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

Groups > alt.astronomy > #279813 > unrolled thread

Is the universe curved or flat?

Back to article view | Back to alt.astronomy

Contents

  Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-11 13:56 -0800
    Re: Is the universe curved or flat? David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-11 16:34 -0600
      Re: Is the universe curved or flat? "G=EMC^2TreBert" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 16:06 -0800
        Re: Is the universe curved or flat? David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-12 21:23 -0600
    Re: Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-11 15:16 -0800
      Re: Is the universe curved or flat? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-12-12 09:23 -0700
    Re: Is the universe curved or flat? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-11 18:40 -0600
      Re: Is the universe curved or flat? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-12 17:37 +0100
    Re: Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-11 21:38 -0800
      Re: Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-13 12:59 -0800
        Re: Is the universe curved or flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 15:05 -0600
          Re: Is the universe curved or flat? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-13 22:54 +0100
          Re: Is the universe curved or flat? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 02:26 -0500
        Re: Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-13 18:40 -0800
        Re: Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-14 13:04 -0800
          Re: Is the universe curved or flat? palsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 20:33 -0800
          Re: Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-15 14:24 -0800
            Re: Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-15 15:16 -0800
              Re: Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-15 15:34 -0800
                Re: Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-16 23:15 -0800
                Re: Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-19 09:11 -0800
                  Re: Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-19 10:20 -0800
                    Re: Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-25 08:48 -0800
                      Re: Is the universe curved or flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-27 23:03 -0800
              Re: Is the universe curved or flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 18:59 -0600
            Re: Is the universe curved or flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 18:46 -0600
    Re: Is the universe curved or flat? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-12-12 05:16 -0700
    Re: Is the universe curved or flat? "G=EMC^2TreBert" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 14:49 -0800
    Re: Is the universe curved or flat? "G=EMC^2TreBert" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 10:46 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#279813 — Is the universe curved or flat?

if you say both, i'll shoot myself!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#279815

On 12/11/2015 3:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
>
promise?

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

#279819

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 2:34:53 PM UTC-8, David Staup wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 3:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
> >
> promise?

Expanding makes it round.Locally it appears flat.Hay we thought the Earth was flat 800 years ago.When I think how gravity is shaping it I go with my Convex & Concave theory.Its saddle shaped,and that depends on where your viewing it from.Treb has the best view. TreBert

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

#279843

On 12/11/2015 6:06 PM, G=EMC^2TreBert wrote:
> On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 2:34:53 PM UTC-8, David Staup wrote:
>> On 12/11/2015 3:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
>>>
>> promise?
>
> Expanding makes it round.Locally it appears flat.Hay we thought the Earth was flat 800 years ago.When I think how gravity is shaping it I go with my Convex & Concave theory.Its saddle shaped,and that depends on where your viewing it from.Treb has the best view. TreBert
>
wrong again dumb fuck

An asymptotically flat spacetime is a Lorentzian manifold in which, 
roughly speaking, the curvature vanishes at large distances from some 
region, so that at large distances, the geometry becomes 
indistinguishable from that of Minkowski spacetime

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

#279817

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!



i bet you a million doallars Sam Wormley  doesn't know..he's probably 'looking it up' right now!


{that's how you get rid of terroists, you gotta keep them on the run...)

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

#279829

DON'T YOU >>EVER<< SHUT THE FUCK UP, FAKER?

YOU SAY NOTHING!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:16:18 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>The Starmaker wrote:
>> 
>> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
>
>
>
>i bet you a million doallars Sam Wormley  doesn't know..he's probably 'looking it up' right now!
>
>
>{that's how you get rid of terroists, you gotta keep them on the run...)

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

#279821

On 12/11/2015 3:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
>

it is flat,
until you get near the edge,
then it is curved,
I think it curves up last time I looked.

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

#279834

gilber34 wrote:

> On 12/11/2015 3:56 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
> 
> it is flat,

Presumably, yes.  So far, measurements show that the observable universe is 
flat.  Unfortunately, we cannot look beyond that, so we have to defer to 
what geometry, relativity, and quantum mechanics have to say about the rest.

> until you get near the edge,

There is no edge; a flat universe is implicitly infinite in size.

> then it is curved, I think it curves up last time I looked.

Sorry to break this to you, but your padded cell is _not_ the universe.

F'up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity>


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
   when he went camping?  
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#279824

Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> On 12/11/15 4:02 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:56:08 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
> >
> >
> > Flat.
> >
> > Double-A
> >
> 
>    Double-A is correct. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to
>    within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.
> 


I don't understand what you are saying, is space curve or flat? It has to be either one or the other.


Is space curve or flat?

Is space 

A. curve

or

B. flat


Which is the correct answer? A or B?

