Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.


devel / comp.arch / Re: finite but unbounded?

SubjectAuthor
* finite but unbounded?Ivan Godard
`* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 +* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |+* Re: finite but unbounded?robf...@gmail.com
 ||`- Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 |`* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 | `* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |  `* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |   `* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |    `* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |     +* Re: finite but unbounded?robf...@gmail.com
 |     |`* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 |     | +* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |     | |`* Re: finite but unbounded?George Neuner
 |     | | +* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 |     | | |`- Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |     | | `* Re: finite but unbounded?EricP
 |     | |  `- Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |     | `* Re: finite but unbounded?BGB
 |     |  `* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 |     |   `- Re: finite but unbounded?BGB
 |     `* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |      `* Re: finite but unbounded?Ivan Godard
 |       `* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |        `* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |         `* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |          +* Re: finite but unbounded?Ivan Godard
 |          |`* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |          | `- Re: finite but unbounded?Stefan Monnier
 |          +* Re: finite but unbounded?Stefan Monnier
 |          |+* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 |          ||`- Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |          |`* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |          | `* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |          |  +* Re: finite but unbounded?Stefan Monnier
 |          |  |`* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 |          |  | +- Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |          |  | `- Re: finite but unbounded?Thomas Koenig
 |          |  `* Re: finite but unbounded?David Brown
 |          |   `- Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |          `- Re: finite but unbounded?Andy Valencia
 +* Re: finite but unbounded?Thomas Koenig
 |`- Re: finite but unbounded?robf...@gmail.com
 +* Re: finite but unbounded?Brett
 |`- Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
 `* Re: finite but unbounded?BGB
  +* Re: finite but unbounded?robf...@gmail.com
  |`* Re: finite but unbounded?BGB
  | `* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
  |  `- Re: finite but unbounded?BGB
  `* Re: finite but unbounded?MitchAlsup
   `- Re: finite but unbounded?BGB

Pages:123
finite but unbounded?

<t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=24992&group=comp.arch#24992

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: iva...@millcomputing.com (Ivan Godard)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: finite but unbounded?
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 16:14:30 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 1
Message-ID: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 23:14:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5c3be6956c4d76e145913ac139bc2443";
logging-data="31950"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/i56/5oVczfA9wm2kW5O5m"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ct3WTbuv1AVENTicdQ6eZXqlPX0=
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Ivan Godard - Mon, 2 May 2022 23:14 UTC

@Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?

Re: finite but unbounded?

<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=24993&group=comp.arch#24993

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1111:b0:2f3:a419:4e05 with SMTP id e17-20020a05622a111100b002f3a4194e05mr7339079qty.657.1651540562543;
Mon, 02 May 2022 18:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:6d7:b0:325:67ff:a21b with SMTP id
m23-20020a05680806d700b0032567ffa21bmr849545oih.105.1651540562324; Mon, 02
May 2022 18:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 18:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:291:29f0:b8e9:1ed6:4f6c:62c1;
posting-account=H_G_JQkAAADS6onOMb-dqvUozKse7mcM
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:291:29f0:b8e9:1ed6:4f6c:62c1
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: MitchAl...@aol.com (MitchAlsup)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 01:16:02 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 14
 by: MitchAlsup - Tue, 3 May 2022 01:16 UTC

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
<
The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
<
However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
<
The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25009&group=comp.arch#25009

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david.br...@hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 14:02:58 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 12:02:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3529d8bc6a626fdf36b85d9e3b332a0d";
logging-data="8197"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/3AKY+P2k5TGCXTP0LfD0irq9oOtimj2I="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:N3jTg3ET9CZIlH3Fi/lqTwM1yv8=
In-Reply-To: <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: David Brown - Tue, 3 May 2022 12:02 UTC

On 03/05/2022 03:16, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
> <
> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
> <
> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
> <

The fact that portions of the universe are not /currently/ observable
does not mean it is unbounded. Even if (as current measurements and
theory suggest) it continues to grow, that does not in itself imply
there is no bound to its size - it could be asymptotically approaching a
limit. I don't believe that current theories are good enough at
explaining the apparent measured expansion of the universe, and so there
is uncertainty as to its future.

If expansion slows down, parts of the universe that are currently not
observable will become observable. Maybe some of it will forever be
beyond observation, maybe not - again, I am not convinced that we will
know until some of the big questions in cosmology and physics are sorted
out.

> The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
> in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
> worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
> number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}

Re: finite but unbounded?

<6400748d-491d-40c3-977a-ba72dc31f472n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25011&group=comp.arch#25011

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:29ed:b0:45a:aa8f:49 with SMTP id jv13-20020a05621429ed00b0045aaa8f0049mr1720421qvb.41.1651588294870;
Tue, 03 May 2022 07:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:c2:b0:325:eb71:7266 with SMTP id
t2-20020a05680800c200b00325eb717266mr1985836oic.269.1651588294562; Tue, 03
May 2022 07:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 07:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2607:fea8:1dde:6a00:f85f:c86f:8694:f584;
posting-account=QId4bgoAAABV4s50talpu-qMcPp519Eb
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2607:fea8:1dde:6a00:f85f:c86f:8694:f584
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6400748d-491d-40c3-977a-ba72dc31f472n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: robfi...@gmail.com (robf...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 14:31:34 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 58
 by: robf...@gmail.com - Tue, 3 May 2022 14:31 UTC

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 8:03:02 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/05/2022 03:16, MitchAlsup wrote:
> > On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
> >> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
> > <
> > The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
> > Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
> > <
> > However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
> > light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
> > Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
> > of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
> > <
> The fact that portions of the universe are not /currently/ observable
> does not mean it is unbounded. Even if (as current measurements and
> theory suggest) it continues to grow, that does not in itself imply
> there is no bound to its size - it could be asymptotically approaching a
> limit. I don't believe that current theories are good enough at
> explaining the apparent measured expansion of the universe, and so there
> is uncertainty as to its future.
>
> If expansion slows down, parts of the universe that are currently not
> observable will become observable. Maybe some of it will forever be
> beyond observation, maybe not - again, I am not convinced that we will
> know until some of the big questions in cosmology and physics are sorted
> out.
> > The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
> > in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
> > worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
> > number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}

This is a bit off-topic.
I think our cognitions of the universe has more to do with our ability to perceive than the
characteristics of the universe itself. What we are measuring is essentially human
perceptual limits. Do we really understand what perception is?
Big Bang is just a theory. I like to believe that new energy gets created from time to time
in little bangs. It is kinda dismal thinking of finite limits to the universe. It also seems
counter-intuitive to me because willful motion is possible. If things were finite they would
be “frozen” making willful motion impossible. Finite implies a four-dimensional solid.
Because peoples perceptions are finite does not mean the universe has to be..
Perceive the infinite. Therefore, the mass of the universe is potentially unlimited. There
is nothing preventing it from expanding.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25012&group=comp.arch#25012

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:fb4d:0:b0:456:3a15:30d7 with SMTP id b13-20020a0cfb4d000000b004563a1530d7mr14769424qvq.93.1651598477499;
Tue, 03 May 2022 10:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:d254:b0:e9:5d17:9e35 with SMTP id
h20-20020a056870d25400b000e95d179e35mr2057259oac.154.1651598477145; Tue, 03
May 2022 10:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 10:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:291:29f0:8c09:3361:4dfd:14be;
posting-account=H_G_JQkAAADS6onOMb-dqvUozKse7mcM
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:291:29f0:8c09:3361:4dfd:14be
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: MitchAl...@aol.com (MitchAlsup)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 17:21:17 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 32
 by: MitchAlsup - Tue, 3 May 2022 17:21 UTC

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/05/2022 03:16, MitchAlsup wrote:
> > On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
> >> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
> > <
> > The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
> > Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
> > <
> > However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
> > light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
> > Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
> > of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
> > <
> The fact that portions of the universe are not /currently/ observable
> does not mean it is unbounded. Even if (as current measurements and
> theory suggest) it continues to grow, that does not in itself imply
> there is no bound to its size - it could be asymptotically approaching a
> limit. I don't believe that current theories are good enough at
> explaining the apparent measured expansion of the universe, and so there
> is uncertainty as to its future.
>
> If expansion slows down, parts of the universe that are currently not
<
But the universe's expansion is accelerating--right now.
<
> observable will become observable. Maybe some of it will forever be
> beyond observation, maybe not - again, I am not convinced that we will
> know until some of the big questions in cosmology and physics are sorted
> out.
> > The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
> > in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
> > worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
> > number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}

Re: finite but unbounded?

