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 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 10:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e0d905b1-cd7e-477f-85b0-8d6426ee8204@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529680 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 5:43:24 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 10/31/15 10:58 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > Time goes back forever, > > Space goes on forever. > > Have you any empirical evidence for that claim? > Yeah. Otherwise it wouldn't. Otherwise it wouldn't: at all. Change is a constant. There is a gradient. The gradient is the least constant change there is. This is for a universe of physical objects as mathematical objects, i.e. a mathematical physics. Then, yes, it's all empirically demonstrable: a result of a mathematical physics. I have much to learn about physics, thank you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 12:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8OadnZjPpr-7_avLnZ2dnUU7-X2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #529728 |
On 11/1/15 12:38 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > Change is a constant. There is a gradient. How can a scalar have a gradient. Do you know what a gradient is? -- 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 | 2015-11-01 11:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ea36e679-8277-4bba-ad59-b8a2dd74a3c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529732 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 10:55:37 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 11/1/15 12:38 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > Change is a constant. There is a gradient. > > How can a scalar have a gradient. Do you know what a gradient is? > > There was already an answer to that (about what a gradient is in terms of cosmological anisotropy), maybe you should have your sockpuppet string-puller allocate you some more memory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Bannister <jban48@pannelcamarena.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n15oc0$8o7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #529732 |
Sam Wormley wrote: > On 11/1/15 12:38 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >> Change is a constant. There is a gradient. > > How can a scalar have a gradient. Do you know what a gradient is? Why, you obviously don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 13:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8OadnZfPpr_v-6vLnZ2dnUU7-X0AAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #529742 |
On 11/1/15 1:15 PM, Jeffrey Bannister wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 11/1/15 12:38 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>> Change is a constant. There is a gradient. >> >> How can a scalar have a gradient. Do you know what a gradient is? > > Why, you obviously don't. > How so? -- 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 | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 15:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56369B22.2CD5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #529622 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > > > > On 10/31/2015 05:41 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > >> On 10/31/15 2:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > >>> No, that the universe is infinite > > > > >>> is courtesy deductive inference. > > > > >> > > > > >> Perhaps a refresher: > > > > >> > > > > >> 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 seems infinite to us because its so big,and getting bigger at am accelerating rate.Its inflating however that makes it finite.Sad but reality. TreBert > > > > > > > > > Sad that it's all bullshit and you are too dumb to know otherwise. > > > > Wormley has trained you well. Parrot! > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry. If it's useless to physics, > > > it will just fall out. > > > > > > That's also a nice thing about numbers. > > > They do what they do automatically. > > > > > > We got Einstein over here too, and he > > > says the Universe is infinite or you're > > > stupid. > > > > > > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. > > > > > > maybe "infinite" is a coverup. > > > > Something Einstein came up with to fix something else...he probably > > simply...changed the facts to fit his theory. > > I got an answer for ya! > > Time goes back forever, > Space goes on forever. Space can go on forever if only time allows it... space and time cannot go further than the future.. the future is created at moment by moment foward.. so space and time can only move, moment by moment foward...in increments. at a time, one at a time.. The future does not exist, now, so space and time does not exist without a future, so there is no infinite until time moves forward. If you take a polaroid photo of your girl friend naked.. and you reverse time, the photo becomes blank. If you take a picture of her putting back on her clothes... you would have to take a lot of pictures to show each part she put back on. There is a lapse of time between each picture you take... That lapse is the future moving forward.. You can take an infinte pictures of her.. but only one frame at a time. When you run out of film.. space and time continues, one frame at a time to take her pictures of her....infinite, but one frame at a time. > > If I have a point here it's this: > Einstein with the cosmological constant, > and Planck with Planck's c and C, > have those those for placeholders for that > Planck's c and Einstein's cosmological constant > are greater than zero and less than any fixed > value. Their value is an infinitesimal, and the > real infinitesimals exist as the total partitioning > of their range. This exactly fits with the usual > role of the infinitesimal in the usual role of the > differential of the integral calculus. Also: there > are features for effect of the infinitesimals, that > discretization doubles the point width. > > Where you accept that's Einstein's formula, and, > that "constant" exists in all interpretations of that, > then to correlate and combine the effects of the > large and small, will see that introduction of a > proper mathematical foundation with the real > with their own infinitesimals, automatically equips > the existing theory with new features in effect. > > It's not not an infinitesimal. > > So, just as here Guth's is a re-sweeping accommodation > of the big telescope in the large (and there are other > Guth's), it's not final in the hysterisis of jumping over > again the "constant's" value, but of all the resulting > framework to accommodate each: that it's larger than > zero and less than a fixed scalar value. > > I built a logic and a mathematics and a geometry for this > that is simply discovered by anybody.