmaker
Apr 23, 2018, 2:23:13 AM4/23/18
to
it's not caused by rapid expanion..
it simply losing energy.
And if you know your Colors, Red is the first to go when energy is lost...
the further the sistance...the more red you lose.
It simply...fading.
NOT STUPID RAPID EXPANSION!
stupid, stupid, stupid are all your textboks and college professors.
stay out of skool and you might learn something.
The Starmaker
Apr 23, 2018, 2:32:41 AM4/23/18
to
You don't actually believe you can form new galaxies while the universe expands, do you???
Throw you science book in the garbage can where it belongs...
Now, let me explain the origin of Gravity...
SolomonW
Apr 23, 2018, 6:04:29 AM4/23/18
to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
"Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field
equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise
his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity
would cause a universe that was initially at dynamic equilibrium to
contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological
constant"
Tom Roberts
Apr 23, 2018, 11:31:10 AM4/23/18
to
[I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you do is
post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that your usual
nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth responding to as
it may surprise some readers.]
On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> the universe is both flat and curved.
Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This happens
because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean by "the universe"
-- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two ways, which makes this
seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space is flat.
[I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
and won't understand anyway.]
Tom Roberts
post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that your usual
nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth responding to as
it may surprise some readers.]
On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> the universe is both flat and curved.
because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean by "the universe"
-- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two ways, which makes this
seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space is flat.
[I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
and won't understand anyway.]
Tom Roberts
The Starmaker
Apr 24, 2018, 1:51:18 AM4/24/18
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you do is
> post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that your usual
> nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth responding to as
> it may surprise some readers.]
That is called...the disclaimer. It always starts with "I rarely read your posts or reply to you because..."
>
> [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you do is
> post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that your usual
> nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth responding to as
> it may surprise some readers.]
>
> On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > the universe is both flat and curved.
>
> Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This happens
> because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean by "the universe"
> -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two ways, which makes this
> seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
>
> In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space is flat.
>
> [I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
> and won't understand anyway.]
>
> Tom Roberts
There are a million ways to say the same thing and not know you're saying the same thing.
Daniel60
Apr 24, 2018, 6:49:24 AM4/24/18
to
Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
How can space possibly be "flat"??
Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go East-West
and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!
In the Milky Way Galaxy, one day I might be able to go directly towards
the Galaxy Centre, or follow our spiral arm, or go up, out of the
Galactic disk .... three dimensions!!
And other Galaxies aren't all in the same plane ... three dimensions!!
And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
three dimensions!!
--
Daniel
Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go East-West
and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!
In the Milky Way Galaxy, one day I might be able to go directly towards
the Galaxy Centre, or follow our spiral arm, or go up, out of the
Galactic disk .... three dimensions!!
And other Galaxies aren't all in the same plane ... three dimensions!!
And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
three dimensions!!
--
Daniel
The Starmaker
Apr 24, 2018, 11:49:53 AM4/24/18
to
Daniel60 wrote:
>
> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
> > [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you
> > do is post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that
> > your usual nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth
> > responding to as it may surprise some readers.]
> >
> > On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> the universe is both flat and curved.
> >
> > Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This
> > happens because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean
> > by "the universe" -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two
> > ways, which makes this seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
> >
> > In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space
> > is flat.
> >
> > Â Â Â Â [I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
>
> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
> > [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you
> > do is post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that
> > your usual nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth
> > responding to as it may surprise some readers.]
> >
> > On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> the universe is both flat and curved.
> >
> > Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This
> > happens because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean
> > by "the universe" -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two
> > ways, which makes this seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
> >
> > In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space
> > is flat.
> >
> > Â Â Â Â and won't understand anyway.]
The Starmaker
Apr 24, 2018, 11:50:57 AM4/24/18
to
Daniel60 wrote:
>
> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
> > [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you
> > do is post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that
> > your usual nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth
> > responding to as it may surprise some readers.]