<633c0ecc-9356-4bc5-a02b-ad3b1b595bf9n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25013&group=comp.arch#25013

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1cc4:b0:435:35c3:f0f1 with SMTP id g4-20020a0562141cc400b0043535c3f0f1mr14337967qvd.0.1651598670316;
Tue, 03 May 2022 10:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:b383:b0:e9:2fea:2148 with SMTP id
w3-20020a056870b38300b000e92fea2148mr2088659oap.103.1651598669942; Tue, 03
May 2022 10:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 10:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6400748d-491d-40c3-977a-ba72dc31f472n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:291:29f0:8c09:3361:4dfd:14be;
posting-account=H_G_JQkAAADS6onOMb-dqvUozKse7mcM
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:291:29f0:8c09:3361:4dfd:14be
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me> <6400748d-491d-40c3-977a-ba72dc31f472n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <633c0ecc-9356-4bc5-a02b-ad3b1b595bf9n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: MitchAl...@aol.com (MitchAlsup)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 17:24:30 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 70
 by: MitchAlsup - Tue, 3 May 2022 17:24 UTC

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:31:36 AM UTC-5, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 8:03:02 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> > On 03/05/2022 03:16, MitchAlsup wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
> > >> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
> > > <
> > > The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
> > > Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
> > > <
> > > However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
> > > light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
> > > Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
> > > of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
> > > <
> > The fact that portions of the universe are not /currently/ observable
> > does not mean it is unbounded. Even if (as current measurements and
> > theory suggest) it continues to grow, that does not in itself imply
> > there is no bound to its size - it could be asymptotically approaching a
> > limit. I don't believe that current theories are good enough at
> > explaining the apparent measured expansion of the universe, and so there
> > is uncertainty as to its future.
> >
> > If expansion slows down, parts of the universe that are currently not
> > observable will become observable. Maybe some of it will forever be
> > beyond observation, maybe not - again, I am not convinced that we will
> > know until some of the big questions in cosmology and physics are sorted
> > out.
> > > The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
> > > in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
> > > worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
> > > number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}
> This is a bit off-topic.
> I think our cognitions of the universe has more to do with our ability to perceive than the
> characteristics of the universe itself. What we are measuring is essentially human
> perceptual limits. Do we really understand what perception is?
> Big Bang is just a theory. I like to believe that new energy gets created from time to time
> in little bangs. It is kinda dismal thinking of finite limits to the universe. It also seems
<
What does it matter if the visible parts of the universe is only a small portion of the
entire universe ?
<
> counter-intuitive to me because willful motion is possible. If things were finite they would
> be “frozen” making willful motion impossible. Finite implies a four-dimensional solid.
> Because peoples perceptions are finite does not mean the universe has to be.
> Perceive the infinite. Therefore, the mass of the universe is potentially unlimited. There
> is nothing preventing it from expanding.
<
Then where is that new mass coming from ?
If you believe in e=mc^2, then where is the energy used to create that mass coming from ?

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t4roh6$kv1$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25014&group=comp.arch#25014

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!.POSTED.2001-4dd7-f207-0-7285-c2ff-fe6c-992d.ipv6dyn.netcologne.de!not-for-mail
From: tkoe...@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 17:24:54 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: news.netcologne.de
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <t4roh6$kv1$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 17:24:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: newsreader4.netcologne.de; posting-host="2001-4dd7-f207-0-7285-c2ff-fe6c-992d.ipv6dyn.netcologne.de:2001:4dd7:f207:0:7285:c2ff:fe6c:992d";
logging-data="21473"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@netcologne.de"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
 by: Thomas Koenig - Tue, 3 May 2022 17:24 UTC

MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> schrieb:
> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
><
> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.

Citation needed.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<b8fe2945-fc84-4320-89c7-612c0cc4a930n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25016&group=comp.arch#25016

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f10b:0:b0:458:4209:f79 with SMTP id i11-20020a0cf10b000000b0045842090f79mr14394305qvl.61.1651601560714;
Tue, 03 May 2022 11:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:e155:0:b0:325:6d76:da4b with SMTP id
y82-20020acae155000000b003256d76da4bmr2409824oig.125.1651601560505; Tue, 03
May 2022 11:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 11:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t4roh6$kv1$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2607:fea8:1dde:6a00:f85f:c86f:8694:f584;
posting-account=QId4bgoAAABV4s50talpu-qMcPp519Eb
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2607:fea8:1dde:6a00:f85f:c86f:8694:f584
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4roh6$kv1$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b8fe2945-fc84-4320-89c7-612c0cc4a930n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: robfi...@gmail.com (robf...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 18:12:40 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 15
 by: robf...@gmail.com - Tue, 3 May 2022 18:12 UTC

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> MitchAlsup <Mitch...@aol.com> schrieb:
> > On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
> >> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
> ><
> > The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
> Citation needed.

>Then where is that new mass coming from ?
>If you believe in e=mc^2, then where is the energy used to create that mass coming from ?

Where did the original mass come from? Why would there be only one explosion?
I forget how e=mc^2 was derived. I believe it was a very close approximation power series.
e = mc^2 + nc + k ( where nc and k can be dropped).

A circle does not have an evenly dividable circumference (2pi), and energy circulates.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t4seho$kmm$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25029&group=comp.arch#25029

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ggt...@yahoo.com (Brett)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 23:40:41 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <t4seho$kmm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 23:40:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="68816b116c362d3b8a177ad04ecc23d6";
logging-data="21206"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7zKVzf0/KZgRutxsAl3Wc"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JyvDYk+YrleoGVlUY4JMA4Nnn/w=
sha1:a0T4VUr8gscqcnxFeUbwZHBYyDs=
 by: Brett - Tue, 3 May 2022 23:40 UTC

MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
> <
> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
> <
> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.

“Universe grew faster than the speed of light” Universe speeding up, etc.
These fools just can’t stop dividing by zero and violating their own rules.

Red shift by distance is better explained by decay. There is a good paper
on it.

> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
> <
> The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
> in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
> worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
> number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}
>

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25046&group=comp.arch#25046

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david.br...@hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 10:31:04 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 08:31:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="eddad7a948a31fe9b98520f24002e683";
logging-data="22556"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19QllufpcUaj771IlOwPgFNN1k89A4U1po="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KZ9O2lwaB0k5Y1EHM4IPPsjOluI=
In-Reply-To: <d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: David Brown - Wed, 4 May 2022 08:31 UTC

On 03/05/2022 19:21, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/05/2022 03:16, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
>>> <
>>> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
>>> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
>>> <
>>> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
>>> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
>>> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
>>> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
>>> <
>> The fact that portions of the universe are not /currently/ observable
>> does not mean it is unbounded. Even if (as current measurements and
>> theory suggest) it continues to grow, that does not in itself imply
>> there is no bound to its size - it could be asymptotically approaching a
>> limit. I don't believe that current theories are good enough at
>> explaining the apparent measured expansion of the universe, and so there
>> is uncertainty as to its future.
>>
>> If expansion slows down, parts of the universe that are currently not
> <
> But the universe's expansion is accelerating--right now.

Well, that's the current theory. If you look at the curves according to
scientists' best understanding, the speed of expansion has varied - an
explosion at the start, then a ridiculous "inflation" speed, then
relatively constant for a long time, then gradually accelerating. As
far as I understand it, no one has yet come up with a decent hypothesis
for all this, much less a testable theory. There's just some
mathematical hand-waving to invent "dark energy" to try to make the
equations fit the observed data. And that observed data is only known
through the lens of the current theories.

Now, I am not saying that the current cosmological theories are wrong -
merely that I don't believe we can have as much confidence in them as we
have in many other parts of physics. It's important for scientists to
keep an open mind here, and consider other possibilities and challenge
assumptions, such as the constantness of some physical "constants".
(And I think this is something scientists are doing.)

So yes, it appears that the universe's expansion is accelerating at the
moment - but that appearance could be deceiving. And given the lack of
good explanations for the past behaviour of the universe's expansion, I
don't think we should be over-confident that the expansion will continue
to accelerate. We have no evidence to suggest it will /not/ do that,
but not enough evidence to be sure that it will.

It is an invalid assumption to think that an expanding universe is
unbounded in its extent, even if it continues to expand and never
contracts. And a good cosmology scientist will be careful about making
too many assumptions.

> <
>> observable will become observable. Maybe some of it will forever be
>> beyond observation, maybe not - again, I am not convinced that we will
>> know until some of the big questions in cosmology and physics are sorted
>> out.
>>> The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
>>> in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
>>> worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
>>> number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25068&group=comp.arch#25068

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ggt...@yahoo.com (Brett)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 23:18:15 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 23:18:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6304f27a8f020cbfc91b6cf8d6077d1c";
logging-data="3833"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Bgg1GL4NLcXBDA0gApSgm"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QWgqr+oOMcRgFwDFlWbWTYNAkmM=
sha1:7CC0MAUJUKOD+xwotxh4CJobYto=
 by: Brett - Wed, 4 May 2022 23:18 UTC

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 03/05/2022 19:21, MitchAlsup wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 03/05/2022 03:16, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>>>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
>>>> <
>>>> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
>>>> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
>>>> <
>>>> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
>>>> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
>>>> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
>>>> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
>>>> <
>>> The fact that portions of the universe are not /currently/ observable
>>> does not mean it is unbounded. Even if (as current measurements and
>>> theory suggest) it continues to grow, that does not in itself imply
>>> there is no bound to its size - it could be asymptotically approaching a
>>> limit. I don't believe that current theories are good enough at
>>> explaining the apparent measured expansion of the universe, and so there
>>> is uncertainty as to its future.
>>>
>>> If expansion slows down, parts of the universe that are currently not
>> <
>> But the universe's expansion is accelerating--right now.
>
> Well, that's the current theory. If you look at the curves according to
> scientists' best understanding, the speed of expansion has varied - an
> explosion at the start, then a ridiculous "inflation" speed, then
> relatively constant for a long time, then gradually accelerating. As
> far as I understand it, no one has yet come up with a decent hypothesis
> for all this, much less a testable theory. There's just some
> mathematical hand-waving to invent "dark energy" to try to make the
> equations fit the observed data. And that observed data is only known
> through the lens of the current theories.

