MigL

You should. I would say we have a good definition, mathematically speaking. It is just impossible for our minds to grasp or visualize the concept of infinity. Just like 4dimensional space-time ( or even higher dimensions ), it is easily described mathematically, but impossible to describe using common, every day analogies. ( my apologies, in the previous post it should be temperature to 1 part in 10000; what happened to post numbering ? )

Finite but unbounded means a 'circular' universe such that if you go off in one direction, eventually you come back from the opposite direction. the curvature would be intrinsic, ie it doesn't curve in another dimension. Hence there is no 'edge' and it doesn't expand INTO anything. The reason we have problems with 'edges', Delta is because they are strange ( not you strange !) as you noted for the finite, bounded universe. How do you treat the 'edge' of all there is ? The observable universe has always been there. Even shortly after the Big Bang event, light only had limited time to get to a certain distance. So information and causality only reached so far, and that information and causality gives rise to the isotropy of the observable universe. The amount of 'stuff' in the observable universe has been decreasing since then as more and more 'stuff' ( galactic clusters ) move out of the observable universe with increasing time. The volume of information exchange and causality ( why is the universe isotropic and homogenous, why is it at equal temperature to 1 part in 1000, how did this information get exchanged with a finite light speed and finite time ?) was greatest at T=0, and that established al the parameters of our universe.

General relativity is hard math and the predictions it makes are evident in observation. Religion, and politics to a somewhat lesser extent, are based on beliefs and opinions. Why should anyone tell others what they have to believe in in order to be a Christian ? And I keep bringing this up ( but no-one sees fit to answer ). Do we believe the Islamic faith is monolithic ? And they must all subscribe to the same beliefs ? Or do we believe there are only radical elements or groups within that religion which are causing trouble ? Similarly politics, you'd have to be blind not to see the problems in America today. And different people have different opinions on how to solve these problems. Yet these opinions are immediately 'labelled' by some posters as conservative ( or liberal ) and therefore wrong. And sometimes the perpetrator of these ideas is unfairly accused of being a racist ( or a dick ), with no repercussions for the accuser.

Makes for some nice Venn diagrams, Area54. But when people start throwing concepts like 'white privilege' around, which applies to the set of all white males, they're again painting with a broad brush. And just like I predicted on pg 20 ( whatever happened to post numbers ? ), a lot of Republicans are withdrawing their support from D Trump . We may finally get an impeachment, or a resignation. ( just to get back on topic )

Sure Zap. Don't think of the universe as an inflating balloon expanding into an 'outside' volume. Why wouldn't that outside volume be part of the universe ? the universe is, by definition, everything there is. And if there was an edge, what would keep everything from 'spilling out ? If you stuck your hand through that edge, could you retrieve it ( in which case the 'outside' is no different ) ? Or is there some physical separation ( ?? ) ? An 'edge' complicates things with no purpose. Think of it instead as a number line, whether infinite in length or circular ( loops back on itself , and curvature is intrinsic ) doesn't matter. It just cannot have an end ( for the reasons outlined above ). Now take two units on that number line and double the separation between them. You have increased the separation, but, in the case of an infinite universe, you have not changes the class of infinity, because there is still a one to one correspondence between the original units and the doubled units.

That's right about the time large numbers of men started wearing briefs, DrmDoc. I just don't like 'things' flopping around, down there. And I don't need a high sperm count anymore, anyway.

The universe, as a whole, is not expanding. And I clarify that by saying you cannot go to the edge and watch it 'grow' into another volume. It makes no sense to discuss an 'edge' because anything beyond that 'edge' is still part of the universe. Rather, the universe is all there is. And the separation between things ( galactic clusters ) is increasing.

Gee, I remember someone bringing this up in another thread. That although we all recognize the problem, different people may have differing solutions, and should be treated with a little more respect when they present their alternate solutions to these social problems. Instead I was accused of 'finger wagging', telling others how they should behave ( but ignoring it myself ), and of being a racist. Not conductive to civil discourse and solving social problems, is it ?

