In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:

In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Zootal wrote:
Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the universe
is Flat.

The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.


But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
proofs.

Which cosmologists are these?

There are several models of the universe, and IIRC all of them
provide for a curvature. The exception would be the universe
described as a Euclidean space, but I don't think any cosmologists
buy into that particular theory. The question is not "is the universe
curved", but "how exactly is it curved?"

Yep, but Lobby Dosser was asserting that they had decreed it to be flat
and I want to know which particular cosmologists _he_ has in mind.

Those following the Cosmo-line, I guess. But it's a sticky subject.

A little kerosene will clean that right up

With a match, it makes light work of the problem.

In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Do you have someting peer-reviewed?

Nope. Heard it in a lecture.

Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept General
Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real universe.

Yeah, well. that's easy to explain. Most people live in a 'complex'
univers -- part imaginary -- so the arbitrary restrictions of a 'real'
universe don't apply.


*GRIN*

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Doug Miller wrote:

And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only.
:-) Mariners knew
for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved --
what other explanation can there be for the fact that you
can see the masts of a distant
ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
cultures, though, had no
such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat,
right?

The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered
by positing a hill (of water) between the ships.

As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities,
whatever is left must be the answer" is correct as far as it
goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all other
possibilities. There always remain the cases of miracles,
hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of others. Absence
of evidence is not evidence of anything.

As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road,
building a railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just
like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate truths for
bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into your
shed.




Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
universe is Flat.

The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.


But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
proofs.

Which cosmologists are these?


Sean Carroll for one.

In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
spacetime is
flat?



The Hillsboro Argus

Do you have someting peer-reviewed?


Nope. Heard it in a lecture.

Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept General
Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real universe.


Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.

LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Doug Miller wrote:

And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only.
:-) Mariners knew
for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved --
what other explanation can there be for the fact that you
can see the masts of a distant
ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
cultures, though, had no
such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat,
right?

The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered
by positing a hill (of water) between the ships.

As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities,
whatever is left must be the answer" is correct as far as
it goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all
other possibilities. There always remain the cases of
miracles, hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of
others. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.

As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road,
building a railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just
like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate truths for
bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into
your shed.




Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
universe is Flat.

The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.


But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
proofs.

Which cosmologists are these?


Sean Carroll for one.

In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
spacetime is
flat?



The Hillsboro Argus

Do you have someting peer-reviewed?


Nope. Heard it in a lecture.

Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept
General Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real
universe.


Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.

Yes, it is an appproximation and it is one which is not valid when computing
the orbit of Mercury.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Doug Miller wrote:

And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only.
:-) Mariners knew
for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved --
what other explanation can there be for the fact that you
can see the masts of a distant
ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
cultures, though, had no
such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat,
right?

The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered
by positing a hill (of water) between the ships.

As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities,
whatever is left must be the answer" is correct as far as
it goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all
other possibilities. There always remain the cases of
miracles, hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of
others. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.

As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road,
building a railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just
like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate truths for
bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into
your shed.




Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
universe is Flat.

The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.


But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
proofs.

Which cosmologists are these?


Sean Carroll for one.

In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
spacetime is
flat?



The Hillsboro Argus

Do you have someting peer-reviewed?


Nope. Heard it in a lecture.

Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept
General Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real
universe.


Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.

Yes, it is an appproximation and it is one which is not valid when
computing
the orbit of Mercury.


What use is the orbit of Mercury to a cosmologist?

On Jan 13, 4:34*am, "LDosser" wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

...



LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:v5KdnV_XLrjblNvWnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@ earthlink.com...
Doug Miller wrote:

And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only.
:-) Mariners knew
for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved --
what other explanation can there be for the fact that you
can see the masts of a distant
ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
cultures, though, had no
such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat,
right?

The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered
by positing a hill (of water) between the ships.

As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be,"
ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock
Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities,
whatever is left must be the answer" is correct as far as
it goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all
other possibilities. There always remain the cases of
miracles, hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of
others. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.

As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road,
building a railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just
like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate truths for
bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into
your shed.

Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
universe is Flat.

The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of this.

But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered mathematical
proofs.

Which cosmologists are these?

Sean Carroll for one.

In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
spacetime is
flat?

The Hillsboro Argus

Do you have someting peer-reviewed?

Nope. Heard it in a lecture.

Are you sure you understood correctly? *Carroll seems to accept
General Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real
universe.

Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.

Yes, it is an appproximation and it is one which is not valid when
computing
the orbit of Mercury.

What use is the orbit of Mercury to a cosmologist?

It was used to "prove" the validity of Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity. GR is quite useful for cosmologists. ;-)

LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Doug Miller wrote:

And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe
only. :-) Mariners knew
for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved
-- what other explanation can there be for the fact
that you can see the masts of a distant
ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
cultures, though, had no
such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat,
right?

The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be
answered by positing a hill (of water) between the ships.

As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there
be," ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof.
Sherlock Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other
possibilities, whatever is left must be the answer" is
correct as far as it goes. The fact remains that one
cannot eliminate all other possibilities. There always
remain the cases of miracles, hallucination, lies,
mistakes, and a host of others. Absence of evidence is
not evidence of anything.

As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a
road, building a railroad (except for the hills), and so
on. Just like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate
truths for bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who
breaks into your shed.




Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
universe is Flat.

The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of
this.


But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered
mathematical proofs.

Which cosmologists are these?


Sean Carroll for one.

In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
spacetime is
flat?



