Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #526497 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-16 19:26 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-11-02 12:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 19:26 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-16 20:44 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-17 15:14 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 22:18 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 22:21 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 22:34 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 09:26 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:34 -0700
Why is/isn't the cosmological constant's value a "real" mathematical infinitesimal? was Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 14:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? richard@microscitech.com - 2015-10-18 13:28 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 13:36 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-18 15:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 15:50 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 16:33 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 19:20 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-18 22:37 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 22:58 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:05 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:15 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:49 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 11:09 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-17 12:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-17 12:26 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 04:45 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 14:32 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:03 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:11 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:27 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:30 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:54 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:58 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 11:45 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 14:01 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:32 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 14:15 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:02 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:08 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:24 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:29 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:25 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:47 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:55 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 11:35 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:49 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 09:58 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 12:32 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 16:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 21:06 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 21:40 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 00:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 01:12 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 02:42 -0700
The Cosmological Constant is a real mathematical infinitesimal, Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 17:37 -0700
free space w/ atoms therof noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 17:27 -0700
Re: free space w/ atoms therof "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 17:46 -0700
Re: free space w/ atoms therof "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 18:23 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 19:58 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 20:27 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 21:51 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 22:02 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 23:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 12:32 -0700
ask why, that noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 13:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-22 13:20 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 14:47 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 14:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 16:56 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 15:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 19:08 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 22:57 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 08:57 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 08:23 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 10:44 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 08:54 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 11:01 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 09:12 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-23 11:52 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 12:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-23 22:56 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 23:35 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-24 22:43 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-25 14:03 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 15:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 10:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 11:00 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 13:43 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 14:44 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 15:05 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 17:35 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:38 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 18:27 -0800
Universe is curved locally, seems flat over teraparsecs noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 18:40 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 19:51 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:26 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:34 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:42 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 21:00 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 05:42 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 10:01 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 08:16 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 08:24 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-27 14:26 -0800
