Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #529458 > unrolled thread

Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-01 05:40 +1100
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-10-31 18:47 +0000
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 15:45 +1100
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 11:58 -0700
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 14:58 -0500
        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 21:54 -0700
          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:52 -0600
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 10:14 -0500
              Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 08:23 -0800
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 10:32 -0800
              Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:02 -0600
                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:13 -0800
                  Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:24 -0600
                    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:34 -0800
                      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:43 -0600
                        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:55 -0800
          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:15 -0800
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:49 -0800
              Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 18:26 -0500
        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 09:36 -0800
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 14:51 -0500
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 16:12 +1100
        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:57 -0600
          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-01 10:03 -0500
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 15:08 +0000
          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-02 04:44 +1100
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:05 -0600
              Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-02 08:16 +1100
                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:32 -0800
                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 19:28 -0600
                  Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 01:51 +1100
                    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:07 -0600
                      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 06:58 +1100
                        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:09 -0600
                          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-04 16:30 +1100
                          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:07 -0800
                            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 11:42 -0600
                              Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 11:44 -0800
                                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 13:57 -0600
                                  Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:02 -0800
                                    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 17:14 -0600
                                      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:55 -0800
                                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-04 19:26 -0800
                                  Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 19:47 -0800
                                    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-05 15:33 -0800
                                      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 17:44 -0600
                                      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 16:04 -0800
                                        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 19:42 -0800
                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:50 -0800
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) - 2015-10-31 19:52 +0000
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 22:36 -0800
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 01:52 +1100
        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-02 08:59 -0800
          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Henry Wilson <HW@home.com> - 2015-11-06 09:10 +0000
            time is not a dimension per se (it is awareness of dimensionality noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 18:04 -0800
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 22:46 -0800
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 00:00 -0800
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 08:58 -0800
        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 05:47 -0800

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#530429

On 11/4/15 5:02 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Whether or not there is "free will" is
> indistinguishable with whether or not
> there is.

   Put a quarter in each room. When finished in that room, flip a
   quarter to "randomly" choose which of two rooms you will go to next.
   At least your pattern won't be "pee-determined".



-- 

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]

#530449

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:14:21 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/4/15 5:02 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > Whether or not there is "free will" is
> > indistinguishable with whether or not
> > there is.
> 
>    Put a quarter in each room. When finished in that room, flip a
>    quarter to "randomly" choose which of two rooms you will go to next.
>    At least your pattern won't be "pee-determined".
> 

That was on purpose.

"Whether or not there is "free will" is
indistinguishable with whether or not
there is."

Sample a real number between zero and one 
by flipping a fair coin infinitely many 
times (Bernoulli trials).  It takes infinitely 
many coin tosses, and, results in infinitely 
many samples.  

This is where in the real numbers, one might 
expect an irrational number to result from 
sampling, because of the ergodic, but, a 
rational number can result, and, the ratio 
part results in infinitely many copies.

Speaking of the ergodic, are you familiar with 
the foundations of statistical machinery?

Then, I wonder if you've ever heard of Borel, 
or, Cantor space.  Mathematics is simply 
unreservedly a beautiful thing.  That said, 
it's not for stupid people except to learn.

Vis-à-vis the ergodic and entropic, there are 
a variety of central concerns of continuous 
systems.

So, what do you have in mind again?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530491

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 11/4/15 8:07 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > I wonder how you'd entertain that gravity is
> > > actually repulsive from the edges of the universe,
> > > and that mass occludes it as a force, so, then
> > > objects are drawn together locally as the block
> > > each other out (then that this matches attractive
> > > gravity up to basically the same sphere of influence).
> > > Then gravity is a feature of the substrate instead of
> > > the bodies, which are defined by the nuclear force(s).
> >
> >
> >    I hate to break this to you, Ross, but the universe doesn't
> >    have edges.
> >
> >    No Center
> >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
> >
> >    Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
> >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
> >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
> >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
> >
> >    WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
> >      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
> >
> >    WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> >      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
> >
> 
> The universe is effectively infinite and unbounded, yes.


You mean mathematically speaking and philoshphy speaking, but it sure
ain't Science speaking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530494

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 7:25:51 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > 
> > On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > On 11/4/15 8:07 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > I wonder how you'd entertain that gravity is
> > > > actually repulsive from the edges of the universe,
> > > > and that mass occludes it as a force, so, then
> > > > objects are drawn together locally as the block
> > > > each other out (then that this matches attractive
> > > > gravity up to basically the same sphere of influence).
> > > > Then gravity is a feature of the substrate instead of
> > > > the bodies, which are defined by the nuclear force(s).
> > >
> > >
> > >    I hate to break this to you, Ross, but the universe doesn't
> > >    have edges.
> > >
> > >    No Center
> > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
> > >
> > >    Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
> > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
> > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
> > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
> > >
> > >    WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
> > >      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
> > >
> > >    WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> > >      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
> > >
> > 
> > The universe is effectively infinite and unbounded, yes.
> 
> 
> You mean mathematically speaking and philoshphy speaking, but it sure
> ain't Science speaking.

It's courtesy a "mathematical universe hypothesis", 
then that all the physical objects (eg field elements 
are mathematical objects) as are the functions between 
them (that are also field elements) and etcetera ad 
infinitum that there are thusly _infinitely many_ 
physical objects in the universe courtesy reason 
and definition.

So, this is under science, in reasoning, with that the 
objects in the universe, have that there are infinitely 
many different ones in all the diverse combinations and 
all theirs ad infinitum.

That follows from the definition of a universe and 
unboundedly many things in it:   there are infinitely 
many things in it.  There isn't an upper bound on 
any upper bound.  This is also true or we'd all be in 
the same reference frame, and all one thing.

Then, it's the philosophical/theoretical that the 
Continuum is infinite, then that simple principles 
of reserve so define the laws of the mathematical 
universe then for the physical universe (then that 
estimated or predicted results are to be rejected 
or not in hypothesis testing, in the scientific 
method).  

You're right in that scientists are only allowed 
and allowing science, including correct experimental 
design and etcetera.

To then actually _prove_ the nature of the Universe 
or its features would necessarily follow from a 
consistent, complete, and complete purely mathematically 
logical theory that then is also scientific, or a 
Real Theory of Everything.  (I call this A-Theory and 
the Null Axiom Theory, it is an axiomless system of 
natural deduction, and follows from simple logical 
principles of constancy and variety, and diversity in 
variety, and uniformity in diversity, for a Continuum.)

Then features as of this "Continuum Infinitesimal 
Analysis" is in the mathematical part for real 
analysis, somewhat above the total underpinnings 
of all theory.  (Also it's shown that it so results.)

It's OK for science to have the universe having 
infinitely many things in it and to be infinite, 
as it is unbounded (else there wouldn't be a "we").

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530637

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 7:25:51 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > On 11/4/15 8:07 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > I wonder how you'd entertain that gravity is
> > > > > actually repulsive from the edges of the universe,
> > > > > and that mass occludes it as a force, so, then
> > > > > objects are drawn together locally as the block
> > > > > each other out (then that this matches attractive
> > > > > gravity up to basically the same sphere of influence).
> > > > > Then gravity is a feature of the substrate instead of
> > > > > the bodies, which are defined by the nuclear force(s).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    I hate to break this to you, Ross, but the universe doesn't
> > > >    have edges.
> > > >
> > > >    No Center
> > > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> > > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
> > > >
> > > >    Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
> > > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
> > > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
> > > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
> > > >
> > > >    WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
> > > >      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
> > > >
> > > >    WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> > > >      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > The universe is effectively infinite and unbounded, yes.
> >
> >
> > You mean mathematically speaking and philoshphy speaking, but it sure
> > ain't Science speaking.
> 
> It's courtesy a "mathematical universe hypothesis",
> then that all the physical objects (eg field elements
> are mathematical objects) as are the functions between
> them (that are also field elements) and etcetera ad
> infinitum that there are thusly _infinitely many_
> physical objects in the universe courtesy reason
> and definition.
> 
> So, this is under science, in reasoning, with that the
> objects in the universe, have that there are infinitely
> many different ones in all the diverse combinations and
> all theirs ad infinitum.
> 
> That follows from the definition of a universe and
> unboundedly many things in it:   there are infinitely
> many things in it.  There isn't an upper bound on
> any upper bound.  This is also true or we'd all be in
> the same reference frame, and all one thing.
> 
> Then, it's the philosophical/theoretical that the
> Continuum is infinite, then that simple principles
> of reserve so define the laws of the mathematical
> universe then for the physical universe (then that
> estimated or predicted results are to be rejected
> or not in hypothesis testing, in the scientific
> method).
> 
> You're right in that scientists are only allowed
> and allowing science, including correct experimental
> design and etcetera.
> 
> To then actually _prove_ the nature of the Universe
> or its features would necessarily follow from a
> consistent, complete, and complete purely mathematically
> logical theory that then is also scientific, or a
> Real Theory of Everything.  (I call this A-Theory and
> the Null Axiom Theory, it is an axiomless system of
> natural deduction, and follows from simple logical
> principles of constancy and variety, and diversity in
> variety, and uniformity in diversity, for a Continuum.)
> 
> Then features as of this "Continuum Infinitesimal
> Analysis" is in the mathematical part for real
> analysis, somewhat above the total underpinnings
> of all theory.  (Also it's shown that it so results.)
> 
> It's OK for science to have the universe having
> infinitely many things in it and to be infinite,
> as it is unbounded (else there wouldn't be a "we").


