studiot

I am fond of saying that Nature is stranger than Science. So I don't see why there has to be an edge if our best Science can come up with examples/theory of 'no-edges'. The Poincare Disk is one, but that is purely theoretical. Nature goes one better with a real world example. Temperature. What is beyond absolute zero of temperature? Well we know that, just like the Poincare disk, the closer you approach, the harder it gets to cool the next increment and it is thought impossible to actually reach AZ.

Those are good questions, Butch. +1 Since you can't shield from gravity I can't see an attenuation mechanism, but maybe someone who knows more can. Reflection ? I don't see why not if you interpose a massive object in the wave path.

Here are the copies of the Seasat data.

+1

The standard equation is The mean square shot noise current, i, in a circuit carrying a current iA is given by i2 = 2eiAB where e is the charge on the electron and B is the bandwidth of the measuring equipment.

Yes that would be good. M sometimes says things in shortform that would be understood by another PhD. I think the answer to this might lie in considering the overlapping of light-cones on separate world lines.

What ever way you choose to describe it, what do you understand 'the centre of mass to be' ?

I listed two quotes where you mention/introduce new radiation at this edge of the universe of yours and asked why we don't see it. Note when I asked about the interaction of the radiation from within the universe with the edge, I was rather expecting a suggestion of reflection. Does this help?

I don't follow this.

Well mathematically sin(x) is always finite and is considered a 'well behaved' function. But tan(x) is another matter. Then again the Gabriel's horn example has a finite volume contained in a 3D shape of infinite surface area. I don't know how that would scale up a dimension or two.

I went back through it and can't find the maps themselves either, although the link to Seasat was there. I could have sworn I included the maps themselves but perhaps it was in another thread. But I can't find them there either finding anything on this benighted site is a real pain. So I will look out the data for you.

Again I say why not? Have you considered Gabriel's horn?

Yes, I apologise to J.C. MacSwell, I have just found it. But to whoever said it I still ask the question why not?

Space time is 4 dimensions, not 3 , EFE allow additional dimensions can be included. The various string theories have many more dimensions. Einstein played with them view EPR and ER one month later. Einstein was not a dummy. . Try reading what Strange said a bit more slowly, then you might see the error in your reply. By the way, Spacetime is not just any old unrestricted set of 4 axes. It is subject a a restriction.

Why not? Edit Wrongly attributed to J.C. MacSwell

I think you have cracked it. The designer went to get medical help and they wouldn't let him back. I can tell you that it got worse when windows 10 came out.

Not only that but you have to surmount the issue of when you measure the density and volume. This is non trivial as it involves establishing relativistic simultaneity. But also note one more thing from the equations. Whilst the density may be susceptible to a local solution as a limit, the definition also involves multiplication by the 'moment' arm which includes terms the size of the Universe, and are clearly going to be subject to substantial relativistic effects. J.C. MacSwell, Does this not also answer your query?

Ah a mathematician has noted what it says in the equations I quoted. Integrating density over space. But since we observe matter fleeing from us at fantastic velocities, how would me measure this 'space' relativistically and how would we assign values to the 'density'?

So where is all this radiation, that is presumably extra to any that we can already account for?

Unsubstantiated and therefore empty claims. You therefore agree that the Universe has no COM? I have no difficulty defining it. I just agree that there is no COM for the observable universe either, or rather that it has no meaning. No matter how small the distance of observation away, the observation take finite time to arrive so refers to the past. I cannot observe any part of the rest of the universe in my present. So the entire observable universe is always in the past. I don't necessarily but it would become a matter of blind faith not Science to believe it exists, before the event. I can never prove it.

How can mass that may have ceased to exist millenia ago, be counted in the centre of mass of the present day universe? The observable universe is not an instantaneous universe.

Yes indeed they do, but the issue is change over time which you mention so clearly here. If you study the mechancis of machines you will study several different instantaneous centres including an instantaneous COM. So there is no such thing as the COM of the universe. Consider the following apparatus. A heavy dumbell is eccentrically attached to a non symmetrical lighter lamina so that it can rotate, independently of the lamina. The lamina itself can also rotate. Both are within a fixed frame. The apparatus is set so the movable parts are spinning. It can easily be seen that, as you rightly say, it moves about and you can calculate the locus of its movement. Now expand the diagram to the size of the universe and replot it observing due regard to relativity. What does an instantaneous centre mean in this case?

Please define centre of mass and show how this applies to the rocket/exhaust system under the conditions where I specified.

1) Agreed 2) https://ehtrust.org/france-new-national-law-bans-wifi-nursery-school/ 3) Agreed 4) agreed 5) Agreed 6) No idea, but 40 Hz is getting close to the audio danger frequency (of 25 hz, if my memory serves me correctly) so it may have some effect but would it be good?

Hi Neil I'm sorry I thought the original parent thread would be easily referenced in this split off one but I had to dig to find it. The missing material is here, including the satellite maps etc. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98386-laser-curvature-test-on-lake-balaton/?page=9 I'm sorry the ridiculous new forum software no long numbers posts so referring to individual ones is now a nightmare.