(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
Old ideas revisited
The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.
In their paper, Ali and Das applied these Bohmian trajectories to an equation developed in the 1950s by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri at Presidency University in Kolkata, India. Raychaudhuri was also Das's teacher when he was an undergraduate student of that institution in the '90s.
Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, Ali and Das derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the context of general relativity. Although it's not a true theory of quantum gravity, the model does contain elements from both quantum theory and general relativity. Ali and Das also expect their results to hold even if and when a full theory of quantum gravity is formulated.
No singularities nor dark stuff
In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a "big crunch" singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again.
Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.
In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.
New gravity particle
In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.
In a related paper, Das and another collaborator, Rajat Bhaduri of McMaster University, Canada, have lent further credence to this model. They show that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate (named after Einstein and another Indian physicist, Satyendranath Bose) at temperatures that were present in the universe at all epochs.
Motivated by the model's potential to resolve the Big Bang singularity and account for dark matter and dark energy, the physicists plan to analyze their model more rigorously in the future. Their future work includes redoing their study while taking into account small inhomogeneous and anisotropic perturbations, but they do not expect small perturbations to significantly affect the results.
"It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once," Das said.
Explore further:
Theorists apply loop quantum gravity theory to black hole
More information: Ahmed Farag Ali and Saurya Das. "Cosmology from quantum potential." Physics Letters B. Volume 741, 4 February 2015, Pages 276–279. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.057. Also at: arXiv:1404.3093[gr-qc].
Saurya Das and Rajat K. Bhaduri, "Dark matter and dark energy from Bose-Einstein condensate", preprint: arXiv:1411.0753[gr-qc].
Returners
1.6 / 5 (23) Feb 09, 2015I gotta see their math. I was just talking about this sort of model yesterday and the day before. I think this is potentially better relativity both at the cosmic level and the local level because it introduces a mechanism to relate mass to space itself via a mediating particle, which is something relativity doesn't do. I got some critics from Ira and another guy about the Michelson Morley experiment and such. I don't see any reason an "fluid" model can't still work to tie gravity and space together in a single mediating substance or set of substances.
I will read the paper a little now and some later if there is no pay wall.
orti
1.7 / 5 (30) Feb 09, 2015i.e. We have to get rid of the big bang because it implies physics is not god. (Same with the anthropic principle. So, multiverses.)
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (39) Feb 09, 2015reset
1.7 / 5 (27) Feb 09, 2015Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (34) Feb 09, 2015Skippy that has never slowed you down before. Usually you just make up something that sounds like a person with a mental condition playing at being the scientist. Why now you have to see some maths, what's different with this one?
Returners
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 09, 2015This still implies no model would ever suffice for the entire universe, but only that which is within our light horizon, which means that the guy on "Science" and "Big Think" was still correct. Even a "Theory of Everything" can't actually model "Everything".
That is a small particle.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 09, 2015Benni
1.7 / 5 (29) Feb 09, 2015When the JWT starts bringing into view myriads of galaxies hypothesized by Big Bang Cosmology not to exist, bye, bye BB.
The consequence will be that the universe will be proven to be much older & bigger than Big Bang Funny Farm science could ever have imagined. Big Bang Theology will be scrapped to the ashbin of history & redshift theoreticians will be scrambling to rewrite their equations to deal with a new reality of math they once thought was settled science.
So, what will Cosmology Science of the future look like without a BB? Standby.....it'll be a fun ride.
diginet90
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 09, 2015Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2015Benni,
Even as a crotchety, foul mouthed ROC - I have to agree with that statement...:-)
(Altho - I like Retired Old COOT, better...)
Returners
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 09, 2015For the record, this actually does not produce an infinite monkey history of the universe, as we can readily demonstrate strings of infinite numbers which nevertheless provably do not contain all possibilities. This is slightly relevant because it still means the universe has one history, or more generally each universe (if there is more than one) has one history.
It means that Entropy is somehow a form of order at the cosmic level even though it appears to be disorder locally. This I had suspected already anyway.
They will need computer models to understand much of anything beyond our common experience and intuition, because visualizing these corrections is pretty freaking hard.
Can it predict future threshold events, such as reionization or the appearance of all-new particles or entity-properties as local energy levels change?
Returners
1.3 / 5 (25) Feb 09, 2015Also, I should suggest that a formula showing past infinitude does not necessarily mean that an infinite past actually exists, it simply shows that if it did exist it would have those properties.
You can imagine running a finite clock backwards infinitely, but that doesn't make the operation valid.
The assumption of constant laws is axiomatic, and does not necessarily hold philosophically true for a sub-set of reality, but only for the fundamental.
So the equation cannot describe the entirety of reality, but only the observable universe, though it can imply that there may or may not be things beyond what it can describe.
MP3Car
5 / 5 (27) Feb 09, 2015You have made other comments that show you need to try and have more of an open mind. You commented on another article, "If, in an ideal environment (earth), life only began once in 4.5 Byr, why expect it to sprout everywhere spontaneously?" I think you're missing several points; one is 100B to 200B galaxies out there, and each contains billions and even trillions of stars. All of the recent planet findings have been in our galaxy alone, only looking at ~150,000 stars of the ~300,000,000,000 in the milky way.
Z99
1.8 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015Eikka
4.7 / 5 (37) Feb 09, 2015That's missing the point.
The theist argue that everything comes from something, therefore there -must- be a God, which gives rise to the question, "who made God?". The whole question is a response to the inherent contradiction in the definition of God as the necessary first cause.
If you contend that something doesn't need to be caused by anything to exist, you actually destroy the theist argument; God as a creator, or creation itself as a single event, is no longer necessary for things to exist.
Unless you explain why God would be the only thing that can exist without a cause, everything can exist without God.
MP3Car
4.6 / 5 (23) Feb 09, 2015Returners: Not sure how you come to that conclusion... Most of us on phys.org believe it is not only probable that life exists elsewhere, but that it is also highly likely. Not sure how the use of math and modeling makes a case for the existence of a God.
And as far as the lack of "hearing" anything from another world that deniers claim... A parallel earth could be down the street just 100 light years away and we wouldn't hear it yet. Now think about a parallel earth orbiting a star that is 100,000,000 light years away (still fairly close)... Something tells me dinosaurs weren't broadcasting RF.
movementiseternal
Feb 09, 2015RayInLv
4.6 / 5 (16) Feb 09, 2015We have no idea what happens at that point, only a mathematical hypothesis. It has never been tested, and other than the curvature of space outside the event horizon has never been and can not be measured.
I have been waiting for equations to explain it without the hypothetical singularity concept. No length, width, depth, time does not exist.
Let the arguments begin. I sincerely hope more people look beyond singularities, dark matter, dark energy - It is a good thing to challenge the status qua
qitana
4.9 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015Doesn't the Earth move around the sun because the sun curves space in such a way that the earth can stay in orbit?
Cause... if the curvature of space explains how gravity is mediated, the existence of gravitons seems to be awkward as they seem unnecessary
Could someone explain?
Tuxford
1 / 5 (16) Feb 09, 2015Quantum patch. Are we finally witnessing the death throes of the Huge Bang Fantasy??
LaViolette is way ahead with his etheric fluid model, where space is composed of a multitude of undetectable sub-quantum particles which, under proper diffusive conditions, ignite into a self-sustaining, propagating, transformation reaction that we label a sub-atomic particle. Like sound wave propagation in air, photon reaction propagation is limited by the ultimate transformation reaction speed set by characteristics of the local diffusive medium. And since disturbances of the transforming medium extend well in advance of and into the surrounding medium from the moving photon reaction, the double-slit experiment is easily explained.
Baseline
4.8 / 5 (30) Feb 09, 2015Sigh yet another who can not understand that atheism does not require an explanation of how it all began or a requirement to prove that God does not exist. The burden of proof for the existence of God lays completely on the shoulders of the theist.
If I am to play a game where the eternal disposition of my "soul" is at stake I will get the rules of the game directly from the game master, not some middleman with his or her own agenda. Until that day comes I will live my life the way I choose to and my choices do not require me to convince you that I am right about what I believe.
brodix
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 09, 2015When I point this out, the usual response is "the light is just being carried along by the expansion." Which overlooks the fact that it's the redshift of this light traveling intergalactically, on which the proof of the theory is based. So there is supposed to be expanding space, based on the redshift of intergalactic light and we know this because we can compare it to stable units of measure, based on the speed of the exact same light???
Of course, every time observations refute this theory, some enormous new force of nature is proposed and accepted.
brodix
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2015If it compounded on itself, it would explain why this expansion curves parabolically and so no need for dark energy. Also the CMBR would simply be light from ever more distant sources, shifted completely off the visible spectrum and so be the solution to Olber's paradox.
Or we can stick to inflation, dark energy and multiverses.
I can only wonder if another generation of cosmologists will chase after that goose, or will they wise up and push the reset button.
ryankarl39
4.7 / 5 (15) Feb 09, 2015If you are saying gravitons and the quantum fluid are merely theoretical while the big bang and inflation are not, you are actually standing still and not taking a step in any direction - sticking with the status quo does not equal scientific progress.
This theory is seeking to replace one current theory of the universe. If, as mentioned in the article, it fits with current observations and gets rid of the uncomfortable truth that the entire theory breaks down at the beginning with the big bang, it is truly a step forward. The current model of the universe fits well with some observations, as did Newtonian Physics, but just like Newton, there were many areas Einstein did not understand or have the ability to observe. Its only a matter of time before a new theory supersedes it.
hudres
1.5 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 20152. The problem with the Big Bang is that it begs the question "What was there before it?". Personally, I favor a cyclic universe which undergoes periodic expansions, followed by contractions, followed by a singularity state (Big Bang), and then repeats ad infinitum. It is difficult to prove this as there is no "memory" across a Big Bang event. I believe Hawking postulated something like this in one of his earlier works.
PsycheOne
1.3 / 5 (19) Feb 09, 2015If indeed spirit evolves through multiple incarnations in the apparent physical universe, then if the universe finally collapses, all the spiritual advances of billions of lifetimes get wiped out. As child Alvy says in Annie Hall, if the universe is doomed "What's the point?".
Again, if consciousness preceded substance, then the Big Bang start point is a problem, because consciousness is eternal. No big bang, no problem.
I like this new theory and am rooting for it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (21) Feb 09, 2015"theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics"
David Bohm... "was also, more unusually for a scientist, inspired by mysticism. Indeed, in the 1970s and 1980s he made contact with both J. Krishnamurti and the Dalai Lama whose teachings helped shape his work"
-I suspect religious philo voodoo mysticism.Consciousness is the favored substitute du jour for the soul. It is as fantastical as is god.
ppnlppnl
3.9 / 5 (21) Feb 09, 2015ElectronSpinDensityPlots
Feb 09, 2015arpit_kh
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cycle_of_the_universe
jb1516
4.2 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015NickCalderon
3.4 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015PsycheOne
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2015arpt_kh: given that Hinduism posits cyclical annihilation, what does it say about the spiritual advancement achieved in one of those cycles? Is it completely wiped out? Do we all start again as amoebas (or less)?
liquidspacetime
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 09, 2015'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicswor...ws/46688
"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis"
Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.
'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.g...023.html
"The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain."
The clusters are headed along this path because our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.
It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.
Dark energy is dark matter continuously emitted into the Universal jet.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (18) Feb 09, 2015In all likelihood, you are right. However, this picture allows one to label epochs and not have other quadrants of the sphere confusing the visualization and type.
It's simplified. Big Bang for dummies...
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (18) Feb 09, 2015"One of the book's more controversial claims is that qualia do not (and cannot) exist. Dennett's main argument is that the various properties attributed to qualia by philosophers—qualia are supposed to be incorrigible, ineffable, private, directly accessible and so on—are incompatible, so the notion of qualia is incoherent. The non-existence of qualia would mean that there is no hard problem of consciousness, and "philosophical zombies", which are supposed to act like a human in every way while somehow lacking qualia, cannot exist."
Losik
Feb 09, 2015h00hbt
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015Benni
2.1 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015.....yeah, they make it look "anistropic" giving a misleading appearance of the universe beginning at the bottom end of the barrel of a cannon. They always do that because "isotropic" makes the universe look too much like the quasi-sphere that Einstein describes in his GR, or maybe the artists never took an isometric drawing course in college & consequently don't comprehend how to make an accurate drawing.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015Wheeew
4.8 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015reset
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015Wake
1 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2015While the illustration is trying to use 2 dimensions to illustrate a 4 dimensional problem I still have a problem with that "expansion" period and am more of the mind that the "change of state" from a prior universe is probably more closely on track. While a lot of energy had to be injected into the universe for the immense distances and speeds to be obtained it does not therefore infer that it was injected at a point. Perhaps the theory of black holes representing a hole into another universe is correct and that the energy in this is coming from a "lower division universe" into ours via many many "black holes" of theirs.
So do we look for the energy sieves?
Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2015So you think "heat death" should have occurred long ago, is that it? Tell us more about it.......
movementiseternal
Feb 09, 2015drew51
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2015mbee1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015Was wondering how long before ol' "movementis..." started yackin'..
luvinspoon2001
1.8 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015luvinspoon2001
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2015Gregman2
1.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015rocket77777
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2015And other theory that dark matters are universe in different dimension where we are only connected by gravity.
xtsam
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015fowlowl1955
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.9 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 20151. The problem with Bohm theory is that it isn't relativistic. [ http://en.wikiped...lativity ] Enforcing the relativistic Friedmann equations from cosmology is just cosmetics.
2. This is also problematic:
"the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity,".
That has never been true, since it necessitates extrapolating GR into the Planck regime where it breaks down. [ http://en.wikiped...theorems ]
Moreover, since a decade it has been known that nature seems to avoid a singularity here as elsewhere:
"... inflationary cosmologies avoid the initial big-bang singularity, rounding them out to a smooth beginning." [Ibid]
adam_omara1
1.4 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015paul-r
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015Rotoscience
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015"The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity."
At least its not like String Theory in this respect, which I don't respect. I hope you continue to develop this newish theory. I'm not bent to dark matter. Not sure your result that the Universe does not have an age. That gives me doubt. But doubt and proof resolving this is the foundation of physics and all science. I really like what you are doing.
Zog the Great
4 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015Shootist
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015Sir Fred Hoyle knows.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (18) Feb 09, 2015But also some lucid and even contextual points for once:
@MP3Car:
"You commented on another article, "If, in an ideal environment (earth), life only began once in 4.5 Byr, why expect it to sprout everywhere spontaneously?""
As you say, that misses several points. Darwin responded to that question nearly 2 centuries ago: life can only start once (or not, or a few times), because later attempts will be food for existing life. Everyone interested in astrobiology should know this.
Instead we can look at how fast life was established on Earth, which means it is easy and/or often repeated attempts, and hence life should be common.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015Hey, hey, hey there.......the Biblical account of Creation is the Big Bang.....!!!!!! Have you never sat down with a checklist to compare the "stretching" & "inflation" of the two hypotheses of the beginning stages of the universe? In the BB it all came into existence in a flash of an explosion the same as Creation.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.9 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2015Physicists expect everything to be quantum physics at its basis. Therefore (and because the theory breaks down at high energies/small scales), general relativity is known to be effective. (I.e. a good but not complete description.)
Gravitons is what you get out of gravity when you quantize it same as every other field. It is also an empty "slot" among particles (spin =2, max spin allowed in QP, which no standard particle has - they have 0 (Higgs), 1/2 and 1 while 3/2 is set aside for supersymmetry). However, those gravitons only show that GR is compatible with QP, not that the theory is complete.
Neros Fiddle
1 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2015Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2015@xtsam: "lways fascinated by the big bang, very small and hot and having everything in it needed to make the universe, how does that happen? What is before that and where is that from?"
The age of the local universe is precisely established (at 14 billion years) since WMAP tested inflationary cosmology 2004. What happens is that the universe comes out of a cold, rapid expanding state (inflation), whereupon the inflation field potential energy gets converted to heat (Hot Big Bang).
Inflation may or may not be eternal backwards, we can't tell yet, but since the inflationary multiverse (the most likely configuration) has always been expanding it has no equilibrium to attain.
[tbcdt]
Losik
Feb 09, 2015tonybudz
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015Be it internally or externally is unknown, however since we can assume it was of a bigger whole before it expanded, we can assume it had eternity to prepare for it.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.9 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015If inflation isn't eternal backwards, likely it has fluctuated into being - the universe is zero energy and inflation is a quantum scalar field after all - and it has then done so an infinite number of times, making an infinite set of eternal multiverses that stretches back and forward into eternity.
That is a good enough solution, since physics makes sense but its absence does not, you can't for example make a distribution on anything else than events.
************
@Losik, responding to my comment:
Sorry, I can't help you, you don't make any sense.
Maybe you should start study physics? It usually helps to understand the issues before asking questions or commenting on known science.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015So...if ya don't buy into the big bang - why buy into the creation theory?
kwphilly
1.4 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015jimpliciter
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 09, 2015bierzoj
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2015This is the most important of all subjects...to attempt at learning where we come from....and where we goin'
t_d_lowe
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015Night Rider
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015Benni
1.5 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015.......yeah, just my point, they're the same.
Readers here need to know the purpose this article was written, to put the scientific community on notice that they need to begin weaning themselves off BB because it is so close to Creation.
There is a small horde of astrophysicists who are just beginning to sound the alarm bells that the James Webb telescope with its infrared spectrometry, will in just a few years hence take a mask off a universe heretofore unimagined. Cosmology will go through a rebirth when the JWT takes pictures of galaxies on the other side of that Primordial gas.
julianlzn
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015the_alien
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015Mace Kelly
1.3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015frank2pc
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015Losik
Feb 09, 2015LITWCaretaker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015We cant know EXACTLY how the universe began, nor Exactly how it will end. We didnt see it start, we won't see it end, and we have already missed a lot of the best parts.
Math and physics continue to refine by degrees how close we are to a "True" answer. whether it is explaining gravity,time, or matter. The real truth is realizing that the rabbit hole really does not have a bottom, only levels, and a door that goes down -when you find the key.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2015.......and as the Big Bang goes, so goes Creation, they are one in the same. Cosmologists have for years been trying to figure out how to beat back the methodology of Creationists adopting many of the principle tenets of BB. They see their opportunity with the JWT, that it will discover that the vaunted Primordial Gas Cloud is not what they have assumed it to be, the edge of the universe.
If the JWT spots galaxies opposite the Primordial Gas, down the tubes goes the BB & cosmologists will be freed from the chains Creationist theology. Cosmologists want as much distance between themselves & Creationists as possible, and they get it if they can get pictures of galaxies opposite the Primordial Gas; ummmmh, tongue in cheek here, they're praying for it.
carlino1369
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2015Urgelt
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015It will not be compatible with our interpretation of red shift if we use directional time dilation from Lorentz's Absolute Transformation. In that case all of our cosmological measurements will require significant corrections.
I think it's about time we nailed down whether reciprocal time dilation is in fact operant over cosmological distances. Or any distances, for that matter. Thus far experiments demonstrate that time dilation is real; but except for GPS, they don't tease out the difference between reciprocal time dilation and directional time dilation. And for GPS, directional time dilation is the only solution that yields accurate geopositions.
senseii1
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015bruce37b
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015hrfJC
1 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015nineball26
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015common sense, logic and everything else will tell you space is infinite, time is infinite therefore the universe is infinite, if its not then whats there? solidness? a wall? think about it, if there is an "end" to the universe or space whats there, a road sign? "you have reached the end of the universe" .. "the end of space is forward another trillion billion light years" .. "have a safe journey"
it NEVER ENDS therefore it never has a beginning, were not in the middle, edge or beginning we are simply here, in it.. a part of it
popgun
1.8 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015Wisco
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015It's about at this point that my head explodes from trying to wrap my brain around the article. Science needs another English tense.
jerry_bushman_7
1.3 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015thiago_thesaints
4 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015Ah, of course.
ssatak
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015madeinspace
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015MandoZink
4.5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015Well, just how far behind the times were these people when they figured this out. The backwards extrapolation to a singularity using relativity dates back to the original Big Bang notion, which has long since been replaced by the much improved idea of cosmic inflation. Einstein's equations work well for the present, future and the past, but only back to the point where extreme conditions cannot be explained by relativity, and thus require quantum interpretation. The possible complexity of the quantum concept of inflation also includes the premise of a multiverse, and the probability of infinite extensions into both past and future.
