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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #456275 > unrolled thread

The Shape of the Universe.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

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. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 05:34 -0700
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-18 17:02 -0700
            Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 17:08 -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. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 11:56 -0700
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 20:17 -0700
    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. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 12:26 -0700
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 12:30 -0700
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 12:39 -0700
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 12:37 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-04-20 07:38 -0400
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 07:52 -0700
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-20 10:07 -0700
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 10:40 -0700
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 10:43 -0700
            Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 10:50 -0700
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 11:20 -0700
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 17:40 -0700
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-20 23:49 -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. Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-04-24 04:51 -0700
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-24 23:44 -0500
            Re: The Shape of the Universe. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 00:17 -0700
            Re: The Shape of the Universe. Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-25 09:48 +0000
            Re: The Shape of the Universe. Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-04-25 04:46 -0700
        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. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-25 14:05 -0700
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 21:45 +0000
                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-25 15:11 -0700
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 22:25 +0000
                      Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-25 15:43 -0700
                        Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-25 15:46 -0700
                          Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-25 16:05 -0700
                            Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-25 16:57 -0700
                              Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-25 17:22 -0700
                                Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-25 17:24 -0700
                            Re: The Shape of the Universe. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 13:01 +0000
                              Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 06:39 -0700
                                Re: The Shape of the Universe. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 14:29 +0000
                                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 07:58 -0700
                                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 08:16 -0700
                                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 16:08 +0000
                                      Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 10:38 -0700
                                        Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 11:01 -0700
                              Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 06:40 -0700
                                Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 07:12 -0700
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-25 22:53 -0500
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-25 21:13 -0700
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-26 00:00 -0700
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-27 21:18 +0000
                  Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-27 14:36 -0700
                    Re: Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was. Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-27 21:44 +0000
                      You're a consumer. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-27 14:52 -0700
                        Re: You're a consumer. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-27 19:07 -0400
                    Re: Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-27 19:05 -0400
                    Toss a rock up, and it "remembers" to come down. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-27 16:23 -0700
                    Re: Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-02 15:47 -0500
                      Gravity is SpaceTime, the 4D TimeScape; it's everywhere, always. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-05-02 14:30 -0700
                        Re: Gravity is SpaceTime, the 4D TimeScape; it's everywhere, always. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-03 06:53 +0000
                          Where/When is there no Energy/Matter ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-05-03 01:11 -0700
                            Re: Where/When is there no Energy/Matter ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-03 16:53 +0000
                              Re: Where/When is there no Energy/Matter ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-04 11:38 -0400
                                Re: Where/When is there no Energy/Matter ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-04 09:07 -0700
                                  Re: Where/When is there no Energy/Matter ? Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-04 17:53 +0000
                                    Re: Where/When is there no Energy/Matter ? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 19:06 -0700
                                      Re: Where/When is there no Energy/Matter ? Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-05 11:22 +0000
                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-27 16:38 -0500
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-27 21:53 +0000
                      Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-27 15:01 -0700
                      Re: The Shape of the Universe. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-28 11:31 -0700
                        Re: The Shape of the Universe. Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-05-01 11:10 +0000
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-27 21:41 -0700
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-29 03:27 +0200
                      Re: The Shape of the Universe. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-28 22:51 -0400
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-29 03:06 +0200
                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-28 22:30 -0700
                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-30 09:31 -0500
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-30 16:23 +0000
                      Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-30 09:25 -0700
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-01 01:27 +0100
                      Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-01 13:12 -0700
                        Re: The Shape of the Universe. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-24 21:01 +0200
                          Re: The Shape of the Universe. Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 19:35 +0000
                            Re: The Shape of the Universe. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 19:04 -0700
                              Re: The Shape of the Universe. Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-25 08:43 +0000
              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. Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-28 11:52 +0000
                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-28 14:23 -0400
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-28 12:00 -0700
                      Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-28 12:01 -0700
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-05-01 11:07 +0000
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 12:33 -0500
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-28 10:55 -0700
                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. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-28 22:33 -0700
                    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. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-27 13:25 -0700
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-25 15:33 -0700

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

#457140

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/27/18 4:18 PM, Erin Koff wrote:
>> 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.
>> Your "nothing" stands for the ABSENCE of time
>> and space. You can't expand anything along that.
> 
> In our current cosmological models, space is NOT "expanding into nothing",
> it is just expanding.

Correct.

> There is no "into" or "along", […]

Incorrect.  Our current cosmological models *include* the possibility of a 
multiverse.  See my other follow-up for details.


PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

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

#457141

On 4/28/2018 9:27 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
>> On 4/27/18 4:18 PM, Erin Koff wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> Your "nothing" stands for the ABSENCE of time
>>> and space. You can't expand anything along that.
>>
>> In our current cosmological models, space is NOT "expanding into nothing",
>> it is just expanding.
> 
> Correct.

This like when one has behavior without anything that is doing the 
behaving, correct?

>> There is no "into" or "along", […]
> 
> Incorrect.  Our current cosmological models *include* the possibility of a
> multiverse.  See my other follow-up for details.

Ah, So Mr. Vulcan, all cosmological models "expand" into other 
multiverse manifolds?

Wipe your chin, you are drooling.

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

#457139

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]

#457144

On Sunday, 29 April 2018 03:07:02 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:
> 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”.


Sure, an idiot can imagine many of them.

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

#457216

On 4/28/18 8:06 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 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”.

And there might be invisible blue fairies shepherding the planets around 
the sun.

> *Our* universe could be part of, and expanding into, a multiverse, [...]

Fine as a speculation, but this has not come close to being a theory/model.

Tom Roberts

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

#457225

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/28/18 8:06 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 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”.
> 
> And there might be invisible blue fairies shepherding the planets around
> the sun.
> 
>> *Our* universe could be part of, and expanding into, a multiverse,
>> [...]
> 
> Fine as a speculation, but this has not come close to being a
> theory/model. Tom Roberts

Absolutely, this is what happens when people unfamiliar in math modelling 
of physics models. They think all farts and speculations are models.

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

#457226

Shape of the Universe = ....

https://photos.app.goo.gl/gryz6ANH6GGtSRnZ2 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/vaFZ6r46VccqhYCB7


http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibtable.html 


42 : 267914296 = 2^3 x 13 x 29 x 211 x 421 

43 : 433494437 

((phi)^4)*2^2*5 = 137.082039325 

45/47 * (433494437^2 - 299792397.659^2)^0.5 = 299792397.659 


((4pi * 29.9792397659) / 299792397.659) * 299792397.659 = 376.730237635 

(4pi * 29.9792397659) / 299792397.659 = 1.25663e-6 

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

#457262

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/28/18 8:06 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 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”.
> 
> And there might be invisible blue fairies shepherding the planets around
> the sun.

Probably the same thing some people have said about atoms before they were 
observed.  Or molecules.  Or photons.  Or curved, dynamic spacetime.

Unfortunately, as I am not a specialist in inflation theory, and 
Stephen Hawking, who was a proponent of the multiverse hypothesis, has died 
recently, you will have to discuss your doubts with Brian Greene, 
Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, 
Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Yasunori Nomura Raj Pathria, 
Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, or 
Sean Carroll.
 
>> *Our* universe could be part of, and expanding into, a multiverse, [...]
> 
> Fine as a speculation, but this has not come close to being a
> theory/model.

How so?


PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#457300

On 4/30/18 5:27 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 4/28/18 8:06 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:  
>>> *Our* universe could be part of, and expanding into, a multiverse, [...]
>>
>> Fine as a speculation, but this has not come close to being a
>> theory/model.
> 
> How so?

It makes no testable predictions.

Tom Roberts

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

#459109

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/30/18 5:27 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 4/28/18 8:06 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> *Our* universe could be part of, and expanding into, a multiverse,
>>> Fine as a speculation, but this has not come close to being a
>>> theory/model.
>> How so?
> 
> It makes no testable predictions.

Not true.  For example, the inflationary multiverse can be falsified by 
falsifying eternal inflation.

This was more or less done by the “Planck” 2013 data release as analyzed by 
Ijjas, Loeb, & Steinhardt (2013, 2014), which was supported by the 2015 
release.  Also by analyses of quantum fluctuations in eternal inflation by 
Kohli & Haslam 2014.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation#Further_developments> pp.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
   does it take to change a light bulb?  
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#459115

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> It makes no testable predictions.
> 
> Not true.  For example, the inflationary multiverse can be falsified by
> falsifying eternal inflation.
> This was more or less done by the “Planck” 2013 data release as analyzed
> by Ijjas, Loeb, & Steinhardt (2013, 2014), which was supported by the
> 2015 release.  Also by analyses of quantum fluctuations in eternal
> inflation by Kohli & Haslam 2014.

Entirely bullcrap. The light from the edge of this universe shows 
expansion simply because the universe was expanding at that time. 14 
billions years ago.

