Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry

On Saturday 11 March 2006 21:46, Spaceman dribbled, decided it was time and
wrote in sci.physics (<17udnfZHMZu42I7ZRVn-uQ@xxxxxxxxxxx>):

"T Wake" <taswakeAT@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ONOdnXVxw8ULo47ZRVny0A@xxxxxxxxxxxx
How do you think the age was determined then?

May be it was based on magic.

How do you think it was determined?

I think it has not been "determined"
it has only been guessed at.

You are free to think what ever you like.

When you are going to answer your thoughts on such?

My thoughts on the matter are not the issue here. I think the age of the
universe using a combination of stellar data and terrestrial observations
has come up with an accurate estimate of the age.

Several methods, including obscure ones like parallax measurements to very
distant objects, have been used and all agree within their error bars.

To me, this gives the age we have for the universe the status as
"determined."

You may think otherwise.

I have asked you many times now but you just ignore
the question over and over again.

Sorry, I didn't realise my thoughts were so important to you. I thought you
were disagreeing with the accepted scientific doctrine.

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

Of course not.
You really can't even begin to grasp what I am stating huh?

Apparently not. Can you explain it better please?

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."

Yet again, you don't give any explanation.
You say you have one but you have yet to show such at all.

I said I had an explanation which involved visualising the universe as a two
dimensional object. You refuse to do this so, also I as I said, I can not
explain this to you.

I have said this each time you asked. Do you want me to explain the two
dimensional representation to you? (In which case we will become embroiled
in a debate over your reluctance to accept it as a simplification of the
reality to help explain a concept) Or are you happy that you will have to
come to terms with this on your own?

If you want to rattle your sabre over missing explanations, you still have
yet to demonstrate to me how you get a straight line to trace the shortest
distance between recessing objects.

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.

Well, there you go again being wrong.
The age has not been "determined" it has only been guessed at by
different ways.

Well, there you go again being wrong. You need to learn to understand what
determination means in this context.

If it was a guess, then it is just a guess. You should know what they are,
as you are simply guessing at science here.

You really need to figure the difference out some year.

Whatever.

No one has found a centre of the universe.

No one has determined the age of the universe either..
Silly.. that seems to fit the no center found yet perfectally.
Maybe you are correct.
no center has been found and that is why they are
still "guessing at the age" and have not actually determined
it at all.

So you dismiss the accepted science.

You have a single method of determining the age of the universe, and as that
wasn't used you now say that no one has determined the age of the universe.

All so very grown up of you.

Is your age determined solely by how far you have moved from your place of
birth?

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

I told you,
It would be at the center of the expansion.
You really love to ignore that it would be there huh?

Nope. I would love there to be a centre of the universe.

Can you demonstrate how the expansion of objects away from each other in all
three directions can be reversed to point to a location?

Remember they are not just moving away from your "centre point" but moving
away from each other. In every direction.

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."

They have said no such thing,

Actually, they said that exact phrase I posted here. Why you feel the need
to lie about this is beyond me. I have lots of friends who work as
astronomers and scientists. Before I made that post, I "phoned a friend"
and asked. That was the exact reply.

Because it didn't agree with what you wanted, you now have to lie to worm
your way out of it.

They can only say we cannot determine the center
with the techonolgy and limits we have right now.

They could say that. However, the survey I conducted tonight said "there is
no centre."

Your defence of the existence of a centre of the universe is the same as the
defence of the existence of more than three spatial dimensions. Do you
believe they exist?

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

The blast pattern of what?

Explosive. You can find reliable data on TNT detonation online. If you can
find charts for the blast effects of more modern explosives they will be
even more educational for you.

The universe?

The universe is different to the blast of an explosive.

If you have actually have a blast pattern.
It would be easy to find the cneter of such a pattern,
Too bad you don't have such.

Exactly, which is why it is different to an explosive blast we can create on
Earth. I am so glad you finally agree with me.

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

No,
I have said they have guessed at it and they use many different
ways and one is to "guess at a center where stars are closer together"

Why has no one done that then?

Why is there no place where the "stars are closer together?"

You still have yet to answer my question to you about
how they have done such using other methods

It would take me longer than I chose, when the information is freely
available on a massive variety of internet sites.

There is no documented centre of the universe.

I never said there is a documented,
I said there is a good guess as to where it would be.

Nope. If there is, where is it?

The place where the stars are really close together is
where is most likely closest to such an area.

The stars are "really close together" in all the large scale structures. It
is the distance between these large scale structures that is expanding.

Can you show me where these "large scale structures" are really close
together please? I can not find an example online or in the literature.

