Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry

On Saturday 11 March 2006 20:13, Spaceman decided it was time and wrote in
sci.physics (<q8ydnSW5W5P0so7ZRVn-gw@xxxxxxxxxxx>):


"T Wake" <taswakeAt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0M6dnUV8PoLxt47ZRVny1Q@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Despite what you say here the age of the universe has been determined and
there has been no centre identified.

How do you think the age was determined then?

May be it was based on magic.

How do you think it was determined?


They recess from everything else. Everything becomes the recession point
for all other objects in the universe. We see them recess from Earth. We
see them recess from each other.

Aha,
"You are the center of your universe" type thought processing..

Nope. That is your interpretation of the data not mine. I do not for one
second think I, the Earth, the solar system or the galaxy are the centre of
the universe.

If you follow your interpretation to its logical conclusion you think
everything is the centre of the universe. Is this true?

Exactly. Therefore I didnt try to explain this to you.

You can't explain such a fantasy because it involves too much
fantasy to be discussed here.

Well, you seem to have no limits on the fantasy you will discuss.

As you can see though, I said I didn't try to explain this to you. It can be
explained in a manner that most people understand, yet you are not "most
people."

Well, no. Everything in the explosion is recessing from the centre.

Yup,
Just like the universe.

With the difference being the Universe has no centre.

So where does the age of the universe come from?
And how could a big bang be a cause if no bang point
has been found?

Intersting questions to be debated at a later date.

As it stands, the age of the universe has been determined by a variety of
methods. None are perfect, but all have been combined to determine an age
which now has an accuracy of within a few million years.

No one has found a centre of the universe.

If you think otherwise, can you please tell me where the centre of the
universe is?

That is how astronomers gathered an age from such also.

Really? How do you know this? Where is the centre these astronomers used?

Ask them,

I have. They say "there is no centre."

They may show you with the hubble.

Nope. They said "there is no centre."

How do you get an age of the universe if you don't have
a point where the big bang supposedly occured to find out
how "long" stuff has been expanding from that point?

Because you aren't using the distance from centre as a gauge for age. Is
your age determined by how far you have moved from the place you where
born?

Nope. It is different. If you dont believe me look at explosive blast
studies. Compare that to astronomical data. The two do not match.

The only differences are gravity differences.
simple as that.

The whole blast pattern looks different. If you don't want to believe me,
check it out yourself.

Where was it guessed to be? The age of the universe provides no clue as
to the centre.

When are you going to show how an age could be determined at all
without a point that the supposed big bang occured?

You agree that astronomers have determined the age of the universe, and this
is now a well documented fact.

There is no documented centre of the universe.

Yet you demand that the identification of the centre is a prerequisite for
the age....


Everything recedes from everything else.

You have a problem there.

Actually, I don't.

if everything recedes from everything else,
there needs to be a point they would all recede from.
Why don't you get that?

Because you are wrong. Show me how you can have objects, in three
dimensions, moving from *everything* else, also in all three dimensions,
and then collapse this in any one direction?

You can pontificate at your leisure. Can you show me how the model of
everything moving from everything else can be resolved to show where they
are moving from?

There is still no centre.

Yes there must be or you have no proof that everything
is receding from everything else.

Yes we do. There is no evidence that everything is moving from *somewhere* -
everything is moving from everything else.

If you don't believe me there is oodles of data for you to go through and
make your own conclusions. If you can prove otherwise, you will become VERY
rich and famous.

Can you show me on a star map where the centre is please?

Can you show me how you can get an age of the universe
without such?

Yes. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html explains it much better than
I can though.

Where is the centre?

Can you show me how a big bang could be plausible without a
center of occurance at all?

Yes. The theory requires no centre. Can you show me where the theory, and
not the "pop science" versions, requires a centre?

Yet you have visualised the universe in a manner that is not consistent
with the actual data. And you think this puts me at fault. Interesting.

I have done no such thing,
You are the one trying to do such,
You are creating an expansion that has no expansion point.

I am not creating anything. The expansion is there.

You are demanding something which isn't there.

Each large scale structure provides its own centre. Everything expands
from everything else. Where is the centre for that?

In the center that everything is expanding from.
Sheesh you are about as dense as a black hole..

But there is no point at which everything is expanding from, as that would
require a different set of circumstances than actually happen. For example
is everything was expanding from the Milky Way, we would see a change in
the expansion rates for objects on a tangent. We don't. The data shows that
all large scale structures recess from each other in a consistant manner.

As you can see it gets very hard to model this using your methods, and so
far you haven't managed to grasp the concept.

You truly are lost..

Why? How do you think the age of the universe was determined?

By guessing at the center when the stuff is expanding at a slower rate
still.

Where did they guess the centre was?

You truly are only proving to be a troll that is ignoring and
repeating the same questions over even though I gave answers
that fit the situations perfectally fine.

You have given answers, that much is correct. Your answers do not fit the
reality (as is normally the case for you).

The fact remains, if anyone had determined the centre of the universe it
would be well publicised information. This has not happened. (Other than
cranks on this newsgroup).

You need to accept your "answers" fail to fit the situation as shown by
reality. They may fit nicely in your limited understanding.

You still have not shown how expansion of all can not have a center
of expansion.

I don't have to show "how." It just does. Look at the stars. You can see it
happening.

You also have not shown how an age of the universe could be
determined at all using your "joke" non center approach.

By a combination of methods. Measure the age of the stars and the oldest is
younger than the universe for example.

You need to get your head examined I think.
You have lost all logical thought processes somehow.

Well, really. Even your insults are becoming repetitive now.

--
T Wake
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
    ... |> Only if age was soley determined by the expansion. ... |> Despite what you say here the age of the universe has been determined ... |>>> Everything we can measure is recessing from everything else, ... synonyms RECEDE, RETREAT, RETRACT, BACK mean to move backward. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
    ... How do you think the age was determined then? ... "You are the center of your universe" type thought processing.. ... you really should "WAKE" up Mr Wake. ... You are creating an expansion that has no expansion point. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Need some assistance
    ... and is asking my pastor to intelligently debate the topic of Deep Time ... instance of many on the age of the universe: ... there are a tremendous number of ways of knowing that the universe, ... there are kinds of evolution other than biological). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do scientists agree on the age of the universe and earth?
    ... > dust off of my early sixties science education.) ... The age of the universe is based on observations and our theoretical ... hence the reduction of the age estimate by about 20%. ... case despite the scientists boycotting the whole proceedings. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
    ... Only if age was soley determined by the expansion. ... How do you know they are recessing if you can not provide ... for all other objects in the universe. ... And how could a big bang be a cause if no bang point ...
    (sci.physics)