Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #625060 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-12-04 13:10 -0800 |
| Last post | 2023-12-11 13:42 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-04 13:10 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-12-04 17:22 -0600
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-04 16:30 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-12-05 00:17 -0600
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-04 23:37 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-05 16:30 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-05 19:39 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-05 16:54 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-12-05 21:28 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-07 18:02 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-12-07 18:08 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-07 18:27 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-08 01:32 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-12-07 23:31 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-12-08 10:40 -0600
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 10:06 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-08 13:53 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 19:29 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-08 19:43 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 20:05 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-09 00:16 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-09 00:38 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-09 12:33 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-12-09 13:02 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-09 22:45 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-09 23:28 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-10 22:40 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-11 22:20 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-11 23:22 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-13 01:03 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-13 01:13 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Zachariah Dobrenkov Bakhmatoff <earz@rhvzahhb.az> - 2023-12-13 14:01 +0000
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-12 23:26 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-13 13:04 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-14 00:30 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-14 18:22 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-14 22:04 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-14 22:08 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-09 11:17 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-09 19:05 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-09 16:31 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-10 12:50 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-12-10 13:12 -0600
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-10 15:15 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-10 22:42 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-12-11 08:13 -0600
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-12-09 16:48 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-10 12:56 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-10 10:36 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-09 17:46 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-09 12:30 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-08 14:16 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-08 14:31 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-08 13:49 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-08 18:33 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 20:08 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-09 12:35 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-09 13:07 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-08 18:18 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 09:04 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-08 13:06 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Kimanee Jamaletdinov Baboshin <dlna@oeameeim.ed> - 2023-12-08 18:14 +0000
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-09 00:48 -0600
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 18:31 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-12-09 13:51 +0100
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-09 05:30 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Emanuele Harlashenkov Balabuha <lsle@emenkkrv.ea> - 2023-12-08 18:30 +0000
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-09 00:52 -0600
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Thurston Zheleznov Bakatin <elvs@zuttutnu.tt> - 2023-12-09 16:22 +0000
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 12:31 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-08 13:56 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-08 18:35 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 18:28 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 19:11 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 19:10 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 19:08 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 15:21 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 15:26 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 19:15 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-08 19:14 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-10 12:39 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-12-10 13:09 -0600
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-10 22:21 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-12-11 07:01 +0100
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-12-11 08:18 -0600
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-12-12 07:12 +0100
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Herlen Ablesimoff Bibin <bemf@heeleine.em> - 2023-12-07 20:48 +0000
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-07 18:03 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Brennan Gastello <nala@asrnoegr.ge> - 2023-12-08 16:18 +0000
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-07 23:09 -0600
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Fiezal Guio <fooi@fzzuifga.ag> - 2023-12-08 15:48 +0000
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-09 00:46 -0600
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-12-05 08:40 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-05 11:12 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-05 15:23 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-05 13:11 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-05 17:38 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Giovanni Dikson Muzhkaterov <niii@ngoiinvi.vk> - 2023-12-07 22:50 +0000
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-05 14:19 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-05 17:43 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Patricia Derman <ainr@eencnnic.ar> - 2023-12-07 18:16 +0000
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Monday Vaginov <viom@odvnoavv.gn> - 2023-12-07 17:49 +0000
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Dennie Handokhin Momotov <iedi@hennnoie.ne> - 2023-12-07 18:56 +0000
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-07 14:55 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-05 20:02 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-05 10:52 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-12-12 07:20 +0100
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-04 15:22 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-04 15:27 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-05 13:23 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-05 14:05 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-06 10:44 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-12-07 14:42 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-07 14:51 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-08 07:10 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-08 07:27 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-08 13:12 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-08 10:55 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-08 16:06 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-08 13:56 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-09 12:11 -0500
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-09 17:39 -0800
Re: The Universe is not "Well Understood" by Accepted Science "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-12-11 13:42 -0800
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-10 12:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ul4t5g$2onab$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #625345 |
On 12/8/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 5:31:28 PM UTC-3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > <snip> > >> Everywhere and nowhere? ;^) Let me throw out a point wrt unit sphere centered at (0, 0, 0): >> >> (1, 0, 0) this is on the surface, however is it the center? What about point (-1, 0, 0)? lol. >> >> :^) > > Be an arbitrary sphere, having a radius "1" be centered at (x₁,y₁,z₁) in a Euclidean 3D space. > > It's mathematically TRUE that the infinite collection of (x,y,z) points that verify (x-x₁)² + (y-y₁)² + (z-z₁)² = 1 > form part of a surface equidistant to the center (x₁,y₁,z₁). > > The volume of the sphere is centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁), as well as THE SHELL OF THE SPHERE (outer layer of infinitesimal thickness) is centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁). > > Think of the Earth, or the Sun. > > Can't believe how deranged people have become. So ignorant, so clueless, without any visualization power at all. > > I blame relativism, which has converted their adherents into drooling mutant cretins! > > For instance, the points > > x₁ ± 1, y₁, z₁ > x₁, y₁ ± 1, z₁ > x₁, y₁, z₁ ± 1 > > are three points contained in such surface, out of an infinite number of 3D points. > > I have to ask myself: 1) Did you take your medications? ; 2) Did you really go to HS?; 3) Have you procreated? > > 1) It certainly appears you didn't take your medicine, at least not the antipsychotics. 2) I can't be sure but you didn't manage to get a high school education in sciences. 3) I hope you didn't!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-10 13:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ktmgn3F1j5uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #625471 |
On 12/10/2023 11:39 AM, Volney wrote: > On 12/8/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 5:31:28 PM UTC-3, Chris M. Thomasson >> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> Everywhere and nowhere? ;^) Let me throw out a point wrt unit sphere >>> centered at (0, 0, 0): >>> >>> (1, 0, 0) this is on the surface, however is it the center? What >>> about point (-1, 0, 0)? lol. >>> >>> :^) >> >> Be an arbitrary sphere, having a radius "1" be centered at (x₁,y₁,z₁) >> in a Euclidean 3D space. >> >> It's mathematically TRUE that the infinite collection of (x,y,z) >> points that verify (x-x₁)² + (y-y₁)² + (z-z₁)² = 1 >> form part of a surface equidistant to the center (x₁,y₁,z₁). >> >> The volume of the sphere is centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁), as well as THE >> SHELL OF THE SPHERE (outer layer of infinitesimal thickness) is >> centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁). >> >> Think of the Earth, or the Sun. >> >> Can't believe how deranged people have become. So ignorant, so >> clueless, without any visualization power at all. >> >> I blame relativism, which has converted their adherents into drooling >> mutant cretins! >> >> For instance, the points >> >> x₁ ± 1, y₁, z₁ >> x₁, y₁ ± 1, z₁ >> x₁, y₁, z₁ ± 1 >> >> are three points contained in such surface, out of an infinite number >> of 3D points. >> >> I have to ask myself: 1) Did you take your medications? ; 2) Did you >> really go to HS?; 3) Have you procreated? >> >> > 1) It certainly appears you didn't take your medicine, at least not the > antipsychotics. > 2) I can't be sure but you didn't manage to get a high school education > in sciences. > 3) I hope you didn't! The problem concerning a high school science education has to do with those who think the only aspects worthy of learning are the ones that directly impact the narrow subdiscipline that interests them. They take up space in the room and more or less pay attention where the topic of the day sounds as though it may have something to do with their interest (these days usually some subdiscipline of electronics.) By sitting through a course that lay claim to knowledge of the contents of the course they usually have just enough to be dangerous, more often not even that. Then there's the other set that got excellent grades because they have excellent memorization and testing sills. The only thing they can do is to teach the same topic so long as they don't actually have to explain anything. I had an algebra and geometry teacher like that in high school. As has been said many times before, some students learn because of a teacher, others despite the teacher. That leaves of those who never actually learn anything at all. The premise for a public education in the USA has always been to take the children out of the factories and as Dewey said "to make good citizens." What I see here is a lot of the worse outcomes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-10 22:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ul5v85$31a31$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #625479 |
On 12/10/2023 2:09 PM, whodat wrote: > On 12/10/2023 11:39 AM, Volney wrote: >> On 12/8/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 5:31:28 PM UTC-3, Chris M. Thomasson >>> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> Everywhere and nowhere? ;^) Let me throw out a point wrt unit sphere >>>> centered at (0, 0, 0): >>>> >>>> (1, 0, 0) this is on the surface, however is it the center? What >>>> about point (-1, 0, 0)? lol. >>>> >>>> :^) >>> >>> Be an arbitrary sphere, having a radius "1" be centered at (x₁,y₁,z₁) >>> in a Euclidean 3D space. >>> >>> It's mathematically TRUE that the infinite collection of (x,y,z) >>> points that verify (x-x₁)² + (y-y₁)² + (z-z₁)² = 1 >>> form part of a surface equidistant to the center (x₁,y₁,z₁). >>> >>> The volume of the sphere is centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁), as well as THE >>> SHELL OF THE SPHERE (outer layer of infinitesimal thickness) is >>> centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁). >>> >>> Think of the Earth, or the Sun. >>> >>> Can't believe how deranged people have become. So ignorant, so >>> clueless, without any visualization power at all. >>> >>> I blame relativism, which has converted their adherents into drooling >>> mutant cretins! >>> >>> For instance, the points >>> >>> x₁ ± 1, y₁, z₁ >>> x₁, y₁ ± 1, z₁ >>> x₁, y₁, z₁ ± 1 >>> >>> are three points contained in such surface, out of an infinite number >>> of 3D points. >>> >>> I have to ask myself: 1) Did you take your medications? ; 2) Did you >>> really go to HS?; 3) Have you procreated? >>> >>> >> 1) It certainly appears you didn't take your medicine, at least not >> the antipsychotics. >> 2) I can't be sure but you didn't manage to get a high school >> education in sciences. >> 3) I hope you didn't! > > The problem concerning a high school science education has to do with > those who think the only aspects worthy of learning are the ones that > directly impact the narrow subdiscipline that interests them. They take > up space in the room and more or less pay attention where the topic of > the day sounds as though it may have something to do with their > interest (these days usually some subdiscipline of electronics.) > This sounds like a variant of what Odd Bodkin and others noted: Why are so many cranks electrical engineers?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-11 07:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ktnmntF9sp1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #625525 |
Am 11.12.2023 um 04:21 schrieb Volney: >>>> I have to ask myself: 1) Did you take your medications? ; 2) Did you >>>> really go to HS?; 3) Have you procreated? >>>> >>>> >>> 1) It certainly appears you didn't take your medicine, at least not >>> the antipsychotics. >>> 2) I can't be sure but you didn't manage to get a high school >>> education in sciences. >>> 3) I hope you didn't! >> >> The problem concerning a high school science education has to do with >> those who think the only aspects worthy of learning are the ones that >> directly impact the narrow subdiscipline that interests them. They >> take up space in the room and more or less pay attention where the >> topic of >> the day sounds as though it may have something to do with their >> interest (these days usually some subdiscipline of electronics.) >> > This sounds like a variant of what Odd Bodkin and others noted: Why are > so many cranks electrical engineers? This is so, because electrical engineers have a MUCH better understanding of magnetism and electricity than usual physicists. Since everybody who dares to criticise mainstream physics is called 'crank' (or: psycho, Nazi, crackpot, nutcase...), physicists call all electrical enigineers 'crank'. But much worse than the electrical cranks are the other variants of engineers (like e.g. myself), who simply refuse to accept illogic nonsense. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-11 08:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ktok1iFgu35U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #625525 |
On 12/10/2023 9:21 PM, Volney wrote: > On 12/10/2023 2:09 PM, whodat wrote: >> On 12/10/2023 11:39 AM, Volney wrote: >>> On 12/8/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>>> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 5:31:28 PM UTC-3, Chris M. Thomasson >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> Everywhere and nowhere? ;^) Let me throw out a point wrt unit >>>>> sphere centered at (0, 0, 0): >>>>> >>>>> (1, 0, 0) this is on the surface, however is it the center? What >>>>> about point (-1, 0, 0)? lol. >>>>> >>>>> :^) >>>> >>>> Be an arbitrary sphere, having a radius "1" be centered at >>>> (x₁,y₁,z₁) in a Euclidean 3D space. >>>> >>>> It's mathematically TRUE that the infinite collection of (x,y,z) >>>> points that verify (x-x₁)² + (y-y₁)² + (z-z₁)² = 1 >>>> form part of a surface equidistant to the center (x₁,y₁,z₁). >>>> >>>> The volume of the sphere is centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁), as well as THE >>>> SHELL OF THE SPHERE (outer layer of infinitesimal thickness) is >>>> centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁). >>>> >>>> Think of the Earth, or the Sun. >>>> >>>> Can't believe how deranged people have become. So ignorant, so >>>> clueless, without any visualization power at all. >>>> >>>> I blame relativism, which has converted their adherents into >>>> drooling mutant cretins! >>>> >>>> For instance, the points >>>> >>>> x₁ ± 1, y₁, z₁ >>>> x₁, y₁ ± 1, z₁ >>>> x₁, y₁, z₁ ± 1 >>>> >>>> are three points contained in such surface, out of an infinite >>>> number of 3D points. >>>> >>>> I have to ask myself: 1) Did you take your medications? ; 2) Did you >>>> really go to HS?; 3) Have you procreated? >>>> >>>> >>> 1) It certainly appears you didn't take your medicine, at least not >>> the antipsychotics. >>> 2) I can't be sure but you didn't manage to get a high school >>> education in sciences. >>> 3) I hope you didn't! >> >> The problem concerning a high school science education has to do with >> those who think the only aspects worthy of learning are the ones that >> directly impact the narrow subdiscipline that interests them. They >> take up space in the room and more or less pay attention where the >> topic of >> the day sounds as though it may have something to do with their >> interest (these days usually some subdiscipline of electronics.) >> > This sounds like a variant of what Odd Bodkin and others noted: Why are > so many cranks electrical engineers? In my father's day (early 20th century) The most popular discipline was mechanical engineering. I predict that rocket science will be next, of course I won't be around to see it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-12 07:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ktqbnsFs6ikU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #625543 |
Am 11.12.2023 um 15:18 schrieb whodat: >> This sounds like a variant of what Odd Bodkin and others noted: Why >> are so many cranks electrical engineers? > > In my father's day (early 20th century) The most popular discipline was > mechanical engineering. I predict that rocket science will be next, of > course I won't be around to see it. > No, the 'Next Big Thing' will be 'Flying Saucers'. Rockets are a thing from the past. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Herlen Ablesimoff Bibin <bemf@heeleine.em> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-07 20:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uktb27$1pgpp$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #625152 |
Volney wrote: > On 12/5/2023 7:30 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> Indeed. Draw a sphere at 3-ary point (x, y, z) with radii of (1, 1, 1). >> If x = y = z = 0, then this sphere will be the unit sphere centered at >> origin with a radius of 1. >> > But the SURFACE of the sphere has no center! (the surface is the set of > points such that x²+y²+z²=1) Notice the janitor deliberately omits the > word "surface" when responding to Tom. of course not. When those are zero, you can't square it to one. It's zero, thought echo $((0**0)) gives 1, since it works on integers. For more, watch this movie. Which is hated in america. 𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗖𝗛_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗦𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗶_𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗮 The president traveled to Riyadh to hold talks on expanding cooperation between the two countries in multiple spheres https://rt.com/russia/588686-putin-saudi-arabia-visit/ No fist bump for Putin but 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗸𝗲!.. Russia RULES! I believe these pictures made Joe Biden (and his western cronies) leave dinner hungry - appetite gone... When Biden calls, they 𝘄𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀. lol, lmao, rofl ahhahhahaaa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-07 18:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ukttie$1fk0f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #625265 |
On 12/7/2023 12:48 PM, Herlen Ablesimoff Bibin wrote: > Volney wrote: > >> On 12/5/2023 7:30 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> Indeed. Draw a sphere at 3-ary point (x, y, z) with radii of (1, 1, 1). >>> If x = y = z = 0, then this sphere will be the unit sphere centered at >>> origin with a radius of 1. >>> >> But the SURFACE of the sphere has no center! (the surface is the set of >> points such that x²+y²+z²=1) Notice the janitor deliberately omits the >> word "surface" when responding to Tom. > > of course not. When those are zero, you can't square it to one. It's zero, > thought echo $((0**0)) gives 1, since it works on integers. [...] A unit sphere has an origin of (0, 0, 0) radius of one. A point on its surface is any point that has a distance from itself to the origin that is equal to one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brennan Gastello <nala@asrnoegr.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-08 16:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ukvfkq$21ld7$2@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #625274 |
