On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 3:02:51 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:31:42 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 1:17:58 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 1:12:45 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 12:57:55 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 5:59 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 10:50:46 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 4:19 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Last sentence above: I mean that if it had a "start" with infinite >>>>>>>> spatial extent, that would seem to mean it did NOT have an infinite >>>>>>>> spatial >>>>>>>> extent just prior to the start. For me this seems like a singularity, >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> infinite physical process which occurs in zero time. If I were >>>>>>>> betting, I'd >>>>>>>> bet on a finite closed universe for any universe which "starts", not >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> the Multiverse. AG* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can bet any way you want. I doubt that the universe gives a shit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bruce >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *I'd go further and ask one question: it obviously doesn't. Is this >>>>>> your idea of value-added? What I think it displays is your firmly held >>>>>> belief that it's flat, and anger that someone might think otherwise. Not >>>>>> your finest hour. AG * >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not anger -- just frustration at your intransigence. I don't care what >>>>> you think, so why should I be angry? >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>> >>> *Correction in CAPS below: * >>> >>>> >>>> *Annoyance is only slightly removed from anger. Maybe you're being >>>> intransigent. As Brent pointed out, many origin theories have a >>>> "beginning" >>>> or "start", so before that our universe CAME INTO BEING, IT didn't exist >>>> (not to be confused with the Multiverse, WHICH COULD BE ANYTHING, FLAT, >>>> ETERNAL, WHO KNOWS?). But then, magically perhaps, it comes into >>>> instantaneous existence having an infinite spatial extent since it's >>>> alleged to be flat. For a genius like you, there's nothing to be explained >>>> here. AG * >>>> >>> >> *If you had more intellectual integrity, a characteristic lacking in many >> physicists/hacks today, instead of mockery you might posit a universe >> without a beginning. AG * >> > > > > The problem stems from physicists, for the most part, completely mislead > people about the relationship between the mathematical language of theories > of physics and cosmology and physical reality (which we record via lab > instruments and telescopes into collections of data). > > This is explained in Victor Stenger's > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/ > > @philipthrift >
*TY. I'll read it. The likely solution to the problem I've raised is that only an un-created universe, one which never began but always existed (in some form), can be flat. Unfortunately when one argues too persistently, the response is petulance. 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/8fae5f59-bd45-4dab-8136-482d1c79ad13%40googlegroups.com.
