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

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #490592 > unrolled thread

The Shape of the Universe.

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-17 23:36 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-18 00:12 -0700
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-18 00:42 -0700
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-04-18 22:26 +1000
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-18 17:02 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-04-18 17:33 +1000
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-18 10:27 -0700
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-04-19 12:19 +1000
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-19 23:51 -0700
            Re: The Shape of the Universe. SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-04-21 22:02 +1000
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-21 09:25 -0700
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-04-22 16:23 +1000
                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-22 13:48 -0700
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-04-23 10:35 +1000
                      Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-22 21:13 -0700
                        Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-22 23:23 -0700
                          Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-22 23:31 -0700
                        Re: The Shape of the Universe. SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-04-23 20:04 +1000
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-18 10:18 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-18 13:33 -0400
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-19 23:53 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-04-20 07:38 -0400
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-20 10:07 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-23 10:31 -0500
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-23 22:50 -0700
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-04-24 20:48 +1000
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-24 08:49 -0700
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-24 08:50 -0700
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-24 23:21 -0500
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-04-25 20:25 +1000
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. Klaus Meinhard <k_meinhard@gmx.de> - 2018-04-25 08:53 +0200
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-04-25 20:28 +1000
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-25 10:42 -0500
            Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-25 13:33 -0700
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-25 22:53 -0500
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-26 00:00 -0700
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-29 03:06 +0200
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-04-26 19:44 +1000
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-26 08:18 -0700
                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-04-28 00:16 +1000
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-27 07:46 -0700
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 12:33 -0500
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-28 14:34 -0400
                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-28 22:33 -0500
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-29 03:17 -0400
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2018-04-29 09:21 -0400
                      Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-29 07:26 -0700
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-28 11:44 -0700
            Re: The Shape of the Universe. Klaus Meinhard <k_meinhard@gmx.de> - 2018-04-27 09:47 +0200
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2018-04-27 21:39 +0200
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-25 15:33 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#490760

benj wrote:
> 
> On 4/18/2018 2:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Shape of the Universe.
> >
> > There seems to be a question whether the universe if flat or curved.
> >
> > The answer is very simple..the universe is both flat and curved.
> >
> > If you go very fast in one direction at eye level...you will return and
> >
> > see the back of your head. Because the universe is curved.
> >
> > But the flat part of the curved universe can easily be seen...
> >
> > if you look down, or go down you will quickly hit the floor of the universe...and
> >
> > if you go up, you can touch the top of the universe.
> >
> > But if you move at eye level straight, it curves.
> >
> > But here is the catch..
> >
> > in order to get pass the curvature of the universe to get pass the curvature..where
> >
> > the universe is infinite, you need to get pass the curvature 'ring' of the universe.
> >
> > Just simply picture a medium size pizza (with pepperoni) inside a very large infinite size pizza flat box.
> >
> Faker, this is utter babbling drool. You are NEVER going to have a clue
> about science and math.You just babble one like Mitch figuring that if
> you can make as little sense as possible people will mistake it for the
> hard to understand theories of Einstein. Sorry, Faker but people who
> understand science will spot your babble right away. The only people you
> are fooling are people dumber than yourself. (which isn't many)
> 
> Only human stupidity is known to be infinite.


are you going to do the "infinite stupidity" quote...infinitly?

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

#490762

The Universe means by definition EVERYTHING, so it doesn't have a
shape, in any reasonable sense.

If e.g. you say it's a sphere, then outside the sphere is by
definition also part of the universe, hence the whole has no shape.

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

#490769

casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
> 
> The Universe means by definition EVERYTHING, so it doesn't have a
> shape, in any reasonable sense.
> 
> If e.g. you say it's a sphere, then outside the sphere is by
> definition also part of the universe, hence the whole has no shape.



Well, 'these people' in the scientific community view the universe as everything in the big bang.

I cannot get pass their...groupthink mentality. I have to work with it...it's first grade science.

I'll lose them if I start teaching second grade science...