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

#279851

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> > On 12/11/15 4:02 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:56:08 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
> > >
> > >
> > > Flat.
> > >
> > > Double-A
> > >
> >
> >    Double-A is correct. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to
> >    within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.
> >
> 
> I don't understand what you are saying, is space curve or flat? It has to be either one or the other.
> 
> Is space curve or flat?
> 
> Is space
> 
> A. curve
> 
> or
> 
> B. flat
> 
> Which is the correct answer? A or B?


Didn't Einstein say space is curved not flat???

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

#279852

On 12/13/15 2:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Didn't Einstein say space is curved not flat???


   Einstein's general theory of relativity says that mass warps
   spacetime. Verified with many tests.

   On the cosmic scale, WMAP nailed down the curvature of space
   to within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#279853

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:jK6dnT8RsYnjQPDLnZ2dnUU7-VGdnZ2d@giganews.com...


|   Einstein's general theory of relativity says that mass warps
|   spacetime. Verified with many tests.

And it says that going through a forest from your
point of view you're seeing you're stationary
and trees are runing around.
Verified by zilions of test.

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

#279859

On 12/13/2015 04:05 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/13/15 2:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Didn't Einstein say space is curved not flat???
>
>
>    Einstein's general theory of relativity says that mass warps
>    spacetime. Verified with many tests.
>
>    On the cosmic scale, WMAP nailed down the curvature of space
>    to within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.

So genius. Here's an interesting Freshman problem for you. Given that 
"space" is observed to be 0.4% deviated from "flat", what is the 
smallest diameter of a hypersphere universe that can be found due to 
this measurement?

We'll wait right here for your answer.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#279858

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/11/15 4:02 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:56:08 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Flat.
> > > >
> > > > Double-A
> > > >
> > >
> > >    Double-A is correct. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to
> > >    within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.
> > >
> >
> > I don't understand what you are saying, is space curve or flat? It has to be either one or the other.
> >
> > Is space curve or flat?
> >
> > Is space
> >
> > A. curve
> >
> > or
> >
> > B. flat
> >
> > Which is the correct answer? A or B?
> 
> Didn't Einstein say space is curved not flat???


or is it everybody disagrees with Einstein?


I mean, Albert Einstein said: space is curved not flat.


Was he wrong?

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

#279867

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/11/15 4:02 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:56:08 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Flat.
> > > >
> > > > Double-A
> > > >
> > >
> > >    Double-A is correct. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to
> > >    within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.
> > >


this wmac cmb jazz was created by a couple of radio DJ's...i don't trust those drug addicts.


there is no proof that the cmb was cause by a big bang. that's just...speculation.


it couldda been somthin else.

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

#279874

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 1:04:49 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:

> there is no proof that the cmb was cause by a big bang. that's just...speculation.
> 
> 
> it couldda been somthin else.

Indeed, it 'couldda been somthin else'. 

The Big Bang is just a theory, which you call speculation. Fine. Theories can never be proven, but they can certainly be shown to be incorrect. Scientists are always trying to show that theories are wrong, that would make them not only famous, it could change all of physics. Theories are not formed in a vacuum, everyone and his uncle will try their best to show that any new proposed theory is wrong, and this is a good thing.

You can be quite sure that the greatest minds in physics and astronomy are doing their best to disprove not only the Big Bang theory, but general relativity and special relativity and every other theory that you can think of. The fact is, so far, that since they have not been able to do so only goes to reinforce the fact that these theories are pretty much accepted to be accurate, even if they are tweaked now and again to fine-tune the theory.

If you don't happen to believe the big Bang theory, well, stand in line. Gather together your proof, and publish your experiments and observations to support your case, but be prepared to withstand the onslaught that is sure to follow. It just isn't good enough to say you don't believe in a theory and stop there, because then you got nuttin', nuttin' at all.

There are a lot of cranks on these forums, all stating that they don't believe in this, or don't believe in that, but not one of them has the chops to back up what they claim. Not a single one. Not a shred of proof. After all, if they could only prove what they say, they would be famous, and probably rich, to boot. But, alas, they can't, not even close.

You don't happen to be one of them, do you?

\Paul A

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

#279891

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 12/11/15 4:02 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:56:08 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Flat.
> > > > >
> > > > > Double-A
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >    Double-A is correct. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to
> > > >    within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.
> > > >
> 
> this wmac cmb jazz was created by a couple of radio DJ's...i don't trust those drug addicts.
> 
> there is no proof that the cmb was cause by a big bang. that's just...speculation.
> 
> it couldda been somthin else.


For example...

this thing called WMAP or CMB...

microwave background????

We are talking about 'radio dj's'!


The background is not 'microwave'...it's RADIO waves.


That's why there is no heat...it's music, not fire.


That stuff in the backgound is just a lot of noise.

You gotta ask yourself a question...
Why am I the only one
in the world bringing this up????


Radio waves, not microwaves.