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 15:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3846bdca-8246-4b3e-aaec-5b96de2b14a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529790 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:07:12 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > > > > > On 10/31/2015 05:41 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > >> On 10/31/15 2:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > >>> No, that the universe is infinite > > > > > >>> is courtesy deductive inference. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Perhaps a refresher: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 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 seems infinite to us because its so big,and getting bigger at am accelerating rate.Its inflating however that makes it finite.Sad but reality. TreBert > > > > > > > > > > > Sad that it's all bullshit and you are too dumb to know otherwise. > > > > > Wormley has trained you well. Parrot! > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry. If it's useless to physics, > > > > it will just fall out. > > > > > > > > That's also a nice thing about numbers. > > > > They do what they do automatically. > > > > > > > > We got Einstein over here too, and he > > > > says the Universe is infinite or you're > > > > stupid. > > > > > > > > > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > > > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. > > > > > > > > > maybe "infinite" is a coverup. > > > > > > Something Einstein came up with to fix something else...he probably > > > simply...changed the facts to fit his theory. > > > > I got an answer for ya! > > > > Time goes back forever, > > Space goes on forever. > > > Space can go on forever if only time allows it... > > space and time cannot go further than the future.. > > the future is created at moment by moment foward.. > > so space and time can only move, moment by moment foward...in > increments. > > at a time, one at a time.. > > The future does not exist, now, so space and time does not exist without > a future, so > there is no infinite until time moves forward. > > If you take a polaroid photo > of your girl friend naked.. > and you reverse time, the photo > becomes blank. > > If you take a picture of her > putting back on her clothes... > > you would have to take a lot > of pictures to show each > part she put back on. > > There is a lapse of time > between each picture > you take... > > That lapse is the future > moving forward.. > > You can take an infinte pictures of her.. > but only one frame at a time. > > When you run out of film.. > space and time continues, one frame at a time to take her > pictures of her....infinite, but one frame at a time. > > > If I have a point here it's this: > > Einstein with the cosmological constant, > > and Planck with Planck's c and C, > > have those those for placeholders for that > > Planck's c and Einstein's cosmological constant > > are greater than zero and less than any fixed > > value. Their value is an infinitesimal, and the > > real infinitesimals exist as the total partitioning > > of their range. This exactly fits with the usual > > role of the infinitesimal in the usual role of the > > differential of the integral calculus. Also: there > > are features for effect of the infinitesimals, that > > discretization doubles the point width. > > > > Where you accept that's Einstein's formula, and, > > that "constant" exists in all interpretations of that, > > then to correlate and combine the effects of the > > large and small, will see that introduction of a > > proper mathematical foundation with the real > > with their own infinitesimals, automatically equips > > the existing theory with new features in effect. > > > > It's not not an infinitesimal. > > > > So, just as here Guth's is a re-sweeping accommodation > > of the big telescope in the large (and there are other > > Guth's), it's not final in the hysterisis of jumping over > > again the "constant's" value, but of all the resulting > > framework to accommodate each: that it's larger than > > zero and less than a fixed scalar value. > > > > I built a logic and a mathematics and a geometry for this > > that is simply discovered by anybody. Space-time is continuous, not granular. Each of your frames is moving! Paint a picture, it'll last longer. Vortex, Boris! StarMaker or HVAC: there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Get a room or get back to something formal. And quit pimping your girlfriend!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 16:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5636ABBB.1A3@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #529797 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:07:12 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > > > > > > On 10/31/2015 05:41 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > >> On 10/31/15 2:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > >>> No, that the universe is infinite > > > > > > >>> is courtesy deductive inference. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Perhaps a refresher: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 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 seems infinite to us because its so big,and getting bigger at am accelerating rate.Its inflating however that makes it finite.Sad but reality. TreBert > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad that it's all bullshit and you are too dumb to know otherwise. > > > > > > Wormley has trained you well. Parrot! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry. If it's useless to physics, > > > > > it will just fall out. > > > > > > > > > > That's also a nice thing about numbers. > > > > > They do what they do automatically. > > > > > > > > > > We got Einstein over here too, and he > > > > > says the Universe is infinite or you're > > > > > stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > > > > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe "infinite" is a coverup. > > > > > > > > Something Einstein came up with to fix something else...he probably > > > > simply...changed the facts to fit his theory. > > > > > > I got an answer for ya! > > > > > > Time goes back forever, > > > Space goes on forever. > > > > > > Space can go on forever if only time allows it... > > > > space and time cannot go further than the future.. > > > > the future is created at moment by moment foward.. > > > > so space and time can only move, moment by moment foward...in > > increments. > > > > at a time, one at a time.. > > > > The future does not exist, now, so space and time does not exist without > > a future, so > > there is no infinite until time moves forward. > > > > If you take a polaroid photo > > of your girl friend naked.. > > and you reverse time, the photo > > becomes blank. > > > > If you take a picture of her > > putting back on her clothes... > > > > you would have to take a lot > > of