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 182 — 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? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 11:00 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:29 -0800
Universe is not locally flatwise noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 18:49 -0800
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 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 11:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3243b2e4-4e4c-49c1-a993-dd291fcf3254@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526582 |
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:49:30 AM 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. > > I see the universe being saddle shaped.Goes with my CONCAVE & CONVEX THeory TreBert Space-time is flat again with infinitesimal constant curvature. It's flat! This was known (at least in some circles) before Guth. No, whatever theory you bring, has to handle all the existing fact, and, all the standard theory we already have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dffa5f7d-2101-4d24-9993-50c268bd4332@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526582 |
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:49:30 AM 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. > > I see the universe being saddle shaped.Goes with my CONCAVE & CONVEX THeory TreBert A saddle shape implies that it is not closed, goes on forever, and therefore there was no Big Bang. I think it is flat as a pancake, and goes on forever. Red shift is only tired light. Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 12:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b29d3d01-afd8-4816-8214-c0f35a5d4af6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526594 |
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:03:17 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote: > Red shift is only tired light. Not very likely, too many problems with this concept... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 04:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7eb609d7-fe43-43f9-81d7-b879a74c8874@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526597 |
pnal...@gmail.com wrote... >> On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:03:17 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote: >> Red shift is only tired light. >Not very likely, too many problems with this concept... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light Tired light has the same problem as the big bang theory. 'TL' doesnt explain where or how the energy disappears to. In the same way that the BBT cant explain how space expands, where that space came from , what created the big bang, where that energy came from etc. Tired light cant explain where the energy goes and the BBT cant explain where it comes from. The advantage with 'tired light' is one doesnt have to create a whole new imaginary field of physics. All you have to do is accept that emr frequency decays over distance. You dont even have to look for proof. Its there and its called hubble redshift.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 14:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <75f64ab2-785a-47ec-aea7-586ae01d7c3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526594 |
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:03:17 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote: > On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:49:30 AM 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. > > > > I see the universe being saddle shaped.Goes with my CONCAVE & CONVEX THeory TreBert > > > A saddle shape implies that it is not closed, goes on forever, and therefore there was no Big Bang. I think it is flat as a pancake, and goes on forever. Red shift is only tired light. > > Double-A My saddle goes in and out.In for local gravity and out for space expansion. Concave & Convex curve of spacetime. No such light that gets tired.BB can not answer big questions,and the universe could have started many ways with out exploding.There is a wimper theory that is out there.TrBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 10:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KeqdnbkLmIq5m7jLnZ2dnUU7-YPOydjZ@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526594 |
On 10/17/15 2:03 PM, Double-A wrote: > Red shift is only tired light Tired Light > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light > Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not > been supported by observational tests and has lately been > consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics. Embrace science -- supported by observational and experimental data. -- 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 | 2015-10-19 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b6f7c553-00b2-4dd6-b6e6-41ea4d47b9c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526842 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 8:03:07 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 10/17/15 2:03 PM, Double-A wrote: > > Red shift is only tired light > > > Tired Light > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light > > > Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not > > been supported by observational tests and has lately been > > consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics. > > Embrace science -- supported by observational and experimental data. > > > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. No tired Just photons streched out by gravity TreBsert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 10:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5dd81e4-6047-4172-a38c-eecd6f967fb6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526861 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 9:55:08 AM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 8:03:07 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 10/17/15 2:03 PM, Double-A wrote: > > > Red shift is only tired light > > > > > > Tired Light > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light > > > > > Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not > > > been supported by observational tests and has lately been > > > consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics. > > > > Embrace science -- supported by observational and experimental data. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > > community, and physics-related social issues. > > No tired Just photons streched out by gravity TreBsert How is the universe "almost entirely flat". This is where, in the absolute, space-time is not curved as of the geodesics or curves in the gravitational field, under motion. This is where the gravity well or rubber sheet model still has there being a direction (down) of gravity. The "space-time" is curved, instantly and at a distance, by massy bodies as gravitational. (That is only yet an attractive instead of also a repulsive model of gravity.) But, that is simply a notation in the gravitational field, where instead it is the bodies (than the heavens) that are deformed (usually as systems less than dense). Redshift and blueshift then are as of the continuous nature of light, and its fixed speed in propagation (eg as intromissive/extromissive), where relative motion between (constant rate) emitter and detector then sees the usual Doppler. A photon "by itself" doesn't have a wavelength. The universe is "almost entirely flat" and so all the local and cosmological systems add up: with a cosmological constant the value of which is some "real mathematical infinitesimal".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 12:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KeqdnbALmIqXtbjLnZ2dnUU7-YPOydjZ@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526865 |
