Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #526497 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-16 19:26 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-11-02 12:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 179 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 19:26 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-16 20:44 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-17 15:14 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 22:18 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 22:21 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 22:34 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 09:26 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:34 -0700
Why is/isn't the cosmological constant's value a "real" mathematical infinitesimal? was Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 14:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? richard@microscitech.com - 2015-10-18 13:28 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 13:36 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-18 15:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 15:50 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 16:33 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 19:20 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-18 22:37 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 22:58 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:05 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:15 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:49 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 11:09 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-17 12:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-17 12:26 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 04:45 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 14:32 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:03 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:11 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:27 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:30 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:54 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:58 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 11:45 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 14:01 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:32 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 14:15 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:02 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:08 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:24 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:29 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:25 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:47 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:55 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 11:35 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:49 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 09:58 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 12:32 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 16:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 21:06 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 21:40 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 00:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 01:12 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 02:42 -0700
The Cosmological Constant is a real mathematical infinitesimal, Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 17:37 -0700
free space w/ atoms therof noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 17:27 -0700
Re: free space w/ atoms therof "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 17:46 -0700
Re: free space w/ atoms therof "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 18:23 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 19:58 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 20:27 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 21:51 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 22:02 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 23:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 12:32 -0700
ask why, that noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 13:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-22 13:20 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 14:47 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 14:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 16:56 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 15:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 19:08 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 22:57 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 08:57 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 08:23 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 10:44 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 08:54 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 11:01 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 09:12 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-23 11:52 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 12:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-23 22:56 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 23:35 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-24 22:43 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-25 14:03 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 15:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 10:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 11:00 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 13:43 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 14:44 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 15:05 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 17:35 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:38 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 18:27 -0800
Universe is curved locally, seems flat over teraparsecs noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 18:40 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 19:51 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:26 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:34 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:42 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 21:00 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 05:42 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 10:01 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 08:16 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 08:24 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-27 14:26 -0800
