Is eeryone happy with the Big Bang? I'm not.

astrocat

11-26-10, 12:34 PM

Everything that moves moves in a straight line unless some other force acts on it.
Yes, I agree. But there are many forces acting on Systems in Space, and I doubt that there are any Systems that no other forces act on, by that I mean, no System that has only one force acting on it.

Agreed. Also remember a picture cannot give you the true sense of what the universe looks like being only two dimentional.Hi Ultra. Yes, and thanks for agreeing. Of course you're right, a picture, even if it represents a 3 dimensional picture, will always be 2 dimensional.

It sounds like you have a problem with how authors try to explain the big bang in low-level science books that are aimed at people without much background in math or physics. Such books often have simplistic drawings or analogies that try to give lay-people the gist of the subject, but aren't necessarily 100% technically accurate.Yes, Nasor. I was actually thinking of the picture of the Big Bang in Wikipedia. The lines that the Universe is moving in have obviously been drawn with a ruler. If you know of a picture without such straight lines, could you tell me where it is?

Almost sure expansion occured in straight lines.Hi Impet. Do I take it that you are saying the Expansion of the Observable Universe (the only part, surely, we can really talk about) occurred in straight lines?

Well, Impet, it's my opinion that there are no straight lines in Space, and I doubt anyone will agree with you if you try to tell them about these straight lines.

Speaking as a lay person who has taken the time to listen to public
lectures by qualified cosmologists and particle physicists I am struck
by the level of uncertainty within the scientific community, how is
the lay person supposed to be convinced if scientists openly admit to
only having a partial understanding of 4% of the energy in the Universe.
For the most part we must accept the BB as an article of faith.

Hi Woowoo. I'm impressed by your open mind. Myself, I don't think there ever was a Big Bang. If you think about it, Georges Lemaitre, who is generally credited with the Big Bang, On news that the Observable Universe had been found to be Expanding, assumed that the entire Universe was expanding, even though there is no evidence of this. (We can't see the entire Universe).

woowoo:

It's because of the big bang theory that we think we only know about 4% (or whatever it is) of the energy in the universe.

Without the big bang theory, we wouldn't be able to put any kind of percentage on it.

The big bang theory is not an article of faith, though. It's supported by very solid science - millions of pieces of independent data that all point in the same direction.I think Woowoo's got a point.

yeah i know its very good science, COBE and the like, but if we are able to
perceive so little, it's a big leap to imagine
that what we do know supports a notion about the origin of everything
that includes the greater part we don't know about. :scratchin:I think you make a lot of sense, in a field of fantasies and fabrications...

That is a rather perceptive question. Nobody really knows just how far gravity extends from an object into space. It is probably fair to say space gets pretty warped where gravitational fields overlap. A quanta of light might then appear to have a non-linear trajectory through this area.
There are huge tracts of space known as voids that are empty as far as we can tell. It is likely spacetime is fairly smooth there.Newton taught us that Gravity was Universal, in his book on Universal Gravity. That means, of course, that an atom on one side of the Universe has a gravitational attraction to an atom on the other side (of the Universe).

Einstein completed Newton. Einstein didn't prove Newton to be Wrong. And gravitational fields overlap constantly in Space.

Voids are real, and their existence demonstrates structure, more than anything, to me.

...as time was created when the Big Bang happened- the Big Bang physically actually happened. Matter and energy in all directions all at once- expanding through now-defined space.

50.001% of all matter was positively charged and 49.999% was negatively charged. Why? Because if the universe was 50/50, it would be a non-universe... it would quickly undergo heat death with no observers. Only a "+1" universe can produce what we perceive as the universe- full of "physical stuff".

Branes interacting and colliding. Only with this collision, there was a remainder: 4%. This became all the energy and matter in the universe. The other 96% is brane matter.Well, we've alll been juiced in the mathematics of the Big Bang, but you can do anything in Math, which isn't actually a Science. Impet, let's stick to the Science of the situation, can we?

How likely? Given the theoretic understanding of quantum fluctuating dynamics of empty space, and the notion that these "huge tracts' of empty space are so vast, that they define vast.These voids are real. Are you disputing their existence, Keith?

Rule 1 when learning 'pop science', ALWAYS take it with a pinch of salt. A picture can only convey so much and when its aimed at people who are not familiar with the details then the details are going to be skipped or corners cut. For instance, in GR gravity is not exactly like a rubber sheet with a ball placed in it.

If you want to know the specifics of how the big bang involves spacial expansion then examine the FRW metric, which describes space-time expansion, including the exponential increase experienced during inflation.I totally agreee that the Observable Universe is Expanding. But I'd like you to tell me how you know the entire Universe is Expanding?

And GR is often represented as you describe, but that's something we have to live with.

Until we probe these voids, I cannot answer that. However if there are vacuum variations there as seems probable, there is probably some distortion..And yes, they are truly vast. With nothing (known) there to produce any gravity the only source would be external - which goes back to the question: how large is gravity's sphere of influence?Well done, Ultra. You have raised a key question, how large...?

As I say, Newton said Gravity never runs out, and that it is Universal.

i think you have a mind to make your own 3d picture in your head, i mean, you can can creat something, that you imagine in your mind and see it in your mind right? then do it :PGood, Shadow. Yes, in my mind I see the Universe as a Vortex - going in.

I was looking at the Hubble telescope's recent pictures, and it seemed to me tghat Space is made up of a network of Galaxies. I saw more Galaxies than anything else, which makes me think that if everything else in the Universe is going in, and if you go to Wiki you will see, under Vortex, that Galaxies are Vortices (plural of Vortex) - then we're probably going in also. What do you think of that?

if you aren't happy with the big bang, don't you think you should discuss it with the bb first?The bb? I'm sorry, Captain, but I don't really understand you? I'm new here, so tell me what the bb is?

I thought and I decided.
I am happy with the Big Bang because it allows my existence.
And about the picture, may be incorrect because "nobody" was there to take a picture.
That's funny, 'cause I thought (and thought) that because nobody was there, to take a picture, that maybe it didn't happen.

I know the Observable Universe is Expanding. How does it follow that therefore the entire Universe is Expanding?

That's just an assumption, and assumptions are dangerous, in Science.

infinite.Brilliant - Boris 2. You are in agreeement with me, Newton and Einstein. How can we convince these others, that the bounds off Gravity are endless.

Gravity is real force, unlike the Big Bang and Dark Energy, which seem to be in trouble, lately...

Or is that just me?

AlexG

11-26-10, 01:55 PM

It's just you.

astrocat

11-26-10, 02:18 PM

I will probably be corrected by someone who knows better..

I think the picture you have in your head is that of the lines of force created by gravitational objects in a space time map..Yes? no?

without any gravity to affect the trajectory of the particles,the only effects would be from the particles themselves(spin?,collisions,minimal gravitational effects)..after they spread out enough to be unaffected by other particles there should be a straight line trajectory.. i think current microwave background science assumes this..they tell of CMBR being a map of the big bang

Loved your picture. Yes, I think that's a pretty fair representation of SpaceTime.

The CMBR doesn't move because it is almost outside of the Universe, a part of the Warm Smooth Soupy Hydrogen cloud that was the Early Universe.

And how far does the distortion of SpaceTime stretch - infinitely, according to Newton. I don't think Einstein said this was wrong?

I like the pic, but obviously it's very simplistic, you need to try and create a 3D model of it in your head. Not so easy! But it does show the basic principle..no?

(Was it kieth?) said gravity's influence was infinite, but wave dynamics would suggest otherwise, I stand to be corrected.

I'm not sure why the voids are there. It only really matters that they have been found. Whether gravity permeates them will be an interesting experiment, but not in my lifetime!

The question that i find most puzzling is how did the BB attain enough power for the superluminal expansion phase, and what happened to the shockwave..?There was no Big Bang. It's only the Observable Universe that has been found to be expanding. The voids are there as part of the Structure of Space.

isn't that related to cosmic microwave background radiation?it's important to bear in mind that the CMBR doesn't move. I doubt that it's related to anything as violent as a Big Bang.

General Relativity involves (at minimum) a 4 dimensional spacetime universe, and all 4 of those dimensions are "curved". You can write down equations to describe it, but you can't draw that properly in a picture, and GR doesn't contain any "lines of force". What you can do is draw the trajectories you'd expect a cannonball or laser beam to take when you shoot it in various directions from some given starting point.

There's no "shockwave" from the Big Bang as far as I know, it's not like some jumbo stack of dynamite that went off and shot all the galaxies out in different directions. The Big Bang is not a concept you can understand in terms of analogies to anything you've learned before, it's purely a mathematical result. There is Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, but that was created about 400 000 years after the Big Bang, although it gives very useful info on what the early universe looked like.So now we have the truth. The Big Bang is 'purely a mathematical result.'

Mathematics are fine, but Math is not a Science - Astronomy is! You can do anything in Math, including proving that two and two equals Three! That's why it's not a Science. Science is bound by hard rules and Laws, including the Law of Gravity.

Expand please..

Allow me, Squirrel. The Early Universe started as a Warm, smooth, Soupy Hydrogen Cloud. Why Hydrogen? It is the very simplest of the elements, consisting of a single Proton and a single Electron. In addition, it is the most abundant of the elements, and it is what formed the Universe. Sol is a good example of what Hydrogen can do.

M00se1989

11-26-10, 02:57 PM

Do you post nonsense knowing it's nonsense, or do you hope that by some outside chance it means something?

I just wonder how all the universal laws would allow one big bang to make more big bangs, then I think about how to make humans able to safely accomplish the feat. Like how would they drive a fission powered space ship into intergalactic space, and implode something that would resembe the initial big bang. Then I pray to God someone has the ability to take me seriously. Then I think of the children who could always use better models for their education and simple understanding of our basic universe. Most kids these days are visual with advanced ADD. Giving them a decent model to look at can only bring a better understanding in future generations. But first we would need to construct a model that all scientists can agree on... which could be why there are people making threads saying they are not happy with the current explinations. Then I think of more nonsense the children could use.

Boris2

11-26-10, 05:29 PM

Mathematics are fine, but Math is not a Science - Astronomy is! You can do anything in Math, including proving that two and two equals Three! That's why it's not a Science. Science is bound by hard rules and Laws, including the Law of Gravity.

maths is the language of science, you cant do science without maths. in science you can't "prove" anything, maths has proofs. maths is more rigid than science.

hth.

M00se1989

11-26-10, 06:13 PM

maths is the language of science, you cant do science without maths. in science you can't "prove" anything, maths has proofs. maths is more rigid than science.

hth.

Strongly disagree: Observation is the language of science. Math is rigid only when nature requires exact dimensions to be calculated into our observations. Would we dare to try and calculate every atom within the universe? No, but we can make approximations. Math is only as rigid as the tool used for the calculation, and the way I see it we don't have any exact calculations for the big bang. Evidence?

James R

11-26-10, 09:53 PM

astrocat:

16 posts in a row, followed soon after by 5 posts in a row?

I have merged your posts.

I suggest you think before posting a string of posts in future. Use the "multi-quote" button, and/or combine your responses into a single post (or maybe two at the most). Otherwise it starts to look a lot like you're talking to yourself.

AlexG

11-26-10, 10:44 PM

.

The CMBR doesn't move because it is almost outside of the Universe, a part of the Warm Smooth Soupy Hydrogen cloud that was the Early Universe.

Incorrect. The CMBR completely, and evenly (pretty much) fills the universe. At any moment, there are approximately 400,000,000 photons of the CMBR in every cubic meter of space. And of course, all these photons are moving at c.

And how far does the distortion of SpaceTime stretch - infinitely, according to Newton. I don't think Einstein said this was wrong?

That's correct, but you must keep in mind that gravity diminishes in strength according to the inverse square law. It doesn't take very long before the gravitational attraction of any particular mass has dropped to a point where it is too low to be measured.

There was no Big Bang. It's only the Observable Universe that has been found to be expanding. The voids are there as part of the Structure of Space.

Again, incorrect. The fact that there is an unobservable part of the universe is a direct consequence of the Big Bang and Inflation. The voids are there because it is an inevitable outcome of gravitation. Any areas in the early universe which had a greater mass density, no matter how small the difference, would attract more matter, thereby increasing the area's gravitation and leading to clumping, which will also produce areas of almost no mass.

it's important to bear in mind that the CMBR doesn't move. I doubt that it's related to anything as violent as a Big Bang.

It's a simple enough matter to google the CMBR, and find out what it is and how it was produced. Have you done so?

So now we have the truth. The Big Bang is 'purely a mathematical result.'

Mathematics are fine, but Math is not a Science - Astronomy is! You can do anything in Math, including proving that two and two equals Three! That's why it's not a Science. Science is bound by hard rules and Laws, including the Law of Gravity.

You don't seem to know much about Math or Astronomy. And certainly not cosmology.

Allow me, Squirrel. The Early Universe started as a Warm, smooth, Soupy Hydrogen Cloud.

Again, incorrect. Protons and neutrons, and hence hydrogen, did not form until about three minutes after the start of the BB. In terms of the relative size of the universe, that's a relatively longer period of time than the following 13.7 billion years. Non-ionized hydrogen did not appear until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. It took that long for the temperature of the universe do drop low enough for electrons to be able to maintain their orbit. And that was the event which allowed photons to travel without absorbtion and re-emission, producing the CMBR.

NMSquirrel

11-27-10, 02:15 PM

Non-ionized hydrogen did not appear until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. It took that long for the temperature of the universe do drop low enough for electrons to be able to maintain their orbit. And that was the event which allowed photons to travel without absorbtion and re-emission, producing the CMBR.

thats the part that sounds hinky..

300,000 years to cool down?..that intones the universe may have been hot to begin with..:shrug:

just seems like a long time to cool down..if particles were expelled then it seems it would be sooner cause of the temperature of the environment away from the big bang..i mean doesn't distance from an event have a decrease in temp?

M00se1989

11-27-10, 04:07 PM

"The equation of statistical thermodynamics, the entropy of a system in which all states, of number Ω, are equally likely, is given by":

S = k_{B} \ln \Omega

Where k_{B} is the Boltzman constant. wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(statistical_thermodynamics))

so... just average the hottest and the coldest thing in space one being a photon at zero, another being the temperature of the Earth, and the other being the core temperature of the Sun. and devide it by the age of the universe to see how much entropy has increased "since the begining of time" in our solar system. So we should probably put plank time in there somewhere... So its not so much the distance between an event has a decrease in temperature, as it is the closer you get to the edge of the universe the colder it becomes near events. Still more events yields a higher temperature relative to other objects in the immediate surroundings. What this means basically is that as our universe expanded into space, space expanded around it as well to help balance temperature.

AlexG

11-27-10, 07:20 PM

thats the part that sounds hinky..

300,000 years to cool down?..that intones the universe may have been hot to begin with..:shrug:

just seems like a long time to cool down..if particles were expelled then it seems it would be sooner cause of the temperature of the environment away from the big bang..i mean doesn't distance from an event have a decrease in temp?

Yes Squirrely, it was hot to begin with,

There is no 'away' from the BB. The BB wasn't an event at a particular location in space. It took place everywhere at the same time. The BB was space itself expanding, not an explosion somewhere in space.

James R

11-27-10, 09:21 PM

M00se1989 has been permanently banned from sciforums for continuing to post crap in the science forums.

astrocat

12-02-10, 03:23 PM

So? the OP has a pictureWhy yes, it seems to me that the Cosmos is a Vortex, probably shaped a lot like the Milky Way or the Whirlpool Galaxy. How do you picture the Universe, if I might ask?

astrocat

12-02-10, 03:26 PM

It's just you.What's just me?

astrocat

12-02-10, 03:30 PM

I just wonder how all the universal laws would allow one big bang to make more big bangs, then I think about how to make humans able to safely accomplish the feat. Like how would they drive a fission powered space ship into intergalactic space, and implode something that would resembe the initial big bang. Then I pray to God someone has the ability to take me seriously. Then I think of the children who could always use better models for their education and simple understanding of our basic universe. Most kids these days are visual with advanced ADD. Giving them a decent model to look at can only bring a better understanding in future generations. But first we would need to construct a model that all scientists can agree on... which could be why there are people making threads saying they are not happy with the current explinations. Then I think of more nonsense the children could use.Not sure how this relates to Straight Lines in Space. Care to enlighten me, Moose?

astrocat

12-02-10, 03:31 PM

maths is the language of science, you cant do science without maths. in science you can't "prove" anything, maths has proofs. maths is more rigid than science.

hth.But Math isn't a Science. Astronomy is.

astrocat

12-02-10, 03:36 PM

maths is the language of science, you cant do science without maths. in science you can't "prove" anything, maths has proofs. maths is more rigid than science.

hth.

I replied, but my reply did not get posted. I repeat, Math is not a Science. I think you can do Science without Math. Fire was discovered without Math. Do you know of any more important discovery in Science?

astrocat

12-02-10, 03:39 PM

maths is the language of science, you cant do science without maths. in science you can't "prove" anything, maths has proofs. maths is more rigid than science.

hth.What about Fire. Fire was discovered without math. Can you think of any more important discovery in Science?

astrocat

12-02-10, 03:42 PM

astrocat

12-02-10, 03:44 PM

I just wonder how all the universal laws would allow one big bang to make more big bangs, then I think about how to make humans able to safely accomplish the feat. Like how would they drive a fission powered space ship into intergalactic space, and implode something that would resembe the initial big bang. Then I pray to God someone has the ability to take me seriously. Then I think of the children who could always use better models for their education and simple understanding of our basic universe. Most kids these days are visual with advanced ADD. Giving them a decent model to look at can only bring a better understanding in future generations. But first we would need to construct a model that all scientists can agree on... which could be why there are people making threads saying they are not happy with the current explinations. Then I think of more nonsense the children could use.I fail to see what this has got to do with Straight Lines in Space?

astrocat

12-02-10, 03:56 PM

"The equation of statistical thermodynamics, the entropy of a system in which all states, of number Ω, are equally likely, is given by":

so... just average the hottest and the coldest thing in space one being a photon at zero, another being the temperature of the Earth, and the other being the core temperature of the Sun. and devide it by the age of the universe to see how much entropy has increased "since the begining of time" in our solar system. So we should probably put plank time in there somewhere... So its not so much the distance between an event has a decrease in temperature, as it is the closer you get to the edge of the universe the colder it becomes near events. Still more events yields a higher temperature relative to other objects in the immediate surroundings. What this means basically is that as our universe expanded into space, space expanded around it as well to help balance temperature.How do you know the Universe is Expanding, Moose? Someone told you, right? But no one has ever seen the Universe... So how can they know?

Boris2

12-02-10, 04:46 PM

I think you can do Science without Math.

not really, not if you wish to be clear in your thinking. i am talking physics here you understand.

NMSquirrel

12-02-10, 07:05 PM

What about Fire. Fire was discovered without math. Can you think of any more important discovery in Science?

microwave ovens..

birch

12-03-10, 03:39 AM

Yes Squirrely, it was hot to begin with,

There is no 'away' from the BB. The BB wasn't an event at a particular location in space. It took place everywhere at the same time. The BB was space itself expanding, not an explosion somewhere in space.

why would a simultaneous big bang not be consistent with a singularity?

astrocat

12-03-10, 04:18 PM

not really, not if you wish to be clear in your thinking. i am talking physics here you understand.You certainly dont need math to make important discoveries in science. Gallilleo discovered Jupiter's moons without math. The fact that the expansion is speeding up... you don't need math to understand that!

astrocat

12-03-10, 04:19 PM

microwave ovens..Ah, someone with a sense of humour. Thank goodness. Great, Squirrel.

astrocat

12-03-10, 04:22 PM

why would a simultaneous big bang not be consistent with a singularity?Not really sure I understand the question... What I can't understand is how someone who knows the Observable Universe is expanding, can make the stretch that therefore the whole Universe must be expanding. Nobody can know this!

AlexG

12-03-10, 09:24 PM

You certainly dont need math to make important discoveries in science. Gallilleo discovered Jupiter's moons without math. The fact that the expansion is speeding up... you don't need math to understand that!

Actually, yes, you do. How do you know that the expansion is speeding up?

AlphaNumeric

12-05-10, 11:55 AM

You certainly dont need math to make important discoveries in science. Gallilleo discovered Jupiter's moons without math.Discoveries, at their most basic, are simply observations of things in the universe. However, most of the things in the universe (or at least our little corner of it) which can be observed without any equipment have already been observed. That's why so much science is done in labs, because you need equipment to look at things no one else has before, be it the very small or the very distant or the very cold or the very hot etc.

Galileo made use of a basic telescope. To build such a thing you need a basic understanding of optics, to grasp how varying lens shape and the gaps between lenses varies the image you see. While you can do it with trial and error without writing any maths down you're still understanding it on a quantitative level. Another example is Faraday. He was a brilliant experimentalist but he was still forming a quantitative understanding of electromagnetism such as if you move a wire in a magnetic field twice as fast you generate twice the current. Even a "If I do this more then more of that happens" is mathematical in nature.

All technology is based on such quantitative understandings. We know if we arrange silicon in a particular way it makes a programmable microchip. We know if we cycle certain gases through pressurised systems we get cooling systems found in fridges. We know if we heat certain chemicals over certain metals we can make compounds like ammonia (for fertiliser and bombs) or fuels like methane (through cracking). Its all based on the quantitative knowledge of how certain things behave and without that quantitative knowledge you can't do all the things technology does.

Suppose you wanted to built a car engine and you know that if you burn petrol it gives off hot gases. Given only that information can you build a combustion engine? Nope. You need to know how hot, how mch gas, if the cylinder is a given size how much pressure is caused, how strong is the metal you make the engine from.

The short version of all this I like to use is that notion that science isn't just being able to say "If you throw a ball in the air it will come down" but also being able to say when it comes down, where it comes down and how fast it moves when it lands.

The fact that the expansion is speeding up... you don't need math to understand that!You need mathematics to understand general relativity, which describes varying space-time configurations. You need mathematics to understand doppler shift effects on the light seen by telescopes. You need mathematics to understand the light emissions from supernova, which involves everything from fluid mechanics through to nuclear physics (all of which you need mathematics to understand). You need mathematics to then do a statistical analysis on the observations to demonstrate that the doppler effects are time varying in a specific way which implies, via general relativity, an expanding universe.

There's a difference between someone telling you a conclusion of science and you being able to do that science yourself. I know aspirin takes away a headache but that doesn't make me a doctor.

astrocat

12-08-10, 05:51 PM

Discoveries, at their most basic, are simply observations of things in the universe. However, most of the things in the universe (or at least our little corner of it) which can be observed without any equipment have already been observed. That's why so much science is done in labs, because you need equipment to look at things no one else has before, be it the very small or the very distant or the very cold or the very hot etc.

Galileo made use of a basic telescope. To build such a thing you need a basic understanding of optics, to grasp how varying lens shape and the gaps between lenses varies the image you see. While you can do it with trial and error without writing any maths down you're still understanding it on a quantitative level. Another example is Faraday. He was a brilliant experimentalist but he was still forming a quantitative understanding of electromagnetism such as if you move a wire in a magnetic field twice as fast you generate twice the current. Even a "If I do this more then more of that happens" is mathematical in nature.

All technology is based on such quantitative understandings. We know if we arrange silicon in a particular way it makes a programmable microchip. We know if we cycle certain gases through pressurised systems we get cooling systems found in fridges. We know if we heat certain chemicals over certain metals we can make compounds like ammonia (for fertiliser and bombs) or fuels like methane (through cracking). Its all based on the quantitative knowledge of how certain things behave and without that quantitative knowledge you can't do all the things technology does.

Suppose you wanted to built a car engine and you know that if you burn petrol it gives off hot gases. Given only that information can you build a combustion engine? Nope. You need to know how hot, how mch gas, if the cylinder is a given size how much pressure is caused, how strong is the metal you make the engine from.

The short version of all this I like to use is that notion that science isn't just being able to say "If you throw a ball in the air it will come down" but also being able to say when it comes down, where it comes down and how fast it moves when it lands.

You need mathematics to understand general relativity, which describes varying space-time configurations. You need mathematics to understand doppler shift effects on the light seen by telescopes. You need mathematics to understand the light emissions from supernova, which involves everything from fluid mechanics through to nuclear physics (all of which you need mathematics to understand). You need mathematics to then do a statistical analysis on the observations to demonstrate that the doppler effects are time varying in a specific way which implies, via general relativity, an expanding universe.

There's a difference between someone telling you a conclusion of science and you being able to do that science yourself. I know aspirin takes away a headache but that doesn't make me a doctor.Hi, Alpha Numeric. So nice of you to respond to my post the way you did. Are you a Mathematician?

