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 <agrays...@gmail.com> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7790171f-b6e0-45fe-9c1a-928ddccf4966%40googlegroups.com.