> >
> > On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> the universe is both flat and curved.
> >
> > Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This
> > happens because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean
> > by "the universe" -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two
> > ways, which makes this seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
> >
> > In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space
> > is flat.
> >
> > Â Â Â Â [I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
>
> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
> > [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you
> > do is post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that
> > your usual nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth
> > responding to as it may surprise some readers.]
> >
> > On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> the universe is both flat and curved.
> >
> > Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This
> > happens because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean
> > by "the universe" -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two
> > ways, which makes this seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
> >
> > In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space
> > is flat.
> >
> > Â Â Â Â and won't understand anyway.]
> >
> > Tom Roberts
>
> How can space possibly be "flat"??
>
> Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go East-West
> and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!
>
> In the Milky Way Galaxy, one day I might be able to go directly towards
> the Galaxy Centre, or follow our spiral arm, or go up, out of the
> Galactic disk .... three dimensions!!
>
> And other Galaxies aren't all in the same plane ... three dimensions!!
>
> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
> three dimensions!!
> --
> Daniel
Based on my observations...that which you call the big bang..the stars spread out in all directions because the top was flat and
> > Tom Roberts
>
> How can space possibly be "flat"??
>
> Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go East-West
> and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!
>
> In the Milky Way Galaxy, one day I might be able to go directly towards
> the Galaxy Centre, or follow our spiral arm, or go up, out of the
> Galactic disk .... three dimensions!!
>
> And other Galaxies aren't all in the same plane ... three dimensions!!
>
> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
> three dimensions!!
> --
> Daniel
they had to go in all directions because they needed to spread out some more.
Down...is where they came from. Up is where they went. But, there was was not much room Up, so they went
this way and that way....that which you call...spread out.
I mean, really...if you go inside a pizza box...there is not much room up or down. It's flat!
The pizza is flat! The box it comes in is flat!!
Tom Roberts
Apr 25, 2018, 12:21:18 AM4/25/18
to
On 4/24/18 5:48 AM, Daniel60 wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
>> In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but
>> space is flat.
>
>> space is flat.
>
> How can space possibly be "flat"??
Here "flat" is a technical term meaning that the Riemann curvature
tensor is identically zero.
> Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go East-West
> and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!
> [...] three dimensions!
My use of "flat" does not imply 2 dimensions, as you seem to think.
Indeed it can apply to manifolds of any dimension greater than 1.
Tom Roberts
Klaus Meinhard
Apr 25, 2018, 2:53:22 AM4/25/18
to
Hallo Daniel60,
> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
> three dimensions!!
ahem - 4?
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Klaus Meinhard
> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
> three dimensions!!
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Klaus Meinhard
Daniel60
Apr 25, 2018, 6:26:27 AM4/25/18
to
Tom Roberts wrote on 25/04/18 14:21:
Well, why didn't you say so?? ;-P
--
Daniel
--
Daniel
Daniel60
Apr 25, 2018, 6:29:05 AM4/25/18
to
Klaus Meinhard wrote on 25/04/18 16:53:
--
Daniel
> Hallo Daniel60,
>
>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
>> three dimensions!!
>
> ahem - 4?
>
as, I think, Time is the fourth dimension ... yes, I'll give you that!!
>
>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
>> three dimensions!!
>
> ahem - 4?
>
--
Daniel
Tom Roberts
Apr 25, 2018, 11:42:30 AM4/25/18
to
On 4/25/18 1:53 AM, Klaus Meinhard wrote:
>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
>> three dimensions!!
>
> ahem - 4?
No. At least not in the usual modeling of the world as a 4-d Lorentzian
>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
>> three dimensions!!
>
> ahem - 4?
manifold. In such a model, we analysts are outside the model [#], and we can
(necessarily) examine the model at any time or place (where those words refer to
time and place in the model, not our analysts' world). So over analysts' time
the model is fixed (i.e. not 'expanding').