On 10/19/15 12:11 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > A photon "by itself" doesn't have a wavelength. Every quanta of light (photon) had measurable wavelength. -- 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 | 2015-10-19 12:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KeqdnbILmIpPtbjLnZ2dnUU7-YPOydjZ@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526865 |
On 10/19/15 12:11 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > The universe is "almost entirely flat" and so all > the local and cosmological systems add up: with > a cosmological constant the value of which is > some "real mathematical infinitesimal". Inflation (assuming correct) drove the early universe to critical density -- a flat universe. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea91437b-ef5f-40c8-b9a6-74407a6aed8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526873 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 10:31:03 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 10/19/15 12:11 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > The universe is "almost entirely flat" and so all > > the local and cosmological systems add up: with > > a cosmological constant the value of which is > > some "real mathematical infinitesimal". > > > Inflation (assuming correct) drove the early universe to critical > density -- a flat universe. > > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. Is that scientific? Those are both rather philosophical, then for what can be established _in the numbers directly_ as "provably true" of the numerical elements, then for the "scientific application" of those. This is for what can be built _in the numbers directly_ then as that being proto-scientific. The blow-up of inflation is kind of like the reverse of attenuation, from our view here in the middle of the universe that we all share. From here, it is also steady-state, (or, "almost flat space-time and almost steady- state universe"). I'm yet a layman when it comes to physics, though I have studied the undergraduate course, (mathematics), then that: the philosophical guides the direction for the scientific, here as then the mathematics founds the physics. Why yes a technical philosophy of the logic of a mathematics for a real mathematical physics is outlined in some of the other 10,000 posts on sci.math and sci.logic (of this author).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 12:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Keqdna8LmIqxsrjLnZ2dnUU7-YPOydjZ@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526878 |
On 10/19/15 12:54 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 10:31:03 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 10/19/15 12:11 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>> The universe is "almost entirely flat" and so all >>> the local and cosmological systems add up: with >>> a cosmological constant the value of which is >>> some "real mathematical infinitesimal". >> >> >> Inflation (assuming correct) drove the early universe to critical >> density -- a flat universe. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated >> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics >> community, and physics-related social issues. > > Is that scientific? Observations DO NOT contradict. > > Those are both rather philosophical, > then for what can be established _in > the numbers directly_ as "provably true" > of the numerical elements, then for the > "scientific application" of those. > > This is for what can be built _in the > numbers directly_ then as that being > proto-scientific. > > The blow-up of inflation is kind of like > the reverse of attenuation, from our view > here in the middle of the universe that we > all share. From here, it is also steady-state, > (or, "almost flat space-time and almost steady- > state universe"). > > I'm yet a layman when it comes to physics, > though I have studied the undergraduate course, > (mathematics), then that: the philosophical > guides the direction for the scientific, here > as then the mathematics founds the physics. > > Why yes a technical philosophy of the logic > of a mathematics for a real mathematical physics > is outlined in some of the other 10,000 posts > on sci.math and sci.logic (of this author). > > -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 11:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <374d536b-3218-472e-a5ee-62f4b6cde47f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526881 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 10:58:08 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 10/19/15 12:54 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 10:31:03 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 10/19/15 12:11 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > >>> The universe is "almost entirely flat" and so all > >>> the local and cosmological systems add up: with > >>> a cosmological constant the value of which is > >>> some "real mathematical infinitesimal". > >> > >> > >> Inflation (assuming correct) drove the early universe to critical > >> density -- a flat universe. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > >> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > >> community, and physics-related social issues. > > > > Is that scientific? > > Observations DO NOT contradict. > > > _All_ observations? What is "totally scientific"? That is rather philosophical, for a philosophically technical mathematical logic for a foundation for a mathematical physics that is a "theory of science", scientific, altogether. You can't pick the observations to fit, in science. That is expected to be understood by scientists. (In "good faith", not, "based on faith".) Guth's inflationary adjustments are speculative to match the measurements. An actual mathematics underneath can remove the need for this "scaffolding" (that is holding the system down instead of up). "Dark" matter and energy (as to be so computed) is another example of configuration in experiment and then for the results as of estimation of effect (there is none, it is just the shadow under the footprint of the eye). The energy in the experiments is part of the measurement, in configuration in experiment. This is for a mathematical physics with experimental physics as a complement. Here that's "seek and ye shall not find". So, pure mathematics always does have a place in mathematical physics: in mathematics. Here we're looking for a development of "real mathematical infinitesimals" as no other object fits for the summary of experiment (total).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 14:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ULCdnREtKviEo7jLnZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526889 |
On 10/19/15 1:45 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > _All_ observations? What is "totally scientific"? > That is rather philosophical, for a philosophically > technical mathematical logic for a foundation for > a mathematical physics that is a "theory of science", > scientific, altogether. There is not one observation to date that rules out inflation. The inflationary scenario accounts for observations of isotropy, homogeneity, critical density and flatness. There is much research aimed, in part, to test the inflationary theory. So far it is not contradicted. 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 | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2442182f-513e-481c-8c14-7cba7bebaaff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526902 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:01:50 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 10/19/15 1:45 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > _All_ observations? What is "totally scientific"?
