[MJA]

Originally Posted by vacuum-mechanics

Dear MJA and friends,

It is nice to talk to you.

Q - You state that science is capable of measuring the universe, so how big is it?What would be the dimensions exactly?
R – Actually we could find this matter in any text book about astronomy or cosmology.
Resent report the universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide. Please see detail in http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

Q - Is the measuring tools you prescribe to know theoretical, probable, certain, or truth?
R – It is the only one best tool used by all the astronomers in our science world.

Q - As far as the shape, is it all three of the above as you stated: open, closed, and flat?Or is the universe Euclidean, spherical, or eliptical as other would say?
R – For the universe, in short, flat = Euclidean, closed = spherical, and open = hyperbolic (not elliptic).


Q - Are you sure that shape is the right word? Is structure a better word, I don't know, do you?

R – I just follow your quote with the word “shape” which is simple an easy to visualize,formally they used word “geometry”. “Structure” was used when one talking about the composition of the universe.



Q - Can one define the shape of anything without knowing it's bounds with absolute certainty? Or are you only knowledgable and speaking in theories?

R – This is what the professional people (cosmologists) do and it is the best that we
(human) could!

Q - Ye must have faith!
R – I already have faith in science, how about you?
MJA- None

Q - Are you sure science can measure the universe?
R – Yes I am, astronomers tried to do the best that they could, do you have a better way?
MJA- Life without measure is equal or one.
.

Cheer,
Nimit Th.

Have you ever thought that our universe could be only the size of a human cell, only a cell of a body of cells or universes? That beyond our tiny cell of a universe, beyond the billions of universal cells of a body of universes, is billions of other bodies of universes with billions of there own universes. And beyond those bodies of universes is the true infinite universe.
How big are we?
How big is the universe?
Science knows what?

Thanks,

=
MJA

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by MJA

Thanks vm,
I am not a scientist, or cosmologist, or physicist, I would describe myself as simply a truist, or someone who seeks the truth.
=
MJA

Dear MJA,

To make excuse that you are not a scientist, cosmologist or physicist does not guarantee that you can belittle the accumulated efforts, steps, methodologies, reasoning and contemporary achievements worked out generations by generations to establish an academic environment to theorize our physical world.
(You really belittle science - in your last post above this reply, you ended with Science knows what?)

As for "I would describe myself as simply a truist", it is not anyone who describe himself as simply a humble man, then, he is really/automatically a humble man.
(A truist is of very honorable virtue, cannot be simply/humbly call yourself a truist. Please check the meaning of truist before you horoned yourself as a truist.)
In wikipedia, "Truist/Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truist
Due to the fact that you already made so many claims on TOE and "Einstein's Work Completed", you are hardly selfless concern for other people - at least you are not selfless concern for other people working on science and TOE.

As for "[your are] someone who seeks the truth". You fixed yourself on your so-called Truth, TOE = One, = , everything is of equality, and so on. You behaved so sure about your Truth, you are not "someone who seeks the truth". You actually behave as "The one who fixed the truth - and teach others."

As for the many questions listed in your post, it is just your strategy for you to win and win. Not so many people have the time to answer your endless questions which are not so helpful to the main theme.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[MJA]

Mr. unkind bottomlander,

I am going to insert some responses into your quotes for ease of pupose.

Originally Posted by bottomlander

Dear MJA,

To make excuse that you are not a scientist, cosmologist or physicist does not guarantee that you can belittle the accumulated efforts, steps, methodologies, reasoning and contemporary achievements worked out generations by generations to establish an academic environment to theorize our physical world.

MJA: It is not an excuse, it is a fact or the truth. Someone asked if I was a scientist, and I am not.

(You really belittle science - in your last post above this reply, you ended with Science knows what?)

MJA: Belittle is the wrong word. Question or challange would be more apropriate. If you find fault in that, than you find fault in the scientific process itself.



As for "I would describe myself as simply a truist", it is not anyone who describe himself as simply a humble man, then, he is really/automatically a humble man.
(A truist is of very honorable virtue, cannot be simply/humbly call yourself a truist. Please check the meaning of truist before you horoned yourself as a truist.)
In wikipedia, "Truist/Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truist
Due to the fact that you already made so many claims on TOE and "Einstein's Work Completed", you are hardly selfless concern for other people - at least you are not selfless concern for other people working on science and TOE.

MJA: A truist work of nature's equality is the unification of all things including oneself.
Sharing the truth of equality is for the benefit and welfare of not only others, but all things, including me.
I see no humility or greatness in myself, only equality.
Sorry you do.

As for "[your are] someone who seeks the truth". You fixed yourself on your so-called Truth, TOE = One, = , everything is of equality, and so on. You behaved so sure about your Truth, you are not "someone who seeks the truth". You actually behave as "The one who fixed the truth - and teach others."

MJA: Equality is the truth of nature, now that I see it, I think I must share.

As for the many questions listed in your post, it is just your strategy for you to win and win. Not so many people have the time to answer your endless questions which are not so helpful to the main theme.

MJA: The theme is TOE, or GU, or the truth, right?
The truth is not to win, it is only to be.
And that's why I be here!

