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 | 19 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 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 12:16 -0700 |
| Subject | on, re |
| Message-ID | <503af794-e83c-48e1-a34f-6344d5295af2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528415 |
er, no; the mini-M-sets are artifacts of the many, many implimentations in hardware or/and softwawre speifications > a spiral space-filling curve as from the origin as a > natural continuum, for example that is a line. > Is this what you're talking about, "fractals" and "self-similarity" > then about "space-filling curves"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6c4a73c-2d3b-4cb9-a8b8-ce5ca1f6e098@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528362 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 3:05:41 PM UTC-7, 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. Space is curved(Einstein)All large objects become round.Out heads are round.Old galazy are round.Universe is round.Micro all stuff is round and spinning round.Going from A to B is a curved path.Yet Guth goes with flat,and flat landers can't eat. Go figure TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f4dd4cd-fe3b-4dc0-a499-c645dba5b6c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527709 |
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:51:55 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > Then, here, for mathematical physics writ large, this > > is about "infinity, mathematical, in physics". > > > > > infinity, mathematical, in physics does not...compute. Of course not, infinity isn't a number, and it does not represent a real number... is is an abstract concept... see this, for example... http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/10/13/infinity-is-not-a-number/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 14:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ecb1be46-fab5-4b2d-aec4-73e012c50c1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527720 |
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 2:00:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:51:55 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > Then, here, for mathematical physics writ large, this > > > is about "infinity, mathematical, in physics". > > > > > > > > > > infinity, mathematical, in physics does not...compute. > > Of course not, infinity isn't a number, and it does not represent a real number... is is an abstract concept... see this, for example... > > http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/10/13/infinity-is-not-a-number/ The real numbers are those of the continuum. Hardy was the text: and real numbers are also the line (y = 0, real part or "Re", Euclid's real numbers.) With Cauchy/Weierstrass, and modern algebra, the reals are the complete ordered field. (This is usually what's called "standard".) A la du Bois-Reymond, the real numbers are the linear continuum, and also the "long line". Cantor formalizes regular (or well-founded) sets with cardinals of the naturals and reals, as of the "continuum". Infinite "ordinals" and "cardinals" follow as "numbers" for counting (and ordinals for numbering), in the trans-finite. Measure theory then defines 1.0 for a sigma algebra as it were, as transfinite cardinals contribut no analytical character to the real numbers for the integral calculus that is founded itself via "Measure Theory". The hyper-reals of Robinson, of "Non-Standard Analysis", is a notion of the everywhere dense "halo" of the neighborhood of each real. These say nothing. These iota-values of Finlayson for "continuum infinitesimal analysis", are much the same as having divided the unit interval into infinitely many points, maintaining and demanding a "constant monotone increasing" property of the line segment that is _drawn_. This particular function from the naturals (or non-negative integers) and elements of [0,1], that it builds, is unique among functions N -> R, restricted to N -> R[0,1], that it is N <-> R[0,1], where R_bar and R_dots make R_crown. This function f is: also a CDF and also a pdf of: the natural integers at uniform random. (It is.) Its integrable, while only defined on the integers, and evaluates to 1 as the sum of these iota-values. (This is the "feature" for "effect", and in the "poly-dimensional", eg all at once, there is effect in "configuration".) Thus, there is a particular characterization of what is the continuous from the discrete, all from foundations (or first principles in a theory of numbers). These are "real" numbers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0b19f8b-70bd-48a3-8f9b-002f97c2bf15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527731 |
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 2:42:41 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 2:00:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:51:55 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > Then, here, for mathematical physics writ large, this > > > > is about "infinity, mathematical, in physics". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinity, mathematical, in physics does not...compute. > > > > Of course not, infinity isn't a number, and it does not represent a real number... is is an abstract concept... see this, for example... > > > > http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/10/13/infinity-is-not-a-number/ > > The real numbers are those of the continuum. > > Hardy was the text: and real numbers are also the line > (y = 0, real part or "Re", Euclid's real numbers.) > > With Cauchy/Weierstrass, and modern algebra, the reals > are the complete ordered field. (This is usually > what's called "standard".) > > A la du Bois-Reymond, the real numbers are the linear > continuum, and also the "long line". > > Cantor formalizes regular (or well-founded) sets with > cardinals of the naturals and reals, as of the "continuum". > Infinite "ordinals" and "cardinals" follow as "numbers" > for counting (and ordinals for numbering), in the trans-finite. > > Measure theory then defines 1.0 