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

Groups > sci.physics > #827917

Just for grins #2

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — 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