On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:06:12 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/13/2020 8:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 9:28:28 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/13/2020 7:50 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 7:48:01 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/13/2020 5:52 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 5:12:33 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/13/2020 12:59 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:22:05 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 1/13/2020 11:02 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 11:20:41 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/13/2020 2:21 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> *Forget about matter. I am discussing spatial extent. If it starts >>>>>> small, and expands at any rate less than infinite, its spatial extent >>>>>> cannot be infinite. AG * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But so what? What is "it"? and what are you worried about? If "it" >>>>>> is some portion of the universe we can see, it's finite. The inference >>>>>> that the universe is infinite is based on curvature measure in the part >>>>>> we >>>>>> can see. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *IT, the universe, has (IMO) a very small but positive curvature, >>>>> which is what we measure. Since we can't precisely measure zero >>>>> curvature, >>>>> as JC earlier stated, there's no way to distinguish the two cases -- flat >>>>> and infinite in spatial extent versus spherical and finite in spatial >>>>> extent -- on measurements. But since flat and infinite at the instant of >>>>> the BB implies a singularity, I reject that model. AG * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fine. Nobody thinks there was a singularity. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>> >>>> *They think it's infinite at the beginning but always represent it as >>>> very small at the beginning. * >>>> >>>> >>>> No they represent all the universe we can interact with as small then. >>>> If you have something to question, how about quoting it explicitly; >>>> instead >>>> of your interpretation. >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>> >>> *How about if I quote you? You wrote earlier it could be infinite "at >>> the start", "initially". This suggests at the instant of the BB, it became >>> infinite. * >>> >>> >>> No. "Became" would not be "at the start". That's why I want see what >>> you quoting. You ability to interpret seems inventive to say the least. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> *Why do I have to quote anyone? * >> >> >> Because you keep asking about what other people, cosmologists, >> physicists, putatively believe...except we are then supposed to rely on >> your interpretation of what you think they believe. >> >> *I am just using basic logic and trying to resolve an apparent >> inconsistency. So, if not at the start, then during inflation. How could >> inflation produce infinite spatial extent? The rate of expansion might be >> incredibly huge, but not infinite. AG* >> >> >> That's why I wrote that it was infinite at the start. "At the start" >> means before any expansion. I don't know how to make it any clearer or >> more explicit. Yet you keep pretending there's a need for expansion to >> make it infinite "after the start". >> >> Brent >> > > *Well, you finally made your position (almost) clear. For most people I > think, "at the start" means when the BB event occurred. So, do you mean > after the BB event, but before inflation started? Is this the time frame > when the universe became spatially infinite? TIA, AG* > > > In that model, which isn't necessarily right and I'm not here to defend > only explain, the universe is never finite. Not before. Not after. Not > ever. > > Brent >
*My objective is to determine which model IS right, or at least is closer to the truth than the flat universe model. I get the feeling that you're more interested in ridiculing this effect, than getting closer to the truth of what's out there. The model I find most persuasive is that of a hypersphere, closed and finite in spatial extent. I am baffled why cosmologists think the universe that emerged with the BB is flat. Nonetheless, I tend to believe the substrate from which the BB emerged, is infinite in spatial extent and has an infinite past. It might be flat as well, or possibly something to which the concept of space doesn't apply. But we have no possible observations of that substrate. So I've restricted my analysis to OUR universe, the thing that arose with the BB. 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/e7c5c486-890b-4cfd-9409-97daa33a4c55%40googlegroups.com.