The only thing they understand is...pizza.



Now class...i got a slice of pizza in my hand, it has a curve on it...

Like...How Come?

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

#490900

[I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you do is 
post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that your usual 
nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth responding to as 
it may surprise some readers.]

On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> the universe is both flat and curved.

Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This happens 
because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean by "the universe" 
-- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two ways, which makes this 
seemingly silly statement actually be correct.

In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space is flat.

	[I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
	 and won't understand anyway.]

Tom Roberts

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

#490939

Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you do is
> post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that your usual
> nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth responding to as
> it may surprise some readers.]

That is called...the disclaimer. It always starts with  "I rarely read your posts or reply to you because..."







> 
> On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > the universe is both flat and curved.
> 
> Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This happens
> because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean by "the universe"
> -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two ways, which makes this
> seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
> 
> In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space is flat.

Sorry, I don't suscribe to  "*Our* current"...  "our" translates to...groupthink.

> 
>         [I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
>          and won't understand anyway.]
> 
> Tom Roberts

I already put the pizza (spaceTIME is curved) in the box (space is flat)..

There are a million ways to say the same thing and not know you're saying the same thing.

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

#490943

Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
> [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you 
> do is post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that 
> your usual nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth 
> responding to as it may surprise some readers.]
> 
> On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> the universe is both flat and curved.
> 
> Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This 
> happens because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean 
> by "the universe" -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two 
> ways, which makes this seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
> 
> In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space 
> is flat.
> 
>      [I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
>       and won't understand anyway.]
> 
> Tom Roberts

How can space possibly be "flat"??

Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go East-West 
and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!

In the Milky Way Galaxy, one day I might be able to go directly towards 
the Galaxy Centre, or follow our spiral arm, or go up, out of the 
Galactic disk .... three dimensions!!

And other Galaxies aren't all in the same plane ... three dimensions!!

And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ... 
three dimensions!!
-- 
Daniel

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

#490956

Daniel60 wrote:
> 
> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
> > [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you
> > do is post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that
> > your usual nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth
> > responding to as it may surprise some readers.]
> >
> > On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> the universe is both flat and curved.
> >
> > Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This
> > happens because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean
> > by "the universe" -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two
> > ways, which makes this seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
> >
> > In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space
> > is flat.
> >
> >  Â Â Â Â [I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
> >  Â Â Â Â  and won't understand anyway.]
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> How can space possibly be "flat"??
> 
> Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go East-West
> and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!
> 
> In the Milky Way Galaxy, one day I might be able to go directly towards
> the Galaxy Centre, or follow our spiral arm, or go up, out of the
> Galactic disk .... three dimensions!!
> 
> And other Galaxies aren't all in the same plane ... three dimensions!!
> 
> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
> three dimensions!!
> --
> Daniel

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

#490957

Daniel60 wrote:
> 
> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
> > [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you
> > do is post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that
> > your usual nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth
> > responding to as it may surprise some readers.]
> >
> > On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> the universe is both flat and curved.
> >
> > Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This
> > happens because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean
> > by "the universe" -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two
> > ways, which makes this seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
> >
> > In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space
> > is flat.
> >
> >  Â Â Â Â [I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
> >  Â Â Â Â  and won't understand anyway.]
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> How can space possibly be "flat"??
> 
> Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go East-West
> and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!
> 
> In the Milky Way Galaxy, one day I might be able to go directly towards
> the Galaxy Centre, or follow our spiral arm, or go up, out of the
> Galactic disk .... three dimensions!!
> 
> And other Galaxies aren't all in the same plane ... three dimensions!!
> 
> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
> three dimensions!!
> --
> Daniel

Based on my observations...that which you call the big bang..the stars spread out in all directions because the top was flat and
they had to go in all directions because they needed to spread out some more.

Down...is where they came from. Up is where they went. But, there was was not much room Up, so they went 
this way and that way....that which you call...spread out.

I mean, really...if you go inside a pizza box...there is not much room up or down. It's flat!