Ideally, this will also be the direction we are recessing away "from" but
that is hard to determine as we are recessing away from things on all sides
of us.

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

Again,
You don't answer anything and merely postulate how an answer
you make up that I stated, is wrong.

A word salad. Lots of lettuce and not at all filling.

What on Earth do you mean here?


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?

what collapse?
Now you are saying there is a collapse?

Here is a simple lesson. When you want to determine the origin point for an
expansion you take the points you have now, the direction they are going
and "collapse" the model back to its beginnings to see where the start
point is.

Stop me if I go to fast for you.

Wow.. you like to add new things whenever you are lost
from your first statements

Sorry, I forgot your limited understanding. I will try to account for this
in future.

Collapse in the case of an expansion model means to simply move back to
origin point.

Are you OK with this or do you need some time for it to sink in?

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?

I told you.
Use a 3D program.

I have. It doesn't show a straight line, but that is because I am accounting
for the three dimensional nature of the expansion.

study actual explosions and remember the gravity is simply
different in such.

Can you explain how the gravity is different. I spent a long time as an Army
Engineer and I studied a LOT of explosions. What do you want me to tell you
about them?

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.

The oodles of data that show such would show a point
that everything is movign away from.

Oddly it doesn't. Why is that?

You are really dense if you can not jsut think about that alone.

I have looked through a massive proportion of the data over the years and
have yet to see anything which even begins to think there is a centre
point.

What data did I overlook?

Have you ever looked at: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html

Where is the centre?

Where the youngest stars are coming from.

They are coming from more than one place.

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?

A big bang theory does require a center.
you really should "WAKE" up Mr Wake.

Does it? Where does the theory demand a centre point? Can you give me a page
reference to look up please?

I am not creating anything. The expansion is there.

You are demanding something which isn't there.

I am demanding something that must be there if
the expansion is real at all.

Do you think the expansion is not real because your other demand cant be
met?

You truly need to wake up still.

Funny. Did you come up with this one all on your own?

But there is no point at which everything is expanding from,

Are you really that freakin dense?
Everything can not be expanding if there is no spot
it is expanding away from.

Everything is expanding away from everything else. There is no one direction
that things are expanding from. The expansion happens equally in all three
dimensions.

If you were able, even momentarily, to conceptualise information you would
be able to picture this and realise where you are going wrong.

As it stands, you can't. Such a shame. Your idea and understanding of the
world has failed on the cosmological scale.

You are basically saying:
There can not be a center of an explosion.

Nope. I am saying if you create and explosion on Earth you can see where the
centre point is.

The recession of large scale cosmological structures does not point to a
centre, imply a centre or require a centre. The capability to model this
without resorting to less or greater dimensional objects is limited and
dependant on peoples ability to conceptualise the movement in all three
dimensions.

Despite your assertions that you "use all three" dimensions you don't seem
to be willing to grasp the notion that the movement of particles in an
explosion is still fundamentally one dimensional - forward. The distance
between it and other particles depends on the angle they are moving away
from the blast point. For example a stream of particles moving at (say) 10
degrees from the blast will remain in line and equally spaced. They are not
moving away from each other on that plane.

The universe is different. There is no "angular" movement to be implied from
recession. In every direction we look it is happening, creating the initial
impression that we are, indeed the centre of the universe.

This is quickly dismissed however, as observations also show everything is
moving away from everything else.

Where can the centre be, when nothing is "moving" in the same direction as
anything else?

I will have to agree to disagree here because you simply
lack any logical thought to be able to understand how you could be
wrong.

Hahahah. Brilliant.

Take care Mr Wake.
Maybe some year you will wake up.

Yes.

--
T Wake
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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 ... all other objects in the universe. ... You can't explain it using 2 dimensions only because that would ignore ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Eternity
    ... I don't believe that the universe was created ... with the appearance of age, I believe it was created *with* age. ... five or as many dimensions as there are. ... an uncreated universe which acquired age through the flow of time? ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Eternity
    ... I don't believe that the universe was created ... with the appearance of age, I believe it was created *with* age. ... is, God din't just put it into place in three dimensions, but in four, ... five or as many dimensions as there are. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Determinism
    ... My central claim is that the expected value of the above segment is equal to ... and hence the question whether the universe is ... fundamentally random or deterministic is incapable of determination. ... The first possibility is that the old school physicists are all aware of ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Determinism
    ... random theory, and any random theory can be modeled by a more detailed ... and hence the question whether the universe is ... fundamentally random or deterministic is incapable of determination. ... a set of physical laws and an initial ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading