A Challenging Question about an Infinite Universe.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Sorry Peter I forgot to thank you for your good explanations.

no need Alex

It's a bit like my 27 year old Newtonian reflector and collimation

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Neither. The units are in hw where h is Planck's constant and w is the frequency of the oscillator.

"hw" has units of energy

What is the physical significance of -1/12 (energy units)?

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

"hw" has units of energy

What is the physical significance of -1/12 (energy units)?

Try this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

I know one law that has no units

"...don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia"

Well then by the same token why believe in Polchinski's book.
Planck's constant doesn't explicitly appear because it has been assigned a natural unit equalling one.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Well then by the same token why believe in Polchinski's book.
Planck's constant doesn't explicitly appear because it has been assigned a natural unit equalling one.

Everything written down or spoken is inherently corrupt.

Including this

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

Everything written down or spoken is inherently corrupt.

To make such a statement you must be one hell of an omnipotent being whose knowledge and understanding exceeds that of every other individual, or the more likely explanation is the argument from personal incredulity at work.

[xelasnave]

For the boys and girls watching and not familar with logical falacies here is a link for the one Steven mentioned.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

neither

....again you miss the obvious with hangs in front of your nasal passage, even though it possesses no units and is inherently corrupt

are you following the non "text book" script yet?

Alex follows...he has let go a long time ago

I don't want to say anything but I want a copy of this post in case it becomes a virtual post and pops out of existence.

But back to the thread subject matter with a question.

If the universe is really really big would we be able to observe curvature as it I presume may not be measurable but nevertheless not flat.

[xelasnave]

There we go it's gone but it was there.

[sharpiel]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

There we go it's gone but it was there.

Don't worry Alex Evans. You saved it for us all...

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

You make a good point Alex

If we assume that the Universe is extremely large - well beyond the detection limits we are capable of today - then we may observe a near flat Universe even though the Universe could have any shape or curvature imaginable.

If the Universe is indeed infinite in size, wouldn't that imply that any measurement of its curvature would be flat, irrespective of its actual shape or geometry (if shape and geometry can be applied to a truly infinite object)

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

You make a good point Alex

If we assume that the Universe is extremely large - well beyond the detection limits we are capable of today - then we may observe a near flat Universe even though the Universe could have any shape or curvature imaginable.

If the Universe is indeed infinite in size, wouldn't that imply that any measurement of its curvature would be flat, irrespective of its actual shape or geometry (if shape and geometry can be applied to a truly infinite object)

Flatness is not a criteria for an infinite surface. As has already been discussed, a 3-torus is flat but finite.

A zero curvature flat Universe is supported by the angular size of the anisotropic structures in the CMB.
If the Universe has a positive curvature the anisotropic structures would appear larger.
Conversely for a negative curvature, structures would appear smaller.

[xelasnave]

Hi Les I notice you save animals and birds you are a good man.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Let us extract ourselves from the rudimentary sermons depicted in the dusty text books and lecture rooms. We know that cosmologists are NEVER wrong but always in doubt.

An Alcmaeonistic revisiting of the boundary limits of a pseudo non Euclidean membrane type existence offers some very interesting insights in what may be occurring at the transient interfaces that form as a direct result of instabilities in the core-film itself.

Now, you may think that these instabilities would collapse to a point where they don't influence the "bulk" phase. This would be a sound assumption to make if one could fully describe the phase space that is applicable in this situation. Of course one cannot

So that returns us to the original question posed.

[xelasnave]

One does not have to be a cosmologist to never be wrong.
It is a human condition few are immune.
I hold beliefs which are not mainstream but I respect the approach of mainstream.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

One does not have to be a cosmologist to never be wrong.
It is a human condition few are immune.
I hold beliefs which are not mainstream but I respect the approach of mainstream.

I stir fry "mainstream" and "non-mainstream" vegetables with the same oil, garlic and onion before I add my secret ingredients

[xelasnave]

My speciality is a spiced up word salard.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

My speciality is a spiced up word salard.

So Alex, is salard a type of seafood?

[xelasnave]

Rather than admit I was wrong...yes, yes it is a fish

[sharpiel]

Thank you Alex.

I must say I have enjoyed this thread much more than any other I have ever read. Even those posts which slipped beyond the event horizon and became lost to view...