for a sigma algebra as > it were, as transfinite cardinals contribut no analytical > character to the real numbers for the integral calculus > that is founded itself via "Measure Theory". > > The hyper-reals of Robinson, of "Non-Standard Analysis", > is a notion of the everywhere dense "halo" of the > neighborhood of each real. These say nothing. > > These iota-values of Finlayson for "continuum > infinitesimal analysis", are much the same as > having divided the unit interval into infinitely > many points, maintaining and demanding a "constant > monotone increasing" property of the line segment > that is _drawn_. This particular function from > the naturals (or non-negative integers) and elements > of [0,1], that it builds, is unique among functions > N -> R, restricted to N -> R[0,1], that it is > N <-> R[0,1], where R_bar and R_dots make R_crown. > > This function f is: also a CDF and also a pdf of: > the natural integers at uniform random. (It is.) > > Its integrable, while only defined on the integers, > and evaluates to 1 as the sum of these iota-values. > (This is the "feature" for "effect", and in the > "poly-dimensional", eg all at once, there is effect > in "configuration".) > > Thus, there is a particular characterization of what > is the continuous from the discrete, all from foundations > (or first principles in a theory of numbers). > > These are "real" numbers. How is space BOTH "flat" and "curved", or rather, > 0 flat, < x curved? The cosmological constant is some "real infinitesimal". That's the only value that fits! This is Einstein's. The above is a concise description of "real numbers". Also it's the model and the fact of them. Newton/Leibnitz is built into Cauchy/Weierstrass: also via the Intermediate Value Theorem in these more simple and direct real numbers, that are mathematically founded and quite also foundational. This is more than Newton's fluent and Leibniz' nilpotent, of those, and, extra those. This is also called a "development", in mathematics here for physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 03:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ZDHUx.161333$nK6.154677@fx31.iad> |
| In reply to | #526582 |
On 10/17/2015 01:49 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Why is the universe flat?
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA
>>
>>
>>> Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by
>>> cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental
>>> questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon
>>> Problem and the Flatness Problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
>> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
>> community, and physics-related social issues.
>
> I see the universe being saddle shaped.Goes with my CONCAVE & CONVEX THeory TreBert
>
I see the universe as being round. A hypersphere in many dimensions.
The problem with all other idiot theories is that one needs to deal with
the "edge". So herb what does one find at the "edge" of the universe? A
large brick wall and huge "clamps" holding the universe in the void? Or
maybe you just "sail off the edge" like people used to think about the
earth. Humans never change. Forever stupid.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 13:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a22845f8-481d-4d04-88cc-71810ee0fbb6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526670 |
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 12:13:02 AM UTC-7, benj wrote: > On 10/17/2015 01:49 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> Why is the universe flat? > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > >> > >> > >>> Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > >>> cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > >>> questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > >>> Problem and the Flatness Problem. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > >> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > >> community, and physics-related social issues. > > > > I see the universe being saddle shaped.Goes with my CONCAVE & CONVEX THeory TreBert > > > I see the universe as being round. A hypersphere in many dimensions. > The problem with all other idiot theories is that one needs to deal with > the "edge". So herb what does one find at the "edge" of the universe? A > large brick wall and huge "clamps" holding the universe in the void? Or > maybe you just "sail off the edge" like people used to think about the > earth. Humans never change. Forever stupid. > Immobile celestial spheres from the classical steady-state model of the universe, does actually hold up. This is for the complementary repulsive and attractive model of "gravity". Why yes, the origin is everywhere, and motion is absolute and relative. So: no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 15:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <562418CF.3480@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #526670 |
benj wrote: > > On 10/17/2015 01:49 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> Why is the universe flat? > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > >> > >> > >>> Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > >>> cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > >>> questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > >>> Problem and the Flatness Problem. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > >> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > >> community, and physics-related social issues. > > > > I see the universe being saddle shaped.Goes with my CONCAVE & CONVEX THeory TreBert > > > I see the universe as being round. A hypersphere in many dimensions. > The problem with all other idiot theories is that one needs to deal with > the "edge". So herb what does one find at the "edge" of the universe? A > large brick wall and huge "clamps" holding the universe in the void? Or > maybe you just "sail off the edge" like people used to think about the > earth. Humans never change. Forever stupid. The edge??? Well, if I'm standing on the flat universe....and it's slippery.. I would have to slide or skate to the edge of the universe..but there is one problem with that...I don't skate or slide as fast as the universe is expanding, so how am I gonna know if there is an edge?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 13:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f3de9e49-7804-4fdb-8724-2fb94ab41de3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526670 |