Of course, Math is handy, in Science. But I happen to know you can do anything with Math and that Math, however much you may not like this, is not a Science. I'm not even sure Math is the language of Science - what about Research?

I prefer to go by comparisons, and the laws of Physics. For example, there is no such thing as an outward expansion that accelerates, certainly not one that accelerates ad infinitum.

Nobody can see the Universe. How, therefore, do they know it's expanding? It's the Observable Universe that's expanding, which is exactly what one would expect if we were falling into a Black Hole.

In addition, in 1998, it was discovered that the expansion was speeding up. Again, just what you'd expect if we were F. I a B. H.

There is only Gravity. All the rest was made up - in my opinion, by Religious Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is God's word. They seek to have a Cosmology that agrees with the Bible.

We have all been 'juiced' in this Big Bang that never happened. The Big Bang can be explained by very complex Math, but Science prefers the simpler explaination, I'm sure you will agree. Lex Parsimoniae, the law of Succinctness, is on my side.

Gravity brought together a cloud of hydrogen that was the Universe. At the center, pressures and temperatures caused this part to evolve fastest, and here Black Holes first appeared.

The outside of the cloud we call the 'Isometric Background Radiation,' - warm protons (not photons) which made up the early Hydrogen atoms, and which still seems not to have noticed the evolution at the center.

With your Big Bang, Dark Energy and Gravity as well, you have too many entities. In order to make your big bang work, you have to make Gravity into some annoying embarrassment - when Gravity is as Newton told us - is Universal.

Gravity causes the moon to orbit Earth, for the Earth to orbit the Sun etc. etc. Where does Gravity run out? It doesn't. Gravity causes the Universe to unfold - not anti-gravity. I'm surprised you need me to tell you this. Gravity is all there ever was - all there ever will be.

Gallileo was arrested by the Inquisition. Darwin, who said humans evolved only slowly, was derided by Religious Fundamentalists, and because I say the Universe was not created instantly, but evolved over trillions of years these same Religious Fundamentalists block me.

Look, planets come from the exploded cores of ancient dying stars. Earth, they say is five billion years old - in a Universe that is ony 13 Billion years old. My Math tells me 13 minus 5 equals 8.

In a mere 8 billion years, a star was born, grew old, died and exploded. And you expect me to believe this?

No thanks. The Universe is truly ancient, several trillion years old. It wasn't created instantly, it evolved.

Nice talking to you, Alpha Numeric. Hope you can seee my point of view.

Stryder

12-08-10, 08:32 PM

Of course, Math is handy, in Science. But I happen to know you can do anything with Math and that Math, however much you may not like this, is not a Science. I'm not even sure Math is the language of Science - what about Research?

Mathematics is far more than "handy", mathematics is what collates theory to fact. Yes, numbers can be juggled around to "fit", however Mathematicians and Scientists alike do not stop at fitting a number, they need to know WHY it fits not just how it fits.

In understanding cosmology, Scientists create models with mathematics in an attempt to replicate various effects, these have then led on to greater more physical projects like for instance the LHC at CERN. Without mathematics, such projects wouldn't be possible for many reasons, from the absence of a team being able to identify an objective, to actual apparatus not being considered.

The most interesting thing that I find however is the fact that these "virtual models" (which are mathematical or computational) are created to try and understand the universe, but it's neglected that the models themselves are as much a part of the universes make up as what is being studied.

This is one of the main reasons my attention has been shifting more towards the universe being one giant composite emulation. (In fact I have a whole model that applies super-symmetry, relatively and multiworld's just on the face of it, where a universe could be born from a "finite" resource. )

The problem is that it's not the easiest thing to document, mainly for the absence of open discussion on the subject with people from the fields of inquiry that "know more than myself" on their various specialised subjects.

Dr Mabuse

12-08-10, 10:10 PM

Of course, Math is handy, in Science. But I happen to know you can do anything with Math and that Math, however much you may not like this, is not a Science. I'm not even sure Math is the language of Science - what about Research?

While I don't agree with most of your points, you raise a valid point here.

It is a problem when you turn people loose with math, virtually anything can be made of it.

I always think of Tesla's words on the subject when a point like this comes up:

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. " - Nikola Tesla

This is, what, the 10,000th 'Big Bang' thread here? We don't know nearly as much as many try to pretend we do about the universe. But we form a theory and proceed on that until we know more.

As incorrect as it was, without Ptolemy putting so much thought into his model, Copernicus would not have made his discovery, and so on. So even an incorrect theory can lead to a better understanding given time, and one or two thinkers who are able to see past socially/scientifically conditioned dogma.

As to 'Big Bang' stuff, this is a quote I often recall when considering this subject:

"I personally feel it is presumptuous to believe that man can determine the whole temporal structure of the universe, its evolution, development and ultimate fate from the first nanosecond of creation to the last 10^10 years, on the basis of three or four facts which are not very accurately known and are disputed among the experts." - J. Bahcall, senior astrophysicist, Institute for Advanced Study

AlexG

12-08-10, 10:36 PM

I prefer to go by comparisons, and the laws of Physics. For example, there is no such thing as an outward expansion that accelerates, certainly not one that accelerates ad infinitum.

Nobody can see the Universe. How, therefore, do they know it's expanding? It's the Observable Universe that's expanding, which is exactly what one would expect if we were falling into a Black Hole.

In addition, in 1998, it was discovered that the expansion was speeding up. Again, just what you'd expect if we were F. I a B. H.

There is only Gravity. All the rest was made up - in my opinion, by Religious Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is God's word. They seek to have a Cosmology that agrees with the Bible.

We have all been 'juiced' in this Big Bang that never happened. The Big Bang can be explained by very complex Math, but Science prefers the simpler explaination, I'm sure you will agree. Lex Parsimoniae, the law of Succinctness, is on my side.

Gravity brought together a cloud of hydrogen that was the Universe. At the center, pressures and temperatures caused this part to evolve fastest, and here Black Holes first appeared.

The outside of the cloud we call the 'Isometric Background Radiation,' - warm protons (not photons) which made up the early Hydrogen atoms, and which still seems not to have noticed the evolution at the center.

With your Big Bang, Dark Energy and Gravity as well, you have too many entities. In order to make your big bang work, you have to make Gravity into some annoying embarrassment - when Gravity is as Newton told us - is Universal.

Gravity causes the moon to orbit Earth, for the Earth to orbit the Sun etc. etc. Where does Gravity run out? It doesn't. Gravity causes the Universe to unfold - not anti-gravity. I'm surprised you need me to tell you this. Gravity is all there ever was - all there ever will be.

Gallileo was arrested by the Inquisition. Darwin, who said humans evolved only slowly, was derided by Religious Fundamentalists, and because I say the Universe was not created instantly, but evolved over trillions of years these same Religious Fundamentalists block me.

Look, planets come from the exploded cores of ancient dying stars. Earth, they say is five billion years old - in a Universe that is ony 13 Billion years old. My Math tells me 13 minus 5 equals 8.

In a mere 8 billion years, a star was born, grew old, died and exploded. And you expect me to believe this?

No thanks. The Universe is truly ancient, several trillion years old. It wasn't created instantly, it evolved.

Nice talking to you, Alpha Numeric. Hope you can seee my point of view.

There is just so much here which is totally unreal.

'Your're not right, you're not even wrong'

CHRISCUNNINGHAM

12-09-10, 07:01 AM

Hi, Alpha Numeric. So nice of you to respond to my post the way you did. Are you a Mathematician?

Of course, Math is handy, in Science. But I happen to know you can do anything with Math and that Math, however much you may not like this, is not a Science. I'm not even sure Math is the language of Science - what about Research?

I prefer to go by comparisons, and the laws of Physics. For example, there is no such thing as an outward expansion that accelerates, certainly not one that accelerates ad infinitum.

Nobody can see the Universe. How, therefore, do they know it's expanding? It's the Observable Universe that's expanding, which is exactly what one would expect if we were falling into a Black Hole.

In addition, in 1998, it was discovered that the expansion was speeding up. Again, just what you'd expect if we were F. I a B. H.

There is only Gravity. All the rest was made up - in my opinion, by Religious Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is God's word. They seek to have a Cosmology that agrees with the Bible.

We have all been 'juiced' in this Big Bang that never happened. The Big Bang can be explained by very complex Math, but Science prefers the simpler explaination, I'm sure you will agree. Lex Parsimoniae, the law of Succinctness, is on my side.

Gravity brought together a cloud of hydrogen that was the Universe. At the center, pressures and temperatures caused this part to evolve fastest, and here Black Holes first appeared.

The outside of the cloud we call the 'Isometric Background Radiation,' - warm protons (not photons) which made up the early Hydrogen atoms, and which still seems not to have noticed the evolution at the center.

With your Big Bang, Dark Energy and Gravity as well, you have too many entities. In order to make your big bang work, you have to make Gravity into some annoying embarrassment - when Gravity is as Newton told us - is Universal.

Gravity causes the moon to orbit Earth, for the Earth to orbit the Sun etc. etc. Where does Gravity run out? It doesn't. Gravity causes the Universe to unfold - not anti-gravity. I'm surprised you need me to tell you this. Gravity is all there ever was - all there ever will be.

Gallileo was arrested by the Inquisition. Darwin, who said humans evolved only slowly, was derided by Religious Fundamentalists, and because I say the Universe was not created instantly, but evolved over trillions of years these same Religious Fundamentalists block me.

Look, planets come from the exploded cores of ancient dying stars. Earth, they say is five billion years old - in a Universe that is ony 13 Billion years old. My Math tells me 13 minus 5 equals 8.

In a mere 8 billion years, a star was born, grew old, died and exploded. And you expect me to believe this?

No thanks. The Universe is truly ancient, several trillion years old. It wasn't created instantly, it evolved.

Nice talking to you, Alpha Numeric. Hope you can seee my point of view.

Astrocat and others, while I appreciate your interest in questioning the world around you, I have to warn you, it's best to do it on solid, sustainable, verifiable arguments.

Many times, it is the death of would be scientists when they doubt the system so much that they use "uninformed assumption-based" logic. Using what they do know to draw a picture about something that far outstreches their already attained knowledge. This was something done primarily by the ancients, Plato, Aristotle, and the rest. Their ideas always had a hint of truth in them, but a truth, neverthless, where it's boundaries were streched far beyond any useful applications. Just having a confidence in your own assumptions, using them against the "assumptions" of others does not make something true. It has to be proven through experiments, and results by independent observers and systems.

The math isn't super complex, but it is something that requires a broader education than basic algebra, basic algebra didn't exist in the times of the Greeks and the pythagoreans. 2X+10=20 would have absolutely no meaning to them. The fact that a triangle with two sides having each a value of 1 created something wholly foriegn, and perhaps threatening to them- the square root of 2. They knew and in fact informed the world that side one times itself, plus side two times itself equaled side three times itself. But when using 1 for side one and two the number is an irrational, neverending sequence of decimals.

Is it safe to say that because they didn't understand the meaning of such a number that COULD NOT exist in their current mathematics, that the number didn't exist? That it was IMPOSSIBLE then, for a triangle to have two sides with a measurement of one?

That's like saying because you haven't learned what the word average means, that averages don't exist and cannot be applied to the universe and its workings.

The math we know and use today was developed through a series of unexplained phenomena much like the square root of 2. It isn't necessarily "complicated" in the sense that there's too much "work" involved for the universe to follow it, it's more that the information required to explain these phenomena are far more advanced than something a person, living on earth, for only 20 years, could dedude from what he or she has learned in that 20 years without prior exposure to the questions being asked, like "how does the moon rotate about the sun" it's taken thousands of years to truly understand. Just as it took hundreds of years to understand what is meant by the square root of two.

When you ask, how was the "trillion" year universe created, you have to use more information than is given through basic teachings in high school and elementary school, because the mere age of the universe itself should be an indication of how many factors are involved in the determination of its origins, you'd have trillions of years of information to pile through, and yet you've only had how many?? We've only had how many as human beings??

Think a bit about what you're saying astrocat.

Red Devil

12-09-10, 01:46 PM

Not really sure I understand the question... What I can't understand is how someone who knows the Observable Universe is expanding, can make the stretch that therefore the whole Universe must be expanding. Nobody can know this!

Visit space.com or the hubble site - the truth is out there.

Einstein’s general theory of relativity says that the universe began with the big bang singularity, a moment when all the matter we see was concentrated at a single point of infinite density. But the theory does not capture the fine, quantum structure of spacetime, which limits how tightly matter can be concentrated and how strong gravity can become. To figure out what really happened, physicists need a quantum theory of gravity.

According to one candidate for such a theory, loop quantum gravity, space is subdivided into “atoms” of volume and has a finite capacity to store matter and energy, thereby preventing true singularities from existing.

If so, time may have extended before the bang. The prebang universe may have undergone a catastrophic implosion that reached a point of maximum density and then reversed. In short, a big crunch may have led to a big bounce and then to the big bang.

String theorists Neil Turok of Cambridge University and Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton believe that the cosmos we live in was actually created by the cyclical trillion-year collision of two universes (which they define as three-dimensional branes plus time) that were attracted toward each other by the leaking of gravity out of one of the universes.

In their view of the universe the complexities of an inflating universe after a Big Bang are replaced by a universe that was already large. flat, and uniform with dark energy as the effect of the other universe constantly leaking gravity into our own and driving its acceleration. According to this theory, the Big Bang was not the beginning of time but the bridge to a past filled with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each accompanied by the creation of new matter and the formation of new galaxies, stars, and planets.

Turok and Steinhardt were inspired by a lecture given by Burt Ovrut who imagined two branes, universes like ours, separated by a tiny gap as tiny as 10-32 meters. There would be no communictaion between the two universes except for our parallel sister universe's gravitational pull, which could cross the tiny gap.

Orvut's theory could explain the effect of dark matter where areas of the universe are heavier than they should be given everything that's present. With their theory, the nagging problems surrounding the Big Bang (beginning from what, and caused how?) are replaced by an eternal cosmic cycle where dark energy is no longer a mysterious unknown quantity, but rather the very extra gravitational force that drives the universe to universe (brane-brane) interaction.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ngt1000/

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ngt1000/branes_max.gif

NMSquirrel

12-09-10, 03:30 PM

It is a problem when you turn people loose with math, virtually anything can be made of it.

math is a tool,
what units you assign to the numbers is what makes it science

Chris;

great post..

AlexG

12-09-10, 07:09 PM

math is a tool,

Yes.

what units you assign to the numbers is what makes it science

No.

CHRISCUNNINGHAM

12-09-10, 07:45 PM

Ha Alex, what units you assign to it DO make it science...otherwise it would still be math...give me a scientific equation that does not have any units, at all...and is used to predict something else scientifically?

Red Devil

12-10-10, 03:34 AM

Maths to me is another planet, especially higher maths - when peoples answers are full of equations, my eyes glaze over!!

Stryder

12-10-10, 08:33 AM

Maths to me is another planet, especially higher maths - when peoples answers are full of equations, my eyes glaze over!!

I'm pretty sure you could probably get your head around it if you wanted to. It's just you are at the very bottom of the learning curve and if you don't attempt to learn, then your eyes will glaze over.

Red Devil

12-10-10, 09:04 AM

It matters not now, I am history. All they eras I have been here and get a bollocking for trying to raise a topical subject - bye - see you hyper, and SAM in another life.

Fraggle Rocker

12-11-10, 04:45 PM

It matters not now, I am history. All they eras I have been here and get a bollocking for trying to raise a topical subject - bye - see you hyper, and SAM in another life.He says he can't understand math, and he wonders why his input is held in low esteem in a discipline which is virtually all math???

astrocat

12-13-10, 05:41 PM

Mathematics is far more than "handy", mathematics is what collates theory to fact. Yes, numbers can be juggled around to "fit", however Mathematicians and Scientists alike do not stop at fitting a number, they need to know WHY it fits not just how it fits.

In understanding cosmology, Scientists create models with mathematics in an attempt to replicate various effects, these have then led on to greater more physical projects like for instance the LHC at CERN. Without mathematics, such projects wouldn't be possible for many reasons, from the absence of a team being able to identify an objective, to actual apparatus not being considered.

The most interesting thing that I find however is the fact that these "virtual models" (which are mathematical or computational) are created to try and understand the universe, but it's neglected that the models themselves are as much a part of the universes make up as what is being studied.

This is one of the main reasons my attention has been shifting more towards the universe being one giant composite emulation. (In fact I have a whole model that applies super-symmetry, relatively and multiworld's just on the face of it, where a universe could be born from a "finite" resource. )

The problem is that it's not the easiest thing to document, mainly for the absence of open discussion on the subject with people from the fields of inquiry that "know more than myself" on their various specialised subjects.Hi, Stryder - nice of you to contribute. I take it you're a mathematician, and I'm sure you will agreee that Math is not a Science. I enjoyed reading about your Universe. Do I take it you think the Universe could be born of a "finite" resource. Myself, I believe that God created the Universe - it had to come from somewhere.
Only thing is, I don't believe the Universe is a good thing, imperfect as it is. And about the Universe being hard to document - I don't find that at all.
We have to assemble all the information we can get, and from that, form an opinion. For a start, there is absolutely no evidence at all to show that the Universe is expanding. It's only the Observable Universe (OU) that has been seen to be expanding. To go from an expanding OU, to an expanding universe is an assumption, I hope you can see that, and we all know the dangers of assumptions, in Science.
We know, for example, that the Universe is Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure. In addition, I think we can say the Universe is Clumping Up. Can we ageree on that, Stryder? If we talk again, we can go from there...

astrocat

12-13-10, 06:02 PM

While I don't agree with most of your points, you raise a valid point here.

It is a problem when you turn people loose with math, virtually anything can be made of it.

I always think of Tesla's words on the subject when a point like this comes up:

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. " - Nikola Tesla

This is, what, the 10,000th 'Big Bang' thread here? We don't know nearly as much as many try to pretend we do about the universe. But we form a theory and proceed on that until we know more.

As incorrect as it was, without Ptolemy putting so much thought into his model, Copernicus would not have made his discovery, and so on. So even an incorrect theory can lead to a better understanding given time, and one or two thinkers who are able to see past socially/scientifically conditioned dogma.

As to 'Big Bang' stuff, this is a quote I often recall when considering this subject:

"I personally feel it is presumptuous to believe that man can determine the whole temporal structure of the universe, its evolution, development and ultimate fate from the first nanosecond of creation to the last 10^10 years, on the basis of three or four facts which are not very accurately known and are disputed among the experts." - J. Bahcall, senior astrophysicist, Institute for Advanced Study Thanks Doctor. And above all, thanks for the quote from Tesla. What a man he was ! But the quote from J. Bahcall, I disagree with. The Universe is a challenge to be answered.

Because the Observable Universe (ou) had been found - by Hubble among othere, to be expanding - I don't think it's good Science to go from there to an expanding universe, when there is absolutely no evidence for this.

Besides being the only thing in existence that has Mass, but no center of that Mass, and the only thing that was born "everywhere" when everything else starts from a point, the only thing expanding in the universe (everything else is going 'IN' - Galaxies are vortices (according to Wiki). And the rev LeMaitre, a Belgian cleric who is credited with the Big Bang Theory had, according to Einstein - a 'woeful lack of understanding of Physics'. I understand Hubble himself objected to this Big Bang - rightfully so, I believe.

There is much double talk and stuff from Modern Scientists that I must object. They want you to think you need a Phd in Math to understand the workings of the universe, but I believe the universe is pretty simple - if you use logic.

Imagine there is only Gravity. It's gravity that keeps the moon in orbit, Earth going arround Sol, etc etc. I think gravity runs the Universe. I can't believe it when people try to tell me the Universe is run by anti-Gravity as we can't find any no matter how hard we search.

Gravity, tho', we all know. I think Gravity is King. How 'bout you, Doc?

astrocat

12-13-10, 06:06 PM

It matters not now, I am history. All they eras I have been here and get a bollocking for trying to raise a topical subject - bye - see you hyper, and SAM in another life.Hi Red,
What exactly is the topic you keep getting shot down for? Who's Sam? Son of? Red, talk to me. I really respect Aetheists, tho' I am Jesus' people. Also, do I detect an Englishman, or an Aussie?

astrocat

12-13-10, 06:12 PM

He says he can't understand math, and he wonders why his input is held in low esteem in a discipline which is virtually all math??? Astronomy is all math? You wish. But Astronomy is a Science - Math isn't. Like Tesla said, Mathematicians replace Science with stuff you need a Phd in Math to figure out. I agree with Newton - Gravity is Universal. It's gravity that runs the Cosmos - not anti Gravity.

I know Math up to Calculus - never got further. Never really needed to. I love Physics - my favourite Science. What's yours, Fraggle Rocker - and thanks for contributing.

D H

12-13-10, 06:30 PM

Myself, I believe that God created the Universe - it had to come from somewhere.
There are plenty of scientists who have no problem rectifying their understanding of the universe with their religious beliefs. One example: Monsignor Georges Lema�tre. I suggest you google that name.

For a start, there is absolutely no evidence at all to show that the Universe is expanding.
Please. While you are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. Keep this up and you will find this thread sent to the cesspool.

Fraggle Rocker

12-14-10, 01:54 PM

Astronomy is all math? You wish. But Astronomy is a Science - Math isn't.Astronomy is not only a science, but it's the First Science. People were predicting the courses of the stars and planets in the Stone Age. Still, I stand by my opinion that astronomy is a whole lot of mathematics with a little bit of physics, plus of course the empirical observation that is required for any science. But I was speaking of cosmology, which is an awkward blend of pure mathematics, theoretical physics, and philosophy.
I know Math up to Calculus - never got further. Never really needed to. I love Physics - my favourite Science. What's yours, Fraggle Rocker - and thanks for contributing.I spent three years at CalTech and got through differential equations, although I don't think I could set one up today. I can still do differential calculus, but I'm rusty because for the last 43 years I've worked in IT. I suppose my favorite science is biology, but I find cosmology fascinating because it blurs the boundary between the physical and the abstract.

astrocat

12-15-10, 04:01 PM

Astronomy is not only a science, but it's the First Science. People were predicting the courses of the stars and planets in the Stone Age. Still, I stand by my opinion that astronomy is a whole lot of mathematics with a little bit of physics, plus of course the empirical observation that is required for any science. But I was speaking of cosmology, which is an awkward blend of pure mathematics, theoretical physics, and philosophy.I spent three years at CalTech and got through differential equations, although I don't think I could set one up today. I can still do differential calculus, but I'm rusty because for the last 43 years I've worked in IT. I suppose my favorite science is biology, but I find cosmology fascinating because it blurs the boundary between the physical and the abstract.To me, Fraggle Rocker, Cosmology is a blend of Physics, with some Chemistry and Math thrown in. I really respect CalTech because James Gunn came from there. He was the man who proved Allan Sandage (RIP) wrong when he said the expansion was slowing down.
I do know Differential equations, or is that 'simultaneous equations'? You obviously know more Math than me.

The way I see it is that there is absolutely no evidence that the Universe is expanding. It's an assumption on which the big bang was founded - which is why I have so little respect for the Big Bang. This 'Poof, there it is - instant universe' stuff sounds pretty insignificant to me.
People used to think Mankind was made 'Poof, just like that,' but Darwin showed us (I don't think he needed Math to show us) that we evolvedslowly over a long time period.

I believe the Universe evolved slowly, over time, from a huge cloud of protons (isotopes of Hydrogen - which is a proton surrounded by an electron)
that hung together by their mutual gravity.

From a Warm, Smooth, Soupy cloud of protons that was the Early Universe,
the Cosmos evolved - starting at the center of the cloud, where Pressures and Temperatures were highest. We know, by looking at Sol, what a huge cloud of Hydrogen can become. But this cloud was immense.

Gravity made the universe, and Gravity runs it. We're in freefall - that's why we're speeding up. Gravity is all there ever was.

Boris2

12-15-10, 04:19 PM

I believe the Universe evolved slowly, over time, from a huge cloud of protons (isotopes of Hydrogen - which is a proton surrounded by an electron)
that hung together by their mutual gravity.

wrong. this is not what an isotope is.

The way I see it is that there is absolutely no evidence that the Universe is expanding.

the observable universe is, and, as we have no reason to believe that this volume is special we infer that the whole universe is expanding too.

astrocat

12-15-10, 04:20 PM

There are plenty of scientists who have no problem rectifying their understanding of the universe with their religious beliefs. One example: Monsignor Georges Lema�tre. I suggest you google that name.

Please. While you are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. Keep this up and you will find this thread sent to the cesspool.Thanks for your input, DH.