The pizza is flat! The box it comes in is flat!!

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

#491006

On 4/24/18 5:48 AM, Daniel60 wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
>> In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but 
>> space is flat.
> 
> How can space possibly be "flat"??

Here "flat" is a technical term meaning that the Riemann curvature 
tensor is identically zero.

> Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go East-West 
> and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!

Sure.

> [...] three dimensions!

My use of "flat" does not imply 2 dimensions, as you seem to think. 
Indeed it can apply to manifolds of any dimension greater than 1.

Tom Roberts

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

#491020

Tom Roberts wrote on 25/04/18 14:21:
> On 4/24/18 5:48 AM, Daniel60 wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
>>> In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but 
>>> space is flat.
>>
>> How can space possibly be "flat"??
> 
> Here "flat" is a technical term meaning that the Riemann curvature 
> tensor is identically zero.
> 
>> Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go 
>> East-West and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!
> 
> Sure.
> 
>> [...] three dimensions!
> 
> My use of "flat" does not imply 2 dimensions, as you seem to think. 
> Indeed it can apply to manifolds of any dimension greater than 1.
> 
> Tom Roberts

Well, why didn't you say so?? ;-P

-- 
Daniel

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

#491017

Hallo Daniel60,

> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ... 
> three dimensions!!

ahem - 4?



-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Klaus Meinhard

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

#491021

Klaus Meinhard wrote on 25/04/18 16:53:
> Hallo Daniel60,
> 
>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
>> three dimensions!!
> 
> ahem - 4?
> 
as, I think, Time is the fourth dimension ... yes, I'll give you that!!

-- 
Daniel

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

#491031

On 4/25/18 1:53 AM, Klaus Meinhard wrote:
>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
>> three dimensions!!
> 
> ahem - 4?

No. At least not in the usual modeling of the world as a 4-d Lorentzian 
manifold. In such a model, we analysts are outside the model [#], and we can 
(necessarily) examine the model at any time or place (where those words refer to 
time and place in the model, not our analysts' world). So over analysts' time 
the model is fixed (i.e. not 'expanding').

	[#] Even if we are modeling the universe we inhabit. We humans
	cannot possibly be part of the model, but we are part of the
	universe.

This is the origin of the MISLEADING and PUNFUL claim "nothing moves in 
spacetime". That phrase conflates time in the model to time to us analysts. Yes, 
as analysts' time advances the model does not change (or 'move'). But for 
objects in the universe being modeled, motion certainly is possible.

Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding over time. 
But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our universe is expanding 
in 3 dimensions, not 4.

Tom Roberts

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

#491055

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
"Daniel60" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions  three 
>>> dimensions!!
>>
"Klaus Meinhard" <k_meinhard@gmx.de> wrote
>> ahem - 4?
>
"Tom Roberts" wrote:
> No. At least not in the usual modeling of the world as a 4-d Lorentzian 
> manifold. In such a model, we analysts are outside the model [#], and we 
> can (necessarily) examine the model at any time or place (where those 
> words refer to time and place in the model, not our analysts' world). So 
> over analysts' time the model is fixed (i.e. not 'expanding').
>
> [#] Even if we are modeling the universe we inhabit. We humans
> cannot possibly be part of the model, but we are part of the
> universe.
>
> This is the origin of the MISLEADING and PUNFUL claim "nothing moves in 
> spacetime". That phrase conflates time in the model to time to us 
> analysts. Yes, as analysts' time advances the model does not change (or 
> 'move'). But for objects in the universe being modeled, motion certainly 
> is possible.
>
> Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding over 
> time. But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our universe 
> is expanding in 3 dimensions, not 4.
>
> Tom Roberts:
>
hanson wrote:
So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
"thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?
Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.
Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!

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

#491086

On 4/25/18 3:33 PM, hanson wrote:
> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?

There is nothing (no thing) into which space is expanding. This is an 
expansion of the entire universe, so there can be nothing outside of it.

> Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
> "thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?