so, what is the age of this infinite universe of we?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530646

On 11/5/15 5:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 7:25:51 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/15 8:07 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> I wonder how you'd entertain that gravity is
>>>>>> actually repulsive from the edges of the universe,
>>>>>> and that mass occludes it as a force, so, then
>>>>>> objects are drawn together locally as the block
>>>>>> each other out (then that this matches attractive
>>>>>> gravity up to basically the same sphere of influence).
>>>>>> Then gravity is a feature of the substrate instead of
>>>>>> the bodies, which are defined by the nuclear force(s).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     I hate to break this to you, Ross, but the universe doesn't
>>>>>     have edges.
>>>>>
>>>>>     No Center
>>>>>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
>>>>>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>>>>>
>>>>>     Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
>>>>>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
>>>>>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
>>>>>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
>>>>>
>>>>>     WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
>>>>>       http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
>>>>>
>>>>>     WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
>>>>>       http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The universe is effectively infinite and unbounded, yes.
>>>
>>>
>>> You mean mathematically speaking and philoshphy speaking, but it sure
>>> ain't Science speaking.
>>
>> It's courtesy a "mathematical universe hypothesis",
>> then that all the physical objects (eg field elements
>> are mathematical objects) as are the functions between
>> them (that are also field elements) and etcetera ad
>> infinitum that there are thusly _infinitely many_
>> physical objects in the universe courtesy reason
>> and definition.
>>
>> So, this is under science, in reasoning, with that the
>> objects in the universe, have that there are infinitely
>> many different ones in all the diverse combinations and
>> all theirs ad infinitum.
>>
>> That follows from the definition of a universe and
>> unboundedly many things in it:   there are infinitely
>> many things in it.  There isn't an upper bound on
>> any upper bound.  This is also true or we'd all be in
>> the same reference frame, and all one thing.
>>
>> Then, it's the philosophical/theoretical that the
>> Continuum is infinite, then that simple principles
>> of reserve so define the laws of the mathematical
>> universe then for the physical universe (then that
>> estimated or predicted results are to be rejected
>> or not in hypothesis testing, in the scientific
>> method).
>>
>> You're right in that scientists are only allowed
>> and allowing science, including correct experimental
>> design and etcetera.
>>
>> To then actually _prove_ the nature of the Universe
>> or its features would necessarily follow from a
>> consistent, complete, and complete purely mathematically
>> logical theory that then is also scientific, or a
>> Real Theory of Everything.  (I call this A-Theory and
>> the Null Axiom Theory, it is an axiomless system of
>> natural deduction, and follows from simple logical
>> principles of constancy and variety, and diversity in
>> variety, and uniformity in diversity, for a Continuum.)
>>
>> Then features as of this "Continuum Infinitesimal
>> Analysis" is in the mathematical part for real
>> analysis, somewhat above the total underpinnings
>> of all theory.  (Also it's shown that it so results.)
>>
>> It's OK for science to have the universe having
>> infinitely many things in it and to be infinite,
>> as it is unbounded (else there wouldn't be a "we").
>
>
> so, what is the age of this infinite universe of we?
>

   The observed age of the observable universe is about 13.8 GYr.


