I counted, the post I am now responding to had 10 iterated quotes, that's quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes. People are too lazy to trim anything and that's why in long threads the signal to noise ratio declines exponentially and soon becomes almost unreadable. And that's why I'm starting a new one.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:49 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *> 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* Are you talking about spatial curvature or spacetime curvature? By "curvature" do you mean the angles of a triangle add up to something other than 180 degrees, or do you mean if you keep going in one direction you will eventually end up where you started? They are not necessarily the same thing. If the universe once expanded faster than the speed of light (as inflation hypothesizes) then it's conceivable the angles of a triangle could add up to be more than 180 degrees, so the universe would have a positive spatial curvature like a sphere does, and yet you'd be going further and further from your starting point into infinity and never return. And as long as there had been a faster than light expansion at some point in the universe's history if the angles of a triangle added up to less than 180 degrees then the universe would have negative spatial curvature, like the shape of a saddle does, and you'd still never return to your starting place. John K Clark -- 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/CAJPayv0NuikK2OnZPgiwcZrufT%2BMot99DKWmRdowRZSs8179_Q%40mail.gmail.com.