Dark matter does not exist:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-may-be-missing-from-this-newfound-galaxy-astronomers-say/

And scientists have known this since Kalnajis (1983) who did the correct
disc math instead of spherical math:

https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast626_05/dmdg.pdf

Newspapers like dark matter, it fills column inches, and they don’t care if
it’s bullshit.
This is an example of how news has always been fake.

> Now, I am not saying that the current cosmological theories are wrong -
> merely that I don't believe we can have as much confidence in them as we
> have in many other parts of physics. It's important for scientists to
> keep an open mind here, and consider other possibilities and challenge
> assumptions, such as the constantness of some physical "constants".
> (And I think this is something scientists are doing.)
>
> So yes, it appears that the universe's expansion is accelerating at the
> moment - but that appearance could be deceiving. And given the lack of
> good explanations for the past behaviour of the universe's expansion, I
> don't think we should be over-confident that the expansion will continue
> to accelerate. We have no evidence to suggest it will /not/ do that,
> but not enough evidence to be sure that it will.
>
> It is an invalid assumption to think that an expanding universe is
> unbounded in its extent, even if it continues to expand and never
> contracts. And a good cosmology scientist will be careful about making
> too many assumptions.
>
>> <
>>> observable will become observable. Maybe some of it will forever be
>>> beyond observation, maybe not - again, I am not convinced that we will
>>> know until some of the big questions in cosmology and physics are sorted
>>> out.
>>>> The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
>>>> in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
>>>> worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
>>>> number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25076&group=comp.arch#25076

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david.br...@hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 09:50:18 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 07:50:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="55bf4fb645b891031b0351326e33980f";
logging-data="13943"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19sT4wSV+u55Q3iF3pS7EdX5T2OIxSAygo="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AT0q2mn5jTMex/UPU99MuQzKUug=
In-Reply-To: <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: David Brown - Thu, 5 May 2022 07:50 UTC

On 05/05/2022 01:18, Brett wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 03/05/2022 19:21, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 03/05/2022 03:16, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>>>>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
>>>>> <
>>>>> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
>>>>> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
>>>>> <
>>>>> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
>>>>> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
>>>>> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
>>>>> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
>>>>> <
>>>> The fact that portions of the universe are not /currently/ observable
>>>> does not mean it is unbounded. Even if (as current measurements and
>>>> theory suggest) it continues to grow, that does not in itself imply
>>>> there is no bound to its size - it could be asymptotically approaching a
>>>> limit. I don't believe that current theories are good enough at
>>>> explaining the apparent measured expansion of the universe, and so there
>>>> is uncertainty as to its future.
>>>>
>>>> If expansion slows down, parts of the universe that are currently not
>>> <
>>> But the universe's expansion is accelerating--right now.
>>
>> Well, that's the current theory. If you look at the curves according to
>> scientists' best understanding, the speed of expansion has varied - an
>> explosion at the start, then a ridiculous "inflation" speed, then
>> relatively constant for a long time, then gradually accelerating. As
>> far as I understand it, no one has yet come up with a decent hypothesis
>> for all this, much less a testable theory. There's just some
>> mathematical hand-waving to invent "dark energy" to try to make the
>> equations fit the observed data. And that observed data is only known
>> through the lens of the current theories.
>
> Dark matter does not exist:
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-may-be-missing-from-this-newfound-galaxy-astronomers-say/
>
> And scientists have known this since Kalnajis (1983) who did the correct
> disc math instead of spherical math:
>
> https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast626_05/dmdg.pdf
>
> Newspapers like dark matter, it fills column inches, and they don’t care if
> it’s bullshit.
> This is an example of how news has always been fake.
>
I haven't bothered looking at your links - I am not interested in
conspiracy theories and ridiculous scaremongering generalisations about
the news.

At the bleeding edge, science is always somewhat speculative - data is
incomplete, evidence is limited, experiments are hard to replicate, and
the theoretical side is a work in progress. Different groups work on
different ideas and in different directions. That's fine - it's how we
learn. Gradually there is a coalescing towards a common framework that
gives a good model of reality until newer more extreme experiments or
measurements point at flaws.

We don't know what "dark matter" is made of, and we do not know it
exists - it's a hypothesis with a fair amount of evidence and
justification, but a lot of holes in the theory as yet. Some scientists
work on the assumption that it exists and they want to figure out more
about it, others work on the assumption that it does not exist and look
for alternative explanations of the evidence and measurements.

It is therefore appropriate for media to report on the progress and
widely different speculations of various groups.

What is inappropriate, as you are doing, is to pick /one/ relative
outlier and declare it to be the "truth" and everyone else to be "fake
news" or somehow dishonest.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t5050f$lj4$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25079&group=comp.arch#25079

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: cr88...@gmail.com (BGB)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 04:22:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <t5050f$lj4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 09:22:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="91f2b55ce3b3229e84e8dd395e96bfa6";
logging-data="22116"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/FzMX1v/JJTX6S/zjTUU8/"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:o1HFdnlIYxLseK7jXejNQgaVVDo=
In-Reply-To: <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: BGB - Thu, 5 May 2022 09:22 UTC

On 5/2/2022 8:16 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
> <
> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
> <
> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
> <
> The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
> in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
> worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
> number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}

I guess, idle thoughts:
For parts of the universe outside of Earth's light-cone, how do we know
that the (effective) expansion rate (from our perspective) does not
approach infinity?...

Though, I guess, this would depend on the size and expansion rate of the
part of the space outside of the light cone.

Another idle thought (sorta going outside my area; so nevermind if this
"sounds kinda stupid") recently was half wondering if boson/boson
interactions could be a thing.

Like, normally, all we see is interactions between bosons and fermions,
and I guess it is (usually?) assumed that bosons don't usually interact
with each other.

But, it seems like, if they did interact, there could potentially be
"structures" (*1) which are effectively both invisible and non-solid.
The only real evidence of their existence being that they might cause
distortions in other fields (such as areas of "phantom mass" or
anomalous magnetic fields or similar).

Though, such a structure would not likely be in a fixed location, but
would probably just sorta float around in space or similar. It would
likely be mostly non-interacting, since if they did interact with normal
matter, their existence would be visible.

*1: In a relatively loose sense. Probably more like big clouds of blobs
of various types of particles, or maybe potentially organizing
themselves into various shapes (like gigantic "crystals" formed from a
gas of free-floating particles).

If the structure were big enough, or dense enough, it might be able to
have its own gravity well (in the relative absence of fermions).

In this case, it would be invisible, but could interact with normal
matter via their gravitational field or similar.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<b6b2ca2d-6e99-4f9d-8aeb-b4e8b70148c5n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25085&group=comp.arch#25085

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4404:b0:6a0:6ac:bbd2 with SMTP id v4-20020a05620a440400b006a006acbbd2mr8379278qkp.691.1651752888776;
Thu, 05 May 2022 05:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:e155:0:b0:325:6d76:da4b with SMTP id
y82-20020acae155000000b003256d76da4bmr2203631oig.125.1651752888442; Thu, 05
May 2022 05:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 05:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t5050f$lj4$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2607:fea8:1dde:6a00:34f7:1df:7654:45ec;
posting-account=QId4bgoAAABV4s50talpu-qMcPp519Eb
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2607:fea8:1dde:6a00:34f7:1df:7654:45ec
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t5050f$lj4$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b6b2ca2d-6e99-4f9d-8aeb-b4e8b70148c5n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: robfi...@gmail.com (robf...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 12:14:48 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 68
 by: robf...@gmail.com - Thu, 5 May 2022 12:14 UTC

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 5:22:27 AM UTC-4, BGB wrote:
> On 5/2/2022 8:16 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> > On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
> >> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
> > <
> > The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
> > Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
> > <
> > However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
> > light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
> > Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
> > of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
> > <
> > The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
> > in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
> > worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
> > number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}
> I guess, idle thoughts:
> For parts of the universe outside of Earth's light-cone, how do we know
> that the (effective) expansion rate (from our perspective) does not
> approach infinity?...
>
> Though, I guess, this would depend on the size and expansion rate of the
> part of the space outside of the light cone.
>
>
>
>
> Another idle thought (sorta going outside my area; so nevermind if this
> "sounds kinda stupid") recently was half wondering if boson/boson
> interactions could be a thing.
>
> Like, normally, all we see is interactions between bosons and fermions,
> and I guess it is (usually?) assumed that bosons don't usually interact
> with each other.
>
>
> But, it seems like, if they did interact, there could potentially be
> "structures" (*1) which are effectively both invisible and non-solid.
> The only real evidence of their existence being that they might cause
> distortions in other fields (such as areas of "phantom mass" or
> anomalous magnetic fields or similar).
>
> Though, such a structure would not likely be in a fixed location, but
> would probably just sorta float around in space or similar. It would
> likely be mostly non-interacting, since if they did interact with normal
> matter, their existence would be visible.
>
>
> *1: In a relatively loose sense. Probably more like big clouds of blobs
> of various types of particles, or maybe potentially organizing
> themselves into various shapes (like gigantic "crystals" formed from a
> gas of free-floating particles).
>
>
> If the structure were big enough, or dense enough, it might be able to
> have its own gravity well (in the relative absence of fermions).
>
> In this case, it would be invisible, but could interact with normal
> matter via their gravitational field or similar.

I have thought that the apparent red-shift in distant light may be due to
time passing faster the further away something is. So the universe may
not be expanding at the rate suggested by the red-shift.
Time is not a dimension although it is often treated as such. I have
thought time is an aggregate measurement of the passage of events.
At the large scale we are used to variations in the passage of time are
washed away by the macroscopic scale.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t512ng$hq$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25090&group=comp.arch#25090

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: cr88...@gmail.com (BGB)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 12:49:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <t512ng$hq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t5050f$lj4$1@dont-email.me>
<b6b2ca2d-6e99-4f9d-8aeb-b4e8b70148c5n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 17:49:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="91f2b55ce3b3229e84e8dd395e96bfa6";
logging-data="570"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Y2DjSLz54jQV06os8A4Mz"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8X2VcZd9TSDSeUk0tWm/DxCuXuk=
In-Reply-To: <b6b2ca2d-6e99-4f9d-8aeb-b4e8b70148c5n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: BGB - Thu, 5 May 2022 17:49 UTC

On 5/5/2022 7:14 AM, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 5:22:27 AM UTC-4, BGB wrote:
>> On 5/2/2022 8:16 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
>>> <
>>> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
>>> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
>>> <
>>> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
>>> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
>>> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
>>> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
>>> <
>>> The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
>>> in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
>>> worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
>>> number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}
>> I guess, idle thoughts:
>> For parts of the universe outside of Earth's light-cone, how do we know
>> that the (effective) expansion rate (from our perspective) does not
>> approach infinity?...
>>
>> Though, I guess, this would depend on the size and expansion rate of the
>> part of the space outside of the light cone.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Another idle thought (sorta going outside my area; so nevermind if this
>> "sounds kinda stupid") recently was half wondering if boson/boson
>> interactions could be a thing.
>>
>> Like, normally, all we see is interactions between bosons and fermions,
>> and I guess it is (usually?) assumed that bosons don't usually interact
>> with each other.
>>
>>
>> But, it seems like, if they did interact, there could potentially be
>> "structures" (*1) which are effectively both invisible and non-solid.
>> The only real evidence of their existence being that they might cause
>> distortions in other fields (such as areas of "phantom mass" or
>> anomalous magnetic fields or similar).
>>
>> Though, such a structure would not likely be in a fixed location, but
>> would probably just sorta float around in space or similar. It would
>> likely be mostly non-interacting, since if they did interact with normal
>> matter, their existence would be visible.
>>
>>
>> *1: In a relatively loose sense. Probably more like big clouds of blobs
>> of various types of particles, or maybe potentially organizing
>> themselves into various shapes (like gigantic "crystals" formed from a
>> gas of free-floating particles).
>>
>>
>> If the structure were big enough, or dense enough, it might be able to
>> have its own gravity well (in the relative absence of fermions).
>>
>> In this case, it would be invisible, but could interact with normal
>> matter via their gravitational field or similar.
>

I then thought, if such objects existed, they could pile up within the
gravity well of planets, and loosely follow along with the planet,
potentially forming things like invisible mountain ranges or similar.

If the particles do not interact, this "stuff" would exist more as an
amorphous gas (hanging around in gravity wells, but no real structure,
and would be effectively "infinitely compressible" apart from there not
being any way to confine it into any sort of container in this case).

> I have thought that the apparent red-shift in distant light may be due to
> time passing faster the further away something is. So the universe may
> not be expanding at the rate suggested by the red-shift.
> Time is not a dimension although it is often treated as such. I have
> thought time is an aggregate measurement of the passage of events.
> At the large scale we are used to variations in the passage of time are
> washed away by the macroscopic scale.
>

If it were passing faster with distance, it would blue-shift. Red-shift
would imply that time slows down with distance.

It would also imply a universe with a curved spacetime (vs flat).

Re: finite but unbounded?

<0634bbef-8095-4366-bd68-2245cc114c73n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25092&group=comp.arch#25092

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2349:b0:444:2a7b:cd5c with SMTP id hu9-20020a056214234900b004442a7bcd5cmr23702165qvb.77.1651775821104;
Thu, 05 May 2022 11:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:478f:b0:e9:8c5c:3c37 with SMTP id
c15-20020a056870478f00b000e98c5c3c37mr2861846oaq.217.1651775820856; Thu, 05
May 2022 11:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 11:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t5050f$lj4$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:291:29f0:4ef:e7b7:c308:23a3;
posting-account=H_G_JQkAAADS6onOMb-dqvUozKse7mcM
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:291:29f0:4ef:e7b7:c308:23a3
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t5050f$lj4$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0634bbef-8095-4366-bd68-2245cc114c73n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: MitchAl...@aol.com (MitchAlsup)
Injection-Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 18:37:01 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 81
 by: MitchAlsup - Thu, 5 May 2022 18:37 UTC

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:22:27 AM UTC-5, BGB wrote:
> On 5/2/2022 8:16 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> > On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
> >> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
> > <
> > The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
> > Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
> > <
> > However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
> > light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
> > Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
> > of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
> > <
> > The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
> > in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
> > worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
> > number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}
> I guess, idle thoughts:
> For parts of the universe outside of Earth's light-cone, how do we know
> that the (effective) expansion rate (from our perspective) does not
> approach infinity?...
<
Once it exceeds the speed of light it is no longer visible to us. C < ∞
>
> Though, I guess, this would depend on the size and expansion rate of the
> part of the space outside of the light cone.
>
>
>
>
> Another idle thought (sorta going outside my area; so nevermind if this
> "sounds kinda stupid") recently was half wondering if boson/boson
> interactions could be a thing.
>
> Like, normally, all we see is interactions between bosons and fermions,
> and I guess it is (usually?) assumed that bosons don't usually interact
> with each other.
>
They (scientists) have recently had 2 photons collide (at an extraordinarily
low rate)
>
> But, it seems like, if they did interact, there could potentially be
> "structures" (*1) which are effectively both invisible and non-solid.
> The only real evidence of their existence being that they might cause
> distortions in other fields (such as areas of "phantom mass" or
> anomalous magnetic fields or similar).
>
> Though, such a structure would not likely be in a fixed location, but
> would probably just sorta float around in space or similar. It would
> likely be mostly non-interacting, since if they did interact with normal
> matter, their existence would be visible.
>
>
> *1: In a relatively loose sense. Probably more like big clouds of blobs
> of various types of particles, or maybe potentially organizing
> themselves into various shapes (like gigantic "crystals" formed from a
> gas of free-floating particles).
>
At the energy level of these things, one would expect gasses.
>
> If the structure were big enough, or dense enough, it might be able to
> have its own gravity well (in the relative absence of fermions).
<
Energy distorts space-time just like mass.
>
> In this case, it would be invisible, but could interact with normal
> matter via their gravitational field or similar.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<41bab9eb-be06-453d-a5cd-a91b56832a61n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25093&group=comp.arch#25093

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a37:7c8:0:b0:69f:c5f8:85a2 with SMTP id 191-20020a3707c8000000b0069fc5f885a2mr19707958qkh.662.1651775926200;
Thu, 05 May 2022 11:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:79a:b0:e9:109a:1391 with SMTP id
en26-20020a056870079a00b000e9109a1391mr2826563oab.105.1651775925868; Thu, 05
May 2022 11:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 11:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t512ng$hq$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:291:29f0:4ef:e7b7:c308:23a3;
posting-account=H_G_JQkAAADS6onOMb-dqvUozKse7mcM
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:291:29f0:4ef:e7b7:c308:23a3
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t5050f$lj4$1@dont-email.me> <b6b2ca2d-6e99-4f9d-8aeb-b4e8b70148c5n@googlegroups.com>
<t512ng$hq$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <41bab9eb-be06-453d-a5cd-a91b56832a61n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: MitchAl...@aol.com (MitchAlsup)
Injection-Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 18:38:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 84
 by: MitchAlsup - Thu, 5 May 2022 18:38 UTC

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:49:40 PM UTC-5, BGB wrote:
> On 5/5/2022 7:14 AM, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 5:22:27 AM UTC-4, BGB wrote:
> >> On 5/2/2022 8:16 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
> >>>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
> >>> <
> >>> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
> >>> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
> >>> <
> >>> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
> >>> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
> >>> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
> >>> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
> >>> <
> >>> The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
> >>> in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
> >>> worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
> >>> number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}
> >> I guess, idle thoughts:
> >> For parts of the universe outside of Earth's light-cone, how do we know
> >> that the (effective) expansion rate (from our perspective) does not
> >> approach infinity?...
> >>
> >> Though, I guess, this would depend on the size and expansion rate of the
> >> part of the space outside of the light cone.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Another idle thought (sorta going outside my area; so nevermind if this
> >> "sounds kinda stupid") recently was half wondering if boson/boson
> >> interactions could be a thing.
> >>
> >> Like, normally, all we see is interactions between bosons and fermions,
> >> and I guess it is (usually?) assumed that bosons don't usually interact
> >> with each other.
> >>
> >>
> >> But, it seems like, if they did interact, there could potentially be
> >> "structures" (*1) which are effectively both invisible and non-solid.
> >> The only real evidence of their existence being that they might cause
> >> distortions in other fields (such as areas of "phantom mass" or
> >> anomalous magnetic fields or similar).
> >>
> >> Though, such a structure would not likely be in a fixed location, but
> >> would probably just sorta float around in space or similar. It would
> >> likely be mostly non-interacting, since if they did interact with normal
> >> matter, their existence would be visible.
> >>
> >>
> >> *1: In a relatively loose sense. Probably more like big clouds of blobs
> >> of various types of particles, or maybe potentially organizing
> >> themselves into various shapes (like gigantic "crystals" formed from a
> >> gas of free-floating particles).
> >>
> >>
> >> If the structure were big enough, or dense enough, it might be able to
> >> have its own gravity well (in the relative absence of fermions).
> >>
> >> In this case, it would be invisible, but could interact with normal
> >> matter via their gravitational field or similar.
> >
> I then thought, if such objects existed, they could pile up within the
> gravity well of planets, and loosely follow along with the planet,
> potentially forming things like invisible mountain ranges or similar.
<
The Lagrange points are planetary gravitational wells.
>
> If the particles do not interact, this "stuff" would exist more as an
> amorphous gas (hanging around in gravity wells, but no real structure,
> and would be effectively "infinitely compressible" apart from there not
> being any way to confine it into any sort of container in this case).
> > I have thought that the apparent red-shift in distant light may be due to
> > time passing faster the further away something is. So the universe may
> > not be expanding at the rate suggested by the red-shift.
> > Time is not a dimension although it is often treated as such. I have
> > thought time is an aggregate measurement of the passage of events.
> > At the large scale we are used to variations in the passage of time are
> > washed away by the macroscopic scale.
> >
> If it were passing faster with distance, it would blue-shift. Red-shift
> would imply that time slows down with distance.
>
> It would also imply a universe with a curved spacetime (vs flat).

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t515sf$qqh$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25094&group=comp.arch#25094

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: cr88...@gmail.com (BGB)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 13:43:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <t515sf$qqh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t5050f$lj4$1@dont-email.me>
<b6b2ca2d-6e99-4f9d-8aeb-b4e8b70148c5n@googlegroups.com>
<t512ng$hq$1@dont-email.me>
<41bab9eb-be06-453d-a5cd-a91b56832a61n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 18:43:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="91f2b55ce3b3229e84e8dd395e96bfa6";
logging-data="27473"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jmKx2waC/ZDbx5e9WWxVI"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5ZVW94/fqBKmkCLKen0JP0jJd10=
In-Reply-To: <41bab9eb-be06-453d-a5cd-a91b56832a61n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: BGB - Thu, 5 May 2022 18:43 UTC

On 5/5/2022 1:38 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:49:40 PM UTC-5, BGB wrote:
>> On 5/5/2022 7:14 AM, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 5:22:27 AM UTC-4, BGB wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/2022 8:16 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>>>>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
>>>>> <
>>>>> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
>>>>> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
>>>>> <
>>>>> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
>>>>> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
>>>>> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
>>>>> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
>>>>> <
>>>>> The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
>>>>> in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
>>>>> worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
>>>>> number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}
>>>> I guess, idle thoughts:
>>>> For parts of the universe outside of Earth's light-cone, how do we know
>>>> that the (effective) expansion rate (from our perspective) does not
>>>> approach infinity?...
>>>>
>>>> Though, I guess, this would depend on the size and expansion rate of the
>>>> part of the space outside of the light cone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another idle thought (sorta going outside my area; so nevermind if this
>>>> "sounds kinda stupid") recently was half wondering if boson/boson
>>>> interactions could be a thing.
>>>>
>>>> Like, normally, all we see is interactions between bosons and fermions,
>>>> and I guess it is (usually?) assumed that bosons don't usually interact
>>>> with each other.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, it seems like, if they did interact, there could potentially be
>>>> "structures" (*1) which are effectively both invisible and non-solid.
>>>> The only real evidence of their existence being that they might cause
>>>> distortions in other fields (such as areas of "phantom mass" or
>>>> anomalous magnetic fields or similar).
>>>>
>>>> Though, such a structure would not likely be in a fixed location, but
>>>> would probably just sorta float around in space or similar. It would
>>>> likely be mostly non-interacting, since if they did interact with normal
>>>> matter, their existence would be visible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *1: In a relatively loose sense. Probably more like big clouds of blobs
>>>> of various types of particles, or maybe potentially organizing
>>>> themselves into various shapes (like gigantic "crystals" formed from a
>>>> gas of free-floating particles).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the structure were big enough, or dense enough, it might be able to
>>>> have its own gravity well (in the relative absence of fermions).
>>>>
>>>> In this case, it would be invisible, but could interact with normal
>>>> matter via their gravitational field or similar.
>>>
>> I then thought, if such objects existed, they could pile up within the
>> gravity well of planets, and loosely follow along with the planet,
>> potentially forming things like invisible mountain ranges or similar.
> <
> The Lagrange points are planetary gravitational wells.

Yeah, if they existed, they might be easier to find in the Lagrange
points...

On an actual planet, most/all would likely sink into the planetary core
and be effectively undetectable.

>>
>> If the particles do not interact, this "stuff" would exist more as an
>> amorphous gas (hanging around in gravity wells, but no real structure,
>> and would be effectively "infinitely compressible" apart from there not
>> being any way to confine it into any sort of container in this case).
>>> I have thought that the apparent red-shift in distant light may be due to
>>> time passing faster the further away something is. So the universe may
>>> not be expanding at the rate suggested by the red-shift.
>>> Time is not a dimension although it is often treated as such. I have
>>> thought time is an aggregate measurement of the passage of events.
>>> At the large scale we are used to variations in the passage of time are
>>> washed away by the macroscopic scale.
>>>
>> If it were passing faster with distance, it would blue-shift. Red-shift
>> would imply that time slows down with distance.
>>
>> It would also imply a universe with a curved spacetime (vs flat).

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t517s9$bp7$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25095&group=comp.arch#25095

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: cr88...@gmail.com (BGB)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 14:17:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <t517s9$bp7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t5050f$lj4$1@dont-email.me>
<0634bbef-8095-4366-bd68-2245cc114c73n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 19:17:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="91f2b55ce3b3229e84e8dd395e96bfa6";
logging-data="12071"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/INWaYv+c4WGdQtvWwrqB8"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+9PG7wKgUGbPCccDs/rAVJE2v+o=
In-Reply-To: <0634bbef-8095-4366-bd68-2245cc114c73n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: BGB - Thu, 5 May 2022 19:17 UTC

On 5/5/2022 1:37 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:22:27 AM UTC-5, BGB wrote:
>> On 5/2/2022 8:16 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
>>> <
>>> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
>>> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
>>> <
>>> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
>>> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will never be observable.
>>> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
>>> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
>>> <
>>> The current estimate of the diameter of the universe (non observable) is something
>>> in the neighborhood of 120B LY. {But not less than 50B LY--and that is if we do not
>>> worry about the continuing expansion of the universe and assume we can give a
>>> number that is accurate for the universe at that exact instant.}
>> I guess, idle thoughts:
>> For parts of the universe outside of Earth's light-cone, how do we know
>> that the (effective) expansion rate (from our perspective) does not
>> approach infinity?...
> <
> Once it exceeds the speed of light it is no longer visible to us. C < ∞

Yeah.

One can't see stuff this far, only guess...

So, yeah, at the edge of the light cone, it exceeds light speed, and
going past this point, at a large enough distance, the speed could
approach infinity.

As expansion gets closer to infinity, the amount of space it could have
expanded into, during that span of time, also approaches infinity.