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 12:13:02 AM UTC-7, benj wrote: > On 10/17/2015 01:49 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> Why is the universe flat? > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > >> > >> > >>> Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > >>> cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > >>> questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > >>> Problem and the Flatness Problem. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > >> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > >> community, and physics-related social issues. > > > > I see the universe being saddle shaped.Goes with my CONCAVE & CONVEX THeory TreBert > > > I see the universe as being round. A hypersphere in many dimensions. > The problem with all other idiot theories is that one needs to deal with > the "edge". So herb what does one find at the "edge" of the universe? A > large brick wall and huge "clamps" holding the universe in the void? Or > maybe you just "sail off the edge" like people used to think about the > earth. Humans never change. Forever stupid. > > -- > ___ ___ ___ ___ > /\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \ > /::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \ > /:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\ > /::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/ > /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ / > \:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ / > \:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/ > \:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ / > \_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ / > \/__/ \/__/ At the universe's expanding edge is heat that can't get out.TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 12:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0bfd7cdd-05f9-4212-afed-7827cecab572@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526497 |
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > Why is the universe flat? > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA I can read much faster than anyone can talk. Do please get in the habit .oif linking to text-heavy sources. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a3e029d-aec8-46ae-9237-e461f56e8675@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526603 |
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:49:43 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > Why is the universe flat? > > I can read much faster than anyone can talk. Do please get in the habit .oif linking to text-heavy sources. > > > Mark L. Fergerson Also "video codecs", like "downloadable fonts", with "executable code" as often launched in the context of the runtime of the browser, exposes the browser to arbitrary code as "codecs installed in the videos" or "scripts in the fonts". Maybe you didn't know that the OS when it loads videos and their "codecs" (or rather, attached code) or fonts (that as interpreted have for example as PostScript or TrueType executable extensions) don't match the usual expectations of the user-agent (with dedicated, isolated handlers for executable code in the context of the shell of the person, or user). This further has "YouTube" an unsuitable store of material as regularly accessible for archive and as unambiguous content. The cosmological constant appears to be a mathematical infinitesimal! Turn off fonts!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 16:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <AYqdnVUqEOAdXL_LnZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526603 |
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 12:49:37 -0700, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: >> Why is the universe flat? >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > > I can read much faster than anyone can talk. Do please get in the > habit .oif linking to text-heavy sources. I'll have to second Mark's motion, and make it general advice. The measured pace of narration in most documentary videos is soporific. -- RLW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6698df83-b601-4287-b9ee-adedbd8ea827@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526497 |
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > Why is the universe flat? > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > > > > Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > > cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > > questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > > Problem and the Flatness Problem. > > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. If universe is flat is it 2 dimensional? How can a flat universe expand in all directions?Do a cluster of big galaxies take some of its flatness? How flat is flat? My concave & Convex theory goes with saddle curves.The theory answers hard questions. TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 14:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <276b6233-ca1f-447c-9426-95bdb2411cb5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526906 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:39:21 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > Why is the universe flat? > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > > > > > > > Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > > > cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > > > questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > > > Problem and the Flatness Problem. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > > community, and physics-related social issues. > > If universe is flat is it 2 dimensional? How can a flat universe expand in all directions?Do a cluster of big galaxies take some of its flatness? How flat is flat? My concave & Convex theory goes with saddle curves.The theory answers hard questions. TreBert It is flat as the tires on your van may be on the morning after Halloween! Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 19:13 -0700 |
