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

Groups > sci.physics > #681500 > unrolled thread

The Shape of the Universe.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-17 23:36 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-18 00:12 -0700
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-18 00:42 -0700
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-04-18 22:26 +1000
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-18 17:02 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-04-18 17:33 +1000
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-18 10:27 -0700
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-04-19 12:19 +1000
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-19 23:51 -0700
            Re: The Shape of the Universe. SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-04-21 22:02 +1000
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-21 09:25 -0700
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-04-22 16:23 +1000
                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-22 13:48 -0700
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. SolomonW <SoloomonW@citi.com.au> - 2018-04-23 10:35 +1000
                      Re: The Shape of the Universe. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 17:55 -0700
                        Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-22 18:29 -0700
                      Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-22 21:13 -0700
                        Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-22 23:23 -0700
                          Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-22 23:31 -0700
                        Re: The Shape of the Universe. SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-04-23 20:04 +1000
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-18 10:18 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-18 13:33 -0400
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-19 23:53 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-04-20 07:38 -0400
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-20 10:07 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 19:33 -0700
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-21 20:40 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-22 20:21 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-23 10:31 -0500
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-04-23 14:16 -0700
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-23 22:50 -0700
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-04-24 20:48 +1000
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-24 08:49 -0700
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-24 08:50 -0700
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-24 23:21 -0500
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-04-25 20:25 +1000
        Re: The Shape of the Universe. Klaus Meinhard <k_meinhard@gmx.de> - 2018-04-25 08:53 +0200
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-04-25 20:28 +1000
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-25 10:42 -0500
            Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-25 13:33 -0700
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-25 22:53 -0500
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-26 00:00 -0700
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-27 21:18 +0000
                  Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-27 14:36 -0700
                    Re: Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was. Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-27 21:44 +0000
                      You're a consumer. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-27 14:52 -0700
                        Re: You're a consumer. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-27 19:07 -0400
                    Re: Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-04-27 15:54 -0700
                      Toss a rock up, and it "remembers" to come down. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-27 16:23 -0700
                        Re: Toss a rock up, and it "remembers" to come down. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-04-28 15:09 -0700
                    Re: Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-27 19:05 -0400
                    Re: Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-02 15:47 -0500
                      Gravity is SpaceTime, the 4D TimeScape; it's everywhere, always. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-05-02 14:30 -0700
                        Re: Gravity is SpaceTime, the 4D TimeScape; it's everywhere, always. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-03 06:53 +0000
                          Where/When is there no Energy/Matter ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-05-03 01:11 -0700
                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-27 16:38 -0500
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-27 21:53 +0000
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-29 03:27 +0200
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-29 03:06 +0200
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-04-26 19:44 +1000
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-26 08:18 -0700
                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-04-28 00:16 +1000
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-27 07:46 -0700
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-28 11:52 +0000
                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-28 14:23 -0400
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-05-01 11:07 +0000
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 12:33 -0500
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-28 14:34 -0400
                  Re: The Shape of the Universe. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-28 22:33 -0500
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-29 03:17 -0400
                    Re: The Shape of the Universe. "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2018-04-29 09:21 -0400
                      Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-29 07:26 -0700
                Re: The Shape of the Universe. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-28 11:44 -0700
            Re: The Shape of the Universe. Klaus Meinhard <k_meinhard@gmx.de> - 2018-04-27 09:47 +0200
              Re: The Shape of the Universe. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2018-04-27 21:39 +0200
          Re: The Shape of the Universe. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-25 15:33 -0700
    Re: The Shape of the Universe. jasinski.ryszard.21@gmail.com - 2018-04-26 01:24 -0700
    The Shape of the Universe. swormley1@gmail.com - 2018-04-27 16:39 -0700
      Re: The Shape of the Universe. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-27 20:46 -0400

