Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #588459 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-07-16 12:20 +1000 |
| Last post | 2022-07-17 11:54 -0700 |
| Articles | 14 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-07-16 12:20 +1000
No "length", no "time", no "entropy" at The Infinitely Precise Start of The Big Bang. "Dick's DriveIn" <Dicks@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2022-07-15 20:23 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-07-16 19:01 +1000
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-07-16 23:50 +1000
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-07-16 10:10 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-07-16 13:45 -0500
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-07-16 13:42 -0500
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-07-16 13:55 -0500
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-16 12:17 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-07-16 21:33 +0200
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-07-16 16:02 -0500
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-07-17 09:29 +0200
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-07-17 12:00 -0500
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-07-17 11:54 -0700
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 12:20 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning |
| Message-ID | <jjelijF21ddU1@mid.individual.net> |
Reposted because of troll strategy of posting to one newsgroup, with follow-up only to another. On 14-July-22 8:53 pm, Darin Sordi wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 12-July-22 6:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> So big bang time keeps on getting pushed back. >>> And the edge of the universe not found. >>> Far more galaxies instead. >>> Amazing how humans can be so clever and so stupid at the same time. >> >> 13.7 billion years seems to have been the estimate for a while. >> There is no expectation of finding an edge, and no assumption that an >> edge exists. > > which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you > have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. If you think of the big-bang as the blowing up of a finite sized object, then that would be true. That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then started expanding at the the big bang. Even if the universe has an edge of some sort, it could have been so far away at the time of the big bang that the expansion puts it forever beyond Earth's light cone, meaning that we'd never see it, no matter how long we wait. Sylvia.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dick's DriveIn" <Dicks@Jeff-Relf.Me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 20:23 -0700 |
| Subject | No "length", no "time", no "entropy" at The Infinitely Precise Start of The Big Bang. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jul.15--8.23pm.Seattle.2022> |
| In reply to | #588459 |
We make "useful/probable" assumptions about what's beyond our horizon, 13.8 GigaYears ago. How fast the "standard" clock ticks & how large the "standard" ruler is varies greatly over those 13.8 GigaYears; it's observer dependent. No "length", no "time", no "entropy" at The Infinitely Precise Start of The Big Bang: From our perspective, the "standard" clock ticks ever-slower the closer it is to the start of the Big Bang; locally, it ticks normally, as it does here. "Life" is that videogame playing in your head; without it, you're just meat. "eXergy" ( potential entropy ) created/destroys us; without it, we couldn't drive to the store. "God" (nature) programmed us to consume residual eXergy as the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 19:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <jjfd43F5go9U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #588459 |
On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you >>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. >> >> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to >> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then >> started expanding at the the big bang. > > infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's > nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas about what is possible. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 23:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <jjfu0dF858aU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #588466 |
On 16-July-22 7:26 pm, Jess De campo wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing >>>> to say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but >>>> then started expanding at the the big bang. >>> >>> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's >>> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. >> >> If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's >> how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas >> about what is possible. > > now you talk bullshit. You really do. So there's no need to have it as > 13.6 byo, as "human idea". If its 13.6 billion years, then that's what it is. We haven't imposed that, just measured it, albeit indirectly. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 10:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning |
| Message-ID | <62D2F0F5.29CA@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #588471 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 16-July-22 7:26 pm, Jess De campo wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >>>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing > >>>> to say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but > >>>> then started expanding at the the big bang. > >>> > >>> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's > >>> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. > >> > >> If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's > >> how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas > >> about what is possible. > > > > now you talk bullshit. You really do. So there's no need to have it as > > 13.6 byo, as "human idea". > > If its 13.6 billion years, then that's what it is. We haven't imposed > that, just measured it, albeit indirectly. > > Sylvia. Of course it is 'imposed', ...it is force upon everyone. In order for the number to go higher, a new 'imposed' is required. The question is, who is the individual that madates the imposing? Whats his name? The real age of the universe is in the trillions. but dat is going to require many millions of years of ...imposed. And people like Sylvia don't help...another lemming. -- 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]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 13:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jjgf9sFat2fU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #588472 |
On 7/16/2022 12:10 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 16-July-22 7:26 pm, Jess De campo wrote: >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>>>>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing >>>>>> to say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but >>>>>> then started expanding at the the big bang. >>>>> >>>>> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's >>>>> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. >>>> >>>> If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's >>>> how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas >>>> about what is possible. >>> >>> now you talk bullshit. You really do. So there's no need to have it as >>> 13.6 byo, as "human idea". >> >> If its 13.6 billion years, then that's what it is. We haven't imposed >> that, just measured it, albeit indirectly. >> >> Sylvia. > > > Of course it is 'imposed', ...it is force upon everyone. > > In order for the number to go higher, a new 'imposed' is required. > > The question is, who is the individual that madates the imposing? > > Whats his name? > > The real age of the universe is in the trillions. > > but dat is going to require many millions of years of ...imposed. > > > And people like Sylvia don't help...another lemming. All this carry-on is only about human discovery/recognition of what is. The reality exists regardless of what anybody thinks or says. Are we having fun yet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 13:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jjgf5sFat2fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #588471 |
On 7/16/2022 8:50 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16-July-22 7:26 pm, Jess De campo wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>>>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing >>>>> to say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but >>>>> then started expanding at the the big bang. >>>> >>>> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's >>>> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. >>> >>> If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's >>> how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas >>> about what is possible. >> >> now you talk bullshit. You really do. So there's no need to have it as >> 13.6 byo, as "human idea". > > If its 13.6 billion years, then that's what it is. We haven't imposed > that, just measured it, albeit indirectly. > > Sylvia. All this carry-on is only about human discovery/recognition of what is. The reality exists regardless of what anybody thinks or says. Are we having fun yet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 13:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jjgfsgFb08uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #588466 |