inside & outside of cell noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 17:11 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 19:36 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 15:44 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-28 23:07 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-28 23:43 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-28 23:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 00:08 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 00:13 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:26 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:37 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:51 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:59 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 06:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 06:30 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 08:33 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 11:58 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 12:01 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 13:20 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:24 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 15:02 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:37 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:59 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:25 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 14:41 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 16:04 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 20:47 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 21:02 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:38 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 15:08 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:38 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 23:02 -0400
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:22 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 20:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:58 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:43 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 10:38 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:55 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:02 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Jeffrey Bannister <jban48@pannelcamarena.org> - 2015-11-01 19:15 +0000
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:22 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 15:07 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:34 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 16:18 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 17:08 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 23:10 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 23:19 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:42 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:40 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 11:00 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:29 -0800
Universe is not locally flatwise noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 18:49 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 12:21 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-27 14:33 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 14:47 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 18:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 23:54 -0800
on, re noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 12:16 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 12:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-23 14:00 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 14:42 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 19:12 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 03:12 -0400
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 13:08 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-18 15:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:56 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:49 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 13:50 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 16:45 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:39 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-19 14:23 -0700
theodolites noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 19:13 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 10:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-24 15:05 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:23 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:22 -0800
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 10:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e0d905b1-cd7e-477f-85b0-8d6426ee8204@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529680 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 5:43:24 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 10/31/15 10:58 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > Time goes back forever, > > Space goes on forever. > > Have you any empirical evidence for that claim? > Yeah. Otherwise it wouldn't. Otherwise it wouldn't: at all. Change is a constant. There is a gradient. The gradient is the least constant change there is. This is for a universe of physical objects as mathematical objects, i.e. a mathematical physics. Then, yes, it's all empirically demonstrable: a result of a mathematical physics. I have much to learn about physics, thank you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 12:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8OadnZjPpr-7_avLnZ2dnUU7-X2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #529728 |
On 11/1/15 12:38 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > Change is a constant. There is a gradient. How can a scalar have a gradient. Do you know what a gradient is? -- 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]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 11:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ea36e679-8277-4bba-ad59-b8a2dd74a3c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529732 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 10:55:37 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 11/1/15 12:38 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > Change is a constant. There is a gradient. > > How can a scalar have a gradient. Do you know what a gradient is? > > There was already an answer to that (about what a gradient is in terms of cosmological anisotropy), maybe you should have your sockpuppet string-puller allocate you some more memory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Bannister <jban48@pannelcamarena.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n15oc0$8o7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #529732 |
Sam Wormley wrote: > On 11/1/15 12:38 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >> Change is a constant. There is a gradient. > > How can a scalar have a gradient. Do you know what a gradient is? Why, you obviously don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 13:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8OadnZfPpr_v-6vLnZ2dnUU7-X0AAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #529742 |
