Prev: Experiment to test mutual time dilation
Next: light velocity variable, no dark energy needed
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Aug 2010 15:40
I gave a presentation yesterday to an audience that included
one of my retired physics professors. I had responded to a
question during the presentation saying that the universe could
be infinite, but that since we cannot observe it, we cannot say
for sure.

After the presentation, Barney Cook, said I was wrong, that
the the measured flatness of the universe means the universe
is infinite.

I would appreciate comments from the physicists here. Thanks.
-Sam
From: srp on 2 Aug 2010 18:44
On 2 août, 15:40, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I gave a presentation yesterday to an audience that included
> one of my retired physics professors. I had responded to a
> question during the presentation saying that the universe could
> be infinite, but that since we cannot observe it, we cannot say
> for sure.

Carefull! If you go on giving presentations holding such
reasonable positions, you'll quickly end up being branded
a kook by every Cook in the book.

> After the presentation, Barney Cook, said I was wrong, that
> the the measured flatness of the universe means the universe
> is infinite.

Being established, he is right of course!

> I would appreciate comments from the physicists here. Thanks.

Wrong ng. Ask opinions on serious moderated ngs.

> -Sam

André Michaud
From: Jacko on 2 Aug 2010 19:04
> > I would appreciate comments from the physicists here. Thanks.
>
> Wrong ng. Ask opinions on serious moderated ngs.

He's 'right' you know. The fact that a infinite range can map to a
finite domain is just maths, and 'infinite' just sounds so much better
for the punters.
From: eric gisse on 2 Aug 2010 12:16
Sam Wormley wrote:

> I gave a presentation yesterday to an audience that included
> one of my retired physics professors. I had responded to a
> question during the presentation saying that the universe could
> be infinite, but that since we cannot observe it, we cannot say
> for sure.
>
> After the presentation, Barney Cook, said I was wrong, that
> the the measured flatness of the universe means the universe
> is infinite.
>
> I would appreciate comments from the physicists here. Thanks.
> -Sam

I'd ask him why measured spatial flatness implies an infinite universe,
given that such a state can start from a finite amount of time ago.
From: eric gisse on 2 Aug 2010 12:17
srp wrote:

> On 2 ao�t, 15:40, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> I gave a presentation yesterday to an audience that included
>> one of my retired physics professors. I had responded to a
>> question during the presentation saying that the universe could
>> be infinite, but that since we cannot observe it, we cannot say
>> for sure.
>
> Carefull! If you go on giving presentations holding such
> reasonable positions, you'll quickly end up being branded
> a kook by every Cook in the book.
>
>> After the presentation, Barney Cook, said I was wrong, that
>> the the measured flatness of the universe means the universe
>> is infinite.
>
> Being established, he is right of course!
>
>> I would appreciate comments from the physicists here. Thanks.
>
> Wrong ng. Ask opinions on serious moderated ngs.
>
>> -Sam
>
> Andr� Michaud

Back again, Andre?

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Experiment to test mutual time dilation
Next: light velocity variable, no dark energy needed