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

Groups > sci.physics > #691654 > unrolled thread

There Is Only One Universe

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  There Is Only One Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-23 11:45 -0700
    Re: There Is Only One Universe casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-06-23 14:57 -0400
      Re: There Is Only One Universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-23 16:30 -0400
        Re: There Is Only One Universe mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 13:55 -0700
        Re: There Is Only One Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-23 14:05 -0700
          Re: There Is Only One Universe "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-23 14:22 -0700
        Re: There Is Only One Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-23 14:09 -0700
          Re: There Is Only One Universe mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 14:20 -0700
          Re: There Is Only One Universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-23 17:24 -0400
        Re: There Is Only One Universe casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-06-23 17:59 -0400
    Re: There Is Only One Universe mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 13:20 -0700
    Re: There Is Only One Universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-23 16:26 -0400
    Re: There Is Only One Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-23 14:05 -0700
    Re: There Is Only One Universe "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-23 14:20 -0700
      Re: There Is Only One Universe mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 14:27 -0700
      Re: There Is Only One Universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-23 17:29 -0400
        Re: There Is Only One Universe "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-23 14:42 -0700
          Re: There Is Only One Universe mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 15:08 -0700
          Re: There Is Only One Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-23 16:46 -0700
            Re: There Is Only One Universe mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 16:49 -0700
            Re: There Is Only One Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-24 01:30 -0700
              Re: There Is Only One Universe "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-24 20:07 -0700
        Re: There Is Only One Universe "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 19:38 -0700
          Re: There Is Only One Universe "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-25 19:52 -0700
          Re: There Is Only One Universe mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 20:06 -0700
            Re: There Is Only One Universe "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-25 23:55 -0700
              Re: There Is Only One Universe "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-25 23:56 -0700
                Re: There Is Only One Universe "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-26 00:01 -0700
    Re: There Is Only One Universe "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 14:30 -0700
      Re: There Is Only One Universe "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-23 15:24 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#691654 — There Is Only One Universe

Count it...1

only One universe

0NE


if you disagree...you should give up physics and math.


Go lay carpet for a living...


Science isn't math.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#691655

So very VERY true !

Universe by definition is everything.

Infinite in all dimensions, including time. No boundaries, no
beginning, and no end.

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

#691662

On 6/23/2018 2:57 PM, casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
> So very VERY true !
> 
> Universe by definition is everything.
> 
> Infinite in all dimensions, including time. No boundaries, no
> beginning, and no end.
> 
Since the universe by definition is "everything" it follows that the 
universe includes that portion that is "nothing". Hence one cannot say 
that universe is not bounded since it includes that portion of "nothing" 
out beyond the bounded "something"! Right?

Perhaps Odd can straighten you and faker out on this issue.

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

#691665

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 1:30:49 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 6/23/2018 2:57 PM, casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
> > So very VERY true !
> > 
> > Universe by definition is everything.
> > 
> > Infinite in all dimensions, including time. No boundaries, no
> > beginning, and no end.
> > 
> Since the universe by definition is "everything" it follows that the 
> universe includes that portion that is "nothing". Hence one cannot say 
> that universe is not bounded since it includes that portion of "nothing" 
> out beyond the bounded "something"! Right?
> 
> Perhaps Odd can straighten you and faker out on this issue.

The only physical no-thing was the Big Bang Zero...
Only Roy Masters wants to get rid of that math...

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#691668

Mark Earnest wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 3:30:47 PM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> > On 6/23/2018 2:57 PM, wrote:
> > > So very VERY true !
> > >
> > > Universe by definition is everything.
> > >
> > > Infinite in all dimensions, including time. No boundaries, no
> > > beginning, and no end.
> > >
> > Since the universe by definition is "everything" it follows that the
> > universe includes that portion that is "nothing". Hence one cannot say
> > that universe is not bounded since it includes that portion of "nothing"
> > out beyond the bounded "something"! Right?
> >
> > Perhaps Odd can straighten you and faker out on this issue.
> 
> The nothing that is outside the universe is not part of the universe.  It is just nothing that's all.


wat is there where there is nothing?

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

#691674

On 6/23/2018 2:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Mark Earnest wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 3:30:47 PM UTC-5, benj wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2018 2:57 PM, wrote:
>>>> So very VERY true !
>>>>
>>>> Universe by definition is everything.
>>>>
>>>> Infinite in all dimensions, including time. No boundaries, no
>>>> beginning, and no end.
>>>>
>>> Since the universe by definition is "everything" it follows that the
>>> universe includes that portion that is "nothing". Hence one cannot say
>>> that universe is not bounded since it includes that portion of "nothing"
>>> out beyond the bounded "something"! Right?
>>>
>>> Perhaps Odd can straighten you and faker out on this issue.
>>
>> The nothing that is outside the universe is not part of the universe.  It is just nothing that's all.
> 
> 
> wat is there where there is nothing?
> 

Imvvvho, there was never nothing for the universe was always there. We 
can only observe so much.

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

#691670

benj wrote:
> 
> On 6/23/2018 2:57 PM, casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
> > So very VERY true !
> >
> > Universe by definition is everything.
> >
> > Infinite in all dimensions, including time. No boundaries, no
> > beginning, and no end.
> >
> Since the universe by definition is "everything" it follows that the
> universe includes that portion that is "nothing". Hence one cannot say
> that universe is not bounded since it includes that portion of "nothing"
> out beyond the bounded "something"! Right?
> 
> Perhaps Odd can straighten you and faker out on this issue.


albert einstein died tryin to find numbers that lead to nowhere...


he shouda stuck to physics...or building atomic bombs,

at least we can see the result of the fruits of his labor.

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

#691673

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 2:09:34 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> benj wrote:
> > 
> > On 6/23/2018 2:57 PM, casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
> > > So very VERY true !
> > >
> > > Universe by definition is everything.
> > >
> > > Infinite in all dimensions, including time. No boundaries, no
> > > beginning, and no end.
> > >
> > Since the universe by definition is "everything" it follows that the
> > universe includes that portion that is "nothing". Hence one cannot say
> > that universe is not bounded since it includes that portion of "nothing"
> > out beyond the bounded "something"! Right?
> > 
> > Perhaps Odd can straighten you and faker out on this issue.
> 
> 
> albert einstein died tryin to find numbers that lead to nowhere...

Einstein didn't discover Zero...
He didn't discover the math name for the No Quantity...

> 
> he shouda stuck to physics...or building atomic bombs,
> 
> at least we can see the result of the fruits of his labor.

Space speed curves and that curves the motion of light and matter.
His gravity strength slows rate.
His light moves at a constant universal speed.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#691676

On 6/23/2018 5:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> benj wrote:
>>
>> On 6/23/2018 2:57 PM, casagiannoni@optonline.net wrote:
>>> So very VERY true !
>>>
>>> Universe by definition is everything.
>>>
>>> Infinite in all dimensions, including time. No boundaries, no
>>> beginning, and no end.
>>>
>> Since the universe by definition is "everything" it follows that the
>> universe includes that portion that is "nothing". Hence one cannot say
>> that universe is not bounded since it includes that portion of "nothing"
>> out beyond the bounded "something"! Right?
>>
>> Perhaps Odd can straighten you and faker out on this issue.
> 
> 
> albert einstein died tryin to find numbers that lead to nowhere...
> 
> 
> he shouda stuck to physics...or building atomic bombs,
> 
> at least we can see the result of the fruits of his labor.
> 
It's pretty simple science Faker, "nowhere" is found if you follow 
"somewhere" until it ends...

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

#691687

>> 
>Since the universe by definition is "everything" it follows that the 
>universe includes that portion that is "nothing". Hence one cannot say 
>that universe is not bounded since it includes that portion of "nothing" 
>out beyond the bounded "something"! Right?
>
The universe by definition includes everything, and that includes your
" ... portion that is "nothing" ". So that is also part of the
universe.

There can't be any boundary, since one could go to said boundary, and
simply point to the other side. Same thing for time. Go to said
beginning and ask what was yesterday ? or said end and wait another
day !

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

#691658

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 11:45:28 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Count it...1
> 
> only One universe
> 
> 0NE
> 
> 
> if you disagree...you should give up physics and math.
> 
> 
> Go lay carpet for a living...
> 
> 
> Science isn't math.

If science isn't mathematical it doesn't qualify.
Everything is mathematical...
The Monoverse is. One hypersphere universe... One God...

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#691660

On 6/23/2018 2:45 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Count it...1
> 
> only One universe
> 
> 0NE
> 
> 
> if you disagree...you should give up physics and math.
> 
> 
> Go lay carpet for a living...

Of go do whatever Starfaker does in his day job (probably flip burgers).
It SURE is NOT either science or math!

