Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #668569 > unrolled thread

The Universe

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-02-08 14:40 -0800
    Re: The Universe x <x@x.net> - 2026-02-09 08:19 -0800
    Re: The Universe Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-02-09 17:35 +0000
      Re: The Universe Ivory Abuzov <uozv@zzaoyu.ru> - 2026-02-09 19:39 +0000
        Re: The Universe Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-09 23:41 +0100
          Re: The Universe Laszlo Barakov <vrla@bkok.ru> - 2026-02-09 22:51 +0000
            Re: The Universe Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-10 03:18 +0100
              Re: The Universe Stetson Antropov <oteto@ttssn.ru> - 2026-02-10 19:12 +0000
      Re: The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-02-12 23:05 -0800
        Re: The Universe Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-02-13 11:34 +0000
          Re: The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-02-17 08:37 -0800
            Re: The Universe Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> - 2026-02-17 12:19 -0600
              Re: The Universe Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-21 16:27 +0100
            Re: The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-02-17 21:50 -0800

#668569 — The Universe

Let me give you the facts since most of yous
don't have the facts...

The Universe, or what we call 'the universe' is in fact..

'limited' in size.

It has a boundry.

It is limited in space...and Time.



Anybody who tells you different, is WRONG!





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#668573

On 2/8/26 14:40, The Starmaker wrote:
 > Let me give you the facts since most of yous
 > don't have the facts...
 >
 > The Universe, or what we call 'the universe' is in fact..
 >
 > 'limited' in size.
 >
 > It has a boundry.
 >
 > It is limited in space...and Time.
 >
 >
 > Anybody who tells you different, is WRONG!

One notable idea is that light might have
a somewhat constant speed regardless of the
observer.  Some times called 'c'.  So the
'big bang' is an inference about the
red shift of galaxies.  Distance and time
might be related in some ways.

The Moon is about 20 times the distance of the
Earth's antipode across the Earth's circumference.

Both Mercury and Mars are 200 times farther away
than the Moon at closest approach.  At farthest
distance in their orbits, Mercury is 600 times
farther than the distance between the Earth and
the Moon.  Mars is 1000.  Then the moons of Jupiter
are 2000 times the distance from the Earth to the
Moon and adding or subtracting one Astronomical
Unit is not quite as great.

Here is an 'atlas of the universe' from somewhere
near Birmingham, England (there is not just one
in Alabama).  (Or, well, maybe it is turtles all
the way down.)

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668574

[ Followup-To: set ]

In sci.math The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Let me give you the facts since most of yous
> don't have the facts...

> The Universe, or what we call 'the universe' is in fact..

> 'limited' in size.

> It has a boundry.

> It is limited in space...and Time.

Is that right?

Tell me, what is the nature of this boundary?  What's it made of?

What would happen to a moving object which hit this boundary?  Would it
bounce off, or would it penetrate the boundary leaving it outside the
universe (if that notion has any meaning)?  Or something else?

> Anybody who tells you different, is WRONG!

Ha ha!

> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
> and challenge the unchallengeable.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668575

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> [ Followup-To: set ]
> 
> In sci.math The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Let me give you the facts since most of yous don't have the facts...
>> The Universe, or what we call 'the universe' is in fact..
>> 'limited' in size. It has a boundry. It is limited in space...and Time.
>
> Is that right?
> 
> Tell me, what is the nature of this boundary?  What's it made of?

you girls proves uneducated, you are not asking about the boundary, but 
the interface, which you cannot possibly answer. To answer that you have 
to know the other side, and that you will never know. Always in science 
and physics think at interfaces, not boundaries. Boundaries are for 
kindergarten, or for fools, not knowing what they are talking about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668576

The 'nym-shifting troll trolled as "Ivory Abuzov":
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In sci.math The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Let me give you the facts since most of yous don't have the facts...
>>> The Universe, or what we call 'the universe' is in fact..
>>> 'limited' in size. It has a boundry. It is limited in space...and Time.
>>
>> Is that right?
>>
>> Tell me, what is the nature of this boundary?  What's it made of?
> 
> you girls proves uneducated, you are not asking about the boundary, but 
> the interface, which you cannot possibly answer. To answer that you have 
> to know the other side, and that you will never know. Always in science 
> and physics think at interfaces, not boundaries. Boundaries are for 
> kindergarten, or for fools, not knowing what they are talking about.

