Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #371586 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-08 10:23 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-06 15:12 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-08 10:23 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 13:04 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-08 22:17 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 17:54 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-08 22:57 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-08 19:15 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 21:27 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-09 07:20 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 08:56 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-09 15:11 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:38 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:41 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:51 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:54 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 17:00 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 12:35 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 18:52 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 13:01 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-09 22:15 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 15:35 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 21:55 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 15:59 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:13 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-09 20:35 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:33 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 01:20 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-10 08:37 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-09 16:07 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 15:22 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 21:13 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 19:47 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 21:51 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 22:06 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-12-09 22:51 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 00:04 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-10 12:32 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 11:29 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 22:02 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-11 07:48 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-11 13:54 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 22:55 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-12 07:54 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 09:16 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-12 19:47 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2015-12-13 09:06 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 07:01 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-13 19:16 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-14 06:35 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-14 09:09 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-15 04:25 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-19 07:14 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-21 06:03 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-21 05:45 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-22 14:03 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 17:46 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-17 18:31 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 21:26 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:38 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:40 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:44 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:52 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 17:27 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 12:37 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 18:01 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-09 11:38 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 12:13 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-10 12:30 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 11:26 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-18 06:45 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-18 10:51 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-19 21:35 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe chanB4 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-12-18 16:12 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 12:56 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-18 14:28 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 17:42 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-12-09 06:42 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-12-11 22:39 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-08 19:46 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-08 22:50 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 09:09 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 12:07 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 15:46 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-15 00:01 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 08:44 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-15 22:44 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 08:38 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 15:00 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 15:13 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 18:30 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 17:45 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 21:47 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:40 +0000
There Is No Edge To The Universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-09 09:38 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-09 12:26 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 09:52 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 16:01 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-10 08:51 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 17:31 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 17:12 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 16:11 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 16:28 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 22:58 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 23:14 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 07:57 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-18 11:00 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-18 22:13 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-20 16:52 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-20 16:54 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-25 08:40 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-27 23:01 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-29 10:20 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 12:31 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-29 11:31 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 14:19 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-29 13:37 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-29 21:46 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 13:13 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-10 13:34 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 18:14 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-03 22:52 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-10 13:28 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-06 12:23 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 15:12 -0600
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 10:23 -0800 |
| Subject | There Is No Edge To The Universe |
| Message-ID | <56672006.3AA7@ix.netcom.com> |
"There Is No Edge To The Universe".
How many times have you heard that?
It seems...
there is a small group of people..
in the 'scientific community'..
there is this ..belief or opinion, that
"There is no edge to the universe".
They, go as far as telling everyone
"There is no edge to the universe".
They will get together
and come up with
all kinds of explanations,
and numbers, to Why and How
"There is no edge to the universe".
It's like a mantra.
"There is no edge to the universe"
"There is no edge to the universe"
"There is no edge to the universe"
And if you disagree with them...
they will have you shot!
So, why the mantra?
Who discovered that there
is no edge to the universe?
Did they send Columbus to look??
They will have you believe that
the universe is infinite. That is just
a ploy to have you believe...
"There is no edge to the universe".
Get it? It's a con!
con
kän/
1.
persuade (someone) to do or believe something, typically by use of a deception.
noun
noun: con; plural noun: cons
1.
an instance of deceiving or tricking someone.
The Question of course is...what is behind these people
from trying to convince everyone that
there is no edge to the universe?
Why are they trying to deceive you?
The truth is, they don't even want you to question it.
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 13:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <KbOdnSBO5rI2tPrLnZ2dnUU7-IGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371586 |
On 12/8/15 12:23 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > "There Is No Edge To The Universe". > How many times have you heard that? It is not the number of times you hear it that makes it so, but the consistency between observations and theory that make "no edge" logical and compelling. -- 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]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 22:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n47ktn$rhn$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371590 |
Sam Wormley > On 12/8/15 12:23 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> "There Is No Edge To The Universe". >> How many times have you heard that? > > > It is not the number of times you hear it that makes it so, > but the consistency between observations and theory that make "no > edge" logical and compelling. If the light seen coming from the edge of the Universe, is the old light generated at the time of Big Bang, then that light must be travelling outside this Universe, at least as far as it is from here to that edge. Just toward the opposite direction. This is remarkably, but exceedingly and surpassingly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 17:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fcJ9y.323437$4M.40423@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #371602 |
On 12/08/2015 05:17 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote:
> Sam Wormley
>
>> On 12/8/15 12:23 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> "There Is No Edge To The Universe".
>>> How many times have you heard that?
>>
>>
>> It is not the number of times you hear it that makes it so,
>> but the consistency between observations and theory that make "no
>> edge" logical and compelling.