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#681572

Mark Earnest wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 1:36:51 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Shape of the Universe.
> >
> > There seems to be a question whether the universe if flat or curved.
> >
> > The answer is very simple..the universe is both flat and curved.
> >
> > If you go very fast in one direction at eye level...you will return and
> >
> > see the back of your head. Because the universe is curved.
> >
> > But the flat part of the curved universe can easily be seen...
> >
> > if you look down, or go down you will quickly hit the floor of the universe...and
> >
> > if you go up, you can touch the top of the universe.
> >
> > But if you move at eye level straight, it curves.
> >
> > But here is the catch..
> >
> > in order to get pass the curvature of the universe to get pass the curvature..where
> >
> > the universe is infinite, you need to get pass the curvature 'ring' of the universe.
> >
> > Just simply picture a medium size pizza (with pepperoni) inside a very large infinite size pizza flat box.
> 
> Please clarify exactly what you mean by the universe being curved.  The planet Earth is curved.  The Moon is curved.  Women are curved.


The pizza in the box is curved all around.

Didn't you bother to look into the box?

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

#681580

On 4/18/2018 2:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Shape of the Universe.
> 
> There seems to be a question whether the universe if flat or curved.
> 
> The answer is very simple..the universe is both flat and curved.
> 
> If you go very fast in one direction at eye level...you will return and
> 
> see the back of your head. Because the universe is curved.
> 
> But the flat part of the curved universe can easily be seen...
> 
> if you look down, or go down you will quickly hit the floor of the universe...and
> 
> if you go up, you can touch the top of the universe.
> 
> But if you move at eye level straight, it curves.
> 
> But here is the catch..
> 
> in order to get pass the curvature of the universe to get pass the curvature..where
> 
> the universe is infinite, you need to get pass the curvature 'ring' of the universe.
> 
> Just simply picture a medium size pizza (with pepperoni) inside a very large infinite size pizza flat box.
> 
Faker, this is utter babbling drool. You are NEVER going to have a clue 
about science and math.You just babble one like Mitch figuring that if 
you can make as little sense as possible people will mistake it for the 
hard to understand theories of Einstein. Sorry, Faker but people who 
understand science will spot your babble right away. The only people you 
are fooling are people dumber than yourself. (which isn't many)

Only human stupidity is known to be infinite.

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

#681743

benj wrote:
> 
> On 4/18/2018 2:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Shape of the Universe.
> >
> > There seems to be a question whether the universe if flat or curved.
> >
> > The answer is very simple..the universe is both flat and curved.
> >
> > If you go very fast in one direction at eye level...you will return and
> >
> > see the back of your head. Because the universe is curved.
> >
> > But the flat part of the curved universe can easily be seen...
> >
> > if you look down, or go down you will quickly hit the floor of the universe...and
> >
> > if you go up, you can touch the top of the universe.
> >
> > But if you move at eye level straight, it curves.
> >
> > But here is the catch..
> >
> > in order to get pass the curvature of the universe to get pass the curvature..where
> >
> > the universe is infinite, you need to get pass the curvature 'ring' of the universe.
> >
> > Just simply picture a medium size pizza (with pepperoni) inside a very large infinite size pizza flat box.
> >
> Faker, this is utter babbling drool. You are NEVER going to have a clue
> about science and math.You just babble one like Mitch figuring that if
> you can make as little sense as possible people will mistake it for the
> hard to understand theories of Einstein. Sorry, Faker but people who
> understand science will spot your babble right away. The only people you
> are fooling are people dumber than yourself. (which isn't many)
> 
> Only human stupidity is known to be infinite.


are you going to do the "infinite stupidity" quote...infinitly?

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

#681744

The Universe means by definition EVERYTHING, so it doesn't have a
shape, in any reasonable sense.

If e.g. you say it's a sphere, then outside the sphere is by
definition also part of the universe, hence the whole has no shape.

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

#681775

casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
> 
> The Universe means by definition EVERYTHING, so it doesn't have a
> shape, in any reasonable sense.
> 
> If e.g. you say it's a sphere, then outside the sphere is by
> definition also part of the universe, hence the whole has no shape.



