Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end

I like that, this is what I call simplify the model if it start to get too complex.

If it is correct then it will not only fit what we observe but also give us new ways of looking at things.

Although the thoughts are 'simple' I'm pretty sure the mathematics won't be and some formulas will need an update to take a few 'lost' constants into account.

VestaR, according to this article, the model indicates that the universe is cyclic, so it has no age.

i have a lame question. if the universe may contract, what happens to the time and the third law of thermodynamics? does it flow backward? does it flow backward different way then when it was expanding?

Same old question, but I have to ask: if the Universe is timeless, why don't we see evidence of other civilizations that have figured it out, beat the odds and succeeded in vastly expanding their sphere (or 3-sphere) of influence. There must be millions of them, no?

I'm not sure I understand the difference between "length" and "space".

It sounds like there should be a very large change in c if this theory is anything like correct. But all the evidence so far seems to be saying c has not changed in billions of years. We seem to have pegged the age of the universe at around 14 billion years and the age of accelerated expansion at around 6 billion years. But all the evidence for at least that time frame of 6 billion years seems to point to an unchanging c. How is he reconciling these two diametrically opposed views?

@hagureinu
Actually, as I've read, entropy has been shown to keep increasing even when plotted backwards or forwards through time. This model's universe may keep cycling to and fro until it succumbs to heat death.

A universe with no beginning and no end means that the current time is already at infinity, which is disturbing. But it is less disturbing than the Big Bang theory, which has two problems: is it really possible to "burst" an entire universe from zero volume (hence, infinite density) in a meaningful way, and second, what was before the BB? And even if "our time" started at the BB, some Objective time must have existed before that, so that the BB happened at a secific instant of that time.

What I am SURE of is, after a couple of generations, our notions of the BB, and black holes having a singularity at their center, will both be considered as ridiculous as a flat earth.

Meanwhile, I hope more scientists will seriously try to find alternatives to our current BB, dark matter, dark energy, etc. I'd love to live in a universe where I feel comfortable.

Time having no beginning or end, is in essence a model at steady state, right? So is Shu just building off of Hoyle?

I'm not sure how this fits observations at all. The universe is accelerating as it's expanding, moreover if the universe has "always existed" the stars would have burned out long ago. This is bunk.

Anyone read the actual article yet, to see how it deals with the new theory potentially explaining microwave background radiation levels..?

Well the wiki article on c-decay is a bit wrong in its history. C-decay was first proposed by Gheury de Bray, in 1927, published in Nature. Setterfield's work is largely based on the rate of change in the atomic clock and the c-decay being equivalent, while the orbital clock has not altered (no changes in gravitational constant have been observerd).

If c-decay has occured, then your watching everything in space in slo-mo at this point from Earth. The farther away from earth, the slower everying will appear.

If you stretch space, you will also stretch the matter and light, as they occupy space. Which the Bible claims space was stretched.

So the difference then between Shu and creationism, would depend largely on if there is a beginning/end then?

Can't quite grasp this hypothesis fully yet, but I'm all for any theory that gets rid of "Dark Energy" (tm) which seems to me to be patent nonsense!

if the universe has "always existed" the stars would have burned out long ago. This is bunk.

IMO the galaxies are evaporating and condensing into streaks of dark matter somewhere else. Later the dark matter streaks are condensing into clouds of interstellar gas and new galaxies again.

So....normal matter is transforming into dark matter? Do you have anything close to a theory based on observation to support that at all? How were you answering his question in any way?

Unrelated to this, I wish you grew up in America so I could understand half of what you are trying to say. I like the way you brainstorm, but your grammar is unreadable at times.

So what in the theory will halt expansion and make the universe start to contract again?

Also is there some magic included which replenishes the hydrogen in the universe to let stars keep burning forever?

What I am SURE of is, after a couple of generations, our notions of the BB, and black holes having a singularity at their center, will both be considered as ridiculous as a flat earth.

Agreed.

When you give yourself the liberty of treating constants as variables you can start creating models that fit pretty much anything. Now it's
all well and good that Prof. Shu's model solves three big problems in cosmology (Big Bang singularity, cosmic acceleration/CC, and the flat
horizon), but it does so by creating problems that are far worse, IMO.

His paper is 2x spaced, so it's really only 12 pgs; a quick read. In it he ends up with an eternal, expanding universe, albeit one that
alternates between acceleration and deceleration (note, NOT contraction). This isn't xactly "steady state", but has the same problems.

As an infinity of time has taken place before any given moment in Shu's universe you are always in the end state of the processes allowed for in that universe. As insectking has mentioned, this means the universe would have succumbed to heat death and it would have done so an infinity of time ago...

...with most of the matter having been swallowed by black holes and the BHs having evaporated away as Hawking radiation. Anything not swallowed by BHs would have quantum tunneled to iron. And if protons have any chance at all of decaying, all that iron would be gone as well. (In case anyone wonders, he doesn't bring up cosmic regeneration and things like "C-fields" to avoid this.) Maybe Prof. Shu simply needs a new pair of glasses?

The other catastrophic problem with his model is that to the best of our experimental knowledge, alpha (the fine structure constant from which we get c) hasn't changed in parts per billion in the last 14 billion years. There's no evidence that G has changed either, which would have caused changes in stellar physics and chemistry among other things. Sounds like somebody really needed to publish or perish.

How is this model reconciled with the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Does the overall entropy of the universe be constant? If the universe has been around for eternity then it must. If so how? Does this mean that we have an infinite source of energy available for work?

Interesting... How would this model be reconciled with things like the cosmic microwave background radiation and the fact that the universe appears to be 13.7 billion years old.

...with most of the matter having been swallowed by black holes and the BHs having evaporated away as Hawking radiation. Anything not swallowed by BHs would have quantum tunneled to iron. And if protons have any chance at all of decaying, all that iron would be gone as well. (In case anyone wonders, he doesn't bring up cosmic regeneration and things like "C-fields" to avoid this.) Maybe Prof. Shu simply needs a new pair of glasses?

I don't think this model has problem with Hawkings radiation, because h is not constant in it, so radiation
would be much slower at earlier stages.

My problem is that there is no attempt to show how constants k,tau and nu are related to fit parameters
mu and beta obtained from fitting the Hubble diagram.
So we are left hanging without explanation how to get
these fundamental constants, and also how to find at what moment of cosmic time are we at the moment.
If this is not possible just from that data alone,
what data is needed?

CORRECTION
How is this model reconciled with the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Is the overall entropy of the universe constant? If the universe has been around for eternity then it must. If so how? Does this mean that we have an infinite source of energy available for work?

...with most of the matter having been swallowed by black holes and the BHs having evaporated away as Hawking radiation.

I don't think this model has problem with Hawkings radiation, because h is not constant in it, so radiation would be much slower at earlier stages.

Nither do I, but I don't even know how to distinguish between earlier and later stages in his model. As far as I can tell every stage would have to be the latest possible stage, except he dosen't seem to treat it that way.

My problem is that there is no attempt to show how constants k, tau and nu are related to fit parameters mu and beta obtained from fitting the Hubble diagram. So we are left hanging without explanation how to get these fundamental constants, and also how to find at what moment of cosmic time are we at the moment.

Agreed, even though section four of his paper is dedicated to the redshift and data fitting, this gets pretty much swept under the rug.

Didn't we learn that arbitrary constants give rise to unrealistic and incongruent results?

This is the steady state blunder reborn. I think he is on the right track in a few areas, but then he goes right down the tubes with an assertion that a dimension of space-time no longer being a dimension due to antrocentric observational difficulty. He's effectively smashed up the relevance of Time within expanitive equations.

When you give yourself the liberty of treating constants as variables you can start creating models that fit pretty much anything. Now it's
all well and good that Prof. Shu's model solves three big problems in cosmology (Big Bang singularity, cosmic acceleration/CC, and the flat
horizon), but it does so by creating problems that are far worse, IMO.

I agree with you here regarding models. Shu creates problems in essence because his model assumes no beginning or end. Which is what Skeptic argues as well.

Remember though that Einstien didnt state the velocity of light was simply constant. The 2nd postulate states that light is "always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity (c) that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

It is simply independent of its source's velocity.

I have a feeling the time convert to space is right.

Is the overall entropy of the universe constant? If the universe has been around for eternity then it must. If so how?

Quite easily. One half of observable Universe (this one smaller then the human creatures) expands and it gains entropy. The remaining one collapses due its gravity into more dense state, thus balancing entropy of Universe. Everyone can observe it.

From dense aether theory follows, the middle of the entropic scale would be defined exactly by wavelength of cosmic microwave noise. Universe should exhibit red shift, when being observed in shorter wavelengths - and blue shift for longer wavelengths, for example the radiowaves. Nothing actually expands or collapses here, though - it's a geometric phenomena resulting from transverse wave spreading through random inhomogeneous environment. You can observe this effect during heavy rain as a dark Alexander's band between primary and secondary rainbows. The dense rain droplets are playing the role of CMB noise here.

...assertion that a dimension of space-time no longer being a dimension due to antrocentric observational difficulty...

Actually the same phenomena we can observe at the water surface - every surface ripple disperses during spreading along it and it converts itself into longitudinal waves, which are spreading through extra-dimensions of underwater. The water surface is an analogy of space-time here. As the result, every observer can see only limited portion of his local space-time, like the observer of landscape under fog.

http://scienceali...ples.jpg

At the boundary of visibility scope (so called the event horizon of Universe) the spatial dimension effectively changes into temporal one and vice-versa, because transverse surface ripples doesn't spread along water surface anymore. I explained it here at least ten times already - and some guys still cannot comprehend it...