inside & outside of cell noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 17:11 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 19:36 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 15:44 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-28 23:07 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-28 23:43 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-28 23:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 00:08 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 00:13 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:26 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:37 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:51 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:59 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 06:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 06:30 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 08:33 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 11:58 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 12:01 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 13:20 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:24 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 15:02 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:37 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:59 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:25 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 14:41 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 16:04 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 20:47 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 21:02 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:38 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 15:08 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:38 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 23:02 -0400
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:22 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 20:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:58 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:43 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 10:38 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:55 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:02 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Jeffrey Bannister <jban48@pannelcamarena.org> - 2015-11-01 19:15 +0000
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:22 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 15:07 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:34 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 16:18 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 17:08 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 23:10 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 23:19 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:42 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:40 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 12:21 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-27 14:33 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 14:47 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 18:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 23:54 -0800
on, re noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 12:16 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 12:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-23 14:00 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 14:42 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 19:12 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 03:12 -0400
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 13:08 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-18 15:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:56 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:49 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 13:50 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 16:45 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:39 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-19 14:23 -0700
theodolites noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 19:13 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 10:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-24 15:05 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:23 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:22 -0800
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 19:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Why is the universe flat? |
| Message-ID | <r8CdnR_iGe8kCLzLnZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
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.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 20:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5621C40E.E06@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #526497 |
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. The universe is flat because it's a flat screen tv set. All the information all the color of light all the light particles are projected on a flat screen... so, of course the universe is flat... but it has *absolutley* nothing to do with ...inflation. or the price of tea in china.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 15:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5622C837.272C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #526518 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > 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. > > The universe is flat because it's a flat screen tv set. > > All the information > all the color of light > all the light particles > are projected on a flat screen... > > so, of course the universe is flat... > > but it has *absolutley* nothing to do with ...inflation. > > or the price of tea in china. Now, if you take the flat universe, ...and stand on it -- the first thing you'll notice that it's...slippery.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 22:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6edbabe1-a69d-4cd2-83e3-552571393a20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526497 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 22:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a379e834-972c-41cb-9cd8-49067de19344@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526526 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 22:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48632cc7-bc2e-4ae6-83c4-9933148476bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526527 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e9f37b37-2f85-4b7b-b57a-23f3d8fbb167@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526529 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 10:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d7d40c5-b02d-4f2a-b947-6e92db79d3cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526574 |
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!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 14:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Why is/isn't the cosmological constant's value a "real" mathematical infinitesimal? was Re: Why is the universe flat? |
| Message-ID | <2ca5b5cb-3c80-495a-82aa-9bc1833ef9f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526580 |
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:34:31 AM UTC-7, 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! You know how I feel about that? Great! His deafening silence is an ovation. Neither or both: pick one. (We know it's one or the other, also each, here this is both, non-zero and non-zero, from above and below.) What we have from the grand modern experiments is that the cosmological constant is a mathematical infinitesimal. That's Einstein's _greatest_ blunder.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | richard@microscitech.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc85d210-171f-4b37-9f2a-273bf23bbd40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526580 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1d9c8f1-f0fd-402c-acc9-8a865280cd1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526731 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 15:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56241A66.3AE0@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #526735 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 15:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ed667ba-9297-4b7f-ba37-5fa98f6222c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526750 |