-- 

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]

#530656

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 3:33:03 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > 
> > On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 7:25:51 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > > On 11/4/15 8:07 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > I wonder how you'd entertain that gravity is
> > > > > > actually repulsive from the edges of the universe,
> > > > > > and that mass occludes it as a force, so, then
> > > > > > objects are drawn together locally as the block
> > > > > > each other out (then that this matches attractive
> > > > > > gravity up to basically the same sphere of influence).
> > > > > > Then gravity is a feature of the substrate instead of
> > > > > > the bodies, which are defined by the nuclear force(s).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >    I hate to break this to you, Ross, but the universe doesn't
> > > > >    have edges.
> > > > >
> > > > >    No Center
> > > > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> > > > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
> > > > >
> > > > >    Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
> > > > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
> > > > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
> > > > >      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
> > > > >
> > > > >    WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
> > > > >      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
> > > > >
> > > > >    WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> > > > >      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The universe is effectively infinite and unbounded, yes.
> > >
> > >
> > > You mean mathematically speaking and philoshphy speaking, but it sure
> > > ain't Science speaking.
> > 
> > It's courtesy a "mathematical universe hypothesis",
> > then that all the physical objects (eg field elements
> > are mathematical objects) as are the functions between
> > them (that are also field elements) and etcetera ad
> > infinitum that there are thusly _infinitely many_
> > physical objects in the universe courtesy reason
> > and definition.
> > 
> > So, this is under science, in reasoning, with that the
> > objects in the universe, have that there are infinitely
> > many different ones in all the diverse combinations and
> > all theirs ad infinitum.
> > 
> > That follows from the definition of a universe and
> > unboundedly many things in it:   there are infinitely
> > many things in it.  There isn't an upper bound on
> > any upper bound.  This is also true or we'd all be in
> > the same reference frame, and all one thing.
> > 
> > Then, it's the philosophical/theoretical that the
> > Continuum is infinite, then that simple principles
> > of reserve so define the laws of the mathematical
> > universe then for the physical universe (then that
> > estimated or predicted results are to be rejected
> > or not in hypothesis testing, in the scientific
> > method).
> > 
> > You're right in that scientists are only allowed
> > and allowing science, including correct experimental
> > design and etcetera.
> > 
> > To then actually _prove_ the nature of the Universe
> > or its features would necessarily follow from a
> > consistent, complete, and complete purely mathematically
> > logical theory that then is also scientific, or a
> > Real Theory of Everything.  (I call this A-Theory and
> > the Null Axiom Theory, it is an axiomless system of
> > natural deduction, and follows from simple logical
> > principles of constancy and variety, and diversity in
> > variety, and uniformity in diversity, for a Continuum.)
> > 
> > Then features as of this "Continuum Infinitesimal
> > Analysis" is in the mathematical part for real
> > analysis, somewhat above the total underpinnings
> > of all theory.  (Also it's shown that it so results.)
> > 
> > It's OK for science to have the universe having
> > infinitely many things in it and to be infinite,
> > as it is unbounded (else there wouldn't be a "we").
> 
> 
> so, what is the age of this infinite universe of we?

Isn't a current estimate 13.6 billion years?

If it has a beginning, time's a ray, 
if it's forever, time's a line.

Somehow it's both Steady State and Big Bang 
as original!

Basically the age result follows from there 
being an origin or birth of the Universe, 
the estimate of all the matter/energy and 
how long it would take to so disperse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

You figure G-d would keep it simple as He 
could, and let the numbers sort it out, 
for utter constancy in all variety.

Here that's not an appeal instead rather 
that via reason, the most simple thing it 
could be is what it is, and we're not 
humble enough to say that it could be 
anything else.

May G-d have mercy on our souls and strike 
down the wicked.  (Temples fingers.)  Yes, 
strike down the wicked.  G-d would only 
have enough time to field prayers if he 
was already done building the universe.

We're scientists, theism does not necessarily 
enter into any fact, thank you, and, I don't 
know you from Abraham.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530703

ever increment of telescopy,
Universe gets that much larger.  now, iff
you have been to a presentation of far redshift objects,
you will know just how fuzzy logic came into being
... what's his name ... ask Bart koskO at u.s.c

> We're scientists, theism does not necessarily 
> enter into any fact, thank you, and, I don't 
> know you from Abraham.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530423