>>
>> Though, I guess, this would depend on the size and expansion rate of the
>> part of the space outside of the light cone.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Another idle thought (sorta going outside my area; so nevermind if this
>> "sounds kinda stupid") recently was half wondering if boson/boson
>> interactions could be a thing.
>>
>> Like, normally, all we see is interactions between bosons and fermions,
>> and I guess it is (usually?) assumed that bosons don't usually interact
>> with each other.
>>
> They (scientists) have recently had 2 photons collide (at an extraordinarily
> low rate)

Yeah.

Photons are one possibility, but don't really have the right properties
(they are more prone to scatter in every direction, don't really
interact with each other in most cases, interact readily with fermions,
....).

W, Z, and Higgs, are closer, but would be unstable in free space.

Also, the W and Z are probably too "light" for this.

Neutrinos can also be excluded for similar reasons, ...

>>
>> But, it seems like, if they did interact, there could potentially be
>> "structures" (*1) which are effectively both invisible and non-solid.
>> The only real evidence of their existence being that they might cause
>> distortions in other fields (such as areas of "phantom mass" or
>> anomalous magnetic fields or similar).
>>
>> Though, such a structure would not likely be in a fixed location, but
>> would probably just sorta float around in space or similar. It would
>> likely be mostly non-interacting, since if they did interact with normal
>> matter, their existence would be visible.
>>
>>
>> *1: In a relatively loose sense. Probably more like big clouds of blobs
>> of various types of particles, or maybe potentially organizing
>> themselves into various shapes (like gigantic "crystals" formed from a
>> gas of free-floating particles).
>>
> At the energy level of these things, one would expect gasses.

Yeah. The big "what if" part of these things is, what if the particles
interacted (enough) with each other that the result was not a gas ?...

Like, big "solid" chunks of exotic matter, with a structure similar to
that present in something like water ice. Say, they have charge, repel
each other via the weak force, are pulled together via gravity, ...

And are "cold" enough to form into something resembling a solid mass.

>>
>> If the structure were big enough, or dense enough, it might be able to
>> have its own gravity well (in the relative absence of fermions).
> <
> Energy distorts space-time just like mass.

Yeah, also possible.

>>
>> In this case, it would be invisible, but could interact with normal
>> matter via their gravitational field or similar.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25098&group=comp.arch#25098

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ggt...@yahoo.com (Brett)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 20:43:01 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me>
<t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 20:43:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="27f5d70405a6afa04f70c98f50be5767";
logging-data="19608"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FuDfRoqK8H+1R3I2aQ6GQ"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NZroTpjJQrl0jejBH9ZX8/eQEGk=
sha1:2NxQ2o1a1+oKM/5YP4Vmg0V1OVI=
 by: Brett - Thu, 5 May 2022 20:43 UTC

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 05/05/2022 01:18, Brett wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 03/05/2022 19:21, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 03/05/2022 03:16, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>>>>>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
>>>>>> <
>>>>>> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
>>>>>> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
>>>>>> <
>>>>>> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
>>>>>> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will
>>>>>> never be observable.
>>>>>> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
>>>>>> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
>>>>>> <
>>>>> The fact that portions of the universe are not /currently/ observable
>>>>> does not mean it is unbounded. Even if (as current measurements and
>>>>> theory suggest) it continues to grow, that does not in itself imply
>>>>> there is no bound to its size - it could be asymptotically approaching a
>>>>> limit. I don't believe that current theories are good enough at
>>>>> explaining the apparent measured expansion of the universe, and so there
>>>>> is uncertainty as to its future.
>>>>>
>>>>> If expansion slows down, parts of the universe that are currently not
>>>> <
>>>> But the universe's expansion is accelerating--right now.
>>>
>>> Well, that's the current theory. If you look at the curves according to
>>> scientists' best understanding, the speed of expansion has varied - an
>>> explosion at the start, then a ridiculous "inflation" speed, then
>>> relatively constant for a long time, then gradually accelerating. As
>>> far as I understand it, no one has yet come up with a decent hypothesis
>>> for all this, much less a testable theory. There's just some
>>> mathematical hand-waving to invent "dark energy" to try to make the
>>> equations fit the observed data. And that observed data is only known
>>> through the lens of the current theories.
>>
>> Dark matter does not exist:
>>
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-may-be-missing-from-this-newfound-galaxy-astronomers-say/
>>
>> And scientists have known this since Kalnajis (1983) who did the correct
>> disc math instead of spherical math:
>>
>> https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast626_05/dmdg.pdf
>>
>> Newspapers like dark matter, it fills column inches, and they don’t care if
>> it’s bullshit.
>> This is an example of how news has always been fake.
>>
> I haven't bothered looking at your links - I am not interested in
> conspiracy theories and ridiculous scaremongering generalisations about
> the news.

An ape who sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil.

> At the bleeding edge, science is always somewhat speculative - data is
> incomplete, evidence is limited, experiments are hard to replicate, and
> the theoretical side is a work in progress. Different groups work on
> different ideas and in different directions. That's fine - it's how we
> learn. Gradually there is a coalescing towards a common framework that
> gives a good model of reality until newer more extreme experiments or
> measurements point at flaws.

You sound like my astronomy professor who stated that we should spend more
money on theorists like him instead of billions on experiments. I pointed
out that Theorists are like economists in that there are more economic
theories than there are economists, and all of them are angling at the
Nobel prize lottery.

Current astronomical theories were based on ground based measurements and
satellites showed radically different numbers no one could have guessed and
had thrown all those ground based theories into the dust bin of history.

The professor paused, had no reply, and continued with his talk.

I knew that most of my astronomy textbook was bullshit, but being before
the internet could not prove such with reasonable effort. I was in college
to actually learn, not memorize and recite bullshit.

By bullshit I mean random interesting ideas that kinda fit the curve but
not really, but by being interesting won the group mob mentality lottery.

I have since learned life is all bullshit.

> We don't know what "dark matter" is made of, and we do not know it
> exists - it's a hypothesis with a fair amount of evidence and
> justification, but a lot of holes in the theory as yet. Some scientists
> work on the assumption that it exists and they want to figure out more
> about it, others work on the assumption that it does not exist and look
> for alternative explanations of the evidence and measurements.
>
> It is therefore appropriate for media to report on the progress and
> widely different speculations of various groups.
>
> What is inappropriate, as you are doing, is to pick /one/ relative
> outlier and declare it to be the "truth" and everyone else to be "fake
> news" or somehow dishonest.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<8ec408ce-ec62-4811-83c6-6da9548a3a23n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25099&group=comp.arch#25099

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:d:b0:2f3:ae02:45cb with SMTP id x13-20020a05622a000d00b002f3ae0245cbmr697953qtw.187.1651797570885;
Thu, 05 May 2022 17:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:11ca:b0:2d9:a01a:488b with SMTP id
p10-20020a05680811ca00b002d9a01a488bmr3898738oiv.214.1651797570688; Thu, 05
May 2022 17:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 17:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2607:fea8:1dde:6a00:3010:65b4:bf69:5968;
posting-account=QId4bgoAAABV4s50talpu-qMcPp519Eb
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2607:fea8:1dde:6a00:3010:65b4:bf69:5968
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me> <d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me> <t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8ec408ce-ec62-4811-83c6-6da9548a3a23n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: robfi...@gmail.com (robf...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 00:39:30 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: robf...@gmail.com - Fri, 6 May 2022 00:39 UTC

>If it were passing faster with distance, it would blue-shift. Red-shift
>would imply that time slows down with distance.

More units of time per wavelength equals a lower frequency. I think
it would result in apparent red-shifting to the remote observer. Point
is I believe that time may not pass at the same rate everywhere at
cosmic distances. It could explain some things.

>It would also imply a universe with a curved spacetime (vs flat).

I think time is not a dimension. I believe it is an aggregate measure. If no events
occur then no time passes. An event as small as an electron spinning, or
smaller, causes time to pass. So at our scale of existence it seems
to pass consistently. Time is visibility of state change. The quanta of time is
very small.

Re: finite but unbounded?

