The Shape of the Universe.

[The Starmaker]

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.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

total sci-fi
___________

It might resemble a 3d dual cardioid like shape torus thing...

;^)

[SolomonW]

> 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.

[The Starmaker]

It's not sci-fi...I'm baseing it on...Observation! When the big bang occured, and sent all the stars and rocks in
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]

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 Starmaker]

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 Starmaker]

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!"

[benj]

Faker, this is utter babbling drool. You are NEVER going to have a clue
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]

I'm not familiar with pizzas in the shape of spheres...not do i know how
you get one in a pizza box.

[SolomonW]

How do you go around a circle if the ring is expanding greater then light
speed.

[The Starmaker]

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...

[The Starmaker]

are you going to do the "infinite stupidity" quote...infinitly?

[casagi...@optonline.net]

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.

[The Starmaker]

Well, 'these people' in the scientific community view the universe as everything in the big bang.

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]

I believe you and maybe you should educate yourself.

[The Starmaker]

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.

[reber G=emc^2]

Could be shaped like a vortex.Could be shaped like a Mobius circle.Be nice if it was heart shaped.Bert

[hanson]

"reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote>

> Could be shaped like a vortex.Could be shaped like
a Mobius circle.Be nice if it was heart shaped.Bert"

to which...
>
Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup."
"Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__."
"Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!."
>
"Glazier, your brain is entangled with a used garbage can."
"Glazier, your science is far worse than the man's on the street."
"Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage."
>
"Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup."
"Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__."
"Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!."
>
"reber, take your 'you know it all thinking' to your grave" .
"reber, your horseshit gets old. Say hi to Allah for me.:
"reber, you don't believe in science."
>
Glazier's neo-tutor Sam Wormley <olli...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Herb you are Fucking pathetic.
Herb, you have spun a few too many times and are now
in a fucking stupor. Fits your theory of spin is in--sane,.
& is part of your dead brain theory, eh Herb. Oh Ya!"
>
Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr....@gmail.com>
"Harlow Campbell" succinctly added & wrote:
>
"Bert, your opinion doesn't count"
"a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert"
"Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker"....
"Bert you are senile, dazed & confused"
"Bert, you are Fucked in the head.
>
"Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)"
"TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker".
"Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking
moron who ever came down the Mass Pike."
"Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?"
>
"Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human
fucking being". "Bert you are an idiot."
"Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet."
"Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get
some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck".
>
"Bert, you should be arrested"
"Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your
van seems to be a center for drug activity in the
Wal-Mart parking lot"... .... .... about which....
>
Aviation Consultant Jim Pennino ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
Glazier, you are a spamming piece of shit...
Your Cocaine usage explains a lot of your posts.
You know nothing about government nor physics.
You are drunk again. Give up and kill yourself.
>
Astrophysicist "Saul Levy" <saul...@cox.net> wrote:
>
GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT!
Saul Levy
>
Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
I know, you reber are an idiot. Glazier, you are babbling
desperately. Is it sympathy or pity you're grasping for?
Stop it, either way.
>
"benj" Benjamin Franklin Jacoby <nob...@gmail.com> wrote:
One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was
lobotomized.
But Herb found poster "Double-A" <doub...@hush.com>
who likes to be like Glazier, but AA, the "Alcoholic Addict"
who is Glazier's "Ass Angel" & his "Asshole Ambassador",
is just another kook who is as dumb as Bert is, ...
>
AA, Abner Afterduft (Yiddish for "'Asshole Aroma") also
promotes that shitting into a bucket in a car is a laudable
accomplishment... and both being Marxist Communists
they demand entitlement to goods and services that were
created by hardworking people while they themselves get
loaded & expect and demand "to be loved by all"...
>
hanson wrote:
So Glazier, given your loud self-pimping of your Jewish
Supremacy and your IQ of 122 and you knowing how
how everything works, and your advertized ownership of
an entire block of residential properties in addition to a
hangar full of valuable collector cars, on the East Coast...
>
... how come you, Glazier ended up shitting into a bucket
in a 25 year old Minnie Mouse van that you use as your
residence, illegally parked, on Wal-Mart's Parking Lot
in Anaheim California? ..... .... What went wrong, Glazier?
>
What went wrong Glazier, that at the ripe age of eighty (80)
you, Glazier, became a Face-shitter & a criminal Graveyard
Vandal who wrote, but is unable or unwilling to explain why:
>
(1)
On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier, the necrophiliac, wrote in:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J
Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert.
>
Glazier's geriatric decay worsened, along with Glazier's chronic
alcoholism and Glazier, the Olde Kacker, and criminal Graveyard
Vandal became a Coprophiliac at his age of 86, all of which
Glazier proudly announced & posted...
>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, Jew-Swine Glazier
said to "benj" <nob...@gmail.com>: Reality is you always
post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... adding
>
On 03Aug2017:
benj, you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears.
>
after which Glazier, the Criminal Graveyard Vandal & Face
Shitter got even worse over the next year and at Glazier's
age of 87, Glazier widened his piggish Face-shitting habit,
as seen when Glazier threatened...
>
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, as Swine Glazier wrote:
Harlow HVAC, Mr....@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saul...@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nob...@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your face to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
>
(4)
The Criminal Swine Glazier is still rejecting to recant, disavow &
apologize, as of this day for
<https://tinyurl.com/Glazier-s-sexual-harassments>, even
while <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-s-de-Minting > goes
on & <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker>
waits with the gruesome end that she has in store for Bert,
but Glazier the Swine posted: "hanson made me famous"....
>
hanson wrote
So, Glazier you Swine, you should be grateful to me & not wish
me ill like you did above in your sick hate mongering, since
it is only because of hanson, that Web-searches show for:
>
--- Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ---- 3'327'833 hits & rising
--- reber g=emc^2 Face-shitter & mooch ---- 3'947'953 hits & rising
--- Glazier criminal Graveyard Vandal ---- 3'653'334 hits & rising

[SolomonW]

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)

>>>>> 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.

[The Starmaker]

Yes, it is clearly the edge of the universe...but I wrote already:


"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]

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
that as you are too.

[reber G=emc^2]

Changing one's ideas is called thinking.Einstein did a lot of thinking,and it shows Same as me Bert

[hanson]

SwineBert Glazier's daily Sanctimony and his
phony idiotic posts, are very different from
<http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-REAL-intent> [J]
who brags to be a Marxist Jewish Supremacist &
<http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> [J]
who knows how everything works, which is 1st &
foremost Bert's habit to shit into peoples' mouths, &
to see them being murdered so that Glazier can be
a criminal graveyard vandal & piss onto their graves.
Read it in Jewpig Glazier's own words in link [J]

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 11:36:54 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

The closed universe is with the higher round.
What is the shape of the Hypersphere Universe?
It is higher round expanding boundary with the
universe of time floating in it.

Mitchell Raemsch

[The Starmaker]

You got your...timeline of events wrong. Einstein came out with steady state in 1931, and relativity in 1905 and 1915.




So, what theory did he change and when?

[The Starmaker]

and yous people got this "red-shift" allllll wrong..

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]

...and of course, there is no... singularity.


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]

I do not think so,

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]

[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

[Double-A]

If spaceTIME is curved and space is flat, does that imply that only time is curved?

Double-A

[The Starmaker]

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..."

>
> 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.

Sorry, I don't suscribe to "*Our* current"... "our" translates to...groupthink.

>
> [I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
> and won't understand anyway.]
>
> Tom Roberts

I already put the pizza (spaceTIME is curved) in the box (space is flat)..

There are a million ways to say the same thing and not know you're saying the same thing.

[Daniel60]

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

[The Starmaker]

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,
> > Â Â Â Â and won't understand anyway.]

[The Starmaker]

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,
> > 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
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]

On 4/24/18 5:48 AM, Daniel60 wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:

>> In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but
>> 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!!

Sure.

> [...] 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]

Hallo Daniel60,

> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
> three dimensions!!

ahem - 4?



--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Klaus Meinhard

[Daniel60]

Tom Roberts wrote on 25/04/18 14:21:

Well, why didn't you say so?? ;-P

--
Daniel

[Daniel60]

Klaus Meinhard wrote on 25/04/18 16:53:

> 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!!

--
Daniel

[Tom Roberts]

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
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]

"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.
>

> Tom Roberts:
>
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]

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?

[Tom Roberts]

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.

> Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
> "thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?

The question makes no sense, as nothing (no thing) cannot be measured or
recorded.

> Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.

No. In physics it is generalizing and abstracting from measurements to a
more general set of mathematical relationships among appropriate quantities.

> Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!

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.

Tom Roberts

[hanson]

"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
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:
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?
>

Tom Roberts wrote:
> The question makes no sense, as nothing (no thing) cannot be measured or
> recorded.
>

hanson wrote:
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:
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:
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

[jasinski....@gmail.com]

W dniu środa, 18 kwietnia 2018 08:36:54 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> The Shape of the Universe.
>

...

