On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 6:25:29 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le lun. 20 janv. 2020 à 14:10, Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> a écrit : > >> >> >> 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]> 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 if it had a >> start AND was infinite. If it's infinite, it never had a beginning or >> start. AG >> > > What singularity ? if being infinite is a singularity, then you're simply > saying nothing is infinite, start or no start. >
You haven't read my remarks carefully. Infinite in spatial extent is not the singularity. Rather, it's the creation of that in zero time, at the start, since no physical process can occur with a time duration of zero. Note that after the start, the universe might be expanding faster than light, but not at an infinite rate, which would be necessary to create infinite spatial extent. 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/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] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f241d6d6-34e9-41d0-9268-f07bb7f03009%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f241d6d6-34e9-41d0-9268-f07bb7f03009%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/06ea8550-3e3c-49a5-88bb-9bfe40c5217b%40googlegroups.com.
