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

Groups > sci.physics > #827917 > unrolled thread

Just for grins #2

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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

#827917 — Just for grins #2

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#827924

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> Wrote in message:
> I am using the book called ?Relatvity? that was published by the estateof Albert Einstein in 1956, fifteenth edition with Einstein?s forwarddated 1952.On page 105, he writes, ?There are stars everywhere, so that the densityof matter, although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on theaverage 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 thatthere is some minimum size (segment) of the universe that is necessaryfor the statement to be accurate. The question is what is that minimumsize. It can be expressed in light years or some percentage of theentire universe. This question is simple enough but perhapsunderstanding the basis is beyond several of the most vocal cranks here.For example, I suggest that any 50% of the universe has the same averagedensity as any other 50%. That?s a pretty large chunk, but what is thesmallest size segment for the statement to remain universally true, andwhy 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.

 
 
Rats shouldn't try associating themselves with anything physics.
 
Go back under "male" tab at Chaturbate and stay there.
-- 


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#827953

On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 08:25:32 UTC-6, Clutterfreak wrote:
> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> Wrote in message: 
> > I am using the book called ?Relatvity? that was published by the estateof Albert Einstein in 1956, fifteenth edition with Einstein?s forwarddated 1952.On page 105, he writes, ?There are stars everywhere, so that the densityof matter, although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on theaverage 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 thatthere is some minimum size (segment) of the universe that is necessaryfor the statement to be accurate. The question is what is that minimumsize. It can be expressed in light years or some percentage of theentire universe. This question is simple enough but perhapsunderstanding the basis is beyond several of the most vocal cranks here.For example, I suggest that any 50% of the universe has the same averagedensity as any other 50%. That?s a pretty large chunk, but what is thesmallest size segment for the statement to remain universally true, andwhy 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. 
> 
> 
> 
> Rats shouldn't try associating themselves with anything physics. 
> 
> Go back under "male" tab at Chaturbate and stay there. 
> -- 
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- 
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Mm-hmm
I find it humorous that while defending illogical Science that actually is proud of its lack of logic, you still attempt to use logic

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

#827959

On 7/17/2021 12:02 PM, John Sefton wrote:

> Mm-hmm
> I find it humorous that while defending illogical Science that actually is proud of its lack of logic, you still attempt to use logic
> 

Who the heck are you to talk about lack of logic in science?  All you 
produce are illogical spinny thing gifs and word salad posts!

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

#827962

On 7/17/2021 1:02 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 7/17/2021 12:02 PM, John Sefton wrote:
> 
>> Mm-hmm
>> I find it humorous that while defending illogical Science that 
>> actually is proud of its lack of logic, you still attempt to use logic
>>
> 
> Who the heck are you to talk about lack of logic in science?  All you 
> produce are illogical spinny thing gifs and word salad posts!

They do what they always do when they don't understand the question.

It is a variation on shooting the messenger. Yet somehow the bullet
somehow ends up in their foot.

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

#827960

On 7/17/2021 11:02 AM, John Sefton wrote:
> On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 08:25:32 UTC-6, Clutterfreak wrote:
>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> Wrote in message:
>>> I am using the book called ?Relatvity? that was published by the estateof Albert Einstein in 1956, fifteenth edition with Einstein?s forwarddated 1952.On page 105, he writes, ?There are stars everywhere, so that the densityof matter, although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on theaverage 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 thatthere is some minimum size (segment) of the universe that is necessaryfor the statement to be accurate. The question is what is that minimumsize. It can be expressed in light years or some percentage of theentire universe. This question is simple enough but perhapsunderstanding the basis is beyond several of the most vocal cranks here.For example, I suggest that any 50% of the universe has the same averagedensity as any other 50%. That?s a pretty large chunk, but what is thesmallest size segment for the statement to remain universally true, andwhy 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rats shouldn't try associating themselves with anything physics.
>>
>> Go back under "male" tab at Chaturbate and stay there.
>> -- 
>>
>>
>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
> 
> Mm-hmm
> I find it humorous that while defending illogical Science that actually is proud of its lack of logic, you still attempt to use logic

You expect something logical from an insane creature?

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

#827955

On 7/17/2021 9:25 AM, Clutterfreak wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> Wrote in message:
>> I am using the book called ?Relatvity? that was published by the estateof Albert Einstein in 1956, fifteenth edition with Einstein?s forwarddated 1952.On page 105, he writes, ?There are stars everywhere, so that the densityof matter, although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on theaverage 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 thatthere is some minimum size (segment) of the universe that is necessaryfor the statement to be accurate. The question is what is that minimumsize. It can be expressed in light years or some percentage of theentire universe. This question is simple enough but perhapsunderstanding the basis is beyond several of the most vocal cranks here.For example, I suggest that any 50% of the universe has the same averagedensity as any other 50%. That?s a pretty large chunk, but what is thesmallest size segment for the statement to remain universally true, andwhy 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.
> 
>   
>   
> Rats shouldn't try associating themselves with anything physics.
>   
> Go back under "male" tab at Chaturbate and stay there.
> 

Or look up your ex and spend your weekend with her:

https://img.youtube.com/vi/riB18eHPi0Y/0.jpg






-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#827976

Oh, something really about science to discuss! yippy!

On Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 6:57:02 AM UTC-4, 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.

I would venture that is has to be larger than a single local galactic cluster.
So at least two local clusters and the space between.

Okay, that was my first guess. Now let's approach this scientifically.

To know what is the smallest volume that has the same density as the observed universe,
we first need the average density of the observable universe.

