On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, [email protected] > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, [email protected] >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane >>>>>>>>> extending infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically >>>>>>>>> flat >>>>>>>>> like a huge and expanding sphere, you have to reconcile an >>>>>>>>> infinitesimally >>>>>>>>> tiny universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely >>>>>>>>> large >>>>>>>>> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe. You >>>>>>>>> must know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of a >>>>>>>>> scale >>>>>>>>> factor, not a size. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was >>>>>>>> infinitesimally tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large >>>>>>>> (mathematically flat), or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right. Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or >>>>>>>> just very big. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe we >>>>>>> miscommunicated. AG* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's what Ned Wright wrote. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the Universe really infinite or just really big? >>>>>> >>>>>> We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the >>>>>> Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations >>>>>> allow >>>>>> for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes the >>>>>> flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved >>>>>> space is also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know >>>>>> empirically that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times bigger >>>>>> than volume of the observable Universe. Since we can only look at small >>>>>> piece of an object that has a large radius of curvature, it looks flat. >>>>>> The >>>>>> simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties of the >>>>>> Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what >>>>>> we >>>>>> know about the Universe is that it is really big >>>>>> <http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/HGTTG.html>. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#top> >>>>>> >>>>>> *It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and >>>>>> concludes it might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to its >>>>>> finite age. I wrote him about this, but never received a reply. AG* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> It's only impossible if you believe the believe the big bang occurred >>>>> only at a point, rather than everywhere. >>>>> >>>>> Consider that every point in space sees everything else around it >>>>> flying away from it, such that if you rewound time, everything would >>>>> return >>>>> to a single point centered at that location. But this is true for every >>>>> point in space, so the implication is that the BigBang didn't happen at >>>>> one >>>>> particular location long in the past, but at every point, including the >>>>> period at the end of this sentence. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *You seem inclined to extreme hypotheses for which there is no data. AG >>>> * >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> This is the default "standard" model used used by cosmologists, it's >>> called the concordance model, or the Lambda-CDM model. There is significant >>> data for it. >>> >> >> *I don't believe it. AG * >> > > *I mean I don't believe your interpretation of the Concordance model. AG * > >> >> http://www.universeadventure.org/big_bang/expand-balance.htm
Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