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 6:04:05 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson >> A unit sphere has an origin of (0, 0, 0) radius of one. A point on its >> surface is any point that has a distance from itself to the origin that >> is equal to one. > > How do you construct a sphere by transcendental PI? huge progress in my "𝗢𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹", Here we go. Since "gravity" must be 𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗺 level we are dealing with amplitudes, 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 and superposition. Hence a smaller object would have a l𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (large variance), whereas a larger object impose a 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲, hence s𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 and 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲. Which necessarily would merges by superposition, collapsing into each other. So it's not growth, but the quantum probability distribution activity onto the macro scale. deriving t𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 in this scenario, would prove m𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 valid, aka correct. Not sure whether GR derived 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 out of those 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 equations. Not sure why 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆, as not well defined in quantum vs macro. I think my theory makes perfectly pretty much sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-07 23:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <uku8dh$2g5gk$3@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #625265 |
On 12/7/2023 2:48 PM, Herlen Ablesimoff Bibin wrote: > https://rt.com/russia/588686-putin-saudi-arabia-visit/ > > No fist bump for Putin but 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗸𝗲!.. Russia RULES! > > I believe these pictures made Joe Biden (and his western cronies) leave > dinner hungry - appetite gone... It does make Americans shit in their pants. Hanson, why don't you say something about Putin getting taught a lesson in Riyaz by Ben Salman. This is how it went: Putin said: We are the first country that recognized your independence. Ben Salman immediately answered: We didn't get our independence. We had been independent throughout history. We _regained_ our independence from the Ottomans. Hanson, tell your Russian friends they need to teach Putin general history of countries he wants to have fruitful relations with, so he wouldn't embarrass himself. I think Russians know more about pussies of Kardashians than the history of the countries they need to have trades with. Do you know how this makes your Russians look like in the world? Dumb ass. Russians are like kids when they think of "West."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fiezal Guio <fooi@fzzuifga.ag> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-08 15:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ukvdrh$21ld7$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #625282 |
stupid like a door Physfitfreak wrote: > On 12/7/2023 2:48 PM, Herlen Ablesimoff Bibin wrote: >> https://rt.com/russia/588686-putin-saudi-arabia-visit/ >> No fist bump for Putin but 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗸𝗲!.. Russia RULES! >> >> I believe these pictures made Joe Biden (and his western cronies) leave >> dinner hungry - appetite gone... > > It does make Americans shit in their pants. > Hanson, why don't you say something about Putin getting taught a lesson > in Riyaz by Ben Salman. This is how it went: you don't undrestand engilsh, fucking stupid. You don't know what you say and what you do. You are stupid like a door.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-09 00:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ul12fv$2hr91$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #625317 |
On 12/8/2023 9:48 AM, Fiezal Guio wrote: > stupid like a door Physfitfreak wrote: > >> On 12/7/2023 2:48 PM, Herlen Ablesimoff Bibin wrote: >>> https://rt.com/russia/588686-putin-saudi-arabia-visit/ >>> No fist bump for Putin but 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗸𝗲!.. Russia RULES! >>> >>> I believe these pictures made Joe Biden (and his western cronies) leave >>> dinner hungry - appetite gone... >> >> It does make Americans shit in their pants. >> Hanson, why don't you say something about Putin getting taught a lesson >> in Riyaz by Ben Salman. This is how it went: > > you don't undrestand engilsh, fucking stupid. You don't know what you say > and what you do. You are stupid like a door. Don't change the subject Hanson. Bring a piece of news that shows, live on the video camera, what Putin asked and what Ben Salman answered. I've seen the video. Have you? Hanson, one of these days you're going to begin fingering yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-05 08:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <55471e4c-695a-4aae-9f8c-bbca434aed0cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #625083 |
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 3:17:25 AM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: <snip> > Again, not true. You have insufficient imagination. The FLRW manifold > with zero spatial curvature is an example of an infinite universe that > does expand. <snip> This comment cement the idea that I had about you: "An opinionated parrot, willing to write any stupidity posing as an expert in GR". And the FLRW is a century old accumulation of utter bullshit, eating which fits you perfectly, cosmic asshole!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-05 11:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e107605f-e7c0-4199-8f4a-7a6ad7002792n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #625083 |