pictures to show each > > part she put back on. > > > > There is a lapse of time > > between each picture > > you take... > > > > That lapse is the future > > moving forward.. > > > > You can take an infinte pictures of her.. > > but only one frame at a time. > > > > When you run out of film.. > > space and time continues, one frame at a time to take her > > pictures of her....infinite, but one frame at a time. > > > > > If I have a point here it's this: > > > Einstein with the cosmological constant, > > > and Planck with Planck's c and C, > > > have those those for placeholders for that > > > Planck's c and Einstein's cosmological constant > > > are greater than zero and less than any fixed > > > value. Their value is an infinitesimal, and the > > > real infinitesimals exist as the total partitioning > > > of their range. This exactly fits with the usual > > > role of the infinitesimal in the usual role of the > > > differential of the integral calculus. Also: there > > > are features for effect of the infinitesimals, that > > > discretization doubles the point width. > > > > > > Where you accept that's Einstein's formula, and, > > > that "constant" exists in all interpretations of that, > > > then to correlate and combine the effects of the > > > large and small, will see that introduction of a > > > proper mathematical foundation with the real > > > with their own infinitesimals, automatically equips > > > the existing theory with new features in effect. > > > > > > It's not not an infinitesimal. > > > > > > So, just as here Guth's is a re-sweeping accommodation > > > of the big telescope in the large (and there are other > > > Guth's), it's not final in the hysterisis of jumping over > > > again the "constant's" value, but of all the resulting > > > framework to accommodate each: that it's larger than > > > zero and less than a fixed scalar value. > > > > > > I built a logic and a mathematics and a geometry for this > > > that is simply discovered by anybody. > > Space-time is continuous, not granular. > > Each of your frames is moving! There is a spce between each frame...it just seems, continous. It's an illusion. > > Paint a picture, it'll last longer. There is a space of time between adding more paints on the canvas with your brush. > > Vortex, Boris! > > StarMaker or HVAC: there's a light > at the end of the tunnel. > > Get a room or get back to something formal. > > And quit pimping your girlfriend! The handle reads: The Starmaker.. starmakers pimp girls...your girls, any girl. starmakers are flesh peddlers. I cannot quit what i am. The Starmaker i don't know what a HVAC is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 17:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <26da7d6d-0897-4bf7-8eeb-47d3e93e63de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529811 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:02 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:07:12 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > > > > > > > On 10/31/2015 05:41 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 10/31/15 2:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > >>> No, that the universe is infinite > > > > > > > >>> is courtesy deductive inference. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Perhaps a refresher: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> 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 seems infinite to us because its so big,and getting bigger at am accelerating rate.Its inflating however that makes it finite.Sad but reality. TreBert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad that it's all bullshit and you are too dumb to know otherwise. > > > > > > > Wormley has trained you well. Parrot! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry. If it's useless to physics, > > > > > > it will just fall out. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's also a nice thing about numbers. > > > > > > They do what they do automatically. > > > > > > > > > > > > We got Einstein over here too, and he > > > > > > says the Universe is infinite or you're > > > > > > stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > > > > > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe "infinite" is a coverup. > > > > > > > > > > Something Einstein came up with to fix something else...he probably > > > > > simply...changed the facts to fit his theory. > > > > > > > > I got an answer for ya! > > > > > > > > Time goes back forever, > > > > Space goes on forever. > > > > > > > > > Space can go on forever if only time allows it... > > > > > > space and time cannot go further than the future.. > > > > > > the future is created at moment by moment foward.. > > > > > > so space and time can only move, moment by moment foward...in > > > increments. > > > > > > at a time, one at a time.. > > > > > > The future does not exist, now, so space and time does not exist without > > > a future, so > > > there is no infinite until time moves forward. > > > > > > If you take a polaroid photo > > > of your girl friend naked.. > > > and you reverse time, the photo > > > becomes blank. > > > > > > If you take a picture of her > > > putting back on her clothes... > > > > > > you would have to take a lot > > > of pictures to show each > > > part she put back on. > > > > > > There is a lapse of time > > > between each picture > > > you take... > > > > > > That lapse is the future > > > moving forward.. > > > > > > You can take an infinte pictures of her.. > > > but only one frame at a time. > > > > > > When you run out of film.. > > > space and time continues, one frame at a time to take her > > > pictures of her....infinite, but one frame at a time. > > > > > > > If I have a point here it's this: > > > > Einstein with the cosmological constant, > > > > and Planck with Planck's c and C, > > > > have those those for placeholders for that > > > > Planck's c and Einstein's cosmological constant > > > > are greater than zero and less than any fixed > > > > value. Their value is an infinitesimal, and the > > > > real infinitesimals exist as the total partitioning > > > > of their range. This exactly fits with the usual > > > > role of the infinitesimal in the usual role of the > > > > differential of the integral calculus. Also: there > > > > are features for effect of the infinitesimals, that > > > > discretization doubles the point width. > > > > > > > > Where you accept that's Einstein's formula, and, > > > > that "constant" exists in all interpretations of that, > > > > then to correlate and combine the effects of the > > > > large and small, will see that introduction of a > > > > proper mathematical foundation with the real > > > > with their own infinitesimals, automatically equips > > > > the existing theory with new features in effect. > > > > > > > > It's not not an infinitesimal. > > > > > > > > So, just as here Guth's is a re-sweeping accommodation > > > > of the big telescope in the