[#] Even if we are modeling the universe we inhabit. We humans
cannot possibly be part of the model, but we are part of the
universe.
This is the origin of the MISLEADING and PUNFUL claim "nothing moves in
spacetime". That phrase conflates time in the model to time to us analysts. Yes,
as analysts' time advances the model does not change (or 'move'). But for
objects in the universe being modeled, motion certainly is possible.
Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding over time.
But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our universe is expanding
in 3 dimensions, not 4.
Tom Roberts
hanson
Apr 25, 2018, 4:34:26 PM4/25/18
to
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
"Daniel60" <dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions three
>>> dimensions!!
>>
"Klaus Meinhard" <k_mei...@gmx.de> wrote
>> ahem - 4?
>
hanson wrote:
So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
"thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?
Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.
Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
>
"Daniel60" <dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions three
>>> dimensions!!
>>
"Klaus Meinhard" <k_mei...@gmx.de> wrote
>> ahem - 4?
>
"Tom Roberts" wrote:
> No. At least not in the usual modeling of the world as a 4-d Lorentzian
> manifold. In such a model, we analysts are outside the model [#], and we
> can (necessarily) examine the model at any time or place (where those
> words refer to time and place in the model, not our analysts' world). So
> over analysts' time the model is fixed (i.e. not 'expanding').
>
> [#] Even if we are modeling the universe we inhabit. We humans
> cannot possibly be part of the model, but we are part of the
> universe.
>
> This is the origin of the MISLEADING and PUNFUL claim "nothing moves in
> spacetime". That phrase conflates time in the model to time to us
> analysts. Yes, as analysts' time advances the model does not change (or
> 'move'). But for objects in the universe being modeled, motion certainly
> is possible.
>
> Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding over
> time. But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our universe
> is expanding in 3 dimensions, not 4.
>
> Tom Roberts:
"Tom Roberts" wrote:
> No. At least not in the usual modeling of the world as a 4-d Lorentzian
> manifold. In such a model, we analysts are outside the model [#], and we
> can (necessarily) examine the model at any time or place (where those
> words refer to time and place in the model, not our analysts' world). So
> over analysts' time the model is fixed (i.e. not 'expanding').
>
> [#] Even if we are modeling the universe we inhabit. We humans
> cannot possibly be part of the model, but we are part of the
> universe.
>
> This is the origin of the MISLEADING and PUNFUL claim "nothing moves in
> spacetime". That phrase conflates time in the model to time to us
> analysts. Yes, as analysts' time advances the model does not change (or
> 'move'). But for objects in the universe being modeled, motion certainly
> is possible.
>
> Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding over
> time. But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our universe
> is expanding in 3 dimensions, not 4.
>
>
hanson wrote:
So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
"thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?
Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.
Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
Chris M. Thomasson
Apr 25, 2018, 6:33:49 PM4/25/18
to
On 4/24/2018 11:53 PM, Klaus Meinhard wrote:
> Hallo Daniel60,
>
>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
>> three dimensions!!
>
> ahem - 4?
How can time be the fourth dimension if every dimension has time?
> Hallo Daniel60,
>
>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
>> three dimensions!!
>
> ahem - 4?
Tom Roberts
Apr 25, 2018, 11:53:12 PM4/25/18
to
On 4/25/18 3:33 PM, hanson wrote:
> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
There is nothing (no thing) into which space is expanding. This is an
> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
expansion of the entire universe, so there can be nothing outside of it.
> Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
> "thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?
recorded.
> Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.
more general set of mathematical relationships among appropriate quantities.
> Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
inhabit, testing them via experiment, and improving them successively to
be more accurate and/or cover a wider domain of applicability.
Tom Roberts
hanson
Apr 26, 2018, 3:01:19 AM4/26/18
to
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
hanson wrote:
>> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
>
>
hanson wrote:
>> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
>
Tom Roberts wrote:
> There is nothing (no thing) into which space is expanding. This is an
> expansion of the entire universe, so there can be nothing outside of it.
