Count of Cosmology> Dear Totally Awesome Trollpa,

Color me surprised - the anti-science nutter gets current observational
evidence wrong.

For the last decade at least it has been known the universe is flat.
No curvature. Check out:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

I highly suggest the both of you read that page,
while I expect only one of you will get anything useful out of it.

On 25 Jan 2007 16:59:54 -0800, "Count of Cosmology" my-deja.com>
wrote:

Hey, DT.
Why have two heads if neither one of them work?

Once again you have fluffed off the questions lightly.
You speak of the 'light cone' and at the same time
deny that space-time has a shape.

You flatly assert that a flat space-time doesn't need
a boundary. That's just silly. Who are you fooling?

Look. Space looks flat. But the apparent constant
speed of light would be impossible in flat space.
(As Einstein pointed out.) Space can Not be flat.
Your tires can be flat. Your beer can be flat. Your
head can be flat. Your arguments can be flat.
But the earth isn't flat, and the sky isn't flat.
Sorry to have to tell you this. BTW, the Easter
Bunny is dead. Saw it in a scientific paper.

Count of Cosmology wrote:

Is that why you have swallowed
the myth of awakening
and still talking as if
you follow the scientific method?

No need to bother
to prove its existence.
Can you even imagine what it is?

On Jan 25, 9:19 pm, Keynes earthlinkspam.net> wrote:

Tang either.

Light cones have to do with a limit, due to the limit of the speed of
light, concerning how other events in the universe can affect us. Te
light cone is the pattern describing the temporal evolution of...

DharmaTroll wrote:

A very nice proof that you are clueless about Buddhism.

How do you know Dr. Scott Oser is not lying?
Do you just believe in a thing
whenever you like the sound of it?

A very nice proof that you are clueless about people.

Have to say, DT, this was well written and a lot of fun. Personally,
anything you want to spoon-feed the "group" about advanced physics
concepts; light cones and edgeless universes, I will be happy to hear.
When it comes to "hard" physics, I am interested in what is happening,
and don't try to mix it with astral Uber-Self or whatever.

For instance, in cosmology I am fascinated by the pre-energy that has
been detected from the time right after the Big Bang through advanced
spectoscropy, which seems to have persisted for a short period of time
before differentiating into energy and matter proper.

And I am also fascinated by Hubble-era discoveries of an exponentially
greater number of galaxies than were previously detected. etc.

Robert

- - - - - - - - -

DharmaTroll wrote:

On 26 Jan 2007 20:00:39 -0800, "DharmaTroll" my-deja.com> wrote:

On Jan 27, 12:54 am, Robert Epstein yahoo.com> wrote:

And from our resident list nutter:

Keynes> I know what a light cone is. Your explanation is not as plain
as it ought to be. Are you trying to confuse yourself?

If space were flat, it would have the qualities we
perceive in local (assumed flat) space. Here an
explosion is an expanding sphere. This is the naive'
picture of a flat expanding universe. It must be spherical.

In that case the original light from the big bang (that
hasn't condensed into matter) would be outward bound
at the speed of light (of course) and attenuating by the
square of distance into virtual depopulation. Spherical
space would have a fuzzy surface fading to nothing.
(more on this later.)

In that case the outer bound of all possible photons
could be calculable according to the age of the universe
(if known) and the speed of light (if it were an 'actual
constant').

But the speed of light is Not actually constant, only
apparently constant. In flat space, light could not be
a constant. Michaelson-Morely experiments tried to
determine the effect of motion on the speed of light.

On 26 Jan 2007 22:36:54 -0800, "DharmaTroll" my-deja.com> wrote: