Is the universe curved or flat?

[The Starmaker]

if you say both, i'll shoot myself!

[David Staup]

On 12/11/2015 3:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
>

promise?

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!

i bet you a million doallars Sam Wormley doesn't know..he's probably 'looking it up' right now!


{that's how you get rid of terroists, you gotta keep them on the run...)

[G=EMC^2TreBert]

Expanding makes it round.Locally it appears flat.Hay we thought the Earth was flat 800 years ago.When I think how gravity is shaping it I go with my Convex & Concave theory.Its saddle shaped,and that depends on where your viewing it from.Treb has the best view. TreBert

[gilber34]

On 12/11/2015 3:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
>

it is flat,
until you get near the edge,
then it is curved,
I think it curves up last time I looked.

[The Starmaker]

Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> On 12/11/15 4:02 PM, Double-A wrote:

> > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:56:08 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
> >
> >

> > Flat.
> >
> > Double-A
> >
>
> Double-A is correct. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to
> within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.
>


I don't understand what you are saying, is space curve or flat? It has to be either one or the other.


Is space curve or flat?

Is space

A. curve

or

B. flat


Which is the correct answer? A or B?

[Saul Levy]

PLEASE DO SO, YOUR ASS IS CURVED!

Saul Levy

[Saul Levy]

DON'T YOU >>EVER<< SHUT THE FUCK UP, FAKER?

YOU SAY NOTHING!

Saul Levy

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

gilber34 wrote:

> On 12/11/2015 3:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
>
> it is flat,

Presumably, yes. So far, measurements show that the observable universe is
flat. Unfortunately, we cannot look beyond that, so we have to defer to
what geometry, relativity, and quantum mechanics have to say about the rest.

> until you get near the edge,

There is no edge; a flat universe is implicitly infinite in size.

> then it is curved, I think it curves up last time I looked.

Sorry to break this to you, but your padded cell is _not_ the universe.

F'up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity>


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[David Staup]

wrong again dumb fuck

An asymptotically flat spacetime is a Lorentzian manifold in which,
roughly speaking, the curvature vanishes at large distances from some
region, so that at large distances, the geometry becomes
indistinguishable from that of Minkowski spacetime

[The Starmaker]

Didn't Einstein say space is curved not flat???

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/13/15 2:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Didn't Einstein say space is curved not flat???

Einstein's general theory of relativity says that mass warps
spacetime. Verified with many tests.

On the cosmic scale, WMAP nailed down the curvature of space

to within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.

--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:jK6dnT8RsYnjQPDL...@giganews.com...

| Einstein's general theory of relativity says that mass warps
| spacetime. Verified with many tests.

And it says that going through a forest from your
point of view you're seeing you're stationary
and trees are runing around.
Verified by zilions of test.

[The Starmaker]

or is it everybody disagrees with Einstein?


I mean, Albert Einstein said: space is curved not flat.


Was he wrong?

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/11/15 4:02 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:56:08 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Flat.
> > > >
> > > > Double-A
> > > >
> > >
> > > Double-A is correct. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to
> > > within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.
> > >

this wmac cmb jazz was created by a couple of radio DJ's...i don't trust those drug addicts.


there is no proof that the cmb was cause by a big bang. that's just...speculation.


it couldda been somthin else.

[palsing]

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 1:04:49 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:

> there is no proof that the cmb was cause by a big bang. that's just...speculation.
>
>
> it couldda been somthin else.

Indeed, it 'couldda been somthin else'.

The Big Bang is just a theory, which you call speculation. Fine. Theories can never be proven, but they can certainly be shown to be incorrect. Scientists are always trying to show that theories are wrong, that would make them not only famous, it could change all of physics. Theories are not formed in a vacuum, everyone and his uncle will try their best to show that any new proposed theory is wrong, and this is a good thing.

You can be quite sure that the greatest minds in physics and astronomy are doing their best to disprove not only the Big Bang theory, but general relativity and special relativity and every other theory that you can think of. The fact is, so far, that since they have not been able to do so only goes to reinforce the fact that these theories are pretty much accepted to be accurate, even if they are tweaked now and again to fine-tune the theory.

If you don't happen to believe the big Bang theory, well, stand in line. Gather together your proof, and publish your experiments and observations to support your case, but be prepared to withstand the onslaught that is sure to follow. It just isn't good enough to say you don't believe in a theory and stop there, because then you got nuttin', nuttin' at all.

There are a lot of cranks on these forums, all stating that they don't believe in this, or don't believe in that, but not one of them has the chops to back up what they claim. Not a single one. Not a shred of proof. After all, if they could only prove what they say, they would be famous, and probably rich, to boot. But, alas, they can't, not even close.