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 3:17:12 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > 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. This is a study in mathematical foundations. Continuum analysis is the bedrock of continuous systems, as they are. Here there _are_ relevant features of the mathematically infinitesimal, that are extra- the standard, while still fulfilling all usual classical notions of the integral calculus and etcetera for the continuum mechanics. This is another of these "Theories from Nothing" of a "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" so popular these days as of Tegmark, Krauss, etc., here with that the foundations support more features of the real numbers (the numbers of the linear continuum). The cosmological constant is: an infinitesimal. (Its "value" as a "real" value, between zero and one in the real numbers on the real number line, is mathematically infinitesimal and as gauged, or scaled, to the "infinite" that is the unbounded surrounds.) This is pretty simple from the "gedanken" or "thought experiments" as so establishing this from first principle / final cause. Then, where the drawing of the line has a most interesting and at first surprising effect, with one- and two-sided points "in" or "on" the line, it looks like this would also add up for a variety of other factors where the measurement/observer effect results from action. The "line" function or "natural/unit equivalency function" or "sweep", or "range", sees a constructive development of a continuous function, in mathematics first, then for mathematical physics. It's shown that ran(EF) is countable and also onto the unit line segment. (It's also shown that it is uniquely so among functions, that it is _the_ "drawing" of the line segment.) Actually, we're "leaving" the "Twilight Zone", as it were.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 16:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7a028dd-3a6f-4767-8266-01e9c449217a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526759 |
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 3:50:13 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 3:17:12 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > 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. > > This is a study in mathematical foundations. > > Continuum analysis is the bedrock of continuous > systems, as they are. Here there _are_ relevant > features of the mathematically infinitesimal, > that are extra- the standard, while still fulfilling > all usual classical notions of the integral calculus > and etcetera for the continuum mechanics. > > This is another of these "Theories from Nothing" > of a "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" so popular > these days as of Tegmark, Krauss, etc., here with > that the foundations support more features of the > real numbers (the numbers of the linear continuum). > > The cosmological constant is: an infinitesimal. > (Its "value" as a "real" value, between zero and > one in the real numbers on the real number line, > is mathematically infinitesimal and as gauged, or > scaled, to the "infinite" that is the unbounded > surrounds.) This is pretty simple from the "gedanken" > or "thought experiments" as so establishing this > from first principle / final cause. > > Then, where the drawing of the line has a most > interesting and at first surprising effect, with > one- and two-sided points "in" or "on" the line, > it looks like this would also add up for a variety > of other factors where the measurement/observer > effect results from action. > > The "line" function or "natural/unit equivalency > function" or "sweep", or "range", sees a constructive > development of a continuous function, in mathematics > first, then for mathematical physics. It's shown that > ran(EF) is countable and also onto the unit line segment. > (It's also shown that it is uniquely so among functions, > that it is _the_ "drawing" of the line segment.) > > Actually, we're "leaving" the "Twilight Zone", as it were. I'd be as happy as "Philo T. Farnsworth" for inventing "television": "General Electric" has founded quite an industry from it. Now on Channel One! Somebody else should have already found this, (from the collective attention of mathematicians) but, I have been looking and this is what I found. And, physicists have been looking for a proper mathematical infinitesimal pretty much since Einstein's inclusion of the factor: toward unification. So: what is the value of the cosmological constant?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 19:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4601d5f-910a-4abe-8d4f-6ba4123b01ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526770 |
one, minus or plus > So: what is the value of the cosmological constant?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 22:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56248186.38D5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #526770 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 3:50:13 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 3:17:12 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > 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. > > > > This is a study in mathematical foundations. > > > > Continuum analysis is the bedrock of continuous > > systems, as they are. Here there _are_ relevant > > features of the mathematically infinitesimal, > > that are extra- the standard, while still fulfilling > > all usual classical notions of the integral calculus > > and etcetera for the continuum mechanics. > > > > This is another of these "Theories from Nothing" > > of a "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" so popular > > these days as of Tegmark, Krauss, etc., here with > > that the foundations support more features of the > > real numbers (the numbers of the linear continuum). > > > > The cosmological constant is: an infinitesimal. > > (Its "value" as a "real" value, between zero and > > one in the real numbers on the real number line, > > is mathematically infinitesimal and as gauged, or > > scaled, to the "infinite" that is the unbounded > > surrounds.) This is pretty simple from the "gedanken" > > or "thought experiments" as so establishing this > > from first principle / final cause. > > > > Then, where the drawing of the line has a most > > interesting and at first surprising effect, with > > one- and two-sided points "in" or "on" the line, > > it looks like this would also add up for a variety > > of other factors where the measurement/observer > > effect results from action. > > > > The "line" function or "natural/unit equivalency > > function" or "sweep", or "range", sees a constructive > > development of a continuous function, in mathematics > > first, then for mathematical physics. It's shown that > > ran(EF) is countable and also onto the unit line segment. > > (It's also shown that it is uniquely so among functions, > > that it is _the_ "drawing" of the line segment.) > > > > Actually, we're "leaving" the "Twilight Zone", as it were. > > I'd be as happy as "Philo T. Farnsworth" for > inventing "television": "General Electric" > has founded quite an industry from it. > > Now on Channel One! > > Somebody else should have already found this, > (from the collective attention of mathematicians) > but, I have been looking and this is what I found. > > And, physicists have been looking for a proper > mathematical infinitesimal pretty much since > Einstein's inclusion of the factor: toward > unification. What are you talking about? Einstein never completed ...unification. > > So: what is the value of the cosmological constant? 120 powers of ten l0 --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 22:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a43ca309-a6d2-4c59-a07a-f94a8d9f4a6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526802 |
