Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.glorb.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:44:04 -0600 Message-ID: <56554ACD.2909@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 21:44:45 -0800 From: The Starmaker Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Where is the center of the universe? References: <54D7D8B6.20A9@ix.netcom.com> <1507156.2Ya99iEG1D@PointedEars.de> <103c7541-38df-40c9-8a7f-a12067bd9a06@googlegroups.com> <7433986.UnZPPodstl@PointedEars.de> <3e809a2f-b176-424b-a956-b4871856e79c@googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 150 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 45.49.183.72 X-Trace: sv3-tgNcwbycfU6NLNJZhXPm6MylZLI8kGMg4I2AbBDQTkEsEoJPFSHbBHhlrgrYpaeMW7XZz9LTAnbm0Pq!+uKU48N8NbcS5XSc+zl65BB+O/mPSf6Jlx2knjH3VM0ytYqi6AKxPfYEbzUE2+Q2zEMh9yyzoaHo!0k7P0tbw X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 6570 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:370837 Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 5:50:30 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 3:14:24 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' > > > Lahn wrote: > > >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > >> > The visible universe > > >> > is what can see us. > > >> Not even wrong. > > > > > > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ > > > > > > Woit's "Not Even Wrong" > > > > Interesting. > > > > > [...] > > > Here visible in the sense > > > of "accessible to sensory > > > apparatus > > > > The proper term is "_observable_ universe" and it has nothing to do with > > perception, everything with the universal expansion and the finite speed of > > light. > > > > > > > > > > > where light speed > > > is a fixed constant > > > > That depends on what you mean by that. There is a valid interpretation in > > which this statement is wrong, as the speed of light depends on the optical > > density of the medium. It is certainly constant across media of equal > > optical density. > > > > > and the maximum speed of propagation > > > of information", > > > > The speed of light *in vacuum* is the maximum speed of propagation of > > information. > > > > > he visible universe is what can see us. > > > > Still nonsense. > > > > > And you can call me "James T. Kirk". > > > > So far I call you "another gibbering crank". > > > > > And the cosmic background infrared is about 3.5 Kelvins, > > > > _Microwave_, not infrared, and 2.72548 ± 0.00057 K (Fixsen, 2009). > > > > > > > > > > > and black holes are dark and stars are bright. > > > > And violets are blue. Just how primitive can your arguments get? > > > > > > PointedEars > > ___________ > > Fixsen, D. J. (2009). "The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background". > > The Astrophysical Journal 707 (2): 916-920. arXiv:0911.1955. > > Bibcode:2009ApJ...707..916F. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/916. > > -- > > Q: Why is electricity so dangerous? > > A: It doesn't conduct itself. > > > > (from: WolframAlpha) > > Lahn, I'm working from an "axiomless > system of natural deduction" in terms > of then that it follows that it's the > complete and consistent theory for > numbers then also that it is a scientific > theory for the concrete. > > So, this is "all the way primitive", > "truly fundamental" and "fundamental > as of truisms and truth as a conserved > quantity". > > That said, then, I have at least an > engineering curriculum including physics > and a reasonable undergraduate introduction > to chemistry and physics and standardized > exams tell me so. > > That otherwise seems proper enough, it's > a free country and you're welcome to your > opinion, and mine, though I'll claim to > be "not a crank", nor a "troll", though > I'm very good at it. > > That said now, the observable or visible > universe, with these being the same, > basically does have a more or less uniform > background radiation (in thermal and > electromagnetic radiation, non-zero). > > Then about how attenuation works over > cosmological scales is still something > being learned, where, as above I have > this theory that is then in terms of > usual notions of symmetries and conserved > and preserved quantities here of variety > and diversity, and yes that's technical, > the cosmological constant is a mathematical > infinitesimal in this theory, then for why > space is not flat and space is not curved. > (Space is infinitesimally flat and curved.) > > Then, there are features in the numbers and > continuum analysis, that "discretizing" a > point is doubling it, on a line, or multiplying > it by integers factors in area terms like 3,4,5, > so, I am looking at how the global setting sees > the measurement effect (of sampling) or observer > effect (of sampling) among measurement and > observer effects, that there are numerical reasons > why the measurement would be off so neatly, > then for that this automatically so equips the > mathematical theory. > > That said then as some background, then you can > refer to me as Ross A. Finlayson and I'd rather > you not call me crank. (You're welcome to your > own opinion.) > > Bright and dark things lens. This is a supposition > to help explain the effect of the instantaneous > changes of gravity (where objects only move at < 0.5c), > in a rather flat space-time. > > So, that said, yes the "dually-self-infraconsistent > null axiom theory" the following as being the only > consistent mathematical theory advises what I see > as follows as a "theory of physics". There is no such thing as a "theory of physics". You need to learn to get your jargon right.