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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#682435

"Daniel60" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
 > hanson wrote on 26/04/18 06:33:
>> "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.
>>>
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!
>> 
Daniel wrote:
> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside 
> of the balloon know what it is expanding into??
> -- Daniel
>
hanson wrote
Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
With that in mind, Daniel, ask your balloon, and
philosophize, whether the inside of your balloon 
knows what YOU are doing.... LOL!
>
You may get the perfect answer from SwineBert
Glazier who talks to the bucket that he shits into
and has profound conversions with, like you
 just did with the balloon you are blowing into.
<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO

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

#682594

hanson wrote on 27/04/18 01:18:
> 
> "Daniel60" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>  > hanson wrote on 26/04/18 06:33:
>>> "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.
>>>>
> 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!
>>>
> Daniel wrote:
>> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside of the balloon know what 
>> it is expanding into??
>> -- Daniel
>>
> hanson wrote
> Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
> With that in mind, Daniel, ask your balloon, and
> philosophize, whether the inside of your balloon knows what YOU are 
> doing.... LOL!
>>
> You may get the perfect answer from SwineBert
> Glazier who talks to the bucket that he shits into
> and has profound conversions with, like you
> just did with the balloon you are blowing into.
> <snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO
> 
Sorry, Hanson, you might know balloonese, but I do not.

-- 
Daniel

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

#682597

"Daniel60" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
> hanson wrote on 27/04/18 01:18:
>> "Daniel60" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>  > hanson wrote on 26/04/18 06:33:
>>>> "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.
>>>>>
>> 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!
>>>>
>> Daniel wrote:
>>> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside of the balloon know what 
>>> it is expanding into??
>>> -- Daniel
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Modeling is not physics. Modeling is Philosophy!
>> With that in mind, Daniel, ask your balloon, and
>> philosophize, whether the inside of your balloon knows what YOU are 
>> doing.... LOL!
>>>
>> You may get the perfect answer from SwineBert
>> Glazier who talks to the bucket that he shits into
>> and has profound conversions with, like you
>> just did with the balloon you are blowing into.
>> <snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO
>> 
Daniel wrote:
> Sorry, Hanson, you might know balloonese, but I do not.
> 
hanson wrote:
Daniel, enjoy your philosophizing. Carry on. .... LOL

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

#682736

Daniel60 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!
>> 
> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside of the balloon know what it
> is expanding into??

Unbelievable stupid question to be read. Moreover, the universe is not a 
balloon, not having the boundaries of a balloon, and that balloon analogy 
went already to far. But to fool the unaware, it makes probably sense.

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

#682772

On 4/28/2018 7:52 AM, Erin Koff wrote:
> Daniel60 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!
>>>
>> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside of the balloon know what it
>> is expanding into??
> 
> Unbelievable stupid question to be read. Moreover, the universe is not a
> balloon, not having the boundaries of a balloon, and that balloon analogy
> went already to far. But to fool the unaware, it makes probably sense.
> 
And the way you know the universe is not a balloon is? For propaganda 
purposes you don't need truth, just a "plausible" story.

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

#683111

benj wrote:


>>> When you blow up a balloon, does the inside of the balloon know what
>>> it is expanding into??
>> 
>> Unbelievable stupid question to be read. Moreover, the universe is not
>> a balloon, not having the boundaries of a balloon, and that balloon
>> analogy went already to far. But to fool the unaware, it makes probably
>> sense.
>> 
> And the way you know the universe is not a balloon is? For propaganda
> purposes you don't need truth, just a "plausible" story.

If you need an interpreter to demonstrate that to you, better get yourself 
a proper education, old days. Not remote online and shit.

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

#682762

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:33:04 -0700, "hanson" wrote:

> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?

Non sequitur.

Not expanding into anything.  It's just getting bigger.

Today there is more space than there was yesterday, so there's more room
between things.  Over short distances forces such as gravity overcome
that increasing separation, making it more difficult to observe.  Over
long distances they don't, making it much easier to observe.

Why is that so difficult?

-- 
Goat

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

#682776

On 4/28/2018 1:33 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:33:04 -0700, "hanson" wrote:
> 
>> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
> 
> Non sequitur.
> 
> Not expanding into anything.  It's just getting bigger.
> 
> Today there is more space than there was yesterday, so there's more room
> between things.  Over short distances forces such as gravity overcome
> that increasing separation, making it more difficult to observe.  Over
> long distances they don't, making it much easier to observe.
> 
> Why is that so difficult?
> 
Ah, space is "expanding" into the "nothing at all" that exists around 
space, right? I presume it is the nothing at all with properties, right?

You do understand that what you are saying makes no sense, right?

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

#682835

On 4/28/18 1:34 PM, benj wrote:
> Ah, space is "expanding" into the "nothing at all" that exists around 
> space, right? 

Wrong. The "nothing at all" does NOT exist, which is the whole point.

> I presume it is the nothing at all with properties, right?

Wrong. See above.

> You do understand that what you are saying makes no sense, right?

Wrong. It is YOUR misinterpretation which makes no sense.

The _ACTUAL_ model makes perfect sense to those who understand it. But 
the English language cannot express the concepts adequately [#]. So 
people like yourself, who depend entirely on language to "understand" 
the mathematical models of physics, are doomed to failure. The math is 
ESSENTIAL to understand the modern models/theories of physics.

	[#] Indeed there is no "nothing at all" of my first
	paragraph above. This illustrates the basis of the
	difficulty with the language -- using any linguistic
	referent is wrong, because there is nothing to refer to.
	The paragraph must be unwritten, the question must be
	unasked (see: _Goedel,_Escher,_Bach_ by D. Hofstadter).

