Your first post re universal shape said
This conflates two contradicting ideas, and began my attempt to get your contributions to this topic back on track. Remember that, in ALL of this, I see my self more as a line judge, trying to keep a topic on course, rather than an all knowing being. As such, I was trying to illustrate where your comprehension of flatness, expansion and the idea of a non-Euclidian space deviates from what those that study these effects are actually saying. Your statement above is more in line with the 'steady state' theorists than what has followed since, and I was attempting to re-direct away from those outdated ideas.
I am not in any way referring to Euclidian geometry, scales or distances; yes, you are using an age and conflating it with an idea of curvature, arriving at an erroneous conclusion (when you started talking about horizons).
The flatness of a Non-Euclidian space has nothing to do with its size. It's possible for a theory of universal geometry to be so completely curved that it is not much larger than the earth; IN such a universe, a 'flat' earth would appear spherical, so NO, curved space does not imply huganomious-ness. I wasn't indicting your logic, rather I was trying to correct your interpretation of other's frameworks
Researches talk about 'Super Massive' black holes all the time. They know what they mean (that the observable size of a black hole has no real definition, as it exists as a point like rupture in the fabric of space-time). Thus, there is no scalar comparison between a non-defined point in space-time and the observable universe.
You were talking about horizons and topology when you brought the idea that a hill's existence doesn't negated the idea of a much more curved horizon, and that comparing scales of curvature was somehow applicable. I mentioned how this is incorrect, and you brought it up again in your riposte.
Well, I wasn't talking about either of those concepts, but I agree; I've thrown out ideas for this science 'club' for about a month, and there's no traction here.
Did you get any meaningful data regarding sound rooms? I hope it was worthwhile in that sense at least.
an observation: I mentioned to you when we were setting up this club that crippling the 'recently posted' code by eliminating sound room additions kinda sucked. I still feel this way. Yes, there are other ways to promote a sound room (e.g. via a 'digest' post as I've done every Sunday), but you don't get a feeling at ALL for engagement. The room itself has overall view and reply stats, but they are comprehensive, including ALL dates of a topic. For instance, a topic may have very intense interest at first, but then nothing. Another topic may have the same overall number of engagements, but over the course of several weeks. There's currently no way to determine engagement frequency, other than writing down how many reads for each topic for each day and then subtracting from yesterday's data. The 'recently posted' list would allow this if it wasn't crippled.
Remember that, in ALL of this, I see my self more as a line judge, trying to keep a topic on course, rather than an all knowing being.