Le lun. 20 janv. 2020 à 13:49, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 3:30:19 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> 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* >> > > *The truth is, for all his brilliance, Bruce is an asshole. So he makes > his mocking comments, that he doesn't care what I think, as if that's the > issue. What shit! What I am established is that flatness is incompatible > with a universe which had a beginning. So if it's flat, it never had a > beginning; or else it did, and is closed, hyper-spherical in shape. AG* > What prevent it to be infinite since the start ? As I said, it's space that expand, so going back in time shows *our obsvervable* universe has been small... that doesn't preclude it (our observable part) to be from a vastly bigger thing, even an infinite thing, we would still only see our small part. Quentin > >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- > 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/6f7b8392-51fd-4f5b-b304-3a726ae2a083%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6f7b8392-51fd-4f5b-b304-3a726ae2a083%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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/CAMW2kArkYLcUjFjoDx-wtagvSKbubq3ELubmQ--V_K4YcmuSJw%40mail.gmail.com.
