Flat universe?

"Sam Wormley" wrote below:
All points are the big bang point. --- No Center

hanson wrote:
ahahaha... if so, then why is a whole set of theories telling you
that the universe is expanding from a single big bang point (some
say at "c" with FLT hyperinflation) and to boot accelerating?...

ahahaha... So then, is the universe expanding into itself if "All
points are the big bang point. - No Center"?... ahahaha....
Looks to me like someone wants to have the cake & eat it too.

If the universe expands from every point in/to every other point,
then it is effectively flat and static on the large scale and only
local differences would be noticeable... ahahaha....

If "all points are the big bang point"... that can mean that the
universe can have and may had ***any size*** you wish to
attribute to it... ahahaha... Very convenient science....ahaha...

Erice Gisse had the tune right when he posted yesterday :
"Cosmology is in a heavy state of flux. Even something
written as recently as 5 years ago can be majorly out of date."

Eric, make that "5 years ago" into "5 days ago".... ahahaha...
Nevertheless, Cosmology is the greatest story ever told and
if you can scare the **** out of the peasantry with it you'll be a
very rich dude, in short order... ahahaha... Go for it, Eric... and
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:1onzj.8796$TT4.1917@attbi_s22...
Gordon L. Richard wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:_Rizj.61459$yE1.58238@attbi_s21...
Marshall Dudley wrote:
(snip)
The current best fit model is a flat ?CDM Big Bang model where the
expansion of the Universe is accelerating, and the age of the Universe
is 13.7 billion years.

Background
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#SC
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co..._faq.html#FLAT

This has intrigued me for as long as I can remember, but I've never found
a solid answer. How can we know that the universe, out beyond that 13.7
bllion light year curtain isn't in the process of collapsing back toward
the Big Bang point. It seems it could still be expanding within the
volume that we can perceive, but on beyond that we have no way of knowing
if it is still expanding or if the outer "surface" is now collapsing
back.
Gordon
"Sam Wormley" wrote
All points are the big bang point.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html


Physics News Update -- Number 685, May 12, 2004
by Phil Schewe and Ben Stein
Ref: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/685.html

Our Universe Has a Topology Scale of at least 24 GPC

Our universe has a topology scale of at least 24 Gpc, or
about 75 billion light years, according to a new analysis
of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP).

What does this mean? Well, because of conceivable
hall-of-mirrors effects of spacetime, the universe might
be finite in size but give us mortals the illusion that it is
infinite. For example, the cosmos might be tiled with
some repeating shape, around which light rays might
wrap themselves over and over ("wrap" in the sense
that, as in video games, something might disappear off
the left side of the screen and reappear on the right
side).

A new study by scientists from Princeton, Montana
State, and Case Western looks for signs of such
"wrapped " light in the form of pairs of circles, in
opposite directions in the sky, with similar patterns in
the temperature of the cosmic microwave background.
If the universe were finite and actually smaller than the
distance to the "surface of last scattering" (a distance
that essentially constitutes the edge of the "visible
universe," and the place in deep space whence comes
the cosmic microwaves), then multiple imaging should
show up in the microwave background.

But no such correspondences appeared in the analysis.
The researchers are able to turn the lack of recurring
patterns into the form of a lower limit on the scale of
cosmic topology, equal to 24 billion parsecs, a factor of
10 larger than previous observational bounds. (Cornish,
Spergel, Starkman, Komatsu, Physical Review Letters,
upcoming article; contact Neil Cornish, 406-994-7986,
.)

On Mar 5, 5:33 pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote below:
All points are the big bang point. --- No Center

hanson wrote:

ahahaha... if so, then why is a whole set of theories telling you
that the universe is expanding from a single big bang point (some
say at "c" with FLT hyperinflation) and to boot accelerating?...

ahahaha... So then, is the universe expanding into itself if "All
points are the big bang point. - No Center"?... ahahaha....
Looks to me like someone wants to have the cake & eat it too.

If the universe expands from every point in/to every other point,
then it is effectively flat and static on the large scale and only
local differences would be noticeable... ahahaha....

If "all points are the big bang point"... that can mean that the
universe can have and may had ***any size*** you wish to
attribute to it... ahahaha... Very convenient science....ahaha...

Erice Gisse had the tune right when he posted yesterday :
"Cosmology is in a heavy state of flux. Even something
written as recently as 5 years ago can be majorly out of date."

Eric, make that "5 years ago" into "5 days ago".... ahahaha...
Nevertheless, Cosmology is the greatest story ever told and
if you can scare the **** out of the peasantry with it you'll be a
very rich dude, in short order... ahahaha... Go for it, Eric... and
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson



"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:1onzj.8796$TT4.1917@attbi_s22...

Gordon L. Richard wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:_Rizj.61459$yE1.58238@attbi_s21...
Marshall Dudley wrote:
(snip)
The current best fit model is a flat ?CDM Big Bang model where the
expansion of the Universe is accelerating, and the age of the Universe
is 13.7 billion years.

Background
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#SC
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co..._faq.html#FLAT

This has intrigued me for as long as I can remember, but I've never found
a solid answer. How can we know that the universe, out beyond that 13.7
bllion light year curtain isn't in the process of collapsing back toward
the Big Bang point. It seems it could still be expanding within the
volume that we can perceive, but on beyond that we have no way of knowing
if it is still expanding or if the outer "surface" is now collapsing
back.
Gordon

"Sam Wormley" wrote

All points are the big bang point.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Physics News Update -- Number 685, May 12, 2004
by Phil Schewe and Ben Stein
Ref:http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/685.html

Our Universe Has a Topology Scale of at least 24 GPC

Our universe has a topology scale of at least 24 Gpc, or
about 75 billion light years, according to a new analysis
of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP).

What does this mean? Well, because of conceivable
hall-of-mirrors effects of spacetime, the universe might
be finite in size but give us mortals the illusion that it is
infinite. For example, the cosmos might be tiled with
some repeating shape, around which light rays might
wrap themselves over and over ("wrap" in the sense
that, as in video games, something might disappear off
the left side of the screen and reappear on the right
side).

A new study by scientists from Princeton, Montana
State, and Case Western looks for signs of such
"wrapped " light in the form of pairs of circles, in
opposite directions in the sky, with similar patterns in
the temperature of the cosmic microwave background.
If the universe were finite and actually smaller than the
distance to the "surface of last scattering" (a distance
that essentially constitutes the edge of the "visible
universe," and the place in deep space whence comes
the cosmic microwaves), then multiple imaging should
show up in the microwave background.

But no such correspondences appeared in the analysis.
The researchers are able to turn the lack of recurring
patterns into the form of a lower limit on the scale of
cosmic topology, equal to 24 billion parsecs, a factor of
10 larger than previous observational bounds. (Cornish,
Spergel, Starkman, Komatsu, Physical Review Letters,
upcoming article; contact Neil Cornish, 406-994-7986,
.)

i was thinking about many big bang points. it's a real possibility.
take, for example, the globular clusters... don't they look like they
have formed as a result of a "little bang"? cold this process be
happening all the time?
what do you think?

Dear hanson:

On Mar 5, 9:33*am, "hanson" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote below:
All points are the big bang point. *--- No Center

hanson wrote:

ahahaha... if so, then why is a whole set of
theories telling you that the universe is
expanding from a single big bang point (some say
at "c" with FLT hyperinflation) and to boot
accelerating?...

The set of all points are conincident / undifferentiable at the Big
Bang. At least that is how it looks at this distance, according to
those theories.

ahahaha... So then, is the universe expanding
into itself if "All points are the big bang point.
- No Center"?... ahahaha....

Space is a "temporary " relationship between the various bits of the
Universe, not the Universe and some container-not-in-evidence.

Looks to me like someone wants to have the cake
& eat it too.

No, but I don't expect you to stop laughing.

If the universe expands from every point in/to
every other point, then it is effectively flat
and static on the large scale and only local
differences would be noticeable... ahahaha....

Actually no, every point moves away from every other point, increasing
"available states".

If "all points are the big bang point"... that
can mean that the universe can have and may had
***any size*** you wish to attribute to it...
ahahaha... Very convenient science....ahaha...

Provide some basis for attributing size, when light cannot verify it.

Erice Gisse had the tune right when he
posted yesterday :
"Cosmology is in a heavy state of flux. Even
something written as recently as 5 years ago
can be majorly out of date."

Eric, make that "5 years ago" into "5 days
ago".... ahahaha... Nevertheless, Cosmology is
the greatest story ever told and if you can
scare the **** out of the peasantry with it
you'll be a very rich dude, in short order...
ahahaha... Go for it, Eric... and Thanks for
the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson

Yes, it is a good thing Science isn't Religion, or it would be
required to look like Genesis... or some such creation myth. That is
the problem with extrapolation... the "end point" can move around
quite a bit.

