On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 11:07:06 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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 * >
*I meant to write above, " ... more interested in ridiculing this EFFORT ... " 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/69815e69-9c59-4ba1-bbb2-1c183b29ae48%40googlegroups.com.
