On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 6:04:38 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le lun. 20 janv. 2020 à 13:49, Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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 >
I explained it several times. There's a singularity implied it it had a start AND was infinite. If it's infinite, it never had a beginning or start. 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] <javascript:>. >> 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/f241d6d6-34e9-41d0-9268-f07bb7f03009%40googlegroups.com.