<896aad8f-2a69-49e4-8d3a-a8858a2d1005n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25100&group=comp.arch#25100

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:d7cb:0:b0:444:2b27:80d3 with SMTP id g11-20020a0cd7cb000000b004442b2780d3mr643633qvj.57.1651799735949;
Thu, 05 May 2022 18:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:a108:b0:ec:43ef:5338 with SMTP id
m8-20020a056870a10800b000ec43ef5338mr3426772oae.16.1651799735734; Thu, 05 May
2022 18:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 18:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8ec408ce-ec62-4811-83c6-6da9548a3a23n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:291:29f0:4ef:e7b7:c308:23a3;
posting-account=H_G_JQkAAADS6onOMb-dqvUozKse7mcM
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:291:29f0:4ef:e7b7:c308:23a3
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me> <93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me> <d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me> <t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me> <8ec408ce-ec62-4811-83c6-6da9548a3a23n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <896aad8f-2a69-49e4-8d3a-a8858a2d1005n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
From: MitchAl...@aol.com (MitchAlsup)
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 01:15:35 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: MitchAlsup - Fri, 6 May 2022 01:15 UTC

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 7:39:32 PM UTC-5, robf...@gmail.com wrote:
> >If it were passing faster with distance, it would blue-shift. Red-shift
> >would imply that time slows down with distance.
> More units of time per wavelength equals a lower frequency. I think
> it would result in apparent red-shifting to the remote observer. Point
> is I believe that time may not pass at the same rate everywhere at
> cosmic distances. It could explain some things.
> >It would also imply a universe with a curved spacetime (vs flat).
<
> I think time is not a dimension. I believe it is an aggregate measure. If no events
> occur then no time passes. An event as small as an electron spinning, or
> smaller, causes time to pass. So at our scale of existence it seems
> to pass consistently. Time is visibility of state change. The quanta of time is
> very small.
<
In the book "Schrodinger 's Kittens" John Gribbin explains essentially how
Stephan Weinberg won his Nobel Prize. The trick, Weinberg determined has
to do with the interpretation of the Schrodinger equations with negative
values in the SQRT() part. Weinberg reasoned that this set of solutions represent
waves running backwards in time.
<
This solves the 2-slit experiments. The negative time photon passes through
and sees the configuration of the experiment before the actual (forward time)
photon has been released. So the negative time photon informs the real photon
to act like a wave or act like a particle.
<
But also explains that our knowledge of particle physics requires there to be
an atom to receive a photon that is emitted by another atom. This, in turn,
sets up the thought experiment where a atom on one side of the universe
emits a photon which is captured by an atom on the other side of the universe.
To the photon, time does not pass, to the initiator (negative time photon) time
does not pass either. So, here we have a photon that takes 13B years of flight
time, and the photon perceives none of it. The photon is released from the
atom and it arrives instantaneously at the other atom after 13B years of travel.
<
Time is not what we as humans make it out to be.
Time merely is what it is.
And Quantum electrodynamics is happy with the notion that some things
travel backwards in time (at least our understanding/perception of time).
<
recently work on trying to ecreate the math necessary to calculate in the
"time" between 10^-43 of Big Bang and 10^-38 of BB enumerates both time
and space as particles of foam (plank scale foam) that when expanded
by inflation, 3 of these become the dimensions of distance, and the other
becomes the dimension of time. But prior to 10^-38 after BB there was
neither the concept of distance nor the concept of "flowing time". We
need this kind of new math in order to create the mathematical basis
for describing physics before the emergence of dimension and time.
QED and QCD both depend on cardinality of dimensions and the flow
of time. Gravity does not. Merging these requires "new math".

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25103&group=comp.arch#25103

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david.br...@hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 11:18:01 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 09:18:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="60bd8f907b0d57c1f18634808204b722";
logging-data="22928"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7GEtar0j6Mkugfagh9MPf9el9OWNmF1I="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QrSdoQmoIlxxeEnxgce9ooDc4Gc=
In-Reply-To: <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: David Brown - Fri, 6 May 2022 09:18 UTC

On 05/05/2022 22:43, Brett wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 05/05/2022 01:18, Brett wrote:
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> On 03/05/2022 19:21, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/05/2022 03:16, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>>>>>>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
>>>>>>> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster than the speed of
>>>>>>> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will
>>>>>>> never be observable.
>>>>>>> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to be some kind
>>>>>>> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>> The fact that portions of the universe are not /currently/ observable
>>>>>> does not mean it is unbounded. Even if (as current measurements and
>>>>>> theory suggest) it continues to grow, that does not in itself imply
>>>>>> there is no bound to its size - it could be asymptotically approaching a
>>>>>> limit. I don't believe that current theories are good enough at
>>>>>> explaining the apparent measured expansion of the universe, and so there
>>>>>> is uncertainty as to its future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If expansion slows down, parts of the universe that are currently not
>>>>> <
>>>>> But the universe's expansion is accelerating--right now.
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's the current theory. If you look at the curves according to
>>>> scientists' best understanding, the speed of expansion has varied - an
>>>> explosion at the start, then a ridiculous "inflation" speed, then
>>>> relatively constant for a long time, then gradually accelerating. As
>>>> far as I understand it, no one has yet come up with a decent hypothesis
>>>> for all this, much less a testable theory. There's just some
>>>> mathematical hand-waving to invent "dark energy" to try to make the
>>>> equations fit the observed data. And that observed data is only known
>>>> through the lens of the current theories.
>>>
>>> Dark matter does not exist:
>>>
>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-may-be-missing-from-this-newfound-galaxy-astronomers-say/
>>>
>>> And scientists have known this since Kalnajis (1983) who did the correct
>>> disc math instead of spherical math:
>>>
>>> https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast626_05/dmdg.pdf
>>>
>>> Newspapers like dark matter, it fills column inches, and they don’t care if
>>> it’s bullshit.
>>> This is an example of how news has always been fake.
>>>
>> I haven't bothered looking at your links - I am not interested in
>> conspiracy theories and ridiculous scaremongering generalisations about
>> the news.
>
> An ape who sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil.

Keep an open mind, but not /so/ open that your brains dribble out.

There is a difference between having a bit of healthy scepticism and
being critical about picking good sources of information, and the kind
of absurd delusions popular these days that everything coming from "the
experts" or "the mainstream" must be wrong.

>
>> At the bleeding edge, science is always somewhat speculative - data is
>> incomplete, evidence is limited, experiments are hard to replicate, and
>> the theoretical side is a work in progress. Different groups work on
>> different ideas and in different directions. That's fine - it's how we
>> learn. Gradually there is a coalescing towards a common framework that
>> gives a good model of reality until newer more extreme experiments or
>> measurements point at flaws.
>
> You sound like my astronomy professor who stated that we should spend more
> money on theorists like him instead of billions on experiments. I pointed
> out that Theorists are like economists in that there are more economic
> theories than there are economists, and all of them are angling at the
> Nobel prize lottery.

You need theory /and/ experiment in science.

>
> Current astronomical theories were based on ground based measurements and
> satellites showed radically different numbers no one could have guessed and
> had thrown all those ground based theories into the dust bin of history.
>
> The professor paused, had no reply, and continued with his talk.
>

I'm sure the professor had more useful things to do than try to explain
the basic principles of science.

> I knew that most of my astronomy textbook was bullshit, but being before
> the internet could not prove such with reasonable effort. I was in college
> to actually learn, not memorize and recite bullshit.
>
> By bullshit I mean random interesting ideas that kinda fit the curve but
> not really, but by being interesting won the group mob mentality lottery.
>
> I have since learned life is all bullshit.

What a sad outlook you have. I don't really understand how people can
get themselves onto such a self-destructive spiral of paranoia and
distrust, though I do understand how it is a vicious circle that gets
worse and worse.

I hope you can find some way to restore a bit of faith in your fellow
humans and the world around you.

>
>> We don't know what "dark matter" is made of, and we do not know it
>> exists - it's a hypothesis with a fair amount of evidence and
>> justification, but a lot of holes in the theory as yet. Some scientists
>> work on the assumption that it exists and they want to figure out more
>> about it, others work on the assumption that it does not exist and look
>> for alternative explanations of the evidence and measurements.
>>
>> It is therefore appropriate for media to report on the progress and
>> widely different speculations of various groups.
>>
>> What is inappropriate, as you are doing, is to pick /one/ relative
>> outlier and declare it to be the "truth" and everyone else to be "fake
>> news" or somehow dishonest.
>

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25104&group=comp.arch#25104

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: iva...@millcomputing.com (Ivan Godard)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 08:12:47 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me> <t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me> <t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 15:12:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="655e30e65cd95d871489664bdfb89677";
logging-data="26901"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19C+BLAh1jlLoMx8XLBX5en"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IGWFgc6V+UiYyLinSGbfmIvkBj0=
In-Reply-To: <t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Ivan Godard - Fri, 6 May 2022 15:12 UTC