On 11/1/15 1:15 PM, Jeffrey Bannister wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 11/1/15 12:38 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>> Change is a constant. There is a gradient. >> >> How can a scalar have a gradient. Do you know what a gradient is? > > Why, you obviously don't. > How so? -- 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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 15:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56369B22.2CD5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #529622 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > > > > On 10/31/2015 05:41 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > >> On 10/31/15 2:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > >>> No, that the universe is infinite > > > > >>> is courtesy deductive inference. > > > > >> > > > > >> Perhaps a refresher: > > > > >> > > > > >> Why is the universe flat? > > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > > > > >> > cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > > > > >> > questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > > > > >> > Problem and the Flatness Problem. > > > > >> > > > > > The universe seems infinite to us because its so big,and getting bigger at am accelerating rate.Its inflating however that makes it finite.Sad but reality. TreBert > > > > > > > > > Sad that it's all bullshit and you are too dumb to know otherwise. > > > > Wormley has trained you well. Parrot! > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry. If it's useless to physics, > > > it will just fall out. > > > > > > That's also a nice thing about numbers. > > > They do what they do automatically. > > > > > > We got Einstein over here too, and he > > > says the Universe is infinite or you're > > > stupid. > > > > > > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. > > > > > > maybe "infinite" is a coverup. > > > > Something Einstein came up with to fix something else...he probably > > simply...changed the facts to fit his theory. > > I got an answer for ya! > > Time goes back forever, > Space goes on forever. Space can go on forever if only time allows it... space and time cannot go further than the future.. the future is created at moment by moment foward.. so space and time can only move, moment by moment foward...in increments. at a time, one at a time.. The future does not exist, now, so space and time does not exist without a future, so there is no infinite until time moves forward. If you take a polaroid photo of your girl friend naked.. and you reverse time, the photo becomes blank. If you take a picture of her putting back on her clothes... you would have to take a lot of pictures to show each part she put back on. There is a lapse of time between each picture you take... That lapse is the future moving forward.. You can take an infinte pictures of her.. but only one frame at a time. When you run out of film.. space and time continues, one frame at a time to take her pictures of her....infinite, but one frame at a time. > > If I have a point here it's this: > Einstein with the cosmological constant, > and Planck with Planck's c and C, > have those those for placeholders for that > Planck's c and Einstein's cosmological constant > are greater than zero and less than any fixed > value. Their value is an infinitesimal, and the > real infinitesimals exist as the total partitioning > of their range. This exactly fits with the usual > role of the infinitesimal in the usual role of the > differential of the integral calculus. Also: there > are features for effect of the infinitesimals, that > discretization doubles the point width. > > Where you accept that's Einstein's formula, and, > that "constant" exists in all interpretations of that, > then to correlate and combine the effects of the > large and small, will see that introduction of a > proper mathematical foundation with the real > with their own infinitesimals, automatically equips > the existing theory with new features in effect. > > It's not not an infinitesimal. > > So, just as here Guth's is a re-sweeping accommodation > of the big telescope in the large (and there are other > Guth's), it's not final in the hysterisis of jumping over > again the "constant's" value, but of all the resulting > framework to accommodate each: that it's larger than > zero and less than a fixed scalar value. > > I built a logic and a mathematics and a geometry for this > that is simply discovered by anybody.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 15:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3846bdca-8246-4b3e-aaec-5b96de2b14a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529790 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:07:12 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > > > > > On 10/31/2015 05:41 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > >> On 10/31/15 2:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > >>> No, that the universe is infinite > > > > > >>> is courtesy deductive inference. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Perhaps a refresher: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Why is the universe flat? > > > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > > > > > >> > cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > > > > > >> > questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > > > > > >> > Problem and the Flatness Problem. > > > > > >> > > > > > > The universe seems infinite to us because its so big,and getting bigger at am accelerating rate.Its inflating however that makes it finite.Sad but reality. TreBert > > > > > > > > > > > Sad that it's all bullshit and you are too dumb to know otherwise. > > > > > Wormley has trained you well. Parrot! > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry. If it's useless to physics, > > > > it will just fall out. > > > > > > > > That's also a nice thing about numbers. > > > > They do what they do automatically. > > > > > > > > We got Einstein over here too, and he > > > > says the Universe is infinite or you're > > > > stupid. > > > > > > > > > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > > > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. > > > > > > > > > maybe "infinite" is a coverup. > > > > > > Something Einstein came up with to fix something else...he probably > > > simply...changed the facts to fit his theory. > > > > I got an answer for ya! > > > > Time goes back forever, > > Space goes on forever. > > > Space can go on forever if only time allows it... > > space and time cannot go further than the future.. > > the future is created at moment by moment foward.. > > so space and time can only move, moment by moment foward...in > increments. > > at a time, one at a time.. > > The future does not exist, now, so space and time does not exist without > a future, so > there is no infinite until time moves forward. > > If you take a polaroid photo > of your girl friend naked.. > and you reverse time, the photo > becomes blank. > > If you take a picture of her > putting back on her clothes... > > you would have to take a lot > of pictures