The question makes no sense, as nothing (no thing) cannot be measured or 
recorded.

> Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.

No. In physics it is generalizing and abstracting from measurements to a 
more general set of mathematical relationships among appropriate quantities.

> Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!

Not at all! Science is the process of formulating models of the world we 
inhabit, testing them via experiment, and improving them successively to 
be more accurate and/or cover a wider domain of applicability.

Tom Roberts

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

#491091

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
hanson wrote:
>> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
>
Tom Roberts wrote:
> There is nothing (no thing) into which space is expanding. This is an 
> expansion of the entire universe, so there can be nothing outside of it.
>
hanson wrote:
So, what is your entire universe expanding into?
What is that non-existent "outside" that your are referring to?
>
hanson earlier wrote:
>> Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
>> "thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?
>
Tom Roberts wrote:
> The question makes no sense, as nothing (no thing) cannot be measured or 
> recorded.
>
hanson wrote:
So, if "nothing (no thing) cannot be measured recorded"
then why do you assert that the Universe expands?

hanson earlier wrote:
> Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.
>
Tom Roberts wrote:
> No. In physics it is generalizing and abstracting from measurements to a 
> more general set of mathematical relationships among appropriate 
> quantities.
>
hanson wrote:
Roberts, your 2-liner is NOT physics. It is philosophical
palaver about "generalizing and abstracting your nothing"

hanson earlier wrote:
>> Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
>
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Not at all! Science is the process of formulating models of the world we 
> inhabit, testing them via experiment, and improving them successively to 
> be more accurate and/or cover a wider domain of applicability.
>
hanson wrote:
Yes, it is the "Science of philosophy" about the Universe
that you just modeled, which gave raise to the
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery> [1].

You, Roberts, are mentionned in one of the links
in [1] wherein you sang a very different tune then
you presented above.
>
<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO 

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

#491235

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/25/18 3:33 PM, hanson wrote:
>> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
> 
> There is nothing (no thing) into which space is expanding. This is an
> expansion of the entire universe, so there can be nothing outside of it.

Not true, because there might not be only “*the* universe”.

*Our* universe could be part of, and expanding into, a multiverse, where 
there are other universes; but while there are theories that predict this 
(WMAP/ “Planck”-supported inflation theory being one of them), there is no 
experiment yet that confirmed it.

One difficulty of an experiment is that those other universes would be 
moving away from ours faster than the speed of light (Lawrence Krauss at 
AAI, 2009 [1]):

<https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo?t=3454>

However, *if* there is a multiverse, then we must assume that *it* is not 
expanding into anything.

See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse>

(the “Proponents and Skeptics” section features remarkable lists for both 
categories)


F’up2 sci.physics.relativity

PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#491102

hanson wrote on 26/04/18 06:33:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Daniel60" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions  
>>>> three dimensions!!
> "Klaus Meinhard" <k_meinhard@gmx.de> wrote
>>> ahem - 4?
>>
> "Tom Roberts" wrote:
>> No. At least not in the usual modeling of the world as a 4-d 
>> Lorentzian manifold. In such a model, we analysts are outside the 
>> model [#], and we can (necessarily) examine the model at any time or 
>> place (where those words refer to time and place in the model, not our 
>> analysts' world). So over analysts' time the model is fixed (i.e. not 
>> 'expanding').
>>
>> [#] Even if we are modeling the universe we inhabit. We humans
>> cannot possibly be part of the model, but we are part of the
>> universe.
>>
>> This is the origin of the MISLEADING and PUNFUL claim "nothing moves 
>> in spacetime". That phrase conflates time in the model to time to us 
>> analysts. Yes, as analysts' time advances the model does not change 
>> (or 'move'). But for objects in the universe being modeled, motion 
>> certainly is possible.
>>
>> Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding 
>> over time. But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our 
>> universe is expanding in 3 dimensions, not 4.
>>
> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
> Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
> "thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?
> Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.
> Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
> 
When you blow up a balloon, does the inside of the balloon know what it 
is expanding into??

-- 
Daniel

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

#491121

"Daniel60" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
 > hanson wrote on 26/04/18 06:33:
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "Daniel60" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions  
>>>>> three dimensions!!
>> "Klaus Meinhard" <k_meinhard@gmx.de> wrote
>>>> ahem - 4?
>>>
>> "Tom Roberts" wrote:
>>> No. At least not in the usual modeling of the world as a 4-d 
>>> Lorentzian manifold. In such a model, we analysts are outside the 
>>> model [#], and we can (necessarily) examine the model at any time or 
>>> place (where those words refer to time and place in the model, not our 
>>> analysts' world). So over analysts' time the model is fixed (i.e. not 
>>> 'expanding').
>>>
>>> [#] Even if we are modeling the universe we inhabit. We humans
>>> cannot possibly be part of the model, but we are part of the
>>> universe.
>>>
>>> This is the origin of the MISLEADING and PUNFUL claim "nothing moves 
>>> in spacetime". That phrase conflates time in the model to time to us 
>>> analysts. Yes, as analysts' time advances the model does not change 
>>> (or 'move'). But for objects in the universe being modeled, motion 
>>> certainly is possible.
>>>
>>> Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding 
>>> over time. But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our 
>>> universe is expanding in 3 dimensions, not 4.
>>>
hanson wrote:
>> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
>> Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
>> "thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?
>> Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.
>> Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
>> 
Daniel wrote:
> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside 
> of the balloon know what it is expanding into??
> -- Daniel
>
hanson wrote
Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
With that in mind, Daniel, ask your balloon, and
philosophize, whether the inside of your balloon 
knows what YOU are doing.... LOL!
>
You may get the perfect answer from SwineBert
Glazier who talks to the bucket that he shits into
and has profound conversions with, like you
 just did with the balloon you are blowing into.
<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO

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

#491152

hanson wrote on 27/04/18 01:18:
> 
> "Daniel60" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>  > hanson wrote on 26/04/18 06:33:
>>> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> "Daniel60" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions 
>>>>>> three dimensions!!
>>> "Klaus Meinhard" <k_meinhard@gmx.de> wrote
>>>>> ahem - 4?
>>>>
>>> "Tom Roberts" wrote:
>>>> No. At least not in the usual modeling of the world as a 4-d 
>>>> Lorentzian manifold. In such a model, we analysts are outside the 
>>>> model [#], and we can (necessarily) examine the model at any time or 
>>>> place (where those words refer to time and place in the model, not 
>>>> our analysts' world). So over analysts' time the model is fixed 
>>>> (i.e. not 'expanding').
>>>>
>>>> [#] Even if we are modeling the universe we inhabit. We humans
>>>> cannot possibly be part of the model, but we are part of the
>>>> universe.
>>>>
>>>> This is the origin of the MISLEADING and PUNFUL claim "nothing moves 
>>>> in spacetime". That phrase conflates time in the model to time to us 
>>>> analysts. Yes, as analysts' time advances the model does not change 
>>>> (or 'move'). But for objects in the universe being modeled, motion 
>>>> certainly is possible.
>>>>
>>>> Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is 
>>>> expanding over time. But it makes no sense to claim "time is 
>>>> expanding", so our universe is expanding in 3 dimensions, not 4.
>>>>
> hanson wrote:
>>> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
>>> Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
>>> "thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?
>>> Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.
>>> Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
>>>
> Daniel wrote:
>> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside of the balloon know what 
>> it is expanding into??
>> -- Daniel
>>
> hanson wrote
> Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
> With that in mind, Daniel, ask your balloon, and
> philosophize, whether the inside of your balloon knows what YOU are 
> doing.... LOL!
>>
> You may get the perfect answer from SwineBert
> Glazier who talks to the bucket that he shits into
> and has profound conversions with, like you
> just did with the balloon you are blowing into.
> <snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO
> 
Sorry, Hanson, you might know balloonese, but I do not.

-- 
Daniel

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web