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 1:17:13 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:05:32 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On 11/1/15 11:44 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:57:04 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote:
> >>>> For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number
> >>>> 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside
> >>>> the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even
> >>>> exist.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
> >>>   it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
> >>>   there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
> >>>   spinning make little sense.
> >>
> >> You are raving mad! ....and very confused...Probably a C- student like all
> >> Einsten worshipers. It is the direction of spin that has no reference. Rotation
> >> itself is absolute.
> >> This is off topic anyway.
> >>
> >> Space is not a 'spatial interval'. It is a void that has no 'size'.  If at any
> >> instant a particular sphere encloses an entire universe, there is nothing to
> >> prevent objects from moving outside that sphere and enlarging that universe.
> >>
> >> It is not impossible that other universes might exist, entirely enclosed in
> >> spheres that are separated from each other by a length (a spatial interval).
> >>
> >> Space, being entirely mathematical, can accommodate any number of separated
> >> objects.  Even your Big Bang theory requires something like this.
> >>
> >
> >   Ralph, imagine that the *only objects in the whole universe* were a
> >   number1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship.
> >
> >   What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
> >   it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
> >   there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
> >   spinning make little sense.
> 
> This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are
> gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap.
> 
> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
> much bigger than I previously thought.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529485

In article
<jgu93bd0ogku4nmjiubfd3dvdic7g2p2cu@4ax.com>, 
hw@.. posted:
> 
> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those
> objects are defined in terms of spatial intervals and
> their movements in time intervals. All the space and time
> intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We
> cannot mentally understand how any such interval can
> extend to infinity and we know of none that does. 
> 
> Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have
> beginnings and ends in the physical sense, we wrongly
> deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME and
> SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings
> and ends when in fact they are only mathematical scales. 
>  
> In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is
> based entirely on intervals, we misconceive the space
> dimension itself to be an interval when, in fact, it is
> just a convenience used to define inter-relationships
> between spatial intervals.   
> 
> The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space
> and time is therefore shown to be just a psychological
> misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more relevance
> to space or time that it does, for instance, to the
> colour red. It is only meaningful with regard to
> dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world all
> intervals must be finite by definition. 

Just because you yourself do not know or understand some
things does not mean that they are unknowable. Another
person may know or understand what you don't, and vice
versa.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529880

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> 
> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in
> terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. All the space
> and time intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We cannot
> mentally understand how any such interval can extend to infinity and we know of
> none that does.
> 
> Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings and ends in
> the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME
> and SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings and ends when in
> fact they are only mathematical scales.
> 
> In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based entirely on
> intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to be an interval when, in
> fact, it is just a convenience used to define inter-relationships between
> spatial intervals.
> 
> The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is therefore
> shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more
> relevance to space or time that it does, for instance, to the colour red. It is
> only meaningful with regard to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world
> all intervals must be finite by definition.
> 
> 



Infinity is a movie with no ending but it is still in film production.


The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529905

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 22:36:20 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> 
>> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in
>> terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. All the space
>> and time intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We cannot
>> mentally understand how any such interval can extend to infinity and we know of
>> none that does.
>> 
>> Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings and ends in
>> the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME
>> and SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings and ends when in
>> fact they are only mathematical scales.
>> 
>> In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based entirely on
>> intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to be an interval when, in
>> fact, it is just a convenience used to define inter-relationships between
>> spatial intervals.
>> 
>> The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is therefore
>> shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more
>> relevance to space or time that it does, for instance, to the colour red. It is
>> only meaningful with regard to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world
>> all intervals must be finite by definition.
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
>Infinity is a movie with no ending but it is still in film production.

Infinity is a mathematical concept and so is space.
>
>
>The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529942

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 22:36:20 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> >>
> >> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in
> >> terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. All the space
> >> and time intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We cannot
> >> mentally understand how any such interval can extend to infinity and we know of
> >> none that does.
> >>
> >> Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings and ends in
> >> the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME
> >> and SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings and ends when in
> >> fact they are only mathematical scales.
> >>
> >> In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based entirely on
> >> intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to be an interval when, in
> >> fact, it is just a convenience used to define inter-relationships between
> >> spatial intervals.
> >>
> >> The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is therefore
> >> shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more
> >> relevance to space or time that it does, for instance, to the colour red. It is
> >> only meaningful with regard to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world
> >> all intervals must be finite by definition.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >Infinity is a movie with no ending but it is still in film production.
> 
> Infinity is a mathematical concept and so is space.
> >
> >
> >The Starmaker


space is a concept??? I never heard that.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530724