Well, since I didn't get a suspension... "White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism. It's not that all white males are evil, only that the people expressing evil ideologies right now are doing so on the basis of white supremacy." Posted by iNow ( credit where credit is due ) Now, in light of recent similar happenings in Barcelona, replace white males with Muslims and white supremacy with Islam... 'Muslims are at the heart of both ISIS and current global terror. It's not that all Muslims are evil, only that the people expressing evil and terror right now are doing so on the basis of Islam" If one can paint all white males with the white supremacist brush, how can you possibly weasel out of painting Islam with the terrorist brush ? The answer is simple, you should not do either ! Also by iNow ( I'm not picking on you, just ignoring two of your buddies )... "These people respect strength. We must push back against them with overwhelming force, overwhelming numbers, and overwhelming passion. Silence is no longer an option." If we again apply this to the situation in the Muslim world, where any slight affront to their religion results in massive demonstrations, firing of AK-47s, burning the American flag or effigies of Presiidents, and chants of 'death to America/Satan', should we then push back with overwhelming force/numbers/passion ? Better yet, if these kind of people respect strength, let's show them what our nukes are capable of. Do you really think that would be a wise course of action, or are a lot of you deliberately biased against American terrorism, but willing to turn a blind eye to Middle eastern terrorism ? Seems to me, if you want to be consistent, you should be asking the same questions about both. What is causing their disenfranchisement, that compels these atrocious acts. That's the only real way forward. But what do I know, I'm a racist for bringing this stuff up.

So now I'm a racist too, because my arguments are racist... You just proved my point, by being your usual, tolerant, progressive self. ( yes, I'm being extremely sarcastic ) Maybe I should take some time off before I really tell you ( and RangerX ) what I think.. Oh what the hell.. i'll take my suspension. You're a jackass because you make asinine comments.

No, RangerX, but she was at a protest which included violent protesters ( and on both sides, look up Redneck Revolt ). But I don't see what any of this has to do with either J Trudeau, or S Harper. ( try to keep up )

It is very difficult to have these kinds of discussions because, invariably, accusations of racism start to get tossed around. Or Nazi sympathizer/apologist. Or white privilege. One tries to make a point that initially there was violence on both sides at a protest/counter-protest ( maybe not to the same extent ) and there are thinly veiled accusations levelled that he is a Nazi sympathizer and making excuses for their vile ideas and behaviour. One tries to make a point that a small, root cause of racism in America is due to racists who once identified as democrats ( there are many root causes ), and he is labelled as a racist. Or 'political bigot', whatever that means. For all any of us know, waitforufo may be black/middle eastern/oriental/aboriginal. I think all any of us want is a solution which doesn't lead to more incidents like Charlottesville. And we all have different ideas on how that can be achieved. If we want a solution to how people can treat each other with more respect, maybe we should start, on this forum, by treating each other, and each othe's ideas with more respect.

You should have seen the picture from 1995, Stringy. Trying to hold up all those heavy Motorola brick phones...

The two examples I provided Ten oz were from the same LA Times article. So no, you didn't provide the full list. The Redneck Revolt are an extremist group that was with the anti-protesters . So yes, there were violent extremist groups on both sides. If two groups face off in a protest and there are violent elements in both groups ( even though one group has way more violatiles ), is it any wonder that trouble and tragedy result ? I am of the opinion that KKK and white supremacist Nazi groups should be allowed to protest. The 'light of day' is what kills these types of movements. If they remain hidden, they fester and grow. These groups are the "hemorrhoids' of society, and if hemorrhoids were on your face and exposed, everyone would quickly do something about them. ( sorry for the disgusting analogy )

I noticed you left out the statement made by the Redneck Revolt member, a left wing anti-fascist group that brought rifles to the park. Surely they brought the rifles just for show or other peaceful purposes, and they weren't intending to cause violence; Unlike the weapons brought by white supremacist who brought their weapons to use against the anti-protesters. And the one by Uni of Virginia student, Isabella Ciambotti, possibly the most believable account, which described violence attributed to anti-protesters. I don't wink, Ten oz, but I do squint a lot.