Well, 'these people' in the scientific community view the universe as everything in the big bang.

I cannot get pass their...groupthink mentality. I have to work with it...it's first grade science.

I'll lose them if I start teaching second grade science...


The only thing they understand is...pizza.



Now class...i got a slice of pizza in my hand, it has a curve on it...

Like...How Come?

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

#681932

On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 11:36:54 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Shape of the Universe.
> 
> There seems to be a question whether the universe if flat or curved.
> 
> The answer is very simple..the universe is both flat and curved.
> 
> If you go very fast in one direction at eye level...you will return and
> 
> see the back of your head. Because the universe is curved.
> 
> But the flat part of the curved universe can easily be seen...
> 
> if you look down, or go down you will quickly hit the floor of the universe...and
> 
> if you go up, you can touch the top of the universe.
> 
> But if you move at eye level straight, it curves.
> 
> But here is the catch..
> 
> in order to get pass the curvature of the universe to get pass the curvature..where
> 
> the universe is infinite, you need to get pass the curvature 'ring' of the universe.
> 
> Just simply picture a medium size pizza (with pepperoni) inside a very large infinite size pizza flat box.

Could be shaped like a vortex.Could be shaped like a Mobius circle.Be nice if it was heart shaped.Bert

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

#681946

"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote> 
> Could be shaped like a vortex.Could be shaped like 
a Mobius circle.Be nice if it was heart shaped.Bert"
to which...
>
Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
"Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup."
"Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__."
"Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!."
>
"Glazier, your brain is entangled with a used garbage can."
"Glazier, your science is far worse than the man's on the street."
"Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage."
>
"Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup."
"Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__."
"Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!."
>
"reber, take your 'you know it all thinking' to your grave" .
"reber, your horseshit gets old. Say hi to Allah for me.:
"reber, you don't believe in science."
>
Glazier's neo-tutor Sam Wormley <olli.dp3@gmail.com> wrote:
"Herb you are Fucking pathetic.
Herb, you have spun a few too many times and are now
in a fucking stupor.  Fits your theory of spin is in--sane,.
& is part of your dead brain theory, eh Herb.  Oh Ya!"
>
Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com>
"Harlow Campbell" succinctly added & wrote:
>
"Bert, your opinion doesn't count"
"a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert"
"Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker"....
"Bert you are senile, dazed & confused"
"Bert, you are Fucked in the head.
>
"Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)"
"TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker".
"Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking
moron who ever came down the Mass Pike."
"Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?"
>
"Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human
fucking being". "Bert you are an idiot."
"Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet."
"Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get
some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck".
>
"Bert, you should be arrested"
"Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your
van seems to be a center for drug activity in the
Wal-Mart parking lot"... .... .... about which....
 >
Aviation Consultant Jim Pennino jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
Glazier, you are a spamming piece of shit...
Your Cocaine usage explains a lot of your posts.
You know nothing about government nor physics.
You are drunk again. Give up and kill yourself.
 >
Astrophysicist "Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote:
>
GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT!
Saul Levy
>
Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
I know, you reber are an idiot. Glazier, you are babbling
desperately. Is it sympathy or pity you're grasping for?
Stop it, either way.
 >
"benj" Benjamin Franklin Jacoby <nobody@gmail.com>  wrote:
One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was
lobotomized.
But Herb found poster "Double-A" <double-a3@hush.com>
who likes to be like Glazier, but AA, the "Alcoholic Addict"
who is Glazier's "Ass Angel" & his  "Asshole Ambassador",
is just another kook who is as dumb as Bert is, ...
>
AA, Abner Afterduft (Yiddish for "'Asshole Aroma") also
promotes that shitting into a bucket in a car is a laudable
accomplishment... and both being Marxist Communists
they demand entitlement to goods and services that were
created by hardworking people while they themselves get
loaded & expect and demand "to be loved by all"...
>
hanson wrote:
So Glazier, given your loud self-pimping of your Jewish
Supremacy and your IQ of 122 and you knowing how
how everything works, and your advertized ownership of
an entire block of residential properties in addition to a
hangar full of valuable collector cars, on the East Coast...
>
... how come you, Glazier ended up shitting into a bucket
in a 25 year old Minnie Mouse van that you use as your
residence, illegally parked, on Wal-Mart's Parking Lot
in Anaheim California? ..... .... What went wrong, Glazier?
 >
What went wrong Glazier, that at the ripe age of eighty (80)
you, Glazier, became a Face-shitter & a criminal Graveyard
Vandal who wrote, but is unable or unwilling to explain why:
>
(1)
On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier, the necrophiliac, wrote in:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J
Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert.
 >
Glazier's geriatric decay worsened, along with Glazier's chronic
alcoholism and Glazier, the Olde Kacker, and criminal Graveyard
Vandal became a Coprophiliac at his age of  86, all of which
Glazier proudly announced & posted...
 >
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, Jew-Swine Glazier
said to "benj" <nobody@gmail.com>: Reality is you always
post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... adding
>
On 03Aug2017:
benj, you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears.
>
after which Glazier, the Criminal Graveyard Vandal & Face
Shitter got even worse over the next year and at Glazier's
age of 87, Glazier widened his piggish Face-shitting habit,
as seen when Glazier threatened...
 >
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, as Swine Glazier wrote:
Harlow HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your face to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
>
(4)
The Criminal Swine Glazier is still rejecting to recant, disavow &
apologize, as of this day for
<https://tinyurl.com/Glazier-s-sexual-harassments>, even
while <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-s-de-Minting > goes
on & <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker>
waits with the gruesome end that she has in store for Bert,
but Glazier the Swine posted: "hanson made me famous"....
 >
hanson wrote
So, Glazier you Swine, you should be grateful to me & not wish
me ill like you did above in your sick hate mongering, since
it is only because of hanson, that Web-searches show for:
>
--- Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin        ----  3'327'833 hits & rising
--- reber g=emc^2 Face-shitter & mooch ---- 3'947'953 hits & rising
--- Glazier criminal Graveyard Vandal     ---- 3'653'334 hits & rising

