|
Phil: This one really is Too Stupid To Respond To. Pull the cork out. (17-Sep-2002) |
|
Sorry, this one really is TSTRT -- and I'll let others explain to you why, assuming they want to bother. You have proven to me that you either do not understand logical reasoning, or you do not care about it. Either way, I'm done with you. Goodbye Dirk. Phil Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > "Phil" >>Dirk Van de moortel wrote: >>>"Phil" >>> > [snip] > >>>> From Steven Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes," page 34 of the >>>>updated paperback version: >>>> >>>>"On the other hand, if the density of the universe is *greater* than >>>>this critical value, then the gravitational field produced by the matter >>>>curves the universe back on itself; it is finite though unbounded, like >>>>the surface of a sphere. (That is, if we set off on a journey in a >>>>straight line, we do not reach any sort of edge of the universe, but >>>>simply come back to where we began.) >>>> >>>The sentence between parentheses obviously refers to the >>>example of the surface of the sphere, and not to the actual >>>universe. >>> >>The sentence *does* refer to the actual universe, *not* merely to the >>surface of a sphere. >> >>My god people! This is merely written in every >>other book on relativity. What do you think they mean when they talk >>about the universe -- our universe, not the surface of a sphere -- being >>finite and yet unbounded??? (Although you wind up back where you started >>only if the universe is closed.) >> >>If everyone else is as confused on this issue as you, Dirk, then I will >>try to find some other examples, but this really is GR 101. >> > On the surface of a perfect sphere you "simply come back > where you began". > On the surface of a perfect ellipsoid or a perfect torus, which > is are finite though unbounded, you "simply do *not* come > back where you began". > On the surface of Earth, which is finite though unbounded, > you "simply do *not* come back where you began". > > If the Universe is the analogue of a perfect sphere, you > "simply come back where you began" - if you manage to > define what "where you began" actually means in the first > place (I guess Stephen has been and will be entertaining > you on that topic). > What if the Universe is the analogue of an ellipsoid or a > torus, or a "somewhat less perfect sphere"? > What if the Universe is not empty and the presence of > matter disturbs the "perfect sphere"? > Do you "simply come back where you began"? > >>>>And if you think Steven Weinberg is an idiot, then I have no further use >>>>for you. >>>> >>>Perhaps Weinberg was writing *for* idiots, as compared to >>>Weinberg. >>> >>Very cute! And just coincidently, it allows you to avoid actually >>answering my response to your challenge, by using the time-honored >>technique of running away! >> > Your response to my challenge has been dealt with. You just don't > realize it yet. > > I know for a fact that despite everything I formally learned (a lot) > and read (a lot) on some of the subjects Weinberg is writing about, > *I* still feel like an idiot, as compared to Weinberg. > But perhaps you are much smarter than I am. Perhaps you should > write a book. > > [snip] > >>Pull the cork out. >> > This wine needs at least another 5 years to ripen. > > Dirk Vdm |
|
Index Original post and context: 3D86CE43.4060009@austin.rr.com |