Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.glorb.com!peer02.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 23:51:55 -0500 Message-ID: <56286B6D.6CBA@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:51:57 -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> <562748F5.3133@ix.netcom.com> <562850F2.33F9@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 166 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 45.49.183.72 X-Trace: sv3-bm0aC6iomXVYUE3fzI5yz3xaXxBb4tuarVSqU5cijtUWzK/TP54fVgvSRy+tgKQHy3DhyjIljYagc7n!fm1taYHL6254m6lkJAdQqKe92cG9gVByiKJmFGOJi1NWoOaLWTd98PuzsV271uLfMODzAHkdbNVt!a3TW6F4w 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: 9625 X-Received-Bytes: 9737 X-Received-Body-CRC: 1770329463 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:527388 Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 7:59:01 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:12:36 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > > > "Mathematical Platonists" have mathematical objects > > > as real, even concrete (there are subcamps in Mathematical > > > Platonism, but that the numbers are "real" or "exist" > > > regardless our formation of them). > > > > > > Well, can you tell me where do they exist at, what place are they at? > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/ > > How do we categorize experiments and ultimate or > penultimate results of both the absolute and relative > that experimental data has integer or fractional > factors that seems to appear and disappear over the > bounds of the range of the experiment. "?" > > These are to be considered for what effect to the model > there would be of a numerical or mathematical effect, > basically building the observation/measurement as the > action of "counting" over these "numbered" fields > (vector, force fields), as that these factors would > follow or be explained (falsifiable predictions for > hypothesis testing of the scientific method). > > That's defensively written, here with this admission > that aprocryphally infinities and infinitesimals are > ubiquitous in cosmological and atomic scale physical > systems. As example, framed in the context of > "normalization", that is in a sense "de-re-normalization", > with the maintenance in variables for cancellation of > these "infinite" terms (and their numerical approximations > and the conditions under "linearization" as a numerical > method feature with "normalization") - replaced with some > infinity or infinitesimal, what other factors like > Einstein's cosmological constant or Planck's big C and > small c, are infinities or their inverses? (Or vice versa?) > > This is where, otherwise the "real infinities" as they are, > have not yet been found to be of, say, our transfinite > cardinals that otherwise we have in terms of "counting" > (which is not the same thing as "numbering" which is more > fundamental). Here, if we have some putative object or > structural feature of what that infinite value would be > under the condition of what detection/measurement/observation > or the measurement effect has: where is the measured data > that is off so thrown out as to that the interaction of > an otherwise closed system by measurement, has these integer > or fractional ratios that may be accounted for, by features > of a numerical "infinity", as a scalar. > > This is where the line between (0,0) and (1,1) has area > underneath of 1/2, and the points are all one-sided on > through in the line, then that as each point gets to > have both sides on the line, the area under the function > defined on the integers, of the "constant monotonically > (infinitesimally) increasing in the range from 0 to 1", > _doubles_ the area, as the feature (or numerical effect). > > "Mathematical Platonism" isn't necessarily part of a > numerical model of this construction of a model of > the real numbers suitable for standard and extra > "continuum infinitesimal analysis", though it neatly > is a part: here given features of the scalar (infinite) > under normalization/linearization and otherwise action: > what comes to mind in the experimental data that is > already there, in addition to the electron/photon > "integer" deflection and dark matter/energy "fractional" > ratios, other "integer" and "fractional" corrections. "?" You're a...platonists. I notice people get confused when they mix Philosophy with Science and Math. Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/ Why did they remove the word Philosophy "http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/" from the link?