On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 6:29:32 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/22/2020 5:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > >> When you measure something and it is so close to zero as to be >> indistinguishable from zero, then taking it to be zero is not an assumption. >> >> > *Why don't you compare the measured value with the curvature of a sphere 1 > LY in diameter, or !0^6 LY in diameter? Do you really think the curvature > would be significantly different from the measured value of the universe? I > doubt it. So, taking it to be zero, is just what you prefer, nothing more. > CMIIAW, AG* > > > No, because zero is a physically interesting value. There maybe some > unrecognized symmetry principle that makes it zero. It's unlikely that > there's some symmetry principle that makes it 1e-6. That's why physicist > look at the data as evidence for zero. Of course they may be wrong. But > it's not because they are just pulling assumptions out of thin air. > > Brent > *Why assume there's some symmetry principle to drive the curvature to zero? It could be just because the universe is huge. I don't think the cases are distinguishable by measurements. OTOH, the article points to some measurements of the CMBR that imply a spherical universe. Are they in any way persuasive? 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/a10fc3fb-f4b3-46c2-80b9-794e26578f5d%40googlegroups.com.