..he's effectively smashed up the relevance of Time within expanitive equations...

I dunno, what the "expanitive equations" are supposed to be - but I know, some people never admit new ideas - no matter, whether they're supported by logics of transparent analogies (in this case they're just screaming "shut up and give us the math!") - or whether they're supported with formal math (in this case they simply don't understand the whole subject at all...).

Actually your religious stance is supported with scientific research too, because it was observed many times, when the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people simply try to reason it away.

http://www.guardi...evidence

What do people do when confronted with scientific evidence that challenges their pre-existing view? Often they will try to ignore it, intimidate it, buy it off, sue it for libel or reason it away. You're just a model example of this behavior.

Shouldn't cosmological theories providing better fits for observed data, also be measured by their ability to unify with quantum mechanics?

..I'm all for any theory that gets rid of "Dark Energy" (tm) which seems to me to be patent nonsense!

Actually the term "Dark energy" is more clever, then it appears - it contains an induction, this phenomena is related to dark matter with energy-matter duality. When you would sit outside of black hole, you would observe it like the matter, when you would sit inside of it, you would perceive it as an ocean of energy, i.e. the vacuum. It means, the energy and matter are related mutually via duality of intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives, which is known in mainstream physics as an AdC/CFT duality.

If you observe the spreading of surface ripples carefully, you would see, how every source of energy at the water surface appears, like being surrounded with are of more dense water, which slows down the spreading of surface ripples due the dispersion. I.e. the effect responsible for red shift is actually the source of dark matter phenomena too.

The above model explains, why Pioneer anomaly attributed to dark matter manifests itself by weak deceleration, which is the product of Hubble constant and speed of light. It's simply the result of omni-directional space-time expansion, which cosmologists are considering many years - but the relativists aren't willing to incorporate it into their equations.

But from the inner perspective the dark matter effect would lead into faster expansion of space-time between galaxies, i.e. it will be observed as a dark energy, instead. We can actually see, how surface ripples are changing their wavelength during dispersion at the water surface with increasing speed, i.e. not linearly.

http://scienceali...ples.jpg

In this way, we could predict the existence of both red shift, both dark energy and dark matter just by starring at the water surface.

http://www.space....712.html

Time is something we made up based on an observation
of the universe around us, over these many years we
see things related to time we did not expect.

Thus time is just the best explanation we have
for now for what we observe.

Sometime in the distant future when science is
more important than the myriad number of religions
and sports we may build a true giant space telescope
out at Lagrange point 5 and see further into the
universe than ever before and find that the
universe is a lot bigger than we thought.

Much longer after that if we do not destroy
ourselves we may find the Universe is infinite.

It literally exists forever in all directions
without end.

For those who might jump to call this insane
I offer that most ppl thought the world was
flat and that the earth was the center of
our solar system.

I also point that the Wright brothers flew planes
for years before the majority of ppl believed it
was not a hoax.

Science has not learned all there is to know yet.

Shouldn't cosmological theories providing better fits for observed data, also be measured by their ability to unify with quantum mechanics?

Yes - but it requires the understanding, Universe at the cosmological scale doesn't appear like relativistic object, but like quantum object with time arrow fragmented into number of event horizons. Actually this model is symmetric with respect to time dimension and we could use it for prediction of periodicity of phase transitions at the quantum level.

Even the water surface model is symmetric with respect to distance scale, because surface waves are dispersing to longitudinal ones not only at large distances, but at the small distances too by Brownian noise. Actually every observer of surface ripples will face the dispersion both with using of very long waves, both with using of very short waves for observation of very tiny objects. The small objects at the event horizon of small scale will be as fuzzy, as those very distant ones.

..as an infinity of time has taken place before any given moment in Shu's universe you are always in the end state of the processes allowed for in that universe...

I didn't analyzed Shu's model carefully (I know, what to expect from Universe models in future), but in dense aether model you're always in the middle of Universe expansion/collapse like man holding lantern in the fog. Wherever this linkboy will move to, he will always remain exactly at the middle of volume area illuminated. Dense aether model is deeply relativistic in the opposite way, in which sparse aether always violates the relativity (which is why it was rejected, after all).

The cosmological distances are illustrating the past of Universe expansion in short-wavelength light, its future collapse in long wavelength light. At the quantum scale we can see the future of Universe expansion in short-wavelength light, its past in long-wavelength light. Now you can start to think about consequences of this model.

Shu creates problems in essence because his model assumes no beginning or end.

I don't want to repeat all mistakes and to say, aether model is a final solution of all causual problems, which we have with Universe.

But the absence of future or past is actually the feature of this model, because every assumption of some origin or end just brings up inevitable question: "OK - and, ..how it all occurred? What happened/will happen before/next?" Ooops...

Actually the random value is the only value, which doesn't bring any further question about its reasoning. Every fixed value (including the zero one) will bring future question: "and why just this value? Why not some other one?"

We should learn to appreciate the randomness, which the mathematicians are hating so much. BTW In dense aether model the question of origin is ill-defined, because Universe has an infinite number of past and futures in it.

Here's a consideration that I've never heard dealt with before: what about the currently observed expansion of the universe- is it possible that it is just the winding-down of inflation, and could it, in fact, be slowing down?

Has there actually been an observable, quantifiable increase in the velocity of expansion over the last 50 or so years?

..observable, quantifiable increase in the velocity of expansion over the last 50 or so years?

The red shift can be actually measured just above the 40+ MPc scale. At the scope of fifty light years you cannot observe any trend in interstellar motion at all. The closest Andromeda galaxy is over 2.5 millions light years distant and it nears us.

http://antwrp.gsf..._big.jpg

Second Law of Thermodynamics repealed? Physical phenomena no longer irreversable? I guess time flows backwards in Black Holes? Once we're all pulled through, everything repeats? ...now I KNOW I am in HELL! :-)

If this is true, could expansion / contraction be a local phenomena varying across space-time-mass? Is the universe foamy in the scale we live in; say out to a few billion light years or less?

What ever the veracity of his claim, it sure is subtle and beautiful.

It's not the first model of cyclic Universe - and definitely not the very last one. You should be surprised before eighty years...

http://en.wikiped...ic_model

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://www.metare...p-30.asp

Interesting, but if this theory were true then how to do explain David Spergel's picture that NASA took after The Big Bang.

Here's a link to the image
http://carpiber.f..._300.jpg

In his "Cosmological Considerations of the General Theory of Relativity", Einstein theorized that the net effect of the counteracting forces of expansion and gravity should remain the same if the amount of matter in the universe stays the same.

With no consensus of evidence to the contrary, I think I'll go out on a limb and agree with Einstein. Old Al tended to be right about stuff like this, besides the concept of "Dark Energy" seems absurd to me!

Since most people and modern physics haven't a clue what time is, any references to it by them are BS and are probably inherently inaccurate or just wrong.

This new theory has the ring of truth to it, or at least much more so than the current theories.

It's not the first model of cyclic Universe - and definitely not the very last one.

It's NOT cyclic. Read the bloody paper!

@hagureinu
Actually, as I've read, entropy has been shown to keep increasing even when plotted backwards or forwards through time. This model's universe may keep cycling to and fro until it succumbs to heat death.

You are correct about entropy increasing even if plotted backwards in time, at least according to physicist Brian Greene.

always had problems with it,I mean if the universe was expanding what was it expanding into,the universe?or into nothing,if it expands into nothing then that nothing is something so what is it?,
and we can only percieve the universe on the frequency of the sences that we have so we are limited

You are correct about entropy increasing even if plotted backwards in time, at least according to physicist Brian Greene.

Only under the "Time as a force" model. Under the "Time as a dimension model" entropy has a direction.

At least that's what I gleaned of his viewpoint from "The Elegant Universe"

always had problems with it,I mean if the universe was expanding what was it expanding into,the universe?or into nothing,if it expands into nothing then that nothing is something so what is it?

Why does truly empty space have to be material in any way? If there is an edge and matter is expanding into "it," why couldn't matter be moving into an "area" that is a total vacuum? From my ignorant layperson point of view, astrophysicists seem to be making this concept more complicated than it needs to be. I guess it's the theory of gravity curving spacetime. Apparently, spacetime just doesn't make sense to me. If we detected gravity particles, could that disprove the existence of relativisic spacetime?

some one a tell us one day skultch,for the time being we'll have to wonder,and just make do with that.

Apparently, spacetime just doesn't make sense to me.

3D spacetime is a foamy analogy of 2D water surface, which exhibits pair of spatial directions (dimensions), in which energy spreads independently and one time dimension with "arrow", i.e. direction perpendicular to water surface along density gradient of water. Waves and bubbles can move along water surfaces, i.e. at the space, but not through it, i.e. not through time. This model gives perfect meaning in relativity, because light is spreading through water surface along fastest path in the same way, like through space-time along geodesics. And it explains, why spatial dimensions have no arrow with compare to time dimension. If physicists would use dense aether theory, then the concept of space-time would be explained in the kindergartens as a quite natural concept in the same way, like heliocentric model appears natural for us.

If we detected gravity particles, could that disprove the existence of relativistic spacetime?