>
hanson wrote:
> There is nothing (no thing) into which space is expanding. This is an
> expansion of the entire universe, so there can be nothing outside of it.
>
So, what is your entire universe expanding into?
What is that non-existent "outside" that your are referring to?
>
hanson earlier wrote:
>> Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
>> "thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?
>
hanson earlier wrote:
>> Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
>> "thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?
>
Tom Roberts wrote:
> The question makes no sense, as nothing (no thing) cannot be measured or
> recorded.
>
hanson wrote:
> The question makes no sense, as nothing (no thing) cannot be measured or
> recorded.
>
So, if "nothing (no thing) cannot be measured recorded"
then why do you assert that the Universe expands?
hanson earlier wrote:
> Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.
>
Tom Roberts wrote:
> No. In physics it is generalizing and abstracting from measurements to a
> more general set of mathematical relationships among appropriate
> quantities.
>
hanson wrote:
> No. In physics it is generalizing and abstracting from measurements to a
> more general set of mathematical relationships among appropriate
> quantities.
>
Roberts, your 2-liner is NOT physics. It is philosophical
palaver about "generalizing and abstracting your nothing"
hanson earlier wrote:
>> Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
>
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Not at all! Science is the process of formulating models of the world we
> inhabit, testing them via experiment, and improving them successively to
> be more accurate and/or cover a wider domain of applicability.
>
hanson wrote:
> Not at all! Science is the process of formulating models of the world we
> inhabit, testing them via experiment, and improving them successively to
> be more accurate and/or cover a wider domain of applicability.
>
Yes, it is the "Science of philosophy" about the Universe
that you just modeled, which gave raise to the
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery> [1].
You, Roberts, are mentionned in one of the links
in [1] wherein you sang a very different tune then
you presented above.
>
<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO
Daniel60
Apr 26, 2018, 5:45:15 AM4/26/18
to
hanson wrote on 26/04/18 06:33:
is expanding into??
--
Daniel
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Daniel60" <dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions
>>>> three dimensions!!
> "Klaus Meinhard" <k_mei...@gmx.de> wrote
>>> ahem - 4?
>>
> "Tom Roberts" wrote:
>> No. At least not in the usual modeling of the world as a 4-d
>> Lorentzian manifold. In such a model, we analysts are outside the
>> model [#], and we can (necessarily) examine the model at any time or
>> place (where those words refer to time and place in the model, not our
>> analysts' world). So over analysts' time the model is fixed (i.e. not
>> 'expanding').
>>
>> [#] Even if we are modeling the universe we inhabit. We humans
>> cannot possibly be part of the model, but we are part of the
>> universe.
>>
>> This is the origin of the MISLEADING and PUNFUL claim "nothing moves
>> in spacetime". That phrase conflates time in the model to time to us
>> analysts. Yes, as analysts' time advances the model does not change
>> (or 'move'). But for objects in the universe being modeled, motion
>> certainly is possible.
>>
>> Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding
>> over time. But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our
>> universe is expanding in 3 dimensions, not 4.
>>
> "Daniel60" <dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions
>>>> three dimensions!!
> "Klaus Meinhard" <k_mei...@gmx.de> wrote
>>> ahem - 4?
>>
> "Tom Roberts" wrote:
>> No. At least not in the usual modeling of the world as a 4-d
>> Lorentzian manifold. In such a model, we analysts are outside the
>> model [#], and we can (necessarily) examine the model at any time or
>> place (where those words refer to time and place in the model, not our
>> analysts' world). So over analysts' time the model is fixed (i.e. not
>> 'expanding').
>>
>> [#] Even if we are modeling the universe we inhabit. We humans
>> cannot possibly be part of the model, but we are part of the
>> universe.