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

#682041

On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 11:36:54 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Shape of the Universe.
> 
> There seems to be a question whether the universe if flat or curved.
> 
> The answer is very simple..the universe is both flat and curved.
> 
> If you go very fast in one direction at eye level...you will return and
> 
> see the back of your head. Because the universe is curved.
> 
> But the flat part of the curved universe can easily be seen...
> 
> if you look down, or go down you will quickly hit the floor of the universe...and
> 
> if you go up, you can touch the top of the universe.
> 
> But if you move at eye level straight, it curves.
> 
> But here is the catch..
> 
> in order to get pass the curvature of the universe to get pass the curvature..where
> 
> the universe is infinite, you need to get pass the curvature 'ring' of the universe.
> 
> Just simply picture a medium size pizza (with pepperoni) inside a very large infinite size pizza flat box.

The closed universe is with the higher round.
What is the shape of the Hypersphere Universe?
It is higher round expanding boundary with the
universe of time floating in it.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#682094

[I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you do is 
post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that your usual 
nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth responding to as 
it may surprise some readers.]

On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> the universe is both flat and curved.

Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This happens 
because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean by "the universe" 
-- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two ways, which makes this 
seemingly silly statement actually be correct.

In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space is flat.

	[I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
	 and won't understand anyway.]

Tom Roberts

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

#682142

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:31:11 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you do is 
> post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that your usual 
> nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth responding to as 
> it may surprise some readers.]
> 
> On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > the universe is both flat and curved.
> 
> Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This happens 
> because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean by "the universe" 
> -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two ways, which makes this 
> seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
> 
> In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space is flat.
> 
> 	[I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
> 	 and won't understand anyway.]
> 
> Tom Roberts


If spaceTIME is curved and space is flat, does that imply that only time is curved?