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 10:17:25 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/4/23 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 3:22:39 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 12/4/23 3:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> The Big Bang and the Center of the Universe The velocity-distance > >>> relationship interprets the redshift-distance relationship as > >>> caused by the Doppler shift of starlight. This relationship is > >>> the same in every direction from Earth. This requires we are at > >>> the center of the universe. > >> Nope! In a homogeneous and isotropic universe this would hold at > >> any location, and THERE IS NO "CENTER". > > > > There is a center in a finite, homogeneous, and isotropic universe. > You have insufficient imagination. This is simply not true. > > For example, the surface of the sphere S^2 is finite, homogeneous, and > isotropic, yet it has no "center". > > As you probably don't understand this, I mean no center > IN THE MANIFOLD ITSELF. You must consider its intrinsic > properties only, and cannot embed it in E^3, because this > is an analogy for the universe, and as you point out, > there is no "enclosing space" in which the universe could > be embedded. > >>> An infinite universe would have no place to expand to so such a > >>> universe can not expand. > >> More nonsense. You simply do not understand differential geometry > >> or GR. > Or mathematical infinities. > > No matter what differential geometry or GR says an infinite universe > > cannot expand. > Again, not true. You have insufficient imagination. The FLRW manifold > with zero spatial curvature is an example of an infinite universe that > does expand. > > It is the distance between galaxies that is expanding. > IOW it is the metric that is expanding. For an infinite > universe, the manifold is an infinite topological space > and "expansion" simply does not (cannot) apply to it. > > You are the one making the extraordinary claim, > My claims are not "extraordinary" at all, they are just standard > differential geometry and GR. Again, you wallow in your own ignorance. > > You are like a caveman thinking that a wheel is > "extraordinary". Today, of course, it isn't. > Today we have differential geometry and GR. > >> You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write > >> about it. > > > > Then, your usual ad hominems instead of reasoning or knowledge. > The problem is YOURS, in that you simply do not understand. I cannot > reason with your refusal to learn, and I display my knowledge in every post. > > YOU, on the other hand, display your ignorance with > every post. > > Tom Roberts It is easy to understand that Riemannian geometry is ignorant nonsense because time is not a spatial dimension. Yet you cannot even understand that! Differential geometry, as you understand it, involves the reification fallacy, so it is ignorant foolishness. It is lying with geometry, and you are a lying mathematician lying with math. The idea that space itself is expanding is a case of reification fallacy, showing you are weak-minded about logic. You are a mathematician who has prostituted himself for relativity. That you imagine your "knowledge" is impressive and are proud of it is really impressive! You are so stupid and ignorant because you accept without any understanding the most hair-brained fallacies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-05 15:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uko0s9$cnri$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #625083 |
On 12/5/2023 1:17 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/4/23 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 3:22:39 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 12/4/23 3:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> The Big Bang and the Center of the Universe The velocity-distance >>>> relationship interprets the redshift-distance relationship as >>>> caused by the Doppler shift of starlight. This relationship is >>>> the same in every direction from Earth. This requires we are at >>>> the center of the universe. >>> Nope! In a homogeneous and isotropic universe this would hold at any >>> location, and THERE IS NO "CENTER". >> >> There is a center in a finite, homogeneous, and isotropic universe. > > You have insufficient imagination. This is simply not true. > > For example, the surface of the sphere S^2 is finite, homogeneous, and > isotropic, yet it has no "center". > > As you probably don't understand this, I mean no center > IN THE MANIFOLD ITSELF. You must consider its intrinsic > properties only, and cannot embed it in E^3, because this > is an analogy for the universe, and as you point out, > there is no "enclosing space" in which the universe could > be embedded. > To expand on this, where is the center of the SURFACE of a globe, or the earth? In which country or ocean is it? I am explicitly not talking about the center of the 3D earth itself, thousands of km below the surface, but the point ON THE SURFACE which is the center OF THE SURFACE. I repeat: Center of the 2D SURFACE, not the 3D center below it. Is it the (0, 0) latitude/longitude in the Atlantic off the coast of Africa? Why? The longitude line is arbitrary, but while the 0 latitude line (the equator) has physical meaning, it is defined by a property of the earth (its rotation), not some sort of "center" of the surface. North or South Pole? Again, defined by the rotation but nothing special about the surface itself. Maybe Mecca? Think of a 4D hypersphere with a 3D "surface", which is our universe. In the Big Bang theory the hypersurface of the hypersphere is expanding, but like the regular sphere, there is no "center" of the hypersurface. (even babbling Mitch seems to somewhat get this)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-05 13:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <deb88228-06f4-42e4-884d-364d60c11b69n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #625137 |