>>
>> This is the origin of the MISLEADING and PUNFUL claim "nothing moves
>> in spacetime". That phrase conflates time in the model to time to us
>> analysts. Yes, as analysts' time advances the model does not change
>> (or 'move'). But for objects in the universe being modeled, motion
>> certainly is possible.
>>
>> Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding
>> over time. But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our
>> universe is expanding in 3 dimensions, not 4.
>>
> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
> Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
> "thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?
> Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.
> Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
>
When you blow up a balloon, does the inside of the balloon know what it
> Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
> "thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?
> Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.
> Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
>
is expanding into??
--
Daniel
hanson
Apr 26, 2018, 11:19:38 AM4/26/18
to
Daniel wrote:
> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside
> of the balloon know what it is expanding into??
> -- Daniel
>
hanson wrote
> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside
> of the balloon know what it is expanding into??
> -- Daniel
>
Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
With that in mind, Daniel, ask your balloon, and
philosophize, whether the inside of your balloon
knows what YOU are doing.... LOL!
>
You may get the perfect answer from SwineBert
Glazier who talks to the bucket that he shits into
and has profound conversions with, like you
just did with the balloon you are blowing into.
<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO
Klaus Meinhard
Apr 27, 2018, 3:47:07 AM4/27/18
to
Hallo Tom Roberts,
> Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding over time.
> But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our universe is expanding
> in 3 dimensions, not 4.
Maybe our experience of time is just our moving along on the skin of an
unfurling time dimension.
AFAIK, there are some more, tightly curled up.
> Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding over time.
> But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our universe is expanding
> in 3 dimensions, not 4.
unfurling time dimension.
AFAIK, there are some more, tightly curled up.
Daniel60
Apr 27, 2018, 10:17:33 AM4/27/18
to
hanson wrote on 27/04/18 01:18:
Sorry, Hanson, you might know balloonese, but I do not.
--
Daniel
--
Daniel
hanson
Apr 27, 2018, 10:47:42 AM4/27/18
to
Daniel wrote:
> Sorry, Hanson, you might know balloonese, but I do not.
>
hanson wrote:
> Sorry, Hanson, you might know balloonese, but I do not.
>
Daniel, enjoy your philosophizing. Carry on. .... LOL
Helmut Wabnig
Apr 27, 2018, 3:39:20 PM4/27/18
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:47:04 +0200, Klaus Meinhard <k_mei...@gmx.de>
wrote:
>Hallo Tom Roberts,
>
>> Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding over time.
>> But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our universe is expanding
>> in 3 dimensions, not 4.
>
>Maybe our experience of time is just our moving along on the skin of an
>unfurling time dimension.
>
>AFAIK, there are some more, tightly curled up.
Wortatrappen.
Word mockups.
Nobody knows what "curled up" means in Real World.
w.
wrote:
>Hallo Tom Roberts,
>
>> Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding over time.
>> But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our universe is expanding
>> in 3 dimensions, not 4.
>
>Maybe our experience of time is just our moving along on the skin of an
>unfurling time dimension.
>
>AFAIK, there are some more, tightly curled up.
Word mockups.
Nobody knows what "curled up" means in Real World.
w.
Lofty Goat
Apr 28, 2018, 1:32:46 PM4/28/18
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:33:04 -0700, "hanson" wrote:
> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
Non sequitur.
> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
Not expanding into anything. It's just getting bigger.
Today there is more space than there was yesterday, so there's more room
between things. Over short distances forces such as gravity overcome
that increasing separation, making it more difficult to observe. Over
long distances they don't, making it much easier to observe.
Why is that so difficult?
--
Goat
benj
Apr 28, 2018, 2:34:29 PM4/28/18
to
space, right? I presume it is the nothing at all with properties, right?
You do understand that what you are saying makes no sense, right?
hanson
Apr 28, 2018, 2:46:24 PM4/28/18
to
"Loony Goat" <rlwa...@gmail.com> wrote
>> is that additional space embedding itself into?
