On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 8:04:00 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote: > > On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:48:40 PM UTC+11, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 2:30 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> *> If we're convinced it's finite in age, then it can't be infinite in >>>> spatial extent. AG * >>> >>> >>> We don't know for sure our universe is infinite in size and we'll never >>> know for sure because we'll never be able to measure precisely zero >>> curvature with no error at all, but we do know it's pretty damn flat, if >>> it's curved it's so slight that a light beam would have to go at least 500 >>> times as far as our telescopes can see for it to return where it started. >>> So if you respect the empirical evidence for the Big Bang but the idea of a >>> beginning of a infinitely sized universe makes you unhappy then the >>> Multiverse idea offers you an obvious solution, you get an infinitely large >>> infinitely old Multiverse but with the observable universe having a >>> beginning and being only finitely large. However I understand the >>> Multiverse makes you unhappy too. I fear you may be destined to be unhappy. >>> >>> By the way ... does the inverse also make you unhappy, something >>> infinitely old but finite in spatial extent? >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >> >> *All the models pictorially represented, have the Universe beginning very >> small, and inflation is claimed to increase its size from, say, much >> smaller than a proton, to about the size of the Earth or Solar System in a >> few Planck intervals. If it begins small, or if you run the clock backward >> it becomes progressively smaller, how could it have started with infinite >> spatial extent? Don't you see something wrong with the model? AG* >> > > Grayson, it's been explained to you, but you fail to compute. I had the > very same thought, when I first heard about inflation and the flat, > infinite universe, but my thought after that was: obviously I have > misunderstood something, because clearly the model makes mathematical sense > or 100% of cosmologists - very smart people by definition - would have seen > the obvious flaw. So I took the time to improve my understanding. Your > thought process on the other hand seems to be: "it seems contradictory, > therefore the world's cosmologists must have missed this glaring logical > problem I have identified. (The fact that I can't actually do the maths > myself is unlikely to be relevant)." Then you post here and go round in > circles with your obtuse misunderstandings of the explanations you receive. > And finally you complain about being "not taken seriously". Do *you* see > anything wrong with the model? >
*No. It hasn't been explained to me. I thank you, but unfortunately your pov is too typical. You assert I am mistaken, but fail to say exactly how, in what way. Since you claim to understand my error due to your extensive research, why not clue me (us) in? As I recall, you did make some effort previously, whereupon I critiqued it, but got no reply. AG * > >> > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7790171f-b6e0-45fe-9c1a-928ddccf4966%40googlegroups.com.