I am well aware that the Big Bang agrees with the bible, and I know the Rev. Lemaitre was the first to theorise on a Big Bang. My problem, I guess, is that he went from an expanding Observable Universe to an expanding Cosmos and I believe Hubble himself objected to this.

I certainly don't want my thread in the cesspool, I hope you don't do that to me. I answered a few posts before I read this, challenging the Expansion of the Universe- and now I see that according to you (and everybody else, of course) it's a fact that the Cosmos is expanding, and I might have said some things you might object to, in the past. However, if you don't want me to say the Cosmos isn't expanding - I won't. Sorry.
Actually, I'm pretty grateful to you for letting me share my opinions here. It shows tolerance, on your part. For that I must respect you.

astrocat

12-15-10, 04:31 PM

wrong. this is not what an isotope is.

the observable universe is, and, as we have no reason to believe that this volume is special we infer that the whole universe is expanding too.

Oh, a single proton is not an isotope of Hydrogen? would you say Deuterium is an isotope of Hydrogen? What about Helium 3?
I happen to think the Observable Universe may not be the same as the Entire Universe, else why do we call it the Observable Universe? If it's all the same, why don't we just scrap the term 'Observable Universe?'

Because that would be unscientific, Boris. That's why. There remains the tiniest doubt that the Entire Universe may not be exactly like the Observable Universe. That doubt - that possibility - that's Science, Boris.

Boris2

12-15-10, 05:06 PM

isotopes of Hydrogen - which is a proton surrounded by an electron

this is what i responded to.

I happen to think the Observable Universe may not be the same as the Entire Universe,

that's what i said. it's not. but we have no reason to be it has different physical properties. anyway seeing as we can only know our volume the question is moot.

Because that would be unscientific, Boris. That's why. There remains the tiniest doubt that the Entire Universe may not be exactly like the Observable Universe. That doubt - that possibility - that's Science, Boris.

all science has doubt. but we make assumptions so that we can actually get somewhere.

CHRISCUNNINGHAM

12-15-10, 06:10 PM

astrocat

12-16-10, 04:16 PM

this is what i responded to.

that's what i said. it's not. but we have no reason to be it has different physical properties. anyway seeing as we can only know our volume the question is moot.

all science has doubt. but we make assumptions so that we can actually get somewhere.And I was taught that when you ASSUME something you make an ASS out of U and ME. What do you mean by "we can only know our volume?" I don't understand...

astrocat

12-16-10, 04:35 PM

Ha astrocat, I was just wondering? Did you ignore my post completely?

I do have a question though, whats you're ACTUAL reason for thinking astronomy is "wrong" about the entire universe? Or is it that you don't see the flaw in your arguments...how do you reconcile

AND

Are your ideas based on FACTS that are proven in all cases? Have you personally measured each and every "hydrogen" atom to make sure it only has one proton? How do YOU know it doesn't have 1.5 protons? How do you know what protons are, you've never seen them?! How do you know that protons and electrons have opposite charges? Why is some "science" okay but the rest is based on "assumptions" because I assure you sure there is 13.7 billions years worth of "evidence" saying the universe is expanding?

How do you assume ANYTHING is true if the very thing that has been around the longest, the observable universe, cannot be "proved" as truly expanding with 13.7 billions years of observable evidence of expanding.

Yet, something like protons and neutrons and stars, and gas, and everything else you're using to disprove such a "bogus" claim has far less evidence behind it?

2 Questions there, Chris. The first, (1) my ACTUAL reason for thinking the popular view is mistaken is the Speeding Up of the Expansion of the Observable Universe. There is no such thing as an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up - certainly not one that Speeds Up 'ad infinitum as I'm sure you'll agree. And that's just for starters.

(2) I'm very careful when I conclude that something is happening with the Cosmos. After looking at the situation with an open mind - uncluttered by thoughts of Big Bangs and Dark Energy, and seeing that Gravity operates our Solar System as well as our Galactic System, and knowing that Newton taught us Gravity was Universal - I have concluded that Gravity operates the Universe, not anti-gravity. Remember please, that Einstein only improved on Newton's teachings. Einstein did not prove Newton to be wrong!

Now, on my side I have Lex Parsimoniae the Law of Succinctness. Because I believe Gravity did it all, I don't need a Big Bang, neither do I need Dark Energy. That makes my theory more succinct than yours. In my opinion, you have too many 'entities.'

astrocat

12-16-10, 04:40 PM

D H

12-16-10, 04:48 PM

Baloney. You are making bald assertions that very much contradict what we see.

Moderator action:
Thread moved to pseudoscience.

NMSquirrel

12-16-10, 05:26 PM

Baloney. You are making bald assertions that very much contradict what we see.

Moderator action:
Thread moved to pseudoscience.

pseudoscience??
i would think it was regular science..(just cause he doesn't want to acknowledge the real science doesn't necessarily make it pseudo..:shrug:)

AlexG

12-16-10, 08:09 PM

The cesspool is where this thread belongs.

phlogistician

12-17-10, 04:37 AM

Astronomy is all math? You wish.

Dude, I used to work with a bunch of Astronomers, and believe me, they were pretty good mathematicians. Astronomy relies on data analysis, so a sound grasp of maths and statistical methods is required. These guys often wrote their own code to analyse data, or wrote modules for software like Ftools, or IDL.

But Astronomy is a Science - Math isn't.

Astronomy is mostly maths, you just have to accept this. Even if you just gaze at solar system objects, there comes a point where you will count the craters on the Moon notice small craters overlapping on big ones, and then wonder, ... 'Are big craters covering up smaller, older craters, and have there been more impacts than we can see, and by how much?' Then you'll want to do some statistics,...

Like Tesla said, Mathematicians replace Science with stuff you need a Phd in Math to figure out.

You can't do science without maths. Experimenting and fiddling about with electricity is fun, but it needs quantising at some point, we can't merely indulge in qualitative measures.

I agree with Newton - Gravity is Universal. It's gravity that runs the Cosmos - not anti Gravity.

Do you also wear a wig? Newton was clever, sure, but he wasn't perfect. He didn't understand gravity perfectly, nobody does.

Boris2

12-17-10, 05:10 PM

What do you mean by "we can only know our volume?" I don't understand...

hubble volume or obsevable universe.

astrocat

12-18-10, 03:02 PM

Baloney. You are making bald assertions that very much contradict what we see.

Moderator action:
Thread moved to pseudoscience. I always knew you wouldn't like this at Sciforus.com, and nothing I have said contradicts what we see when we look up at the night sky.

If you want to move this to Psuedo-science, I don't mind - anything's better than the cesspool - right?

My conclusions are all based on Scientific evidence. I realise also that this thinking is totally new to you - but that doesn't make it faulty. Why don't you just let me go on fielding these questions - I think people are more 'intrigued' than 'upset' by this thread.

Actually, I've said it all - if you read my answers. You already know I believe we're falling into a Black Hole at the center of the Universe.

It's also my belief that everything with mass must have a center of mass. I learned that in Physics class, way back.

astrocat

12-18-10, 03:05 PM

pseudoscience??
i would think it was regular science..(just cause he doesn't want to acknowledge the real science doesn't necessarily make it pseudo..:shrug:)Thanks for the vote of support, Squirrel. I believe you're right. But I have to take what I'm given.

astrocat

12-18-10, 03:07 PM

The cesspool is where this thread belongs.I think at least you should provide some reason for your viewpoint. Otherwise that's a pretty bald statement.

astrocat

12-18-10, 03:54 PM

Dude, I used to work with a bunch of Astronomers, and believe me, they were pretty good mathematicians. Astronomy relies on data analysis, so a sound grasp of maths and statistical methods is required. These guys often wrote their own code to analyse data, or wrote modules for software like Ftools, or IDL.

Astronomy is mostly maths, you just have to accept this. Even if you just gaze at solar system objects, there comes a point where you will count the craters on the Moon notice small craters overlapping on big ones, and then wonder, ... 'Are big craters covering up smaller, older craters, and have there been more impacts than we can see, and by how much?' Then you'll want to do some statistics,...

You can't do science without maths. Experimenting and fiddling about with electricity is fun, but it needs quantising at some point, we can't merely indulge in qualitative measures.

Do you also wear a wig? Newton was clever, sure, but he wasn't perfect. He didn't understand gravity perfectly, nobody does. Of course some math is necessary in Science, but I like quoting Tesla, who said, "Modern scientists have subsituted Math instead of Experiment and they go wandering off in formula after formula until they have something with no relation to reality."

Fire, the greatest of discoveries, was discovered without Math. Math is handy, but not neccessarily essential. And no, I don't wear a wig, but Newton is generally considered to be the father of modern Physics. I don't think I'm wrong in that.

astrocat

12-18-10, 03:58 PM

hubble volume or obsevable universe.Oh, thanks Boris. Yes, I agree with you. Yes, we can only know 'for sure' the Observable Universe. And maybe it is a special part, or maybe there are other parts of the universe that are more special. These things we can't know for sure.

AlphaNumeric

12-19-10, 11:52 AM

Why don't you just let me go on fielding these questions - I think people are more 'intrigued' than 'upset' by this thread.
Do you have a working model of any gravitational phenomenon? If not then why should anyone think your claims about the real world are worth listening to?

And to answer your question a few pages ago, yes I am a mathematician and you'll find every single competent astrophysicist is half decent at maths too.

astrocat

12-19-10, 03:48 PM

Do you have a working model of any gravitational phenomenon? If not then why should anyone think your claims about the real world are worth listening to?

And to answer your question a few pages ago, yes I am a mathematician and you'll find every single competent astrophysicist is half decent at maths too.How did i know you were a mathematician? Of course I can provide working models of a Gravity operated Universe.

It's important to look at the behaviour of the Cosmos as a complete package, rather than as individual phenomena - for example, the Expansion, alone.

Let's look at the Expansion of the Observable Universe as being part of a much bigger picture. We know, for example, that the expansion started Slowly and has since Sped Up. Can we at least agree on that, Alphanumeric?

AlexG

12-19-10, 07:39 PM

We know, for example, that the expansion started Slowly and has since Sped Up.

No it didn't. Have you ever heard of Inflation Theory?

phlogistician

12-20-10, 04:08 AM

Of course some math is necessary in Science, but I like quoting Tesla, who said, "Modern scientists have subsituted Math instead of Experiment and they go wandering off in formula after formula until they have something with no relation to reality."

Like I said, experimentation has value, but at some point you need to start modelling and measuring. That is science.

Fire, the greatest of discoveries, was discovered without Math.

So what?

Math is handy, but not neccessarily essential.

If you were a scientist, you' know how wrong you are.

And no, I don't wear a wig, but Newton is generally considered to be the father of modern Physics. I don't think I'm wrong in that.

And what is the name of his most famous publication? FFS, you are dim.

AlphaNumeric

12-20-10, 02:04 PM

How did i know you were a mathematician? Because I give a shit about people justifying their claims and I actually know the place of mathematics within physics, unlike yourself?

Of course I can provide working models of a Gravity operated Universe.Lets see it then.

It's important to look at the behaviour of the Cosmos as a complete package, rather than as individual phenomena - for example, the Expansion, alone.You make it sound like you think physicists only look at one bit at a time. I suggest you find out what physicists actually know and do before claiming things about their approaches to material you haven't bothered to find out about. Your comments about mathematics suggest you have no problem simply inventing your own view of things.

Let's look at the Expansion of the Observable Universe as being part of a much bigger picture. We know, for example, that the expansion started Slowly and has since Sped Up. Can we at least agree on that, Alphanumeric?As said, haven't you heard of inflation?

astrocat

12-20-10, 04:26 PM

No it didn't. Have you ever heard of Inflation Theory? It's way too complicated. Science likes the simpler answers. If the Expansion is Speeding Up, that's because it always was. I don't care for any other explanation.

The Universe started as a great big cloud of Hydrogen. We know what a huge cloud of hydrogen can do - Sol is a good example, no?

astrocat

12-20-10, 04:50 PM

Like I said, experimentation has value, but at some point you need to start modelling and measuring. That is science.

So what?

If you were a scientist, you' know how wrong you are.

And what is the name of his most famous publication? FFS, you are dim.I already said i agree some math is helpful in Science, but you should be aware that some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made without it. The name of Newton's publication, in case you don't know, was In Priginal I believe. Newton taught us Gravity was Universal.
I think he was smarter than you. What's FFS? Please explain.

The Universe started as a collection of Hydrogen atoms that attracted other Hydrogen atoms (by Gravity) until a Huge Hydrogen cloud had assembled into a Warm, Smooth, Soupy early universe.

Everything w. mass must have a center of mass (Physics 101) and at the center of this cloud, where Temperatures and Pressures were greatest,
evolution occurred fastest. Soon, at the center, Black Holes formed.

Eating the Universe out, from the center, the Cosmos began to fall into the Center, Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure, the evolutionary process started. There was also a good deal of Clumping Up, as we fell.

We are still falling. At present our local Group of Galaxies is falling towards Hydra Centauri, but in such a way that we can never reach it, because Hydra Centauri itself is being dragged off towards The Great Attractor. This was discovered by a group of scientists who called themselves the 'Seven Samurai' in the 1980s. I have heard that 'Alumni' of these Seven Samurai say that the Great Attractor itself is falling into an even more masive structure they called the Shapely Convention.

What they described, these Seven Samurai, was an Observable Universe made up almost entirely of these Ever lengthening, speeding up Streams.

The only place you can find these ever lengthening speeding up streams is in a Vortex, and that's what the Universe is.

Shaped much like the Milky Way Galaxy, or the Whirlpool Galaxy, complete w. a Black Hole at the center.

Now, you may not like this, but that's actually what's happening.

astrocat

12-20-10, 05:05 PM

Because I give a shit about people justifying their claims and I actually know the place of mathematics within physics, unlike yourself?

Lets see it then.

You make it sound like you think physicists only look at one bit at a time. I suggest you find out what physicists actually know and do before claiming things about their approaches to material you haven't bothered to find out about. Your comments about mathematics suggest you have no problem simply inventing your own view of things.

As said, haven't you heard of inflation?You use strong language to defend your position - of course some math is necessary in Physics, but I don't believe Physics is about Math.

For a model of the Universe, I like the Vacuum Cleaner (VC). Systems going into a VC tend to Speed Up, Cool Down, Expand as they Lose Pressure. It's really Inward expansion, towards a central point. Inward expansions all start Slowly and Speed Up, just as all Outward Expansions start Fast and Slow Down (Your basic explosion, or Big Bang).

In addition, at the nozzle of the VC is a vortex, and here particles of dust become electronically charged, and stick together. At the nozzle there are no more particles, it's all clumps.

I wonder how you guys have Clumping Up, with everything in your Cosmos flying away from everything else. Anyway there's my model.

How common is this Inward Expansion, and how far do you have to go to find it? Every time you breathe in, you mimic a Vacuum Cleaner, and there's your Inward expansion right there at the end of your nose.

AlexG

12-20-10, 11:22 PM

It's way too complicated. Science likes the simpler answers. If the Expansion is Speeding Up, that's because it always was. I don't care for any other explanation.

The Universe started as a great big cloud of Hydrogen. We know what a huge cloud of hydrogen can do - Sol is a good example, no?

Yes, it's far too complicated for you to understand, so just dismiss it.

If you don't care for any other explanation, then obviously any other explanation must be wrong.

This is why I think your thread belongs in the cesspool.

phlogistician

12-21-10, 03:30 AM

I already said i agree some math is helpful in Science, but you should be aware that some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made without it.

If you were a scientist you'd understand the necessity of Maths. You don't, because you aren't.

The name of Newton's publication, in case you don't know, was In Priginal I believe.

Do you? Do you really

Because noob, I think it was 'Philosophi� Naturalis Principia Mathematica.'

Note the final word.

The Universe started as a collection of Hydrogen atoms that attracted other Hydrogen atoms (by Gravity) until a Huge Hydrogen cloud had assembled into a Warm, Smooth, Soupy early universe.

No it didn't.

Everything w. mass must have a center of mass (Physics 101) and at the center of this cloud, where Temperatures and Pressures were greatest,
evolution occurred fastest. Soon, at the center, Black Holes formed.

Oh dear.

Now, you may not like this, but that's actually what's happening.

Saw it with your third eye, did you?

phlogistician

12-21-10, 03:40 AM

but I don't believe Physics is about Math.

You don't believe ?

Your opinion does not alter reality.

If you were a scientist, you'd know how wrong you are.

Stryder

12-21-10, 03:17 PM

The Universe started as a collection of Hydrogen atoms that attracted other Hydrogen atoms (by Gravity) until a Huge Hydrogen cloud had assembled into a Warm, Smooth, Soupy early universe.

To my knowledge cosmology has moved on from Georges Lema�tre's, "hypothesis of the primeval atom". Mainly in the sense that the universe wasn't born of atoms, but of pure energy. The energy would obviously intensify and eventually generate mass, which then would cause pockets to assemble from attraction and cause cooling elsewhere. This stage is where the implied nature of elements is then defined.

Personally, I go with an emulation theory where volumes of space duplicate the exact same energy pattern as dimensional parameters are defined, after a set duration of time and when the parameters have been completed, a "Conway's game of Life" algorithm (Rather than just a plain symmetry algorithm) is then executed to generate a fractal evolution. Obviously there would always be an "observation" platform used for "readjustment" should the evolved fractal become "Historically Inaccurate".

AlphaNumeric

12-22-10, 02:29 AM

For a model of the Universe, I like the Vacuum Cleaner (VC). Systems going into a VC tend to Speed Up, Cool Down, Expand as they Lose Pressure. It's really Inward expansion, towards a central point. Inward expansions all start Slowly and Speed Up, just as all Outward Expansions start Fast and Slow Down (Your basic explosion, or Big Bang).
That isn't a model since you can't model anything using what you just said. You clearly have no clue as to what a 'model' in physics actually involves, demonstrating your comments about what physics does or doesn't involve you are basing on ignorance.

Do you really think that knowing nothing about physics and maths is a good way to go about telling people what physics and maths involves?

AlexG

12-22-10, 12:20 PM

Do you really think that knowing nothing about physics and maths is a good way to go about telling people what physics and maths involves?

It seems a popular pastime.

Lady Historica

12-22-10, 12:29 PM

It seems a good way to learn...

ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.

astrocat

12-22-10, 06:49 PM

Yes, it's far too complicated for you to understand, so just dismiss it.

If you don't care for any other explanation, then obviously any other explanation must be wrong.

This is why I think your thread belongs in the cesspool.Science prefers the simple answers, AlexG. Comlicated fabrications don't interest me, you see. The Universe started expanding fast, then it slowed down, then it sped up again - please!

Thanks at least for enlarging on your view that this thread belongs in the cesspit. I don't, of course. Gravity rules!

astrocat

12-22-10, 07:04 PM

If you were a scientist you'd understand the necessity of Maths. You don't, because you aren't.

Do you? Do you really

Because noob, I think it was 'Philosophi� Naturalis Principia Mathematica.'

Note the final word.

No it didn't.

Oh dear.

Saw it with your third eye, did you?I notice, Phlogistician, that you employ a good deal of sarcasm in your language. Can we at least keep the discussion scientific?
I trhink Newton's work was called 'In Principia,' though I could be wrong.

No, I concluded that there never was a Big Bang, and that Dark Energy doesn't exist. If Dark Energy fills the Cosmos, how come there isn't any around here?

No, I don't have three eyes, but I am able to spot a fabrication at a thousand paces. Let's see you do that?

astrocat

12-22-10, 07:05 PM

It seems a popular pastime.Not getting it...

astrocat

12-22-10, 07:07 PM

It seems a good way to learn...

ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.Welcome, Lady Historica, to my thread. I trust you're another Big Bang fan? Do you agree that science prefers the simpler answers?

AlexG

12-22-10, 08:00 PM

Science prefers correct answers.

You don't even come close.

phlogistician

12-23-10, 04:01 AM

I notice, Phlogistician, that you employ a good deal of sarcasm in your language. Can we at least keep the discussion scientific?

We could try, but you'd have to try hardest.

I trhink Newton's work was called 'In Principia,' though I could be wrong.

You are wrong, I gave you the name already. Are you such a dolt you cannot work a search engine and verify the title? Clearly you are!

No, I don't have three eyes, but I am able to spot a fabrication at a thousand paces. Let's see you do that?

Another unsupported assertion by you. Claim after claim, ... no evidence of understanding. You are becoming a waste of time.

Syzygys

12-23-10, 06:55 AM

I am very unhappy with it. I wanted way bigger bang for my buck....

James R

12-23-10, 07:39 AM

astrocat:

I do know Differential equations, or is that 'simultaneous equations'? You obviously know more Math than me.

Do you think there's a difference between differential equations and simultaneous equations?

Maybe you ought to try wikipedia as a starting point. You know how to search, right? You can do it from google easily. If you're interested, that is.

The way I see it is that there is absolutely no evidence that the Universe is expanding. It's an assumption on which the big bang was founded - which is why I have so little respect for the Big Bang.

How do you account for Hubble's observations?

I believe the Universe evolved slowly, over time, from a huge cloud of protons (isotopes of Hydrogen - which is a proton surrounded by an electron)
that hung together by their mutual gravity.

Evolved in what way - if it didn't expand at any point?

From a Warm, Smooth, Soupy cloud of protons that was the Early Universe, the Cosmos evolved - starting at the center of the cloud, where Pressures and Temperatures were highest. We know, by looking at Sol, what a huge cloud of Hydrogen can become. But this cloud was immense.

Why didn't everything just collapse into the centre of the cloud?

Gravity made the universe, and Gravity runs it. We're in freefall - that's why we're speeding up. Gravity is all there ever was.

Where's the centre of the universe?

What are we freefalling towards?

There is no such thing as an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up - certainly not one that Speeds Up 'ad infinitum as I'm sure you'll agree. And that's just for starters.

All ordinary explosions start by speeding up. Obviously, they must, or they'd never get going in the first place.

Because I believe Gravity did it all, I don't need a Big Bang, neither do I need Dark Energy. That makes my theory more succinct than yours. In my opinion, you have too many 'entities.'

How did gravity create your hydrogen cloud?

I always knew you wouldn't like this at Sciforus.com, and nothing I have said contradicts what we see when we look up at the night sky.

What about the Hubble law? That's derived from observations of the night sky.

My conclusions are all based on Scientific evidence.

Great! I look forward to your evidence-based answers to my questions.

Actually, I've said it all - if you read my answers. You already know I believe we're falling into a Black Hole at the center of the Universe.

Where's the centre of the universe exactly? (Yeah, I know, I asked that above, but I need to know.)

It's also my belief that everything with mass must have a center of mass. I learned that in Physics class, way back.

Did they cover infinite objects?

It's way too complicated. Science likes the simpler answers.

Do you think quantum electrodynamics is simple? Or do you not believe in that either?

I already said i agree some math is helpful in Science, but you should be aware that some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made without it. The name of Newton's publication, in case you don't know, was In Priginal I believe. Newton taught us Gravity was Universal.
I think he was smarter than you.

I think you'll find, if you ever read it, that Newton's Principia contains a fair bit of maths. Newton invented calculus, you know. To solve physics problems. He didn't just guess about stuff like you do.

Eating the Universe out, from the center, the Cosmos began to fall into the Center, Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure, the evolutionary process started. There was also a good deal of Clumping Up, as we fell.

Why did the Cosmos cool down as it sped up as it fell towards the centre?

And how could it expand while it was falling towards the centre?

We are still falling. At present our local Group of Galaxies is falling towards Hydra Centauri, but in such a way that we can never reach it, because Hydra Centauri itself is being dragged off towards The Great Attractor.

Where can I find Hydra Centauri in the sky? What is Hydra Centauri? Is it a constellation, a star, a galaxy, or what?

The only place you can find these ever lengthening speeding up streams is in a Vortex, and that's what the Universe is.

Shaped much like the Milky Way Galaxy, or the Whirlpool Galaxy, complete w. a Black Hole at the center.

In what way is the universe shaped like the Milky Way Galaxy? Is it a flat disc with a bulge in the middle? If so, why is it flat? Does it have spiral arms? Made of what? Does the universe rotate? What makes it rotate? Are there many black holes or just one big one at the centre?

AlphaNumeric

12-24-10, 09:20 AM

Science prefers the simple answers, AlexG. I think it was Einstein who said that a theory should be as simple as possible but no simpler.

Newtonian gravity is much much simpler than GR but there are things it simply cannot accurately describe and so if someone is doing extremely precise gravitational experiments they must use GR, else they will reach false conclusions. Electromagnetism is simpler than electrodynamics, as electrodynamics includes special relativity, but if you're doing high velocity electromagnetic experiments you need to use electrodynamics. Electrodynamics is simpler than quantum electrodynamics, as it doesn't include quantum effects, but if you're considering high velocity particle interactions then you need to include quantum effects.

Its easy to come up with a wordy explanation for things like galaxy rotation rates or universe expansion rates because you're avoiding the details. Dark matter was included in astrophysics because when you work out the details no current gravity model can explain the observations. Yes, not including dark matter in your model certainly gives a simpler model than if you included dark matter but you end up with incorrect predictions, your model is too simple.

Its an historical fact that models get more complex as time progresses. Typically an old model is replaced by a new one which includes the old one as a special case. Electromagnetism is a special case of electrodynamics, which is a special case of quantum electrodynamics. Newtonian mechanics is a special case of relativity, which might be a special case of a quantum gravity model (currently unknown).

I asked you to provide a quantitative working model because until you do there's no reason to think you can actually model anything real. Would you believe me if I said galaxy rotation curves are due to invisible pixies pushing stars about? I doubt it, you'd ask for me to show I can actually apply this model to a real system, else I could just be making stuff up. That's why I asked you to give details, your claims might seem more legitimate 'science' than invisible pixies but that's only because you use physics buzzwords. Buzzwords do not a model make.

Comlicated fabrications don't interest me, you see. Intellectual curiosity and open mindedness doesn't seem to interest you either.

The Universe started expanding fast, then it slowed down, then it sped up again - please!Can you provide a working detailed model which explains the observed data without predicting the behaviour you just rejected? If not can you provide experimental data which falsifies the mainstream model? If not then can you explain why you reject something when your position is completely unsupported by evidence and the opposing position makes testable predictions which have been validated.

astrocat

12-29-10, 03:01 PM

Science prefers correct answers.

You don't even come close.never mind right and wrong. Science always prefers the simple answers. Either you know this, or you don't.

astrocat

12-29-10, 03:04 PM

We could try, but you'd have to try hardest.

You are wrong, I gave you the name already. Are you such a dolt you cannot work a search engine and verify the title? Clearly you are!

Another unsupported assertion by you. Claim after claim, ... no evidence of understanding. You are becoming a waste of time.Yes, let's try to keep it scientific. Thanks, Phlogistician. Yes, Newton's book is commonly known as In Principia just like I said.

And where do you get off insulting me - I think I'm smarter than you, so how's that?

astrocat

12-29-10, 03:08 PM

I am very unhappy with it. I wanted way bigger bang for my buck....There was no big bang. It was made up by a Belgian Priest, The Rev. Lemaitre, on news that the Observable Universe was expanding. Quite a leap, it seems to me. I understand Erwin Hubble was reluctant to accept this explanation.

astrocat

12-29-10, 03:54 PM

astrocat:

Do you think there's a difference between differential equations and simultaneous equations?

Maybe you ought to try wikipedia as a starting point. You know how to search, right? You can do it from google easily. If you're interested, that is.

How do you account for Hubble's observations?

Evolved in what way - if it didn't expand at any point?

Why didn't everything just collapse into the centre of the cloud?

Where's the centre of the universe?

What are we freefalling towards?

All ordinary explosions start by speeding up. Obviously, they must, or they'd never get going in the first place.

How did gravity create your hydrogen cloud?

What about the Hubble law? That's derived from observations of the night sky.

Great! I look forward to your evidence-based answers to my questions.

Where's the centre of the universe exactly? (Yeah, I know, I asked that above, but I need to know.)

Did they cover infinite objects?

Do you think quantum electrodynamics is simple? Or do you not believe in that either?

I think you'll find, if you ever read it, that Newton's Principia contains a fair bit of maths. Newton invented calculus, you know. To solve physics problems. He didn't just guess about stuff like you do.

Why did the Cosmos cool down as it sped up as it fell towards the centre?

And how could it expand while it was falling towards the centre?

Where can I find Hydra Centauri in the sky? What is Hydra Centauri? Is it a constellation, a star, a galaxy, or what?

In what way is the universe shaped like the Milky Way Galaxy? Is it a flat disc with a bulge in the middle? If so, why is it flat? Does it have spiral arms? Made of what? Does the universe rotate? What makes it rotate? Are there many black holes or just one big one at the centre?

There is a difference between Simultaneous Equations. I'm surprised you need me to tell you this, just as I'm surprised you need me to tell you that Gravity runs the Universe.

Yes, I know how to use a search engine. Do you ask just to annoy me? Hubble was not the only one, of course, to notice the Observable Universe was expanding. He was the first to try to quantify the expansion by his Hubble Constant. He thought the Universe was expanding at a Fixed Rate.

Evolved in what way? People used to think Man was made instantly. Darwin taught us that man evolved slowly over time. The Cosmos too, evolved only slowly - not instantly, as you seem to think.

Collapse into the center of the Cloud - That's exactly what happened! Gravity is elastic, it's as if we're held down by rubber bands. If you jump up, you don't hit your head, you just fall back gradually. Air is also elastic. Hope you'll agree.

The center of the Universe is somewhere the other side of our Galaxy, in the zone of avoidance Beyond the Supercluster of Hydra Centaurus, beyond the Great Attractor, and beyond the Shapely Convention. As we near the center, bodies will become more and more massive. We are freefalling towards the central point of the Cosmos.

I prefer to say all Outward Expansions start fast, after a few milliseconds, and then start to slow down. Do you have a problem with this? Can you tell me one Outward Expansion that Speeds Up as it goes - other, of course, than what you imagine the Universe to be doing?

How does Gravity create a Hydrogen cloud? How do you think the sun started? Look at Jupiter - a planet on the edge of going critical. What do you think Jupiter is made of?

It's not Hubble's Law, it's the Hubble Constant (of expansion). I'm again surprised you need me to tell you this. I don't know much about Quantum - not really my area of study.

Why did the Cosmos Cool Down? There was compression in the original cloud, that warmed everything, especially towards the center. Black Holes eat heat. The center of the Cosmos is without heat. The remaining Cosmos still retains that original heat. And he Cosmos is finite, that's why it has a ceter. And anything finite has a center - or do you disagree with that?

And it's not Newton's principia. It's Newton's In Principia. I'm again surprised you need me to tell you this.

Yes, the universe is 'Pancake-like' confined largely to the Horizontal plane, with a bulge towards the center.

The Cosmos is Expanding Inwardly. Now I realise you never learned about Inward Expansion, but it is a genuine physical phenomenon. Put the Nozzle of a working Central-Vac in the center of a room, and it will evacuate the air nearest to the Nozzle. The remaining air in the room will Expand Inwardly to take its place. As the process continues, air from across the room will eventually stir (air is elastic, like gravity) and become drawn into the Nozzle - the point of Coldest Temperature, Highest Speed, Lowest Pressure - and Maximum Expansion.

How common is this Inward Expansion? Every time you breathe in, you mimic a Central Vac. How far do you have to go to finD Inward Expansion - it's right there at the end of your nose. Common or what?

I enjoy talking to you, James R, and I hope I've kept the talk scientific.

AlexG

12-29-10, 10:06 PM

never mind right and wrong. Science always prefers the simple answers. Either you know this, or you don't.

This boys cheese has slipped off his cracker.

This belongs in the Cesspool.

AlphaNumeric

12-30-10, 02:45 AM

There is a difference between Simultaneous Equations. That's not even a complete sentence, you seem not to even understand James's question about differential and simultaneous equations.

I'm surprised you need me to tell you this, just as I'm surprised you need me to tell you that Gravity runs the Universe.I asked you to provide some quantitative details and you ignored me. If you don't have an answer at least admit it.

phlogistician

12-30-10, 04:15 AM

Yes, Newton's book is commonly known as In Principia just like I said.

You never said that, you said:

The name of Newton's publication, in case you don't know, was In Priginal I believe.

But the actual title is:

'Philosophi� Naturalis Principia Mathematica.'

So I have no idea where you derive the 'in'. When I studied physics, it was referred to as 'Principia Mathematica'. That's when I studied physics, ... clearly you haven't.

And where do you get off insulting me - I think I'm smarter than you, so how's that?

Well, you are a dolt that can't use a search engine to verify the name of a book, so that is insult worthy. Also, you may think you are smarter than me, but I doubt that. You clearly aren't as well educated, and I doubt you have more raw smarts. Have you managed to make one little mental connection yet? That being that all of the people here that have actually studied physics, disagree with you? What does that tell you?

James R

12-30-10, 04:21 AM

astrocat:

It's very hard to tell what you're responding to when you just quote an entire post then reel off a stream of answers. Since you present no real argument for your ideas, there's little point in my responding in detail. So, just a couple of comments:

How does Gravity create a Hydrogen cloud? How do you think the sun started? Look at Jupiter - a planet on the edge of going critical. What do you think Jupiter is made of?

Gravity didn't create the hydrogen that makes Jupiter, or the Sun, or anything else. That hydrogen was left over from the big bang (mostly).

It's not Hubble's Law, it's the Hubble Constant (of expansion). I'm again surprised you need me to tell you this.

If you don't know what Hubble's law is, I suggest you look it up.

And he Cosmos is finite, that's why it has a ceter. And anything finite has a center - or do you disagree with that?

Yes, I disagree. For example, consider the surface of the Earth. It has a finite area, and yet it has no centre.

And it's not Newton's principia. It's Newton's In Principia. I'm again surprised you need me to tell you this.

You were given the correct title earlier in the thread:

Philosophi� Naturalis Principia Mathematica

It's one thing to get it wrong before you're told. It's another to keep repeating the same mistake even after you've been told.

Yes, the universe is 'Pancake-like' confined largely to the Horizontal plane, with a bulge towards the center.

I asked you to explain why.

(Also, it isn't.)

The Cosmos is Expanding Inwardly. Now I realise you never learned about Inward Expansion, but it is a genuine physical phenomenon. Put the Nozzle of a working Central-Vac in the center of a room, and it will evacuate the air nearest to the Nozzle. The remaining air in the room will Expand Inwardly to take its place.

In this case, new air is entering the room as the vacuum sucks in the centre. The higher pressure at the edges of the room pushes air towards the centre.

astrocat

12-31-10, 03:23 PM

This boys cheese has slipped off his cracker.

This belongs in the Cesspool.What I meant to say, Alex G., is that Science prefers the simple answer because the simple answer is generally the correct one.

AlphaNumeric

12-31-10, 04:01 PM

What I meant to say, Alex G., is that Science prefers the simple answer because the simple answer is generally the correct one.Citation needed.

If given the choice between two models of equal predictive power then you pick the one which assumes the least. However, if presented with a very complex but accurate model compared to a very simple but very inaccurate model then the complex model is taken to be superior.

Newtonian mechanics is simpler than GR but anyone doing serious gravitational research uses GR. Electromagnetism is simpler than electrodynamics which is simpler than quantum electrodynamics but all particle collider analyses use quantum electrodynamics. The notion of the 4 elements being Earth, Wind, Fire and Water is simpler than the periodic table but no one does chemistry using them as a framework.

As more experiments are done models become more advanced and complex as they are extended to describe more. Every now and again someone comes up with a unifying principle which reduces the complexity a bit but the trend is generally an upwards one. The simplest answer to "Why did that happen?" is something like "God did it" but you won't get far in science if that's your reply to such questions.

If you can provide a model with the same predictive/descriptive power as mainstream cosmology but which is simpler then great. The issue is you can't, despite my repeated requests, so at present the application of Occam's razor leads to people siding with the big bang model since presently no other model can explain as much as it can.

astrocat

12-31-10, 04:09 PM

I think it was Einstein who said that a theory should be as simple as possible but no simpler.

Newtonian gravity is much much simpler than GR but there are things it simply cannot accurately describe and so if someone is doing extremely precise gravitational experiments they must use GR, else they will reach false conclusions. Electromagnetism is simpler than electrodynamics, as electrodynamics includes special relativity, but if you're doing high velocity electromagnetic experiments you need to use electrodynamics. Electrodynamics is simpler than quantum electrodynamics, as it doesn't include quantum effects, but if you're considering high velocity particle interactions then you need to include quantum effects.

Its easy to come up with a wordy explanation for things like galaxy rotation rates or universe expansion rates because you're avoiding the details. Dark matter was included in astrophysics because when you work out the details no current gravity model can explain the observations. Yes, not including dark matter in your model certainly gives a simpler model than if you included dark matter but you end up with incorrect predictions, your model is too simple.

Its an historical fact that models get more complex as time progresses. Typically an old model is replaced by a new one which includes the old one as a special case. Electromagnetism is a special case of electrodynamics, which is a special case of quantum electrodynamics. Newtonian mechanics is a special case of relativity, which might be a special case of a quantum gravity model (currently unknown).

I asked you to provide a quantitative working model because until you do there's no reason to think you can actually model anything real. Would you believe me if I said galaxy rotation curves are due to invisible pixies pushing stars about? I doubt it, you'd ask for me to show I can actually apply this model to a real system, else I could just be making stuff up. That's why I asked you to give details, your claims might seem more legitimate 'science' than invisible pixies but that's only because you use physics buzzwords. Buzzwords do not a model make.

Intellectual curiosity and open mindedness doesn't seem to interest you either.

Can you provide a working detailed model which explains the observed data without predicting the behaviour you just rejected? If not can you provide experimental data which falsifies the mainstream model? If not then can you explain why you reject something when your position is completely unsupported by evidence and the opposing position makes testable predictions which have been validated.When asked if someone came up with the ultimate answer to what was happening in the Universe, Einstein said that he hoped so, and that whatever the answer was, it should be simple.
FascinaTING ABOUT THE eLECTRODYNAMICS (Caps Lock), and especially the Quantum Electrodynamics.
But it was Newton's equations that got us to the moon, and doubtless, it will be Newton's equations that get us to Mars. And GR? Doesn't it also include the Lammna part? Can you seperate the two? I'd like to know. About the 'predictions that have been validated,' some of them are mathematical predictions that, of course, can be validated mathematically.
I still maintain that you can do anything with Math (Lamna) and that Math is not a Science.
I prefer to talk to Physics people because they understand that, for example, Expansion and Pressure are inverelated, and that in Thermodynamics, Pressure and Volume (which I call expansion or compaction) are a conjoined couple. I don't understand how you mathematicians can say the Universe is expanding (which it isn't - nor is there a single shred of evidence to validate this claim) you completely and happily ignore the fact that the Observable Universe is Losing Pressure as it Expands.

Of course it does. Within the Solar System there is a cetain quantity of Hydrogen, and all gasses sit at a certain Pressure. tHERE IS AN AVERAGE pRESSURE (dARN cAPS lOCK) of Hydrogen within the Solar System, and that Pressure is either rising or falling.
Intellectual Curiosity and open mindedness is what I seek. I don't wish to discourage these. It's just that I have so little time for 'fabrications' if that's Okay.
'Provide a working model,' no problem, 'without predicting the behaviour i have just rejected?'

Well any vortex will do for a model. The swirl of Water Going down a Drain, is a pretty good model. At the outside edge (the CBR) the whirlpool turns only slowly, speeding up as it nears the drain (The Center.)

As it turns, the pressure drops and expansion invcreases - although water expands only a little, but the greedy sucking sound at the Drain denotes a low pressure at the center.

I like this vortex because it's Gravity Operated, and you can see, visually, the Streamlets that make it up. The surface is rippled, because each ripple is a streamlet that starts at the outside edge and continues, speeding up, losing pressure and cooling (Loss of Pressure leads to cooling, Mathematician)
just as we are in a Streamlet among other Streamlets in the Observable Unverse.

In addition, Vortices (plural of Vortex) are agents of Clumping Up. They tend to have a centralising effect on things caught up in them. Often, near the center of a vortex there is furious activity, and particles can become electrostatically charged, and stick to each other.

In a vortex, you will find yourself Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding (Inwardly) and Losing Pressure.

Gravity can create vortices, and so can motors. I particularly like the vortex at the nozzle of a vacuum cleaner, where all particles become Clumps, due to the effects I described. Th........

astrocat

12-31-10, 04:11 PM

astrocat

12-31-10, 04:13 PM

I'm not

AlphaNumeric

01-01-11, 05:24 AM

But it was Newton's equations that got us to the moon, and doubtless, it will be Newton's equations that get us to Mars. Yes, because they are 'close enough' that the errors aren't that bad and the price paid in accuracy is more than compensated for by faster analysis.

And GR? Doesn't it also include the Lammna part? Can you seperate the two? I'd like to know. \Lambda is for things on a cosmic scale, it doesn't come into solar system dynamics. If you care about high accuracy, much more so than just hitting the Moon with a rocket, then you need GR. This is precisely the thing needed in the GPS network. In order to get your position accurate to within a few metres gravitational phenomena need to be modelled to parts per billion and atomic clocks must be used to get precise timings. If you used Newtonian gravity and not GR in the GPS network it'd be worthless, it simply wouldn't work. So if you've ever used a GPS route planner then you've used a technology Newton simply can't explain.

About the 'predictions that have been validated,' some of them are mathematical predictions that, of course, can be validated mathematically.No, I mean physical predictions. Being mathematically consistent is a necessary step before physical experiments are done. Einstein predicted several things which Newton didn't, additional precession in the orbit of Mercury, photon gravitational redshift, photon gravitational lensing and frame dragging. It took a while for technology to catch up with some of them but all have been tested and found to agree with GR's prediction to the limit of our ability to test.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

I still maintain that you can do anything with Math (Lamna) and that Math is not a Science.It would appear you don't even know how \Lambda enters into GR and where its relevant so I think your off hand dismissal of it and your misunderstanding of the role mathematics plays suggests you need to spend a bit more time reading up on things before you make your mind up.

I prefer to talk to Physics people because they understand that, for example, Expansion and Pressure are inverelated, and that in Thermodynamics, Pressure and Volume (which I call expansion or compaction) are a conjoined couple. I don't understand how you mathematicians can say the Universe is expanding (which it isn't - nor is there a single shred of evidence to validate this claim) you completely and happily ignore the fact that the Observable Universe is Losing Pressure as it Expands.And you think mathematicians (typically a general relativity group is in a mathematics department) don't know about pressure, entropy, thermodynamics etc?! Have you ever even looked at a relativity textbook? You make it sound like there's GR mathematicians on one side doing hypothetical stuff without a care if its valid and then physicists who do stuff related to real phenomena like pressure etc. There's no clear cut line, someone doing GR might be considered a physicist by pure mathematicians and a mathematician by astrophysicists. I did a maths degree then a PhD in a physics and astronomy department on a topic entirely mathematical.

The people who say the universe is expanding understand the general relativity relevant to cosmology and they have experiments which measure a variety of things (like emission spectra of supernova, which requires quantum mechanics, stellar dynamics, nuclear physics, thermodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics to model) which they then try to frame in terms of various cosmology models, which led to the conclusion the universe is expanding faster than it used to. You'll find that GR researchers are more than competent at thermodynamics and the like.

You claim there's no evidence but there is, you just haven't looked, just like you haven't looked to see what GR really involves or what the people doing it know and consider.

You say you prefer to talk to physicists but you appear not to have talked to anyone, given your huge misconceptions.

'Provide a working model,' no problem, 'without predicting the behaviour i have just rejected?'

Well any vortex will do for a model.You just proved my comment about you having no clue about what physicists do, you don't even know what a model involves. You talk about intellectual curiosity but you haven't shown any if you don't know what is even expected of basic claims. Seriously, open a book some time.

For instance, if I asked Einstein 'What's your model of gravity' he would have given me the Einstein-Hilbert action and then explained that a metric satisfying the field equations associated to the metric will have an action equal to the Einstein-Hilbert action from which I can derive the relevant equations of motion for test objects within the space. From that I could model satellites in orbit or black hole formation. Quantitative stuff which provides quantitative predictions which can be tested.

Now compare that to what you have, 'any vortex will do'. How can anyone quantitative model anything with that? You complain there's no evidence for universe expansion and then you provide nothing to back up your own claims.

The surface is rippled, because each ripple is a streamlet that starts at the outside edge and continues, speeding up, losing pressure and coolingWhat's the equations of motion?

(Loss of Pressure leads to cooling, Mathematician) Thanks, I never covered that in my courses on classical dynamics, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, electromagnetism, statistical physics, quantum theory, electrodynamics, special relativity, general relativity, statistical field theory, stellar dynamics, quantum field theory, advanced general relativity, standard model or black holes. Despite all those courses being lectured for mathematics students none of them covered the high school PV = nRT formula :rolleyes:

You seem to think all mathematicians follow the course of hardcore pure mathematicians, which involves only the abstract. Even those hardcore ones are required to do basic mathematical physics stuff initially. As it happens I went down the quantum mechanics and relativity route, which is covered by many a mathematics course as they are highly mathematical.

In fact if you did a little bit of reading you'd find out that a great many of the famous people in physics were mathematicians. Dirac was a mathematician by degree and position and he invented quantum field theory. Stokes was a mathematician and he developed fluid mechanics. Witten has a Fields medal. Newton invented calculus.

For all your talk about 'talking to physicists' and intellectual curiosity you haven't really got a clue how physics is done.

CitAre you unfamiliar with the concept of citations too? They are used in physics papers all the time, which would explain why you don't know about them....

astrocat

01-03-11, 03:14 PM

You never said that, you said:

But the actual title is:

'Philosophi� Naturalis Principia Mathematica.'

So I have no idea where you derive the 'in'. When I studied physics, it was referred to as 'Principia Mathematica'. That's when I studied physics, ... clearly you haven't.

Well, you are a dolt that can't use a search engine to verify the name of a book, so that is insult worthy. Also, you may think you are smarter than me, but I doubt that. You clearly aren't as well educated, and I doubt you have more raw smarts. Have you managed to make one little mental connection yet? That being that all of the people here that have actually studied physics, disagree with you? What does that tell you?Look, if you don't know Newton's book is generally called 'In Prin

rpenner

01-03-11, 03:35 PM

Look, if you don't know Newton's book is generally called 'In Prin How long is it going to take him to finish that lie?

AlexG

01-03-11, 09:21 PM

How long is it going to take him to finish that lie?

He just keeps going and going and going. He doesn't know squat, but that doesn't stop a crank.

Dinosaur

01-04-11, 09:40 AM

astrocat

01-04-11, 03:14 PM

Citation needed.

If given the choice between two models of equal predictive power then you pick the one which assumes the least. However, if presented with a very complex but accurate model compared to a very simple but very inaccurate model then the complex model is taken to be superior.

Newtonian mechanics is simpler than GR but anyone doing serious gravitational research uses GR. Electromagnetism is simpler than electrodynamics which is simpler than quantum electrodynamics but all particle collider analyses use quantum electrodynamics. The notion of the 4 elements being Earth, Wind, Fire and Water is simpler than the periodic table but no one does chemistry using them as a framework.

As more experiments are done models become more advanced and complex as they are extended to describe more. Every now and again someone comes up with a unifying principle which reduces the complexity a bit but the trend is generally an upwards one. The simplest answer to "Why did that happen?" is something like "God did it" but you won't get far in science if that's your reply to such questions.

If you can provide a model with the same predictive/descriptive power as mainstream cosmology but which is simpler then great. The issue is you can't, despite my repeated requests, so at present the application of Occam's razor leads to people siding with the big bang model since presently no other model can explain as much as it can.Citation? How about the fact that people once used to think the sun went around the Earth, when the very opposite turned out to be the truth. Copernicus' model of the Solar System was much simpler, I hope you can see.

Yes, I believe God made the Hydrogen that started the Early Cosmos. Maybe he didn't mean to, but that's what happened.

And why do you say I can't produce a model with the same Predictive/descriptive power as mainstream cosmology? My model breaks no Laws of Physics, unlike your model which flies in the face of Gravity. Your model, the Big Bang, looks backwards - mine looks forward. If anyone can make predictions, my theory can.

The Observable Universe is Accellerating, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure. In addition, the Cosmos is Clumping Up. These are all things that would happen to you if you fell into a Vacuum Cleaner, or any Vortex.

It's not just the Expansion that's accellerating exponentially (according to Lee Smolin of String Theory) but everything else - there's a prediction for you! Yes, the Cooling is occuring exponentially, as is Clumping Up.

Descriptive power? My theory describes the actual shape of the Universe. Just like everything else - we're going in. And it's all due to Gravity.

All Outward Expansions start fast and slow down. I have asked you to provide me with a single example of an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up. There is no such thing. Yours is Speeding Up ad infinitum.

Inward Expansions all start from a standstill to a terminal velocity. More realistic, don't you think?