> > That is rather philosophical, for a philosophically
> > technical mathematical logic for a foundation for
> > a mathematical physics that is a "theory of science",
> > scientific, altogether.
>
>
> There is not one observation to date that rules out inflation.
> The inflationary scenario accounts for observations of isotropy,
> homogeneity, critical density and flatness.
>
> There is much research aimed, in part, to test the inflationary
> theory. So far it is not contradicted.
>
> 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 think you mean "observation doesn't rule out
the Big Bang", where there are various notions of
what follows (the inflationary epoch, then as to
falsifiability for the scientific method of
inflationary means and outcomes).
There are also experiments that validate some aspects
of a steady-state universe, that are also in terms of
"all experiments". ("We are here.")
You can find those.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 14:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <233e778d-fe6c-4f62-a6f1-299f0b8d06a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526925 |
there is no apparent longrange curvature of Universe;
there is always curvature around any star e.g
> > > 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 think you mean "observation doesn't rule out
> the Big Bang", where there are various notions of
> what follows (the inflationary epoch, then as to
> falsifiability for the scientific method of
> inflationary means and outcomes).
>
> There are also experiments that validate some aspects
> of a steady-state universe, that are also in terms of
> "all experiments". ("We are here.")
>
> You can find those.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 10:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <310e4370-4c67-4716-93d7-e132f3d5fcb9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526842 |
Sam wrote... > Tired Light > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light > Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not > been supported by observational tests,... What observational tests do not support tired light?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 12:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KeqdnbcLmIruvrjLnZ2dnUU7-YPOydjZ@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526863 |
On 10/19/15 12:02 PM, jay moseley wrote: > Sam wrote... >> Tired Light > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light > >> Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not >> been supported by observational tests,... > > What observational tests do not support tired light? > Overduin, James Martin; Wesson page=10 isbn=981-283-441-9 year=2008 publisher=World Scientific Publishing Co., Paul S. The light/dark universe: light from galaxies, dark matter and dark energy. Charles Seife (28 June 2001). ""Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired". ScienceNow. Retrieved 2011-10-20. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background put the theory firmly on the fringe of physics 30 years ago; still, scientists sought more direct proofs of the expansion of the cosmos." -- 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 | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 10:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e51f0147-0030-4400-8808-ace9691a360b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526864 |
Sam wormley wrote. > > What observational tests do not support tired light? > >Overduin, James Martin; Wesson page=10 isbn=981-283-441-9 year=2008 publisher=World Scientific Publishing Co., Paul S. The light/dark universe: light from >alaxies, dark matter and dark energy. >Charles Seife (28 June 2001). ""Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired". ScienceNow. Retrieved 2011-10-20. Measurements of the cosmic microwave >background put the theory firmly on the fringe of physics 30 years ago; still, scientists sought more direct proofs of the expansion of the cosmos." None of the above are what I would call observational tests For example.... what observations of dark matter are there? I thought it had yet to be detected by any one of your pet experiments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 12:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KeqdnbMLmIrAtbjLnZ2dnUU7-YPOydjZ@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526867 |
On 10/19/15 12:24 PM, jay moseley wrote: > Sam wormley wrote. >>> What observational tests do not support tired light? > > >> Overduin, James Martin; Wesson page=10 isbn=981-283-441-9 year=2008 publisher=World Scientific Publishing Co., Paul S. The light/dark universe: light from >alaxies, dark matter and dark energy. > >> Charles Seife (28 June 2001). ""Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired". ScienceNow. Retrieved 2011-10-20. Measurements of the cosmic microwave >background put the theory firmly on the fringe of physics 30 years ago; still, scientists sought more direct proofs of the expansion of the cosmos." > > None of the above are what I would call observational tests > For example.... what observations of dark matter are there? I thought it had yet > to be detected by any one of your pet experiments. > You will like these better, I'm sure: Observations that Contradict "Tired Light" > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > Has the time dilation of distant source light curves predicted by the > Big Bang been observed? > > This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of > the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to > take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time > dilation has been observed, with 5 different published measurements > of this effect in supernova light curves. These papers are: > > Leibundgut etal, 1996, ApJL, 466, L21-L24 > Goldhaber etal, in Thermonuclear Supernovae (NATO ASI), eds. R. Canal, P. Ruiz-LaPuente, and J. Isern. > Riess etal, 1997, AJ, 114, 722. > Perlmutter etal, 1998, Nature, 391, 51. > Goldhaber etal, 2001, ApJ, 558, 359. > These observations contradict tired light models of the redshift. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web