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by MJA

Mr. unkind bottomlander,

I am going to insert some responses into your quotes for ease of purpose.

Your insertions/replies are just techniques to deny without rational reasoning.

Another demonstration of your usual style, just like to win (or seemingly not to be defeated).

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear MJA and friends,

Q - I am not a scientist, or cosmologist, or physicist,
R – That is OK, anyway because this forum (“Is the universe closed, open or
flat?”) is talking about the problem in “cosmology” (means – science of
theuniverse), so whatyou should do first (at lease) is trying to be an
“amateur scientist”. Otherwise it is very difficult to discuss the matter with
other people and it will create only confusion!

Q - I would describe myself as simply a truist, or someone who seeks the truth……
- Have you ever thought that our universe could be only the size of a human
cell, only a cell of a body of cells or universes? …….
R – These are not scientific problems; rather they are “philosophic” problems
or something else!


Q - I find questioning our knowledge the best path to truth. In fact science itself
uses thesame process of question.
R – Actually “science” is “knowledge”, but not just a plain knowledge; it is the
well prepared knowledge and was done “systematically”.

Q - That's what brings me here.
R –This forum is not suitable for discussing the matter that you quoted, the
correct forum should be something about “metaphysics” which means
“beyond physics”. Pleaseremember that “physics” is the science of nature!
Sincerely,
Nimit Th.

[MJA]

Dear vm,

I have responded to your issues as scientifically as my capabilities are possible.
In doing so I have come up with more question, much like science itself, right?
Perhaps you would be so kind as to attempt again to clairify my simple thoughts of science by answering a few more questions.

MJA

Originally Posted by vacuum-mechanics

Dear MJA and friends,

Q - I am not a scientist, or cosmologist, or physicist,
R – That is OK, anyway because this forum (“Is the universe closed, open or
flat?”) is talking about the problem in “cosmology” (means – science of
theuniverse), so whatyou should do first (at lease) is trying to be an
“amateur scientist”. Otherwise it is very difficult to discuss the matter with
other people and it will create only confusion!

MJA- I am sorry that my simple questions, ideas and concerns of science you find so difficult.
Are you a scientist?
Are you sure one must be a scientist to ask a science question?
How are you with complex science questions, Do you find confusion there as well?

Q - I would describe myself as simply a truist, or someone who seeks the truth……
- Have you ever thought that our universe could be only the size of a human
cell, only a cell of a body of cells or universes? …….
R – These are not scientific problems; rather they are “philosophic” problems
or something else!

MJA-Are not scientific problems, philosophic problems?
The dictionary defines cosmology as: "the branch of philosophy that concerns itselfwith the universe."
Did you know cosmology and philosophy are the same?
So the universe being relatively sized as a human body cell is not a science idea?
Do you know that the search for truth is the ultimate goal of every science?


Q - I find questioning our knowledge the best path to truth. In fact science itself
uses the same process of question.
R – Actually “science” is “knowledge”, but not just a plain knowledge; it is the
well prepared knowledge and was done “systematically”.

MJA-Acually the systematic process of any science includes the questions and challanges from anyone?
Do you not question science?
Are you a scientist?

Q - That's what brings me here.
R –This forum is not suitable for discussing the matter that you quoted, the
correct forum should be something about “metaphysics” which means
“beyond physics”. Pleaseremember that “physics” is the science of nature!

MJA-What is not suitable, my idea on the size of the universe; that is what this thread is about, isn't it?
Sorry vm, but you make no scientific sense at all!

=
MJA

Sincerely,
Nimit Th.

PS: If you find my simple ideas and questions or concerns so confusing or difficult in the future, perhaps you shouldn't respond, and find things that you can handle more easily.

[bhagyesh]

I THINK THE UNIVERSE IS CLOSED AS HAWKINS SAYS AND THAT IT WILL ULTIMATELY CONTRACT!

[everymansmedium]

Hello:
Space is not expanding. It only appears to be expanding because of the reversal of space to time and time to space. This causes a non linearity between time and space that make it appear to be expanding. This non linearity appears at the macro point that is the red shift, and again at the micro point that is indicated by the uncertainty principal. We exist within a finite space between the micro and the macro. This direction from micro toward macro is indicative of a more fundamental medium that is the 3 dimensional interface membrane. The clue to this direction is SR. No matter what direction that you face you are facing the macro. No matter what direction that you face if you travel in this direction you travel in the same direction that time is traveling. Your motion is always in the same direction as time. When you travel with time, part of that time does not pass you, you do not experience it, as in SR.

These thoughts indicate that our universe is in a steady state.

Also you might try to see if the unexpected infinities related to graviton particles will be solved if the removal of the expected expansion of space is removed from the calculations of QFT to GR.

[NotStein]

Wouldn't it matter from how many dimensions you are observing from? Depending on your frame of reference it would vary, wouldn't it?

[everymansmedium]

I think That we are only able to percieve 4 dimentions without the help of math. Then with math we can see symmetry and interrelationships that give us the ability to percieve beyond our normal perception.

Relative to your poll. I vote for a steady state as I do not believe that space is expanding. I have other explanations for the Red Shift.
John