> Just simply picture a medium size pizza (with pepperoni) inside a very large infinite size pizza flat box.
>

Good idea, but the model is not complete.

Good idea, but the model is not complete.

There should be 2 pizzas: parallel,
rotating inversely around the common axis.

[Daniel60]

hanson wrote on 26/04/18 06:33:

> "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.
>>

> 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
is expanding into??

--
Daniel

[hanson]

Daniel wrote:
> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside
> of the balloon know what it is expanding into??
> -- Daniel
>

hanson wrote

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]

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.

[Daniel60]

hanson wrote on 27/04/18 01:18:

Sorry, Hanson, you might know balloonese, but I do not.

--
Daniel

[hanson]

Daniel wrote:
> Sorry, Hanson, you might know balloonese, but I do not.
>

hanson wrote:
Daniel, enjoy your philosophizing. Carry on. .... LOL

[Helmut Wabnig]

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.

[Erin Koff]

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.

I can't believe what I'm reading here, on this platform, in this forum. It
has to be another paradox. Your "nothing" stands for the ABSENCE of time
and space. You can't expand anything along that.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

> > 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.
>
> I can't believe what I'm reading here, on this platform, in this forum.
> It has to be another paradox. Your "nothing" stands for
> the ABSENCE of time and space. You can't expand anything along that.

13.8 billion years ago, everything in the (subjectively) Known Universe
was in the same location; i.e. zero entropy and infinite density/exergy.
[ eXergy is a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ]

Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy;
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy.

Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was.

All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells us:
Randomness is ignorance, nothing more.

General Relativity's four dimensional TimeScape is static, eternal,
perfectly causal... it is, at once, everything _and_ nothing.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/27/18 4:18 PM, Erin Koff wrote:
> 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.
>

> Your "nothing" stands for the ABSENCE of time
> and space. You can't expand anything along that.

In our current cosmological models, space is NOT "expanding into nothing", it is
just expanding. There is no "into" or "along", just expansion -- an intrinsic
increase in size.

This is different from any ordinary expansion. When you blow up a balloon, it
clearly expands into the surrounding air. Geometrically, the balloon is embedded
in the 3-d space containing the air and balloon. But the geometry of the
universe is QUITE different -- it is not embedded in anything (any manifold).

Please note I am discussing our MODELS. But, of course, models
are all we can discuss....

Tom Roberts

[Erin Koff]

Thanks. What to do next?

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

> > Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy;
> > leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy but
> > none of the eXergy. Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was.
>

> Thanks. What to do next?

You're a consumer.
The only difference between you can sun is what you consume. when and how.

[Erin Koff]

> anything (any manifold).Please note I am discussing our MODELS. But, of

> course, models are all we can discuss....

eXACTLY, the absence of geometry "outside" this universe is absurd. Hence
a paradox.

[Double-A]

The universe has no memory.

Double-A

[benj]

On 4/27/2018 5:36 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. 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.
>>
>> I can't believe what I'm reading here, on this platform, in this forum.
>> It has to be another paradox. Your "nothing" stands for
>> the ABSENCE of time and space. You can't expand anything along that.
>
> 13.8 billion years ago, everything in the (subjectively) Known Universe
> was in the same location; i.e. zero entropy and infinite density/exergy.
> [ eXergy is a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ]
>
> Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy;
> leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> but none of the eXergy.
>
> Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was.
>
> All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells us:
> Randomness is ignorance, nothing more.

Rolf, there is no doubt that you are VERY random!

[benj]

The ONLY difference? Um, Rolf I can think of a few more differences
between me and the sun. You are STILL an idiot!

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

MrAA replied ( to me ):

> > Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was.
>

> The universe has no memory.

Figuratively speaking,
toss a rock up, and it "remembers" to come down.

You think gravity is a sucking force, like a vacuum cleaner, no ?

> > We're consumers. The only difference between us and the sun
> > is what we consume, when and how.

[swor...@gmail.com]

Seem flat to me (parallel lines stay parallel).

[benj]

On 4/27/2018 7:39 PM, swor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Seem flat to me (parallel lines stay parallel).
>

Only because your instruments aren't good enough to actually measure the
tiny curvature of the hypersphere! Trust me.

[Erin Koff]

Daniel60 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!
>>
> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside of the balloon know what it
> is expanding into??