Current cosmological discussions don't even mention a singularity.
Whydening Gyre
1.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015Nope. Proves it's real to me...
Just means it's always been there, tickin' away...
Whydening Gyre
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015Never created itself from nothing. Always WAS something...
Everything IN the universe was created by it, not something outside of it...
vickster339
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015Math4us
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015Phil DePayne
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015Math4us
4 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015Phil DePayne
3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015gunnqu
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015http://vixra.org/...51v6.pdf
Math4us
3.3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015Phil our posts have crossed in etherland- wasn't 4 u
Math4us
3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015Mimath224
3.5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2015Perhaps a complex form of Markov Chain? Too simplistic I guess!
L0ND35
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015Math4us
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015bluehigh
2.5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way.
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way.
- Time
dominguezmeza
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015Asking the question "who made God" actually seems to miss the theist argument from first cause. Theists in this are arguing that everything within the universe seems to follow this pattern of causes where nothing arises from nothing. So there would seem to be something outside of the universe, and so outside the laws of the universe, that could act on it as a first cause. A thing outside the universe and its laws that can act on it are attributes of what people have always called God. To move from this to a Christian god is something else, but that isn't what this argument was designed to do. So, the question "then who made god" seems to miss the point that it is claiming something has to exist outside the laws that govern the universe - like the law maker.
mike4ty4
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015jonnhere
2.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015movementiseternal
Feb 10, 2015movementiseternal
Feb 10, 2015jonnhere
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015ARISTOTLE--cosmos was in a steady state, eternal, unique and all inclusive. He argued that the universe as a whole was ungenerated as well as indestructible. Most influential view and incorporated into the medieval concept of the universe and through the Renaissance (but theists did not incorporate the past eternal element)
EMPEDOCLES--cosmos was a self-contained sphere passing through cycles of rest and change without beginning or end with very long cycles (in which life arose and disappeared over and over)
THE STOICS--cosmos a gigantic sphere oscillating through cycles of expansion and contraction in the void surrounding it. Invented the term 'ekpyrosis', borrowed by a new cosmological model in 2001
EPICURUS--atoms moved ceaselessly in an infinite void, constantly forming and reforming the world said that "there are infinite worlds"
LUCRETIUS--the universe is spatially infinite/finite in age with infinite worlds
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015Whydening Gyre
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015Here's a video-
https://www.youtu...Re7529Go
Now, take that and imagine it with even just a thousand more variable strings. What do you get?
An approximation of how our Universe might look from the outside...;-)
500 years from now, students will be saying - "man, those people back then thought our Universe was the center of things?!?"
And dogs will still be chasin' their own tails...
Whydening Gyre
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015why not "nothing from something"?
It's what we all seem to be chasing...
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015The "...from nothing" never really worked for me. While "something" has existence, "nothing" does not.
"Nothing" is not vacuum, but complete absence of everything - including dimensionality/spacetime. So in effect if "nothing" existed it would have no time and no duration - it would be over in (less than) an instant. The "existence of nothing" is a contradition in terms - and by extension "existence" is a tautology.
(Nothing is like "zero" - it's an abstract. Whereas "something" is not an abstract. So linking these two causally makes very little sense to me)
In effect this means that there is no alternative state to "something" existing (what the "something" manifests as is an entirely different problem)
Galane
4.2 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015"the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid" What? They've revived the aether theory again without telling us?
Looks like new ways of retelling some of the oldest theories of the universe.
Melchizedek0001
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 20151 )The logical beginning and 2) The physical one; here, he was after (in favor) Aristotle's the eternity of Universe. He also considered that a better theory could replace the noble of "Saint"Ptolomeus system (with the Earth as the centre); 20th cent. A.Eisntein finally comprised all: Aristotle, Ptolomey, Copernicus/Galileo. ps.It seems "scientists" are at playground now
Galane
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015In other words, you can't fill a room with nothing. And please mop up any vacuum leaks you find on the laboratory floor. ;)
mooster75
2.6 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015Yes. Lunchtime doubly so.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015This is a good question.
thingumbobesquire
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015Vacuum leaks are a choking hazard.
Read this (and don't choke while laughing). I don't know if it's true, but it sounds like it might be.
http://www.scifor...s.41446/
If it goes through 'bang-crunch'-cycles then during the crunch stuff gets compressed into quark gluon plasma (or even further down if there is a 'further down')...and during the 'bang' that crystallizes back into subatomic particles which reform into atoms.
moka
2 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015Stefan Mehedinteanu1
http://viXra.org/abs/1501.0185
androloma
3 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015Returners
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015Treat "time" as a dimension and plot events in 4-d. This is the only sensible way to think about things over such huge distances and times.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015Isn't it kinda doing that ALL THE TIME?
I mean, what with all the gravity wells (Black holes, neutron stars, supernovas, etc.) numerously scattered around our Universe, creating turbulence,sucking in matter and then spewing it back out...
That's GOTTA be doing something, right?
Whydening Gyre
2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015Doesn't stop us from trying...:-)
Bob_BioLogical
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015Of all the thousands of gods worshiped over the centuries by many different cultures across the globe, which god exactly is it you are referring to?
jscroft
5 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015You're making a lot of hay out of the "Pioneer Anomaly", but FEA of the spacecrafts' expected thermal emissions produced anisitropic radiation pressure and tracks that lined up exactly with their actual trajectories (see http://en.wikiped..._anomaly ). So there isn't really any anomaly left to claim, and the blueshift you describe from the Pioneer maser is fully explained without resort to new physics.
Does this falsify your idea, or just put it back into the category of "we'll see"?
samueljlawson
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
cbhall56
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015fourinfinities
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015Moebius
4 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015If the universe had no beginning it has no end. The odds of us being on the time line where we would see signs of either end to the universe are infinitely small. We see light from over 10 billion years ago and the universe looks different. We are not in a universe that has existed infinitely long or will exist infinitely long. The odds are infinitely huge that if we were in an infinite universe we would be near the middle of the time line and infinitely far from either the past or the future.
rpaul_bauman
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015Nashingun
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015This all is like selling a bad pharmaceutical product waiting to be discovered useless.
RWT
1 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015reset
1 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015The one he feels a connection to of course. And he's allowed to believe it as much as a person is allowed to believe that 75% of the matter in the universe is completely undetectable other than an effect it is claimed to be having, or that all of the matter in the universe was once "a point".
Better take a look at what YOU think is possible before judging what someone else does.
vic1248
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015Also, "singularity" is not the only problem between the Theory of General Relativity and the Quantum Theory, the loss of particle/system data, namely the "wave function," at black holes according to Einstein is even a bigger irreconcilable difference.
I believe it's time the scientific community started thinking out of the box of the already fatigued Theoretical Physics.
michael_nieuwenhuizen
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015RSingleton14
2.3 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015El_Nose
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015enochgojongyim
1.5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015If truth, then simple. The equation produces simplicity. Therefore, it is truth...?
Someone explain to me, pls.
Traltizer
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015-The Cosmic Microwave Background (if there was no big bang, what caused this almost uniform signature across the whole of what we consider to be our cosmic horizon?)
-The ever-increasing expansion of the universe: Any of our observations and measurement in redshift appears to completely contradict this model of a spatially finite and eternal universe. Additionally, if the universe indeed had a finite spatial boundary, then ergo something would have to exist on the other side of it. Also, observationally what is causing this increased acceleration if dark energy is simply written off in this "theory"?
- Applying quantum mechanics to macro scale general relativity is tenuous at best: If this theory actually effectively incorporated the two, I'm sure it'd be getting a lot more attention than it is.
A theory that poses more questions than answers is not a theory.
GOD__
2.5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015This never happened.
I did the math and you do not exist.
Nashingun
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015redshifted
2.8 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015Wat?
Nashingun
1.8 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015The CMB theory will be 100% scrapped if the James Webb telescope discovers galaxies on the other side of the Primordial Gas Cloud.
The present calculation for redshift will be totally scrapped because it is based on a 13.7 Gyr limit within the Integral by which redshift calculations are made. The distance between intervals of redshifting shrinks the closer the calculation is made to the limit of 13.7 because redshifting is assumed not to be a constant.
jonnhere
2 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015Haha! Burn. Also, yes.
DonGateley
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015But highly evolved complex life such as we see depends on a very lengthy string of conducive events and conditions that can't be expected to be so common. Potentially even unique when coupled with the anthropic principle and the possibility of a quantum landscape.
Boilerplate
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015Losik
Feb 10, 2015TKO
3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015It is akin to saying which popcorn popped first. You would have to be there to see it. Instead - looking back we can only say that a lot of corn popped. The schematic (drawing) uses a PAN diagram (2 dimensional thinking). In space of course we have 3 dimensions. PLS open color chart of elements. In the first round of bangs, gasses formed simple elements. As Suns got hotter more complex items. Very large suns (lots of heat) created Iron, Gold, etc. These are the heavy metals. Think of it as many little bangs, rest; bigger bangs, rest; and then even bigger bangs. Eventually you get to now, where Suns start and die off all of the time. *Adding Physics Humor * Let us go up into a space orbit and see how far popcorn could fly in zero gravity.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015If space is expanding in all directions and at an expanding rate this sounds more like there is a constant creation of new space coming from every point in space. This would look exactly like everything is flying apart in an ever increasing pace and eventually at some distance it would be expanding faster than the speed of light and the continuing expansion would look like a microwave background radiation due to the redshift of the negative event horizon ... the place where light sources are just about to travel away from us at faster than the speed of light and become invisible to us.
twinghost
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015mworkmansr
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015We invent the graviton? Sounds like phlogiston and aether.
Physicists are starting to sound like economists and sociologists.
jackjump
5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015Al1337
5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015ForConsideration
3 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015It's like Pringles... is it remotely possible that they could come up with a better chip someday? Probably not. But if I don't at least allow myself to consider such a preposterous suggestion, I miss out on the chance to have something even better than a Pringle. Nirvana...
Science is discovery and re-discovery. Love it when a new (or recycled) idea stirs the pot a little. It makes us work harder to understand our own views. It also bumps my stock in Advil.
And yes, I was totally joking about Pringles. LOL... like someone could ever come up with a better chip... laughable!