There is no reason to "disprove it" (albeit concept of gravitons and quantization of gravity doesn't play well with general relativity). There are only good reasons for its understanding: this concept plays well with both equations of relativity, both with illustrative analogies of dense aether model. Space-time is simply density gradient of many another density gradients: it serves as a tray for spreading of transverse waves, the light waves in particular. What we could get, if we would "disprove" it? We should explain, why some equations and models are playing so well with this concept anyway.

Note that the tiny surface ripples are spreading along water surface independently to the motion/reference frame of underwater - which explains, why light waves aren't affected with motion of environment - only subtle drag, which is known as the Lense-Thirring effect, can be detected there.

You are correct about entropy increasing even if plotted backwards in time

This is a logical fallacy, until time arrow is defined just by increasing of entropy. This may be true only if you would use another definition of time arrow. But which other definition of time arrow actually violates the entropic time arrow?

Why does truly empty space have to be material in any way?

Actually observable matter is formed with space-time gradients, too. We have no other explanation for material of matter, then just foam of heavily compacted and curved space-time gradients. Therefore I don't see nothing wrong about claim, space-time is the same matter conceptually, like for example water in the pond. Inside of material particles the same vacuum exists, like inside of cosmic space.

http://www.newsvi...ace-time

Actually every model of Universe without beginning and end requires implicit definition of space-time. Space-time is formed just with another space-times in infinitely nested fractal way - if it wouldn't, we could find the origin of Universe.

Which is not reason for not to look for it anyway, indeed.

@Jigga

98% of your comments that I have read are either over my head or are nonsense. Could you just tell me what the traditional theory is instead of spewing your aether theory in every.....single.....post....... PLEASE?

Traditional theory of general relativity models motion of matter along geodesics as a Hamiltonian flow of energy through space-time. Actually such model will not tell you very much, if you don't know, Hamilton mechanics describes the laws of optics of inhomogeneous environment with gradients of refraction index.

http://en.wikiped...an_flows

Now we can put the question: how the heck is possible, particle of matter is traveling through curved space-time along the same fastest path, like the particle of light is spreading through density gradient of matter?

So, the burden of "proof" remains.
From what I can tell, it appears that this is an internally consistent model, but I wonder how it will hold up to rigorous testing.

Having problems in the standard model just "disappear" computationally smacks of cheating, but that remains to be seen.

Have they merely managed to derive several fudge-factor constants, or are they really on to reality here?

To put it another way- does making a problem disappear computationally make it disappear observationally?

..does making a problem disappear computationally make it disappear observationally?

For example the path of planets observed doesn't follow the geocentric model very well. But we can ad some epicycles and their parameters into model. After then the difference between observations and computations can be decreased bellow level of observational errors.

Do you see some problem with such approach?

It is about time that cosmology shook off its superstitions and sought practical provable theories that were not devoid of 80% of the matter needed to support them.
All systems are simple.
Complexity is a consequence of the interaction of simple systems.
We should be grateful to Shu and others of his ilk.

The Infinite Universe vs the Myth of the Big Bang

http://journalofc...gy4.html

It is about time that cosmology shook off its superstitions and sought practical provable theories that were not devoid of 80% of the matter needed to support them.

Scientific theories are not "provable". (Mathematical theorems may be proved, of course.) Scientific theories may be confirmed by experiments/observations or they may be disproved.

Btw, why don't you have an accessible user profile?

http://google.com...ogle.com

I don't see nothing wrong about claim

Cretin can't multiply two negatives.

Scientific theories are not "provable". (Mathematical theorems may be proved, of course.) Scientific theories may be confirmed by experiments/observations or they may be disproved.

prove < probe
Theories must be proven by definition, you lackwit shyster. Mathematical theorems are /solved/.

Theories must be proven by definition, you lackwit shyster. Mathematical theorems are /solved/.

Your first comment is quite "impressive". Why does PhysOrg attract you?

listen clever people,I can see you all getting off on your cleverness,especialy jigga,now wouldnt it be better to just say I dont know because as you are proving how clever you are,the real mr clever is drinking his tea preparing his cleverness in an extremely clever way,and when it pops out everybody who thought they was extremely clever is going to think why am I such a fool,so beware clever people.

@Jigga

98% of your comments that I have read are either over my head or are nonsense. Could you just tell me what the traditional theory is instead of spewing your aether theory in every.....single.....post....... PLEASE?

Correction: 98% are nonsense only. And this is a consensus. And Otto is being generous.

This is my interpretation. Time only exists in relation to matter. The universe is currently expanding rapidly, therefore time appears to be moving forwards. Without matter there would be no time.

The universe's time isn't "cyclic", there is just an infinite potential amount of time that can be created or reduced.

@Jigga

98% of your comments that I have read are either over my head or are nonsense. Could you just tell me what the traditional theory is instead of spewing your aether theory in every.....single.....post....... PLEASE?

Correction: 98% are nonsense only. And this is a consensus. And Otto is being generous.

@jigga, do you read what you write? do you write to fast? Are you using a translator? high functioning autism?

The big bang is the simplest theory that explains the microwave background radiation. I see no mention of it in Shu's article.

Same old question, but I have to ask: if the Universe is timeless, why don't we see evidence of other civilizations that have figured it out, beat the odds and succeeded in vastly expanding their sphere (or 3-sphere) of influence. There must be millions of them, no?

Answer: Let's say you are a microbe living on some creature - say a moose. How do you know there are other microbes living on a different moose - in another state? You can't because you don't have the proper tools to figure that out. It isn't like you pick up your phone and call someone. For every 1,000ft you send a signal you introduce a new fractional portion of a degree to the possibility your cell phone won't get my cell phone's signal. Nearest star is light years away. So you are introducing millions (or billions) of fractional degrees. So you might only have 10E(-15)% chance our nearest friends would even know we exist. Or us - them. This is not to mention planets occluding the signal also.

I'm not sure how this fits observations at all. The universe is accelerating as it's expanding, moreover if the universe has "always existed" the stars would have burned out long ago. This is bunk.

Ahhh, the familiar simplistic accusation of a stodgy mind. Apparently there is at least one universal constant. =P

VestaR, "The variable light speed model has its connection to the intelligent design theory."

This sounds like a misunderstanding of intelligent design theory. The core of IDers have no interest in discovering a young universe. Contrary to common propoganda, IDers really aren't just young earth creationists "in a cheap tuxedo." I must admit that IDers like the big bang a lot. It implies a beginning. A return to an infinitely old universe, though it wouldn't harm the tenets of ID theory, would challenge some argument about the nature of the source of intelligence. It would increase the viability of an intra-universe intelligence such as space aliens, where the big bang with its precise constants calls for an intelligence that is not part of our universe.

Elementary, my dear Watson!

Just explain to me .... "The spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere..."

And I "got it".

Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end

Sure .... Am I the only one who has a problem with 2 dimensional space?

"Turn left!"

"My left or your left?"

"Missed it."

"We'll make a U-turn and then make the first right!"

"But you said left before?" .....

"Make another U-Turn ...."

number theory, quantum mechanics, big bang theory... this dude's on it. teh big bang theory scores again lmao.

If OUR big bang was our 1 universe dividing over time into more and more observably discrete bits-of-universe, each bit (like a singularity) becoming the start of a new observable universe (from another pov)... then we've a continuum of little bangs... what we see as big bang inflation is inflation of observable detail.

haha I reckon he's on one. Here's to a new model!

:P

i have a lame question. if the universe may contract, what happens to the time and the third law of thermodynamics? does it flow backward? does it flow backward different way then when it was expanding?

From my understanding, as long as gravity exists, there will never be a "big crunch". I know that sounds illogical but as long as there is gravity matter that is far away from each other will continue to move apart at a faster rate - actually they won't move further apart, the space in between them will continue to expand. There is no evidence that a big crunch will ever happen.

Maybe after Heat Death of the Universe?

Why does truly empty space have to be material in any way? If there is an edge and matter is expanding into "it," why couldn't matter be moving into an "area" that is a total vacuum?

A Vacuum (in the traditional meaning of the word) in space is still energy. There can't be "nothing" otherwise it would be filled in with matter/energy.

According to my simple brain if there was an area of "nothing" between Earth and Pluto, it would essentially be a wormhole between here and there. If there was no "space-time" in that area then you would instantly arrive there.

Remember - matter in the universe isn't expanding out into "empty space" - there is no "edge". It is the space in between matter that is expanding. There is no edge to the universe. It isn't an easy concept, but once you see it you'll understand why it makes sense. I'm a layperson to but I figured this out on my own - I think I'm right but I don't know how to properly express it. I think the 3-Sphere does the job.

Why does truly empty space have to be material in any way?

Light spreads through vacuum in waves in the same way, like the energy propagates through dense matter, elastic fluids or foam in particular. In addition, vacuum is capable of spreading of two kinds of waves (transverse waves of light and longitudinal ones of gravity) in the same way, like any other particle environment. Particle environment exhibits Brownian noise, which keeps tiny particles in "aethernal" motion - well, vacuum keeps the atoms of liquid helium in permanent motion, thus prohibiting them in freezing under room pressure. The tiny waves materialize in vacuum under formation of matter/antimatter pairs, similar to formation of vortex pairs in fluids. After all, QED considers vacuum as a sea of virtual particles and black hole models of Universe are gaining popularity - there are many theories and phenomena, which actually require dense aether concept on background.

if the universe may contract, what happens to the time and the third law of thermodynamics

And what happens with law of thermodynamics, when galaxies collide and stars or interstellar clouds are condensing into more dense stuff? One half of Universe always collapses, while the second one evaporates - in such way both halves just switch their position and behaviour.

