Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.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: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 03:12:30 -0500 Message-ID: <562748F5.3133@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 01:12:37 -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: <310e4370-4c67-4716-93d7-e132f3d5fcb9@googlegroups.com> <2fe6cc0a-0d4a-4ccc-9b86-9e972510fb74@googlegroups.com> <77071cef-e1e9-4b5b-b142-a1c69a4ccd45@googlegroups.com> <297f8dfb-2fa8-424c-92a6-5ce75fe9402a@googlegroups.com> <8fcb27fa-4db5-4a0c-ad12-1ed300cad9eb@googlegroups.com> <52f77645-39d7-400e-a87e-c4663de3afd0@googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 79 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 45.49.183.72 X-Trace: sv3-0bQSahny95Oa+sbTdvX6e7+sclrG9zLnJ9ex6Xlp2OP9XjpopravQLeU7jnBWmMdBxeB9hjeK1aJnAX!atNf86w1zuHKYvntBv+hqUQL79qKJDnlB1fdyM+TEstyKNv9WbhgP5NQL2zzOPdbXTCFaxZuYdeS!PcRLeDhk 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: 4828 X-Received-Bytes: 4940 X-Received-Body-CRC: 1852153102 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:527176 Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote: > > > expanding Universe has long been passe', > > > since the plasma cosmology of Alfven has shown that a) > > > most of Universe is plasma > > > > > > > > > Zwicky's ''tired light'' hypothesis. We also test for power-law > > > > > > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for > > > > > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > A supernova is quite extromissive, including > > > > with the shock front. (Which is quite deformed, > > > > whether space is flat or not.) > > > > > > > > Space-time curvature is just a notational relic. > > > > The effects are still the same, and also it's > > > > still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which > > > > experiment also supports and yes it does.) > > > > > > > > > > > > We need mathematics of infinities/infinitesimals > > > > and the real effects in the numbers to reduce these > > > > "systems of numerical appeasement" to "systems > > > > in numbers". > > > > These "systems of numerical appeasement" are > > uncomfortable accommodations of physicists that > > would rather expect reduction and spareness of > > framework. These "fudge factors", here as the > > placement of the cosmological constant and what > > its value and import is in projection, are an > > arithmetic kludge to match data to model. > > > > "Systems of numerical appeasement", often ad-hoc > > and particular to configuration of experiment, > > find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > > features of the numbers, that in the interest > > of conservation of "numerical and mathematical > > resources" (the principle of conservation of > > numerical content), are eventually reduced to > > more "fundamental" numerical frameworks and as > > of effect in numbers. > > > > This is a role for effects at the demarcator > > between continuous fields and discrete events > > in them, that of the infinitesimal composition > > of continua as of points, collected. > > > > Point! > > " ... find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > features of the numbers ...." > > Examples (of successful reductions to the fundamental) > include "Maxwell equations" and "E = mc^2". Just studying one google page result is an example of successful reductions to the fundamental. > > There's a perceived need, for mathematical physics, of > these features of real mathematical infinitesimals > that they are. There is nothing REAL about "real mathematical infinitesimals". The chance that real mathematical infinitesimals is real is...infinitesimal. The laws of physics is not real The laws of nature are not real math does not exist anywhere out there...it's not real. Have you tried learning to play a guitar?