You don't happen to be one of them, do you?

\Paul A

[The Starmaker]

For example...

this thing called WMAP or CMB...

microwave background????

We are talking about 'radio dj's'!


The background is not 'microwave'...it's RADIO waves.


That's why there is no heat...it's music, not fire.


That stuff in the backgound is just a lot of noise.

You gotta ask yourself a question...
Why am I the only one
in the world bringing this up????


Radio waves, not microwaves.


You guys gotta go back to the drawing board and start all over again...



come back when you're ready.

[G=EMC^2TreBert]

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:56:06 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!

Universe is in motion,and motion creates changes,thus flat round and saddle shaped have their own space shape in there spacetime. TreBert

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/11/15 4:02 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:56:08 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Flat.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Double-A
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Double-A is correct. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to
> > > > > within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.
> > > > >
> >
> > this wmac cmb jazz was created by a couple of radio DJ's...i don't trust those drug addicts.
> >
> > there is no proof that the cmb was cause by a big bang. that's just...speculation.
> >
> > it couldda been somthin else.
>
> For example...
>
> this thing called WMAP or CMB...
>
> microwave background????
>
> We are talking about 'radio dj's'!
>
> The background is not 'microwave'...it's RADIO waves.
>
> That's why there is no heat...it's music, not fire.
>
> That stuff in the backgound is just a lot of noise.

"While working on a new type of antenna at Bell Labs in Holmdel
Township, New Jersey, they found a source of noise in the atmosphere
that they could not explain."



Notice the word "noise"? "noise in the atmosphere"...


noise


1.
a sound, especially one that is loud or unpleasant or that causes
disturbance. Like a big bang!



That music they are playing on the radio sounds like a lot of noise...


but if you smoke grass....it sounds like Pink Floyd music.

[The Starmaker]

In other words, somebody...took all the noise (radio waves is what it
really is) and changed it to 'microwave waves'.


Why? Who knows with 'these people' anymore? They fudge, they tweak, they
change the facts to fit the theory.

You guys are all a bunch of crooks if you ask me.



The Starmaker





go back to making blue boxes...

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/15/15 4:24 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The background is not 'microwave'...it's RADIO waves.

Surprise -- Microwaves are in the short end of the radio spectrum
> http://planck.caltech.edu/epo/images/COBE_CMB_spectrum.jpg

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/15/15 5:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> a sound, especially one that is loud or unpleasant or that causes
> disturbance. Like a big bang!

Sounds of the BB
> http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/BBSound.html
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJyJ8Xjllzk
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa2DYSu0E78

[The Starmaker]

Now...just because there was a lot of noise in the universe...radio waves...
a big bang if you will...doesn't mean it was caused by an explosion.


What I mean is...picture it if you will...what else could cause
a lot of noise in the universe detected by those radio guys?

'They say'...by they i mean 'the scientific community', says only an explosion
could have caused all that racket/waves...

a big bang.

But there is something else they haven't thought of...

all that noise/raidowaves in the universe didn't have to be caused by an explosion...

just the opposite..

something very calm and silent could cause all that big bang noise radio waves in the universe...


something very calm and silent..

like the soft touch of a piano key...

or the gentle blow on the tuba.

a soft touch on a harp...

a blow of air on a trumpet
can make a ear pericing sound
yet it is caused by quiet air.


In other words, not a big bang explosion...
but a simple gentle air on the tuba.


The CMB is just the sound of music.

The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

And people who come out with using the words 'curve and flat' in the same sentence are dumb:

"WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to
within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean."

Who do you think you're fooling?



Let me put it this way...

there is no such thing in outer space as '"flat" Euclidean'.


God does not play with "flat" Euclidean.



A lot of girls got what appears to be a flat butt, but if you look closer...it's curved.

[The Starmaker]

Now I'll explain the center of the universe...


if you blow up a balloon
you will notice
the balloon has
two centers..

the center is
in the middle where
all the air is at..

and the center of
the surface where
you blew the balloon.


Now the earth has
two centers..

the middle
of the earth...

and the center
on the surface
of the earth...

it might have
sealed up by now...

so it might be hard to find..
(not that anybody is looking)


The Starmaker

[G=EMC^2TreBert]

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:56:06 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!

Flat locally, curved over vast distance,and round over all. TreBert

[The Starmaker]

Or...

if you draw a circle..
whether you do it manually
or with a compass...

it has a beginning
and an end to the
drawing of a circle...
that is the center.

Might be hard to
detect now in the
universe...with all
that mess up there..

hard to see...
hard to spot
hard to detect
hard to idenify
hard to recognize
hard to ..observe

but it's there.


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

it's probably the 'coolest' part of the universe, not the hottest.