The Hillsboro Argus

Do you have someting peer-reviewed?


Nope. Heard it in a lecture.

Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept
General Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real
universe.


Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.

Yes, it is an appproximation and it is one which is not valid when
computing
the orbit of Mercury.


What use is the orbit of Mercury to a cosmologist?

Do you really care or are you just making conversation?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Doug Miller wrote:

And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe
only. :-) Mariners knew
for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved
-- what other explanation can there be for the fact
that you can see the masts of a distant
ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
cultures, though, had no
such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat,
right?

The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be
answered by positing a hill (of water) between the ships.

As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there
be," ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof.
Sherlock Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other
possibilities, whatever is left must be the answer" is
correct as far as it goes. The fact remains that one
cannot eliminate all other possibilities. There always
remain the cases of miracles, hallucination, lies,
mistakes, and a host of others. Absence of evidence is
not evidence of anything.

As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a
road, building a railroad (except for the hills), and so
on. Just like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate
truths for bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who
breaks into your shed.




Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
universe is Flat.

The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of
this.


But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered
mathematical proofs.

Which cosmologists are these?


Sean Carroll for one.

In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof that
spacetime is
flat?



The Hillsboro Argus

Do you have someting peer-reviewed?


Nope. Heard it in a lecture.

Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept
General Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real
universe.


Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.

Yes, it is an appproximation and it is one which is not valid when
computing
the orbit of Mercury.


What use is the orbit of Mercury to a cosmologist?

Do you really care or are you just making conversation?

That seemed to be Your motive.

LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Doug Miller wrote:

And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe
only. :-) Mariners knew
for a long time that the surface of the earth is
curved -- what other explanation can there be for the
fact that you can see the masts of a distant
ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
cultures, though, had no
such reference points -- the earth is "obviously"
flat, right?

The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be
answered by positing a hill (of water) between the
ships.

As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there
be," ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof.
Sherlock Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other
possibilities, whatever is left must be the answer" is
correct as far as it goes. The fact remains that one
cannot eliminate all other possibilities. There always
remain the cases of miracles, hallucination, lies,
mistakes, and a host of others. Absence of evidence is
not evidence of anything.

As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a
road, building a railroad (except for the hills), and
so on. Just like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate
truths for bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who
breaks into your shed.




Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
universe is Flat.

The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of
this.


But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered
mathematical proofs.

Which cosmologists are these?


Sean Carroll for one.

In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof
that spacetime is
flat?



The Hillsboro Argus

Do you have someting peer-reviewed?


Nope. Heard it in a lecture.

Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept
General Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real
universe.


Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.

Yes, it is an appproximation and it is one which is not valid when
computing
the orbit of Mercury.


What use is the orbit of Mercury to a cosmologist?

Do you really care or are you just making conversation?

That seemed to be Your motive.

Nope, my motive was to point out that the orbit of Mercury is inconsistent
with the flat universe that you asserted to be the case. But my impression
of your motive is that you are trying to see how big a smartass you can be.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Doug Miller wrote:

And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe
only. :-) Mariners knew
for a long time that the surface of the earth is
curved -- what other explanation can there be for the
fact that you can see the masts of a distant
ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring
cultures, though, had no
such reference points -- the earth is "obviously"
flat, right?

The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be
answered by positing a hill (of water) between the
ships.

As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there
be," ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof.
Sherlock Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other
possibilities, whatever is left must be the answer" is
correct as far as it goes. The fact remains that one
cannot eliminate all other possibilities. There always
remain the cases of miracles, hallucination, lies,
mistakes, and a host of others. Absence of evidence is
not evidence of anything.

As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a
house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a
road, building a railroad (except for the hills), and
so on. Just like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate
truths for bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who
breaks into your shed.




Measuring the universe. For all practical purposes, the
universe is Flat.

The planet Mercury appears to be blissfully unaware of
this.


But Cosmologists have decreed it so. And offered
mathematical proofs.

Which cosmologists are these?


Sean Carroll for one.

In what paper did Sean Carroll offer a mathematical proof
that spacetime is
flat?



The Hillsboro Argus

Do you have someting peer-reviewed?


Nope. Heard it in a lecture.

Are you sure you understood correctly? Carroll seems to accept
General Relativity, which does not allow flat spacetime in a real
universe.


Space, not space-time. And it's an approximation.

Yes, it is an appproximation and it is one which is not valid when
computing
the orbit of Mercury.


What use is the orbit of Mercury to a cosmologist?

Do you really care or are you just making conversation?

That seemed to be Your motive.

Nope, my motive was to point out that the orbit of Mercury is inconsistent
with the flat universe that you asserted to be the case. But my
impression
of your motive is that you are trying to see how big a smartass you can
be.


You'd be wrong.

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:26:19 -0800, LDosser wrote:

J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:

*Enough already!* Learn to snip!

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:13:09 -0600, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:26:19 -0800, LDosser wrote:

J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:

*Enough already!* Learn to snip!

But what a lovely slope.

Mark

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:50:41 -0600, the infamous Markem
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:13:09 -0600, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:26:19 -0800, LDosser wrote:

J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:

*Enough already!* Learn to snip!

But what a lovely slope.

Don't be racist, Mark. Who do you think you are, Harry Reid? snort

--
What helps luck is a habit of watching for opportunities, of
having a patient, but restless mind, of sacrificing one's
ease or vanity, of uniting a love of detail to foresight, and
of passing through hard times bravely and cheerfully.
-- Charles Victor Cherbuliez