David A. Smith

Smitty aka "dlzc" wrote in message
...
Dear hanson:

On Mar 5, 9:33 am, "hanson" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote below:
All points are the big bang point. --- No Center

hanson wrote:
ahahaha... if so, then why is a whole set of
theories telling you that the universe is
expanding from a single big bang point (some say
at "c" with FLT hyperinflation) and to boot
accelerating?...

Smitty wrote:
The set of all points are conincident / undifferentiable at the Big
Bang. At least that is how it looks at this distance, according to
those theories.

== hanson wrote:
== ... ahahaha... "all points are conincident / undifferentiable"?...
== AHAHAHAHA... yeah, yeah!... That's a great start, Smitty.
== That will allow you to tell any story, at any place and at any
== time... and claim that it is science... ahahaha... ahaha

hanson wrote:
ahahaha... So then, is the universe expanding
into itself if "All points are the big bang point.
- No Center"?... ahahaha....

Smitty wrote
:Space is a "temporary " relationship between the various bits of the
Universe, not the Universe and some container-not-in-evidence.

hanson wrote:
Looks to me like someone wants to have the cake
& eat it too.

Smitty wrote
No, but I don't expect you to stop laughing.

hanson wrote:
If the universe expands from every point in/to
every other point, then it is effectively flat
and static on the large scale and only local
differences would be noticeable... ahahaha....

Smitty wrote
Actually no, every point moves away from every other point,
increasing "available states".

hanson wrote:
== ... and you will end up with so many "available states" that
== they will become indistinguishable from each other, producing
== a continuum that smells of aether & ylem full of phlogiston.
== ... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.....

hanson wrote:
If "all points are the big bang point"... that
can mean that the universe can have and may had
***any size*** you wish to attribute to it...
ahahaha... Very convenient science....ahaha...

Smitty wrote
Provide some basis for attributing size, when light cannot verify it.

hanson wrote:
== ... Smitty, you are arguing for argument's sake only... ahahaha....

hanson wrote:
Erice Gisse had the tune right when he
posted yesterday :
"Cosmology is in a heavy state of flux. Even
something written as recently as 5 years ago
can be majorly out of date."

Eric, make that "5 years ago" into "5 days
ago".... ahahaha... Nevertheless, Cosmology is
the greatest story ever told and if you can
scare the **** out of the peasantry with it
you'll be a very rich dude, in short order...
ahahaha... Go for it, Eric... and Thanks for
the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson

Smitty wrote
Yes, it is a good thing Science isn't Religion, or it would be
required to look like Genesis... or some such creation myth. That is
the problem with extrapolation... the "end point" can move around
quite a bit. -- David A. Smith

hanson wrote:
== ahahaha.. AHAHAHA... But your own "creation myth" here has
== just shown that for you "it is a good thing that Science IS Religion".
== Thanks for the laughs, Smitty.... ahahaha... ahahanson

On Mar 5, 8:33 am, "hanson" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote below:
All points are the big bang point. --- No Center

hanson wrote:

ahahaha... if so, then why is a whole set of theories telling you
that the universe is expanding from a single big bang point (some
say at "c" with FLT hyperinflation) and to boot accelerating?...

ahahaha... So then, is the universe expanding into itself if "All
points are the big bang point. - No Center"?... ahahaha....
Looks to me like someone wants to have the cake & eat it too.

If the universe expands from every point in/to every other point,
then it is effectively flat and static on the large scale and only
local differences would be noticeable... ahahaha....

Hi there hanson
Been a while since I have been on newsgroups and only started again
about a week ago and see you are still around.Loved and missed your
informative auntie envirowiner opinions.
As you might remember I had a theory that time dilation equaled space
expansion that I wont go that much into it here but I do have a
question for whom it interests.
Remember where there were trying to predict if our universe was closed
or open and it involved estimating if the amount of mass in our
universe was enough to bend light into coming around and back to
us.Would this also work out to being the same thing as saying that if
you were to put all of the mass of our entire universe into just the
one black hole that that black hole would also become large enough
that there would be no place that you could go to be outside of it. Or
at least no place where you would not be at the 3m level of a black
hole and if you remember its the level where light is bent enough to
make a complete orbit around one.Also if I remember right it takes
less and less mass to increase the size of a black hole the larger
they are but I have no clue about what the mathematical relations are
on this are.
But where gravity equalizes when you are inside of the masses much the
way a planet has no gravity at its center means it would take some
abstractions to predict how light coming from point a to point b
inside our universe could eventually make a complete circle around a
universe and come back.With black holes this seams easy to understand
at least for one of its levels.