On 7/16/2022 4:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you >>>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. >>> >>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to >>> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then >>> started expanding at the the big bang. >> >> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's >> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. > > If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's > how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas > about what is possible. > > Sylvia. We only know what we observe, all else is speculation. Some of the posters to these newsgroups don't understand and don't want to know the difference between science and science fiction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 12:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b6a6ad3-549d-4b7b-b300-424c4c09575fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #588478 |
On Saturday, 16 July 2022 at 20:55:16 UTC+2, whodat wrote: > We only know what we observe So, do you know the above, poor halfbrain? Sorry, but you have NO clue how a human brain works. You're just an arrogant, incompetent layman mumbling about things he has no idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 21:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1pv7evq.mbx8mc13tloonN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #588478 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 7/16/2022 4:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: > >> Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >>>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you > >>>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. > >>> > >>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to > >>> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then > >>> started expanding at the the big bang. > >> > >> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's > >> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. > > > > If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's > > how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas > > about what is possible. > > > > Sylvia. > > We only know what we observe, all else is speculation. Some of the > posters to these newsgroups don't understand and don't want to know > the difference between science and science fiction. Yes, but what is 'observing'? Jan -- "No experimental result should be believed until it has been confirmed by a reliable theory" (Arthur Eddington)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 16:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jjgnbiFc4e1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #588481 |
On 7/16/2022 2:33 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >> On 7/16/2022 4:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: >>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>>>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you >>>>>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. >>>>> >>>>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to >>>>> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then >>>>> started expanding at the the big bang. >>>> >>>> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's >>>> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. >>> >>> If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's >>> how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas >>> about what is possible. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> We only know what we observe, all else is speculation. Some of the >> posters to these newsgroups don't understand and don't want to know >> the difference between science and science fiction. > Yes, but what is 'observing'? If English is not your first language, please refer to freely available resources that will answer your question thoroughly. It is not a trick word.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-17 09:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1pv8clg.98liky1kigdk0N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #588482 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 7/16/2022 2:33 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > > >> On 7/16/2022 4:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: > >>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you > >>>>>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. > >>>>> > >>>>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to > >>>>> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then > >>>>> started expanding at the the big bang. > >>>> > >>>> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's > >>>> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. > >>> > >>> If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's > >>> how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas > >>> about what is possible. > >>> > >>> Sylvia. > >> > >> We only know what we observe, all else is speculation. Some of the > >> posters to these newsgroups don't understand and don't want to know > >> the difference between science and science fiction. > > > Yes, but what is 'observing'? > > If English is not your first language, please refer to freely available > resources that will answer your question thoroughly. It is not a trick word. So it is really to hard for you to get the point? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-17 12:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jjitgtFmkg0U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #588500 |
On 7/17/2022 2:29 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >> On 7/16/2022 2:33 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/16/2022 4:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: >>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you >>>>>>>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to >>>>>>> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then >>>>>>> started expanding at the the big bang. >>>>>> >>>>>> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's >>>>>> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. >>>>> >>>>> If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's >>>>> how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas >>>>> about what is possible. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> We only know what we observe, all else is speculation. Some of the >>>> posters to these newsgroups don't understand and don't want to know >>>> the difference between science and science fiction. >> >>> Yes, but what is 'observing'? >> >> If English is not your first language, please refer to freely available >> resources that will answer your question thoroughly. It is not a trick word. > > So it is really to hard for you to get the point? So it is really to hard for ^you* to get the point?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-17 11:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <769d5d9b-86b2-4dd4-8203-0b55a729735an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #588510 |
On Sunday, 17 July 2022 at 19:00:16 UTC+2, whodat wrote: > On 7/17/2022 2:29 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > > >> On 7/16/2022 2:33 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 7/16/2022 4:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>> On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: > >>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you > >>>>>>>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to > >>>>>>> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then > >>>>>>> started expanding at the the big bang. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's > >>>>>> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. > >>>>> > >>>>> If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's > >>>>> how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas > >>>>> about what is possible. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia. > >>>> > >>>> We only know what we observe, all else is speculation. Some of the > >>>> posters to these newsgroups don't understand and don't want to know > >>>> the difference between science and science fiction. > >> > >>> Yes, but what is 'observing'? > >> > >> If English is not your first language, please refer to freely available > >> resources that will answer your question thoroughly. It is not a trick word. > > > > So it is really to hard for you to get the point? > So it is really to hard for ^you* to get the point? Of course. You're both relatimistic dummies.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web