According to my simple brain if there was an area of "nothing" between Earth and Pluto, it would essentially be a wormhole between here and there. If there was no "space-time" in that area then you would instantly arrive there.

Your simple brain is working properly (with compare to many other trolls here). If vacuum would have zero mass density, then every wave would propagate through it with infinite frequency - which is really not, what we can observe all the time.

Actually it's not so difficult to estimate mass/energy density of vacuum with using of frequency of light - it's about 10 E+91 kg per cubic centimeter (inverse value of third power of Planck constant, BTW) - which roughly corresponds the estimated mass density of black hole with 2 cm in diameter.

Regarding the cosmological model presented in the article, there you can find opponent view to it.

http://badphysics.../nobang/

The paper doesn't come across as very credible from the perspective of general relativity.

To see a detailed and rather wonderful dissection of the flaws in this paper (in case you wanted to know what the dynamics would actually be like), check out Dr. Kavassalis's blog on it: http://badphysics.../nobang/

To see a detailed and rather wonderful dissection of the flaws in this paper (in case you wanted to know what the dynamics would actually be like), check out Dr. Kavassalis's blog on it:

You registered at 10:36 pm, got your 5 points award from user "sckavassalis" 4 minutes later who registered 1 minute after that. Nice backward causality.
And, of course, you've got nothing to do with cheating Jigga, except that you "both" gave him 5 points for just one link.

The paper doesn't come across as very credible from the perspective of general relativity.

More important is, it appears credible from perspective of astronomical observations.

More important is, it appears credible from perspective of astronomical observations.

Alizee, you can't hide your signature. Your comment in http://www.physor...575.html shows your typical confusion of pictures (from .cz) with theories.

Regarding the cosmological model presented in the article, there you can find opponent view to it.

Nice - now you're already using four accounts to vote for yourself. (VestaR, GravityPhD, sckavassalis, MustaI)

Alizee! Don't you realize this only further demonstrates that you are a pinhead and that your theories are even less credible as a result?? Who would believe them now? Who ever has? Nobody. Why is that?

Regarding the cosmological model presented in the article, there you can find opponent view to it.

Nice - now you're already using four accounts to vote for yourself. (VestaR, GravityPhD, sckavassalis, MustaI)

Identified and added to the list.

And in addition to this, I've contacted Ms. Kavassalis to inform her that you're attempting identity theft by utilizing her name in a feeble attempt to promote pseudoscience. This is now legally actionable if she presses charges. I hope you're proud of yourself.

frajo, otto1923, skeptic_heretic: Why not, at least you got some meaning of your lives.

.. you are a pinhead and that your theories are even less credible as a result?..

Who cares about credibility of theories, until they're correct - the worse for people, who are labeling them in such way without arguments, don't you think? The concept of eternal universe follows from dense aether model logically even without math.

..Ms. Kavassalis to inform her that you're attempting identity theft by utilizing her name in a feeble attempt to promote pseudoscience...

LOL - GravityPhD, sckavassalis actually are Ms. Kavassalis's accounts... She will be pleased by your report definitely...;-)

LOL - GravityPhD, sckavassalis actually are Ms. Kavassalis's accounts... She will be pleased by your report definitely...;-)

From my email exchange with the aformentioned blogger:

How astoundingly weird; thank you for pointing that out... I can't
seem to find the account in question though, so perhaps they had the
good sense to remove it (I'm also not a doctor yet...), but I have
seen that nonsense "aether" poster around before on other sites
(apparently everything is proof of his "theories"). Thanks for
letting me know and I'm glad you enjoy my blog.

Want to continue the lie? Like I said, this is now a legal issue if she wishes to press charges, in addition, you've removed uncertainty in regard to whether you're attempting identity theft.

GravityPhD, sckavassalis actually are Ms. Kavassalis's accounts

You mean this person is a cheater like you?

Just another OT question related to this whole circus: does anyone happen to know if the crank formerly known as VestaR is listed on Crank Dot Net? I've looked but haven't been able to connect any of the entries back to him directly.

@Alizee: O.k., so, spill it. Have you managed to get youself listed yet? Do you know? It WOULD make you quite a high achiever, of sorts. Where do figure you rank on Prof. Baez's index?

Getting back to the article, this looks like a paltry attempt to rectify the Infinite Regress problem.

There's an easier way to do it. False vaccuum allows for spontaneous generation of energy as evidenced by Quantum Mechanics. As a universe ages, due to decreasing density, false vaccuum is created, leading to the spontaneous generation of energy. That energy then diffuses over time, allowing for more false vaccuum, and more spontaneous generation of energy.

The Multiverse would thusly be described as Existence giving rise to non-existence, giving rise to existence, giving rise to non-existence....

All supported by 11 dimensional quantum mechanics, otherwise known as M-Theory. So as this UNiverse rips. From those rips new universes will arise if the theory is accurate.

LISA should generate the observations necessary to verify or falsify this prediction. Either way I'll be very busy once that data starts comming back.

As a lay person I find this discussion enthralling yet a little hard to follow at times. I would only like to add that 2,500 years ago, a man called Shakyamuni, or Buddha, awoke (became enlightened to) what he called 'the truth' about what life is. Part of that teaching is now understood as Kuon Ganjo, time without beginning or end. Buddhism also teaches that 'life' is " neither existence nor nor existence, but exhibits the qualities of both." Not bad for a bloke sitting under a tree thinking. ( obviously a Hoopy Frood who knew where his towel was).

@duane m navarre:

The problem with seeing farther into the universe isn't so much a matter of where the telescope is, but of how long the light has had to reach us. At this time, the "known" universe is about 13.7 billion light years in radius. The "knowable" universe is more like 57 billion light years, but it will take 43 billion years for that light to reach the Earth. Obviously, the Earth won't even exist by then. Yes, the universe might be infinite, but the light beyond the knowable universe will never reach us, so we'll never know. That's OK; even the known universe is far more than we'll ever be able to explore.

There is a very big difference between describing how the Universe works, and then actually UNDERSTANDING how the Universe works. While General Relativity does give us an accurate description of how things work on a macro scale, it doesn't necessarily give us an understanding of how it all works. In the quest to describe the planets motion, we relied at first upon countless epicycles before we dug deeper and found that the planets move in elliptical orbits. I don't see the trouble in exploring options of Universal models that may lead to a more promising understanding of the Universe compared to our current throw-together BB Theory.

I'm a big fan of simplicity, and this idea, while juxtaposed to classical thought, is much more simplistic than the current BB Theory, and has only as many flaws.

In classical physics, each action has an equal an opposite reaction, i.e recoil in a gun. Now, take a star- photons, neutrinos, etc are emitted from it in a predominently omnidirectional manner thus resulting in net-zero movement of the star itself and a slight compressional force. Light travels across distance and imparts a slight push on another star, and light from that second star impacts the first and exerts a slight push. Voila- instant expansion.

I could be wrong though, but it seems to work with solar sails.

Where was my last comment?! The univers is 58 billion LY but over 14 billion Y.

if the universe is timeless, why aren't we running out of hydrogen? as stars convert it to heavier elements, newer stars will contain larger amounts of heavier elements and eventually there won't be enough left for new stars to burn... hence no more universe as we know it.

if the universe is timeless, why aren't we running out of hydrogen?

Well, this is a good point. Actually, some models consider the formation of antimatter and gamma rays from dark matter annihilation already...

http://iopscience...4/042005

Actually we can find many remnants of ancient tiny galaxies, which have been evaporated already. Now we should find an evidence of hydrogen formation inside of dark matter streaks by now - you can consider it as one of testable predictions of steady-state Universe model. In addition, another portion of matter could be brought into Universe via dark (matter) flow, which was observed recently. We can say, matter is recycled from photons, into which it evaporated previously.

http://www.nasa.g...low.html

BTW Big Bang model doesn't solve the formation of observable matter anyway - it just makes an implicit assumption, matter of Universe has come from initial singularity.

Finally, no more dark energy non-sense. When certain scientists cannot further their understanding, they further their abstraction with ridiculous entities; dark energy. The new theory is beautiful and in in fact simply extends Einstein's theory of general reletivity. This new model confirms my beliefs. Why haven't we met aliens? Because of relativity. Try to factor for instance what it would take for a space ship to get from this galaxy to Andromeda using einstein's theory of general relativity. Either you're an invicible alien made up of energy (matter is too heavy) or it's an alien in a ship with infinite energy. I doubt we'll see them.

To DaveinQueens:

Just because hydrogen is the first element in the table of elements doesn't mean its Aristotle's first matter. Put another way, hydrogen itself is composed of other matter. How the recycling of matter takes place nobody knows for sure. But you can bet black holes have to do with it; they tear matter into it's smallest entity, and to further that argument there is a black hole at the center of all galaxy; thus every galaxy has it's own recycling facility. I guess from the black hole, once its sucked enough matter it collapses into the bigger matter that we know hydrogen etc.

Finally, no more dark energy nonsense.

You should therefore explain, why it's nonsense - or it will just you, who is preaching a religious stance by now. Dark energy has a good meaning in dense aether theory modeled with wave spreading at water surface.

http://scienceali...ples.jpg

We can see, how these surface waves are dispersing and their wavelength collapses with distance - which would mean, from perspective of observer at the water surface his space-time virtually expands. And he would see, how it does so in speed increasing with increasing distance from observer - which could correspond the accelerated expansion of space-time observed.

Of course, from extra-dimensional perspective of observer from "outside" of our Universe (which is unreachable for us) this effect doesn't mean, water surface is limited in size or even curved, or even curved nonlinearly - because the same effect will be replicated at all places of it.

Actually we are discussing the same problem, like the proponents of heliocentric model did before years: should we believe in model, which is virtually unreachable for us? It's nice to say, Earth is revolving the Sun - but until we cannot fly outside of solar system, we can never make sure about it in direct way.

The extrinsic perspective of our Universe is the falsifiability problem of the same category: scientists don't like untestable models and now we are forced to believe in Universe, where all observable effects are just an illusion from higher dimensional perspective - which is unreachable for us and as such untestable.

It's not so strange, mainstream of physics plays a role of Holy Church whenever Copernican principle is impeached. It's stance is easily predictable just with respect to scientific method, which dictates not to believe in any model, which cannot be verified/falsified.

In addition, there is a pragmatic stance: new model usually cannot provide so large amount of equations and ideas, like the old one, so it cannot serve as a salary generator. But every scientist wants to eat, have some credit and publications, family, car, etc... - right now!

In this way, scientists are naturally conservative regarding every new model, until it doesn't collect sufficient amount of resources (i.e. equations, ideas, observational evidence etc..) for providing of regular salary. It's simplicity and/or beauty plays no role here - because the simplicity is nothing, which could fill some ten pages long article with equations for you. For such purpose the less transparent and more complex model is more advantageous, instead.

This is why we are talking about steady state universe for more then fifty years without significant change in paradigm. I presume, layman public should understand the way, in which contemporary science is working.

Thanx - I'll keep these most common grammar mistakes on mind.

To DaveinQueens:

Just because hydrogen is the first element in the table of elements doesn't mean its Aristotle's first matter. Put another way, hydrogen itself is composed of other matter. How the recycling of matter takes place nobody knows for sure. But you can bet black holes have to do with it; they tear matter into it's smallest entity, and to further that argument there is a black hole at the center of all galaxy; thus every galaxy has it's own recycling facility. I guess from the black hole, once its sucked enough matter it collapses into the bigger matter that we know hydrogen etc.

What's the mechanism for this? How do black holes (or anything else for that matter) reverse entropy EXACTLY?

That's what ANY steady state model has to answer first and foremost.

Actually all normal massive objects are decreasing their entropy during gravitational collapse - if they wouldn't, then we should assume, entropy decreases during every expansion of particle gas - which is apparent nonsense, as the entropy increasing is connected with adiabatic expansion of every gas.

The source of this trivial misunderstanding is simply the switching of space-time coordinates at the event horizon - after then the surface of black hole will increase with collapse of star bellow its event horizon. We should realize, every object falling beneath the event horizon of BH actually expands into its whole volume, so its entropy increases from intrinsic perspective of this black hole, whereas it continues to decrease from extrinsic perspective. In 3+1 dimensions, the radius of a black hole is proportional to its mass, "R=2M", in "c=hbar=G=1" Planck units. So the entropy i.e. surface area goes like "R^2" or "M^2".

The mixing of inner and outer perspective is quite common between mainstream physicists (not only when they're talking about entropy concept, which is rather difficult to grasp intuitively) - because theorists cannot recognize, they're describing the same process (i.e. accretion of matter) from the dual perspective of space-time suddenly.

In this way, most of extrapolations regarding gradual increase of total entropy of universe are simply BS, because they're extrapolating the entropy inside of black hole into its neighborhood blindly. From perspective of aether theory the total entropy of Universe doesn't change and fall of objects into black hole is reversible process - one half of matter collapses and condenses into BH (where it evaporates "later"), the second half evaporates into accretion radiation and it condenses somewhere else, instead..

So where is the magical hydrogen factory that keeps the stars burning?

Big Bang theory says, most of hydrogen was formed briefly after inflation. I can ask, why farthest galaxies are shinning in the same way, like these more close ones?

Big Bang theory says, most of hydrogen was formed briefly after inflation. I can ask, why farthest galaxies are shinning in the same way, like these more close ones?

Probaby because we haven't run out of it yet...

Probaby because we haven't run out of it yet...

But there should be some trend in hydrogen content with distance/age. More distant galaxies should contain more hydrogen, then the neighboring ones. Actually we doesn't observe it - even most distant galaxies are of high degree of metalicity, like at the case of galaxies with second (or higher) generation of stars.

http://www.spring...33258641
http://www.space....axy.html

But there should be some trend in hydrogen content with distance/age. More distant galaxies should contain more hydrogen, then the neighboring ones. Actually we doesn't observe it - even most distant galaxies are of high degree of metalicity, like at the case of galaxies with second (or higher) generation of stars.

The issue here is relativistic confusion.

The more distant galaxies look older and more metallic because we are seeing the light of long dead galaxies from a point in time that is difficult to conceptualize. The Galaxies were old long before our sun existed. The Universe has also expanded by a significant degree since that light was emitted.

If we could travel to these metallic galaxies we'd probably find them to be long dead.

If we could travel to these metallic galaxies we'd probably find them to be long dead.

So why we don't see them young by now? Actually your comment doesn't refuse anything, what I've said. "the difficulty to conceptualize" is no argument here at all, it's just a BS - so you got downvote for it.

To avoid a trivial discussion about it here again, you can find the top 30 problems with the Big Bang there:

http://metaresear...p-30.asp

Lev Landau: "Cosmologists are often in error, but never in doubt."

@Jigga,
1)No.
2)No.
3)What?
4)Prove it.
5)What exactly is "just the right way?" That's silly creationist type crap.
6)Agreed age is about 7BY larger than you state.
7)Dark Matter
8)http://www.youtub...TJ6ID6ZA
9)Answered above "metal galaxies"
10)And? It's a measurement of what it was, not what it could have been. Single sample means no probability measurement possible. It happened, chance of 100%.

Top thirty problems and only 10 on the page. The other 20 are simply "unexplained phenomina" that we haven't figured out yet.

In short, it's quackery.

So why we don't see them young by now? Actually your comment doesn't refuse anything, what I've said. "the difficulty to conceptualize" is no argument here at all, it's just a BS - so you got downvote for it.

No dummy. The size of the Universe is far greater than most people would say it is from a poor knowledge of relativity and inflation. We're unsure of what is causing this change in our perception. It very well could be observational error. We're unsure of the rammifications because we don't know enough about them to determine anything of logical merit. They simply appear to be far older, changing our view of the early universe.

They simply appear to be far older, changing our view of the early universe

Albert Einstein: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler".

I suppose, you're still expected to give us some explanation of it in future. During this time you can consider dense aether explanation of it like many others.

I suppose, you're still expected to give us some explanation of it in future. During this time you can consider dense aether explanation of it like many others.

No, my only requirement is to observe and see what it tells us. I don't throw away everything we know and reinstitute pseudoscientific philosophical ramblings of an Eastern European jerk off as an explanation for the universe.

Dense Aether doesn't fit observations. A new observation doesn't change all former observations, it simply affects the overall picture.

Top thirty problems and only 10 on the page. The other 20 are simply "unexplained phenomina" that we haven't figured out yet.

In short, it's quackery.

Yes.
The metaresearch.org site is dedicated to Dr. Thomas C Van Flandern who has a Wiki page which tells us of his conviction e.g. that the "Mars face" is made by inhabitants who emigrated to earth at the time of Lucy and were our predecessors.

Dense Aether doesn't fit observations.

Which ones and why..?

..pseudoscientific philosophical ramblings of an Eastern European jerk...

Actually it's Western European stuff, as the original proponent of dense aether model was Oliver Lodge.

..A new observation doesn't change all former observations, it simply affects the overall picture....

Of course - so why not to affect it by removing Big Bang, singularity, inflation and other unnecessary philosophical ramblings?

Which ones and why..?

Lack of observational presence for one. We've been into space and found no aether, nor any of the signs predicted by your "theory". I use quotations because it wasn't only abandoned for Einstein's relativeity, but the numerous observations that point to relativity rather than etherial "mist" and the known manner in which the electromagnetic force works through space regardless of medium or lack thereof are too innumerable to disregard. That is, if you're intellectually honest.

Actually it's Western European stuff, as the original proponent of dense aether model was Oliver Lodge.

No, the aether concept originates directly from the mythological statements of firmament going back to ancient Egypt. It is more an evolution of mthology than a scientific observation. Hence why it was discarded, then disproved when its proponents began seizing aspects of other disciplines in order to "Frankenstein" the hypothesis back to life.

Of course - so why not to affect it by removing Big Bang, singularity, inflation and other unnecessary philosophical ramblings?

Until the observation conclusively disproves those fundamental constructs, they stand unopposed. We could be going down the wrong path, but when the observations match the theory, and the theory is open enough to be changed to fit observations, we develop an overall accurate description of reality.

In short, this observation doesn't disprove the theory, it illuminates an aspect of the theory that we don't understand fully, and allows for a greater discovery when the observation is concluded and logic is applied. In short, a discovery that isn't even certified doesn't toss the baby out with the bathwater.