You obviously know a lot of Math, and maybe that makes you a bit like Steven Hawking, who must surely be the World's leading expert on the Big Bang and Dark Energy, having devoted most of his life in the study of these.

astrocat

01-04-11, 03:25 PM

astrocat:

It's very hard to tell what you're responding to when you just quote an entire post then reel off a stream of answers. Since you present no real argument for your ideas, there's little point in my responding in detail. So, just a couple of comments:

Gravity didn't create the hydrogen that makes Jupiter, or the Sun, or anything else. That hydrogen was left over from the big bang (mostly).

If you don't know what Hubble's law is, I suggest you look it up.

Yes, I disagree. For example, consider the surface of the Earth. It has a finite area, and yet it has no centre.

You were given the correct title earlier in the thread:

Philosophi� Naturalis Principia Mathematica

It's one thing to get it wrong before you're told. It's another to keep repeating the same mistake even after you've been told.

I asked you to explain why.

(Also, it isn't.)

In this case, new air is entering the room as the vacuum sucks in the centre. The higher pressure at the edges of the room pushes air towards the centre.Fascinating! The sun didn't derive from a huge ball of Hydrogen?
JUpiter neither? The Big Bang made the sun? Oh my goodness, you sound like someone from a previous century. And I quote entire posts? Maybe you need glasses too.

The surface of the Earth has no center? Well, it certainly has a center of mass - but to you that probably doesn't count. You are slippery.

Well, it's still nice talking to you. About your 'Poof,' just like that - Instant Universe.

astrocat

01-04-11, 03:30 PM

That's not even a complete sentence, you seem not to even understand James's question about differential and simultaneous equations.

I asked you to provide some quantitative details and you ignored me. If you don't have an answer at least admit it. Quantative answers? like how much the Black Hole at the center of the Universe Weighs? One thing I can tell you Quantitatively is when we will arrive atthe Center.

You see, one of us has Time running backwards. You say we came from an exploding Black Hole (as if such a thing were possible) and I say we are falling into a Black Hole - in approximately 13.8 billion years.

astrocat

01-04-11, 03:45 PM

Yes, because they are 'close enough' that the errors aren't that bad and the price paid in accuracy is more than compensated for by faster analysis.

\Lambda is for things on a cosmic scale, it doesn't come into solar system dynamics. If you care about high accuracy, much more so than just hitting the Moon with a rocket, then you need GR. This is precisely the thing needed in the GPS network. In order to get your position accurate to within a few metres gravitational phenomena need to be modelled to parts per billion and atomic clocks must be used to get precise timings. If you used Newtonian gravity and not GR in the GPS network it'd be worthless, it simply wouldn't work. So if you've ever used a GPS route planner then you've used a technology Newton simply can't explain.

No, I mean physical predictions. Being mathematically consistent is a necessary step before physical experiments are done. Einstein predicted several things which Newton didn't, additional precession in the orbit of Mercury, photon gravitational redshift, photon gravitational lensing and frame dragging. It took a while for technology to catch up with some of them but all have been tested and found to agree with GR's prediction to the limit of our ability to test.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

It would appear you don't even know how \Lambda enters into GR and where its relevant so I think your off hand dismissal of it and your misunderstanding of the role mathematics plays suggests you need to spend a bit more time reading up on things before you make your mind up.

And you think mathematicians (typically a general relativity group is in a mathematics department) don't know about pressure, entropy, thermodynamics etc?! Have you ever even looked at a relativity textbook? You make it sound like there's GR mathematicians on one side doing hypothetical stuff without a care if its valid and then physicists who do stuff related to real phenomena like pressure etc. There's no clear cut line, someone doing GR might be considered a physicist by pure mathematicians and a mathematician by astrophysicists. I did a maths degree then a PhD in a physics and astronomy department on a topic entirely mathematical.

The people who say the universe is expanding understand the general relativity relevant to cosmology and they have experiments which measure a variety of things (like emission spectra of supernova, which requires quantum mechanics, stellar dynamics, nuclear physics, thermodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics to model) which they then try to frame in terms of various cosmology models, which led to the conclusion the universe is expanding faster than it used to. You'll find that GR researchers are more than competent at thermodynamics and the like.

You claim there's no evidence but there is, you just haven't looked, just like you haven't looked to see what GR really involves or what the people doing it know and consider.

You say you prefer to talk to physicists but you appear not to have talked to anyone, given your huge misconceptions.

You just proved my comment about you having no clue about what physicists do, you don't even know what a model involves. You talk about intellectual curiosity but you haven't shown any if you don't know what is even expected of basic claims. Seriously, open a book some time.

For instance, if I asked Einstein 'What's your model of gravity' he would have given me the Einstein-Hilbert action and then explained that a metric satisfying the field equations associated to the metric will have an action equal to the Einstein-Hilbert action from which I can derive the relevant equations of motion for test objects within the space. From that I could model satellites in orbit or black hole formation. Quantitative stuff which provides quantitative predictions which can be tested.

Now compare that to what you have, 'any vortex will do'. How can anyone quantitative model anything with that? You complain there's no evidence for universe expansion and then you provide nothing to back up your own claims.

What's the equations of motion?

Thanks, I never covered that in my courses on classical dynamics, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, electromagnetism, statistical physics, quantum theory, electrodynamics, special relativity, general relativity, statistical field theory, stellar dynamics, quantum field theory, advanced general relativity, standard model or black holes. Despite all those courses being lectured for mathematics students none of them covered the high school PV = nRT formula :rolleyes:

You seem to think all mathematicians follow the course of hardcore pure mathematicians, which involves only the abstract. Even those hardcore ones are required to do basic mathematical physics stuff initially. As it happens I went down the quantum mechanics and relativity route, which is covered by many a mathematics course as they are highly mathematical.

In fact if you did a little bit of reading you'd find out that a great many of the famous people in physics were mathematicians. Dirac was a mathematician by degree and position and he invented quantum field theory. Stokes was a mathematician and he developed fluid mechanics. Witten has a Fields medal. Newton invented calculus.

For all your talk about 'talking to physicists' and intellectual curiosity you haven't really got a clue how physics is done.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of citations too? They are used in physics papers all the time, which would explain why you don't know about them....You obviously knowa lot of Math, but there are a few things you seem to have missed in Science, Alpha Numeric. For example - there is no such thing as an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up.

A snowball rolling down a snowy slope? That's an inward expansion - the snowball is trying to reach Earth's center. Note that the snowball started only slowly, and then Sped Up. Inward expansion? I bet you never covered that!

I can't deny that it is interesting to learn about these famous Mathematicians, Dirac Stokes and Witten. For that I have to thank you.

astrocat

01-04-11, 03:48 PM

How long is it going to take him to finish that lie?Newton's book is generally known as 'In Principia.'
That's a lie? To you - I doubt you'd recocognise the truth...

prometheus

01-04-11, 04:26 PM

Newton's book is generally known as 'In Principia.'
That's a lie? To you - I doubt you'd recocognise the truth...

Seriously man, you're simply trolling now. Newtons book was called "Philosophi� Naturalis Principia Mathematica" which is Latin for "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy."

astrocat

01-08-11, 04:47 PM

As I posted previously, I am not happy with the big Bang. I prefer Steady State (aka: Continous Creation). Even alternate Bangs & Crunches is more pleasing than the Big Bang.

Unfortunately, my prefered cosmologies have been discarded due to not having enough supporting evidence, while the Big Bang is consistent with a lot of evidence as well as being in tune with General Relativity.

Now that I think a bit more, I am not happy with either Relativity or Quantum Theory. They are so counterintuitive that I wish for a return to good old classical physics, which very closely matched the world of my senses.

Intellectually, I have to agree with the Big Bang, Relativity, & Quantum Theory. They provide observable results like GPS, computers, doors which open as I approach, et cetera. Emotionally, I wish they would go away. Of course, I would not like to have them really go away. I like GPS, computers, TV, et cetera.

If modern physics really went away, we would have to do without all sorts of goodies.

At least the Big Bang is more pleasing than belief in Leprachauns & Pixie Dust as explanations.Hi Dinosaur - I'm glad you keep an open mind. There is a lot of hot air in this field of Astronomy, and one has to be able to think for one'self in today's World.
I believe the Big Bang was made up by a Belgian Priest, who, on hearing the Observable Universe was expanding, came up with a Big Bang. Einstein later said of the Rev. Lemaitre, that he had a 'woeful lack of Physics,' and I agree.

I don't think much of Dark Energy either. What is it, where can we find some? Not on Earth? How about the Moon - not there either? Does it even exist?

Gravity is real. Nobody can defy it. I think, since Gravity operates the Solar System, and our Milky Way Galaxy, it operates the Universe - but they say that 'Anti-Gravity' operates the Universe. I just wish they could find some.

astrocat

01-08-11, 04:53 PM

Seriously man, you're simply trolling now. Newtons book was called "Philosophi� Naturalis Principia Mathematica" which is Latin for "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy."Whatever.
Look, Prometheus, if I'm just trolling, I'd like to see you come up with a single case of an Outward Expansion that Accelerates as it goes.

When you can do that, I'll admit defeat.

Stryder

01-08-11, 05:11 PM

I'd like to see you come up with a single case of an Outward Expansion that Accelerates as it goes.

Other than the internet?

Pete

01-08-11, 06:20 PM

Whatever.
Look, Prometheus, if I'm just trolling, I'd like to see you come up with a single case of an Outward Expansion that Accelerates as it goes.
- The early stage of any explosion is an accelerating outward expansion.
- Newton's Philosophi� Naturalis Principia Mathematica is commonly abbreviated to "the Principia Mathematica", or "the Principia", or just "Principa". See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica). Never "In Principia" or even "in Principia".

Try googling for "in principia". You'll find many instances where "in Principia" means "within the work known as Principia", but you'll have to look very hard for an instance where "in principia" means the Principia itself.

When you can do that, I'll admit defeat.
I bet you don't.
If you admit defeat, I'll happily congratulate you and call myself an ignoramus.

prometheus

01-08-11, 06:43 PM

Whatever.
Look, Prometheus, if I'm just trolling, I'd like to see you come up with a single case of an Outward Expansion that Accelerates as it goes.

When you can do that, I'll admit defeat.

What are you saying? That experiment that observed the accelerating motion of the universe is wrong, or that the universe is wrong for accelerating?

AlphaNumeric

01-09-11, 04:23 AM

but there are a few things you seem to have missed in Science, Alpha Numeric.You have absolutely no grasp of what I do or don't know.

For example - there is no such thing as an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up. I like how you whine about having an open mind and then completely shut your own to things you don't understand.

I can't deny that it is interesting to learn about these famous Mathematicians, Dirac Stokes and Witten. For that I have to thank you.Something tells me that you missed my point about you having a completely flawed view of physicists and mathematicians.

I believe the Big Bang was made up by a Belgian Priest, who, on hearing the Observable Universe was expanding, came up with a Big Bang. Einstein later said of the Rev. Lemaitre, that he had a 'woeful lack of Physics,' and I agree.But in the time since many physicists and mathematicians have examined the concept of a big bang, made models, which led to predictions, which were verified by experiments. You previously said there's no evidence but that is a flat out wrong statement.

I don't think much of Dark Energy either. What is it, where can we find some? Not on Earth? How about the Moon - not there either? Does it even exist?You don't think much of anything it would seem, as you have no wish to even think. You talk about people should think for themselves but your 'thinking for yourself' is not to think at all and just reject anything you don't understand. From your statements about dark matter you haven't even taken the time to read the Wiki page on it and give it some thought.

Gravity is real. Nobody can defy it. I think, since Gravity operates the Solar System, and our Milky Way Galaxy, it operates the Universe - but they say that 'Anti-Gravity' operates the Universe. I just wish they could find some.This can be boiled down to "I expect the entire universe to behave the precisely the same rules I see in my tiny tiny tiny corner of the universe".

How naive.

astrocat

01-11-11, 03:23 PM

You have absolutely no grasp of what I do or don't know.

I like how you whine about having an open mind and then completely shut your own to things you don't understand.

Something tells me that you missed my point about you having a completely flawed view of physicists and mathematicians.

But in the time since many physicists and mathematicians have examined the concept of a big bang, made models, which led to predictions, which were verified by experiments. You previously said there's no evidence but that is a flat out wrong statement.

You don't think much of anything it would seem, as you have no wish to even think. You talk about people should think for themselves but your 'thinking for yourself' is not to think at all and just reject anything you don't understand. From your statements about dark matter you haven't even taken the time to read the Wiki page on it and give it some thought.

This can be boiled down to "I expect the entire universe to behave the precisely the same rules I see in my tiny tiny tiny corner of the universe".

How naive.No grasp of what you know, Alpha Numeric? Do you know that any falling object will tend to Speed Up, Cool Down, Expand and Lose Pressure? Exactly the things the Observable Universe is doing?

I don't have much time for fabrications, if that's what you mean?

On Mathematicians, I agree with Tesla. You go off making formula after formula until you come up with something that bears no relation to reality.

There's more evidence to say we're falling into a Black Hole, than there is for any Big Bang. On the subject of this Big Bang, it seems it staerted off fast, then slowed down, then sped up again. Is this what you believe - Please!

About Dark Matter - I haven't made my mind up on that subject yet.

And no, I don't think the entire Universe is behaving like the Observable Universe - that's a stretch in anybody's mind. You come up with all these really bald statements, like "You don't know what you're talking about' and related stuff. Can we try to keep it Scientific?

Why don't you tell me what you think of my first paragraph? What happens to an object when it lands?
It's only Physics, after all.

sifreak21

01-11-11, 03:25 PM

i dont .. the ammount of matter that was in the "point" of explosion is in comprehendable

astrocat

01-11-11, 03:30 PM

Other than the internet?That's an intranstive noun. You can't see it, or hold it in your hand. I mean an outward expansion that I can see, touch and feel, etc. Let me know when you find it.

astrocat

01-11-11, 03:42 PM

- The early stage of any explosion is an accelerating outward expansion.
- Newton's Philosophi� Naturalis Principia Mathematica is commonly abbreviated to "the Principia Mathematica", or "the Principia", or just "Principa". See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica). Never "In Principia" or even "in Principia".

Try googling for "in principia". You'll find many instances where "in Principia" means "within the work known as Principia", but you'll have to look very hard for an instance where "in principia" means the Principia itself.

I bet you don't.
If you admit defeat, I'll happily congratulate you and call myself an ignoramus.Sure I'll admit defeat, just tell me of an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up, Pete. If you can't do that you should admit it.

astrocat

01-11-11, 03:47 PM

i dont .. the ammount of matter that was in the "point" of explosion is in comprehendableExplosions start from a point, like all Outward Expansions, and they open up fast. Then they slow down and stop. Inward Expansions all start from a standstill, or very Slowly, and Speed Up toward a coomon point. It'sthis kind of expansion the Observable Universe is engaged in at present.

Inward expansion? A snowball rolling down a snowy bank is one example.

astrocat

01-11-11, 03:50 PM

What are you saying? That experiment that observed the accelerating motion of the universe is wrong, or that the universe is wrong for accelerating?It's the Observable Univ

phlogistician

01-12-11, 04:09 AM

On Mathematicians, I agree with Tesla. You go off making formula after formula until you come up with something that bears no relation to reality.

Ha! Sorry kid. You clearly never saw this:

http://thebigblogtheory.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/maxwell-t-shirt-4.jpg

Pete

01-12-11, 04:29 AM

Sure I'll admit defeat, just tell me of an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up, Pete. If you can't do that you should admit it.
It's in the post you quoted.
The early stage of any explosion is an accelerating outward expansion.

AlexG

01-12-11, 12:00 PM

Since Acat has a complete lack of knowledge regarding physics in particular and science in general, it is impossible to convince him of anything.

Ignorance is invincible.

astrocat

01-12-11, 05:35 PM

Ha! Sorry kid. You clearly never saw this:

http://thebigblogtheory.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/maxwell-t-shirt-4.jpgI think God belongs in church, not in Science.

astrocat

01-12-11, 05:36 PM

It's in the post you quoted.
The early stage of any explosion is an accelerating outward expansion.But what happens in the end, Pete?

astrocat

01-12-11, 05:39 PM

Since Acat has a complete lack of knowledge regarding physics in particular and science in general, it is impossible to convince him of anything.

Ignorance is invincible.Bald statements, Alex G. Can we at least try to keep it Scientific? Sure, tell me stuff, but back it up, will you? Thanks. Meanwhile, can you tell me of any Outward Expansion that Speeds Up as it goes?

Pete

01-12-11, 05:59 PM

But what happens in the end, Pete?
IN the end of an explosion? It dissipates.
In the end of the universe? I don't know.

But regardless, your challenge has been answered.
The early stage of an explosion an accelerating outward expansion.
You don't seem to be denying this.

But like I said before, I bet you don't admit defeat anyway.

AlphaNumeric

01-12-11, 06:02 PM

Do you know that any falling object will tend to Speed Up, Cool Down, Expand and Lose Pressure? Exactly the things the Observable Universe is doing?I cannot tell if you're making a statement or if you've made a typo and you're asking a question.

The problem is you're assuming something outside of your experience (the large scale structure of space-time) behaves like something within your experience, like an gas in a box. Anyone whose studied relativity or quantum mechanics or even a fair few classical mechanics will know that intuition only gets you so far before becoming a complete hindrance.

I don't have much time for fabrications, if that's what you mean?You don't even take the time to find out what is being said and the experiments. You concluded there's no evidence for the BB model and stated as much when a simple Google or Wiki could have found plenty to the contrary.

On Mathematicians, I agree with Tesla. You go off making formula after formula until you come up with something that bears no relation to reality.Speaking as someone whose seen it from both sides of the physics/maths fence I can say from personal experience that your take on how this sort of science is done is wrong. As I just commented (again) the equations people came up with were used to make predictions, which were then experimentally tested and validated. It doesn't mean the equations are correct but it means that there's evidence for their physical validity and relevance. Heck, sometimes experimental evidence can prove a model wrong but we hold on to it. Newtonian mechanics is, if you measure carefully enough, wrong in just about everything it tries to model but its sufficiently good to be of use. The BB model might well be wrong but the fact remains it provides a working validated way to model a slew of cosmological phenomena.

There's more evidence to say we're falling into a Black Hole, than there is for any Big Bang. Citation needed.

On the subject of this Big Bang, it seems it staerted off fast, then slowed down, then sped up again. Is this what you believe - Please!Great argument, the fact you find it unfamiliar. The fact it that its possible for certain distributions of matter to cause such a behaviour in space-time, this is seen in the FRW metric. I happen to have personal experience with inflation models in string theory, where inflation is due to a vacuum change, explaining why its short but extreme. The moderator BenTheMan has published work on precisely that area. Even more familiar systems exhibit oscillatory expansions and contractions, such as shock diamonds (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0224.shtml) due to pressure shock waves in the exhaust.

Please explain precisely what your 'please!' exasperation is based on. You have no experience with research level science, never mind the specific areas of maths and physics relevant to these phenomena, so it would seem you have only your everyday experience to base your assertion its ridiculous.

About Dark Matter - I haven't made my mind up on that subject yet.And unless you're going to do a lot of background reading before reaching an opinion I suggest you don't bother to form said opinion. Otherwise you make the same mistake with dark matter as you have with the BB, forming a strong opinion on little more than ignorance.

And no, I don't think the entire Universe is behaving like the Observable Universe - that's a stretch in anybody's mind. I said your little corner of it, not the observed universe.

You come up with all these really bald statements, like "You don't know what you're talking about' and related stuff. Can we try to keep it Scientific? Then tell me what you're basing your opinion on, as you've clearly not done any reading on the subject, as you claim there's no evidence for the big bang. You don't know any relativity or understand the mathematical language its written in. You don't appear to even have a decent grasp of how science works. If I'm wrong in my assessment of what you're basing your views on then explain precisely what they are based on.

Can we try to keep it Scientific? That ship sailed when you almost immediately demonstrated you dismissed tested scientific work without making any effort to find out anything about it. Or when you commented on how mathematicians do things when you clearly have no idea what we do and how it fits into physics. You can't cry "Lets all be scientific" after pissing on the shoes of science and honesty and being called on it.

Why don't you tell me what you think of my first paragraph? What happens to an object when it lands?Firstly I think you worded it poorly. Secondly the universe isn't 'falling' like an apple falls from a tree. Rather it is expanding, or contracting, like the skin of a balloon (not the air in the balloon, the skin). Thirdly the expansion of something like a packed hot high pressure block of gas (like if you heated a balloon and then removed the skin instantly) is not the same as the expansion of the universe. Due to mass and momentum conservations the amount of stuff in a blob of gas in constant and thus expanding causes it to increase volume, cool and reduce in pressure. Space-time energy isn't like that because the expansion of space-time doesn't cause a drop in the dark energy density, it causes a drop in physical things like gas and photon densities, as well as cooling them (ie the CMB redshifting). Dark energy and its effects have no 'everyday life' scale analogy, just at subatomic objects like photons have no 'everyday life' scale analogy (hence the whole "Is it a particle or wave?" issue, people want everyday analogies when none are appropriate). By trying to go to an example about an everyday object falling, cooling, whatever you're implicitly doing precisely as I said you shouldn't, you're trying to use everyday experience to determine the validity of something utterly outside of your experience.

It's only Physics, after all.I'm not convinced you'd know physics if it punched you in the face. You're definitely unfamiliar with intellectual honesty.

phlogistician

01-13-11, 03:26 AM

I think God belongs in church, not in Science.

Do you? I thought he was allegedly omnipotent, and therefore existed outside of churches too.

But you miss the point. Those are Maxwell's Equations for the propagation of an electromagnetic wave. If you don't understand how important these formulae are, and what they lead to, I pity you. Playing with electromagnets is one thing. Real science needs maths. Let' put it this way. Tesla farting around in his lab would NOT have lead to the creation of the computer you are sat at. Maxwell's equations furnished that technology. Respect the maths.

astrocat

01-13-11, 04:46 PM

IN the end of an explosion? It dissipates.
In the end of the universe? I don't know.

But regardless, your challenge has been answered.
The early stage of an explosion an accelerating outward expansion.
You don't seem to be denying this.

But like I said before, I bet you don't admit defeat anyway.You're taking part of an experiment and drawing a conclusion from it. That's considered 'Poor Science." Why not look at the experiment 'in toto.'
Much more scientific, no?

Lookingat the total experiment, we can see that it starts fast, slows down and stops. Too bad you can't see that!

Pete

01-13-11, 05:13 PM

You're taking part of an experiment and drawing a conclusion from it. That's considered 'Poor Science.
I'm not drawing any conclusions about the state of the Universe, dude. You are.

The only conclusion I'm drawing is about your personal integrity.

astrocat

01-13-11, 05:26 PM

I cannot tell if you're making a statement or if you've made a typo and you're asking a question.

The problem is you're assuming something outside of your experience (the large scale structure of space-time) behaves like something within your experience, like an gas in a box. Anyone whose studied relativity or quantum mechanics or even a fair few classical mechanics will know that intuition only gets you so far before becoming a complete hindrance.

You don't even take the time to find out what is being said and the experiments. You concluded there's no evidence for the BB model and stated as much when a simple Google or Wiki could have found plenty to the contrary.

Speaking as someone whose seen it from both sides of the physics/maths fence I can say from personal experience that your take on how this sort of science is done is wrong. As I just commented (again) the equations people came up with were used to make predictions, which were then experimentally tested and validated. It doesn't mean the equations are correct but it means that there's evidence for their physical validity and relevance. Heck, sometimes experimental evidence can prove a model wrong but we hold on to it. Newtonian mechanics is, if you measure carefully enough, wrong in just about everything it tries to model but its sufficiently good to be of use. The BB model might well be wrong but the fact remains it provides a working validated way to model a slew of cosmological phenomena.

Citation needed.

Great argument, the fact you find it unfamiliar. The fact it that its possible for certain distributions of matter to cause such a behaviour in space-time, this is seen in the FRW metric. I happen to have personal experience with inflation models in string theory, where inflation is due to a vacuum change, explaining why its short but extreme. The moderator BenTheMan has published work on precisely that area. Even more familiar systems exhibit oscillatory expansions and contractions, such as shock diamonds (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0224.shtml) due to pressure shock waves in the exhaust.

Please explain precisely what your 'please!' exasperation is based on. You have no experience with research level science, never mind the specific areas of maths and physics relevant to these phenomena, so it would seem you have only your everyday experience to base your assertion its ridiculous.

And unless you're going to do a lot of background reading before reaching an opinion I suggest you don't bother to form said opinion. Otherwise you make the same mistake with dark matter as you have with the BB, forming a strong opinion on little more than ignorance.

I said your little corner of it, not the observed universe.

Then tell me what you're basing your opinion on, as you've clearly not done any reading on the subject, as you claim there's no evidence for the big bang. You don't know any relativity or understand the mathematical language its written in. You don't appear to even have a decent grasp of how science works. If I'm wrong in my assessment of what you're basing your views on then explain precisely what they are based on.

That ship sailed when you almost immediately demonstrated you dismissed tested scientific work without making any effort to find out anything about it. Or when you commented on how mathematicians do things when you clearly have no idea what we do and how it fits into physics. You can't cry "Lets all be scientific" after pissing on the shoes of science and honesty and being called on it.

Firstly I think you worded it poorly. Secondly the universe isn't 'falling' like an apple falls from a tree. Rather it is expanding, or contracting, like the skin of a balloon (not the air in the balloon, the skin). Thirdly the expansion of something like a packed hot high pressure block of gas (like if you heated a balloon and then removed the skin instantly) is not the same as the expansion of the universe. Due to mass and momentum conservations the amount of stuff in a blob of gas in constant and thus expanding causes it to increase volume, cool and reduce in pressure. Space-time energy isn't like that because the expansion of space-time doesn't cause a drop in the dark energy density, it causes a drop in physical things like gas and photon densities, as well as cooling them (ie the CMB redshifting). Dark energy and its effects have no 'everyday life' scale analogy, just at subatomic objects like photons have no 'everyday life' scale analogy (hence the whole "Is it a particle or wave?" issue, people want everyday analogies when none are appropriate). By trying to go to an example about an everyday object falling, cooling, whatever you're implicitly doing precisely as I said you shouldn't, you're trying to use everyday experience to determine the validity of something utterly outside of your experience.

I'm not convinced you'd know physics if it punched you in the face. You're definitely unfamiliar with intellectual honesty.It's okay, I just wondered how far your Physics went. Relating the Observable Universe to every day matters is good Science, but you wouldn't know this. Of course every falling object wil tend to Speed Up. Cool Down, Expand and Lose Pressure. That's every falling object (or System) including the Observable Universe. I never said the Cosmos wasfalling - you made that up.

I know everyone believes in the Big Bang. I know, however, that whenever the ratio of an object to its radius becomes sufficiently large, GR predicts the formation of a Black Hole. In other words, if all the matter of the Universe was contained in one spot, it wouldn't explode - it would form a Black Hole.
that's not me, that's GR. Maybe that's why I don't believe in your Big Bang.

My 'Please,' is my opposite to 'Really!" If something stinks, I say 'Please.' If I like it I say "Really.' The Universe Sped Up, then Slowed Down, the Sped Up again - Please. There are only two kinds of Expansion, Mathematician, the kindthat starts Fast and then slows down, and the kind that starts slowly and Speeds Up.

The Observable Universe is expanding from a standstill to it's present speed, and that means it's expanding inwardly. It's Physics, Mathematician, like any falling object...

There is only Gravity - all the rest was made up. I don'tevenknow how you can say the Universe is expanding - have you seen it? The Universe? Or do you just believe in the big bang because (in the words of Bob Dylan) you've been juiced in it. Just because the Observable Universe is Expanding, that doesn't mean the whole Universe is Expanding - maybe the Observable Universe is expanding purely because of the effects of Gravity - it's certainly a much simpler reason.

In the end, I hope we contact another civilisation in Space - I'd love to see if they think the Expansion started fast, then slowed down, then Sped Up again. I wonder what they'd think of your big bang and related repulsive forces. Your Big Bang is so complicated... You act like you don't know Science prefers the simple answers. We don't live in a Universe moved by Anti-gravity, we live in a Universe moved by Gravity. Not repulsive forces, but an attractive one.

The big Bang looks backwards, to the beginning of time, without much care for the future. My theory looks forward, to where we're going. How many eyes do you have in the front of your head, and how many behind. It's much more important to know where we're going than where we came from. There, I'm relating the human body to Space - shame on me, you're probably thinking. Good for you, a real Scientist would say.

astrocat

01-13-11, 05:40 PM

Do you? I thought he was allegedly omnipotent, and therefore existed outside of churches too.

But you miss the point. Those are Maxwell's Equations for the propagation of an electromagnetic wave. If you don't understand how important these formulae are, and what they lead to, I pity you. Playing with electromagnets is one thing. Real science needs maths. Let' put it this way. Tesla farting around in his lab would NOT have lead to the creation of the computer you are sat at. Maxwell's equations furnished that technology. Respect the maths.Of course, Phlogistician, I respect the Maths - it's just that Math isn't a Science, and things go awfully wrong when you put a Mathematician in control of Science... What I'm really trying to introduce is the concept that we're not (uniquely) going out, but in, like everything else in the Cosmos. Maxwell invented the computer? Good for him. You realise, one nuclear bomb detonated in Space and there's no more computer. It's only a temporary thing, you see. And I think Tesla did a lot more than fart - but that's just me.

astrocat

01-13-11, 05:45 PM

I'm not drawing any conclusions about the state of the Universe, dude. You are.

The only conclusion I'm drawing is about your personal integrity.I really can only speak for the Observable Universe, Pete. Your Science experiment should be judged at the conclusion - judging it half way through might lead to the wrong conclusion.
And let's not get personal, Pete. Let's try to keep it Scientific, can we?

Pete

01-13-11, 06:19 PM

I really can only speak for the Observable Universe, Pete. Your Science experiment should be judged at the conclusion - judging it half way through might lead to the wrong conclusion.
And let's not get personal, Pete. Let's try to keep it Scientific, can we?

Dude, it's not an experiment. There are no scientific conclusions to be drawn from it.

It is simply an example of an accelerating outward expansion, exactly as you requested.

I certainly agree that you shouldn't draw premature conclusions from insufficient knowledge.

And the challenge to your personal integrity remains.
astrocat, you made this thread as a stupid pissing contest. Your attitude is not a scientific attitude of wanting to discover truth - you just want to 'win'. I challenge that attitude without apology.

phlogistician

01-14-11, 04:03 AM

Of course, Phlogistician, I respect the Maths - it's just that Math isn't a Science,

Yes it is. Go to a University and study it.

and things go awfully wrong when you put a Mathematician in control of Science...

No they do not. I worked with some very adept mathematicians when I worked for a University. They achieved quite a lot of good things. Maybe you should go get some experience?

Maxwell invented the computer?

No he didn't. I didn't say that. I said without his equations, you would not have the computer you have before you.

You realise, one nuclear bomb detonated in Space and there's no more computer.

That's simply not true. EMP generation is not simply a matter of detonating one nuke and kissing good bye to everything. There are many and various things to consider. But you seem to like to make simple, sweeping, unsubstantiated statements, don't you?

Stryder

01-14-11, 11:39 AM

Essentially EMP would alter the overall EM fields produced by live circuitry and power supplies, this would potentially cause a distortion to amplitude and maybe fry a chip, breaker or destroy a battery.

However there are Faraday Caged (And even TEMPEST shielding) that is used to house important critical systems like the internet backbone. Even your computer to an extent is shielded by it's casing. EMP would likely just cause a flicker in this day an age rather than stick us back to the stone age.

AlphaNumeric

01-14-11, 06:44 PM

I just wondered how far your Physics went.I previously reeled off a list of physics areas I covered in a maths degree. In addition said courses put me in a better position to do my PhD then those who went to the same university to do physics. And said PhD, which was quite mathematical, put me in better stead to get my job than a more experimental one might have.

Relating the Observable Universe to every day matters is good Science, but you wouldn't know this. Why wouldn't I know this? Because I disagree with your view on how maths and physics relate to one another and are used in science?

Having a few vague analogies to aid understanding is fine but if you're guided purely on the grounds of personal physical intuition you won't get far in physics, mathematical or otherwise. The stuff in line with our intuition was the first stuff to be examined by science as it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. As time has progressed we've understood so much of the 'easy to understand' stuff a great many areas of physics are now into the realms of things you need specialist equipment to measure and are thus outside common experience.

Basing work on physical intuition got use Newtonian mechanics but only once we could accurately measure speeds close to that of light did we find NM isn't precisely accurate. Basing work on physical intuition got us basic gas laws and some fluid mechanics but once we could make superfluids or detect individual particles we found things outside of any normal experience.

Intuition based on everyday experience only gets you so far, but (to use your comment) you wouldn't know that.

Of course every falling object wil tend to Speed Up. Cool Down, Expand and Lose Pressure. That's every falling object (or System) including the Observable Universe. You still fail to explain what you're talking about properly. Does a brick expand and lose pressure when you drop it? No. Does it cool down? Depends what the surroundings are and its present temperature. Open the top of a pressurised container of gas and it'll expand and cool but falling has nothing to do with it. Pressure, temperature and volume changes are fluid based processes and can be independent of gravity, just as accelerating under gravity can be separate from the aforementioned processes.

I never said the Cosmos wasfalling - you made that up.I apologise for having to interpret your meaning due to your abysmal ability to form a coherent description of your own thoughts.

I know everyone believes in the Big Bang.The 'belief' of which you speak is not like religious belief, in that we have a great many independent but corroborating phenomena which align with the models we've constructed and thus have experimental evidence for. Sure, it might be wrong but the belief in it being a viable model of how part of the universe works is entirely justified.

I know, however, that whenever the ratio of an object to its radius becomes sufficiently large, GR predicts the formation of a Black Hole. In other words, if all the matter of the Universe was contained in one spot, it wouldn't explode - it would form a Black Hole. that's not me, that's GR. Maybe that's why I don't believe in your Big Bang.And you suppose that all the people who do cosmology, using such things as the FRW metric, which is a solution to the Einstein field equations which govern GR, don't know about black holes? Or that people who do black holes in GR don't know about the big bang?

Clearly there are plenty of people who know about both the BB model and black holes. In fact people like Hawking and Penrose talk a great deal about such things. Even if you did no reading (and didn't understand the material even if you did do the reading) this should suggest to you there isn't a contradiction. Clearly you haven't managed to realise this and you also haven't gone out finding if anyone else has considered such a thing. And you aren't, either in the world or even on this forum.

Suppose the Sun disappeared right now (setting aside the issue of defining 'now' in relativity). It'd take about 8.5 minutes for the last light emitted to reach Earth and then the sky would go black. But gravitational changes also propagate as the speed of light so the Earth would continue orbiting as normal till the 'last emissions' in the gravitational field reached us, like the light, at which point the Earth would stop orbiting and move in a straight line. Now suppose the Sun reappears an hour later. Again, it takes 8.5 minutes for the light and gravitational changes to move through space to reach Earth During that time the Earth is unaware the Sun is back, ie it is not in causal contact with the Sun for a period of time.

Suppose you did this with a rocket rather than the Earth. In that time, before the Sun's effects reach the rocket, you could move away from the old location of the Sun without any resistance, as the gravitational pull of the Sun hasn't got to you yet. This sort of thing can occur in the early period of the universe, objects not in causal contact with one another don't interact, they don't know the other exists. Now suppose you have a tiny tiny tiny region of empty space, ie no space-time curvature, and you instantly put in a huge amount of matter. If that huge influx of energy then causes the space-time expand outwards sufficiently fast to out pace the gravitational signals each particle sends out towards other particles then the density can drop below the amount needed for black hole formation before an event horizon can form.

Sure, you have the question "How would such a configuration arise" but the fact remains that its entirely consistent within the realms of GR to have matter packed more dense than needed to form a black hole yet still expand provided it does it very very quickly.

Penrose's book 'The Road to Reality' covers this in more detail, considering slews of appearing universes which are all ultra dense. Most of them don't expand fast enough to escape their own event horizon and recollapse but a few manage it. Susskind has a paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0302219) on the same thing, considering sets of universe, most of which never get past subatomic sizes (see Figure 4). Much of Penrose and Hawking's work in regards to singularity existence theorems relate to this.

Hawking has also considered a collapsing universe which packs its matter into smaller and smaller regions and then 'bounces' back out into an expanding universe. In that work he specifically talks about the issue of causal connection between different regions of matter, even when the entire universe is smaller than a proton.

I'm not a cosmlogist, I took one course in it 5 years ago, so much of what I've just said is stuff an 'interested reader' can get from just Googling, Wiki'ing and putting in some time and effort. Try it.

My 'Please,' is my opposite to 'Really!" If something stinks, I say 'Please.' If I like it I say "Really.' The Universe Sped Up, then Slowed Down, the Sped Up again - Please. There are only two kinds of Expansion, Mathematician, the kindthat starts Fast and then slows down, and the kind that starts slowly and Speeds Up. Again, you try to insult me as if 'mathematician' means I don't know about physics. I'm certain I've got more physics experience than you. And you're just making unjustified assertions about expansions/contractions. I gave a specific example (shock diamonds) of familiar systems (fluid mechanics) exhibiting oscillatory phenomena.

Do you really think all of cosmology is just done by mathematicians who don't look out the window to observe the universe? General relativity is highly mathematical, so astrophysicists are required to be mathematical competent. Conversely plenty of mathematicians doing physics related stuff know a great deal about experiments.

If the matter was as black and white as you assert why hasn't it all just been chucked out? Do you think there's global conspiracy? Do you think the people doing cosmology know nothing of experiments? Why is it your grasp of this stuff is so superior when you have no experience with any physics relevant to the issue? You complain about mathematicians but even if I were to grant your view as valid at least the mathematicians have models and make predictions. You, on the other hand, have nothing, no theoretical understanding or experimental experience, to base your claims on.

You trying to insult someone because they are a mathematician is foolish in at least two ways. Firstly you have less competency in physics than a mathematician. Secondly your view of how mathematics fits into physics is so warped and flawed that you just demonstrate your ignorance when you attempt such insults.

The Observable Universe is expanding from a standstill to it's present speed, and that means it's expanding inwardly. It's Physics, Mathematician, like any falling object... How do you know its physics? You don't know physics, either theoretical or experimental.

I keep asking you what you're basing your position on and you have nothing. Why are you an authority on what is or isn't viable when you have absolutely no experience with anything relevant?

There is only Gravity - all the rest was made up. I don'tevenknow how you can say the Universe is expanding - have you seen it? The Universe? Or do you just believe in the big bang because (in the words of Bob Dylan) you've been juiced in it. I asked you previously to give references for your claims and you ignored it, so I find it funny you ask me to provide some for mine.

And are you seriously going to try the "Have you seen it?" route? You do know we've got things like telescopes on mountains and in orbit watching the sky across pretty much the entire EM spectrum, right?

Hubble observed other galaxies and the red shifting due to their motion away from us is named in his honour. Since then we've observed billions of galaxies, all of whom's red shifting follows a particular pattern. We've seen supernova in distant galaxies (billions of light years away) whose spectrum we can determine due to knowledge in stellar evolution, nuclear physics, thermodynamics and fluid mechanics and the pattern observed implies the rate of expansion of the universe isn't now as its always been. Then there's the CMB, first detected in the 60s and which we now have measured to parts per million and whose thermal properties imply the matter in the observable universe was once close enough to be approximately equal in temperature but which was then carried away. As I just explained, an extreme and sudden expansion can account for this (ie how it was once close but didn't collapse), which must has slowed down since its not expanding like that any more. The variations in the CMB link to matter distribution due to gravitational red shifting. Then there's relative isotope abundances in the interstellar medium, which again points to particular expansion dynamics due to the amount of time it must have occurred for.

I personally haven't gone through all this material but that's because that's not my area of science. I know people who have and do though. And like with any area of science its up to the community to review each others work for mistakes, ie the best people for the job. I've reviewed work in quantum mechanics for a journal because that's what I'm familiar with. Before you trot out the "You're all just covering for one another" conspiracy story scientists are like any other group of people, not everyone gets on with everyone else. If you want another reason there's no conspiracy its because someone who demolishes an entire area of physics with the right experiment or the right reasoning makes a name for themselves so unless you believe everyone in the cosmology research communities are best pals, despite them being from many different countries, communities, schools of thought, religions and ideologies, any argument which involves "That mainstream thing can't be true because of this high school fact I was taught decades ago" is baseless.

There's plenty of evidence out there and its more available than ever. Go to ArXiv and use the search engine, you can look at pretty much every physics and maths paper from the last 15 years free. You can get the experimental results and see how they are compared with models. You can see it all for yourself, so this "Have you seen it?" line of argument only serves to make you look even more intellectually dishonest because if you'd done any reading you'd already know there's plenty of freely available material for you to examine. Whether you possess the necessary skills to understand it is another matter.

Just because the Observable Universe is Expanding, that doesn't mean the whole Universe is Expanding - maybe the Observable Universe is expanding purely because of the effects of Gravity - it's certainly a much simpler reason.Its certainly possible. If you can construct a model involving that which predicts the same things as the current ones then it'd certainly be worth publishing. However, if you only think it'd be simpler and you make no attempt to see if any sort of model is forthcoming then you're just basing your claims on nothing, ie you know what answer you want and you're supposing some explaination exists which squares with it. The important thing for any scientist to do is to develop and test their models.

Your Big Bang is so complicated... Actually its quite simple. Initially the universe is very very small and filled with a completely homogeneous and isotropic structure-less concentration of matter which then expands. All the relevant space-time dynamics can be obtained from the equations of motion of the FRW metric, which is literally a homework exercise for undergrads.

Personally I find fluid mechanics much harder, there's a great deal about fluids we don't understand, the dynamics of the FRW metric are well understood and the structure-less matter I mentioned is extremely simple, as its structureless.

Also bear in mind that there's no reason to think the origins and dynamics of the entire universe should be simple. Why should the universe itself be within the ability of a human mind? There's nothing special about our brains, we got it via evolution and its developed to solve problems we face in everyday life (when you live off the land in hunter-gatherer groups that is), it hasn't developed with any need to fathom the origins of space-time and matter. You find mainstream science complicated because you have no experience of it, just as I find Japanese hard to understand as I don't have any experience of it. With time and effort you might understand some physics other people understand and developed but that's at least in principle within your grasp as its stuff other humans have understood. The universe's inner workings may simply be beyond anyone's grasp.

You act like you don't know Science prefers the simple answers.A theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler (Einstein). Given two theories of equal predictive power you take the one with the least assumptions but if the one with more assumptions is more powerful a predictor than you use it.

For instance, Newtonian physics is simpler than relativity but its less accurate. I've given this example before, please explain what you don't understand about that.

If you can come up with a model which explains all the things the big bang model does, quantitatively, yet assumes less then its worth publishing. Presently no such model exists and so even though we'd all like a simpler model of the universe's early life we stick with the best model, even if its 'complicated'.

We don't live in a Universe moved by Anti-gravity, we live in a Universe moved by Gravity. Not repulsive forces, but an attractive one.And your experimental evidence for this is.....?

For any future discussion please bear in mind that if you're going to make assertions about the nature of Nature you're going to have to provide evidence/references. I know you want the universe to be a certain way and you think, based on absolutely zero knowledge or experience, its a certain way but simply asserting it in the absence of any reason isn't going to sway me or anyone else.

My theory looks forward, to where we're going.Where's your 'theory'? I asked you to provide a WORKING model but you have nothing. Models need to model, you have no model. Theories are models which has passed experimental tests, the predictions of their models are verified as accurate.

Until you can give me a model for the thermal distribution of the CMB, the ratios of various light isotopes and the red shift distribution of galaxies and supernova observed yo have no model, so comparing the BB to 'your theory' is like comparing apples and .... nothing.

How many eyes do you have in the front of your head, and how many behind. It's much more important to know where we're going than where we came from. There, I'm relating the human body to SpaceYes yes, you're looking into the future because you're a visionary and all of science is stuck in the past :rolleyes:

Let me know when you can model even 1 relevant phenomenon.

shame on me, you're probably thinking. Good for you, a real Scientist would say.Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. I'm not a real scientist because I'm not buying what you're selling.

Perhaps you'd like to define what you mean by 'a real scientist'? What are the necessary requirements? Degree? Masters? PhD? Published work? Applied knowledge of science to real world problems? Collaborated with people doing the same? Taught others? Paid to do it? Or were you going for something along the lines "Agrees with astrocat" and "Owns a white coat"?

How many of them apply to you?

astrocat

01-14-11, 07:19 PM

Dude, it's not an experiment. There are no scientific conclusions to be drawn from it.

It is simply an example of an accelerating outward expansion, exactly as you requested.

I certainly agree that you shouldn't draw premature conclusions from insufficient knowledge.

And the challenge to your personal integrity remains.
astrocat, you made this thread as a stupid pissing contest. Your attitude is not a scientific attitude of wanting to discover truth - you just want to 'win'. I challenge that attitude without apology.Sure it's an experiment, Pete. It has a Scientific Cionclusion. It Slows Down and stops at the conclusion. You shouldn't draw conclusions from the beginning of an experiment. Let it run to the conclusion, Pete.
Okay, get personal if you want. I however intend to keep this discussion Scientific. Hope you can understand that.
By the way, do you know that every falling object tends to Speed Up, Cool Down, Expand and Lose Pressure - exactly what the Observable Universe is doing? Does your knowledge of Physics extend that far?
I don't particularly like your language, either - A pissing contest? Please...

astrocat

01-14-11, 07:34 PM

Yes it is. Go to a University and study it.

No they do not. I worked with some very adept mathematicians when I worked for a University. They achieved quite a lot of good things. Maybe you should go get some experience?

No he didn't. I didn't say that. I said without his equations, you would not have the computer you have before you.

That's simply not true. EMP generation is not simply a matter of detonating one nuke and kissing good bye to everything. There are many and various things to consider. But you seem to like to make simple, sweeping, unsubstantiated statements, don't you?Math is not a Science, at least it wasn't the last time I checked. That kinda burns you, doesn't it, Phlogestician.
Put a mathematician in charge and you'll come up with a Big Bang that flies in the face of Gravity. Please note, that my 'Gravity Theory' breaks no laws, unlike your Big Bang. My theory conforms with Gravity. To me, Gravity isn't just an annoying embarrasment, like it is with you Big Bangers.
GR predicts that if all the Universe was gathered together in one place, it would become a Black Hole. Your Big Bang is a Physical impossibiliy. That's not me - that's General Relativity. It was Einstein who said that Georges LeMaitre 'had a woeful lack of Physics.'
AndI want to ask you, if I haven't asked before - if you're aware that every falling body tends to Speed Up, Cool Down, Expand and Lose Pressure - and that includes the Observable Universe.
And you think that with a nuclear bomb detonated in Space, your computer is still going to work? The Russians have developed a hand generated computer for just such an event. Sweeping, unsubstantiated, statements - that's you, isn't it?l

astrocat

01-14-11, 07:37 PM

astrocat

01-14-11, 07:56 PM

I previously reeled off a list of physics areas I covered in a maths degree. In addition said courses put me in a better position to do my PhD then those who went to the same university to do physics. And said PhD, which was quite mathematical, put me in better stead to get my job than a more experimental one might have.

Why wouldn't I know this? Because I disagree with your view on how maths and physics relate to one another and are used in science?

Having a few vague analogies to aid understanding is fine but if you're guided purely on the grounds of personal physical intuition you won't get far in physics, mathematical or otherwise. The stuff in line with our intuition was the first stuff to be examined by science as it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. As time has progressed we've understood so much of the 'easy to understand' stuff a great many areas of physics are now into the realms of things you need specialist equipment to measure and are thus outside common experience.

Basing work on physical intuition got use Newtonian mechanics but only once we could accurately measure speeds close to that of light did we find NM isn't precisely accurate. Basing work on physical intuition got us basic gas laws and some fluid mechanics but once we could make superfluids or detect individual particles we found things outside of any normal experience.

Intuition based on everyday experience only gets you so far, but (to use your comment) you wouldn't know that.

You still fail to explain what you're talking about properly. Does a brick expand and lose pressure when you drop it? No. Does it cool down? Depends what the surroundings are and its present temperature. Open the top of a pressurised container of gas and it'll expand and cool but falling has nothing to do with it. Pressure, temperature and volume changes are fluid based processes and can be independent of gravity, just as accelerating under gravity can be separate from the aforementioned processes.

I apologise for having to interpret your meaning due to your abysmal ability to form a coherent description of your own thoughts.

The 'belief' of which you speak is not like religious belief, in that we have a great many independent but corroborating phenomena which align with the models we've constructed and thus have experimental evidence for. Sure, it might be wrong but the belief in it being a viable model of how part of the universe works is entirely justified.

And you suppose that all the people who do cosmology, using such things as the FRW metric, which is a solution to the Einstein field equations which govern GR, don't know about black holes? Or that people who do black holes in GR don't know about the big bang?