large (and there are other > > > > Guth's), it's not final in the hysterisis of jumping over > > > > again the "constant's" value, but of all the resulting > > > > framework to accommodate each: that it's larger than > > > > zero and less than a fixed scalar value. > > > > > > > > I built a logic and a mathematics and a geometry for this > > > > that is simply discovered by anybody. > > > > Space-time is continuous, not granular. > > > > Each of your frames is moving! > > There is a spce between each frame...it just seems, continous. It's an > illusion. > > > > > Paint a picture, it'll last longer. > > There is a space of time between adding more paints on the canvas with > your brush. > > > > > Vortex, Boris! > > > > StarMaker or HVAC: there's a light > > at the end of the tunnel. > > > > Get a room or get back to something formal. > > > > And quit pimping your girlfriend! > > > The handle reads: The Starmaker.. starmakers pimp girls...your girls, > any girl. starmakers are flesh peddlers. > > I cannot quit what i am. > > The Starmaker > > > i don't know what a HVAC is. Sigh. Think of the children. Rake and hoe. Spade, rake, and hoe. Garden. Till and sow. For every time there is a season. Zen is No Mind! Wheels roll. Time goes. Rivers flow. Seas roll. Always be true to yourself! The cosmological constant is an infinitesimal. I got more mental armor here than your mouth! My, what sharp teeth I have. Harvest: blessed harvest. https://bible.org/article/seven-laws-harvest I'm not a bible thumper, that's just to cleanse the palate. You can promote without pimping. (Sigh, but I hate pimps/exploitation and Nazis/oppression. At least you're not a Nazi?) I'm a big egalitarian. So: back to why space-time is almost totally flat: Einstein's cosmological constant is a real infinitesimal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 23:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56370C50.4F6A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #529821 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:02 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:07:12 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > > > > > > > > On 10/31/2015 05:41 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > > >> On 10/31/15 2:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> No, that the universe is infinite > > > > > > > > >>> is courtesy deductive inference. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Perhaps a refresher: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 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 seems infinite to us because its so big,and getting bigger at am accelerating rate.Its inflating however that makes it finite.Sad but reality. TreBert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad that it's all bullshit and you are too dumb to know otherwise. > > > > > > > > Wormley has trained you well. Parrot! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry. If it's useless to physics, > > > > > > > it will just fall out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's also a nice thing about numbers. > > > > > > > They do what they do automatically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We got Einstein over here too, and he > > > > > > > says the Universe is infinite or you're > > > > > > > stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > > > > > > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe "infinite" is a coverup. > > > > > > > > > > > > Something Einstein came up with to fix something else...he probably > > > > > > simply...changed the facts to fit his theory. > > > > > > > > > > I got an answer for ya! > > > > > > > > > > Time goes back forever, > > > > > Space goes on forever. > > > > > > > > > > > > Space can go on forever if only time allows it... > > > > > > > > space and time cannot go further than the future.. > > > > > > > > the future is created at moment by moment foward.. > > > > > > > > so space and time can only move, moment by moment foward...in > > > > increments. > > > > > > > > at a time, one at a time.. > > > > > > > > The future does not exist, now, so space and time does not exist without > > > > a future, so > > > > there is no infinite until time moves forward. > > > > > > > > If you take a polaroid photo > > > > of your girl friend naked.. > > > > and you reverse time, the photo > > > > becomes blank. > > > > > > > > If you take a picture of her > > > > putting back on her clothes... > > > > > > > > you would have to take a lot > > > > of pictures to show each > > > > part she put back on. > > > > > > > > There is a lapse of time > > > > between each picture > > > > you take... > > > > > > > > That lapse is the future > > > > moving forward.. > > > > > > > > You can take an infinte pictures of her.. > > > > but only one frame at a time. > > > > > > > > When you run out of film.. > > > > space and time continues, one frame at a time to take her > > > > pictures of her....infinite, but one frame at a time. > > > > > > > > > If I have a point here it's this: > > > > > Einstein with the cosmological constant, > > > > > and Planck with Planck's c and C, > > > > > have those those for placeholders for that > > > > > Planck's c and Einstein's cosmological constant > > > > > are greater than zero and less than any fixed > > > > > value. Their value is an infinitesimal, and the > > > > > real infinitesimals exist as the total partitioning > > > > > of their range. This exactly fits with the usual > > > > > role of the infinitesimal in the usual role of the > > > > > differential of the integral calculus. Also: there > > > > > are features for effect of the infinitesimals, that > > > > > discretization doubles the point width. > > > > > > > > > > Where you accept that's Einstein's formula, and, > > > > > that "constant" exists in all interpretations of that, > > > > > then to correlate and combine the effects of the > > > > > large and small, will see that introduction of a > > > > > proper mathematical foundation with the real > > > > > with their own infinitesimals, automatically equips > > > > > the existing theory with new features in effect. > > > > > > > > > > It's not not an infinitesimal. > > > > > > > > > > So, just as here Guth's is a re-sweeping accommodation > > > > > of the big telescope in the large (and there are other > > > > > Guth's), it's not final in the hysterisis of jumping over > > > > > again the "constant's" value, but of all the resulting > > > > > framework to accommodate each: that it's larger than > > > > > zero and less than a fixed scalar value. > > > > > > > > > > I built a logic and a mathematics and a geometry for this > > > > > that is simply discovered by anybody. > > > > > > Space-time is continuous, not granular. > > > > > > Each of your frames is moving! > > > > There is a spce between each frame...it just seems, continous. It's an > > illusion. > > > > > > > > Paint a picture, it'll last longer. > > > > There