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 10:36:54 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 3:50:13 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 3:17:12 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > This is a study in mathematical foundations. > > > > > > Continuum analysis is the bedrock of continuous > > > systems, as they are. Here there _are_ relevant > > > features of the mathematically infinitesimal, > > > that are extra- the standard, while still fulfilling > > > all usual classical notions of the integral calculus > > > and etcetera for the continuum mechanics. > > > > > > This is another of these "Theories from Nothing" > > > of a "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" so popular > > > these days as of Tegmark, Krauss, etc., here with > > > that the foundations support more features of the > > > real numbers (the numbers of the linear continuum). > > > > > > The cosmological constant is: an infinitesimal. > > > (Its "value" as a "real" value, between zero and > > > one in the real numbers on the real number line, > > > is mathematically infinitesimal and as gauged, or > > > scaled, to the "infinite" that is the unbounded > > > surrounds.) This is pretty simple from the "gedanken" > > > or "thought experiments" as so establishing this > > > from first principle / final cause. > > > > > > Then, where the drawing of the line has a most > > > interesting and at first surprising effect, with > > > one- and two-sided points "in" or "on" the line, > > > it looks like this would also add up for a variety > > > of other factors where the measurement/observer > > > effect results from action. > > > > > > The "line" function or "natural/unit equivalency > > > function" or "sweep", or "range", sees a constructive > > > development of a continuous function, in mathematics > > > first, then for mathematical physics. It's shown that > > > ran(EF) is countable and also onto the unit line segment. > > > (It's also shown that it is uniquely so among functions, > > > that it is _the_ "drawing" of the line segment.) > > > > > > Actually, we're "leaving" the "Twilight Zone", as it were. > > > > I'd be as happy as "Philo T. Farnsworth" for > > inventing "television": "General Electric" > > has founded quite an industry from it. > > > > Now on Channel One! > > > > Somebody else should have already found this, > > (from the collective attention of mathematicians) > > but, I have been looking and this is what I found. > > > > And, physicists have been looking for a proper > > mathematical infinitesimal pretty much since > > Einstein's inclusion of the factor: toward > > unification. > > What are you talking about? Einstein never completed ...unification. > > > > > So: what is the value of the cosmological constant? > > > 120 powers of ten l0 > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- It's around 10^-25 to atoms or the Democritan, around 10^-50 to Planck length, with 10^-50 to the superstrings, which is another fabric of infinitesimals underneath the aether (bear with me here) to parlay the space dimensions to fit into the one dimension of a continuum, storing the other two dimensions in the infinite and infinitesimal (instead of having three for each as to establish their product, those spaces). That's another story, about open and closed superstrings as also mathematical infinitesimals, like these 1- and 2-sided points on the line, in a sense as self-similarity, but down to the least resources to establish the span. (This is for all of space-time as written to one continuum.) It's vanishing and non-zero, the cosmological constant. One of Einstein's greatest accommodations is that it's non-zero. One might wonder he felt it a blunder, only as there wasn't the mathematics to write it. So, Planck has infinitesimal constants, Einstein's is an infinitesimal constant, and superstrings are also so. Mathematics _owes_ physics what these can be, for why they are so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 23:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <782a1f85-8f5e-4ab5-945c-5e54156c70c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526803 |
> Mathematics _owes_ physics what these can be, for why > they are so. This is where it is established: there are features in effect _of the numbers_ (here in the infinitesimal as of mathematical points in or on a mathematical line) that would automatically build systems of mathematical physics, where the values are effectively "real infinitesimals". Less rules, more results. Unification or a "Theory of Everything", some would also have this follow from rigorously formal "effects in numbers".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 23:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5c98756-d4a2-420a-a8bd-70b54a3872a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526804 |
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 11:05:48 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > Mathematics _owes_ physics what these can be, for why > > they are so. > > This is where it is established: there are features > in effect _of the numbers_ (here in the infinitesimal > as of mathematical points in or on a mathematical line) > that would automatically build systems of mathematical > physics, where the values are effectively "real infinitesimals". > > Less rules, more results. > > Unification or a "Theory of Everything", some would also > have this follow from rigorously formal "effects in numbers". Example: over time, NIST CODATA results do not settle but reduce with higher energy experiment. That's a feature in effect of configuration of experiment, atoms are smaller the closer you look. How many atoms in a mole? Avogadro's "running constant" many. Similarly, the bigger the telescope, the bigger the universe is measured to be. These are of among a variety of apocryphal effects explained by geometric mutations in the large and small as of the underlying mathematical objects, and the effect of discretization as picking, or counting, the point on the line, of the points in the line, as so numbered. (This has numbering beneath counting to complement the usual foundational development of counting.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5dabe19-d4cb-4dfc-9c7b-a9680af04608@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526497 |
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. I see the universe being saddle shaped.Goes with my CONCAVE & CONVEX THeory TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web