Clearly there are plenty of people who know about both the BB model and black holes. In fact people like Hawking and Penrose talk a great deal about such things. Even if you did no reading (and didn't understand the material even if you did do the reading) this should suggest to you there isn't a contradiction. Clearly you haven't managed to realise this and you also haven't gone out finding if anyone else has considered such a thing. And you aren't, either in the world or even on this forum.

Suppose the Sun disappeared right now (setting aside the issue of defining 'now' in relativity). It'd take about 8.5 minutes for the last light emitted to reach Earth and then the sky would go black. But gravitational changes also propagate as the speed of light so the Earth would continue orbiting as normal till the 'last emissions' in the gravitational field reached us, like the light, at which point the Earth would stop orbiting and move in a straight line. Now suppose the Sun reappears an hour later. Again, it takes 8.5 minutes for the light and gravitational changes to move through space to reach Earth During that time the Earth is unaware the Sun is back, ie it is not in causal contact with the Sun for a period of time.

Suppose you did this with a rocket rather than the Earth. In that time, before the Sun's effects reach the rocket, you could move away from the old location of the Sun without any resistance, as the gravitational pull of the Sun hasn't got to you yet. This sort of thing can occur in the early period of the universe, objects not in causal contact with one another don't interact, they don't know the other exists. Now suppose you have a tiny tiny tiny region of empty space, ie no space-time curvature, and you instantly put in a huge amount of matter. If that huge influx of energy then causes the space-time expand outwards sufficiently fast to out pace the gravitational signals each particle sends out towards other particles then the density can drop below the amount needed for black hole formation before an event horizon can form.

Sure, you have the question "How would such a configuration arise" but the fact remains that its entirely consistent within the realms of GR to have matter packed more dense than needed to form a black hole yet still expand provided it does it very very quickly.

Penrose's book 'The Road to Reality' covers this in more detail, considering slews of appearing universes which are all ultra dense. Most of them don't expand fast enough to escape their own event horizon and recollapse but a few manage it. Susskind has a paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0302219) on the same thing, considering sets of universe, most of which never get past subatomic sizes (see Figure 4). Much of Penrose and Hawking's work in regards to singularity existence theorems relate to this.

Hawking has also considered a collapsing universe which packs its matter into smaller and smaller regions and then 'bounces' back out into an expanding universe. In that work he specifically talks about the issue of causal connection between different regions of matter, even when the entire universe is smaller than a proton.

I'm not a cosmlogist, I took one course in it 5 years ago, so much of what I've just said is stuff an 'interested reader' can get from just Googling, Wiki'ing and putting in some time and effort. Try it.

Again, you try to insult me as if 'mathematician' means I don't know about physics. I'm certain I've got more physics experience than you. And you're just making unjustified assertions about expansions/contractions. I gave a specific example (shock diamonds) of familiar systems (fluid mechanics) exhibiting oscillatory phenomena.

Do you really think all of cosmology is just done by mathematicians who don't look out the window to observe the universe? General relativity is highly mathematical, so astrophysicists are required to be mathematical competent. Conversely plenty of mathematicians doing physics related stuff know a great deal about experiments.

If the matter was as black and white as you assert why hasn't it all just been chucked out? Do you think there's global conspiracy? Do you think the people doing cosmology know nothing of experiments? Why is it your grasp of this stuff is so superior when you have no experience with any physics relevant to the issue? You complain about mathematicians but even if I were to grant your view as valid at least the mathematicians have models and make predictions. You, on the other hand, have nothing, no theoretical understanding or experimental experience, to base your claims on.

You trying to insult someone because they are a mathematician is foolish in at least two ways. Firstly you have less competency in physics than a mathematician. Secondly your view of how mathematics fits into physics is so warped and flawed that you just demonstrate your ignorance when you attempt such insults.

How do you know its physics? You don't know physics, either theoretical or experimental.

I keep asking you what you're basing your position on and you have nothing. Why are you an authority on what is or isn't viable when you have absolutely no experience with anything relevant?

I asked you previously to give references for your claims and you ignored it, so I find it funny you ask me to provide some for mine.

And are you seriously going to try the "Have you seen it?" route? You do know we've got things like telescopes on mountains and in orbit watching the sky across pretty much the entire EM spectrum, right?

Hubble observed other galaxies and the red shifting due to their motion away from us is named in his honour. Since then we've observed billions of galaxies, all of whom's red shifting follows a particular pattern. We've seen supernova in distant galaxies (billions of light years away) whose spectrum we can determine due to knowledge in stellar evolution, nuclear physics, thermodynamics and fluid mechanics and the pattern observed implies the rate of expansion of the universe isn't now as its always been. Then there's the CMB, first detected in the 60s and which we now have measured to parts per million and whose thermal properties imply the matter in the observable universe was once close enough to be approximately equal in temperature but which was then carried away. As I just explained, an extreme and sudden expansion can account for this (ie how it was once close but didn't collapse), which must has slowed down since its not expanding like that any more. The variations in the CMB link to matter distribution due to gravitational red shifting. Then there's relative isotope abundances in the interstellar medium, which again points to particular expansion dynamics due to the amount of time it must have occurred for.

I personally haven't gone through all this material but that's because that's not my area of science. I know people who have and do though. And like with any area of science its up to the community to review each others work for mistakes, ie the best people for the job. I've reviewed work in quantum mechanics for a journal because that's what I'm familiar with. Before you trot out the "You're all just covering for one another" conspiracy story scientists are like any other group of people, not everyone gets on with everyone else. If you want another reason there's no conspiracy its because someone who demolishes an entire area of physics with the right experiment or the right reasoning makes a name for themselves so unless you believe everyone in the cosmology research communities are best pals, despite them being from many different countries, communities, schools of thought, religions and ideologies, any argument which involves "That mainstream thing can't be true because of this high school fact I was taught decades ago" is baseless.

There's plenty of evidence out there and its more available than ever. Go to ArXiv and use the search engine, you can look at pretty much every physics and maths paper from the last 15 years free. You can get the experimental results and see how they are compared with models. You can see it all for yourself, so this "Have you seen it?" line of argument only serves to make you look even more intellectually dishonest because if you'd done any reading you'd already know there's plenty of freely available material for you to examine. Whether you possess the necessary skills to understand it is another matter.

Its certainly possible. If you can construct a model involving that which predicts the same things as the current ones then it'd certainly be worth publishing. However, if you only think it'd be simpler and you make no attempt to see if any sort of model is forthcoming then you're just basing your claims on nothing, ie you know what answer you want and you're supposing some explaination exists which squares with it. The important thing for any scientist to do is to develop and test their models.

Actually its quite simple. Initially the universe is very very small and filled with a completely homogeneous and isotropic structure-less concentration of matter which then expands. All the relevant space-time dynamics can be obtained from the equations of motion of the FRW metric, which is literally a homework exercise for undergrads.

Personally I find fluid mechanics much harder, there's a great deal about fluids we don't understand, the dynamics of the FRW metric are well understood and the structure-less matter I mentioned is extremely simple, as its structureless.

Also bear in mind that there's no reason to think the origins and dynamics of the entire universe should be simple. Why should the universe itself be within the ability of a human mind? There's nothing special about our brains, we got it via evolution and its developed to solve problems we face in everyday life (when you live off the land in hunter-gatherer groups that is), it hasn't developed with any need to fathom the origins of space-time and matter. You find mainstream science complicated because you have no experience of it, just as I find Japanese hard to understand as I don't have any experience of it. With time and effort you might understand some physics other people understand and developed but that's at least in principle within your grasp as its stuff other humans have understood. The universe's inner workings may simply be beyond anyone's grasp.

A theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler (Einstein). Given two theories of equal predictive power you take the one with the least assumptions but if the one with more assumptions is more powerful a predictor than you use it.

For instance, Newtonian physics is simpler than relativity but its less accurate. I've given this example before, please explain what you don't understand about that.

If you can come up with a model which explains all the things the big bang model does, quantitatively, yet assumes less then its worth publishing. Presently no such model exists and so even though we'd all like a simpler model of the universe's early life we stick with the best model, even if its 'complicated'.

And your experimental evidence for this is.....?

For any future discussion please bear in mind that if you're going to make assertions about the nature of Nature you're going to have to provide evidence/references. I know you want the universe to be a certain way and you think, based on absolutely zero knowledge or experience, its a certain way but simply asserting it in the absence of any reason isn't going to sway me or anyone else.

Where's your 'theory'? I asked you to provide a WORKING model but you have nothing. Models need to model, you have no model. Theories are models which has passed experimental tests, the predictions of their models are verified as accurate.

Until you can give me a model for the thermal distribution of the CMB, the ratios of various light isotopes and the red shift distribution of galaxies and supernova observed yo have no model, so comparing the BB to 'your theory' is like comparing apples and .... nothing.

Yes yes, you're looking into the future because you're a visionary and all of science is stuck in the past :rolleyes:

Let me know when you can model even 1 relevant phenomenon.

Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. I'm not a real scientist because I'm not buying what you're selling.

Perhaps you'd like to define what you mean by 'a real scientist'? What are the necessary requirements? Degree? Masters? PhD? Published work? Applied knowledge of science to real world problems? Collaborated with people doing the same? Taught others? Paid to do it? Or were you going for something along the lines "Agrees with astrocat" and "Owns a white coat"?

How many of them apply to you?Wow, that's a long one. At least my theory is Succinct. I'm impressed, I suppose, by your Phd. Modern Scientists try to make everybody believe you need a Phd to figure out the workins of the Universe, so I guess you're admirably Qualified.
And yes, your falling brick is goingt to tend to Speed up, and will tend to Cool Down, Exp e r

Pete

01-15-11, 12:16 AM

Sure it's an experiment, Pete. It has a Scientific Cionclusion. It Slows Down and stops at the conclusion. You shouldn't draw conclusions from the beginning of an experiment. Let it run to the conclusion, Pete.

Seriously astrocat, you don't seem to have a clue what an experiment is.
But like I said, I'm not talking about any experiment. I'm simply claiming that the early stage of an explosion is an accelerating outward expansion.

Okay, get personal if you want. I however intend to keep this discussion Scientific. Hope you can understand that.
Dude, your posts are the least scientific in the thread.
Science isn't a pissing contest. It's not a fight. It's a mutual exploration of the nature of reality.
But your position seems to be to ignore all exploration that seems to disagree with the ideas you've come up with. You dont seem to want to know what reality is - you just want your idea to be right.

By the way, do you know that every falling object tends to Speed Up, Cool Down, Expand and Lose Pressure - exactly what the Observable Universe is doing? Does your knowledge of Physics extend that far?
Inflate a thermally insulated balloon at alitude, and drop it.
It speeds up, contracts, heats up, and increases in pressure.
What 'knowledge' of physics are you drawing on?

I don't particularly like your language, either - A pissing contest? Please...
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pissing_contest)

Since the 1940s the term has been used as a slang idiomatic phrase describing contests that are "futile or purposeless", especially if waged in a "conspicuously aggressive manner".

Pete

01-15-11, 12:18 AM

Wow, that's a long one. At least my theory is Succinct. I'm impressed, I suppose, by your Phd. Modern Scientists try to make everybody believe you need a Phd to figure out the workins of the Universe, so I guess you're admirably Qualified.

You don't necessarily need to be a qualified plumber to do quality plumbing, and some qualified plumbers are shonky...

But who are you going to call when your pipes are leaking?

AlphaNumeric

01-15-11, 03:08 AM

Wow, that's a long one.Yes, you had a lot of mistakes to correct. And why quote it if you reply to nothing.

At least my theory is Succinct.I asked you to provide a model of the CMB, stellar red shifting and isotope ratios. Until you can do that you have no 'theory', you have a few lines up made up bullshit. A theory in science is one which has made testable predictions which have been tested and verified. You make no testable predictions, you cannot model anything, you have simply guesses and ignorance.

I'm impressed, I suppose, by your Phd. Modern Scientists try to make everybody believe you need a Phd to figure out the workings of the Universe, so I guess you're admirably Qualified. You didn't answer my question. What is 'real scientist' to you? You dismiss me, despite me having both a background of theory and practical application and familiarity with experiment. If you dismiss my scientific background and abilities why should anyone listen to your baseless assertions about science? Why are the ideas of mainstream science, backed up by experiment and observation, okay to ignore but your proclamations, backed up by nothing, should be taken seriously?

You asked about evidence, I reeled off a list of stuff, stuff you'd know about if you'd even read the Wikipedia page on the big bang. You have at your fingertips pretty much the sum of all human knowledge and you haven't taken the 7 second needed to go to Google and type 'evidence for the big bang'. This shows you're either exceedingly intellectually lazy or exceedingly dishonest. Either you know there's information out there you haven't tried to find or you have found it but conveniently ignore it.

And yes, your falling brick is goingt to tend to Speed up, and will tend to Cool Down, Exp e rYou still fail to properly explain what you're talking about. A brick, or any object, will only cool down if the surrounding region is cooler than itself. Its the zero'th law of thermodynamics, heat flows from regions of high temperature to regions of lower temperature. Drop a brick into the Sun and it'll heat up. Drop a brick through the Earth's atmosphere and not only will it heat up due to friction but it'll not always speed up, it'll reach a terminal velocity.

You have some physical setup in your mind which you've been unable to articulate and your failure to grasp how there's a myriad of counter examples to your overly simplistic view of things illustrates how worthless your assertions are. If you can't even explain your thoughts coherently and you know nothing about experiments your conclusions about the nature of the universe aren't likely to be worth listening to. This has nothing to do with (supposedly) needing a PhD to do science, you need to be informed and honest and you're neither.

If you can't answer the questions I've asked you don't bother to reply, as it'll only serve to illustrate your dishonesty further and we've already got plenty of evidence for that.

Ophiolite

01-15-11, 04:16 AM

At least my theory is Succinct. You say you have a theory. I all I have seen in multiple posts from you are some vaguely expressed, ambiguous, sometimes contradictory statements that have the form of a weak and easily demolished analogy. You have not addressed any aspect of the universe mathematically. You have made no predictions. You have failed to explore the impact of your analogy on any important aspect of cosmology such as early star formation, galaxy formation, cosmic background radiation, etc.

Rather than a theory it is obvious to all that what you have is poorly formulated, badly expressed, wholly unfounded speculation. Are you quite unable to recognise this? Help me understand how you came to be so deluded. You may already have addressed this point earlier, but I would be intrigued to know your educational qualifications and where you acquired your limited, distorted and usually wrong view of the universe.

astrocat

01-15-11, 03:48 PM

Wow, that's a long one. At least my theory is Succinct. I'm impressed, I suppose, by your Phd. Modern Scientists try to make everybody believe you need a Phd to figure out the workins of the Universe, so I guess you're admirably Qualified.
And yes, your falling brick is goingt to tend to Speed up, and will tend to Cool Down, Exp e rI have this virus that produces a small box to the right and just below what I'm typing. I tried to respond to your post, and will try again, but if it ends 'funny' you'll know what happened.
About your brick, I only said it would tend to do these things. But when your brick lands, I'm sure it will slow down and stop, warm somewhat from being compressed and it might even take up less room, as it compacts. All the things that would happen to you if you fell into a Black Hole. Now I find I'm unable to scroll upwards or downwards. That makes it impossible for me to see what you have written while I'm answering your post.
Did your Univerese come completely evolved, out of the Big Bang? I mean, did stars etc. come ready made out of your big bang, or was it just Hydrogen that came out, or what?
Only I happen to know that Planets are made of the remnants of exploded stars, etc. which grew old and died. Now, Earth is five billion years old, and will probably continue on for another 5 billion years or so. That figure of 5 billion years old seems to be a likely enough figure. If, as you believe, the Cosmos is only 13 billion years old, it's easy math to see that !3-5= 8.
Now are you going to tell me a star can compact down from a huge cloud of Hydrogen, live it's life to the end, die, and explode into fragments, all in 8 billion years. And how come stars only live for 8 billion years, and planets
(like Earth) live for 10 billion years? There's something seriously wrong with your estimates of the age of the Cosmos.
Another thing, even after one second, even travelling at the Speed of Light, your Big Bang could not possibly be more than 500 million miles wide.
That's a finite distance, and my question to you, Mathematician, is how do you go from Finite to Infinite? Is this something that happens only very slowly, or is it an instantaneous change?
And your Cosmological Constant was not just abandoned by Einstein - he denounced it in the strongest language possible, calling it the Biggest Blunder of his career as a Mathematician. Myself, I agree. This manufacturing of Repulsive Forces which fly in the face of Gravity is Poor Science, to a scientist, but great science to a Mathematician. In spite of Einstein's denunciation - you still continue to use it. You must not have a very high opinion of Einstein. I think he's great, and I completely agree with him on everything. That makes me (alone) Einstein's Disciple. You should get on side with Einstein - you'd probably do better, at least, I recommend it.

AlexG

01-15-11, 04:22 PM

Only I happen to know that Planets are made of the remnants of exploded stars, etc. which grew old and died. Now, Earth is five billion years old, and will probably continue on for another 5 billion years or so. That figure of 5 billion years old seems to be a likely enough figure. If, as you believe, the Cosmos is only 13 billion years old, it's easy math to see that !3-5= 8.
Now are you going to tell me a star can compact down from a huge cloud of Hydrogen, live it's life to the end, die, and explode into fragments, all in 8 billion years. And how come stars only live for 8 billion years, and planets
(like Earth) live for 10 billion years? There's something seriously wrong with your estimates of the age of the Cosmos.
Another thing, even after one second, even travelling at the Speed of Light, your Big Bang could not possibly be more than 500 million miles wide.
That's a finite distance, and my question to you, Mathematician, is how do you go from Finite to Infinite? Is this something that happens only very slowly, or is it an instantaneous change?
And your Cosmological Constant was not just abandoned by Einstein - he denounced it in the strongest language possible, calling it the Biggest Blunder of his career as a Mathematician. Myself, I agree. This manufacturing of Repulsive Forces which fly in the face of Gravity is Poor Science, to a scientist, but great science to a Mathematician. In spite of Einstein's denunciation - you still continue to use it. You must not have a very high opinion of Einstein. I think he's great, and I completely agree with him on everything. That makes me (alone) Einstein's Disciple. You should get on side with Einstein - you'd probably do better, at least, I recommend it.

What an amazing display of ignorance. Just about everything you've said is wrong. You have no knowledge of stellar formation or processes, and none about cosmology.

AlphaNumeric

01-15-11, 05:12 PM

About your brick, I only said it would tend to do these things. But when your brick lands, I'm sure it will slow down and stop, warm somewhat from being compressed and it might even take up less room, as it compacts. Now you're just back peddling. You failed to explain yourself and failed to realise there's counter examples to your claims and now you're making excuses. That and your use of 'somewhat' just reduces your claims to arm waving vacuous nonsense.

If you can't even manage to explain yourself clearly here why should anyone think you're able to develop coherent physical models?

All the things that would happen to you if you fell into a Black Hole. Actually a black hole would first rip you apart due to tidal forces and vaporise you due to time dilation effects making the universe outside the black hole appear to get brighter and hotter without bound. You'd be reduced to component particles before you got to the singularity.

Did your Univerese come completely evolved, out of the Big Bang? I mean, did stars etc. come ready made out of your big bang, or was it just Hydrogen that came out, or what?The fact you're asking such basic questions shows you haven't read anything about the big bang.

If you're so utterly dishonest to have put in absolutely no effort and yet you make claims about cosmology why should I or anyone else bother to answer your questions? If you can't be fucked to help yourself why should anyone else help you?

Only I happen to know that Planets are made of the remnants of exploded stars, etc. which grew old and died. Now, Earth is five billion years old, and will probably continue on for another 5 billion years or so. That figure of 5 billion years old seems to be a likely enough figure.The age of stars isn't guessed at, its worked out by our understanding of nuclear physics, magnetohydrodynamics, fluid mechanics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, statistical physics, thermodynamics and relativity.

If, as you believe, the Cosmos is only 13 billion years old, it's easy math to see that !3-5= 8.
Now are you going to tell me a star can compact down from a huge cloud of Hydrogen, live it's life to the end, die, and explode into fragments, all in 8 billion years. And how come stars only live for 8 billion years, and planets
(like Earth) live for 10 billion years? There's something seriously wrong with your estimates of the age of the Cosmos.Wow, now we're going from you being dishonest and lazy to just being plain thick. When people say "The Sun has a lifetime of 10 billion years" they mean "The Sun formed with sufficient mass and isotopes ratios that given how gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear physics, fluid mechanics, magnetohydrodynamics and relativity work it'll be able to burn part of itself for 10 billion years, at which time it'll have insufficient fuel to maintain fusion processes and it'll begin to cool and 'die'". The Earth doesn't shine like the Sun, it isn't a star. Hence the notion of 'lifetime' for it isn't the same as the notion of lifetime for a star. The Earth will survive until the death of the Sun, at which point certain physical processes in the Sun will have caused it to expand greatly (into a red giant), altering the gravitational and radiation profiles of the solar system. It'll consume Mercury and Venus and perhaps Earth. If it doesn't it will boil the oceans, unless Earth's orbit changes in such a way as to have it leave the solar system and then it'll freeze over like Pluto.

This is high school stuff. These are things children are taught in school. Hell this stuff is so well known the whole "The Sun is dying!" thing appears in great many works of science fiction.

Another thing, even after one second, even travelling at the Speed of Light, your Big Bang could not possibly be more than 500 million miles wide. That's a finite distance, and my question to you, Mathematician, is how do you go from Finite to Infinite? Is this something that happens only very slowly, or is it an instantaneous change?The BB model doesn't automatically imply the universe is infinite.

And your continued use of 'mathematician' as an attempt to insult me is laughable. I am more of a scientist in every single way than you.

And your Cosmological Constant was not just abandoned by Einstein - he denounced it in the strongest language possible, calling it the Biggest Blunder of his career as a Mathematician. Actually he should have stuck to his guns, because it is a demonstration that a mathematically derived result in physics has later been verified. Another such example would be antimatter. In quantum field theory there's two sets of solutions to the Dirac equation and this made Dirac postulate a partner to the electron and it was found a few years later, the positron.

And Einstein isn't the be all and end all of physics. He did some brilliant things and he did some rubbish things. His views on quantum mechanics few agree with and his attempts at a grand unified theory went nowhere.

Myself, I agree. This manufacturing of Repulsive Forces which fly in the face of Gravity is Poor Science, to a scientist, but great science to a Mathematician. In spite of Einstein's denunciation - you still continue to use it. You must not have a very high opinion of Einstein. I think he's great, and I completely agree with him on everything. I don't believe in canonising anyone. Newton developed calculus and Newtonian gravity but he also believed in Bible codes and alchemy. Just because I think some of his work was good doesn't mean I must agree with it all.

Its funny that you're trying to have a go at me for the fact I don't just blindly follow well known names in science!

That makes me (alone) Einstein's Disciple.And yet you haven't got any knowledge of anything he's ever worked on. Do you know how he constructed the Einstein-Hilbert action? Do you know how he computed modifications to viscosity in suspensions? Do you know how he obtained the notion of dark energy in the first place?

How can you be someone's disciple when you know nothing of what they've done?

You should get on side with Einstein - you'd probably do better, at least, I recommend it.Who precisely are you trying to convince with your last comment, "I recommend it"? You're trying to make it seem like you're on Einstein's side and familiar with his work.

The set of spaces which satisfy R_{ab} = \lambda g_{ab} are known as Einstein manifolds and \lambda is the cosmological constant. Setting it to zero turns off dark energy in a GR construction. My entire PhD was on the structures of the dynamical fields associated to certain Einstein manifolds and all of it was written in the language of general relativity.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're for real or just someone pretending to be exceedingly thick and dishonest. You call yourself Einstein's disciple yet you lack knowledge expected of 14 year olds. You claim to have a theory but you can't model anything. You dismiss cosmology without knowing what cosmologists actually say. You don't know how mathematics gels with physics. You don't understand the requirements of reasoned argument in science. You don't know about evidence for the big bang when its easily available (http://www.google.com/search?&q=evidence+for+big+bang). You talk about 'real scientists' yet you don't know what 'real science' is. You dismiss people with good mathematical grounding in physics yet you lack any kind of grounding in any science, on any level. Did you even manage to pass high school science?

You clearly have no interest in the truth or honesty or rationality, else you'd have at least done some reading.

astrocat

01-16-11, 03:40 PM

Seriously astrocat, you don't seem to have a clue what an experiment is.
But like I said, I'm not talking about any experiment. I'm simply claiming that the early stage of an explosion is an accelerating outward expansion.

Dude, your posts are the least scientific in the thread.
Science isn't a pissing contest. It's not a fight. It's a mutual exploration of the nature of reality.
But your position seems to be to ignore all exploration that seems to disagree with the ideas you've come up with. You dont seem to want to know what reality is - you just want your idea to be right.

Inflate a thermally insulated balloon at alitude, and drop it.
It speeds up, contracts, heats up, and increases in pressure.
What 'knowledge' of physics are you drawing on?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pissing_contest)

Since the 1940s the term has been used as a slang idiomatic phrase describing contests that are "futile or purposeless", especially if waged in a "conspicuously aggressive manner".'The early stageof an explosion?' You remind me of someone watching an experiment to produce Hydrogen by pouring sulphuric acid on zinc, but when the experiment starts, before anyone can upend the tube of sulphuric acid you stop the experiment, saying 'Where's the Hydrogen?' - Please.
As for my idea being right - it's certainly a lot simpler explanation for observed phenomena than you can come up with, and Science prefers the simpler, more fundamental reason every time.
There seems to be a lot of anger in your posts. And pissing contests (Wiki) are what immature boys get up to. That seems about right, in your case.
And what's in this 'thermally insulated ballon,' and how big is it, and how much does it weigh? If you want an answer, let's get some facts here, so we can observe this imaginary balloon to see who's right.
And if you're so sure there was a Big Bang, even after the first second, travelling at the Speed Of Light, it could not have spread more than 500
thousand miles from it's center. That's a Finite distance, and my question to you, is how do you go from Finite to Infinite? Does it happen quickly, or only very slowly over time?

astrocat

01-16-11, 04:32 PM

Yes, you had a lot of mistakes to correct. And why quote it if you reply to nothing.

I asked you to provide a model of the CMB, stellar red shifting and isotope ratios. Until you can do that you have no 'theory', you have a few lines up made up bullshit. A theory in science is one which has made testable predictions which have been tested and verified. You make no testable predictions, you cannot model anything, you have simply guesses and ignorance.

You didn't answer my question. What is 'real scientist' to you? You dismiss me, despite me having both a background of theory and practical application and familiarity with experiment. If you dismiss my scientific background and abilities why should anyone listen to your baseless assertions about science? Why are the ideas of mainstream science, backed up by experiment and observation, okay to ignore but your proclamations, backed up by nothing, should be taken seriously?

You asked about evidence, I reeled off a list of stuff, stuff you'd know about if you'd even read the Wikipedia page on the big bang. You have at your fingertips pretty much the sum of all human knowledge and you haven't taken the 7 second needed to go to Google and type 'evidence for the big bang'. This shows you're either exceedingly intellectually lazy or exceedingly dishonest. Either you know there's information out there you haven't tried to find or you have found it but conveniently ignore it.

You still fail to properly explain what you're talking about. A brick, or any object, will only cool down if the surrounding region is cooler than itself. Its the zero'th law of thermodynamics, heat flows from regions of high temperature to regions of lower temperature. Drop a brick into the Sun and it'll heat up. Drop a brick through the Earth's atmosphere and not only will it heat up due to friction but it'll not always speed up, it'll reach a terminal velocity.

You have some physical setup in your mind which you've been unable to articulate and your failure to grasp how there's a myriad of counter examples to your overly simplistic view of things illustrates how worthless your assertions are. If you can't even explain your thoughts coherently and you know nothing about experiments your conclusions about the nature of the universe aren't likely to be worth listening to. This has nothing to do with (supposedly) needing a PhD to do science, you need to be informed and honest and you're neither.

If you can't answer the questions I've asked you don't bother to reply, as it'll only serve to illustrate your dishonesty further and we've already got plenty of evidence for that.Sorry my last response was cut off, but that's what happened.
Okay, here goes. The CMB is that outer part of the Universe that still has not noticed what is happening at the center. If you let a vacuum cleaner run in a room, it will draw inwards other air in the room, but the air at the walls will be the last to be attracted to the Vacuum cleaner nozzle.
Even after half an hour, the air behind the picture frames might hardly have moved at all. That's the CMB - a model, at least. I already know you'll hate it. Because air is elastic, and so's Gravity.
AS we fall towards the center, we will of course speed up. In this manner, stars in front of us will appear to be moving away from us, and the stars behind us will be showing the same. Their light will be red shifted. Systems when they lose pressure tend to lose pressure evenly. I assume you new that.
Isotope ratios? Well, the first atoms created, in my opinion, would have been the simplest ones - probably only protons, if protons can exist without an electron. I think these protons probably aquired electrons later on. Maybe they came already formed as Hydrogen atoms. But besides being the simplest atom is also the most prolific, as everything in the universe came from this original Hydrogen.
In tonite's Cosmos - or even in the Observable Universe, there are going to be other gasses present, that have evolved from the original Hydrogen, but they will never be as prolific as Hydrogen, though I imagine this could happen at a much later date. Of course there will also be Deuterium and Tritium as well as Helium 3, but in far lesser numbers. These isotopes of Hydrogen are formed only under great pressures and temperatures - as inside a star. And I have to tell you too that I'm not impressed by the language you use.
There are two kinds of Scientist, in my opinion. Modern Scientists and True Scientist. Modern Scientists have no time for any other theory but their backward looking precious Big Bang (which never happened. It was made up by a Belgian Priest, Georges Lemaitre on news that the Observable Universe was expanding.) Modern Scientists will twist and pervert actual observed evidence (COBE) to support their Big Bang. They are short tempered (I blame alcohol) and liable to get vulgar or profane. and make things as complicated as possible, being mostly mathematicians, and they want you to think that you need a PHd to understand the workings of the Cosmos.
True Scientists are prepared to look under any rock for the truth. They crave a theory that is sussinct, easy to understand and looks forward to the future instead of backwards. They are honest and maintain strict standards, being able to spot fabrications, as they are.
Testable predictions? I predict the Speeding Up will increase, the Cooling will increase, the expansion will increase, all exponentially. According to Lee Smolin, in his book on string theory, the expansion is already occuring exponentially.
I see it really wrankles you - that math ain't a Science. But facts are facts, and I know how you hate facts, being a ... nevermind.
Anyway, I hope this goes some way to easing your concerns about me.

Ophiolite

01-16-11, 08:33 PM

AlexG

01-16-11, 10:50 PM

The more he posts, the stupider it gets.

phlogistician

01-17-11, 05:18 AM

Math is not a Science,

Sure it is.

at least it wasn't the last time I checked.

You probably read that in a book, the title of which you made up?

Put a mathematician in charge and you'll come up with a Big Bang that flies in the face of Gravity.

Hmmmm, no, you just don't understand the Big Bang. The fundamental forces may have been unified right at the very beginning, so nteractions not as you imagine.

GR predicts that if all the Universe was gathered together in one place, it would become a Black Hole. Your Big Bang is a Physical impossibiliy.

Physical Impossibility? If you knew anything about Physics, you'd know Physics says it cannot make predictions inside a singularity, so your statement, is unsupported BUNK.

And you think that with a nuclear bomb detonated in Space, your computer is still going to work?

Depends on the type of bomb, it's yields, it's altitude, and location.

The Russians have developed a hand generated computer for just such an event. Sweeping, unsubstantiated, statements - that's you, isn't it?l

Even valves can be damaged by EMP kiddo. So what use is that?

Pete

01-17-11, 05:30 AM

'The early stageof an explosion?' You remind me of someone watching an experiment to produce Hydrogen by pouring sulphuric acid on zinc, but when the experiment starts, before anyone can upend the tube of sulphuric acid you stop the experiment, saying 'Where's the Hydrogen?' - Please.
Still no denial forthcoming. Yet no "admission of defeat" either.

There seems to be a lot of anger in your posts. And pissing contests (Wiki) are what immature boys get up to. That seems about right, in your case.
A pissing contest is certainly immature.

And what's in this 'thermally insulated ballon,' and how big is it, and how much does it weigh? If you want an answer, let's get some facts here, so we can observe this imaginary balloon to see who's right.
The size and weight of a standard party balloon, filled with air.
Knock yourself out.

You might also like to consider a few stellar masses of hydrogen. What happens when it collapses under its own weight?

And if you're so sure there was a Big Bang...
Not my argument, dude. I not immature enough to pretend I'm au fait with cosmology. I'm just here to point out a couple of glaring flaws in your arguments.

Pete

01-17-11, 05:34 AM

While we all derive some satisfaction from pointing out the inconsistencies, errors and blatant stupidity in posts by those ignoramuses like astrocat, surely there comes a time when the troll/idiot should be ignored. Might that not be now?

Good idea.

Ferrous Cranus (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm)
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/ferrouscranus.jpg

Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics.

Pinwheel

01-17-11, 05:58 AM

Im not happy with the Big Bang. I hate existing.

astrocat

01-17-11, 04:15 PM

You say you have a theory. I all I have seen in multiple posts from you are some vaguely expressed, ambiguous, sometimes contradictory statements that have the form of a weak and easily demolished analogy. You have not addressed any aspect of the universe mathematically. You have made no predictions. You have failed to explore the impact of your analogy on any important aspect of cosmology such as early star formation, galaxy formation, cosmic background radiation, etc.

Rather than a theory it is obvious to all that what you have is poorly formulated, badly expressed, wholly unfounded speculation. Are you quite unable to recognise this? Help me understand how you came to be so deluded. You may already have addressed this point earlier, but I would be intrigued to know your educational qualifications and where you acquired your limited, distorted and usually wrong view of the universe.I have a Theory, it's called the Mable Theory. Mable is the Mother of All Black HoLEs, the Black Hole at the Center of the Universe. I predict we will arrive at this Black Hole in 13.8 billion years. This Black Hole is 60 trillion times larger than the Black Hole at the Center of Our Galaxy. I predict that not only the Expansion will be found to be increasing exponentially, as it is according to Lee Smolin in his book on String Theory, but the Cooling Down will also be found to be increasing exponentially.
Mable is approximately 700 trillion years old.
Well, that's enough for predictions, Early Star formation came from Gravity assembling huge Hydrogen clouds, which compressed down until their centers went critical and certain isotopes of Hydrogen fused.
That's how the Early Universe started, from a huge ball of Gravity accreted Hydrogen, that went critical at the center. Now because the center was already compressed (and this applies to star formation too) such an explosion in such a confined Space caused other parts ofthe Cloud to go critical, resulting in a Cosmos that evolved slowly, starting from the core outwards,
gradually falling towards the center, faster and faster of course.
Now, this Speeding Up led to a Loss of Pressure (Bernoulli) and the Loss of Pressure led to Expansion (Boyle) and the Expansion led to Cooling Down as explained by the Joules-Thomson Effect. In addition, the Universe is Clumping Up, again - exponentially.
In my model of the Cosmos, the nozzle of a working Central Vac (CV) laid in the center of a room, there is a vortex at this nozzle. It is a zone of furious activity, and particles here collide and become elecctrically charged. Salesmen used to delight in showing customers how the Clumps went by the view port on the nozzle. From a roomful of dust particles, your CV will make Clumps, and paradoxically, in this zone of least density, are formed the biggest clumps.
So it is at the Center of the Universe, a void - about 5 million times the size of the Observable Universe. (We are becoming less dense).
Here, Balck Holes are forced to eat their accretion discs, or else risk having them ripped off in furious Hi-Speed battles with other Black Holes.
Here there is no light - it can't survive. It's cold - everything is in its Boez-Einstein state, where matter morphs but mass remains.
Here there are only Super Massive Black Holes. They rule this void, until, of course, one by one, they all fall into Mable.
I almost think these Black Holes are intelligent, the way they order their meals into long strings of matter that they accrete one by one.
Galaxies are merely the accretion rings of Black Holes. The sun (Sol) accretes Planets, just as Black Holes accrete Stars - it's all due to Gravity. What do you think Keeps the Moon in orbit around Earth? Dark Energy? - please! It's gravity, and I'm surprised you need me to tell you that.
These repulsive forces were manufactured - they don't exist. Gravity exists, and it's Universal Gravity that operates the Universe.
The CBR is merely that outside part of the GasCloud that hasn't yet noticed what is happening at the center. Gravity, like air, is elastic, and it will take time for the CBR to start moving.
Our Cosmos grows (like a Galaxy) when it passes through a particularly rich (with dust and gasses) part, and shrinks in a Void. Inthis sense, limited as it is, the Cosmos can expand. Otherwise, like everything relse in the Cosmos, we're going in. We are in a Big Crunch, always have been.
Deluded? It's you who have been juiced in it, my friend. You have fallen for the idea of a Belgian Priest who heard the Universe was expanding and decided there had been a Big Bang. Einstein later said of this Priest that he had 'a woeful lack of Physics,' and I agree. I agree with everything Einstein said, including that the Cosmological constant was the biggest Blunder of his carreer as a Mathematician. This came shortly after he married a Physicist, who I think explained to him that the manufacturing of repulsive forces was okay in Math, but would be considered Poor Science in a Physics Lab.
You were told there was a Big Bang and you believed it - you'll probably die believing this fabrication, and Dark Energy too, but I, fortunately escaped - I can still think for myself. I have tons of ideas.
Once, I found myself able to disembody - to rise up out of myself. In the spirit world, I asked to meet God, and found I didn't like him. That got me thinking about other stuff, including the Cosmos, how it's behaving just like any other falling object, Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure. But it's also Clumping Up, you see - and that spells Vortex.
An axis to the Universe was discovered by the Borge-Norling team, by hooking up astronomers around the world, and others swear they can see an axis in the W-Map picture.
If there's an axis, then I'm right. The Cosmos is a Vortex, probably shaped a lot like our Milky Way, with four arms etc etc. Of course, Modern Scientists will probably try to suppress it, if an axis is confirmed. Hope that explains things a little, let me know how you feel.

astrocat

01-17-11, 04:22 PM

What an amazing display of ignorance. Just about everything you've said is wrong. You have no knowledge of stellar formation or processes, and none about cosmology.These are all bald statements Alex G. If I'm wrong, please take the trouble to explain where, and offer me your own viewpoint. Just sitting there typing 'You're Wrong, you're wrong,' doesn't advance anything except my frustration at your posts.
Okay, if you don't like what I'm saying - choose something, anything onwhich to challenge me.
Stars form from huge Hydrogen clouds that compact down to a center that goes critical. You don't like that - why don't you tell me how you think Stars were formed - or are you going to tell me they came already formed from the Big Bang, your instat, 'Poof, just like that' Universe.

Motor Daddy

01-17-11, 04:27 PM

I have a Theory, it's called the Mable Theory. Mable is the Mother of All Black HoLEs, the Black Hole at the Center of the Universe. I predict we will arrive at this Black Hole in 13.8 billion years. This Black Hole is 60 trillion times larger than the Black Hole at the Center of Our Galaxy. I predict that not only the Expansion will be found to be increasing exponentially, as it is according to Lee Smolin in his book on String Theory, but the Cooling Down will also be found to be increasing exponentially.
Mable is approximately 700 trillion years old.
Well, that's enough for predictions, Early Star formation came from Gravity assembling huge Hydrogen clouds, which compressed down until their centers went critical and certain isotopes of Hydrogen fused.
That's how the Early Universe started, from a huge ball of Gravity accreted Hydrogen, that went critical at the center. Now because the center was already compressed (and this applies to star formation too) such an explosion in such a confined Space caused other parts ofthe Cloud to go critical, resulting in a Cosmos that evolved slowly, starting from the core outwards,
gradually falling towards the center, faster and faster of course.
Now, this Speeding Up led to a Loss of Pressure (Bernoulli) and the Loss of Pressure led to Expansion (Boyle) and the Expansion led to Cooling Down as explained by the Joules-Thomson Effect. In addition, the Universe is Clumping Up, again - exponentially.
In my model of the Cosmos, the nozzle of a working Central Vac (CV) laid in the center of a room, there is a vortex at this nozzle. It is a zone of furious activity, and particles here collide and become elecctrically charged. Salesmen used to delight in showing customers how the Clumps went by the view port on the nozzle. From a roomful of dust particles, your CV will make Clumps, and paradoxically, in this zone of least density, are formed the biggest clumps.
So it is at the Center of the Universe, a void - about 5 million times the size of the Observable Universe. (We are becoming less dense).
Here, Balck Holes are forced to eat their accretion discs, or else risk having them ripped off in furious Hi-Speed battles with other Black Holes.
Here there is no light - it can't survive. It's cold - everything is in its Boez-Einstein state, where matter morphs but mass remains.
Here there are only Super Massive Black Holes. They rule this void, until, of course, one by one, they all fall into Mable.
I almost think these Black Holes are intelligent, the way they order their meals into long strings of matter that they accrete one by one.
Galaxies are merely the accretion rings of Black Holes. The sun (Sol) accretes Planets, just as Black Holes accrete Stars - it's all due to Gravity. What do you think Keeps the Moon in orbit around Earth? Dark Energy? - please! It's gravity, and I'm surprised you need me to tell you that.
These repulsive forces were manufactured - they don't exist. Gravity exists, and it's Universal Gravity that operates the Universe.
The CBR is merely that outside part of the GasCloud that hasn't yet noticed what is happening at the center. Gravity, like air, is elastic, and it will take time for the CBR to start moving.
Our Cosmos grows (like a Galaxy) when it passes through a particularly rich (with dust and gasses) part, and shrinks in a Void. Inthis sense, limited as it is, the Cosmos can expand. Otherwise, like everything relse in the Cosmos, we're going in. We are in a Big Crunch, always have been.
Deluded? It's you who have been juiced in it, my friend. You have fallen for the idea of a Belgian Priest who heard the Universe was expanding and decided there had been a Big Bang. Einstein later said of this Priest that he had 'a woeful lack of Physics,' and I agree. I agree with everything Einstein said, including that the Cosmological constant was the biggest Blunder of his carreer as a Mathematician. This came shortly after he married a Physicist, who I think explained to him that the manufacturing of repulsive forces was okay in Math, but would be considered Poor Science in a Physics Lab.
You were told there was a Big Bang and you believed it - you'll probably die believing this fabrication, and Dark Energy too, but I, fortunately escaped - I can still think for myself. I have tons of ideas.
Once, I found myself able to disembody - to rise up out of myself. In the spirit world, I asked to meet God, and found I didn't like him. That got me thinking about other stuff, including the Cosmos, how it's behaving just like any other falling object, Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure. But it's also Clumping Up, you see - and that spells Vortex.
An axis to the Universe was discovered by the Borge-Norling team, by hooking up astronomers around the world, and others swear they can see an axis in the W-Map picture.
If there's an axis, then I'm right. The Cosmos is a Vortex, probably shaped a lot like our Milky Way, with four arms etc etc. Of course, Modern Scientists will probably try to suppress it, if an axis is confirmed. Hope that explains things a little, let me know how you feel.

You have it exactly backwards. Mass doesn't get more dense by coming together into a smaller volume, mass gets less dense by spreading out into a greater volume, hence, I say, "mass evolves to space!"

Mass gets less dense over time. The Earth came from the sun, like all the planets did. ;)

The second law of thermodynamics has my back.

astrocat

01-17-11, 04:32 PM

Still no denial forthcoming. Yet no "admission of defeat" either.

A pissing contest is certainly immature.

The size and weight of a standard party balloon, filled with air.
Knock yourself out.

You might also like to consider a few stellar masses of hydrogen. What happens when it collapses under its own weight?

Not my argument, dude. I not immature enough to pretend I'm au fait with cosmology. I'm just here to point out a couple of glaring flaws in your arguments.I explained how I feel about your interrupted experiment. Either you can see it or you can't. Either way, I'm tired of trying to explain it to you.
Yeah, well I'm mature.
Okay your party ballon filled with air. Now, you didn't give any location for this experiment, so I'm going to choose the surface of the Moon, where your party ballon, if it could withstand the vacuum, would fall just like a feather,
which would fall just like a hammer - or a rubber ball, Speeding Up, tending to Cool Down, Expand and lose Pressure.
I like the rubber ball, myself, as it behaves like the others but the effects are more easy to see. When it lands, it will of course Slow Down and Stop, Pete, it will warm and compress, becoming more compact as it does so.

prometheus

01-17-11, 04:37 PM

I have a Theory, it's called the Mable Theory. Mable is the Mother of All Black HoLEs, the Black Hole at the Center of the Universe. I predict we will arrive at this Black Hole in 13.8 billion years. This Black Hole is 60 trillion times larger than the Black Hole at the Center of Our Galaxy. I predict that not only the Expansion will be found to be increasing exponentially, as it is according to Lee Smolin in his book on String Theory, but the Cooling Down will also be found to be increasing exponentially.
Mable is approximately 700 trillion years old.
Well, that's enough for predictions, Early Star formation came from Gravity assembling huge Hydrogen clouds, which compressed down until their centers went critical and certain isotopes of Hydrogen fused.
That's how the Early Universe started, from a huge ball of Gravity accreted Hydrogen, that went critical at the center. Now because the center was already compressed (and this applies to star formation too) such an explosion in such a confined Space caused other parts ofthe Cloud to go critical, resulting in a Cosmos that evolved slowly, starting from the core outwards,
gradually falling towards the center, faster and faster of course.
Now, this Speeding Up led to a Loss of Pressure (Bernoulli) and the Loss of Pressure led to Expansion (Boyle) and the Expansion led to Cooling Down as explained by the Joules-Thomson Effect. In addition, the Universe is Clumping Up, again - exponentially.
In my model of the Cosmos, the nozzle of a working Central Vac (CV) laid in the center of a room, there is a vortex at this nozzle. It is a zone of furious activity, and particles here collide and become elecctrically charged. Salesmen used to delight in showing customers how the Clumps went by the view port on the nozzle. From a roomful of dust particles, your CV will make Clumps, and paradoxically, in this zone of least density, are formed the biggest clumps.
So it is at the Center of the Universe, a void - about 5 million times the size of the Observable Universe. (We are becoming less dense).
Here, Balck Holes are forced to eat their accretion discs, or else risk having them ripped off in furious Hi-Speed battles with other Black Holes.
Here there is no light - it can't survive. It's cold - everything is in its Boez-Einstein state, where matter morphs but mass remains.
Here there are only Super Massive Black Holes. They rule this void, until, of course, one by one, they all fall into Mable.
I almost think these Black Holes are intelligent, the way they order their meals into long strings of matter that they accrete one by one.
Galaxies are merely the accretion rings of Black Holes. The sun (Sol) accretes Planets, just as Black Holes accrete Stars - it's all due to Gravity. What do you think Keeps the Moon in orbit around Earth? Dark Energy? - please! It's gravity, and I'm surprised you need me to tell you that.
These repulsive forces were manufactured - they don't exist. Gravity exists, and it's Universal Gravity that operates the Universe.
The CBR is merely that outside part of the GasCloud that hasn't yet noticed what is happening at the center. Gravity, like air, is elastic, and it will take time for the CBR to start moving.
Our Cosmos grows (like a Galaxy) when it passes through a particularly rich (with dust and gasses) part, and shrinks in a Void. Inthis sense, limited as it is, the Cosmos can expand. Otherwise, like everything relse in the Cosmos, we're going in. We are in a Big Crunch, always have been.
Deluded? It's you who have been juiced in it, my friend. You have fallen for the idea of a Belgian Priest who heard the Universe was expanding and decided there had been a Big Bang. Einstein later said of this Priest that he had 'a woeful lack of Physics,' and I agree. I agree with everything Einstein said, including that the Cosmological constant was the biggest Blunder of his carreer as a Mathematician. This came shortly after he married a Physicist, who I think explained to him that the manufacturing of repulsive forces was okay in Math, but would be considered Poor Science in a Physics Lab.
You were told there was a Big Bang and you believed it - you'll probably die believing this fabrication, and Dark Energy too, but I, fortunately escaped - I can still think for myself. I have tons of ideas.
Once, I found myself able to disembody - to rise up out of myself. In the spirit world, I asked to meet God, and found I didn't like him. That got me thinking about other stuff, including the Cosmos, how it's behaving just like any other falling object, Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure. But it's also Clumping Up, you see - and that spells Vortex.
An axis to the Universe was discovered by the Borge-Norling team, by hooking up astronomers around the world, and others swear they can see an axis in the W-Map picture.
If there's an axis, then I'm right. The Cosmos is a Vortex, probably shaped a lot like our Milky Way, with four arms etc etc. Of course, Modern Scientists will probably try to suppress it, if an axis is confirmed. Hope that explains things a little, let me know how you feel.

If we were being pulled towards a black hole, wouldn't we observe a preference for one direction in the distribution of galactic velocities relative to ours? Since we observe that galaxies recede from us and their velocity is proportional to their distance from us, I say your "theory" has been observationally disproven. I'd like to quote this again, because it's very funny:

Well, that's enough for predictions

lol! :D