:-D

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668577

wanker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn recidivize:

>>> Tell me, what is the nature of this boundary?  What's it made of?
>> 
>> you girls proves uneducated, you are not asking about the boundary, but
>> the interface, which you cannot possibly answer. To answer that you
>> have to know the other side, and that you will never know. Always in
>> science and physics think at interfaces, not boundaries. Boundaries are
>> for kindergarten, or for fools, not knowing what they are talking
>> about.
> 
> :-D

yet another fat former it-supporter imbecile on the rampage, proven 
knowing shit about boundaries, what are those in physics, aka the world or 
universe, this imbecile unfortunately inhabits

you stupid former it-supporter, nobody talks with you, because you are 
german.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668578

A 'nym-shifting fool failed to troll again as "Laszlo Barakov":
> [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [wrote:]
>>>> Tell me, what is the nature of this boundary?  What's it made of?
>>>
>>> you girls proves uneducated, you are not asking about the boundary, but
>>> the interface, which you cannot possibly answer. To answer that you
>>> have to know the other side, and that you will never know. Always in
>>> science and physics think at interfaces, not boundaries. Boundaries are
>>> for kindergarten, or for fools, not knowing what they are talking
>>> about.
>>
>> :-D
> 
> yet another fat former it-supporter [...]

Your cluelessness about everything is so refreshing.  Please keep on making
a fool of yourself :-D

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668603

fat wanker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn puts the foot in his mouth once 
again:

>> yet another fat former it-supporter [...]
> 
> Your cluelessness about everything is so refreshing.  Please keep on
> making a fool of yourself :-D

you uneducated cretin don't even know the polak Wozniake is 1000 time more 
sober than you are. You never passed high school, you deplorable subhuman 
german excrement

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668668

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
> [ Followup-To: set ]
> 
> In sci.math The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Let me give you the facts since most of yous
> > don't have the facts...
> 
> > The Universe, or what we call 'the universe' is in fact..
> 
> > 'limited' in size.
> 
> > It has a boundry.
> 
> > It is limited in space...and Time.
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> Tell me, what is the nature of this boundary?  What's it made of?
> 
> What would happen to a moving object which hit this boundary?  Would it
> bounce off, or would it penetrate the boundary leaving it outside the
> universe (if that notion has any meaning)?  Or something else?
> 
> > Anybody who tells you different, is WRONG!
> 
> Ha ha!

If you are inside a balloon...any direction you go you hit a wall.


space expanding is just a balloon expanding..

any 3 year can tell you dat.




Einstein once said: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human
stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein


Einstein is saying the universe is NOT infinite. 


'the universe' is in fact..

 'limited' in size.
 
 It has a boundry.

 It is limited in space...and Time.


Infinity does not exist.


What's wrong with hitting a wall anyway????

Space is expanding faster than the speed of light so that light won't
hit the wall.






> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

where did all these Germans come from?

are universities in germany are all free?

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668676

[ Followup-To: set ]

In sci.math The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>> In sci.math The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > Let me give you the facts since most of yous
>> > don't have the facts...

>> > The Universe, or what we call 'the universe' is in fact..

>> > 'limited' in size.

>> > It has a boundry.

>> > It is limited in space...and Time.

>> Is that right?

>> Tell me, what is the nature of this boundary?  What's it made of?

>> What would happen to a moving object which hit this boundary?  Would it
>> bounce off, or would it penetrate the boundary leaving it outside the
>> universe (if that notion has any meaning)?  Or something else?

>> > Anybody who tells you different, is WRONG!

>> Ha ha!

> If you are inside a balloon...any direction you go you hit a wall.

I'm not inside a balloon.  Maybe you are.

> space expanding is just a balloon expanding..

"Just", indeed.  It will be somewhat more complicated than that.

> any 3 year can tell you dat.

Doubtful.  Three year olds don't have developed concepts of space and
time.

> Einstein once said: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human
> stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein


> Einstein is saying the universe is NOT infinite. 

No, he said the reverse, but not with any earnestness.

> 'the universe' is in fact..

>  'limited' in size.

This is unknown.

>  It has a boundry.

The word is spelt "boundary", by the way.

I ask again, what's this supposed boundary made of?  What would happen to
an object hitting it?  What is outside of this supposed boundary?

>  It is limited in space...and Time.

So's the surface of the Earth, yet that surface has no boundary.

> Infinity does not exist.

Meaningless, unless you can say exactly what you mean by a mathematical
concept "not existing".

> What's wrong with hitting a wall anyway????

Get into your car and try it.  You'd soon find out.

> Space is expanding faster than the speed of light so that light won't
> hit the wall.

What wall?  Just because space is expanding, doesn't mean there's a wall.

> where did all these Germans come from?

From Germany.

> are universities in germany are all free?

Sadly no.

> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
> and challenge the unchallengeable.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668805

On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 11:34:05 -0000 (UTC), Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
wrote:

>[ Followup-To: set ]
>
>In sci.math The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>>> In sci.math The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> > Let me give you the facts since most of yous
>>> > don't have the facts...
>
>>> > The Universe, or what we call 'the universe' is in fact..
>
>>> > 'limited' in size.
>
>>> > It has a boundry.
>
>>> > It is limited in space...and Time.
>
>>> Is that right?
>
>>> Tell me, what is the nature of this boundary?  What's it made of?
>
>>> What would happen to a moving object which hit this boundary?  Would it
>>> bounce off, or would it penetrate the boundary leaving it outside the
>>> universe (if that notion has any meaning)?  Or something else?
>
>>> > Anybody who tells you different, is WRONG!
>
>>> Ha ha!
>
>> If you are inside a balloon...any direction you go you hit a wall.
>
>I'm not inside a balloon.  Maybe you are.


Are you kidding me? 

You spend your whole life 
living surrounded by walls!

Look up, there's a ceiling.

Your home is filled with walls.

Your body is a wall you live in...

Infinity doesn't exist. No walls doesn't exist.

Don't you know...The Code????

"IN" "in"  Do you know the definition of the word "in" means?


https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+In

primarily indicating inclusion, location, or position within
boundaries (e.g., "in the box," "in London"). It signifies being
surrounded, contained, or situated within a space, time period, 



I have posted many times The Code.

Maybe you are a number person and no speaks good werds..


Here is The Code since you now know the definition of the word..."in".


'In, ...the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'


IN!

The operative word is...in.

primarily indicating inclusion, location, 

position within boundaries (e.g., "in the balloon").
 It signifies being surrounded, contained, or situated within a space,
time period, 

Inclusion, enclosure is a confined space, area, or structure
surrounded by a physical barrier like a fence, wall, or screen. It
refers to the act of surrounding something, the state of being
enclosed, or an item included within a container (like a balloon). 


A Yellow Submarine.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668813

On 2/17/2026 10:37 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 11:34:05 -0000 (UTC), Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
> wrote:
> 
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>> In sci.math The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>>>> In sci.math The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>> Let me give you the facts since most of yous
>>>>> don't have the facts...
>>
>>>>> The Universe, or what we call 'the universe' is in fact..
>>
>>>>> 'limited' in size.
>>
>>>>> It has a boundry.
>>
>>>>> It is limited in space...and Time.
>>
>>>> Is that right?
>>
>>>> Tell me, what is the nature of this boundary?  What's it made of?
>>
>>>> What would happen to a moving object which hit this boundary?  Would it
>>>> bounce off, or would it penetrate the boundary leaving it outside the
>>>> universe (if that notion has any meaning)?  Or something else?
>>
>>>>> Anybody who tells you different, is WRONG!
>>
>>>> Ha ha!
>>
>>> If you are inside a balloon...any direction you go you hit a wall.
>>
>> I'm not inside a balloon.  Maybe you are.
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> You spend your whole life
> living surrounded by walls!
> 
> Look up, there's a ceiling.
> 
> Your home is filled with walls.
> 
> Your body is a wall you live in...
> 
> Infinity doesn't exist. No walls doesn't exist.
> 
> Don't you know...The Code????
> 
> "IN" "in"  Do you know the definition of the word "in" means?
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+In
> 
> primarily indicating inclusion, location, or position within
> boundaries (e.g., "in the box," "in London"). It signifies being
> surrounded, contained, or situated within a space, time period,
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted many times The Code.
> 
> Maybe you are a number person and no speaks good werds..
> 
> 
> Here is The Code since you now know the definition of the word..."in".
> 
> 
> 'In, ...the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
> 
> 
> IN!
> 
> The operative word is...in.
> 
> primarily indicating inclusion, location,
> 
> position within boundaries (e.g., "in the balloon").
>   It signifies being surrounded, contained, or situated within a space,
> time period,
> 
> Inclusion, enclosure is a confined space, area, or structure
> surrounded by a physical barrier like a fence, wall, or screen. It
> refers to the act of surrounding something, the state of being
> enclosed, or an item included within a container (like a balloon).
> 
> 
> A Yellow Submarine.
> 
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>   to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
>   the unchallengeable.