"Until the observation conclusively disproves those fundamental constructs, they stand unopposed. We could be going down the wrong path, but when the observations match the theory, and the theory is open enough to be changed to fit observations, we develop an overall accurate description of reality."

The observations do oppose these 'fundamental constructs', which is why we are having this discussion in the first place. The only reason that we cling so dearly to big bang theory is because it has been accepted as general dogma for so many years.

It seems that nearly ALL new observations that we have illuminate yet another flaw with the theory. The only reason we cling to Big Bang theory is because skeptical nutters like yourself continue to come up with more and more modifications to a theory that already has as many flaws as the theories you denounce vehemently.

It seems that nearly ALL new observations that we have illuminate yet another flaw with the theory. The only reason we cling to Big Bang theory is because skeptical nutters like yourself continue to come up with more and more modifications to a theory that already has as many flaws as the theories you denounce vehemently.

Dense aether is used to explain everything from the structure of table salt to the personality quirks of a forum poster. It is utterly vacant of any observational correlation. It is mythology.

We've changed the fundamental constructs and found the rest of the theory intact. The day it breaks, it'll go away.

Dense aether is used to explain everything from the structure of table salt to the personality quirks of a forum poster. It is utterly vacant of any observational correlation. It is mythology.

I'm not trying to laud Dense Aether theory as an adequate substitution; rather, I am trying to point out that just as many flaws have been found with big bang theory. The mathematical impossibility of singularities and the accelerating expansion of the Universe are two flaws that come to mind.

I'm not trying to laud Dense Aether theory as an adequate substitution; rather, I am trying to point out that just as many flaws have been found with big bang theory. The mathematical impossibility of singularities and the accelerating expansion of the Universe are two flaws that come to mind.

Neither of those two issues speak to the fundamental constructs. String theory actually provides rational answers to those question but in order to attempt to falsify them the expense would be so great that we're entirely unable to engage in the necessary construction at our current technology levels.

It seems that nearly ALL new observations that we have illuminate yet another flaw with the theory.

Maybe; don't know "all observations". The beauty of science are it's asymmetries between falsification and proof, between observation and theory. We can't induce a new theory from a finite set of observations. Otherwise theories would be produced by Fortran algorithms. And therefore, until a more potent theory (a beauty) than the standard cosmological model is as well established, we have to be content with the beast.

The only reason we cling to Big Bang theory is because skeptical nutters like yourself continue to come up with more and more modifications to a theory

Adjusting a theory is not prohibited unless we lose predictive power.

that already has as many flaws as the theories you denounce vehemently.

The day a successor is established with equal or better predictive/falsifiable power you'll see that science doesn't know dogmata.

the aether concept originates directly from the mythological statements

I'm talking about dense aether model, which is much younger.

We've been into space and found no aether, nor any of the signs predicted by your "theory"

You're like sheep, which is starring at sky and cannot see any stars there - because it cannot realize it.

When you look around you in jungle, you would see random fractal neighborhood. At the larger distances all things suddenly become regular (planets, stars) and after then they become random again. The same perspective repeats at microscopic scale.

This distance/scale dependency follows directly from aether perspective - it's a way, in which every fluctuation interacts with its neighborhood inside of random gas via transverse waves - just exaggerated in scale.

http://www.aether...erse.gif

During this time you can consider dense aether explanation of it like many others.

Unfortunately, these 'others' all seem to be you.

You're like sheep, which is starring at sky and cannot see any stars there - because it cannot realize it.

And youre like the typical bloke who stare at the stars and see rams and goats and swans and dead heroes and candy bars where none obviously exist.

candy bars

Candy bars?

Which constellation is named after a candy bar and how much did the manufacturer bribe someone to get the rights?

And who had the rights to sell. Some secret international government? NOW I know why you think there are Illuminati running everything. Except for being hazy on which constellation so if you could tell me which one then I would understand EVERYTHING.

Ethelred

Which constellation is named after a candy bar and how much did the manufacturer bribe someone to get the rights?

The Mars Bar comes to mind.

The more special predictions and explanations remain domain of specialized theories in the same way, like you probably will not program all stuffs in Windows in high level languages (like .NET or Java).

Actually all programing that runs on the Windows OS is written in a "higher" programming language. You cannot be general and explanitory, specifics are unnecessary to create predictions, but required to create accurate predictions.

Actually all programing that runs on the Windows OS is written in a "higher" programming language.

And what is MASM32 for?

Actually all programing that runs on the Windows OS is written in a "higher" programming language.

And what is MASM32 for?

Read and process assembly code. Assembly is also considered a "higher" language.

Zephir is speaking on another topic in which he has no knowledge.

Actually all programing that runs on the Windows OS is written in a "higher" programming language.

And what is MASM32 for?

Read and process assembly code. Assembly is also considered a "higher" language.

Not by old-fashioned programmers like me.
Microcode, machine code, and assembler are called low-level languages because programming requires quite some knowledge of hardware-related terms like registers and memory addresses.
High-level languages, however, can be used without knowing details of the underlying hardware.

Thus, our fortran program to count prime numbers can be written and used on a PC and later - after compiling the (same) source - reused on a mainframe or a Cray.
This can not be done with assembler instructions. You'll have to write separate code for the PC and the mainframe.

Not by old-fashioned programmers like me.
Microcode, machine code, and assembler are called low-level languages because programming requires quite some knowledge of hardware-related terms like registers and memory addresses.
High-level languages, however, can be used without knowing details of the underlying hardware.

Assembly is a generation past the "lower languages" as they're classed as far as I'm aware, lower would include Fortran, Cobol, Small, and the onther 1GL and 2GL languages. I thought it was all classed by the depth of the abstraction layer. If I'm incorrect, I'll recant and defer to frajo.

And of course, I'll retract what would be the first improperly leveled dig at Zephir.

Assembly is also considered a "higher" language. Zephir is speaking on another topic in which he has no knowledge.

This just brings the another quote of yours on my mind:

... radium ...cesium, francium, etc can also all be used.. You don't really seem to understand current nuclear technology...

Sub:Cosmology -Origins-Vedas -See Interlinks
COSMOLOGY -Interaction: Wisdom of Knowledge must prevail in advance through Divine Grace.
The Spirit of Scientific Research must match with Cosmic Vision and Cosmos Yoga
http://cosmology_definition.rediffblogs.com/
http://www.scribd...ormation

\

This just brings the another quote of yours on my mind:

... radium ...cesium, francium, etc can also all be used.. You don't really seem to understand current nuclear technology...

Well that alias has been proved now. And all of the above can be used in concept reactors. Good show jerky.

candy bars

Candy bars?

Which constellation is named after a candy bar and how much did the manufacturer bribe someone to get the rights?

And who had the rights to sell. Some secret international government? NOW I know why you think there are Illuminati running everything. Except for being hazy on which constellation so if you could tell me which one then I would understand EVERYTHING.

Ethelred

Milky Way. Duh. Or even Mars Bar.

-Its like selling $300 candy bars- you only gotta sell one.

Actually all programing that runs on the Windows OS is written in a "higher" programming language.

And what is MASM32 for?

Read and process assembly code. Assembly is also considered a "higher" language.

Zephir is speaking on another topic in which he has no knowledge.

Sorry SH, I support most everything you write but I must disagree here.

Assembly is as low level as you can get aside from writing straight machine code (byte code). Each platform has it's own assembly-like language, the Motorola M68HC12 uses a language called ASM12 for example. This code, defined by the processors command set, gets translated directly into byte code for the target platform and loaded into the processor for decoding and executing at run time.

The term "high" level language describes some level of abstraction between the byte code and the language that is compiled into that byte code. In addition, some mechanism for object oriented design is often considered a requirement.

Assembly is not compiled, there is no abstraction between assembly and byte code, it is a direct translation from one to the other given defined byte sequences per each unique command.

C, on the other hand, is a true compiled language where one statement in C code may be turned into many, possibly even dozens, of assembly instructions during compilation.

C is still widely considered a low level language however, due to it's lack of native support for object oriented features, such as inheritance and polymorphism. Of course you can get around it...

For reference I am an embedded engineer, I write mixed C/ASM for a variety of microprocessors, most recently the Texas Instruments TMS320F2812 DSP.

I design the firmware for all manner of fiber optic test and measurement equipment, from optical time domain reflectometers to optical spectrum analyzers, polarity/chromatic mode dispersion analyzers, and simpler instruments like tunable laser sources and variable optical attenuators.

Just in today:

http://www.physor...794.html

Probably has something to do with all of this.

Thanks for your two comments on low/high level languages. Much better written than I could do.
Nevertheless, I can't agree with this:

C is still widely considered a low level language however, due to it's lack of native support for object oriented features, such as inheritance and polymorphism.

C is considered low level by some people not because lacking OO features but because it enables to control low level hw aspects like registers and memory addresses.

In addition, some mechanism for object oriented design is often considered a requirement.

Not by Fortran programers. Fortran always was and still is the language of choice for supercomputers and numbercrunching applications like galaxy simulations. OO features may be used in other languages on secondary machines (mainframes and workstations) for visualization purposes.
OO features are not required for high level computing languages. Maybe, some OO programmers just have a wrong perception of Fortran.

You guys cannot concentrate to subject at all.... I explained originally, why theories have their applicability scope in the similar way, like programming languages - and this is just a bare fact.