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 12:23:41 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote: > On 12/5/2023 1:17 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 12/4/23 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 3:22:39 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> On 12/4/23 3:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>> The Big Bang and the Center of the Universe The velocity-distance > >>>> relationship interprets the redshift-distance relationship as > >>>> caused by the Doppler shift of starlight. This relationship is > >>>> the same in every direction from Earth. This requires we are at > >>>> the center of the universe. > >>> Nope! In a homogeneous and isotropic universe this would hold at any > >>> location, and THERE IS NO "CENTER". > >> > >> There is a center in a finite, homogeneous, and isotropic universe. > > > > You have insufficient imagination. This is simply not true. > > > > For example, the surface of the sphere S^2 is finite, homogeneous, and > > isotropic, yet it has no "center". > > > > As you probably don't understand this, I mean no center > > IN THE MANIFOLD ITSELF. You must consider its intrinsic > > properties only, and cannot embed it in E^3, because this > > is an analogy for the universe, and as you point out, > > there is no "enclosing space" in which the universe could > > be embedded. > > > To expand on this, where is the center of the SURFACE of a globe, or the > earth? In which country or ocean is it? I am explicitly not talking > about the center of the 3D earth itself, thousands of km below the > surface, but the point ON THE SURFACE which is the center OF THE > SURFACE. I repeat: Center of the 2D SURFACE, not the 3D center below it. > > Is it the (0, 0) latitude/longitude in the Atlantic off the coast of > Africa? Why? The longitude line is arbitrary, but while the 0 latitude > line (the equator) has physical meaning, it is defined by a property of > the earth (its rotation), not some sort of "center" of the surface. > North or South Pole? Again, defined by the rotation but nothing special > about the surface itself. Maybe Mecca? > > Think of a 4D hypersphere with a 3D "surface", which is our universe. In > the Big Bang theory the hypersurface of the hypersphere is expanding, > but like the regular sphere, there is no "center" of the hypersurface. > (even babbling Mitch seems to somewhat get this) You have a very 2-dimensional comprehension as does relativity and Tom Roberts the ridiculously proud fellow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-05 17:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uko8pq$du9g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #625140 |
On 12/5/2023 4:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 12:23:41 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >> On 12/5/2023 1:17 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 12/4/23 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 3:22:39 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 12/4/23 3:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>> The Big Bang and the Center of the Universe The velocity-distance >>>>>> relationship interprets the redshift-distance relationship as >>>>>> caused by the Doppler shift of starlight. This relationship is >>>>>> the same in every direction from Earth. This requires we are at >>>>>> the center of the universe. >>>>> Nope! In a homogeneous and isotropic universe this would hold at any >>>>> location, and THERE IS NO "CENTER". >>>> >>>> There is a center in a finite, homogeneous, and isotropic universe. >>> >>> You have insufficient imagination. This is simply not true. >>> >>> For example, the surface of the sphere S^2 is finite, homogeneous, and >>> isotropic, yet it has no "center". >>> >>> As you probably don't understand this, I mean no center >>> IN THE MANIFOLD ITSELF. You must consider its intrinsic >>> properties only, and cannot embed it in E^3, because this >>> is an analogy for the universe, and as you point out, >>> there is no "enclosing space" in which the universe could >>> be embedded. >>> >> To expand on this, where is the center of the SURFACE of a globe, or the >> earth? In which country or ocean is it? I am explicitly not talking >> about the center of the 3D earth itself, thousands of km below the >> surface, but the point ON THE SURFACE which is the center OF THE >> SURFACE. I repeat: Center of the 2D SURFACE, not the 3D center below it. >> >> Is it the (0, 0) latitude/longitude in the Atlantic off the coast of >> Africa? Why? The longitude line is arbitrary, but while the 0 latitude >> line (the equator) has physical meaning, it is defined by a property of >> the earth (its rotation), not some sort of "center" of the surface. >> North or South Pole? Again, defined by the rotation but nothing special >> about the surface itself. Maybe Mecca? >> >> Think of a 4D hypersphere with a 3D "surface", which is our universe. In >> the Big Bang theory the hypersurface of the hypersphere is expanding, >> but like the regular sphere, there is no "center" of the hypersurface. >> (even babbling Mitch seems to somewhat get this) > You have a very 2-dimensional comprehension as does relativity and Tom Roberts the ridiculously proud fellow. Failure to be able to answer the question noted. In which country/ocean is the center of the surface of the earth located? (funny how you call me "2-dimensional" when I try to discuss 4 dimensional hyperspheres!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Giovanni Dikson Muzhkaterov <niii@ngoiinvi.vk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-07 22:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ukti7e$1q3u7$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #625146 |
Volney wrote: > On 12/5/2023 4:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> You have a very 2-dimensional comprehension as does relativity and Tom >> Roberts the ridiculously proud fellow. > > Failure to be able to answer the question noted. In which country/ocean > is the center of the surface of the earth located? > (funny how you call me "2-dimensional" when I try to discuss 4 > dimensional hyperspheres!) me too. I don't get it. Accordingly, all worst 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘀 and 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝘄𝗮𝗿 on the face of the earth. People thinks that was peaceful. 𝗚𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆s_𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗩𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘁_𝗧𝗼_𝗥𝗮𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗠𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗣𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_(𝗝𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘆_𝗗𝗼𝗿𝗲) https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/1RKCZP3XJrJN