is a space of time between adding more paints on the canvas with > > your brush. > > > > > > > > Vortex, Boris! > > > > > > StarMaker or HVAC: there's a light > > > at the end of the tunnel. > > > > > > Get a room or get back to something formal. > > > > > > And quit pimping your girlfriend! > > > > > > The handle reads: The Starmaker.. starmakers pimp girls...your girls, > > any girl. starmakers are flesh peddlers. > > > > I cannot quit what i am. > > > > The Starmaker > > > > > > i don't know what a HVAC is. > > Sigh. > > Think of the children. > > Rake and hoe. Spade, rake, and hoe. Garden. > Till and sow. For every time there is a season. > > Zen is No Mind! > > Wheels roll. Time goes. Rivers flow. Seas roll. > > Always be true to yourself! > > The cosmological constant is an infinitesimal. > > I got more mental armor here than your mouth! > > My, what sharp teeth I have. > > Harvest: blessed harvest. > > https://bible.org/article/seven-laws-harvest > > I'm not a bible thumper, that's just to cleanse the palate. > > You can promote without pimping. > > (Sigh, but I hate pimps/exploitation and Nazis/oppression. > At least you're not a Nazi?) > > I'm a big egalitarian. > > So: back to why space-time is almost totally flat: > Einstein's cosmological constant is a real infinitesimal. Correct me if i'm wrong... but didn't Albert Einstein called the addition of his cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 23:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56370E75.63FB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #529886 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:02 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:07:12 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 10/31/2015 05:41 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On 10/31/15 2:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> No, that the universe is infinite > > > > > > > > > >>> is courtesy deductive inference. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Perhaps a refresher: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> 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 seems infinite to us because its so big,and getting bigger at am accelerating rate.Its inflating however that makes it finite.Sad but reality. TreBert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad that it's all bullshit and you are too dumb to know otherwise. > > > > > > > > > Wormley has trained you well. Parrot! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry. If it's useless to physics, > > > > > > > > it will just fall out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's also a nice thing about numbers. > > > > > > > > They do what they do automatically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We got Einstein over here too, and he > > > > > > > > says the Universe is infinite or you're > > > > > > > > stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > > > > > > > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe "infinite" is a coverup. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Something Einstein came up with to fix something else...he probably > > > > > > > simply...changed the facts to fit his theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > I got an answer for ya! > > > > > > > > > > > > Time goes back forever, > > > > > > Space goes on forever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Space can go on forever if only time allows it... > > > > > > > > > > space and time cannot go further than the future.. > > > > > > > > > > the future is created at moment by moment foward.. > > > > > > > > > > so space and time can only move, moment by moment foward...in > > > > > increments. > > > > > > > > > > at a time, one at a time.. > > > > > > > > > > The future does not exist, now, so space and time does not exist without > > > > > a future, so > > > > > there is no infinite until time moves forward. > > > > > > > > > > If you take a polaroid photo > > > > > of your girl friend naked.. > > > > > and you reverse time, the photo > > > > > becomes blank. > > > > > > > > > > If you take a picture of her > > > > > putting back on her clothes... > > > > > > > > > > you would have to take a lot > > > > > of pictures to show each > > > > > part she put back on. > > > > > > > > > > There is a lapse of time > > > > > between each picture > > > > > you take... > > > > > > > > > > That lapse is the future > > > > > moving forward.. > > > > > > > > > > You can take an infinte pictures of her.. > > > > > but only one frame at a time. > > > > > > > > > > When you run out of film.. > > > > > space and time continues, one frame at a time to take her > > > > > pictures of her....infinite, but one frame at a time. > > > > > > > > > > > If I have a point here it's this: > > > > > > Einstein with the cosmological constant, > > > > > > and Planck with Planck's c and C, > > > > > > have those those for placeholders for that > > > > > > Planck's c and Einstein's cosmological constant > > > > > > are greater than zero and less than any fixed > > > > > > value. Their value is an infinitesimal, and the > > > > > > real infinitesimals exist as the total partitioning > > > > > > of their range. This exactly fits with the usual > > > > > > role of the infinitesimal in the usual role of the > > > > > > differential of the integral calculus. Also: there > > > > > > are features for effect of the infinitesimals, that > > > > > > discretization doubles the point width. > > > > > > > > > > > > Where you accept that's Einstein's formula, and, > > > > > > that "constant" exists in all interpretations of that, > > > > > > then to correlate and combine the effects of the > > > > > > large and small, will see that introduction of a > > > > > > proper mathematical foundation with the real > > > > > > with their own infinitesimals, automatically equips > > > > > > the existing theory with new features in effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not not an infinitesimal. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, just as here Guth's is a re-sweeping accommodation > > > > > > of the big telescope in the large (and there are other > > > > > > Guth's), it's not final in the hysterisis of jumping over > > > > > > again the "constant's" value, but of all the resulting > > > > > > framework to accommodate each: that it's larger than > > > > > > zero and less than a fixed scalar value. > > > > > > > > > > > > I built a logic and a mathematics and a geometry for this > > > > > > that is simply discovered by anybody. > > > > > > > > Space-time is continuous, not granular. > > > > > > > > Each of your frames is moving! > > > > > > There is a spce between each frame...it just seems, continous. It's an > > > illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > Paint a picture, it'll last longer. > > > > > > There is a space of time between adding more paints on the canvas with > > > your brush. > > > > > > > > > > > Vortex, Boris! > > > > > > > > StarMaker or HVAC: there's a light > > > > at the end of the tunnel. > > > > > > > > Get a room or get back to something formal. > > > > > > > > And quit pimping your girlfriend! > > > > > > > > > The handle reads: The Starmaker.. starmakers pimp girls...your girls, > > > any girl. starmakers are flesh peddlers. > > > > > > I cannot quit what i am. > > > > > > The Starmaker > > > > > > > > > i don't know what a HVAC is. > > > > Sigh. > > > > Think of the children. > > > > Rake and hoe. Spade, rake, and hoe. Garden. > > Till and sow. For every time there is a season. > > > > Zen is No Mind! > > > > Wheels roll. Time goes. Rivers flow. Seas roll. > > > > Always be true to yourself! > > > > The cosmological constant is an infinitesimal. > > > > I got more mental armor here than your mouth! > > > > My, what sharp teeth I have. > > > > Harvest: blessed harvest. > > > > https://bible.org/article/seven-laws-harvest > > > > I'm not a bible thumper, that's just to cleanse the palate. > > > > You can promote without pimping. > > > > (Sigh, but I hate pimps/exploitation and Nazis/oppression. > > At least you're not a Nazi?) > > > > I'm a big egalitarian. > > > > So: back to why space-time is almost totally flat: > > Einstein's cosmological constant is a real infinitesimal. > > Correct me if i'm wrong... > but didn't Albert Einstein called the addition of his cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life???? How about this, what is your point of view of the "fudge factor"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 07:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <37fe777d-0b78-4064-8f1f-bae152ee1504@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529887 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 11:18:42 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > How about this, what is your point of view of the "fudge factor"? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor I'd rather call it numerical appeasement than falsification (in good faith). A "fudge factor" is a mathematical term in systems representing an approximative element. These are usually as of matching to the data, or of utilitarian overages. In mathematical physics: the goal is to have no error term (as approximations introduce). It is believed there is a mathematical physics with no error term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 07:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e3a1160a-1db7-4fb0-b9a1-ed6c87899672@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529886 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 11:09:33 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > Correct me if i'm wrong... > but didn't Albert Einstein called the addition of his cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life???? Not noting its presence: it would have been another's greatest. It _is_ part of the equation. Einstein's acknowledgment of his own incompleteness at the time (of as his own school of physics) sees him relevant today. A new feature in the foundations of continuum mechanics, for effect, would automatically so equip the mathematical physics, here for continuum analysis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 07:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <782dneekEqkki6vLnZ2dnUU7-SsAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #529619 |
On 10/31/15 11:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. No theory is ever proven--however there has yet to be an observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics. -- 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 | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 07:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <782dneSkEqnWi6vLnZ2dnUU7-SudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #529615 |
On 10/31/15 10:22 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > We got Einstein over here too, and he > says the Universe is infinite or you're > stupid. The fact that the observable universe measures flat, implies for many a physicist that the universe is infinite. But who's to say for sure. -- 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 | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 12:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <578ff7bf-9415-4edc-adb2-c2b2b5aa4b7e@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. Hard to see it flat when seeing the universe from Treb's view.All that gas with dust mixed in. It is more circular and looks like a old galaxy almost circular.TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 14:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <562FFBAC.34A6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528417 |
john wrote: > > Galaxies are atoms. > Galactic nuclei are atomic nuclei. > Galactic star-arms are electrons. > Up/down electrons are matter/antimatter > star-arms. > Neutrinos go through matter and are > absorbed by galactic nuclei, resulting > in expansion; similar radiations from > electrons are absorbed by atomic > nuclei resulting in Gravity and inertia. if Galaxies are atoms, then less than 5 percent of the universe contain...Galaxies, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 14:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <849bb454-8312-4721-a300-7f1debaa62b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528576 |
Ace from Space said: "Is 95% of the Universe empty?" No, Ace. The spaces are FULL of smaller-scale atom/galaxies. It's a continuous fractal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 18:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fad2c30f-d1b0-49ce-a501-ed238f0896da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528583 |
On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 2:47:58 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > Ace from Space said: > "Is 95% of the Universe empty?" > No, Ace. > The spaces are FULL of smaller-scale > atom/galaxies. > It's a continuous fractal. If the origin is everywhere it is. See also "soliton", "Q-ball", re Gelfand-Dikii.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 23:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <562F2D9E.209F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528415 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 6:26:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 5:35:13 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 2:43:45 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:40:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 3:03:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 10:56:18 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:51:55 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 9:01:07 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/23/15 10:54 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Background for you Ross