Unbelievable stupid question to be read. Moreover, the universe is not a
balloon, not having the boundaries of a balloon, and that balloon analogy
went already to far. But to fool the unaware, it makes probably sense.

[Lofty Goat]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:33:04 -0700, "hanson" wrote:

> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?

Non sequitur.

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]

And the way you know the universe is not a balloon is? For propaganda
purposes you don't need truth, just a "plausible" story.

[benj]

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?

[hanson]

"Loony Goat" <rlwa...@gmail.com> wrote

>
"hanson" wrote:
>> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?

>> or, if there is "more space than there was yesterday", what
>> is that additional space embedding itself into?

>
Loony Goat wrote:
> Non sequitur.
> Not expanding into anything. It's just getting bigger.
>

hanson wrote:
"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:
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.
>

[Double-A]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 4:23:53 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> MrAA replied ( to me ):
> > > Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was.
> >
> > The universe has no memory.
>
> Figuratively speaking,
> toss a rock up, and it "remembers" to come down.
>
> You think gravity is a sucking force, like a vacuum cleaner, no ?

I go with the flow, Jeff.

Double-A

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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”.

*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)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/27/18 4:18 PM, Erin Koff wrote:
>> 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.
>> Your "nothing" stands for the ABSENCE of time
>> and space. You can't expand anything along that.
>
> In our current cosmological models, space is NOT "expanding into nothing",
> it is just expanding.

Correct.

> There is no "into" or "along", […]

Incorrect. Our current cosmological models *include* the possibility of a
multiverse. See my other follow-up for details.


PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[Tom Roberts]

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.

> I presume it is the nothing at all with properties, right?

Wrong. See above.

> You do understand that what you are saying makes no sense, right?

Wrong. It is YOUR misinterpretation which makes no sense.

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]

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
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.

So that which does not exist cannot have properties! Now we really ARE
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.

Right. I'm an idiot because I didn't understand that "nothing at all"
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

So, Therefore we have arrived at your "proof" that the universe is
clearly infinite and also that mathematics is more real than reality.

Well, now, isn't that some progress!

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

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
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]

"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:
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]

Add-on: hanson CITED and QUOTED:
>
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>

[Erin Koff]

benj wrote:


>>> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside of the balloon know what
>>> it is expanding into??
>>
>> Unbelievable stupid question to be read. Moreover, the universe is not
>> a balloon, not having the boundaries of a balloon, and that balloon
>> analogy went already to far. But to fool the unaware, it makes probably
>> sense.
>>
> And the way you know the universe is not a balloon is? For propaganda
> purposes you don't need truth, just a "plausible" story.

If you need an interpreter to demonstrate that to you, better get yourself
a proper education, old days. Not remote online and shit.

[Sergio]

On 4/27/2018 4:36 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. 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.
>>
>> I can't believe what I'm reading here, on this platform, in this forum.
>> It has to be another paradox. Your "nothing" stands for
>> the ABSENCE of time and space. You can't expand anything along that.
>
> 13.8 billion years ago, everything in the (subjectively) Known Universe
> was in the same location; i.e. zero entropy and infinite density/exergy.
> [ eXergy is a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ]
>
> Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy;
> leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> but none of the eXergy.
>
> Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was.

so, where there is no gravity,
there is no memory where stuff is,
it is Lost in Space.

>
> All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells us:
> Randomness is ignorance, nothing more.

randomness is a human concept, only humans decide what is random.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

> > 13.8 billion years ago, everything in the (subjectively) Known Universe
> > was in the same location; i.e. zero entropy and infinite density/exergy.
> > [ eXergy is a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ]
> >
> > Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy;
> > leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> > but none of the eXergy.
> >
> > Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was.
>
> so, where there is no gravity,

> there is no memory where stuff is; it's Lost in Space.

Gravity is SpaceTime, the 4D TimeScape; it's everywhere, always.

[Michael Moroney]

Jeff-Relf.Me @. writes:

<snip exergy obsession>

>Gravity is SpaceTime, the 4D TimeScape; it's everywhere, always.

Wrong. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, caused by mass-energy
present.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

> > Gravity is SpaceTime, the 4D TimeScape; it's everywhere, always.
>
> Wrong. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime,
> caused by mass-energy present.

Where/When is there no Energy/Matter ?

Einstein wrote:

Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.

13.8 billion years ago, everything in the (subjectively) Known Universe
was in the same location; i.e. zero entropy and infinite density/exergy.