Now more then twenty posts remains dedicated to completely OT explanations of difference between various computer languages (i.e. the subject, which apparently many posters are experienced with instead of physics) - thus demonstrating, how every idea leads experts into black hole of mutual misunderstandings.

http://www.time.c...,00.html

You should learn to discuss & solve problems at their corresponding level: not too deep, not to shallow. The fuzzy details, which aren't important for description of particular causal structure should be omitted first in the same way, like the unsubstantiated generalizations of it.

OK gents, I recant my statement on programming languages, however my dig on Zephir still stands, and will for all eternity. If he can be this intellectually dishonest and toss up 40 different self supporting screen names, I can appropriately say he's a moron and talking out his ass.

Thanks for your two comments on low/high level languages. Much better written than I could do.
Nevertheless, I can't agree with this:

Hmm... okay I'm not going to argue I just had the impression that "low" vs "high" level language had more to do with the level of abstraction between the human written code and the resulting byte code, of which OO is a further abstraction, or is it?

Honestly as a firmware engineer I don't do much with OO, but I have written some applications utilizing some of the object oriented methodology in my own applications and it seems to further abstract the human written code from the resulting machine code in that it allows one to classify and structure code elements based on human concepts rather than according to hardware structure, if that makes sense.

it's -> its
it's -> its
"I guys"?
languages, -> languages;

You guys cannot concentrate to subject at all.... I explained originally, why theories have their applicability scope in the similar way, like programming languages - and this is just a bare fact.

Notice how the incredibly egocentric troll thinks he runs threads and determines which ways they can deviate?

Alizee, you realize how fucked up that is?? 'Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end' -is the topic. You are NEVER on topic.

You should learn to discuss & solve problems

You should realize how incredibly fucked up you are.

how every idea leads experts into black hole of mutual misunderstandings.

There's a reason why they're called experts. They know more than you do.

N. Butler: "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less"
N. Bohr: "An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field"

Why experts are usually wrong: http://www.nypost...QJHmT5QO

http://press.prin...959.html

Why experts are usually wrong: http://www.nypost...QJHmT5QO

An article about journalists rushing science news to the media.

http://press.prin...959.html

An article about Political "Science".

Try again.

N. Butler: "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less"
N. Bohr: "An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field"

Why experts are usually wrong: http://www.nypost...QJHmT5QO

O.k....and what's the batting average of *cough! cough!* crackpots *cough!* non-experts?

While I agree there's little point to having experts if you're just going to ignore them, I do find many people making the logical fallacy "argumentum ad verecundiam" quite often on this board.

While I agree there's little point to having experts if you're just going to ignore them, I do find many people making the logical fallacy "argumentum ad verecundiam" quite often on this board.

Yes indeed, quite. As in the authority of pretentious latin phrases zum Beispiel?

Sorry if I made you have to Google something otto, I figured with your education you'd be familiar with that phrase. For YOUR benefit from now on I'll try to be less "pretentious" and speak closer to say...the remedial third grade level?

While I agree there's little point to having experts if you're just going to ignore them, I do find many people making the logical fallacy "argumentum ad verecundiam" quite often on this board.

One should always question expert testimony and follow the source to its objective end, not outright deny it.

Sorry if I made you have to Google something otto, I figured with your education you'd be familiar with that phrase. For YOUR benefit from now on I'll try to be less "pretentious" and speak closer to say...the remedial third grade level?

But you would only be pedantic then. Cave canem, herr Pudel.

While I agree there's little point to having experts if you're just going to ignore them, I do find many people making the logical fallacy "argumentum ad verecundiam" quite often on this board.

When referring directly to the postings here, I wouldn't generally characterize bogus citations as logical fallacy -rather mendacity or outright fraud, at the least disengenuousness, and only occasionally an honest mistake.

Most of the posters who resort to argumentum ad verecundiam are perfectly well aware that their citation is BS.

I do find many people making the logical fallacy "argumentum ad verecundiam" quite often on this board.

Yes indeed, quite. As in the authority of pretentious latin phrases zum Beispiel?

I'm grateful for helping me to improve my Latin. Verecundia is modesty (which is itself of Latin origin).

One should always question expert testimony and follow the source to its objective end, not outright deny it.

It's not always feasible. Not everyone is able to read Greek, Hebrew, or cuneiform texts. :)

A simple objection against Big Bang hypothesis is, it's simply overdetermined. We know, we cannot observe older parts of Universe, then the speed of light allows, right? So how can we know, Big Bang occurred just fourteen billion years ago? Isn't it too big coincidence, that Universe is just as old, as the speed of light allows? If it would be older or it would expand faster, we couldn't observe/falsify the Big Bang hypothesis anyway.

One should always question expert testimony and follow the source to its objective end, not outright deny it.

It's not always feasible. Not everyone is able to read Greek, Hebrew, or cuneiform texts. :)

Technology makes it a possibility if you embrace it :)

Verecundia is modesty

I thought it was "authority"

Zephir/alizee has given his latest login fives again. Two fives for the one just above SK's post.

And its remarkably wrong headed even by his standards.

it's simply overdetermined

Now that is just plain incompetent logic. Which is why I am bother to reply. Only he could rank that crap a 5.

So how can we know, Big Bang occurred just fourteen billion years ago

By seeing not much more 12 billion light years out and then there is the COBE data.

sn't it too big coincidence, that Universe is just as old, as the speed of light allows

No. It make perfect sense in a uniformly expanding Universe.

If it would be older

It would be bigger, if it is expanding uniformly.

we couldn't observe/falsify the Big Bang hypothesis anyway

Sure we could. Just find evidence that Universe isn't expanding. Find real evidence of objects with high red shift next to objects with lower red shift.

There have been CLAIMS of such discovery but they don't hold up to scrutiny.

Ethelred

...it make perfect sense in a uniformly expanding Universe...

Well, let say, Universe is expanding uniformly and the speed of light is constant. At the certain distance the speed of light will not be sufficient to observe the rest of Universe. Any assumption regarding Big Bang or whatever else evolution before it is therefore unfalsifiable and redundant in similar way, like the assumption about singularity inside of black hole from outside.

After all, it's generically the very same problem.

At the certain distance the speed of light will not be sufficient to observe the rest of Universe.

Very correct.

Any assumption regarding Big Bang or whatever else evolution before it is therefore unfalsifiable

Entirely wrong.

like the assumption about singularity inside of black hole from outside.

Also wrong.

The falsifibility of the current cosmological standard model doesn't require observation of 100% of the Universe, if it did, we wouldn't call it the standard model as no one would have paid any heed to the implications.

..the falsifiability of the current cosmological standard model doesn't require observation of 100% of the Universe...

Actually it requires to observe just the most distant parts of Universe. The rest is not crucial with respect to Big Bang and inflation. The rest can be explained in relatively classical mean of gradual matter aggregation.

The question is, if we consider limited speed of light spreading - how the most distant parts of Universe would appear? If they would appear in the same way, which we are observing by now, then the whole Big Bang model and subsequent inflation are redundant concepts and they can be omitted from cosmology by Occam's razor criterion.

@hodzaa

Occam's razor is commonly interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable. Over several posts you have discussed perceived shortcomings of the Big Bang theory while neglecting to mention ANY alternatives. Why is that and what is your alternative theory?

So, hodzaa what's your theory, or do you have one? I'm not asking rhetorically I'm honestly interested if you have a viable alternative.

Let me ask a simple question. Since we KNOW the universe is expanding, what would happen if you ran time backwards? Think about that for a while.

..if we consider limited speed of light spreading - how the most distant parts of Universe would appear?...

Actually it's not so difficult to imagine it with using of surface wave model at water surface, where surface waves are playing the role of transversal waves of light. All these waves are dispersing into longitudinal ones at sufficient distance (roughly 150 meters or so) - so that every objects, which would appear more distant will appear fuzzy, blurred with /hidden into omnipresent noise in the same way, like the most distant galaxies appear for us by now.

This controversy basically corresponds the controversy between geocentric and heliocentric model before forty hundreds of years. At the first sight, both these models are virtually indistinguishable each other for terrestrial observer.

But the later view fulfills Copernican principle and it can was supported with tiny artifacts: order of Venus and Jupiter moon phases, shape of Lunar crater shadows, etc...

The issue here is that we can't relate with the thought processes going on in Zev/alizee's mind. Akin to what others might call "spiritual revelation" he's tapping into part of his concious mind and being misled to believe that he has something eruditic and insightful to say about the structure of existence. He sees a puddle on the street and relates it to the universe at large. This process is admirable, unless it leads to confusion of reality due to delusion and exclusion of external stimuli, which in his case is the crux of the situation.

..hodzaa what's your theory...

Dense aether theory considers with increasing distance/number of dimensions every object appears like pin point particle and its motion appear chaotic, no matter how causal it locally is. In another words, universe appears like infinite random ocean of inertial noise and human observer is one of its fluctuations, too. This corresponds the assumption, we can assume anything about Universe at sufficiently general scale by Occam's razor criterion.

since we KNOW the universe is expanding

In dense aether theory time arrow is symmetric at very global scale. Universe expands only for structures, which are smaller, then we are. All larger structure are collapsing instead with increasing distance. Actually we can see, how all large objects are collapsing gradually with their gravity. It's a consequence of the geometry of the dispersion of transverse waves in every inhomogeneous environment.