Seriously, I must say that it is refreshing to see mostly respectful conversation on such a controversial topic.
norrie
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015Therefore, since there must be a beginning, the Thing That Has No Cause must be something completely unlike anything else that we know of, and must be OUTSIDE of the whole system, and not subject to its laws.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015The hydrogen atom is smaller than it was at the time of creation. That means that probably everything is shrinking all the time, but this being a quantized reality, we can assume that this is a process that will continue until some quantum threshold is attained, at which point everything unravels and becomes nothing again in short order. All the while, the universe continues to create at the periphery, where space, time and matter begin. These processes continue.
The universe had a beginning. It is untenable to believe otherwise. Ocham's razor.
TKO
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015hoosker
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015russelljbarry15
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015jfkrll
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015Now someone PLEASE tell me they understand what I've written.
meginprogress
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015Many thanks in advance for an answer.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015dtlee999
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015rpaul_bauman
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015whitefang0205
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015If the universe has always been here, what changed about 13 billion years ago to have the stars suddenly start forming? From observations of current stars, understanding of how they form and function and the concentrations of heavy elements in the observable universe, that's a pretty safe number for when stars actually started forming. The Big Bang theory provides a simple explanation for this, as that is when particles slowed down enough to start being drawn together.
rpaul_bauman
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015gardotd426
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015Losik
Feb 10, 2015Neoheurist
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015flugenics.blogspot.com/2014/08/flugenics-fractional-overview.html
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015Well, nothing, they always were there."
No. We know that stars have a life cycle. They form, burn through fuel and form elements through fusion and eventually run out of fuel and "die" in one of several ways. This is observed and fairly predictable. If stars have been around an infinite amount of time, all fuel would be used up unless there were an infinite amount of fuel, which of course, would have produced an infinite amount of heavy elements, etc. Unless they can show that something changed 13 billion years ago (or at least posit a good guess at what might have) then this is just another math magic trick. The world is full of them.
TKO
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015Before mass ... imagine gas atoms floating in space
STEP 1 : Due to minute gravity pull, They start to create cloud formations, gaining mass here and there. Not in one location, but many locations in space.
STEP 2: Particles in larger gasses start bumping into each other to create mass.
STEP 3: E=Mc2 mass and energy for a very small Sun, most probably unstable, which explodes Heat and mass creates a few new elements.
NOTE - Now let us also imagine Multiple clouds in space all doing this like fish giving birth in the ocean. Creating multiple "larger and larger popcorn explosions in space" and eventually you get the periodic table, as well as the messy universe we live in.
LET US START WITH THE MATH
STEP 1 : Define a single Three Dimensional Cloud
http://kiwi DOT atmos DOT colostate DOT edu/pubs/joon-hee-tech_report.pdf
I will pause here so you can have time to review.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015Do you know how "redshift" is calculated?
krokodil_dundee_33
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015Why is cyclical expansion from a singularity followed by collapse back into a singularity postulated in the Big Bang theory not compatible with a concept of the universe not having a singular beginning?
To restate, couldn't singularity based cycles of expansion and contraction still be part of a universe that has existed forever?
Is the point of trying to remove the singularity component based on an Occam's razor perspective that the existence of singularities is redundant/superfluous?
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015It could, but that doesn't eliminate the problem that the math breaks down at the singularity. The whole point is that the current math models can't explain the observable universe, so the observable universe must be altered to fit the math. It seems to be a common trend by people who call themselves scientists now-a-days.
Losik
Feb 10, 2015krokodil_dundee_33
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015Thanks for your response.
So quantum-corrected mathematical modeling can make the need for a mathematically inconsistent singularity proposal superfluous.
This makes sense. We can see how people can doggedly hold onto old belief systems and try to incorporate them into newer models that don't have a reason to still rely on them; this approach is often used by theists who when faced with compelling natural bases for phenomenon feel the need to irrelevantly tack on that their gods were responsible for it, ignoring that the existence of invisible extraplanar entities is redundant and illogical, or to paraphrase your response that the observable universe must be altered to fit their god hypothesis.
TKO
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015If you look out at an existing nebula there is a TON of activity, expanding and contracting, new and dieing, the nebula itself is a rather large "cloud" with lots of gas, lots of solids.
going back the small popcorn theory - imagine exploding popcorn at the very beginning, particles going in all directions - with like sized particles attracting to similar or larger objects ...
michael_c_clark_52
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015michael_c_clark_52
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015joshualwilson
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015Hmmm, that sounds like something which would occur outside the natural order of things- like something supernatural. Well, science is finally going somewhere!
michael_c_clark_52
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015keynorth03
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015michael_c_clark_52
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015mburger
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015I am pleased as well to see the authors credit David Bohm as their inspiration for this effort. Good on you Canadian Prairie boys!!! Stone Megalith Builders of Old.... they used their golden brain glands, pituitary and pineal (brain boosting bandwidth DMT) and we do not.
TopCat22
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015The cosmos is very uniform from our perspective. This can be explained by new space and new mater and new energy coming into being everywhere in space. As more space exists between two farther points the speed that they are moving away from the expansion increases in an accelerating pace till at more than 13.5 billion light years away the light is moving faster than the speed of light and cannot be seen. What we see as the microwave background radiation is just the red shifted light of the cosmos just before it hit the speed of light and becomes invisible. The universe is infinite and has no beginning in time or place.
littleturkey01
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015'Sigh yet another who can not understand that atheism does not require an explanation of how it all began or a requirement to prove that God does not exist. The burden of proof for the existence of God lays completely on the shoulders of the theist.'
Just because pseudo skeptics always resort to saying such things as, 'the burden of proof for the existence of God lays completely on the shoulders of the theists' does not make it so. That is a typical pseudo skeptic deflection of questions asked of which they have no idea how to answer.
russell_russell
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015All physicists and mathematicians will recognize this in any of the forms (norms) written.
That provides you a setting(s) for an event and an event.
The primitive notion here is an empty set.
mburger
1 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015I am pleased as well to see the authors credit David Bohm as their inspiration for this effort. Good on you Canadian Prairie boys!!! Stone Megalith Builders of Old.... they used their golden brain glands, pituitary and pineal (brain boosting bandwidth DMT) and we do not.
mburger
1 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015Get over it, we live in a time of disconnectedness a society without a relationship with reality/
I am pleased as well to see the authors credit David Bohm as their inspiration for this effort. Good on you Canadian Prairie boys!!! Stone Megalith Builders of Old.... they used their golden brain glands, pituitary and pineal (brain boosting bandwidth DMT) and we do not.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015krokodil_dundee_33
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015This is not the case if you believe in the concept of a "personal god", and herein lies the fundamental semantic-based misperceptions of terms such as Spinoza's god that Einstein used.
Just because one evokes a term "god" in an all inclusive sense doesn't mean that it is in any way similar to those of people who believe in the personal god(s) of the Bible, Koran, or Scientology texts.
The devil is in the details, and the term god can mean anything from a guy with a beard sitting on a throne in another dimension personally judging you for wearing two different types of fabrics to an all inclusive definition meaning all of the stuff in the entire universe, the latter which doesn't necessarily imply sentience.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2015Why, even at the quantum scales, there is energy-space perturbations (high energy content photons/gamma rays etc) interacting and forming 'particle pairs' of Electron-Posiron matter. And of course, the latter may at some other place/epoch interact to Annihilate themselves back to gamma ray photonic energy again!
It never stops. What we are observing 'locally/now' in 'observable volume' is merely one 'present' epoch of 'states' that represents one such epoch/stages of an infinite/eternal series of construction/deconstruction epoch/stages. Cheers.
krokodil_dundee_33
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2015"Just because pseudo skeptics always resort to saying such things as, 'the burden of proof for the existence of God lays completely on the shoulders of the theists' does not make it so."
Yes, actually it does, and you can drop the irrelevant "pseudo" and just say skeptics, because let's face it a Christian is a skeptic towards all of the invisible extraplanar superhuman entities of other religions.
A Christian doesn't believe that a blue eight armed god exists and absolutely would require a Hindu to carry the burden of proof to convince them otherwise.
So both the Christian and atheist are skeptics with regards to the non-Christian world religions, with the latter taking their disbelief one religion further.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2015Apt description of BBang etc. hypotheses! Hence mainstream unease with what's been claimed for BBang etc to date; especially inflation/expansion 'interpretations' of CMB data. Cheers.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2015conradg
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015Well, for one, you could define God as "that from which everything arises." That solves the philosophical/rational problem. One can then say that God's source is God, by definition.
But that's probably not satisfying, and obviously a circular argument. Which is not to say it's a false argument however. It makes perfect sense to say that reality is circular in nature.
It goes back to the ancient argument that everything is made or comes from "one thing" or even "oneness". Advaita, for example, means "not two". It also means "beyond two".
Thales' proposition that everything is made of water as the essential element doesn't seem to make much sense empirically, unless "water" is taken to be symbolic. Of what? The most sensible proposition is "consciousness", since that's a common symbolic usage of water. The "ocean of consciousness" as the primal source.
cimino_antonio
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015polley_richard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015polley_richard
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.
someone11235813
3 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015You assume without any justification at all, that the chance of intelligent (or even not intelligent) life like ours is automatically maybe billions or 100's of billions one. And while that may be correct, it may also be correct that the chance is more like 100's of billions of trillions to one against. I'm not saying it is either, the fact is we do not know. And until we at least actually find solid evidence of some form of life that has formed elsewhere (life being defined as a self replicating object that introduces errors that can be subjected to natural selection) then we just do not know. However you fall into the trap that is as bad as any creationist nonsense by making the 'how could there not be life with so many stars'
HughHoney
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015CharlesRKiss
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015CharlesRKiss
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Presume an infinite time frame. Presume it can be called a frame.
What would be the difference between a causal multiverse (the type we've all read about in QM) and this "Presumed Infinite Time Frame, (all caps)" where EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY HAPPENED?
Now, suppose the connectedness is not linear as we imagine in QM with an undetermined future, but distributed in an entanglement that is orderly (chaos, functions, higher math not discovered yet, etc) but not static; and it's the connections that are changing, ie. the correspondences between all possible events (outcomes). etc. and free will.
[I could just go on; but I'll stop here]
Do you understand this topology? Do I?? lol. How is it any different than the splitting linear causal multiverse of QM?