You guys gotta go back to the drawing board and start all over again...



come back when you're ready.

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

#279895

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/11/15 4:02 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:56:08 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Flat.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Double-A
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >    Double-A is correct. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to
> > > > >    within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.
> > > > >
> >
> > this wmac cmb jazz was created by a couple of radio DJ's...i don't trust those drug addicts.
> >
> > there is no proof that the cmb was cause by a big bang. that's just...speculation.
> >
> > it couldda been somthin else.
> 
> For example...
> 
> this thing called WMAP or CMB...
> 
> microwave background????
> 
> We are talking about 'radio dj's'!
> 
> The background is not 'microwave'...it's RADIO waves.
> 
> That's why there is no heat...it's music, not fire.
> 
> That stuff in the backgound is just a lot of noise.


"While working on a new type of antenna at Bell Labs in Holmdel
Township, New Jersey, they found a source of noise in the atmosphere
that they could not explain."



Notice the word "noise"?  "noise in the atmosphere"...


noise


    1.
    a sound, especially one that is loud or unpleasant or that causes
disturbance. Like a big bang!



That music they are playing on the radio sounds like a lot of noise...


but if you smoke grass....it sounds like Pink Floyd music.

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

#279896

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/11/15 4:02 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:56:08 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > >> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Flat.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Double-A
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    Double-A is correct. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to
> > > > > >    within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.
> > > > > >
> > >
> > > this wmac cmb jazz was created by a couple of radio DJ's...i don't trust those drug addicts.
> > >
> > > there is no proof that the cmb was cause by a big bang. that's just...speculation.
> > >
> > > it couldda been somthin else.
> >
> > For example...
> >
> > this thing called WMAP or CMB...
> >
> > microwave background????
> >
> > We are talking about 'radio dj's'!
> >
> > The background is not 'microwave'...it's RADIO waves.
> >
> > That's why there is no heat...it's music, not fire.
> >
> > That stuff in the backgound is just a lot of noise.
> 
> "While working on a new type of antenna at Bell Labs in Holmdel
> Township, New Jersey, they found a source of noise in the atmosphere
> that they could not explain."
> 
> Notice the word "noise"?  "noise in the atmosphere"...
> 
> noise
> 
>     1.
>     a sound, especially one that is loud or unpleasant or that causes
> disturbance. Like a big bang!


In other words, somebody...took all the noise (radio waves is what it
really is) and changed it to 'microwave waves'.


Why? Who knows with 'these people' anymore? They fudge, they tweak, they
change the facts to fit the theory.

You guys are all a bunch of crooks if you ask me.



The Starmaker





go back to making blue boxes...

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

#279921

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12/11/15 4:02 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:56:08 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > >> if you say both, i'll shoot myself!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Flat.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Double-A
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    Double-A is correct. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to
> > > > > > >    within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean.
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > this wmac cmb jazz was created by a couple of radio DJ's...i don't trust those drug addicts.
> > > >
> > > > there is no proof that the cmb was cause by a big bang. that's just...speculation.
> > > >
> > > > it couldda been somthin else.
> > >
> > > For example...
> > >
> > > this thing called WMAP or CMB...
> > >
> > > microwave background????
> > >
> > > We are talking about 'radio dj's'!
> > >
> > > The background is not 'microwave'...it's RADIO waves.
> > >
> > > That's why there is no heat...it's music, not fire.
> > >
> > > That stuff in the backgound is just a lot of noise.
> >
> > "While working on a new type of antenna at Bell Labs in Holmdel
> > Township, New Jersey, they found a source of noise in the atmosphere
> > that they could not explain."
> >
> > Notice the word "noise"?  "noise in the atmosphere"...
> >
> > noise
> >
> >     1.
> >     a sound, especially one that is loud or unpleasant or that causes
> > disturbance. Like a big bang!
> 
> In other words, somebody...took all the noise (radio waves is what it
> really is) and changed it to 'microwave waves'.



Now...just because there was a lot of noise in the universe...radio waves...
a big bang if you will...doesn't mean it was caused by an explosion.


What I mean is...picture it if you will...what else could cause
a lot of noise in the universe detected by those radio guys?

'They say'...by they i mean 'the scientific community', says only an explosion
could have caused all that racket/waves...

a big bang.

But there is something else they haven't thought of...

all that noise/raidowaves in the universe didn't have to be caused by an explosion...

just the opposite..

something very calm and silent could cause all that big bang noise radio waves in the universe...


something very calm and silent..

like the soft touch of a piano key...

or the gentle blow on the tuba.

a soft touch on a harp...

a blow of air on a trumpet
can make a ear pericing sound
yet it is caused by quiet air.


In other words, not a big bang explosion...
but a simple gentle air on the tuba.


The CMB is just the sound of music.

The Starmaker

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy

csiph-web