Path: csiph.com!au2pb.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: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:16:55 -0600 Message-ID: <5653AC96.4FB@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:17:26 -0800 From: The Starmaker Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Where is the center of the universe? References: <54D7D8B6.20A9@ix.netcom.com> <565021C7.2111@ix.netcom.com> <565369A8.3781@ix.netcom.com> <56538893.2ABC@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 99 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 45.49.183.72 X-Trace: sv3-TRuZPHJVp9QstZ3nWBqpPtxbIlLfjVGLkVoKjKyAdDD3MQ8Amh4UAjlYiJkv+NG4+yktGHNsfRNHz56!KMypv1iLiRF+G6khGZ7SuRd4jR6UevvZexlT0m4HEaaepcKEhMOtETpxDtJwhl5NfdwU7S84zwrd!HMrz9po= 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: 5772 X-Received-Bytes: 5884 X-Received-Body-CRC: 1769769457 Xref: csiph.com alt.astronomy:279380 sci.physics:534938 sci.physics.relativity:370755 rickman wrote: > > On 11/23/2015 4:43 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > rickman wrote: > >> > >> On 11/23/2015 2:31 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 11/21/15 11/21/15 - 12:48 PM, benj wrote: > >>>>> Draw two normal lines to two separated points in our universe. Where they cross > >>>>> is the center. > >>>> > >>>> You have claimed this several times. Apparently you don't understand that > >>>> "normal to a point" has no meaning. In 3-D the concept "normal" applies TO A > >>>> SURFACE, not to a point (or to a volume); in general the normal vector ("line") > >>>> also depends on which point of the surface is used. > >>>> > >>>> What surface do you have in mind, why didn't you bother to mention it, and what > >>>> make you think that the two lines will actually "cross"? > >>>> > >>>> You seem to have an excessively naive notion of geometry in > >>>> your mind. > >>>> > >>>>> Sam represents the current idiocy of this theory. He says the universe has no > >>>>> center. but also the universe is not multidimensional beyond 3 (Sam thinks > >>>>> space-time is real so he calls time a dimension too making it 4) These two ideas > >>>>> are totally mutually exclusive. Sam has no problem with that. You just never > >>>>> think about both of them at the same time. Even better, don't think at all. > >>>> > >>>> You take issue with "Sam" without knowing the actual situation. He is by no > >>>> means alone, and your claims here are simply due to your personal ignorance > >>>> about basic geometry, about current cosmological models, and about other people. > >>>> > >>>> The best current cosmological model reproduces essentially all of the relevant > >>>> details of the cosmos we observe. It has no "center of the universe", and models > >>>> the geometry of the universe as a 4-dimensional spacetime manifold. > >>>> > >>>> Neither Sam nor cosmological models consider spacetime to be "real" (YOUR > >>>> inappropriate word). Rather, spacetime is part of a MODEL of the world we > >>>> inhabit; models based on it, SR and GR, are the best models we have today for > >>>> the domains of the world in which they are valid. Mainstream cosmological models > >>>> are based on GR (specifically the FLRW manifolds). > >>>> > >>>> Your claim "the universe is not multidimensional beyond 3" > >>>> is confusing model and world -- that's invalid. You are > >>>> implicitly ASSUMING some unspecified cosmological model, and > >>>> the odds are incredibly high that it is not as good as the > >>>> mainstream cosmological models you take issue with. > >>>> > >>>> IOW: arguing from ignorance is never a good plan. Basing your > >>>> argument on an unacknowledged and unspecified model is > >>>> downright silly. You don't even realize you are doing this. > >>>> > >>>> Tom Roberts > >>> > >>> > >>> When you draw a line from the top of the universe.. > >>> to the bottom of the universe..that's one straight line. > >> > >> If you are standing at the top of the universe and you look up, what do > >> you see? > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Rick > > > > > > You may need to understand my perpective of the universe...and how I am > > able to see the top of the universe. > > > > When I am standing not at the top of the universe, but *on* top of the > > universe...the whole universe, or > > if I place the whole universe on my drawing board...then I draw a line > > from the top of the universe to the > > bottom of the universe. My view of the universe is like a sheet of paper > > on the drawing board. > > > > If I look up...I see a ceiling. If I look to the right I see venetian > > blinds.. > > Your universe is rather smaller than the one I know. I guess it has > different rules. > > -- > > Rick How big are photos and illustrations you see from others at NASA or from others in the 'scientific community'? Couldn't be bigger than an 8x11.5 sheet of paper. I see photos and illustrations in their books....their size is much smaller than mine. Do I need to get a bigger drawing board??? Or I can take a picture with a camera....but I don't know the largest size I can print at Shutterfly.