[I don't think it is]
This is more a field of events, where "time's arrow" isn't related to anything that hasn't already happened before (that's all I can say about it).
duran1948
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2015You have a reference for that statement?
conradg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015So both the Christian and atheist are skeptics with regards to the non-Christian world religions, with the latter taking their disbelief one religion further."
However, a Hindu will say that all Gods exist, as many as there are people, even one or more for each person, including the Christian. So while monotheism might require atheism towards other Gods, polytheism does not.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015But the CONCEPT of one is priceless...
CharlesRKiss
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015Notice how I used the word "approximation"...
"Your inside is out and your outside is in..." - Beatles.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015To actually address the subject though… I see many people here trying to whistle past the graveyard that is infinity. The claim seems to be that heavy elements are broken back down into quarks, ejected back into space, which then reform into basic atoms of hydrogen (amongst other things, I'm sure.) Have you guys got any scientific research to back any of that up?
And let us not forget the other two words that you are avoiding… Black Hole. These are real. They have mass. They have temperature. They are the singularity problem of the Big Bang sitting right in front of us, not simply theoretically 14 billion years ago. Along with the problem of figuring out how stars have infinite fuel (and why older stars have a different physical make up) you need to answer why the universe isn't just one big Black Hole.
bbbbwindows
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015It is more likely that the areas called "black holes" are dense plasmoids. The classic spiral galaxy formation has been created in the laboratory by plasma physicists. The driving force is electromagnetic, not gravity. Not only does this occur in keeping with the laws of physics it can be experimentally confirmed and is consistent with observational data.
For the cutting edge research in cosmology visit the Electric Universe Conference 2014 and also go to the "Primer Fields". This work consists of ground breaking research with magnetic fields by plasma physicists and gives solid evidence that the driving force behind the formation of all matter is electromagnetic. If there was ever a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything" this is it.
bbbbwindows
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015It is more likely that the areas called "black holes" are dense plasmoids. The classic spiral galaxy formation has been created in the laboratory by plasma physicists. The driving force is electromagnetic, not gravity. Not only does this occur in keeping with the laws of physics it can be experimentally confirmed and is consistent with observational data.
For the cutting edge research in cosmology visit the Electric Universe Conference 2014 and also go to the "Primer Fields". This work consists of ground breaking research with magnetic fields by plasma physicists and gives solid evidence that the driving force behind the formation of all matter is electromagnetic. If there was ever a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything" this is it.
kling005
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015That's what this paper does.
mburger
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015mburger
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015How sweet that in the same year we exonerate the alchemists and blow up the big bang to boot.... I call that progress.
cloudy skies
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015An interesting debate.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015Connection. Multiverses are disconnected while a causal universe with everything already having happened in the past those happenings would influence what future happenings turn out as.
Whut?
mburger
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Cloudy Skies.... I guess the point is that the skies are finally clearing :)
wireshark
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the waters. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Dark matter upon the quantum fluid? ;)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2015No....Oh, unless you mean the thousands of terrabytes of data from all collider experiments, ever? Then yes.
Inifinite fuel? Never read anyone who make that claim.
mike_neagle
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015manuel_alfonseca
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015The authors offer their first quantum correction term as an alternative to dark energy. If I understand it correctly, they are proposing that this term substitutes the second term in Friedman equation (Lambda.c^2/3). To justify it, they assert (correctly) that the value of Lambda must be about 10^-123 in Planck units or 10^-52 m^-2. Then they compute the value of their replacement term (Lambda_Q) in equations (5) and (6) to be about 10^-123 in Planck units or 10^-52 m^-2. Impressive! But what happened to the multiplier c^2/3? The term they are trying to replace is not equal to Lambda, but to (Lambda.c^2/3). So the replacing term should be much larger (about 10^-32) and Lambda_Q cannot fulfil that role.
Am I mistaken? Where?
hcnap
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Losik
Feb 11, 2015TKO
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Clouds of gas and Popcorn reactions as discussed above.
-
Let me paint two images for you - brief descriptions below
-
Look at a map of the USA, put Pins where all of the Capital cities are (on a clear background)
Take away the map, and leave the pins in place. Nothing is equally distant, nothing really has a pattern. Now Add millions of miles between dots, and you get cloud pockets of gas in space. Add 3D - scattering dots in space.
-
Go to any forest, and create 100 meter square, measure mass of all trees, compare that mass to the space in the square and you will get a ratio. Now go to a desert and do this with cactus, to the ocean with fish, and into the air with a flock of birds, to Africa with a herd of antelope... While the mass to space equation stays the same, the results and ratios will be quite different. Now expand this my millions of miles in space. You get different sized nebula, gasses, hard objects etc.
-
Channe
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015whozit
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015Granted, the idea of the universe - time, space, all of it - blasting out of some unknowable nothing is not the most satisfying notion, but, IMO, the idea of an eternal or infinite universe is just as absurd as one created by some eternal or infinite being(s).
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015Well, if you do the math on Zeno's paradox you will find that the arrow will hit the tortoise (or Achilles will catch the tortoise).
Subdividing is a abstract action. That something can be subdivided (in the mind) doesn't mean it can be subdivided in reality. (And vice versa - that we think of something as the smalles subdivision - that's where the word Atom comes from BTW - doesn't mean it can't be split)
But the major problem with that kind of thinking is that it posits space separate from time. There's a reason why physicists call it spacetime (and it's not because they are too lazy to say "space and time") . And all our measurements (re. Relativity) confirm that the two are intimately related.
Shootist
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Boolean logic suggests that a difference that makes no difference is no difference.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2015There is a small horde of astrophysicists who are just beginning to sound the alarm bells that the James Webb telescope with its infrared spectrometry, will in just a few years hence take a mask off a universe heretofore unimagined. Cosmology will go through a rebirth when the JWT takes pictures of galaxies on the other side of that Primordial gas.
When the mystique of that so-called Primordial Gas Cloud is relegated to the ashbin of cosmological history, then some serious cosmology can begin anew. Present day redshift calculations will be totally scrapped because the 13.7 Gyr limit used in the Redshift Integral calculation will become an unknown quantity. When the age of the universe becomes an unknown quantity it will be impossible to calculate "redshift" for anything.
Faxanadu
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Losik
Feb 11, 2015captainhigley
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015The Big Bang Theory completely ignores the fact that all stars and galaxies have red shift due to their gravitational masses. Galaxies have been identified galaxy pairs that are connected by filaments of stars and have quasars embedded in the galactic edges. The galaxies have low but different redshifts and the two quasars have very high and different red shifts. If we recognize that gravity cause red shifts, these bodies can be well understood based on their masses.
The Big Bang Theory has been kludged and repaired over the years such that it is a joke. In addition, black holes have been described 5 or 7 different ways and none match up with real observations. Big Bang pproponents gloss over these discrepancies are minor and, pretend that black holes exist, as some kind of average of unworkable models.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015Colliders are one thing. Showing it happens naturally in the universe at the same rate that all stars are burning hydrogen is another.
Yes, they did. If the universe is infinitely old, and stars have been around forever (see previous posts) then there must be infinite fuel for those stars, or, something must be creating it at an equal or greater rate than it is being used.
jim_zhao_cc
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015jim_zhao_cc
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015Jim Zhao .
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015Huh? where do you get the "at the same rate as stars are burning hydrogen" from? Never heard that one before.
Colliders simultate the conditions (energy densities) shortly after the Big bang. And from that we know that under such energetic conditions atomic nuclei (or even nucleons themselves) don't hold together.
Erm...no? E.g. if you go though a periodic bang/crunch cycle that simply means your periodically reforming all the stuff there is (into quark gluon plasma and when it expands it'll gel back into nucleons).
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Strange you should ask. There was an article just two days ago by Vanessa Janek that claimed it was 1.6 x 10-35 m and 5.4 x 10-44 sec.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Directly from the article - "These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age."
There is no periodic bang/crunch according to this new theory.
HitchesGhost
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015.........is this your opinion?
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015No. It is what must be true for the universe to have always been here.
Ianerino
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015I like the constant input, constant loss theory where the space / time plane is peppered with holes where energy falls into this plane from a higher plane and creates universes and galaxies. These universes then start leaking energy into the next plane below our existence.
Potentially changing the state of the energy from A to B to C and back to A again in an eternal loop. However, the question will still remain.... where the heck did all this energy come from in the first place? and who created it? and though it seems like rather a lot of energy in the universe to us, to an observer from the plane above it is minuscule, and to an observer in the plane below every atom in our universe holds enough energy to create their entire universe. Now, if only we could tap into the energy contained in the plane above us! ;)
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Can anybody prove that a unit square (1x1) can be filled with finite number of sub-squares all of which have different sizes.
Jim Zhao
jimzhao001@msn.com
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015Jim Zhao
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015Strange you should ask. There was an article just two days ago by Vanessa Janek that claimed it was 1.6 x 10-35 m and 5.4 x 10-44 sec.
That was nonsense. What happed 1 hours before that 5.4 x 10-44 sec?
mburger
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015There has been a lot of fuss this past century focused on the need to incorporate gravity in the TOE modeling exercise. The failure here is that we have not incorporated consciousness from an experiential perspective and the severe constraints on the perceiver. The wider and hidden horizons become evident when we kick up the bandwidth (activating the golden brain glands, pituitary and pineal [DMT]) but mainstream science is a few years away from that consideration.
The stone megalith builders of old used these on board brain bandwidth faculties, and we do not.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015........so it is your opinion.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015I never claimed it was accurate. I was just pointing out the article. Besides. There was no 1 hour before.
To stay on topic though, this new theory claims there never was a first 5.4 x 10-44 sec, so it's kind of meaningless.
TKO
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015You never know when you are going to outsmart yourself."
Tom Knutson
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015No. If the universe has always been here, then either stars only started forming about 13 billion years ago (in which case, those that claim it has will need to come up with plausible idea of what might have changed at that point) or, there have always been stars, in which case, hydrogen needs to have been in infinite supply. If you want to assume there was an infinite amount of hydrogen in an infinite universe, then there should be an infinite amount of heavy elements at this point. In order to fit current observations of the universe, however, that isn't the case. Those that want to stick to the infinitely old universe will need to come up with a way elements are recycled back into hydrogen, and at a rate that replenishes that hydrogen as fast as it's being used up.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015Nothing in the current cosmological model makes it a special phenomenon that could not be happening elsewhere and all the time; do not forget that 13.82 billion lys is but a dot if the universe is infinite. But why should we care about what is beyond our scope? Even a purely Newtonian universe would not be static.
