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

Groups > sci.physics > #827989

Re: Just for grins #2

Show all headers | View raw

On 17-Jul-21 8:56 pm, whodat wrote:
> I am using the book called “Relatvity” that was published by the estate
> of Albert Einstein in 1956, fifteenth edition with Einstein’s forward
> dated 1952.
> 
> On page 105, he writes, “There are stars everywhere, so that the density
> of matter, although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the
> average everywhere the same.”
> 
> I am not going to argue the accuracy of this statement, simply assume
> (without evidence) that it is true. This yields an understanding that
> there is some minimum size (segment) of the universe that is necessary
> for the statement to be accurate. The question is what is that minimum
> size. It can be expressed in light years or some percentage of the
> entire universe. This question is simple enough but perhaps
> understanding the basis is beyond several of the most vocal cranks here.
> 
> For example, I suggest that any 50% of the universe has the same average
> density as any other 50%. That’s a pretty large chunk, but what is the
> smallest size segment for the statement to remain universally true, and
> why that size?
> 
> Pissing in the wind (e.g. no rational given reason) doesn't count. Hint,
> the rationals is the real challenge yielded by the question.

It's never going to be exactly true. Generally speaking, the bigger the 
chunks of the universe you consider, the closer it will be to being true.

So your question as stated is not capable of being answered.

Sylvia.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Just for grins #2 whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-17 05:56 -0500
  Re:Just for grins #2 Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 09:25 -0500
    Re: Just for grins #2 John Sefton <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 09:02 -0700
      Re: Just for grins #2 Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-17 14:02 -0400
        Re: Just for grins #2 whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-17 13:18 -0500
      Re: Just for grins #2 whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-17 13:10 -0500
    Re: Just for grins #2 Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 11:21 -0500
  Re: Just for grins #2 "edpr...@gmail.com" <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 18:30 -0700
  Re: Just for grins #2 Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-07-18 20:08 +1000
  It's _hard_ to be precise. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2021-07-18 10:38 -0700
    Re: It's _hard_ to be precise. John Sefton <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 11:59 -0700
      Re: It's _hard_ to be precise. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-18 21:28 -0500
    Re: Just for grins #2 Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 15:05 -0500
      Re: Just for grins #2 "edpr...@gmail.com" <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 16:10 -0700
        Re: Just for grins #2 "edpr...@gmail.com" <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 16:24 -0700
          Re: Just for grins #2 Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 20:37 -0500
  Re: Just for grins #2 Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 01:57 -0700

csiph-web