But for the life of me I cant figure out for sure how at this same 3m
level could a hypothetical astronaut be able to tell if the surfaces
were curved if the light path is curved.Is curvature
relative?.Remember you can estimate the volume of a round object but
if he sees this level as flat and then he were to estimate the volume
he would end up estimating an infinite volume yet could he also see
his rear end and kiss it in the past, putting a whole new meaning to
ass tro naught going there.

Me myself and I tends to think that the space just expands so that it
actually is an infinite amount of space or some lesser
approximation.Illusion done well enough becomes reality.
Seriously I really do argue that all that time dilation will contract
matter and everything else you could measure space with and that means
that the distances end up literally more.No way to tell the 2 effects
apart.Did the ruler contract or the space grow more are 2 sides of the
same coin in this alternate but not well known or liked theory.

I got some gedankens about how our astronaut could try to observe the
curving in the light beam as it travels around the black hole and then
through his space ship but will leave it for later if anyone want to
bother with it.

I just got my succky mess of a web site up and it wont become less
succkie till I get a decent amount more done on it but if you really
must look its alttheories.com



If "all points are the big bang point"... that can mean that the
universe can have and may had ***any size*** you wish to
attribute to it... ahahaha... Very convenient science....ahaha...

Erice Gisse had the tune right when he posted yesterday :
"Cosmology is in a heavy state of flux. Even something
written as recently as 5 years ago can be majorly out of date."

Eric, make that "5 years ago" into "5 days ago".... ahahaha...
Nevertheless, Cosmology is the greatest story ever told and
if you can scare the **** out of the peasantry with it you'll be a
very rich dude, in short order... ahahaha... Go for it, Eric... and
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson



"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:1onzj.8796$TT4.1917@attbi_s22...

Gordon L. Richard wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:_Rizj.61459$yE1.58238@attbi_s21...
Marshall Dudley wrote:
(snip)
The current best fit model is a flat ?CDM Big Bang model where the
expansion of the Universe is accelerating, and the age of the Universe
is 13.7 billion years.

Background
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#SC
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co..._faq.html#FLAT

This has intrigued me for as long as I can remember, but I've never found
a solid answer. How can we know that the universe, out beyond that 13.7
bllion light year curtain isn't in the process of collapsing back toward
the Big Bang point. It seems it could still be expanding within the
volume that we can perceive, but on beyond that we have no way of knowing
if it is still expanding or if the outer "surface" is now collapsing
back.
Gordon

"Sam Wormley" wrote

All points are the big bang point.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Physics News Update -- Number 685, May 12, 2004
by Phil Schewe and Ben Stein
Ref:http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/685.html

Our Universe Has a Topology Scale of at least 24 GPC

Our universe has a topology scale of at least 24 Gpc, or
about 75 billion light years, according to a new analysis
of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP).

What does this mean? Well, because of conceivable
hall-of-mirrors effects of spacetime, the universe might
be finite in size but give us mortals the illusion that it is
infinite. For example, the cosmos might be tiled with
some repeating shape, around which light rays might
wrap themselves over and over ("wrap" in the sense
that, as in video games, something might disappear off
the left side of the screen and reappear on the right
side).

A new study by scientists from Princeton, Montana
State, and Case Western looks for signs of such
"wrapped " light in the form of pairs of circles, in
opposite directions in the sky, with similar patterns in
the temperature of the cosmic microwave background.
If the universe were finite and actually smaller than the
distance to the "surface of last scattering" (a distance
that essentially constitutes the edge of the "visible
universe," and the place in deep space whence comes
the cosmic microwaves), then multiple imaging should
show up in the microwave background.

But no such correspondences appeared in the analysis.
The researchers are able to turn the lack of recurring
patterns into the form of a lower limit on the scale of
cosmic topology, equal to 24 billion parsecs, a factor of
10 larger than previous observational bounds. (Cornish,
Spergel, Starkman, Komatsu, Physical Review Letters,
upcoming article; contact Neil Cornish, 406-994-7986,
.)

On Mar 5, 7:16*pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:33 am, "hanson" wrote:





"Sam Wormley" wrote below:
All points are the big bang point. *--- No Center

hanson wrote:


xxein: Your 3M cannot keep light from escaping. Try 2M instead.

"xxein" wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 7:16 pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:33 am, "hanson" wrote:





"Sam Wormley" wrote below:
All points are the big bang point. --- No Center

hanson wrote:


| xxein: Your 3M cannot keep light from escaping. Try 2M instead.

Geez you stupid ****, hanson didn't write that at all!
You did, Geez you stupid ****.