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

#459159

On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:35:51 PM UTC-7, Oslovné Ritmickeho wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> It makes no testable predictions.
> > 
> > Not true.  For example, the inflationary multiverse can be falsified by
> > falsifying eternal inflation.
> > This was more or less done by the “Planck” 2013 data release as analyzed
> > by Ijjas, Loeb, & Steinhardt (2013, 2014), which was supported by the
> > 2015 release.  Also by analyses of quantum fluctuations in eternal
> > inflation by Kohli & Haslam 2014.
> 
> Entirely bullcrap. The light from the edge of this universe shows 
> expansion simply because the universe was expanding at that time. 14 
> billions years ago.

Bullcrapy… there is no edge of the universe.
And you cannot say for sure that expansion has ended.
Also expansion is accelerating from what we see now.

You do not understand gravity Roy Masters.


Mitchell Raemsch

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

#459202

mitchrae3323 wrote:

> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:35:51 PM UTC-7, Oslovné Ritmickeho
> wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: 
>> > Tom Roberts wrote:
>> >> It makes no testable predictions.
>> > Not true.  For example, the inflationary multiverse can be falsified
>> > by falsifying eternal inflation.
>> > This was more or less done by the “Planck” 2013 data release as
>> > analyzed by Ijjas, Loeb, & Steinhardt (2013, 2014), which was
>> > supported by the 2015 release.  Also by analyses of quantum
>> > fluctuations in eternal inflation by Kohli & Haslam 2014.
>> 
>> Entirely bullcrap. The light from the edge of this universe shows
>> expansion simply because the universe was expanding at that time. 14
>> billions years ago.
> 
> Bullcrapy… there is no edge of the universe.
> And you cannot say for sure that expansion has ended.
> Also expansion is accelerating from what we see now.

You missed the point entirely, you may want to go fishing, or just take a 
walk.

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

#456989

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]

#457005

"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]

#457047

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]

#457048

"Daniel60" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
> 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
>> 
Daniel wrote:
> Sorry, Hanson, you might know balloonese, but I do not.
> 
hanson wrote:
Daniel, enjoy your philosophizing. Carry on. .... LOL

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

#457089

Daniel60 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!
>> 
> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside of the balloon know what it
> is expanding into??

Unbelievable stupid question to be read. Moreover, the universe is not a 
balloon, not having the boundaries of a balloon, and that balloon analogy 
went already to far. But to fool the unaware, it makes probably sense.

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

#457116

On 4/28/2018 7:52 AM, Erin Koff wrote:
> Daniel60 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!
>>>
>> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside of the balloon know what it
>> is expanding into??
> 
> Unbelievable stupid question to be read. Moreover, the universe is not a
> balloon, not having the boundaries of a balloon, and that balloon analogy
> went already to far. But to fool the unaware, it makes probably sense.
> 
And the way you know the universe is not a balloon is? For propaganda 
purposes you don't need truth, just a "plausible" story.

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

#457122

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 1:23:37 PM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> On 4/28/2018 7:52 AM, Erin Koff wrote:
> > Daniel60 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!
> >>>
> >> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside of the balloon know what it
> >> is expanding into??
> > 
> > Unbelievable stupid question to be read. Moreover, the universe is not a
> > balloon, not having the boundaries of a balloon, and that balloon analogy
> > went already to far. But to fool the unaware, it makes probably sense.
> > 
> And the way you know the universe is not a balloon is? For propaganda 
> purposes you don't need truth, just a "plausible" story.

The Universe has the Appearance of a Sphere because of the Inverse Square Law 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_intensity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_angle




Photopic (black) and scotopic (green) luminosity functions.[c 1] The photopic includes the CIE 1931 standard[c 2] (solid), the Judd–Vos 1978 modified data[c 3] (dashed), and the Sharpe, Stockman, Jagla & Jägle 2005 data[c 4] (dotted). The horizontal axis is wavelength in nm.
In photometry, luminous intensity is a measure of the wavelength-weighted power emitted by a light source in a particular direction per unit solid angle, based on the luminosity function, a standardized model of the sensitivity of the human eye. The SI unit of luminous intensity is the candela (cd), an SI base unit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_angle

In geometry, a solid angle (symbol: Ω) is the two-dimensional angle in three-dimensional space that an object subtends at a point. It is a measure of how large the object appears to an observer looking from that point. In the International System of Units (SI), a solid angle is expressed in a dimensionless unit called a steradian (symbol: sr).

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

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web