Double-A

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

#682187

Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you do is
> post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that your usual
> nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth responding to as
> it may surprise some readers.]

That is called...the disclaimer. It always starts with  "I rarely read your posts or reply to you because..."







> 
> On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > the universe is both flat and curved.
> 
> Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This happens
> because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean by "the universe"
> -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two ways, which makes this
> seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
> 
> In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space is flat.

Sorry, I don't suscribe to  "*Our* current"...  "our" translates to...groupthink.

> 
>         [I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
>          and won't understand anyway.]
> 
> Tom Roberts

I already put the pizza (spaceTIME is curved) in the box (space is flat)..

There are a million ways to say the same thing and not know you're saying the same thing.

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

#682203

Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
> [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you 
> do is post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that 
> your usual nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth 
> responding to as it may surprise some readers.]
> 
> On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> the universe is both flat and curved.
> 
> Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This 
> happens because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean 
> by "the universe" -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two 
> ways, which makes this seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
> 
> In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space 
> is flat.
> 
>      [I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
>       and won't understand anyway.]
> 
> Tom Roberts

How can space possibly be "flat"??

Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go East-West 
and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!

In the Milky Way Galaxy, one day I might be able to go directly towards 
the Galaxy Centre, or follow our spiral arm, or go up, out of the 
Galactic disk .... three dimensions!!

And other Galaxies aren't all in the same plane ... three dimensions!!

And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ... 
three dimensions!!
-- 
Daniel

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

#682230

Daniel60 wrote:
> 
> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
> > [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you
> > do is post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that
> > your usual nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth
> > responding to as it may surprise some readers.]
> >
> > On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> the universe is both flat and curved.
> >
> > Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This
> > happens because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean
> > by "the universe" -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two
> > ways, which makes this seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
> >
> > In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space
> > is flat.
> >
> >  Â Â Â Â [I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
> >  Â Â Â Â  and won't understand anyway.]
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> How can space possibly be "flat"??
> 
> Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go East-West
> and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!
> 
> In the Milky Way Galaxy, one day I might be able to go directly towards
> the Galaxy Centre, or follow our spiral arm, or go up, out of the
> Galactic disk .... three dimensions!!
> 
> And other Galaxies aren't all in the same plane ... three dimensions!!
> 
> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
> three dimensions!!
> --
> Daniel

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

#682231

Daniel60 wrote:
> 
> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
> > [I rarely read your posts or reply to you because it seems that all you
> > do is post nonsense. But I happened to see this one, and noticed that
> > your usual nonsense 'just happens' to be correct, in a way that is worth
> > responding to as it may surprise some readers.]
> >
> > On 4/18/18 1:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> the universe is both flat and curved.
> >
> > Yes, this is so, in a way you clearly do not realize or understand. This
> > happens because you speak so loosely, without specifying what you mean
> > by "the universe" -- that ambiguity can sensibly be interpreted two
> > ways, which makes this seemingly silly statement actually be correct.
> >
> > In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but space
> > is flat.
> >
> >  Â Â Â Â [I won't bore you with the details, as you clearly don't care,
> >  Â Â Â Â  and won't understand anyway.]
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> How can space possibly be "flat"??
> 
> Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go East-West
> and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!
> 
> In the Milky Way Galaxy, one day I might be able to go directly towards
> the Galaxy Centre, or follow our spiral arm, or go up, out of the
> Galactic disk .... three dimensions!!
> 
> And other Galaxies aren't all in the same plane ... three dimensions!!
> 
> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
> three dimensions!!
> --
> Daniel

Based on my observations...that which you call the big bang..the stars spread out in all directions because the top was flat and
they had to go in all directions because they needed to spread out some more.

Down...is where they came from. Up is where they went. But, there was was not much room Up, so they went 
this way and that way....that which you call...spread out.

I mean, really...if you go inside a pizza box...there is not much room up or down. It's flat!

The pizza is flat! The box it comes in is flat!!

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

#682303

On 4/24/18 5:48 AM, Daniel60 wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
>> In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but 
>> space is flat.
> 
> How can space possibly be "flat"??