A quick google to find:

WMAP determined that the universe is flat, from which it follows that the mean energy density in the universe is equal to the critical density (within a 0.5% margin of error). This is equivalent to a mass density of 9.9 x 10-30 g/cm3, which is equivalent to only 5.9 protons per cubic meter.
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html#:~:text=WMAP%20determined%20that%20the%20universe,5.9%20protons%20per%20cubic%20meter.

The expansion rate we see today indicates that the critical density of the Universe is about 9×10-27 kg m-3. This density, however, is the total density of both matter and energy. 
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/how-dense-is-the-universe/

All the calculations seem to be based on estimates of the critical density, since we have no direct way of measuring dark matter or dark energy.
That's a problem for the prediction of the future of our universe, but not for this question.

Let's take the WMAP density, 9.9 x 10-30 g/cm3, which is equivalent to only 5.9 protons per cubic meter.

Well I think we can meet that on several scales as whodat mentioned. So My final answer is similar to where I started, but much smaller.
I'll say a volume extending from a star to a radius proportional to the mass of that star. Let me arbitrarily put that number at around
2 light years with our sun as the center.


That's my final answer.
  Ed

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

#827989

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.

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

#828011 — It's _hard_ to be precise.

whodat:
> 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?

As the ( often great ) Sylvia replied....

It's a matter of precision, and it's _hard_ to be precise.

How many times must you flip a coin before you can 
confidently say that it's a 50-50 proposition ?

1,000,000 times ? 1,000,000,000 ?

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

#828019 — Re: It's _hard_ to be precise.

On Sunday, 18 July 2021 at 11:38:52 UTC-6, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> whodat:
> > 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?
> As the ( often great ) Sylvia replied.... 
> 
> It's a matter of precision, and it's _hard_ to be precise. 
> 
> How many times must you flip a coin before you can 
> confidently say that it's a 50-50 proposition ? 
> 
> 1,000,000 times ? 1,000,000,000 ?
The average density is the same, no matter how big or how small,

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

#828069 — Re: It's _hard_ to be precise.

On 7/18/2021 1:59 PM, John Sefton wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 July 2021 at 11:38:52 UTC-6, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> whodat:
>>> 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?
>> As the ( often great ) Sylvia replied....
>>
>> It's a matter of precision, and it's _hard_ to be precise.
>>
>> How many times must you flip a coin before you can
>> confidently say that it's a 50-50 proposition ?
>>
>> 1,000,000 times ? 1,000,000,000 ?
> The average density is the same, no matter how big or how small,
  Prove it.

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

#828024

On 7/18/2021 12:38 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> whodat:
>> 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?
> 
> As the ( often great ) Sylvia replied....
> 
> It's a matter of precision, and it's _hard_ to be precise.
> 
> How many times must you flip a coin before you can
> confidently say that it's a 50-50 proposition ?
> 
> 1,000,000 times ? 1,000,000,000 ?
> 


No it's a matter of stupid question to begin with.

I doubt very much Einstein ever said that and I doubt very much the 
resident rat quoted him from a related context. He's a rat, his hobby 
has been to come here invoke crap. He gets away with it because we don't 
have enough physicists here to kick his sick ego for doing so.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#828054

On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 4:05:13 PM UTC-4, Clutterfreak wrote:
[]
> >
> No it's a matter of stupid question to begin with. 
> 
> I doubt very much Einstein ever said that and I doubt very much the 
> resident rat quoted him from a related context. He's a rat, his hobby 
> has been to come here invoke crap. He gets away with it because we don't 
> have enough physicists here to kick his sick ego for doing so.

Hmm. I think I have a copy of this on my kindle. I'll check.

Ed

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

#828057

On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 7:11:00 PM UTC-4, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 4:05:13 PM UTC-4, Clutterfreak wrote: 
> []
> > > 
> > No it's a matter of stupid question to begin with. 
> > 
> > I doubt very much Einstein ever said that and I doubt very much the 
> > resident rat quoted him from a related context. He's a rat, his hobby 
> > has been to come here invoke crap. He gets away with it because we don't 
> > have enough physicists here to kick his sick ego for doing so.
> Hmm. I think I have a copy of this on my kindle. I'll check. 
> 
> Ed

Nope, different book. But look this book is online,
https://www.relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/relativity_the_special_general_theory.pdf

and it does contain that quote in a discussion titled "Cosmological Difficulties of
Newton's Theory"
page 59

Ed

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

#828063

On 7/18/2021 6:24 PM, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 7:11:00 PM UTC-4, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 4:05:13 PM UTC-4, Clutterfreak wrote:
>> []
>>>>
>>> No it's a matter of stupid question to begin with.
>>>
>>> I doubt very much Einstein ever said that and I doubt very much the
>>> resident rat quoted him from a related context. He's a rat, his hobby
>>> has been to come here invoke crap. He gets away with it because we don't
>>> have enough physicists here to kick his sick ego for doing so.
>> Hmm. I think I have a copy of this on my kindle. I'll check.
>>
>> Ed
> 
> Nope, different book. But look this book is online,
> https://www.relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/relativity_the_special_general_theory.pdf
> 
> and it does contain that quote in a discussion titled "Cosmological Difficulties of
> Newton's Theory"
> page 59
> 
> Ed
> 


There's no need to quote the source in this question. Problem isn't 
there! Question itself is ill-posed. Source says something and this guy 
understands something else from it. The quote that he made amounted to 
the fact that universe is isotropic, not uniform. So this untrained guy 
takes these two different concepts to mean the same and therefore comes 
up with his nonsensical question for us.

He's not a physics trained person. Comes here to cause disturbance "for 
grins."





-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#828104

On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 20:57:02 UTC+10, 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.

have fun!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web