Why are you now copying alt.atheism?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#669000

Dawn Flood amok-crossposted to sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics,
sci.math, alt.atheism:
> On 2/17/2026 10:37 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> [...]
> 
> Why are you now copying alt.atheism?

Why are you amok-crossposting to 4 newsgroups now?
3 were not enough yet?

*facepalm*

F'up2 poster

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668830

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 08:37:19 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 11:34:05 -0000 (UTC), Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
>wrote:
>
>>[ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>>In sci.math The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>>>> In sci.math The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>> > Let me give you the facts since most of yous
>>>> > don't have the facts...
>>
>>>> > The Universe, or what we call 'the universe' is in fact..
>>
>>>> > 'limited' in size.
>>
>>>> > It has a boundry.
>>
>>>> > It is limited in space...and Time.
>>
>>>> Is that right?
>>
>>>> Tell me, what is the nature of this boundary?  What's it made of?
>>
>>>> What would happen to a moving object which hit this boundary?  Would it
>>>> bounce off, or would it penetrate the boundary leaving it outside the
>>>> universe (if that notion has any meaning)?  Or something else?
>>
>>>> > Anybody who tells you different, is WRONG!
>>
>>>> Ha ha!
>>
>>> If you are inside a balloon...any direction you go you hit a wall.
>>
>>I'm not inside a balloon.  Maybe you are.
>
>
>Are you kidding me? 
>
>You spend your whole life 
>living surrounded by walls!
>
>Look up, there's a ceiling.
>
>Your home is filled with walls.
>
>Your body is a wall you live in...
>
>Infinity doesn't exist. No walls doesn't exist.
>
>Don't you know...The Code????
>
>"IN" "in"  Do you know the definition of the word "in" means?
>
>
>https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+In
>
>primarily indicating inclusion, location, or position within
>boundaries (e.g., "in the box," "in London"). It signifies being
>surrounded, contained, or situated within a space, time period, 
>
>
>
>I have posted many times The Code.
>
>Maybe you are a number person and no speaks good werds..
>
>
>Here is The Code since you now know the definition of the word..."in".
>
>
>'In, ...the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
>
>
>IN!
>
>The operative word is...in.
>
>primarily indicating inclusion, location, 
>
>position within boundaries (e.g., "in the balloon").
> It signifies being surrounded, contained, or situated within a space,
>time period, 
>
>Inclusion, enclosure is a confined space, area, or structure
>surrounded by a physical barrier like a fence, wall, or screen. It
>refers to the act of surrounding something, the state of being
>enclosed, or an item included within a container (like a balloon). 
>
>

Now, there is something very strange going on in the sci.math world...

everyone knows that Math is an invention by man...
including the Math language..

and numbers don't exist out there..

including infinite numbers.


Now, I already provided yous with the definition of the word...


"in".

"IN" "in"


https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+In

primarily indicating inclusion, location, or position within
boundaries (e.g., "in the box," "in London"). It signifies being
surrounded, contained, or situated within a space, time period,

primarily indicating inclusion, location,

position within boundaries (e.g., "in the balloon").
 It signifies being surrounded, contained, or situated within a space,
time period,

Inclusion, enclosure is a confined space, area, or structure
surrounded by a physical barrier like a fence, wall, or screen. It
refers to the act of surrounding something, the state of being
enclosed, or an item included within a container (like a balloon).

Now, I'm going to provide with  another word to define: finite

Finite means having bounds, limits, or an end; it refers to things
that are measurable, restricted in size, extent,
having limits or bounds.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+finite


In
finite
infinite

Now, HOW can the word In and finite mean the same thing but when you
glue it together it means the opposite????

In means boundaries
finite means boundaries

but, but you put it together...where did THEY derive no boundaries in
"infinite" when both parts of the word mean YES boundaries????


THAT'S INSANE!!!!!

Why don't 'those people' simply call it...unfinite? or unin?? or way
out!  or  far out, man!! 


I mean like...How Come????
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web