Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.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: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 17:17:09 -0500 Message-ID: <56241A66.3AE0@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:17:10 -0700 From: The Starmaker Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Why is the universe flat? References: <6edbabe1-a69d-4cd2-83e3-552571393a20@googlegroups.com> <48632cc7-bc2e-4ae6-83c4-9933148476bd@googlegroups.com> <8d7d40c5-b02d-4f2a-b947-6e92db79d3cb@googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 128 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 45.49.183.72 X-Trace: sv3-esdrrcf/CFTNpP1qj8Un+pkBucN5CbpLEsucZEBKlBg99MGZzFg3RIMRted+9Knx1Zq/xByFzvDgU0E!52V/iAixmOKGtuQHyz6y8/gpCG3MYOMmV2T94vAU21RzyNOjus0p7sW7r2tJGTs4sMf+7cfUGNwJ!SSRBSxJc 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: 7027 X-Received-Bytes: 7139 X-Received-Body-CRC: 1677568034 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:526750 Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 1:28:21 PM UTC-7, ric...@microscitech.com wrote: > > On Saturday, 17 October 2015 18:34:31 UTC+1, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 9:26:43 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 10:34:49 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 10:21:33 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 10:18:49 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > > Why is the universe flat? > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > > > > > > > > > cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > > > > > > > > > questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > > > > > > > > > Problem and the Flatness Problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > > > > > > > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > > > > > > > > community, and physics-related social issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The cosmological constant: > > > > > > > is a mathematical infinitesimal! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's non-zero, but only over the > > > > > > > entire space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need a theory of real numbers > > > > > > > with real infinitesimals for that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics _owes_ physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant > > > > > > > > > > > > Read that. > > > > > > > > > > Notice: to fit, the cosmological constant: > > > > > is greater than zero, yet less than any > > > > > positive real, a mathematical infinitesimal! > > > > > > > > > > This holds up the tent without it blowing away! > > > > > > > > > > So, the key between those two, for a > > > > > mathematical physics and no more "the Borg > > > > > did it", demands a mathematical theory > > > > > of infinitesimals in real scalar values. > > > > > (This, vis-à-vis "scale" and "gauge" invariance, > > > > > also for both of those.) > > > > > > > > > > Then this also gets into usual notions of > > > > > the running constants and which one of them > > > > > is infinity. > > > > > > > > > > > > "The cosmological constant's real > > > > value is a real mathematical infinitesimal." > > > > > > > > That is so obvious that > > > > a lot of physicists have > > > > already considered it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, where is the writeup that shows > > > > otherwise physicists aren't earning their pay? > > > > > > > > > I refuse to conclude that other physicists > > > can't also see this. So, I'm looking for a physicist > > > that is also a mathematician that is building an > > > alternative (to the modern standard) system > > > of mathematical infinitesimals as suitable for > > > physics, in the explanation of what value the > > > cosmological constant has. > > > > > > Rather, I'm looking for another physicist who is > > > also a mathematician who is building a system > > > in the mathematical foundations for the physical > > > foundations (and the mathematical physics). > > > > > > I got one right here! > > > > And it is my persuasion too. That physics is not real and, really, the universe dances to the laws of the integers (a paraphrase of Inception). > > > > Of course, this is crank stuff to the mainstream, but why should nature have any clue as to gauge invariance? > > > > Well, my answer is simply that it is forced to by the laws of integers. So, the laws, so far, look good, they work very well, we have cracked it to many decimal points of precision, but then so too did Newtonian physics once, and then Special relativity (for a universe with no mass). Since QED, circa 1970s, for 30+ years now we have had a physical problem going beyond the Standard Model, and I don't think this situation will change without something radical. > > > > Why should 'nature' have any idea about physics? Unless your AP of course, then it is the converse, but that is just.... > > > > Forget infinitesimal, just reduce nature to a smallest unit, and them add some primitive, number theoretic laws. > > > > Richard Miller > > http://www.urmt.org > > The "Planck length" as shortest distance is > a "running constant": in ratio and balance > to the related constants as 1/oo = 0. > > The key feature of real mathematical infinitesimals > that look just like the raw differential, are: > that putting the points in a line, the integral of > the constant monotonic staircase from zero to one: > is not 1/2 as the triangle would be, but 1! > > There are actually results in the numbers already! > > In a mathematical physics, these exist. > > This uses Cantor's results to show that the > continuous line segment is _drawn_, and actually > _builds_ a continuous function instead of defining > one, for continuum analysis and the continuum > mechanics as then support mathematical physics. I don't know where you get this idea of a "real mathematical infinitesimals"... it isn't real first of all.. mathematical is not physics or physical.. and infinitesimals break down to where you can no longer apply math or physics. You're entering...The Twilight Zone.