| Subject | theodolites |
| Message-ID | <12fea130-b82c-4280-b51c-6eedb9a8822f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526937 |
gOOd start, but > its density is the same everywhere. Newton had no theory of light, because a) his 0-d roktons went faster in denser media. as for timennspacenn, this was the only blatant b.s of Minkowski, that I am aware of. it is just a simple phase-space, of no import since the advent of 3d movies > Like bullets, photons have momentum (but no rest mass). > A (2D) "membrane" helps you conceptualize (4D) spaceTime. > > The four dimensional TIMEscape has (static) ripples. ain't no curvature of time, other than intense subjectivity (or death & birth; Aristarchus was the first to measure curvature of space, which conforms to Gauss's kappa = 1/diameter; Gauss also did it in Alsace-Lorraine for the French goment, using his own theodolite > Here on earth, "Space Curvature" ( into time ) is negligible. > Near the sun, it makes Mercury "spiral" (precess). > > WikiPedia says: ＜＜ > > In physics, gravitational waves are ripples in the > curvature of spaceTIME which propagate as waves, > travelling outward from the source. > > Predicted in 1916 by Albert Einstein to exist > on the basis of his theory of general relativity, > gravitational waves theoretically transport energy > as gravitational radiation. ＞＞ > > Problem is, it's too weak to measure (so far).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 10:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1dd37161-d100-4aa2-907f-7334b5c6c43d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526937 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 2:23:52 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote: > On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:39:21 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > Why is the universe flat? > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > > > > > > > > > > Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > > > > cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > > > > questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > > > > Problem and the Flatness Problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > > > community, and physics-related social issues. > > > > If universe is flat is it 2 dimensional? How can a flat universe expand in all directions?Do a cluster of big galaxies take some of its flatness? How flat is flat? My concave & Convex theory goes with saddle curves.The theory answers hard questions. TreBert > > > It is flat as the tires on your van may be on the morning after Halloween! > > Double-A AA Flat tires on my van is very bad trick.I have 4 good tires(Goodyear) I bought them before I left Boston. Lots of good small cars for sale in Anaheim. You should look into one up your way. TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 15:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0122c544-ccd7-4f5d-9143-440d7d45bd03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527212 |
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 10:17:41 AM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 2:23:52 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote: > > On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:39:21 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > Why is the universe flat? > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > > > > > cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > > > > > questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > > > > > Problem and the Flatness Problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > > > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > > > > community, and physics-related social issues. > > > > > > If universe is flat is it 2 dimensional? How can a flat universe expand in all directions?Do a cluster of big galaxies take some of its flatness? How flat is flat? My concave & Convex theory goes with saddle curves.The theory answers hard questions. TreBert > > > > > > It is flat as the tires on your van may be on the morning after Halloween! > > > > Double-A > > AA Flat tires on my van is very bad trick.I have 4 good tires(Goodyear) I bought them before I left Boston. Lots of good small cars for sale in Anaheim. You should look into one up your way. TreBert You should stock up on Fix-A-Flat Aerosol Tire Inflators before Halloween night! http://www.amazon.com/Fix-A-Flat-S420-6-Aerosol-Inflator-Standard/dp/B0107W05OQ Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 10:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <idKdnUmTVPxrEKrLnZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526497 |
Why is the universe flat? > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > Problem and the Flatness Problem. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 12:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <abef717c-13cd-4927-831f-5812fb21adf5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529933 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 8:23:23 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > Why is the universe flat? > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > > > > Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > > cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > > questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > > Problem and the Flatness Problem. > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. Universes are lumpy.Most likely round.They are flat locally by gravity.Gravity flips close to the horizon and expansion is the force of acceleration from its core outward TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web