I point you to the article by the LA Times 'Who was responsible for the violence in Charlottesville', Ten oz. It lists numerous first hand accounts by many people, white supremacists, ant-protestors, reporters, etc. All recount the fact that there was violence on both sides, not just retaliatory, but initialized by both sides, long before the vehicular run down incident. That is what I'm opposed to. Violence designed to silence free speech and opposing opinions. And while not to the same extent, you cannot argue that some of the anti-protestors were innocent of wrong-doing. I have no love for D Trump, but his statement that there was violence/fault on both sides is fairly accurate. ( and that was the intent of my first post on the subject )

In case I haven't made my position sufficiently clear ( although I believe some people get it )... If it was up to me, I'd line up all those white supremacists and shoot them. But in the interests of political correctness ( which frowns on shooting people without a trial ), I had to propose a dissentive view ( as noted by CharonY ). Rights and free speech ( and to not be painted with the same brush as nut-jobs ) must apply to everyone ( and Ten oz and Delta made that argument in the O Kahder settlement thread ), or else they apply to no-one. The fact that their speech is vile should in no way justify violence against them. And there was ! The lone good thing about this whole thing is that even more Republicans are deserting/siding against D Trump, so an impeachment may eventually come about ( to get back on topic ). Is not 'dismissive', RangerX. ( try to keep up )

And "wow, just wow" is not ?

On a related note, and I don't recall where I read it, but apparently suicide rates amongst teens have gone up 3000% since the 50s in the US. I found that shocking. That a young person with all his/her life ahead, would choose to end it all. Why is there so much drama and angst among teens these days?

Tolerate as in it is perfectly legal for them to voice their vile, anti-social,opinion, as long as it doesn't lead to violence. Just as anyone else then, has the right to protest against them, and voice their opinion, as long as it doesn't lead to violence. And are you now arguing for the merits of pre-emptive strikes now ( in the case of WW2 ), Delta ? Any news station will tell you that there was violence on both sides. ( before the car incident ) Maybe you should inform yourself before entering a discussion, RangerX. ( and "Wow, just wow" doesn't really make a valid point ) ( how come now its merging my posts ? )

I did define it Delta... " if we don't tolerate their vile, ant-social, free speech" And still, that doesn't take away their right to protest and free speech, Ten oz. But the violence, FROM BOTH SIDES, should not be tolerated !

The allied veterans of WW2 reacted to violence initiated by A Hitler. Read some history, RangerX, and learn about Checkoslovakia and Poland. If A Hitler had just talked about invasion ( or even death camps for that matter ), without acting, war would not have been justified to the extent of over 40 Mill deaths.

Maybe this section on the protest should be spun off to a separate thread. I tried to inject some controversy, and it seems to have worked. ( thanks CharonY ) Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi sympathizer, but an interview with one person should not discredit the whole protest. That was the whole point of the comparison with Islam. The few that advocate 'death to America' should not discredit the rest of the people. And even if it did... A just society is characterized by the level of opposing views it allows, no matter how vile or anti-social. IOW, if we don't tolerate their vile, anti-social, free speech, then we are no better than them. And, in no circumstance, is violence allowed. ( by either side )

And that Delta, is an opinion. Some of those people had differing opinions, and are most certainly allowed to voice that opinion vithout the fear of violence. Violence which was apparent on both sides. Not ALL protesters were Nazis, and it is wrong to characterize them as such because of the reprehensible actions of a few. ( and I addressed that in my first post on the matter ) @ geordief It already is apparent. Unfortunately it makes YOU look bad. (no-one has had to 'rescue' my rep points )

Maybe war hero was the wrong choice of words, but he was an integral, if not major, part of US history. You can't take down a statue and 'remove' him from that history. Just like you can't ban/censor previously produced works of literature because they offend modern sensibilities. And geordief, are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with a certain ideology should have his rights removed ? How very Nazi of you. ( no, I don't downvote for opposing viewpoints, nor do I call people dumb )