From: "Old Goat" <olgoat-AT-nebi.com>
Subject: Re: The Astronomical Definition
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 01:08:06 -0500


From: roger
Subject: Re: The Astronomical Definition

> did you catch martin rhees (spelling?), the cosmologist who spoke at the
dub last spring?  he's a live old white guy (oxbridge, what ho) who's a
blast.  i LOVE that shit.  just got hawkings latest (universe in a nutshell)
so i'm looking forward to the weekend.

> since george the anarco-cap won't debate grammar, how about explaining to
me something that's bothered me for a while.  if, as hawking etal. contend,
that the geometry of the universe is flat (parallel lines don't meet nor do
they diverge), then doesn't that imply an edge/boundary of some sort?  in
other words, location stops being irrelevant in that there is indeed a
physical center and an expanding boundary/edge, right?  otherwise, the
geometry would be closed in that parallel lines would converge giving us a
neat, closed universe expanding from a singularity with every location in
the universe like every other (like the spots on the expanding balloon
that's often used as a two-dimensional analogy for the expanding
three-dimensional universe).

> am i making sense? >

Actually, no, but why start changing this late in life?

old goat
withdraw consent