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

Groups > sci.physics > #530329 > unrolled thread

Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#530329 — Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:09:49 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/2/15 1:58 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:07:47 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/2/15 8:51 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
> >>>>> much bigger than I previously thought.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>     But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in
> >>>>     some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute
> >>>>     rotation, Henry.
> >>>
> >>> That is nonsense. For things to rotate, a force must be applied to them.
> >>> otherwise they will continue in straight lines. It the whole system of rods was
> >>> rotating, it would soon fly apart.
> >>>
> >>
> >>    Lots of contradictions in your statements, Henry!
> >
> > But you can't say what they are?
> >
> 
> 
>    The only kind of motion that can be detected without reference to
>    external objects that define a reference frame, is rotation. However,
>    that require all the momentum-energy of the universe and you, Ralph
>    just proposed a universe with only your meter sticks.
> 
>    Rotation is meaningless without the universe as we know it.
> 
> 

No reason to go beating him up about it.

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).

Wondering how this might simplify the systems that 
basically sees objects fall together.

A simple two-body system is shown to be the same 
with either "attractive" or "repulsive" gravity.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#530353

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

-- 

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]

#530378

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.

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

#530379

On 11/4/15 1:44 PM, 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.
>

   Pretty much, although this is probably more accurate: The
   observable universe is finite and unbounded. What we cannot
   see from our perspective may be infinite.





-- 

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]

#530424

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/4/15 1:44 PM, 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.
> >
> 
>    Pretty much, although this is probably more accurate: The
>    observable universe is finite and unbounded. What we cannot
>    see from our perspective may be infinite.
> 
> 

Sam, about the "center", for example of a 
coordinate system:  the "origin" is everywhere, 
somehow.

In experiment, we are basically each observers 
in that "the origin is everywhere".

This is yet "anthropocentric" or "sentient-centric".

Still, any Mathematical Platonist may see that the 
Universe is the same result as it could be (for 
all observers).

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

This is a philosophical approach to theoretical 
physics.  (This is a scientific approach.)

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

#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] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web