On 5/6/2022 2:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 05/05/2022 22:43, Brett wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 05/05/2022 01:18, Brett wrote:
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>> On 03/05/2022 19:21, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/05/2022 03:16, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>>>>>>>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
>>>>>>>> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster
>>>>>>>> than the speed of
>>>>>>>> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will
>>>>>>>> never be observable.
>>>>>>>> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to
>>>>>>>> be some kind
>>>>>>>> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>> The fact that portions of the universe are not /currently/
>>>>>>> observable
>>>>>>> does not mean it is unbounded. Even if (as current measurements and
>>>>>>> theory suggest) it continues to grow, that does not in itself imply
>>>>>>> there is no bound to its size - it could be asymptotically
>>>>>>> approaching a
>>>>>>> limit. I don't believe that current theories are good enough at
>>>>>>> explaining the apparent measured expansion of the universe, and
>>>>>>> so there
>>>>>>> is uncertainty as to its future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If expansion slows down, parts of the universe that are currently
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>> <
>>>>>> But the universe's expansion is accelerating--right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, that's the current theory.  If you look at the curves
>>>>> according to
>>>>> scientists' best understanding, the speed of expansion has varied - an
>>>>> explosion at the start, then a ridiculous "inflation" speed, then
>>>>> relatively constant for a long time, then gradually accelerating.  As
>>>>> far as I understand it, no one has yet come up with a decent
>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>> for all this, much less a testable theory.  There's just some
>>>>> mathematical hand-waving to invent "dark energy" to try to make the
>>>>> equations fit the observed data.  And that observed data is only known
>>>>> through the lens of the current theories.
>>>>
>>>> Dark matter does not exist:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-may-be-missing-from-this-newfound-galaxy-astronomers-say/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And scientists have known this since Kalnajis (1983) who did the
>>>> correct
>>>> disc math instead of spherical math:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast626_05/dmdg.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Newspapers like dark matter, it fills column inches, and they don’t
>>>> care if
>>>> it’s bullshit.
>>>> This is an example of how news has always been fake.
>>>>
>>> I haven't bothered looking at your links - I am not interested in
>>> conspiracy theories and ridiculous scaremongering generalisations about
>>> the news.
>>
>> An ape who sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil.
>
> Keep an open mind, but not /so/ open that your brains dribble out.
>
> There is a difference between having a bit of healthy scepticism and
> being critical about picking good sources of information, and the kind
> of absurd delusions popular these days that everything coming from "the
> experts" or "the mainstream" must be wrong.
>
>>
>>> At the bleeding edge, science is always somewhat speculative - data is
>>> incomplete, evidence is limited, experiments are hard to replicate, and
>>> the theoretical side is a work in progress.  Different groups work on
>>> different ideas and in different directions.  That's fine - it's how we
>>> learn.  Gradually there is a coalescing towards a common framework that
>>> gives a good model of reality until newer more extreme experiments or
>>> measurements point at flaws.
>>
>> You sound like my astronomy professor who stated that we should spend
>> more
>> money on theorists like him instead of billions on experiments. I pointed
>> out that Theorists are like economists in that there are more economic
>> theories than there are economists, and all of them are angling at the
>> Nobel prize lottery.
>
> You need theory /and/ experiment in science.
>
>>
>> Current astronomical theories were based on ground based measurements and
>> satellites showed radically different numbers no one could have
>> guessed and
>> had thrown all those ground based theories into the dust bin of history.
>>
>> The professor paused, had no reply, and continued with his talk.
>>
>
> I'm sure the professor had more useful things to do than try to explain
> the basic principles of science.
>
>> I knew that most of my astronomy textbook was bullshit, but being before
>> the internet could not prove such with reasonable effort. I was in
>> college
>> to actually learn, not memorize and recite bullshit.
>>
>> By bullshit I mean random interesting ideas that kinda fit the curve but
>> not really, but by being interesting won the group mob mentality lottery.
>>
>> I have since learned life is all bullshit.
>
> What a sad outlook you have.  I don't really understand how people can
> get themselves onto such a self-destructive spiral of paranoia and
> distrust, though I do understand how it is a vicious circle that gets
> worse and worse.
>
> I hope you can find some way to restore a bit of faith in your fellow
> humans and the world around you.

+1

Re: finite but unbounded?

<t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=25107&group=comp.arch#25107

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ggt...@yahoo.com (Brett)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: finite but unbounded?
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 18:33:11 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <t53pl6$u4p$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4poki$v6e$1@dont-email.me>
<93727ecf-8629-4437-8c37-81a49ad2d3aen@googlegroups.com>
<t4r5li$805$1@dont-email.me>
<d7856d2b-b61d-43f8-a5ac-b8562f29a678n@googlegroups.com>
<t4tdk9$m0s$1@dont-email.me>
<t4v1jh$3np$1@dont-email.me>
<t4vvjr$djn$1@dont-email.me>
<t51csl$j4o$1@dont-email.me>
<t52p4a$mcg$1@dont-email.me>
<t53dte$q8l$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 18:33:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="12095cbee818eaa0ef147e8292942567";
logging-data="30873"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+smk54sAfYM0nVrhIAl3Sh"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vnhpl5Dh5EcyOQP0hnL9FTOsN9g=
sha1:OJbR1ZkiPu9UZ0zgh8t2QWAx7/U=
 by: Brett - Fri, 6 May 2022 18:33 UTC

Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> wrote:
> On 5/6/2022 2:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 05/05/2022 22:43, Brett wrote:
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> On 05/05/2022 01:18, Brett wrote:
>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/05/2022 19:21, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 03/05/2022 03:16, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> @Mitch: Why not one of the other possibilities?
>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>> The amount of energy in the Big Bang was finite.
>>>>>>>>> Thus the energy or mass of the universe must be finite.
>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>> However, during inflation the scale of the universe grew faster
>>>>>>>>> than the speed of
>>>>>>>>> light, so there are significant portions of the universe which will
>>>>>>>>> never be observable.
>>>>>>>>> Thus unbounded. {Although there is an argument that there has to
>>>>>>>>> be some kind
>>>>>>>>> of bound. But it has been 4 decades since I looked into tit}
>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>> The fact that portions of the universe are not /currently/
>>>>>>>> observable
>>>>>>>> does not mean it is unbounded. Even if (as current measurements and
>>>>>>>> theory suggest) it continues to grow, that does not in itself imply
>>>>>>>> there is no bound to its size - it could be asymptotically
>>>>>>>> approaching a
>>>>>>>> limit. I don't believe that current theories are good enough at
>>>>>>>> explaining the apparent measured expansion of the universe, and
>>>>>>>> so there
>>>>>>>> is uncertainty as to its future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If expansion slows down, parts of the universe that are currently
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>> But the universe's expansion is accelerating--right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, that's the current theory.  If you look at the curves
>>>>>> according to
>>>>>> scientists' best understanding, the speed of expansion has varied - an
>>>>>> explosion at the start, then a ridiculous "inflation" speed, then
>>>>>> relatively constant for a long time, then gradually accelerating.  As
>>>>>> far as I understand it, no one has yet come up with a decent
>>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>>> for all this, much less a testable theory.  There's just some
>>>>>> mathematical hand-waving to invent "dark energy" to try to make the
>>>>>> equations fit the observed data.  And that observed data is only known
>>>>>> through the lens of the current theories.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dark matter does not exist:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-may-be-missing-from-this-newfound-galaxy-astronomers-say/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And scientists have known this since Kalnajis (1983) who did the
>>>>> correct
>>>>> disc math instead of spherical math:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast626_05/dmdg.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Newspapers like dark matter, it fills column inches, and they don’t
>>>>> care if
>>>>> it’s bullshit.
>>>>> This is an example of how news has always been fake.
>>>>>
>>>> I haven't bothered looking at your links - I am not interested in
>>>> conspiracy theories and ridiculous scaremongering generalisations about
>>>> the news.
>>>
>>> An ape who sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil.
>>
>> Keep an open mind, but not /so/ open that your brains dribble out.
>>
>> There is a difference between having a bit of healthy scepticism and
>> being critical about picking good sources of information, and the kind
>> of absurd delusions popular these days that everything coming from "the
>> experts" or "the mainstream" must be wrong.
>>
>>>
>>>> At the bleeding edge, science is always somewhat speculative - data is
>>>> incomplete, evidence is limited, experiments are hard to replicate, and
>>>> the theoretical side is a work in progress.  Different groups work on
>>>> different ideas and in different directions.  That's fine - it's how we
>>>> learn.  Gradually there is a coalescing towards a common framework that
>>>> gives a good model of reality until newer more extreme experiments or
>>>> measurements point at flaws.
>>>
>>> You sound like my astronomy professor who stated that we should spend
>>> more
>>> money on theorists like him instead of billions on experiments. I pointed
>>> out that Theorists are like economists in that there are more economic
>>> theories than there are economists, and all of them are angling at the
>>> Nobel prize lottery.
>>
>> You need theory /and/ experiment in science.
>>
>>>
>>> Current astronomical theories were based on ground based measurements and
>>> satellites showed radically different numbers no one could have
>>> guessed and
>>> had thrown all those ground based theories into the dust bin of history.
>>>
>>> The professor paused, had no reply, and continued with his talk.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure the professor had more useful things to do than try to explain
>> the basic principles of science.
>>
>>> I knew that most of my astronomy textbook was bullshit, but being before
>>> the internet could not prove such with reasonable effort. I was in
>>> college
>>> to actually learn, not memorize and recite bullshit.
>>>
>>> By bullshit I mean random interesting ideas that kinda fit the curve but
>>> not really, but by being interesting won the group mob mentality lottery.
>>>
>>> I have since learned life is all bullshit.
>>
>> What a sad outlook you have.  I don't really understand how people can
>> get themselves onto such a self-destructive spiral of paranoia and
>> distrust, though I do understand how it is a vicious circle that gets
>> worse and worse.
>>
>> I hope you can find some way to restore a bit of faith in your fellow
>> humans and the world around you.
>
> +1
>

A more generous and accurate interpretation is that we are all muddling
though life. Don’t look to close at your hero’s as they are just as
muddled. ;)

Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor