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 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 05:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ad97a00-8970-415d-b08a-19b618bdd7cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528426 |
Ross said: "Change is constant, there is a gradient. This is courtesy the "root probabilistic flaw". " The thing about the Universe is that- by definition- there is nothing else. This means that, while parts of it can be different sizes than other parts, size has no meaning for the whole thing. So it can be constantly disintegrating and disappearing at the 'large' end while constantly being recreated at the 'small' end
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 10:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sNydnR3p5f5_DLLLnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #528426 |
On 10/26/15 11:00 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > Change is constant, there is a gradient. Gradient has a precise definition in mathematics. Can you define what a gradient is and why you think it applies to an expanding universe? -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 08:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <39817069-f8e4-4931-9dd1-5b7167770ab3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528421 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:34:32 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:26:07 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > > Burnt-out stars are shredded when > > they fall back into the galactic center > > and the energy from absorbed > > neutrinos is reinvested into jets of > > HEPs (high-energy particles) which > > blast outward at .9c and produce new > > stars in a never-ending cycle. > > Similarly, the energy that electrons > > are constantly radiating is returned to > > them by their protons in the same way; > > the electrons constantly accelerating and > > radiating but never running out, while > > the protons are constantly absorbing > > and gravitating but never overheating > > in a never-ending cycle. > > No BB. > > No "heat death". > > No BS. > > Consider all of space-time somehow laid > out in this resulting "continuum". First, > the three dimensions of space, have to fit > in the linear continuum. So, kind of like > super-string looks to have three dimensions > to store the relevant information, for each > space dimension, here they are folded into > the infinitesimals and infinities of the one > dimension. This is simply in numerical resource > terms. > > Then, and this is a "single-Universe" approach, > also it is so for time, then all of everything > for each instant of time started forever ago, > and, has conservation and symmetry about the > numerical resources as would represent each > point in an infinite space-time in a continuum. > > So, BB Big Bang and SS Steady State are both, > from our perspective or that of observers, then > about where we are today, they're concurrent > interpretations of the continuum. > > (Is the future already written out, no, I wouldn't > know that it was.) > > And on we flow. > > This is for "final cause" from "first principles" > for a purely logical mathematical physics that is > scientific. One thing about the "spiral space-filling curve as a natural continuum" is that the associated geometry is of "points and spaces" instead of "points and lines". So, that is an un-Euclidean geometry. Of course, the "spiral space-filling curve as natural continuum" is the same thing in either the Euclidean or Finlaysonian geometric setting. You'll find that each post has something in it and there is incremental development. This is not rubber-stamp carbon-copy spam that the illiterate prefer to writing, of a distribution list. I'll hope to write individual replies here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 08:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d018c978-b5ba-49bf-a638-07a7027e75eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528478 |
On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 8:17:03 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:34:32 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:26:07 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > > > Burnt-out stars are shredded when > > > they fall back into the galactic center > > > and the energy from absorbed > > > neutrinos is reinvested into jets of > > > HEPs (high-energy particles) which > > > blast outward at .9c and produce new > > > stars in a never-ending cycle. > > > Similarly, the energy that electrons > > > are constantly radiating is returned to > > > them by their protons in the same way; > > > the electrons constantly accelerating and > > > radiating but never running out, while > > > the protons are constantly absorbing > > > and gravitating but never overheating > > > in a never-ending cycle. > > > No BB. > > > No "heat death". > > > No BS. > > > > Consider all of space-time somehow laid > > out in this resulting "continuum". First, > > the three dimensions of space, have to fit > > in the linear continuum. So, kind of like > > super-string looks to have three dimensions > > to store the relevant information, for each > > space dimension, here they are folded into > > the infinitesimals and infinities of the one > > dimension. This is simply in numerical resource > > terms. > > > > Then, and this is a "single-Universe" approach, > > also it is so for time, then all of everything > > for each instant of time started forever ago, > > and, has conservation and symmetry about the > > numerical resources as would represent each > > point in an infinite space-time in a continuum. > > > > So, BB Big Bang and SS Steady State are both, > > from our perspective or that of observers, then > > about where we are today, they're concurrent > > interpretations of the continuum. > > > > (Is the future already written out, no, I wouldn't > > know that it was.) > > > > And on we flow. > > > > This is for "final cause" from "first principles" > > for a purely logical mathematical physics that is > > scientific. > > > One thing about the "spiral space-filling curve > as a natural continuum" is that the associated > geometry is of "points and spaces" instead of > "points and lines". So, that is an un-Euclidean > geometry. > > Of course, the "spiral space-filling curve as natural > continuum" is the same thing in either the Euclidean > or Finlaysonian geometric setting. > > You'll find that each post has something in it and > there is incremental development. This is not > rubber-stamp carbon-copy spam that the illiterate > prefer to writing, of a distribution list. > > I'll hope to write individual replies here. (The lines are built from points already, the Finlaysonian and Euclidean geometries are equi-interpretable, for geometries of "points and spaces" as elements besides geometries of "points and lines" from Elements.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 14:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <562FF9FE.6AD2@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528478 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:34:32 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:26:07 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > > > Burnt-out stars are shredded when > > > they fall back into the galactic center > > > and the energy from absorbed > > > neutrinos is reinvested into jets of > > > HEPs (high-energy particles) which > > > blast outward at .9c and produce new > > > stars in a never-ending cycle. > > > Similarly, the energy that electrons > > > are constantly radiating is returned to > > > them by their protons in the same way; > > > the electrons constantly accelerating and > > > radiating but never running out, while > > > the protons are constantly absorbing > > > and gravitating but never overheating > > > in a never-ending cycle. > > > No BB. > > > No "heat death". > > > No BS. > > > > Consider all of space-time somehow laid > > out in this resulting "continuum". First, > > the three dimensions of space, have to fit > > in the linear continuum. So, kind of like > > super-string looks to have three dimensions > > to store the relevant information, for each > > space dimension, here they are folded into > > the infinitesimals and infinities of the one > > dimension. This is simply in numerical resource > > terms. > > > > Then, and this is a "single-Universe" approach, > > also it is so for time, then all of everything > > for each instant of time started forever ago, > > and, has conservation and symmetry about the > > numerical resources as would represent each > > point in an infinite space-time in a continuum. > > > > So, BB Big Bang and SS Steady State are both, > > from our perspective or that of observers, then > > about where we are today, they're concurrent > > interpretations of the continuum. > > > > (Is the future already written out, no, I wouldn't > > know that it was.) > > > > And on we flow. > > > > This is for "final cause" from "first principles" > > for a purely logical mathematical physics that is > > scientific. > > One thing about the "spiral space-filling curve > as a natural continuum" is that the associated > geometry is of "points and spaces" instead of > "points and lines". So, that is an un-Euclidean > geometry. "un-Euclidean geometry"??? Did you mean: un-Euclidean un-geometry. or Did you mean: Euclidean un-geometry. or Did you mean: non-Euclidean -non-geometry. or Did you mean: non-Euclidean geometry? Get your text right! Or use pictures... It's bad enough no one can understand what you are saying... but when you use werds that don't exist in the english text language...i begin to wonder. How many other things you write that isn't...real? There doesn't seem to be any connection with what you are saying...and reality. It's like some kind of...joke. Are you with the C.I.A???? Maybe a Russian spy? Cause when you write stuff like "un-Euclidean geometry"...and it doesn't exist...it's called a con in my book. Don't we have enough con-artist in the 'scientific community'???? I mean un-scientific community..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 17:11 -0700 |
| Subject | inside & outside of cell |
| Message-ID | <023b10b5-9483-465a-903f-c20ed8e36a8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528572 |
the formula per spatial duals, is facets plus vertices equals edges plus cells (cells is two, when dealing with one "Eulerian polyhedron > > One thing about the "spiral space-filling curve > > as a natural continuum" is that the associated > > geometry is of "points and spaces" instead of > > "points and lines". So, that is an un-Euclidean > > geometry. > > > > "un-Euclidean geometry"??? > > Did you mean: un-Euclidean un-geometry. > > or > > Did you mean: Euclidean un-geometry. > > or > > Did you mean: non-Euclidean -non-geometry. > > > or > > > Did you mean: non-Euclidean geometry? > > > Get your text right! Or use pictures... > > > It's bad enough > no one can understand what you are saying... > but when you use werds that don't exist in the > english text language...i begin to wonder. > > > How many other things you write that isn't...real? > > > There doesn't seem to be any connection with what you are saying...and reality. > > It's like some kind of...joke. > > > Are you with the C.I.A???? Maybe a Russian spy? > > > Cause when you write stuff like "un-Euclidean geometry"...and it doesn't exist...it's called a con in my book. > > > Don't we have enough con-artist in the 'scientific community'???? I mean un-scientific community..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 19:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6147c7d4-fdb2-4532-99ea-55c34d12bef4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528572 |
On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 2:25:43 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:34:32 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:26:07 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > > > > Burnt-out stars are shredded when > > > > they fall back into the galactic center > > > > and the energy from absorbed > > > > neutrinos is reinvested into jets of > > > > HEPs (high-energy particles) which > > > > blast outward at .9c and produce new > > > > stars in a never-ending cycle. > > > > Similarly, the energy that electrons > > > > are constantly radiating is returned to > > > > them by their protons in the same way; > > > > the electrons constantly accelerating and > > > > radiating but never running out, while > > > > the protons are constantly absorbing > > > > and gravitating but never overheating > > > > in a never-ending cycle. > > > > No BB. > > > > No "heat death". > > > > No BS. > > > > > > Consider all of space-time somehow laid > > > out in this resulting "continuum". First, > > > the three dimensions of space, have to fit > > > in the linear continuum. So, kind of like > > > super-string looks to have three dimensions > > > to store the relevant information, for each > > > space dimension, here they are folded into > > > the infinitesimals and infinities of the one > > > dimension. This is simply in numerical resource > > > terms. > > > > > > Then, and this is a "single-Universe" approach, > > > also it is so for time, then all of everything > > > for each instant of time started forever ago, > > > and, has conservation and symmetry about the > > > numerical resources as would represent each > > > point in an infinite space-time in a continuum. > > > > > > So, BB Big Bang and SS Steady State are both, > > > from our perspective or that of observers, then > > > about where we are today, they're concurrent > > > interpretations of the continuum. > > > > > > (Is the future already written out, no, I wouldn't > > > know that it was.) > > > > > > And on we flow. > > > > > > This is for "final cause" from "first principles" > > > for a purely logical mathematical physics that is > > > scientific. > > > > One thing about the "spiral space-filling curve > > as a natural continuum" is that the associated > > geometry is of "points and spaces" instead of > > "points and lines". So, that is an un-Euclidean > > geometry. > > > > "un-Euclidean geometry"??? > > Did you mean: un-Euclidean un-geometry. > > or > > Did you mean: Euclidean un-geometry. > > or > > Did you mean: non-Euclidean -non-geometry. > > > or > > > Did you mean: non-Euclidean geometry? > > > Get your text right! Or use pictures... > > > It's bad enough > no one can understand what you are saying... > but when you use werds that don't exist in the > english text language...i begin to wonder. > > > How many other things you write that isn't...real? > > > There doesn't seem to be any connection with what you are saying...and reality. > > It's like some kind of...joke. > > > Are you with the C.I.A???? Maybe a Russian spy? > > > Cause when you write stuff like "un-Euclidean geometry"...and it doesn't exist...it's called a con in my book. > > > Don't we have enough con-artist in the 'scientific community'???? I mean un-scientific community.. Euclidean geometry's elements are points and lines. This is the standard mathematics text for most of recorded history, Euclid's "Elements". Our modern Riemannian, Lobachevskyan, Connes, the super-Euclidean and non-Euclidean, here has usually the postulate to negate being the parallel postulate. So, then that is non-Euclidean, otherwise the four postulates besides the fifth "parallel" postulate. Then, this idea of a _geometry_ as of all the results of geometry, that has _different elements_ than Euclid's, is that it is "un-Euclidean" geometry, because "non-Euclidean" is already used. Here with the elements being "points" and "spaces" (or space) instead of points and lines, it is yet a super-Euclidean geometry in what it purports to display, then that is somewhat overbearing so it's as neat to call it "un-Euclidean" geometry. This is somewhat of a result from a "spiral space-filling curve as a natural continuum". "Yaroslav Sergeyev makes the news". Yaroslav is cool, and sharp, and by cool, I mean very sharp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 15:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de76acdb-1b2d-4516-9309-4ff34ebde81b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528648 |
the main elements are planes and lines, which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, just as is the tetrahedron > This is the standard mathematics text for most of > recorded history, Euclid's "Elements". > > Our modern Riemannian, Lobachevskyan, Connes, the > super-Euclidean and non-Euclidean, here has > usually the postulate to negate being the parallel > postulate. So, then that is non-Euclidean, otherwise > the four postulates besides the fifth "parallel" postulate. > > > Then, this idea of a _geometry_ as of all the results > of geometry, that has _different elements_ than Euclid's, > is that it is "un-Euclidean" geometry, because "non-Euclidean" > is already used. Here with the elements being "points" and > "spaces" (or space) instead of points and lines, it is yet a > super-Euclidean geometry in what it purports to display, then > that is somewhat overbearing so it's as neat to call it > "un-Euclidean" geometry. > > This is somewhat of a result from a "spiral space-filling curve > as a natural continuum". > > "Yaroslav Sergeyev makes the news". > > Yaroslav is cool, and sharp, and by cool, I mean very sharp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 23:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5631C59D.6CB5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528813 |
noTthaTguY wrote: > > the main elements are planes and lines, > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > just as is the tetrahedron Do you think you can translate that for people who live in the ....real world?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 23:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5631CE38.548C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528877 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > just as is the tetrahedron > > Do you think you can translate that for people who live in the ....real > world? In other words... can you tranlate it to pictures or video without using symbols...another form of communication instead of math?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 23:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5631CEEB.5F0D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528879 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > Do you think you can translate that for people who live in the ....real > > world? > > In other words... > can you tranlate it to pictures or video > without using symbols...another form > of communication instead of math? or maybe "just" using "words" in "english"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 00:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3d18292c-100b-4cf6-97c2-845a733992fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528880 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 11:45:36 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > > > Do you think you can translate that for people who live in the ....real > > > world? > > > > In other words... > > can you tranlate it to pictures or video > > without using symbols...another form > > of communication instead of math? > > > or maybe "just" using "words" in "english"? He's saying "use your big boy words" (and no swears).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 00:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5631D50E.6CE9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528880 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > > > Do you think you can translate that for people who live in the ....real > > > world? > > > > In other words... > > can you tranlate it to pictures or video > > without using symbols...another form > > of communication instead of math? > > or maybe "just" using "words" in "english"? In other words... can you connect this: > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > just as is the tetrahedron to the real world? And translate into english??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 10:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <563264D9.C33@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528882 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > > > > > Do you think you can translate that for people who live in the ....real > > > > world? > > > > > > In other words... > > > can you tranlate it to pictures or video > > > without using symbols...another form > > > of communication instead of math? > > > > or maybe "just" using "words" in "english"? > > In other words... > > can you connect this: > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > to the real world? And translate into english?? in other words, in layman's terms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 10:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5632674C.A77@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528923 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > > > > > > > Do you think you can translate that for people who live in the ....real > > > > > world? > > > > > > > > In other words... > > > > can you tranlate it to pictures or video > > > > without using symbols...another form > > > > of communication instead of math? > > > > > > or maybe "just" using "words" in "english"? > > > > In other words... > > > > can you connect this: > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > to the real world? And translate into english?? > > in other words, in layman's terms. People go to the art musuem and see abstract art with triangles and circles and cubes and wonder what the artist is saying. The artist believes he was inspired by something out there... but, that is just a feeling.. and the abstract art is just...symbols. Like the egyptian pyramids..abstract art, .. Not...Martians.