The same effect can be observed at the water surface too: the capillary waves larger then the wavelength of CMB radiation (~ 2cm) are expanding, whereas these smaller ones are collapsing. Waves of the same wavelength are dispersing too, but their wavelength doesn't change very much during this.

http://www.aether...ples.jpg

It means, we should observe the blue shift and some luminosity intension with distance for all distant objects, observed in radio waves and/or longer wavelength.

..hodzaa what's your theory...

Dense aether theory considers with increasing distance/number of dimensions every object appears like pin point particle and its motion appear chaotic, no matter how causal it locally is. In another words, universe appears like infinite random ocean of inertial noise and human observer is one of its fluctuations, too. This corresponds the assumption, we can assume anything about Universe at sufficiently general scale by Occam's razor criterion.

So what are the vectors for falsification and what are the predictions that match current observation inclulded in your theory?

Secondly, can you expand on this statement?

In dense aether theory time arrow is symmetric at very global scale. Universe expands only for structures, which are smaller, then we are.

As all known structures are the result of submacroscale interaction, your theory states that everything is expanding.

Dense aether theory has many consequences and testable predictions, but regarding the cosmologic models we should concentrate to observation of red/blue shift for the light of as large wavelength, as we can detect. For such large waves only large collapsing objects are obstacles, so we should observe sign or blue shift and energy gain. Actually we observed it already, we just assign this effect to another reason.

http://www.physor...830.html

Another evidence is, for CMB many effects of red shift should disappear. It was observed already, too.

http://www.tgdail...t-at-all

Another evidence, which is not related to dense aether model directly is simply the observation of any object, older then the 13.7 GYrs

http://esciencene...galaxies

your theory states that everything is expanding.

This is stated by contemporary entropic models of Universe instead - but the actual models of matter evolution appear rather like condensation of homogeneous particle mixture into compact dense streaks of dark matter and galaxies or even black holes.

This is of course NOT the entropic process.

"Another evidence, which is not related to dense aether model directly is simply the observation of any object, older then the 13.7 GYrs"

You have made this statement several times yet you have not produced evidence of ANY actual observations of a single object older than 13.7 Gyrs. The article you've linked to describing this galaxy cluster notes (in the first sentence):

"...the young cluster born just 2.8 billion years after the Big Bang..."

So precisely what single object has been found that is older than the age of the universe? Citations please.

Alizee, your theory sits disproved by the very articles you link. You've provided a built in falsification. Are you content that we've given your theory sufficient thought for you to now put it away until you have something better?

..evidence of ANY actual observations of a single object older than 13.7..

Today exist a number of such observations, in fact. Actually we observed many distant galaxies, which are about 10 - 11 billion years old, but they contain a number of stars with high metalicity, I mean stars of 2nd or higher generations. The average time for one stellar generation is about five billion years - which means, these galaxies are more then 15 billion years old.

http://www.spacer...id=14524

My question rather is, how is it possible, you and Skeptic Heretic don't know about these observations - while trying to pretend in rather arrogant way, you're competent arbiters here about cosmology, or even more competent then just me?

If nothing else, you're always expected to know observational facts in solid way - just after then the theories, which are trying to explain them. If you don't know observational facts, then sorry, but you're just a crackpots like many others.

" ..evidence of ANY actual observations of a single object older than 13.7..

Today exist a number of such observations..."

Again, what observations? That link refers to the Gemini Deep Deep Survey and no objects were found with redshifts z>10 or z>20 or z=1000 (approx BB redshift). Please, I want to know. Astronomers the world over want to know. Please enlighten us all.

"My question rather is, how is it possible, you and Skeptic Heretic don't know about these observations"

Because these observations don't exist. Prove me wrong.

Today exist a number of such observations, in fact. Actually we observed many distant galaxies, which are about 10 - 11 billion years old, but they contain a number of stars with high metalicity, I mean stars of 2nd or higher generations.

First, how do you know what generation they are? Second, what generation is our sun?

My question rather is, how is it possible, you and Skeptic Heretic don't know about these observations

Because they don't exist.

while trying to pretend in rather arrogant way, you're competent arbiters here about cosmology, or even more competent then just me?

Not only do I think it, I know it, and can demonstrate it.

You said it better than I can here:

If you don't know observational facts, then sorry, but you're just a crackpot like many others.

@hodzaa-Xaero,

Have you read the actual published papers these two new reports were based on (r.e. GDDS and CLG J02182-05102)? Why not give them a glance and let us know where it is noted that the objects studied are older than the universe. I have read them and don't recall any such statement.

"we observed many distant galaxies, which are about 10 - 11 billion years old, but they contain a number of stars with high metalicity, I mean stars of 2nd or higher generations. The average time for one stellar generation is about five billion years - which means, these galaxies are more then 15 billion years old."

I'll guess that you're referring here to Population III stars, which have yet to be discovered. A deeper understanding of stellar evolution would inform you that these low-no metallicity stars are thought to have very short lifetimes of

..Because these observations don't exist. Prove me wrong...

You got three links containing observations from 2004, 2005 and 2010 years - the rest is on you.

http://www.spacer...id=14524
http://hubblesite...28/full/
http://esciencene...galaxies

Look, here will always exist many people claiming, the evolution is supported with no observation, despite the number of actual sources - so your stance is not surprising for me at all. For example in the USA more then 60 percent people are not believing in evolution despite of any evidence.

This is quite normal stance, people are religious creatures and I've absolutely no problem with it. But why I should waste my time with just you, after then? You're supposed to learn yourself about subject - I'm not payed for teaching or even convincing you here.

Just a quick note. Someone up thread was saying that high metalicity stars which are 10-12 billion years meaning that they're at least 2nd generation stars.

We all understand that large stars only burn a few million years right?

This is a non-issue.

some comments got cut...

Pop III stars are thought to have very short lifetimes of under 2 MILLION years (Pop II and Pop I stars may indeed live for billions of years). Some theories posit that some may collapse before hydrostatic equilibrium is reached. So no conflict with the age of the universe.

The galaxies mentioned in both your links do have a higher metallicity than what was expected for such distant objects. But their intrinsic metallicity is still much lower than galaxies we see today. They are only metal rich in comparison to their neighbors.

And you should not be surprised that when you make assertions here (and you do make many), that you are challenged on at least a few. If you can not back up specific claims, why make them at all?

It's not just about metalicity of stars, but about size of galactic clusters. In Standard cosmology model Universe has inflated into very homogeneous state, as homogeneity of CMB field illustrates. Inside of such homogeneous Universe the formation of large galactic clusters is quite improbable.

http://www.spacet...eic0313/

Actually we shouldn't see any galaxies there - the matter should form homogeneous clouds at Hubble/Spitzer deep fields... The areas of large empty space between ancient galaxies are as surprising, as the existence of these galaxies within existing LambdaCDM model.

If you can not back up specific claims, why make them at all?

LOL - do you think, authors of all these articles are trolls, who cannot realize, stars could evolve a much faster? You're opposing peer-reviewed articles here.

http://www.newsci...rse.html

http://www.futuri...-modern/

http://www.naoj.o...dex.html

Now you have seven links already... My question rather is, how is it possible, you don't know about all these data, which I can google up in few minutes...?

Astronomers Discover Ancient Galaxies Coming Together after Billions of Years
http://www.scienc...on2-2010

Ancient galaxy cluster is shockingly modern
http://www.futuri...-modern/

Apparently it's still no shock for half educated physorg trolls.. This explains your stance regarding mainstream cosmology - you simply don't know about any data which are violating it, because your belief in Big Bang is more important for you, then any knowledge about real observations.

These observations don't challenge the Big Bang theory, at best they challenge our theories on galactic evolution.

Apples and oranges....

Go fish.

"These observations don't challenge the Big Bang theory, at best they challenge our theories on galactic evolution."

"Apples and oranges..."

It's this very point he seems confused about. That's why I made the suggestion he seek out the original papers describing these observations. I guess my view of modern cosmology would be seriously confused and limited if I only referred to science articles at popular websites and press releases I found with google for serious research on astrophysical topics.

You might think he would realize that the discovery of an object older than the universe would be headline news around the world. That would be BIG news. No mention of such a discovery here at PhysOrg. Btw, I see Modernmystic and myself were docked a point above for initially asking what hodzaa's alternative to BBT was. Typical.

You might think he would realize that the discovery of an object older than the universe would be headline news around the world.

Actually it's much more probable, then the observation of Big Bang or inflation. But I don't believe in big headlines at the cases, violating established theories.

Now you have seven links already... My question rather is, how is it possible, you don't know about all these data, which I can google up in few minutes...?

It's not a matter of what you can google up in a few minutes. I can google any ideology you want in a few minutes.

It's a matter of what you do after you read what you google up.

You might think he would realize that the discovery of an object older than the universe would be headline news around the world.

Actually it's much more probable, then the observation of Big Bang or inflation. But I don't believe in big headlines at the cases, violating established theories.

In 1997, when the accelerating expansion of the universe was presented by two different research teams it went deeply against the established theories of the day (that expansion was decelerating), and that made BIG headline news.

"..How does the cosmological principle gel with the Minkowskian principle of unified spacetime?

It doesn't.

The cosmological principle separates space from time. It dictates our position in space to be mediocre, whilst allowing our position in time to be very special. Cosmologists tell us we are a very special generation privileged to live in a highly unique window of time..."

http://www.scienc...k_energy

Big Bang theory based on CMB observation suffers with circular reasoning, because its validity is based on the observation CMB, too - i.e. in similar way, like epicycles theory of medieval era.