>
> If the light seen coming from the edge of the Universe, is the old light
> generated at the time of Big Bang, then that light must be travelling
> outside this Universe, at least as far as it is from here to that edge.
> Just toward the opposite direction. This is remarkably, but exceedingly
> and surpassingly.
>
No Big Bang.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 22:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n47n9e$vel$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371612 |
benj >>> It is not the number of times you hear it that makes it so, >>> but the consistency between observations and theory that make "no >>> edge" logical and compelling. >> >> If the light seen coming from the edge of the Universe, is the old >> light generated at the time of Big Bang, then that light must be >> travelling outside this Universe, at least as far as it is from here to >> that edge. Just toward the opposite direction. This is remarkably, but >> exceedingly and surpassingly. >> > No Big Bang. I mean normal to the edge, but normal to the other side. Very few in Relativity are thinking at this shocking truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 19:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n47vbm$h0i$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371613 |
On 12/8/2015 4:57 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: > benj > >>>> It is not the number of times you hear it that makes it so, >>>> but the consistency between observations and theory that make "no >>>> edge" logical and compelling. >>> >>> If the light seen coming from the edge of the Universe, is the old >>> light generated at the time of Big Bang, then that light must be >>> travelling outside this Universe, at least as far as it is from here to >>> that edge. Just toward the opposite direction. This is remarkably, but >>> exceedingly and surpassingly. >>> >> No Big Bang. > > I mean normal to the edge, but normal to the other side. Very few in > Relativity are thinking at this shocking truth. > the universe is back lit for sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 21:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <AYGdnem6PrgmAvrLnZ2dnUU7-VsAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371613 |
On 12/8/15 4:57 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote:
> I mean normal to the edge, but normal to the other side. Very few in
> Relativity are thinking at this shocking truth.
There is no edge as is shown by these first two links:
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
--
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]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 07:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dcpvidFhpdtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371626 |
Am 09.12.2015 04:27, schrieb Sam Wormley: >> I mean normal to the edge, but normal to the other side. Very few in >> Relativity are thinking at this shocking truth. > > There is no edge as is shown by these first two links: > > No Center > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html > > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > I assume, that any object defines the centre of the universe by simply being somewhere. So: I am here and that is the centre (of MY universe). Since there are many objects, there are many centres and many universes. This 'self-centred' view seems kind of strange, but is actually what we observe. The universe we see looks precisely like the Earth would be right in the middle. Since the place of Earth is not that special, we must assume, this observation would be valid in any other possible location. So: you cannot reach the edge, since the universe would change if you try to get there. This is quite similar to the horizon, if you travel with a ship. The 'edge' is than the horizon, which is receding if you try to reach it. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 08:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WOWdnbH325ee3PXLnZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371634 |
On 12/9/15 12:20 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Since the place of Earth is not that special, we must assume, this
> observation would be valid in any other possible location.
>
> So: you cannot reach the edge, since the universe would change if you
> try to get there.
Yours is a good valid argument, Thomas.
No Center (everywhere the center)
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
--
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]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n49gaj$ccc$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #371634 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> writes: >Am 09.12.2015 04:27, schrieb Sam Wormley: >>> I mean normal to the edge, but normal to the other side. Very few in >>> Relativity are thinking at this shocking truth. >> >> There is no edge as is shown by these first two links: >> >> No Center >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html >I assume, that any object defines the centre of the universe by simply >being somewhere. >So: I am here and that is the centre (of MY universe). No, it's more like asking where is the center of the surface of a balloon or where is the center of Earth's surface? Where is the center of the circumference of a circle? No, I do NOT mean the center of the Earth, a few thousand miles below your feet, I mean the center of the SURFACE of the earth. Go to a globe, point to a spot on it and say "Here is the center of the surface!" It doesn't make sense. Same as the center of the universe, just more dimensions are involved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 16:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n49lev$4ni$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371626 |
Sam Wormley > On 12/8/15 4:57 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >> I mean normal to the edge, but normal to the other side. Very few in >> Relativity are thinking at this shocking truth. > > There is no edge as is shown by these first two links: > > No Center > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html You are insignificant. Trying to change the subject. You are not familiar in Math Gymnastics as I can see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 10:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WOWdnar325cqxPXLnZ2dnUU7-IUAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371661 |
On 12/9/15 10:38 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: > Sam Wormley > >> On 12/8/15 4:57 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >>> I mean normal to the edge, but normal to the other side. Very few in >>> Relativity are thinking at this shocking truth. >> >> There is no edge as is shown by these first two links: >> >> No Center >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > You are insignificant. Trying to change the subject. You are not familiar > in Math Gymnastics as I can see. > Human senses are easily fooled. -- 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]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n49m5h$8ba$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371664 |
Sam Wormley > On 12/9/15 10:38 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >> Sam Wormley >> >>> On 12/8/15 4:57 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >>>> I mean normal to the edge, but normal to the other side. Very few in >>>> Relativity are thinking at this shocking truth. >>> >>> There is no edge as is shown by these first two links: >>> >>> No Center >>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html >>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html >> >> You are insignificant. Trying to change the subject. You are not >> familiar in Math Gymnastics as I can see. > > Human senses are easily fooled. Just feel free to use your senses, entirely at their max capacity. Those are you may have, afterall. If the Universe is expanding, toward what direction is this Universe expanding? Inward or Outward?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 10:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WOWdnaf325dUwfXLnZ2dnUU7-IUAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371666 |
On 12/9/15 10:51 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote:
> Just feel free to use your senses, entirely at their max capacity. Those
> are you may have, afterall. If the Universe is expanding, toward what
> direction is this Universe expanding? Inward or Outward?