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015You can not tell the quantity of water in the ocean by studying a drip of water. You can not tell what happened by observing a piece of leave burring if you can not see a tree or the forest (you wonder where the leave came from). The universe is INFINITE so it has infinite ways of recycle materials which we may not be able to see.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015So, you're willing to take it on faith that other parts of the universe are different than our observable one. That's your prerogative. It has nothing to do with science, though.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015......ever seen a Feynman Diagram for electron pair production? A component of It is energy (gamma frequency) that is transformed into mass.
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015Any matter can be divided infinitely. Reversely, there are infinite layer of matter above what we experience. In other worlds, universe has infinite dimensions. Mathematically, any number X can be divided into X/n, so it can be expanded into nX. when n approaches infinite, it does not matter if the number is nX or (n+1)X, they are equal. We are sitting n, being able to discover n-1, n+1, or even n+2, n+3...but we will never be able to discover ALL. That is the beauty, otherwise there will be the end for human to discover...
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015It's the " at a rate that replenishes that hydrogen as fast as it's being used up" part that doesn't fit with the observable universe.
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015Sir: If you can pass the following simple math test (undergraduate level) to show that you have sufficient education, I will discuss with you in more details. I do not want to talk about GOD or anything like that.
Prove that a unit square (1x1) can be filled with finite number of sub-squares all of which have different sizes.
Jim Zhao
jimzhao001@msn.com
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
ConfoundedSociety
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015Only on paper. Not in reality.
tadchem
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015S = k ln(W), and W is a non-negative integer (the count of possible energy states of the system).
When W was unity, S was zero.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015@ Jim Z: What is your opinion about this quote in Einsteins GR?
Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.
TKO
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015http://www.rsc.or...position
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015100 years ago everybody would say that Newton's theory were perfect (fits all their observations). Einstein extended the boundary so we can see the limitations of Newton's theory. Einstein's theory fits well with our limited observations so far (but not perfectly already). One of the limitations is that it assumed that universe is finite (so it has shape). If you assume that universe is infinite (all the observations indicates in that direction), and time is not uni-dimensions (it is at least a function of physical location), the theory is waiting to be extended.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015.........but we have no way of knowing there is not a replenishment rate. Is there a method either via calculation or observation that you can point to? My point being that we don't know what the transformation rate(s) are at other photon frequencies or what other methods in addition to electron pair production transformations are likely to occur.
johnbrockbank
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015OK I can see that the model terms, thought of as a constant term etc. keep the universe finite and not shrinking to zero (going backwards of course) but that does not 'give it an infinite age'. The 'therefore' is just shoved in as though it is obvious. I suspect that the writer perhaps does not quite 'get' what is being suggested. If the size shrinks, the time shrinks as well perhaps, but does the time shrink to a standstill? I don't see why not. If so, the universe has existed for ever, in the sense that it has existed for all the time that has ever passed.
vjb007
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015He extended what "boundary"? That of the universe?
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Here's the gist of it. Show me where in the known universe there is a hydrogen factory that produces even the amount of hydrogen being burned by a single star on at least a 1:1 basis, or show me a paper describing a theoretical object that does this. If it's not at least 1:1 hydrogen production vs consumption in the universe, BTW, then, in the infinite time prior to this, all hydrogen would have been depleted.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015It can if the total remains zero.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015The Big Bang theory never said the universe came from nothing. If that were the case, then scientists would be perfectly happy to simply put their efforts into trying to figure out how that happened. It says the universe came from ???. That's something these guys can't handle.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Time doesn't disappear until you hit the singularity, which these guys have found a way to avoid. That means, even if you are right, that however slow time got, it still progressed. Since we are talking about an infinite amount of time, it's speed is irrelevant in this context.
Losik
Feb 11, 2015sirwet
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015.........and you've just put your finger on the mystery of Einsteins' Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle, it is incalculable to know the "rate" & but transformation is observable, but what's to say the transformation must be to hydrogen?
vjb007
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015In truth, it's semantics, which contributes to great confusion. The literature is replete with discussion of The Big Bang as being "the beginning of time." That strongly implies there was nothing before that. In addition, some accompanying math two decades ago in support of The Big Bang purported to show that something can come from nothing. It's been the same with the literature concerning the Higgs. It's been described both as the particle that gives other particles mass, i.e., "The God particle;" and in the same article, it's been described as one of many particles that derive from the Higgs field. The scientific community needs to do a much better job of clearly communicating.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Because we are discussing stars in a universe that is infinitely old. The structures that I have pointed out that must exist, don't. Not in our observable universe and not even in theory. It's nice to have the math actually work, but the idea of a universe that has always existed poses some basic problems that no one has ever been able to get around, even when the static universe theory was the popular one.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015It is referred to as the beginning of time because time ceases to exist at the singularity point (just before reaching it, actually). That's not to say there wasn't time prior to that singularity. But whatever happened prior to that singularity is impossible for us to know. Saying it was "nothing" is a complete misnomer. That is a possibility, but so is another universe collapsing into a singularity, or any other possible explanation. "Nothing" implies you know.
russell_russell
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015Yes.
Nothing's likelihood is labeled zero.
This likelihood (probability) for nothing is an event
Numbering this event (as a first event) makes no sense - This event is a term without constriction. This event provides condition.
Condition for what?
A priceless concept.
Kolmogorov provided the setting for a priceless concept.
The label 'one' harbors meaning for everyone.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015Not exactly true. Children are born ignorant. They can't choose not to believe in God until they learn what the concept of god is.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015Scattered throughout the universe exist high metallicity (higher even than He) stars mixed with low metallicity stars, this implies age, or it suggests transformation of mass/energy is occurring in a manner we still cannot observe in our colliders to explain this.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015So, just like jim_zhao_cc, you choose to take it on faith that this is happening. Again, that's your prerogative. But, no assumptions need to be made to explain the life cycle of the stars under the Big Bang theory.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015ConfoundedSociety
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015Atheism is as devout a religion as exists. The brainwashing accusation could just as easily be applied to you.
rodajo
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015vjb007
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015That may well be. No matter, tho---the point is what we read in the literature implies just the opposite. And the aforementioned math in defense of The Big Bang to show that something can come from nothing clearly cements the notion that the basic talk continues to be about "the beginning" versus "always was." Indeed, the lead sentence of the article above begins "The universe may have existed forever...." Here we have a continuing case of layered semantics. What do we mean by "the universe"? And what do we mean exactly by "time"? The "always was" issue has predictably led some down the road to question if "time" itself is a fundamental quantity. It may not be. I see their point. For if the "universe" always was, then "time" in and of itself basically has no meaning.
rodajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
TheLogos
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015Prior to the discovery of the Big Bang in the 19th century, most atheistic scientists assumed the universe had no beginning. It was the problem of time and its meaning that contributed to the argument that the universe must have a beginning, and it was the Big Bang that gave it credence. This is taboo, but screw it: our modern bias toward pure scientism in attempting to understand certain phenomena backs us into a corner. If we cannot prove with science that science is the only source of fact, we should not grasp at straws to reconcile dark energy.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2015Antialias_physorg 1:1
"In the beginning there was no god. And not even thereafter."
And now you can ponder why your version should be more likely than mine. (Hint: you're not gonna find a logical answer to that one)
Ianerino
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015The ironic part is, neither are you.
rodajo
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015rodajo
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015kochevnik
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015mburger
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015"My rhetorical question is whether there is anyone posting here who has sufficient understanding of theoretical physics and the underlying math to actually explain this? As an engineer my knowledge of physics pretty much begins and ends with Newtonian mechanics."
As an engineer myself I say stay with your common sense.
Physics and math are only limited tools and will not carry well across the dimensional domains. Consciousness is the key…. not gravity. As engineers we know we cannot build the Stone Megaliths of Old. Yet there they are, and the builders evidently had tools (not necessarily mechanical tools) we do not. I went from somewhat clever 25 year new energy technology developer, to a gold making alchemist when I accidently learned how to restore my pituitary and pineal glands (DMT).
Stay with the data no matter how inconvenient, replicated data is much more valuable than moronic modeling.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015You obviously failed to check the previous posts. First, last time I checked, I don't own any "gawd." Second, I've already explained that children aren't atheists.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015No. An Atheist is someone who believes there is no god. Until someone understands the concept of god, they can neither be believer nor nonbeliever. And you are making a whole lot of assumptions about what I believe.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015"First, he is assuming that every time we see the "-ism" ending on a word we are therefore looking at a label for some ideology, belief system, religion, etc. Second, he is assuming that "atheist" is only defined by the very narrow idea of actively disputing the existence of gods.
It is not true that everything with the -ism suffix is some sort of ideology. Terrorism isn't an ideology, it's a practice or tactic. Heroism isn't an ideology, it's a characteristic or quality. A person with astigmatism is not a person whose ideology consists of not forming any points"
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015atheist
Syllabification: a·the·ist
Pronunciation: /ˈÄ�THÄ�É�st /
Definition of atheist in English:
NOUN
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:
It never ceases to amaze me how instantly angry Atheists get when you challenge their religion.
You cannot lack belief in something you have no concept of. Does a child lack belief in Europe?
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015Does a child lack belief in neutrinos? Does a child lack belief other dimensions? The term has no meaning what-so-ever until you know what those things mean.
The truly ironic part is that you are essentially claiming god made you an Atheist.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015And yet, you claim that a child who has no knowledge of god lacks belief. You are contradicting yourself.
No. Your words, not mine - "So why did your gawd make children as atheists?"