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 08:59:13 -0800, The Starmaker wrote:

> Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> 
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 22:36:20 -0800, The Starmaker
>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are
>> >> defined in terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time
>> >> intervals. All the space and time intervals we experience have a
>> >> beginning and an end. We cannot mentally understand how any such
>> >> interval can extend to infinity and we know of none that does.
>> >>
>> >> Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings
>> >> and ends in the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic
>> >> dimensions we know as TIME and SPACE should themselves also possess
>> >> physical beginnings and ends when in fact they are only mathematical
>> >> scales.
>> >>
>> >> In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based
>> >> entirely on intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to
>> >> be an interval when, in fact, it is just a convenience used to
>> >> define inter-relationships between spatial intervals.
>> >>
>> >> The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time
>> >> is therefore shown to be just a psychological misconception. The
>> >> word 'infinite' has no more relevance to space or time that it does,
>> >> for instance, to the colour red. It is only meaningful with regard
>> >> to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world all intervals
>> >> must be finite by definition.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>


>> >
>> >
>> >Infinity is a movie with no ending but it is still in film production.
>> 
>> Infinity is a mathematical concept and so is space.
>> >
>> >
>> >The Starmaker
> 
> 
> space is a concept??? I never heard that.

You learn something every day.

Space is not a spatial interval. Space is what spatial intervals create.

Get it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#531094 — time is not a dimension per se (it is awareness of dimensionality

volumetrically (or weight-wise,
space is pi-dimenaional ... I mean,
space is three-dimensional, but
in other phsyically-tested ways, it is eleven-dimensional (but,
that began with 4+1 dimension, if one has
to include time, as a generic dimension

> Space is not a spatial interval. Space is what spatial intervals create.
> 
> Get it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529883

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:42:04 PM UTC+2, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in
> terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. All the space
> and time intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We cannot
> mentally understand how any such interval can extend to infinity and we know of
> none that does. 
> 
> Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings and ends in
> the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME
> and SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings and ends when in
> fact they are only mathematical scales.  
> 
> In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based entirely on
> intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to be an interval when, in
> fact, it is just a convenience used to define inter-relationships between
> spatial intervals.   
> 
> The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is therefore
> shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more
> relevance to space or time that it does, for instance, to the colour red. It is
> only meaningful with regard to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world
> all intervals must be finite by definition.

========================
no need for too many abstract  in  obliging words :

just tell us some of your your bottom line:


IS CURVED SPACE TIME  -CURVED OR
IS IT A BULLSHIT IDEA ???
2

are in space parts  that are completely empty !!!

TIA
Y.Porat
================================

tia
y.pORAT
===========================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530850

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:42:04 PM UTC+2, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in
> terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. All the space
> and time intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We cannot
> mentally understand how any such interval can extend to infinity and we know of
> none that does. 
> 
> Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings and ends in
> the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME
> and SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings and ends when in
> fact they are only mathematical scales.  
> 
> In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based entirely on
> intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to be an interval when, in
> fact, it is just a convenience used to define inter-relationships between
> spatial intervals.   
> 
> The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is therefore
> shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more
> relevance to space or time that it does, for instance, to the colour red. It is
> only meaningful with regard to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world
> all intervals must be finite by definition.

===================================
space is nothing - no properties whatsoever
except hosting mass!!!
had there been no absolute emptiness

NO MOTION WHATSOEVER COULD BE DONE!!
 old copyright
Eng
Yehiel Porat
=============================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#531177

you got nothing of any "newness, or interest,
monsieur po R at;
you are merely illite rat e

> space is nothing - no properties whatsoever
> except hosting mass!!!
> had there been no absolute emptiness
> 
> NO MOTION WHATSOEVER COULD BE DONE!!
>  old copyright
> Eng
> Yehiel Porat
> =============================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#531382

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 6:58:23 PM UTC+2, noTthaTguY wrote:
> you got nothing of any "newness, or interest,
> monsieur po R at;
> you are merely illite rat e
> 
> > space is nothing - no properties whatsoever
> > except hosting mass!!!
> > had there been no absolute emptiness
> > 
> > NO MOTION WHATSOEVER COULD BE DONE!!
> >  old copyright
> > Eng
> > Yehiel Porat
> > =============================

anonymous P D gangster
go fuck your mother !!
=================================

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web