"It's just getting bigger" within what?
Goat, "Non sequitur", and to boot, you just parrot
fantasies and conjectures that are currently
in vogue, as you, the goat got goaded into, by
a notion that made you, the Goat fall off it's Loft.
Pity.
>
>
"hanson" wrote:
>> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
>> or, if there is "more space than there was yesterday", what
"hanson" wrote:
>> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
>> is that additional space embedding itself into?
>
Loony Goat wrote:
> Non sequitur.
> Not expanding into anything. It's just getting bigger.
>
hanson wrote:
Loony Goat wrote:
> Non sequitur.
> Not expanding into anything. It's just getting bigger.
>
"It's just getting bigger" within what?
>
Loony Goat wrote:
> Today there is more space than there was yesterday, so there's more room
> between things. Over short distances forces such as gravity overcome
> that increasing separation, making it more difficult to observe. Over
> long distances they don't, making it much easier to observe.
> Why is that so difficult?
>
hanson wrote:
Loony Goat wrote:
> Today there is more space than there was yesterday, so there's more room
> between things. Over short distances forces such as gravity overcome
> that increasing separation, making it more difficult to observe. Over
> long distances they don't, making it much easier to observe.
> Why is that so difficult?
>
Goat, "Non sequitur", and to boot, you just parrot
fantasies and conjectures that are currently
in vogue, as you, the goat got goaded into, by
a notion that made you, the Goat fall off it's Loft.
Pity.
>
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Apr 28, 2018, 9:07:03 PM4/28/18
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/25/18 3:33 PM, hanson wrote:
>> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
>
> There is nothing (no thing) into which space is expanding. This is an
> expansion of the entire universe, so there can be nothing outside of it.
Not true, because there might not be only “*the* universe”.
> On 4/25/18 3:33 PM, hanson wrote:
>> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
>
> There is nothing (no thing) into which space is expanding. This is an
> expansion of the entire universe, so there can be nothing outside of it.
*Our* universe could be part of, and expanding into, a multiverse, where
there are other universes; but while there are theories that predict this
(WMAP/ “Planck”-supported inflation theory being one of them), there is no
experiment yet that confirmed it.
One difficulty of an experiment is that those other universes would be
moving away from ours faster than the speed of light (Lawrence Krauss at
AAI, 2009 [1]):
<https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo?t=3454>
However, *if* there is a multiverse, then we must assume that *it* is not
expanding into anything.
See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse>
(the “Proponents and Skeptics” section features remarkable lists for both
categories)
F’up2 sci.physics.relativity
PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)
Tom Roberts
Apr 28, 2018, 11:33:40 PM4/28/18
to
On 4/28/18 1:34 PM, benj wrote:
> Ah, space is "expanding" into the "nothing at all" that exists around
> space, right?
Wrong. The "nothing at all" does NOT exist, which is the whole point.
> Ah, space is "expanding" into the "nothing at all" that exists around
> space, right?
> I presume it is the nothing at all with properties, right?
> You do understand that what you are saying makes no sense, right?
The _ACTUAL_ model makes perfect sense to those who understand it. But
the English language cannot express the concepts adequately [#]. So
people like yourself, who depend entirely on language to "understand"
the mathematical models of physics, are doomed to failure. The math is
ESSENTIAL to understand the modern models/theories of physics.
[#] Indeed there is no "nothing at all" of my first
paragraph above. This illustrates the basis of the
difficulty with the language -- using any linguistic
referent is wrong, because there is nothing to refer to.
The paragraph must be unwritten, the question must be
unasked (see: _Goedel,_Escher,_Bach_ by D. Hofstadter).
Tom Roberts
benj
Apr 29, 2018, 3:18:00 AM4/29/18
to
On 4/28/2018 11:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/28/18 1:34 PM, benj wrote:
>> Ah, space is "expanding" into the "nothing at all" that exists around
>> space, right?