to show each > part she put back on. > > There is a lapse of time > between each picture > you take... > > That lapse is the future > moving forward.. > > You can take an infinte pictures of her.. > but only one frame at a time. > > When you run out of film.. > space and time continues, one frame at a time to take her > pictures of her....infinite, but one frame at a time. > > > If I have a point here it's this: > > Einstein with the cosmological constant, > > and Planck with Planck's c and C, > > have those those for placeholders for that > > Planck's c and Einstein's cosmological constant > > are greater than zero and less than any fixed > > value. Their value is an infinitesimal, and the > > real infinitesimals exist as the total partitioning > > of their range. This exactly fits with the usual > > role of the infinitesimal in the usual role of the > > differential of the integral calculus. Also: there > > are features for effect of the infinitesimals, that > > discretization doubles the point width. > > > > Where you accept that's Einstein's formula, and, > > that "constant" exists in all interpretations of that, > > then to correlate and combine the effects of the > > large and small, will see that introduction of a > > proper mathematical foundation with the real > > with their own infinitesimals, automatically equips > > the existing theory with new features in effect. > > > > It's not not an infinitesimal. > > > > So, just as here Guth's is a re-sweeping accommodation > > of the big telescope in the large (and there are other > > Guth's), it's not final in the hysterisis of jumping over > > again the "constant's" value, but of all the resulting > > framework to accommodate each: that it's larger than > > zero and less than a fixed scalar value. > > > > I built a logic and a mathematics and a geometry for this > > that is simply discovered by anybody. Space-time is continuous, not granular. Each of your frames is moving! Paint a picture, it'll last longer. Vortex, Boris! StarMaker or HVAC: there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Get a room or get back to something formal. And quit pimping your girlfriend!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 16:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5636ABBB.1A3@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #529797 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:07:12 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > > > > > > On 10/31/2015 05:41 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > >> On 10/31/15 2:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > >>> No, that the universe is infinite > > > > > > >>> is courtesy deductive inference. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Perhaps a refresher: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Why is the universe flat? > > > > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > > > > > > >> > cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > > > > > > >> > questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > > > > > > >> > Problem and the Flatness Problem. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The universe seems infinite to us because its so big,and getting bigger at am accelerating rate.Its inflating however that makes it finite.Sad but reality. TreBert > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad that it's all bullshit and you are too dumb to know otherwise. > > > > > > Wormley has trained you well. Parrot! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry. If it's useless to physics, > > > > > it will just fall out. > > > > > > > > > > That's also a nice thing about numbers. > > > > > They do what they do automatically. > > > > > > > > > > We got Einstein over here too, and he > > > > > says the Universe is infinite or you're > > > > > stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > > > > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe "infinite" is a coverup. > > > > > > > > Something Einstein came up with to fix something else...he probably > > > > simply...changed the facts to fit his theory. > > > > > > I got an answer for ya! > > > > > > Time goes back forever, > > > Space goes on forever. > > > > > > Space can go on forever if only time allows it... > > > > space and time cannot go further than the future.. > > > > the future is created at moment by moment foward.. > > > > so space and time can only move, moment by moment foward...in > > increments. > > > > at a time, one at a time.. > > > > The future does not exist, now, so space and time does not exist without > > a future, so > > there is no infinite until time moves forward. > > > > If you take a polaroid photo > > of your girl friend naked.. > > and you reverse time, the photo > > becomes blank. > > > > If you take a picture of her > > putting back on her clothes... > > > > you would have to take a lot > > of pictures to show each > > part she put back on. > > > > There is a lapse of time > > between each picture > > you take... > > > > That lapse is the future > > moving forward.. > > > > You can take an infinte pictures of her.. > > but only one frame at a time. > > > > When you run out of film.. > > space and time continues, one frame at a time to take her > > pictures of her....infinite, but one frame at a time. > > > > > If I have a point here it's this: > > > Einstein with the cosmological constant, > > > and Planck with Planck's c and C, > > > have those those for placeholders for that > > > Planck's c and Einstein's cosmological constant > > > are greater than zero and less than any fixed > > > value. Their value is an infinitesimal, and the > > > real infinitesimals exist as the total partitioning > > > of their range. This exactly fits with the usual > > > role of the infinitesimal in the usual role of the > > > differential of the integral calculus. Also: there > > > are features for effect of the infinitesimals, that > > > discretization doubles the point width. > > > > > > Where you accept that's Einstein's formula, and, > > > that "constant" exists in all interpretations of that, > > > then to correlate and combine the effects of the > > > large and small, will see that introduction of a > > > proper mathematical foundation with the real > > > with their own infinitesimals, automatically equips > > > the existing theory with new features in effect. > > > > > > It's not not an infinitesimal. > > > > > > So, just as here Guth's is a re-sweeping accommodation > > > of the big telescope in the large (and there are other > > > Guth's), it's not final in the hysterisis of jumping over > > > again the "constant's" value, but of all the resulting > > > framework to accommodate each: that it's larger than > > > zero and less than a fixed scalar value. > > > > > > I built a logic and a mathematics and a geometry for this > > > that is simply discovered by anybody. > > Space-time is continuous, not granular. > > Each of your frames is moving! There is a spce between each