Here "flat" is a technical term meaning that the Riemann curvature 
tensor is identically zero.

> Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go East-West 
> and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!

Sure.

> [...] three dimensions!

My use of "flat" does not imply 2 dimensions, as you seem to think. 
Indeed it can apply to manifolds of any dimension greater than 1.

Tom Roberts

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

#682311

Tom Roberts wrote on 25/04/18 14:21:
> On 4/24/18 5:48 AM, Daniel60 wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote on 24/04/18 01:31:
>>> In our current best cosmological models, spaceTIME is curved, but 
>>> space is flat.
>>
>> How can space possibly be "flat"??
> 
> Here "flat" is a technical term meaning that the Riemann curvature 
> tensor is identically zero.
> 
>> Seems to me, here on Earth, I can go North-South, and I can go 
>> East-West and I can go Up-Down ... three dimensions!!
> 
> Sure.
> 
>> [...] three dimensions!
> 
> My use of "flat" does not imply 2 dimensions, as you seem to think. 
> Indeed it can apply to manifolds of any dimension greater than 1.
> 
> Tom Roberts

Well, why didn't you say so?? ;-P

-- 
Daniel

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

#682309

Hallo Daniel60,

> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ... 
> three dimensions!!

ahem - 4?



-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Klaus Meinhard

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

#682312

Klaus Meinhard wrote on 25/04/18 16:53:
> Hallo Daniel60,
> 
>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
>> three dimensions!!
> 
> ahem - 4?
> 
as, I think, Time is the fourth dimension ... yes, I'll give you that!!

-- 
Daniel

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

#682320

On 4/25/18 1:53 AM, Klaus Meinhard wrote:
>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
>> three dimensions!!
> 
> ahem - 4?

No. At least not in the usual modeling of the world as a 4-d Lorentzian 
manifold. In such a model, we analysts are outside the model [#], and we can 
(necessarily) examine the model at any time or place (where those words refer to 
time and place in the model, not our analysts' world). So over analysts' time 
the model is fixed (i.e. not 'expanding').

	[#] Even if we are modeling the universe we inhabit. We humans
	cannot possibly be part of the model, but we are part of the
	universe.

This is the origin of the MISLEADING and PUNFUL claim "nothing moves in 
spacetime". That phrase conflates time in the model to time to us analysts. Yes, 
as analysts' time advances the model does not change (or 'move'). But for 
objects in the universe being modeled, motion certainly is possible.

Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding over time. 
But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our universe is expanding 
in 3 dimensions, not 4.

Tom Roberts

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

#682360

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
"Daniel60" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions  three 
>>> dimensions!!
>>
"Klaus Meinhard" <k_meinhard@gmx.de> wrote
>> ahem - 4?
>
"Tom Roberts" wrote:
> No. At least not in the usual modeling of the world as a 4-d Lorentzian 
> manifold. In such a model, we analysts are outside the model [#], and we 
> can (necessarily) examine the model at any time or place (where those 
> words refer to time and place in the model, not our analysts' world). So 
> over analysts' time the model is fixed (i.e. not 'expanding').
>
> [#] Even if we are modeling the universe we inhabit. We humans
> cannot possibly be part of the model, but we are part of the
> universe.
>
> This is the origin of the MISLEADING and PUNFUL claim "nothing moves in 
> spacetime". That phrase conflates time in the model to time to us 
> analysts. Yes, as analysts' time advances the model does not change (or 
> 'move'). But for objects in the universe being modeled, motion certainly 
> is possible.
>
> Back to the original issue: to us in the universe, space is expanding over 
> time. But it makes no sense to claim "time is expanding", so our universe 
> is expanding in 3 dimensions, not 4.
>
> Tom Roberts:
>
hanson wrote:
So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
Has anybody ever observed, measured and recorded the
"thing" that our 3D space is embedding in?
Modeling nature is just palavering about observations.
Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web