>
> Wrong. The "nothing at all" does NOT exist, which is the whole point.
Hey, now you are starting to make sense. so the expansion is into that
> On 4/28/18 1:34 PM, benj wrote:
>> Ah, space is "expanding" into the "nothing at all" that exists around
>> space, right?
>
> Wrong. The "nothing at all" does NOT exist, which is the whole point.
which does not exist which we must not term nothing at all!
Of course this is only possible mathematically speaking if the universe
is infinite in extent given that infinity is the only thing that can
expand without limit and still remain the same size (infinite).
>> I presume it is the nothing at all with properties, right?
>
> Wrong. See above.
starting to get some
>> You do understand that what you are saying makes no sense, right?
>
> Wrong. It is YOUR misinterpretation which makes no sense.
actually does not exist. Now that I"m straightened out, it's all falling
into place.
> The _ACTUAL_ model makes perfect sense to those who understand it. But
> the English language cannot express the concepts adequately [#]. So
> people like yourself, who depend entirely on language to "understand"
> the mathematical models of physics, are doomed to failure. The math is
> ESSENTIAL to understand the modern models/theories of physics.
>
> [#] Indeed there is no "nothing at all" of my first
> paragraph above. This illustrates the basis of the
> difficulty with the language -- using any linguistic
> referent is wrong, because there is nothing to refer to.
> The paragraph must be unwritten, the question must be
> unasked (see: _Goedel,_Escher,_Bach_ by D. Hofstadter).
>
> Tom Roberts
clearly infinite and also that mathematics is more real than reality.
Well, now, isn't that some progress!
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Apr 29, 2018, 9:21:40 AM4/29/18
to
On 4/28/18 11:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/28/18 1:34 PM, benj wrote:
>> Ah, space is "expanding" into the "nothing at all" that exists around
>> space, right?
>
> Wrong. The "nothing at all" does NOT exist, which is the whole point.
>
To put it another way, "Existence" is expanding. There is no outside
> On 4/28/18 1:34 PM, benj wrote:
>> Ah, space is "expanding" into the "nothing at all" that exists around
>> space, right?
>
> Wrong. The "nothing at all" does NOT exist, which is the whole point.
>
because the expansion isn't "into" something. The expansion itself
creates the very possibility of there BEING something.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
hanson
Apr 29, 2018, 10:26:33 AM4/29/18
to
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/28/18 1:34 PM, benj wrote:
>>> Ah, space is "expanding" into the "nothing at all" that exists around
>>> space, right?
>>
> On 4/28/18 11:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Wrong. The "nothing at all" does NOT exist, which is the whole point.
>>
"Sea Wasp" wrote:
> To put it another way, "Existence" is expanding. There is no outside
> because the expansion isn't "into" something. The expansion itself
> creates the very possibility of there BEING something.
>
hanson wrote:
> To put it another way, "Existence" is expanding. There is no outside
> because the expansion isn't "into" something. The expansion itself
> creates the very possibility of there BEING something.
>
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO
because "Benj" got you guys really going with your splendid
philosophizing while you are losing all sights of the physics
involved.
Cool!. Carry on.
hanson..
hanson
Apr 29, 2018, 6:27:13 PM4/29/18
to
>
Listen up, you splendid Philosophers, your dreams
are at least 70 years old re-warmed stale tripe.
Here is a current Schmuck whose fantasy will
make your Beytsim fall off due do his insistence
that the universe expands with super-luminal speeds
with White Holes:
>
"... the outer edges of the universe moving
faster than the speed of light"...
<http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/how-is-the-universe-moving-faster-than-the-speed-of-light?utm_>
>
and its gets even better because the philosopher says:
"Black holes can’t say that they might be the answer to where so much of the
dark matter in the universe is lurking. So, "Bye, black holes: white holes
are even weirder
<http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/bye-black-holes-white-holes-are-even-weirder>
0 new messages