frame...it just seems, continous. It's an illusion. > > Paint a picture, it'll last longer. There is a space of time between adding more paints on the canvas with your brush. > > Vortex, Boris! > > StarMaker or HVAC: there's a light > at the end of the tunnel. > > Get a room or get back to something formal. > > And quit pimping your girlfriend! The handle reads: The Starmaker.. starmakers pimp girls...your girls, any girl. starmakers are flesh peddlers. I cannot quit what i am. The Starmaker i don't know what a HVAC is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 17:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <26da7d6d-0897-4bf7-8eeb-47d3e93e63de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529811 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:02 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:07:12 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > > > > > > > On 10/31/2015 05:41 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 10/31/15 2:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > >>> No, that the universe is infinite > > > > > > > >>> is courtesy deductive inference. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Perhaps a refresher: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Why is the universe flat? > > > > > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > > > > > > > >> > cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > > > > > > > >> > questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > > > > > > > >> > Problem and the Flatness Problem. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The universe seems infinite to us because its so big,and getting bigger at am accelerating rate.Its inflating however that makes it finite.Sad but reality. TreBert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad that it's all bullshit and you are too dumb to know otherwise. > > > > > > > Wormley has trained you well. Parrot! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry. If it's useless to physics, > > > > > > it will just fall out. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's also a nice thing about numbers. > > > > > > They do what they do automatically. > > > > > > > > > > > > We got Einstein over here too, and he > > > > > > says the Universe is infinite or you're > > > > > > stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > > > > > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe "infinite" is a coverup. > > > > > > > > > > Something Einstein came up with to fix something else...he probably > > > > > simply...changed the facts to fit his theory. > > > > > > > > I got an answer for ya! > > > > > > > > Time goes back forever, > > > > Space goes on forever. > > > > > > > > > Space can go on forever if only time allows it... > > > > > > space and time cannot go further than the future.. > > > > > > the future is created at moment by moment foward.. > > > > > > so space and time can only move, moment by moment foward...in > > > increments. > > > > > > at a time, one at a time.. > > > > > > The future does not exist, now, so space and time does not exist without > > > a future, so > > > there is no infinite until time moves forward. > > > > > > If you take a polaroid photo > > > of your girl friend naked.. > > > and you reverse time, the photo > > > becomes blank. > > > > > > If you take a picture of her > > > putting back on her clothes... > > > > > > you would have to take a lot > > > of pictures to show each > > > part she put back on. > > > > > > There is a lapse of time > > > between each picture > > > you take... > > > > > > That lapse is the future > > > moving forward.. > > > > > > You can take an infinte pictures of her.. > > > but only one frame at a time. > > > > > > When you run out of film.. > > > space and time continues, one frame at a time to take her > > > pictures of her....infinite, but one frame at a time. > > > > > > > If I have a point here it's this: > > > > Einstein with the cosmological constant, > > > > and Planck with Planck's c and C, > > > > have those those for placeholders for that > > > > Planck's c and Einstein's cosmological constant > > > > are greater than zero and less than any fixed > > > > value. Their value is an infinitesimal, and the > > > > real infinitesimals exist as the total partitioning > > > > of their range. This exactly fits with the usual > > > > role of the infinitesimal in the usual role of the > > > > differential of the integral calculus. Also: there > > > > are features for effect of the infinitesimals, that > > > > discretization doubles the point width. > > > > > > > > Where you accept that's Einstein's formula, and, > > > > that "constant" exists in all interpretations of that, > > > > then to correlate and combine the effects of the > > > > large and small, will see that introduction of a > > > > proper mathematical foundation with the real > > > > with their own infinitesimals, automatically equips > > > > the existing theory with new features in effect. > > > > > > > > It's not not an infinitesimal. > > > > > > > > So, just as here Guth's is a re-sweeping accommodation > > > > of the big telescope in the large (and there are other > > > > Guth's), it's not final in the hysterisis of jumping over > > > > again the "constant's" value, but of all the resulting > > > > framework to accommodate each: that it's larger than > > > > zero and less than a fixed scalar value. > > > > > > > > I built a logic and a mathematics and a geometry for this > > > > that is simply discovered by anybody. > > > > Space-time is continuous, not granular. > > > > Each of your frames is moving! > > There is a spce between each frame...it just seems, continous. It's an > illusion. > > > > > Paint a picture, it'll last longer. > > There is a space of time between adding more paints on the canvas with > your brush. > > > > > Vortex, Boris! > > > > StarMaker or HVAC: there's a light > > at the end of the tunnel. > > > > Get a room or get back to something formal. > > > > And quit pimping your girlfriend! > > > The handle reads: The Starmaker.. starmakers pimp girls...your girls, > any girl. starmakers are flesh peddlers. > > I cannot quit what i am. > > The Starmaker > > > i don't know what a HVAC is. Sigh. Think of the children. Rake and hoe. Spade, rake, and hoe. Garden. Till and sow. For every time there is a season. Zen is No Mind! Wheels roll. Time goes. Rivers flow. Seas roll. Always be true to yourself! The cosmological constant is an infinitesimal. I got more mental armor here than your mouth! My, what sharp teeth I have. Harvest: blessed harvest. https://bible.org/article/seven-laws-harvest I'm not a bible thumper, that's just to cleanse the palate. You can promote without pimping. (Sigh, but I hate pimps/exploitation and Nazis/oppression. At least you're not a Nazi?) I'm a big egalitarian. So: back to why space-time is almost totally flat: Einstein's cosmological constant is a real infinitesimal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 23:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56370C50.4F6A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #529821 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:02 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:07:12 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > > > > > > > > On 10/31/2015 05:41 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > > >> On 10/31/15 2:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> No, that the universe is infinite > > > > > > > > >>> is courtesy deductive inference. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Perhaps a refresher: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Why is the universe flat? > > > > > > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > > > > > > > > >> > cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > > > > > > > > >> > questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > > > > > > > > >> > Problem and the Flatness Problem. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The universe seems infinite to us because its so big,and getting bigger at am accelerating rate.Its inflating however that makes it finite.Sad but reality. TreBert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad that it's all bullshit and you are too dumb to know otherwise. > > > > > > > > Wormley has trained you well. Parrot! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry. If it's useless to physics, > > > > > > > it will just fall out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's also a nice thing about numbers. > > > > > > > They do what they do automatically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We got Einstein over here too, and he > > > > > > > says the Universe is infinite or you're > > > > > > > stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > > > > > > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe "infinite" is a coverup. > > > > > > > > > > > > Something Einstein came up with to fix something else...he probably > > > > > > simply...changed the facts to fit his theory. > > > > > > > > > > I got an answer for ya! > > > > > > > > > > Time goes back forever, > > > > > Space goes on forever. > > > > > > > > > > > > Space can go on forever if only time allows it... > > > > > > > > space and time cannot go further than the future.. > > > > > > > > the future is created at moment by moment foward.. > > > > > > > > so space and time can only move, moment by moment foward...in > > > > increments. > > > > > > > > at a time, one at a time.. > > > > > > > > The future does not exist, now, so space and time does not exist without > > > > a future, so > > > > there is no infinite until time moves forward. > > > > > > > > If you take a polaroid photo > > > > of your girl friend naked.. > > > > and you reverse time, the photo > > > > becomes blank. > > > > > > > > If you take a picture of her > > > > putting back on her clothes... > > > > > > > > you would have to take a lot > > > > of pictures to show each > > > > part she put back on. > > > > > > > > There is a lapse of time > > > > between each picture > > > > you take... > > > > > > > > That lapse is the future > > > > moving forward.. > > > > > > > > You can take an infinte pictures of her.. > > > > but only one frame at a time. > > > > > > > > When you run out of film.. > > > > space and time continues, one frame at a time to take her > > > > pictures of her....infinite, but one frame at a time. > > > > > > > > > If I have a point here it's this: > > > > > Einstein with the cosmological constant, > > > > > and Planck with Planck's c and C, > > > > > have those those for placeholders for that > > > > > Planck's c and Einstein's cosmological constant > > > > > are greater than zero and less than any fixed > > > > > value. Their value is an infinitesimal, and the > > > > > real infinitesimals exist as the total partitioning > > > > > of their range. This exactly fits with the usual > > > > > role of the infinitesimal in the usual role of the > > > > > differential of the integral calculus. Also: there > > > > > are features for effect of the infinitesimals, that > > > > > discretization doubles the point width. > > > > > > > > > > Where you accept that's Einstein's formula, and, > > > > > that "constant" exists in all interpretations of that, > > > > > then to correlate and combine the effects of the > > > > > large and small, will see that introduction of a > > > > > proper mathematical foundation with the real > > > > > with their own infinitesimals, automatically equips > > > > > the existing theory with new features in effect. > > > > > > > > > > It's not not an infinitesimal. > > > > > > > > > > So, just as here Guth's is a re-sweeping accommodation > > > > > of the big telescope in the large (and there are other > > > > > Guth's), it's not final in the hysterisis of jumping over > > > > > again the "constant's" value, but of all the resulting > > > > > framework to accommodate each: that it's larger than > > > > > zero and less than a fixed scalar value. > > > > > > > > > > I built a logic and a mathematics and a geometry for this > > > > > that is simply discovered by anybody. > > > > > > Space-time is continuous, not granular. > > > > > > Each of your frames is moving! > > > > There is a spce between each frame...it just seems, continous. It's an > > illusion. > > > > > > > > Paint a picture, it'll last longer. > > > > There is a space of time between adding more paints on the canvas with > > your brush. > > > > > > > > Vortex, Boris! > > > > > > StarMaker or HVAC: there's a light > > > at the end of the tunnel. > > > > > > Get a room or get back to something formal. > > > > > > And quit pimping your girlfriend! > > > > > > The handle reads: The Starmaker.. starmakers pimp girls...your girls, > > any girl. starmakers are flesh peddlers. > > > > I cannot quit what i am. > > > > The Starmaker > > > > > > i don't know what a HVAC is. > > Sigh. > > Think of the children. > > Rake and hoe. Spade, rake, and hoe. Garden. > Till and sow. For every time there is a season. > > Zen is No Mind! > > Wheels roll. Time goes. Rivers flow. Seas roll. > > Always be true to yourself! > > The cosmological constant is an infinitesimal. > > I got more mental armor here than your mouth! > > My, what sharp teeth I have. > > Harvest: blessed harvest. > > https://bible.org/article/seven-laws-harvest > > I'm not a bible thumper, that's just to cleanse the palate. > > You can promote without pimping. > > (Sigh, but I hate pimps/exploitation and Nazis/oppression. > At least you're not a Nazi?) > > I'm a big egalitarian. > > So: back to why space-time is almost totally flat: > Einstein's cosmological constant is a real infinitesimal. Correct me if i'm wrong... but didn't Albert Einstein called the addition of his cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 23:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56370E75.63FB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #529886 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:02 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:07:12 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 10/31/2015 05:41 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:25:32 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On 10/31/15 2:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> No, that the universe is infinite > > > > > > > > > >>> is courtesy deductive inference. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Perhaps a refresher: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Why is the universe flat? > > > > > > > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Cosmic inflation is a theory that was proposed in the 1980s by > > > > > > > > > >> > cosmologist Alan Guth to answer some of the most fundamental > > > > > > > > > >> > questions of the origins of our universe. It also solved the Horizon > > > > > > > > > >> > Problem and the Flatness Problem. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > The universe seems infinite to us because its so big,and getting bigger at am accelerating rate.Its inflating however that makes it finite.Sad but reality. TreBert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad that it's all bullshit and you are too dumb to know otherwise. > > > > > > > > > Wormley has trained you well. Parrot! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry. If it's useless to physics, > > > > > > > > it will just fall out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's also a nice thing about numbers. > > > > > > > > They do what they do automatically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We got Einstein over here too, and he > > > > > > > > says the Universe is infinite or you're > > > > > > > > stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > > > > > > > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe "infinite" is a coverup. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Something Einstein came up with to fix something else...he probably > > > > > > > simply...changed the facts to fit his theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > I got an answer for ya! > > > > > > > > > > > > Time goes back forever, > > > > > > Space goes on forever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Space can go on forever if only time allows it... > > > > > > > > > > space and time cannot go further than the future.. > > > > > > > > > > the future is created at moment by moment foward.. > > > > > > > > > > so space and time can only move, moment by moment foward...in > > > > > increments. > > > > > > > > > > at a time, one at a time.. > > > > > > > > > > The future does not exist, now, so space and time does not exist without > > > > > a future, so > > > > > there is no infinite until time moves forward. > > > > > > > > > > If you take a polaroid photo > > > > > of your girl friend naked.. > > > > > and you reverse time, the photo > > > > > becomes blank. > > > > > > > > > > If you take a picture of her > > > > > putting back on her clothes... > > > > > > > > > > you would have to take a lot > > > > > of pictures to show each > > > > > part she put back on. > > > > > > > > > > There is a lapse of time > > > > > between each picture > > > > > you take... > > > > > > > > > > That lapse is the future > > > > > moving forward.. > > > > > > > > > > You can take an infinte pictures of her.. > > > > > but only one frame at a time. > > > > > > > > > > When you run out of film.. > > > > > space and time continues, one frame at a time to take her > > > > > pictures of her....infinite, but one frame at a time. > > > > > > > > > > > If I have a point here it's this: > > > > > > Einstein with the cosmological constant, > > > > > > and Planck with Planck's c and C, > > > > > > have those those for placeholders for that > > > > > > Planck's c and Einstein's cosmological constant > > > > > > are greater than zero and less than any fixed > > > > > > value. Their value is an infinitesimal, and the > > > > > > real infinitesimals exist as the total partitioning > > > > > > of their range. This exactly fits with the usual > > > > > > role of the infinitesimal in the usual role of the > > > > > > differential of the integral calculus. Also: there > > > > > > are features for effect of the infinitesimals, that > > > > > > discretization doubles the point width. > > > > > > > > > > > > Where you accept that's Einstein's formula, and, > > > > > > that "constant" exists in all interpretations of that, > > > > > > then to correlate and combine the effects of the > > > > > > large and small, will see that introduction of a > > > > > > proper mathematical foundation with the real > > > > > > with their own infinitesimals, automatically equips > > > > > > the existing theory with new features in effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not not an infinitesimal. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, just as here Guth's is a re-sweeping accommodation > > > > > > of the big telescope in the large (and there are other > > > > > > Guth's), it's not final in the hysterisis of jumping over > > > > > > again the "constant's" value, but of all the resulting > > > > > > framework to accommodate each: that it's larger than > > > > > > zero and less than a fixed scalar value. > > > > > > > > > > > > I built a logic and a mathematics and a geometry for this > > > > > > that is simply discovered by anybody. > > > > > > > > Space-time is continuous, not granular. > > > > > > > > Each of your frames is moving! > > > > > > There is a spce between each frame...it just seems, continous. It's an > > > illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > Paint a picture, it'll last longer. > > > > > > There is a space of time between adding more paints on the canvas with > > > your brush. > > > > > > > > > > > Vortex, Boris! > > > > > > > > StarMaker or HVAC: there's a light > > > > at the end of the tunnel. > > > > > > > > Get a room or get back to something formal. > > > > > > > > And quit pimping your girlfriend! > > > > > > > > > The handle reads: The Starmaker.. starmakers pimp girls...your girls, > > > any girl. starmakers are flesh peddlers. > > > > > > I cannot quit what i am. > > > > > > The Starmaker > > > > > > > > > i don't know what a HVAC is. > > > > Sigh. > > > > Think of the children. > > > > Rake and hoe. Spade, rake, and hoe. Garden. > > Till and sow. For every time there is a season. > > > > Zen is No Mind! > > > > Wheels roll. Time goes. Rivers flow. Seas roll. > > > > Always be true to yourself! > > > > The cosmological constant is an infinitesimal. > > > > I got more mental armor here than your mouth! > > > > My, what sharp teeth I have. > > > > Harvest: blessed harvest. > > > > https://bible.org/article/seven-laws-harvest > > > > I'm not a bible thumper, that's just to cleanse the palate. > > > > You can promote without pimping. > > > > (Sigh, but I hate pimps/exploitation and Nazis/oppression. > > At least you're not a Nazi?) > > > > I'm a big egalitarian. > > > > So: back to why space-time is almost totally flat: > > Einstein's cosmological constant is a real infinitesimal. > > Correct me if i'm wrong... > but didn't Albert Einstein called the addition of his cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life???? How about this, what is your point of view of the "fudge factor"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 07:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <37fe777d-0b78-4064-8f1f-bae152ee1504@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529887 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 11:18:42 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > How about this, what is your point of view of the "fudge factor"? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor I'd rather call it numerical appeasement than falsification (in good faith). A "fudge factor" is a mathematical term in systems representing an approximative element. These are usually as of matching to the data, or of utilitarian overages. In mathematical physics: the goal is to have no error term (as approximations introduce). It is believed there is a mathematical physics with no error term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 07:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e3a1160a-1db7-4fb0-b9a1-ed6c87899672@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529886 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 11:09:33 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > Correct me if i'm wrong... > but didn't Albert Einstein called the addition of his cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life???? Not noting its presence: it would have been another's greatest. It _is_ part of the equation. Einstein's acknowledgment of his own incompleteness at the time (of as his own school of physics) sees him relevant today. A new feature in the foundations of continuum mechanics, for effect, would automatically so equip the mathematical physics, here for continuum analysis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 07:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <782dneekEqkki6vLnZ2dnUU7-SsAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #529619 |
On 10/31/15 11:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > But Einstein says the Universe is infinite based on...his theory, which > hasn't been proven, it's just his assumption. No theory is ever proven--however there has yet to be an observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general relativity. They remain fruitful tools of physics. -- 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]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 07:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <782dneSkEqnWi6vLnZ2dnUU7-SudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #529615 |
On 10/31/15 10:22 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > We got Einstein over here too, and he > says the Universe is infinite or you're > stupid. The fact that the observable universe measures flat, implies for many a physicist that the universe is infinite. But who's to say for sure. -- 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]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 11:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a945dc41-a177-43d5-8c9b-0428f4619dc7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529464 |
study Bucky's SynergeticS, but you will not learn any tetrahedronometry from it ... not even the pythagorean tetrahedron is in it, except in a totally offhand manner > In geometry, a tetrahedron (plural: tetrahedra or tetrahedrons) is a polyhedron composed of four triangular faces, six straight edges, and four vertex corners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 14:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d1b190ca-44bd-4ed1-975f-a0ade703d1a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #530171 |
teh tetrahedron is its own dual, tetra-asteron; there are two kinds of pythagorean tetrahedra, with different equations, of course, but groupwise quite the same > you will not learn any tetrahedronometry from it ... > not even the pythagorean tetrahedron is in it, > except in a totally offhand manner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 18:49 -0800 |
| Subject | Universe is not locally flatwise |
| Message-ID | <8a6091da-a6af-4803-a5bf-56525f723efe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #530412 |
the first is just the usual formula for dystance in three orthogonal coordinates; teh second is that the secondpowers of the areas of a triretangular tetrahedron (or "qyoob corner, is equal to the secondpower of the area of the hypoteneuse (bigest, scalene trigon > there are two kinds of pythagorean tetrahedra, > with different equations, of course, but groupwise quite the same
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 12:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <578ff7bf-9415-4edc-adb2-c2b2b5aa4b7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #529410 |
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 6:17:38 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 12:11:47 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > > > > > > > Do you think you can translate that for people who live in the ....real > > > > > world? > > > > > > > > In other words... > > > > can you tranlate it to pictures or video > > > > without using symbols...another form > > > > of communication instead of math? > > > > > > or maybe "just" using "words" in "english"? > > > > > > In other words... > > > > can you connect this: > > > > > > > > > > the main elements are planes and lines, > > > > > > which are dual in space, and vertices and cells, > > > > > > like wise. hte infinite net of hexahedra is autodual, > > > > > > just as is the tetrahedron > > > > to the real world? And translate into english?? > > A triangle is defined by three sides, > or, three angles and one side. > > This is a statement of the resource terms > of representations. > > "Measuring the area of a triangle" is a > usual feature of a geometry. Hard to see it flat when seeing the universe from Treb's view.All that gas with dust mixed in. It is more circular and looks like a old galaxy almost circular.TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 14:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <562FFBAC.34A6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528417 |
john wrote: > > Galaxies are atoms. > Galactic nuclei are atomic nuclei. > Galactic star-arms are electrons. > Up/down electrons are matter/antimatter > star-arms. > Neutrinos go through matter and are > absorbed by galactic nuclei, resulting > in expansion; similar radiations from > electrons are absorbed by atomic > nuclei resulting in Gravity and inertia. if Galaxies are atoms, then less than 5 percent of the universe contain...Galaxies, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web