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 10:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56326AB7.2786@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528925 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think you can translate that for people who live in the ....real > > > > > > world? > > > > > > > > > > In other words... > > > > > can you tranlate it to pictures or video > > > > > without using symbols...another form > > > > > of communication instead of math? > > > > > > > > or maybe "just" using "words" in "english"? > > > > > > In other words... > > > > > > can you connect this: > > > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > > > to the real world? And translate into english?? > > > > in other words, in layman's terms. > > People go to the art musuem > and see abstract art > with triangles and circles and cubes > and wonder what the artist is saying. > > The artist believes he was inspired by > something out there... > but, that is just a feeling.. > and the abstract art is just...symbols. > > Like the egyptian pyramids..abstract art, .. > > Not...Martians. I mean, it appears to me.. that this: > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron are just....hip-hop lyrics. Does anyone know how to "de-code" the "hip-hop" lyrics above??? Maybe...just maybe.."the secrets of the universe" are contained in it! Maybe i need LDS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 10:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56326C8D.5EB2@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528925 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think you can translate that for people who live in the ....real > > > > > > world? > > > > > > > > > > In other words... > > > > > can you tranlate it to pictures or video > > > > > without using symbols...another form > > > > > of communication instead of math? > > > > > > > > or maybe "just" using "words" in "english"? > > > > > > In other words... > > > > > > can you connect this: > > > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > > > to the real world? And translate into english?? > > > > in other words, in layman's terms. > > People go to the art musuem > and see abstract art > with triangles and circles and cubes > and wonder what the artist is saying. > > The artist believes he was inspired by > something out there... > but, that is just a feeling.. > and the abstract art is just...symbols. > > Like the egyptian pyramids..abstract art, .. > > Not...Martians. Of course, there are others who "pretend" to know what the artist has painted... I will not to pretend to know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 06:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9dc793a9-abb5-4fcb-9023-d7769a661710@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528882 |
On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 12:11:47 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > > > > > Do you think you can translate that for people who live in the ....real > > > > world? > > > > > > In other words... > > > can you tranlate it to pictures or video > > > without using symbols...another form > > > of communication instead of math? > > > > or maybe "just" using "words" in "english"? > > > In other words... > > can you connect this: > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > to the real world? And translate into english?? A triangle is defined by three sides, or, three angles and one side. This is a statement of the resource terms of representations. "Measuring the area of a triangle" is a usual feature of a geometry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 06:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a52bb7f5-f2e3-492c-a148-07ea9722eb4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529410 |
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 6:17:38 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 12:11:47 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > > > > > > > Do you think you can translate that for people who live in the ....real > > > > > world? > > > > > > > > In other words... > > > > can you tranlate it to pictures or video > > > > without using symbols...another form > > > > of communication instead of math? > > > > > > or maybe "just" using "words" in "english"? > > > > > > In other words... > > > > can you connect this: > > > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > to the real world? And translate into english?? > > A triangle is defined by three sides, > or, three angles and one side. > > This is a statement of the resource terms > of representations. > > "Measuring the area of a triangle" is a > usual feature of a geometry. (A triangle under rotation is defined by any two sides.) -- Pythagoras
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 08:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ur2dnYDva8m5XqnLnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #529413 |
On 10/31/15 8:30 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > (A triangle under rotation is > defined by any two sides.) -- Pythagoras What is your source for this quote? -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web