Tom Roberts

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

#682840

On 4/28/2018 11:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/28/18 1:34 PM, benj wrote:
>> Ah, space is "expanding" into the "nothing at all" that exists around 
>> space, right? 
> 
> Wrong. The "nothing at all" does NOT exist, which is the whole point.

Hey, now you are starting to make sense. so the expansion is into that 
which does not exist which we must not term nothing at all!
Of course this is only possible mathematically speaking if the universe 
is infinite in extent given that infinity is the only thing that can 
expand without limit and still remain the same size (infinite).

>> I presume it is the nothing at all with properties, right?
> 
> Wrong. See above.

So that which does not exist cannot have properties! Now we really ARE 
starting to get some

>> You do understand that what you are saying makes no sense, right?
> 
> Wrong. It is YOUR misinterpretation which makes no sense.

Right. I'm an idiot because I didn't understand that "nothing at all" 
actually does not exist. Now that I"m straightened out, it's all falling 
into place.

> The _ACTUAL_ model makes perfect sense to those who understand it. But 
> the English language cannot express the concepts adequately [#]. So 
> people like yourself, who depend entirely on language to "understand" 
> the mathematical models of physics, are doomed to failure. The math is 
> ESSENTIAL to understand the modern models/theories of physics.
> 
>      [#] Indeed there is no "nothing at all" of my first
>      paragraph above. This illustrates the basis of the
>      difficulty with the language -- using any linguistic
>      referent is wrong, because there is nothing to refer to.
>      The paragraph must be unwritten, the question must be
>      unasked (see: _Goedel,_Escher,_Bach_ by D. Hofstadter).
> 
> Tom Roberts

So, Therefore we have arrived at your "proof" that the universe is 
clearly infinite and also that mathematics is more real than reality.

Well, now, isn't that some progress!

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

#682858

On 4/28/18 11:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/28/18 1:34 PM, benj wrote:
>> Ah, space is "expanding" into the "nothing at all" that exists around
>> space, right?
>
> Wrong. The "nothing at all" does NOT exist, which is the whole point.
>


	To put it another way, "Existence" is expanding. There is no outside 
because the expansion isn't "into" something. The expansion itself 
creates the very possibility of there BEING something.


-- 
                      Sea Wasp
                        /^\
                        ;;;	
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com  Blog: 
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org

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

#682861

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/28/18 1:34 PM, benj wrote:
>>> Ah, space is "expanding" into the "nothing at all" that exists around
>>> space, right?
>>
> On 4/28/18 11:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Wrong. The "nothing at all" does NOT exist, which is the whole point.
>>
"Sea Wasp" wrote:
> To put it another way, "Existence" is expanding. There is no outside 
> because the expansion isn't "into" something. The expansion itself 
> creates the very possibility of there BEING something.
> 
hanson wrote:
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO
because "Benj" got you guys really going with your splendid 
philosophizing while you are losing all sights of the physics 
involved.
Cool!. Carry on.
hanson.. 

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

#682779

"Loony Goat" <rlwatkins@gmail.com> wrote
>
 "hanson" wrote:
>> So, if "space is expanding" what is space expanding into?
>> or, if there is "more space than there was yesterday", what
>> is that additional space embedding itself into?
> 
Loony Goat wrote:
> Non sequitur.
> Not expanding into anything.  It's just getting bigger.
>
hanson wrote:
"It's just getting bigger" within what?
> 
Loony Goat wrote:
> Today there is more space than there was yesterday, so there's more room
> between things.  Over short distances forces such as gravity overcome
> that increasing separation, making it more difficult to observe.  Over
> long distances they don't, making it much easier to observe.
> Why is that so difficult?
>
hanson wrote:
Goat, "Non sequitur", and to boot, you just parrot
fantasies and conjectures that are currently
in vogue, as you, the goat got goaded into, by 
a notion that made you, the Goat fall off it's Loft.
Pity.
>

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

#682575

Hallo Tom Roberts,

> 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.

Maybe our experience of time is just our moving along on the skin of an
unfurling time dimension.

AFAIK, there are some more, tightly curled up.


-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Klaus Meinhard

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

#682625

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:47:04 +0200, Klaus Meinhard <k_meinhard@gmx.de>
wrote:

>Hallo Tom Roberts,
>
>> 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.
>
>Maybe our experience of time is just our moving along on the skin of an
>unfurling time dimension.
>
>AFAIK, there are some more, tightly curled up.


Wortatrappen.

Word mockups.

Nobody knows what "curled up" means in Real World.

w.

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

#682377

On 4/24/2018 11:53 PM, Klaus Meinhard wrote:
> Hallo Daniel60,
> 
>> And, of course, the Universe is expanding ... in all directions ...
>> three dimensions!!
> 
> ahem - 4?

How can time be the fourth dimension if every dimension has time?

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

#682412

W dniu środa, 18 kwietnia 2018 08:36:54 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> The Shape of the Universe.
> 
...
> Just simply picture a medium size pizza (with pepperoni) inside a very large infinite size pizza flat box.
>
Good idea, but the model is not complete.

Good idea, but the model is not complete.

There should be 2 pizzas: parallel, 
rotating inversely around the common axis.

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

#682691

Seem flat to me (parallel lines stay parallel).

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

#682704

On 4/27/2018 7:39 PM, swormley1@gmail.com wrote:
> Seem flat to me (parallel lines stay parallel).
> 
Only because your instruments aren't good enough to actually measure the 
tiny curvature of the hypersphere!  Trust me.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web