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Refraction by Lenses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/Lesson-5/Refraction-by-Lenses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Refraction and Lenses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >http://www.bowlesphysics.com/images/AP_Physics_B_-_Refraction_and_Lenses.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Atmospheric refraction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, I could already search for that, and I have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > library here including some texts on optics, eg, "wave
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > optics" besides "geometrical optics". (I've already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been through uni. undergraduate physics courses,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a mathematics degree.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like you to read these resources.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry Sam, I work for Uncle Al. Get your own grad student.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a usenet funny - Sam: that's about "wave
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > optics" AND "geometrical optics", and other usual
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interesting optical effects that yet fall under "to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be more fully explained". Thank you, Fresnel and Land.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, here, for mathematical physics writ large, this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is about "infinity, mathematical, in physics".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinity, mathematical, in physics does not...compute.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the laws of physics exist somewhere, someplace ...anyplace somewhere
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other than inside your mind?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does evil exist as a force or a place somewhere out there somewhere??
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "infinity, mathematical, in physics" is just....a thought, ..it exist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only in the mind...like evil.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, StarMaker, that is metaphysics, meaning actually
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of morality, meaning not of physics, which is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > scientific. (There are scientific theories of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what and why people believe.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm neutral (lawful good), evil doesn't enter into it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Infinity, on the other hand, is well nigh ubiquitous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our field equations of physics for where it's been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > carefully detailed in "normalization" and etcetera,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > standard modeling of the "Dirac delta or impulse" and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etcetera, and otherwise out from the classical (where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cauchy/Weierstrass already sufficiently formalized the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "differential", which some physicists may know as "raw",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or a "mathematical infinitesimal", for the "beyond the"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or "extra-" standard mathematics, rigorous and formal so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without equivocation and etcetera.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ([Einstein quotes.])
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is science, don't hem while you haw.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You believe that math is a discovery, not an invention of man.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What about 'the laws of physics', are they an invention of man or a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discovery?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, is it as simple as...'people see what they want to see'.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Truth is discovered /
> > > > > > > > > > > > lies are invented /
> > > > > > > > > > > > when you discover a lie /
> > > > > > > > > > > > that's the truth
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's poetic, but also "truths" are invented,
> > > > > > > > > > > > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > There's not so much a technical difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > between inventing one's mental machinery
> > > > > > > > > > > > and discovering it's the truth.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Really though I think you'd be more interested
> > > > > > > > > > > > in possibilities in mathematics for physics
> > > > > > > > > > > > than the semantics of "discovery vs. invention"
> > > > > > > > > > > > when those aren't exclusive. That's not so much
> > > > > > > > > > > > a wild goose chase, as chasing a goose (or "snipe").
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (You can leave that to mathematics. Also that
> > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't interfere with your cognitive semantics
> > > > > > > > > > > > about knowledge and its discovery, or what you
> > > > > > > > > > > > establish via action.)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't undersatnd what you are saying...
> > > > > > > > > > > you simply have a perpective of the world
> > > > > > > > > > > where you see math and laws of physics as
> > > > > > > > > > > somewhere out there...on what planet, Pluto?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mars...under a rock somewhere? Where is it that these
> > > > > > > > > > > math rules and laws of physics exist at? maybe on an asteroid,
> > > > > > > > > > > a comet...inside a star? It has to be somewhere besides...in you mind.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But where??? where is it at?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yous are no different than people who believe in flying saucers from
> > > > > > > > > > > outer space or, ghosts.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > There are just inventions of the mind...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And I cannot believe people 'still' hang to a guy born 347 BC named Plato.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Plato invented the inventions of the mind.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'll take it a step further..
> > > > > > > > > > looking at it in reverse...
> > > > > > > > > > the laws of physics
> > > > > > > > > > cannot explain...people,
> > > > > > > > > > math cannot explain people.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Things that don't exist cannot explain that which does.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > People exist on earth. Where do the laws of physics exist? What place in the universe?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Answer: There is no place...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > it exist only in the mind.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So Starmaker and HVAC are the same?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "A Theory of Mind", and there are various of
> > > > > > > > > those, may be an enlightened personal philosophy
> > > > > > > > > (and it's not a lack thereof).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The field of cognition as of beliefs / desires /
> > > > > > > > > motivations in a usual model of sentience , in
> > > > > > > > > part explains people.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We're scientists. We know that science informs
> > > > > > > > > us, including that bad science misinforms (that's
> > > > > > > > > quantitative).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here, mathematics is established via proof, logical
> > > > > > > > > proof. From the foundations of a mathematical logic,
> > > > > > > > > mathematical relations _are established as facts,
> > > > > > > > > then physicists know their _model of physics_ is
> > > > > > > > > a mathematical model where the mathematics if fixed,
> > > > > > > > > mathematics is never wrong, only the model can be
> > > > > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is familiar from a usual hallway quote or classroom
> > > > > > > > > quip with "quantum mechanics is never wrong", qualifiedly,
> > > > > > > > > "if you can find an error in quantum mechanics we can publish
> > > > > > > > > it and get famous." Its the brass ring, but generally
> > > > > > > > > also considered somewhat difficult to achieve (learning to
> > > > > > > > > understand quantum mechanics).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Our physical model has components seemingly / obviously
> > > > > > > > > very well suited to utilize a mathematical theory of
> > > > > > > > > "real" (for the concrete) mathematical infinitesimals,
> > > > > > > > > here, for as of the differential (often "dx").
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Then, where the grail is "solving for the path integral",
> > > > > > > > > it is of the consequences of all configuration of
> > > > > > > > > experiment, then for that a mathematical physics would
> > > > > > > > > be needing infinity, if it's in the physics (really).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The universe is infinite or we'd be a point (all
> > > > > > > > > one reference frame). That we aren't, is that it is.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Does Einstein have enough quotable material, that
> > > > > > > > > you can find any truth you need from him? (It's a
> > > > > > > > > start.) Luckily his imagination was unbounded.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You don't have to be and Einstein to have unbounded imagination...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mathematics is just a walt disney cartoon like mickey mouse.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Somebody draws a few lines, calls it a mouse..
> > > > > > > > and it takes a life of it's own.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now you have disney land and kids around the world
> > > > > > > > want to see micky mouse.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But it's just a few lines on paper...a cartoon.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mathematics was around before Plato was born...
> > > > > > > > by the time Plato...'discovered it', it already took a life
> > > > > > > > of it's own.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think you're just making a mountain out of a mathematical
> > > > > > > > infinitesimals molehill.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, you're OK with going back to rocks and sticks?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we go back to rocks and sticks, it will be the 'scientific community' doing...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thank Einstein...he invented the atomic bomb, he aslo said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, I already knew Einstein's quote when I wrote that.
> > > > >
> > > > > The point is that as a novel mathematical tool, in
> > > > > the very foundations of continuum analysis, which
> > > > > is totally useful for the "continuums" of the
> > > > > "continuous fields" of mathematical physics,
> > > > > automatically equips theory with the feature.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You sound like you're talking about this...
> > > > https://www.youtube....
> > >
> > > No idea what you're talking about.
> >
> >
> > I'm talking about what you are talking about..."The Mandelbrot Set". It
> > is your "continuums".
>
> OK. (This is a textual discussion, not conducive to
> the metered presentation of "video content".)
>
> Mandelbrot, as about the fractal or self-similar,
> then is about two notions:
>
> 1) self-similarity at various scales of organization, eg
> electron orbitals are like planet orbits,
> the wave crest is a fringe, etc,
> measuring the coastline
> 2) self-similarity at all scales
> space-filling curves are what linear patterns
> comprise or cover areas or areal segments
>
> Basically what I would bring to your attention is
> a spiral space-filling curve as from the origin as a
> natural continuum, for example that is a line.
>
> Otherwise the usual space-filling curves we see are box
> curves, that "spiral" or maze in, with knight's tours and
> this kind of thing ("curves" are "non-crossing").
>
> A spiral space-filling curve (of R^2) would not be a
> real-function, of sorts, because it is drawn of points,
> so, each point on the spiral space-filling curve is only:
> a) farther away from the origin than any preceding point
> b) closer to the origin than any following point
> Then in R^2, R^3, ..., R^n, the spiral space-filling curve
> only fills the unit hyperball, it is from
> (0, 0, { n-many}, 0) to (1, 1, {n-many}, 1).
> eg:
> [0,1] in R^1.
You are starting to use 'symbols', which is not text, This is a textual
discussion...
if you can use 'symbols' to discuss, why cannot I use video to
express???
Or is it do as I say, not as I do?
>
> Then, it's worked up that this is another builder for
> a continuum (or rather a unit length segment of a
> continuum) than ran(EF) which is [0,1]. (Also it
> is ran(EF) in R^1. )
>
> Then, in _all_ the dimensions, or poly-dimensionally,
> it is the same function, then also as to its pan-dimensionality.
>
> Is this what you're talking about, "fractals" and "self-similarity"
> then about "space-filling curves"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web