James_Mooney
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015If entropy increases as the Bangverse expands, play that backward. At the Big Bang the universe had infinite organization and information-density. Where did that come from?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015technically speaking, Atheism is NOT a religion. "it is in a broad sense the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist" https://en.wikipe.../Atheism
a religion is the codification of a set of beliefs usually centered around a faith in order to create a set of rules or laws for the inclusion of the "good" acolytes and prejudice of the "bad" non believers (usually used to segregate the people and establish a leadership). Religions are designed to control people and cause friction and judgement for arbitrary reasons selected by a controlling group within the organization much like political parties, but with usually more dire consequences, be it immediate or the control through fear of afterlife punishment
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015Logically speaking, if you are going to accept any deity, it should be the oldest/most established, therefore the x-tian god will fall under the American 1st nation god(s) as well as most Asiatic beliefs
Then there is the consideration of deeds and works, which are far more likely to be outnumbered by the above than xtian's
Then there is the simple fact that most modern xtian converts simply ignore the laws of the bible they supposedly cherish as well as ignore ANY rule that they want with impunity because they're "saved"
which, again, is illogical as well as not a good representation (it speaks to the ends justify the means, right? lies are ok if you are trying to trick a non-believer... see ren82 or jvk on that one)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015it is not provable
This is about SCIENCE, and thus provable stuff
and by provable, i choose the definition as such: having evidence to support the facts, or being able to repeatedly demonstrate using the scientific method that a certain set of statements are true or correct
IOW - SCIENCE
that is the point
DarkLordKelvin
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015Sir Isaac
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015DarkLordKelvin
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015That should read, "So, the only way to prove the NON-existence of god would be to start from an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis that god exists, and then do a series of experiments that prove it to be wrong."
I apologize, I am new to this site, and I am not used to either the character limit, or the 3 minute time limit for edits.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015You are trying to pull me into your metaphysics and philosophy. I mentioned this earlier as well. You are trying to argue against religion instead of against the existence of god. The assumption of your question is that man created god, and if anyone takes the bait, you've instantly won the debate. God, if he exists, predates man, so any religion is irrelevant to whether or not he exists.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015So you openly admit that, all things being equal, god is as rational an explanation as any other for events for which we have no evidence.
DarkLordKelvin
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015MandoZink
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2015Wrong.
"God did it" is simply invoking a magical explanation. It is what theists always do when they see the edge of our current understanding.
Every thing which has previously been attributed to a "universal magic entity" has eventually been understood by science. We keep moving the boundary of our ignorance further away and discovering what is really going on. Invoking the magical workings of a God is what theists with little understanding of science always do.
Don't worry. Science always gets there. Unfortunately you'll be dead though and won't find out. We learn to get over that.
Sir Isaac
2.2 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2015Also ... true Christianity is based on eyewitness accounts of historical events. Jesus Christ was a real, historical person, who had witnesses to His birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension.
If you say that the Christian religion is based on Faith, then you have to say belief that Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, etc., ever existed is based on Faith, as well. There are only 7 manuscripts that exist on Plato; 49 manuscripts on Aristotle; 10 for Caesar - all with thousands of years between the original and its copies ... yet there are 5,600 manuscripts of the New Testament, regarding Jesus Christ, with less than 100 years between the original and its copies.
ConfoundedSociety
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015That is not even close to being true. Please give us the scientifically proven explanation for the beginning of the universe. How about the start of life on this planet? How about Fatima, or any of the host of other "miracles" that science has failed to explain?
You are another one who instantly gets angry when your religion is challenged. The scientific answer is "maybe." That's just a simple fact.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015no, i am clarifying a few things as well as telling you that religion is a made up artifice of man as well as a means of controlling others, you are confusing religion with a faith
I posit that unless you can prove that your deity exists, then your point is irrelevant as it is not considered scienceit is actually stated much more clearly above by DarkLordKelvin
DarkLordKelvin
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2015No, that is not "true" from a scientific standpoint .. you cannot convince someone of those things based on any sort of objective evidence that can be experimentally tested (using scientific methodology) in the present day. If I want to convince someone about the theory of gravitation, I can drop a rock on their foot ... many times if necessary ... until they get it. If I want to convince you of the existence of the CMB, I can wait until you have sufficient background in basic physics and astrophysics to understand the experimental methodology and results, and then repeat the seminal experiments to re-demonstrate the phenomenon.
As far as the existence of historical individuals like Plato and Caesar is concerned, your points are valid, but it's their ideas that actually matter.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2015i am not speaking for Mando, but i will reply to your post with a simple video that may help you comprehend what Mando as well as some others are talking about regarding religion and science, and the fact that just because we don't know it now doesn't mean we will never know it
https://www.youtu...6f8lv6qc
another one
https://www.youtu...0hkLNr3w
i hope that clears up the science vs religion debate for you
religions have historically given up and consigned things to their god, but then someone comes along and says... This is how it works (see Planetary orbits, etc)
thus religion is a cop out with regard to science
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2015with regard to the links, I only endorse the science being expounded upon by Dr. Tyson, not on the political or other BS attached to it, such as the support from democrats etc
i am NOT political, nor will i endorse ANY political party
this video might be a better link and may well explain the problem better
https://www.youtu...HxftS8MI
it references the "god of the gaps" as well and this is the reason that religion has NO PLACE in science
especially modern science
he also addresses the fact that it is empirically false that you must be religious to be moral
watch away
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015And now you make the mistake of claiming that any explanation not 100% proven must be dismissed out of hand as impossible. Please tell us you 100% proven explanation for the creation of the universe. For the start of life on this planet. For Fatima.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015Again, religion is completely irrelevant. And I'm the one saying we don't know. You are claiming to have proof that god cannot be the answer to the questions I've posed (questions you completely ignored, BTW.)
dragonmoksha
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015DorkLardKevin
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015Of course you can. I see it happen every Wednesday night and Sunday morning during service. In any case, sorry for trolling your name, in hindsight, it was poor form.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2015Captain S. - Got any idea how these people ended up on a science site? This is so far off the yellow brick road and make-believe land. I don't think I've ever seen this before.
mburger
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015Well, the beauty of it is that Genesis made the claim first - and therefore has to provide the evdence first.
Otherwise arguments along the lines of "Unicorns exist - prove me wrong - you can't- therefore unicorns have been proven to exist" would be a valid.
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015We have never seen a faster than light mass conversion, and the LHC was designed specifically to test this theory.
We use E=MC^2 all over the place, so it self validates because it is a standard energy / mass measurement that is simple enough for anyone to use.
The EM field, which we know exists from screeds of empirical observation, but based on particle size and elemental structure observations, can't explain why it isn't a very dense solid, which leads to a very simple but largely disregarded conclusion, G is not constant for super small particle sizes. The empirical evidence is undeniable, yet many scientists still refuse to face this simple reality. Calling zero G particles Gravitons is a mistake, displaced supervoid creates gravity. If you look at the primordial universe, there is'nt the energy required to create a faster than light particle, chances are the boundary condition is a much lower speed
manuel_alfonseca
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015The first quantum correction term is presented as an alternative to the second term in Friedman equation (Lambda.c^2/3), where the value of Lambda is about 10^-123 in Planck units or 10^-52 m^-2. The new term (Lambda_Q) is computed in equations (5) and (6) to be about 10^-123 in Planck units or 10^-52 m^-2. But this is not the same as the term to be replaced, where this value is multiplied by c^2/3!
Am I mistaken?
movementiseternal
Feb 12, 2015Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015This presumes that there is rational and tangible knowledge to be had that would lead one to a believe in god. This begs the entire question.
However you're correct that 'Children are born ignorant' and so not born atheist. It's more correct to say they're born agnostic as the question for them is not regarded with any meaning.
In my view, atheism and theism are on the same level of irrationality.... both aim to speak of metaphysics, which is not amendable to science (DarkLord is correct) and thus can not be a source of knowledge. Agnosticism is the only rational standpoint to take.... i.e. the question is meaningless or has to rational answer.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015I think they are more like the numbers 1 and 0. Theism is a theory (in whatever form). Atheism is the absence of a theory. (Just like you can have 1 of a thing but you cannot HAVE 0 of a thing. 0 is just an abstract, whereas 1 is quantity)
The ground state is atheism. It is not sensible to assume a theory where there is no evidence that one is needed, therefore atheism does not have to battle on an equal footing with theism. Theism makes claims and therefore must defend those claims. Atheism makes no prior claim - therfore until/unless a signed confession by a god as to "I did it" turns up the onus of proof/evidence is entirely on theism.
Agnosticism would be "not sure, but could well be". However, theism is, without evidence, not even close to the "could well be" terrain.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2015Reads just like a perfect description of the so-called science of climatology
jim_zhao_cc
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015The equation is right only based on our current knowledge and limitations of observations. I believe "things can not be created nor will they disappear. They can only transfer from various formats". "THINGS should include EVERY FORMAT, which includes mess, energy, etc. etc., many of which formats have not been discovered. Also I believe that "Things can be divided indefinitely". that is why so many format of things have yet to be discovered. I also believe that Universe and time are infinite -- no boundaries or beginning or ends...they are always there and will be there...
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015People are trying to find the origin of the universe. But the matter of fact is : there is no origin. The universe has always been there and will always be there.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015I have to respectfully disagree. It is not that the default state is atheist,... as if one born without any concept of a god would be a atheist by default; he would not qualify because he has not considered the question at all. Immediately upon stating "there is no evidence for god" or "there is evidence for god" you have entered into metaphysics by making either a negative statement concerning the question or a positive one. They're on the same level in this sense.
.....
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2015Atheists considered the question and consciously decided not to believe, thus rendering themselves as irrational as theists(, imo).
EDIT: "Agnosticism is the only rational standpoint to take.... i.e. the question is meaningless or [can have no] rational [empirical] answer.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015I agree. Why is it that Atheists can't stop talking about a subject they claim to not believe in?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015That is atheism. Theism isn't a competeing theory to atheims but rather a non-issue as far as atheism is concerned.
An agnostic would put it in the unknowable camp where the various theories are independent and equally supportable (and where choosing one over the other is equally valid). This is not the case, as theism requires support whereas atheism does not.
Atheism isn't a theory - it is the absence of a theory.
Because it vexes us that grown people believe in fairy tales? And are willing to murder for it? (If they would just kill themselves no one would say anything, though. Be assured of that. Everyone wins. We get to live in a world without delusional people and they get to go to heaven.)
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015A worm is a non-sentient being. Please explain why you think they can "believe" anything.
It doesn't matter what entity you ascribe my ownership of… the fault in your statement is that children are Atheists.
You'd have to give a generic definition of dragon to back that up. Since dragons are generally accepted to be organic, living creatures, your relief that they are a rational explanation of how the universe was created says a great deal about your logic skills.