> Science isn't math.

Math is certainly a science: "Science means in the context of a general 
dictionary definition "any body of knowledge organized in a systematic 
way", or a defined branch of knowledge , study or learning."

And of course even though mathematics is pure fantasy, it is still the 
language generally used to describe phenomena in the natural sciences. 
Faker, how about you learn the difference between sciences in general 
and natural sciences.

Obviously Faker, you are still an idiot. Go flip come burgers.

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

#691669

Mark Earnest wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 1:45:26 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Count it...1
> >
> > only One universe
> >
> > 0NE
> >
> >
> > if you disagree...you should give up physics and math.
> >
> >
> > Go lay carpet for a living...
> >
> >
> > Science isn't math.
> 
> There is only one universe and when you leave that you are nowhere.

where is nowhere?

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

#691672

On 6/23/2018 11:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Count it...1
> 
> only One universe

Okay. Let say that is true. I really do not know for sure anyway.

What about a shape like the Koch curve that is basically finite in size 
to the eye, yet has an infinite border structure such that it cannot be 
measured unless we totally halt iteration.

What about the Mandelbrot set, one main "largest" shape, with an 
infinite border. Afaict, the border of a fractal is kind of like an 
event horizon.


> 
> 0NE
> 
> 
> if you disagree...you should give up physics and math.
> 
> 
> Go lay carpet for a living...
> 
> 
> Science isn't math.
> 

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

#691677

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 2:20:26 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/23/2018 11:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Count it...1
> > 
> > only One universe
> 
> Okay. Let say that is true. I really do not know for sure anyway.
> 
> What about a shape like the Koch curve that is basically finite in size 
> to the eye, yet has an infinite border structure such that it cannot be 
> measured unless we totally halt iteration.

The shrinking sides create a limit for the overall Koch curve.

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> What about the Mandelbrot set, one main "largest" shape, with an 
> infinite border. Afaict, the border of a fractal is kind of like an 
> event horizon.


You cannot calculate the Mandelbrot set to an infinitely accurate.


Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> 
> > 
> > 0NE
> > 
> > 
> > if you disagree...you should give up physics and math.
> > 
> > 
> > Go lay carpet for a living...
> > 
> > 
> > Science isn't math.
> >

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

#691678

On 6/23/2018 5:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/23/2018 11:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Count it...1
>>
>> only One universe
> 
> Okay. Let say that is true. I really do not know for sure anyway.
> 
> What about a shape like the Koch curve that is basically finite in size 
> to the eye, yet has an infinite border structure such that it cannot be 
> measured unless we totally halt iteration.
> 
> What about the Mandelbrot set, one main "largest" shape, with an 
> infinite border. Afaict, the border of a fractal is kind of like an 
> event horizon.

Yep. Take the Koch geometric figure which has an infinite perimeter 
which seems to say it is infinite in size, but clearly one can draw a 
line around that figure that is finite in length!

You following this Faker? Or are you still an idiot?

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

#691685

On 6/23/2018 2:29 PM, benj wrote:
> On 6/23/2018 5:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 6/23/2018 11:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Count it...1
>>>
>>> only One universe
>>
>> Okay. Let say that is true. I really do not know for sure anyway.
>>
>> What about a shape like the Koch curve that is basically finite in 
>> size to the eye, yet has an infinite border structure such that it 
>> cannot be measured unless we totally halt iteration.
>>
>> What about the Mandelbrot set, one main "largest" shape, with an 
>> infinite border. Afaict, the border of a fractal is kind of like an 
>> event horizon.
> 
> Yep. Take the Koch geometric figure which has an infinite perimeter 
> which seems to say it is infinite in size, but clearly one can draw a 
> line around that figure that is finite in length!

We can only draw the 100% complete Koch curve at a given iteration 
level. If we take the iterations as never stopping, as if running in 
another thread of execution, well, we would have a hard, basically 
impossible time, drawing it. As soon as one plotted a portion, the 
iteration would come around an make the plot instantly out of date!

> 
> You following this Faker? Or are you still an idiot?

Not exactly sure what you mean. I just responded to a post. So what?

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

#691689

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 2:42:26 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/23/2018 2:29 PM, benj wrote:
> > On 6/23/2018 5:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 6/23/2018 11:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Count it...1
> >>>
> >>> only One universe
> >>
> >> Okay. Let say that is true. I really do not know for sure anyway.
> >>
> >> What about a shape like the Koch curve that is basically finite in 
> >> size to the eye, yet has an infinite border structure such that it 
> >> cannot be measured unless we totally halt iteration.
> >>
> >> What about the Mandelbrot set, one main "largest" shape, with an 
> >> infinite border. Afaict, the border of a fractal is kind of like an 
> >> event horizon.
> > 
> > Yep. Take the Koch geometric figure which has an infinite perimeter 
> > which seems to say it is infinite in size, but clearly one can draw a 
> > line around that figure that is finite in length!
> 
> We can only draw the 100% complete Koch curve at a given iteration 
> level. If we take the iterations as never stopping, as if running in 
> another thread of execution, well, we would have a hard, basically 
> impossible time, drawing it. As soon as one plotted a portion, the 
> iteration would come around an make the plot instantly out of date!

Calculus cannot have an infinite iteration.
Only the imaginary Koch curve with infinite sides
could have infinite perimeter side sum length.
Man's calculated Koch curve is the limited 
Koch curve in that way...

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> > 
> > You following this Faker? Or are you still an idiot?
> 
> Not exactly sure what you mean. I just responded to a post. So what?

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

#691702

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
> On 6/23/2018 2:29 PM, benj wrote:
> > On 6/23/2018 5:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 6/23/2018 11:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Count it...1
> >>>
> >>> only One universe
> >>
> >> Okay. Let say that is true. I really do not know for sure anyway.
> >>
> >> What about a shape like the Koch curve that is basically finite in
> >> size to the eye, yet has an infinite border structure such that it
> >> cannot be measured unless we totally halt iteration.
> >>
> >> What about the Mandelbrot set, one main "largest" shape, with an
> >> infinite border. Afaict, the border of a fractal is kind of like an
> >> event horizon.
> >
> > Yep. Take the Koch geometric figure which has an infinite perimeter
> > which seems to say it is infinite in size, but clearly one can draw a
> > line around that figure that is finite in length!
> 
> We can only draw the 100% complete Koch curve at a given iteration
> level. If we take the iterations as never stopping, as if running in
> another thread of execution, well, we would have a hard, basically
> impossible time, drawing it. As soon as one plotted a portion, the
> iteration would come around an make the plot instantly out of date!


Oh, the Koch curve...

I know that actual name for it but it slip my mind...correct me if I'm wrong...


It is a dimension in the middle of one and two. 
It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between 1 and 2, dimension 1 1/2 .
Between a line and a surface. This is the dimension of fractional. 
It is an area which we call the...The Koch Curve.




DEE-DEE dee-dee DEE-DEE dee-dee . . .

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

#691703

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 4:46:19 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > 
> > On 6/23/2018 2:29 PM, benj wrote:
> > > On 6/23/2018 5:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >> On 6/23/2018 11:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>> Count it...1
> > >>>
> > >>> only One universe
> > >>
> > >> Okay. Let say that is true. I really do not know for sure anyway.
> > >>
> > >> What about a shape like the Koch curve that is basically finite in
> > >> size to the eye, yet has an infinite border structure such that it
> > >> cannot be measured unless we totally halt iteration.
> > >>
> > >> What about the Mandelbrot set, one main "largest" shape, with an
> > >> infinite border. Afaict, the border of a fractal is kind of like an
> > >> event horizon.
> > >
> > > Yep. Take the Koch geometric figure which has an infinite perimeter
> > > which seems to say it is infinite in size, but clearly one can draw a
> > > line around that figure that is finite in length!
> > 
> > We can only draw the 100% complete Koch curve at a given iteration
> > level. If we take the iterations as never stopping, as if running in
> > another thread of execution, well, we would have a hard, basically
> > impossible time, drawing it. As soon as one plotted a portion, the
> > iteration would come around an make the plot instantly out of date!
> 
> 
> Oh, the Koch curve...
> 
> I know that actual name for it but it slip my mind...correct me if I'm wrong...
> 
> 
> It is a dimension in the middle of one and two. 
> It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between 1 and 2, dimension 1 1/2 .
> Between a line and a surface. This is the dimension of fractional. 
> It is an area which we call the...The Koch Curve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DEE-DEE dee-dee DEE-DEE dee-dee . . .

What is inbetween 0 and 1 is inbetween 1 and 2
and two and three... Dee Dee Dee  Hee Hee Hee

Mitchell Raemsch 

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web