The expansion of space is just that (in all directions).
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
--
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]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n49mnk$8ba$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371668 |
Sam Wormley > On 12/9/15 10:51 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >> Just feel free to use your senses, entirely at their max capacity. >> Those are you may have, afterall. If the Universe is expanding, toward >> what direction is this Universe expanding? Inward or Outward? > > The expansion of space is just that (in all directions). > No Center Nobody talks about centers, you meat head. You are weak in perception and signal processing. Allow me to ask you in a different way. Toward what direction the expanding right after big bang was performed. Heck, you are a meat head indeed. What is the word EXPANDING stands for?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 12:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WOWdnaL325fz6fXLnZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371670 |
On 12/9/15 11:00 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote:
> Nobody talks about centers, you meat head. You are weak in perception and
> signal processing. Allow me to ask you in a different way. Toward what
> direction the expanding right after big bang was performed. Heck, you are
> a meat head indeed. What is the word EXPANDING stands for?
The expansion of space is just that (in all directions).
To help you visualize, Bubba:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n49t8o$q8t$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371686 |
Sam Wormley > On 12/9/15 11:00 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >> Nobody talks about centers, you meat head. You are weak in perception >> and signal processing. Allow me to ask you in a different way. Toward >> what direction the expanding right after big bang was performed. Heck, >> you are a meat head indeed. What is the word EXPANDING stands for? > > The expansion of space is just that (in all directions). What a honey! "All directions" does not mean "no direction". You contradict yourself like a rhinoceros. There are things which cannot be visualised, but yet fully understandable only. You are not even a newbeginner in Math and Physics, in spite of your advanced age.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 13:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WOWdndj325fr5_XLnZ2dnUU7-IUAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371689 |
On 12/9/15 12:52 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: > There are things which cannot be visualised, but yet fully > understandable only. Actually the expansion of space has been observed and measured. A good value for the expansion of space is 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc > The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important > observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate > pages: > 1. The expansion of the universe: > Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally > receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory > might be right. > 2. The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li: > The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have > been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after > the Big Bang. > 3. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation: > The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave > background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang. > These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that > the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just > as the Big Bang model predicts. -- 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]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 22:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dcrk0gFdkdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371691 |
Am 09.12.2015 20:01, schrieb Sam Wormley: >> There are things which cannot be visualised, but yet fully >> understandable only. > > Actually the expansion of space has been observed and measured. > A good value for the expansion of space is 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc The measure for distance 'Mpc' means 3 261 563 lightyears. The centre of this measurement is actually planet Earth. This means: the universe seems to expand around us. Since this is the case for the Earth, it would be the case at any other location. Only: this would not allow the same 'big-bang' for every possible observer. > > The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important > > observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate > > pages: > > > 1. The expansion of the universe: > > Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally > > receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory > > might be right. > > > 2. The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li: > > The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have > > been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after > > the Big Bang. > > > 3. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation: > > The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave > > background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang. I assume, that CMBR is produced 'real time' and in close proximity to Earth and has nothing to do with big-bang. > > > These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that > > the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just > > as the Big Bang model predicts. The big-bang looks quite like a 'white hole'. A white hole is a black hole, but seen from the 'other side'. (Or: a black hole time reverted.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 15:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WOWdndT325cmA_XLnZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371700 |
On 12/9/15 3:15 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > I assume, that CMBR is produced 'real time' and in close proximity to > Earth and has nothing to do with big-bang. > The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph > Alpher in 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang > Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George > Gamow. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias > and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, > New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a > radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at > nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave > Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to > find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they > immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a > pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one > by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, > Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. > Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their > discovery. -- 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]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web