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-05 14:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b2aef4f8-589f-41f3-a46e-f00580d34737n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #625137 |
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 12:23:41 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote: > On 12/5/2023 1:17 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 12/4/23 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 3:22:39 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> On 12/4/23 3:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>> The Big Bang and the Center of the Universe The velocity-distance > >>>> relationship interprets the redshift-distance relationship as > >>>> caused by the Doppler shift of starlight. This relationship is > >>>> the same in every direction from Earth. This requires we are at > >>>> the center of the universe. > >>> Nope! In a homogeneous and isotropic universe this would hold at any > >>> location, and THERE IS NO "CENTER". > >> > >> There is a center in a finite, homogeneous, and isotropic universe. > > > > You have insufficient imagination. This is simply not true. > > > > For example, the surface of the sphere S^2 is finite, homogeneous, and > > isotropic, yet it has no "center". > > > > As you probably don't understand this, I mean no center > > IN THE MANIFOLD ITSELF. You must consider its intrinsic > > properties only, and cannot embed it in E^3, because this > > is an analogy for the universe, and as you point out, > > there is no "enclosing space" in which the universe could > > be embedded. > > > To expand on this, where is the center of the SURFACE of a globe, or the > earth? In which country or ocean is it? I am explicitly not talking > about the center of the 3D earth itself, thousands of km below the > surface, but the point ON THE SURFACE which is the center OF THE > SURFACE. I repeat: Center of the 2D SURFACE, not the 3D center below it. > > Is it the (0, 0) latitude/longitude in the Atlantic off the coast of > Africa? Why? The longitude line is arbitrary, but while the 0 latitude > line (the equator) has physical meaning, it is defined by a property of > the earth (its rotation), not some sort of "center" of the surface. > North or South Pole? Again, defined by the rotation but nothing special > about the surface itself. Maybe Mecca? > > Think of a 4D hypersphere with a 3D "surface", which is our universe. In > the Big Bang theory the hypersurface of the hypersphere is expanding, > but like the regular sphere, there is no "center" of the hypersurface. > (even babbling Mitch seems to somewhat get this) If you encase a space with a dodecahedron, you have twelve dimensions with the same amount of space and still have a center.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-05 17:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uko91u$du9g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #625145 |
On 12/5/2023 5:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 12:23:41 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >> On 12/5/2023 1:17 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 12/4/23 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 3:22:39 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 12/4/23 3:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>> The Big Bang and the Center of the Universe The velocity-distance >>>>>> relationship interprets the redshift-distance relationship as >>>>>> caused by the Doppler shift of starlight. This relationship is >>>>>> the same in every direction from Earth. This requires we are at >>>>>> the center of the universe. >>>>> Nope! In a homogeneous and isotropic universe this would hold at any >>>>> location, and THERE IS NO "CENTER". >>>> >>>> There is a center in a finite, homogeneous, and isotropic universe. >>> >>> You have insufficient imagination. This is simply not true. >>> >>> For example, the surface of the sphere S^2 is finite, homogeneous, and >>> isotropic, yet it has no "center". >>> >>> As you probably don't understand this, I mean no center >>> IN THE MANIFOLD ITSELF. You must consider its intrinsic >>> properties only, and cannot embed it in E^3, because this >>> is an analogy for the universe, and as you point out, >>> there is no "enclosing space" in which the universe could >>> be embedded. >>> >> To expand on this, where is the center of the SURFACE of a globe, or the >> earth? In which country or ocean is it? I am explicitly not talking >> about the center of the 3D earth itself, thousands of km below the >> surface, but the point ON THE SURFACE which is the center OF THE >> SURFACE. I repeat: Center of the 2D SURFACE, not the 3D center below it. >> >> Is it the (0, 0) latitude/longitude in the Atlantic off the coast of >> Africa? Why? The longitude line is arbitrary, but while the 0 latitude >> line (the equator) has physical meaning, it is defined by a property of >> the earth (its rotation), not some sort of "center" of the surface. >> North or South Pole? Again, defined by the rotation but nothing special >> about the surface itself. Maybe Mecca? >> >> Think of a 4D hypersphere with a 3D "surface", which is our universe. In >> the Big Bang theory the hypersurface of the hypersphere is expanding, >> but like the regular sphere, there is no "center" of the hypersurface. >> (even babbling Mitch seems to somewhat get this) > If you encase a space with a dodecahedron, you have twelve dimensions with the same amount of space and still have a center. A dodecahedron has 3 dimensions and 12 faces, not 12 dimensions. Its surface is 2 dimensional folded into 3 dimensional space. Where is the center of the surface of the dodecahedron located? Justify your answer. Again, NOT the center of the 3D object. The center of the surface.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web