Losik
Feb 12, 2015ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015If Athiesm makes no prior claim, then it would have no problem with the following list of ideas as to what created the universe -
A. Nothing, it's always been here (see article)
B. A collapsing prior universe once again exploded once it reached a singularity
C. Energy from an alternate universe or dimension leaked in to create a Big Bang
D. God
(This is by no means an exhaustive list)
But you don't. Instead, you insist that D must be thrown out immediately. When asked why, you say "because you can't prove it." …. You can't prove any of them.
ConfoundedSociety
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015You have a strange definition of "fact."
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015So now anyone who believes in God is a murderer, huh? Maybe you should look North Carolina to see what a member of your religion just did.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2015Factually incorrect. To an agnostic they are not "equally supportable" nor "equally valid", but rather they're equally meaningless.
Incorrect,... the position of atheists is ENTIRELY based on lack of supporting evidence which they constantly demand as an inverse means of supporting their position,.... what is a constant among theists and atheists is talk of evidence either in a positive sense or a negative sense,.... whereas agnostics understand there can be no such evidence for metaphysical questions that are amendable to any valid means of acquiring knowledge.
If you are one who asks a theist for evidence for god, then de facto, you are an atheist,..... as position as irrational as theism.
gbash
4 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2015When did that happen? The author of this paper doesn't think so.
Among whom?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2015You should just as well be asking him how he as a retired firefighter ended up here, he doesn't know anything about science either. He's the king of Copy & Paste on this site, when he's not busy making threats to commit identity theft against you when you disagree with him.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015kochevnik
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2015"@benni-haha
ROTFLMFAO
you DO REALISE that if I wanted to steal your info, I would just ping your server and get your internet IP which would give me the ability to go right to your doorstep? Easy since I KNOW your login here AND when you are on."
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015Why? You presupposed the condition "all things being equal." That means you will freely accept ANY explanation. Again you are backpeddling. My explanations are not acceptable to you because I'm not part of your inner brainwashed circle. After all you can do or change anything you want anytime like your gawd, correct? All things are not equally plausible, such as your invisible imaginary skyfairy running shit, or a poster suffering from delusions actually being correct because he shares his delusion with a group of mentally ill
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015Yes, I did. Terms like belief, ignorance and knowledge dictate that we are only talking about sentient thought.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015I'm not the one changing the subject. The subject is that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers. That's just basic logic.
And again, back to arguing religion instead of god.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015Wrong again. Any explanation that can't be disproved for events that don't have a provable alternate explanation, yes. I've already explained why your belief that dragons created the universe doesn't hold up based on current scientific knowledge.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015If chimps and children do not believe in your gawd, then they are nonbelievers. So you claim they are born believing in your particular gawd and not Baha'i, Candomblé, Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, Rastafari, Santeria, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Unitarianism or Zoroastrianism
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015Wrong again. Libraries have information.
knowledge
Top 1000 frequently used words
Syllabification: knowl·edge
Pronunciation: /ˈnälÉ�j
/
Definition of knowledge in English:
noun
1Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject:
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015And now you have resorted to lying about what I've said. I've said several times now that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers, which just a simple fact. And you also continue to make huge assumptions about this "gawd" you keep claiming I own.
DarkLordKelvin
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015Can you please provide a reference to literature articles on AWT and "dense aether model"?
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015So, apparently you claim to not believe in sploink.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015Why do you believe Leonardo Da Vinci believed that the Higgs Boson did not exist?
paganscientist
3 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015Losik
Feb 12, 2015TKO
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015The mysteries are not just in Space - they are as close to you as an Electron microscope, Nuclear microscope, or Nano microscope. The pursuit of the structure of the atom has occupied many areas of chemistry and physics in perhaps - dare I say it - one of the greatest contributions of modern science to date.
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015Nenni: I am a doctor of engineering, so I am very happy with Newton's theory. In fact, I designed almost 100 bridges based on his theory and all these bridges are standing (so I am not in the jail while talking to you...lol). Having said that, we all know the limitations of Newton's theory. The same approach applies to Einstein's theory. If anybody tries to find the time zero or edge of universe with his theory, that person is making mistakes. The new discover is telling people that there is no origin or edge of universe.
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015conradg
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015Problem is, God and religion aren't forms of science. Even casting off the popular forms, and looking beyond the mythologies, God simply isn't a scientific proposition to be investigated by the scientific method. It's an approach to reality through the subjective dimension, not the objective. If the two have correspondences, well and good. But the reasons, and the logic, for God are subjective, not objective. Some are good reasons, some are not, but their intersection with science and objective matters is not direct. It's experientially subjective. There are lots of reasons to call what is found subjectively "God". The problem is that popular religion likes to objectify itself, and science likes to pound on religion when it does so. All fair and well, even well deserved. Just as silly as when science-minded people like to propound about consciousness, or claim atheism is true.
conradg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015All three of those things are examples of "consensus" being based on a woefully incomplete understanding of the actual physics behind them, how they may or may not work, and how the world and the universe goes about its very strange business. Give science a break, it's still very young and most of the easy problems have been solved. Hard problems like these may in many cases require an understanding of physics not yet achieved. It's hardly controversial that, as Lord Kelvin and others discovered, we are still very far from understanding everything.
Losik
Feb 12, 2015kochevnik
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015It's a joke, son. You missed it.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2015Very good Jim. I have 6 years of Engineering school education in Electrical & Nuclear Engineering, majored in Electrical. I can design a nuclear reactor system.
I didn't know there was an "approach" that applies to Einstein's theory in GR in the same manner as Newton's limitations on gravity.
I can follow every Differential Equation in Einstein's GR & I haven't seen anything whereby I could conclude I'm "making mistakes", the reason being that the math looks flawless for the concept of an entropic universe.
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015By "approach" I meant that we can not use GR outside its useful limitation, when the edge of universe approaches infinite. Just like we could not use Newton's theory to calculate the impact of light with a atom.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2015Ok, I do understand your point. But my point being that Einstein in using the geometric description of "quasi-spherical" in his GR is unambiguously stating that the universe has an edge. Else if it does not have an edge (boundary), entropy can never be established for the continuing distribution of energy in a closed system as we presently observe is occurring, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Any thoughts about that?
goce2014
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015I love you
Here's why:
vπ = √MG / r which is exactly 7832m / s or 7.832 km / s
do you see the deference ?
TKO
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015Scientists used supercomputers to find a new class of materials that possess an exotic state of matter known as the quantum spin Hall effect.
( Physics humor - A more Exotic State than Minnesota, I presume ... )
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
VCRAGAIN
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015ah, and that redshift theory of distance - redshifted bodies appearing in front of other bodies
rather puts that to bed too, and that rocky hard comet we just saw with our own eyes - SO - you have to think again - did it occur to anybody that just maybe inventing mathematical formulas to 'force-fit' your theories may not be the way to determine what you are looking at?
You are looking at huge seas of plasma, with Electrical fields that arrange it in twirling strings, and you CANNOT have magnetism without Electricity We don't need dark matter, dark energy to 'fill in the blanks' then. Sounds to me like the beginning of the end of Astronomy as has been proposed for the past 60 or more years - let's see didn't even Einstein get to the point of realizing that his proposed relativity was actually not real ? Go back to Halton Aarp - he was correct! Try plasma-universe.com for a start.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015In the beginning, spinning (G)eodesically (O)rganized (D)ata added 1 + 1 and got - a new 1 (but with a different value)...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015mburger
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015You are on the right track!
As for other comment that we progress science with consensus, NONSENSE, science is progressed with data. 3-D Worlder's who cannot even do basic arithmetic, babbling on about the Easter Bunny, religious quackery, please move on. Big Bang was dreamed up by good upstanding church going physicists and mathematicians from Yale, Harvard, Caltech, MIT and Stanford.
These scholars desperately wanted the "Origins Formula" to comply with their faith (God made the universe in 6 days and sat on his ass the 7th) but could not fake the math, so the consensus was, he created it all in the INSTANCE, therefore necessitating it all came from nothing. We called this science. LMFAO !!!
These days the 13 year old with the 3 DVD set of the Matrix Movie Series has a better relationship with reality and a better education than most. There is a consensus we are living in f*cked up times, what is needed is a consensus of just how really f*cked up it is.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2015"Hey there...the Biblical account of Creation is the Big Bang! Have you never sat down with a checklist to compare the "stretching" & "inflation" of the two hypotheses of the beginning stages of the universe? In the BB it all came into existence in a flash of an explosion the same as Creation.
So if ya don't buy into the big bang - why buy into the creation theory?
...yeah, just my point, they're the same.
Readers here need to know the purpose this article was written, to put the scientific community on notice that they need to begin weaning themselves off BB because it is so close to Creation.
A small horde of astrophysicists are just beginning to sound the alarm bells that the James Webb telescope with its infrared spectrometry, will in just a few years hence take a mask off a universe heretofore unimagined. Cosmology will go through a rebirth when the JWT takes pictures of galaxies on the other side of that Primordial gas.
kochevnik
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015conradg
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015I have no problem with theism, as long as it recognizes that theism is just the way Deism looks on a personal level. It's the projection of authority and violent dualism onto the subjective personal dimension that causes most of the trouble. And misses the point in both directions. Which is the definition of "sin".
ConfoundedSociety
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015The Big Bang has nothing to do with creation theory. What caused the Big Bang is another matter. If you believe it was God, that's creation. If you attribute another cause, then it's not. However, I don't really doubt you assertion that scientist don't like the Big Bang theory solely because it is too close to creationism.
The universe as we observe it makes sense when you derive it from a starting point. It really doesn't if you think it's always been here.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015No. You claimed that. Without sentient thought, there is no belief or disbelief.
kochevnik
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015Your grammar is broken so it's impossible to comprehend what you intended to convey, assuming you had such a thing
In any case belief only requires action and memory. So calculators and animals have beliefs. Even maths theorems can have beliefs or hunches written in
The point is that a newborn is not configured with memory engrams to worship your gawd. That requires brainwashing, which is child abuse. They have a belief because their neural nets must have some point in phase space, but that belief does not at all involve your imaginary friends. Indeed their default belief is so symmetric that it provokes immense curiosity and endless questioning to break symmetry: the opposite of religious indoctrination
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015I understand that the need to cling to your religion drives you to such irrational statements. In the real world, belief requires a conscious decision by a sentient mind. Your claim that Alexander the Great chose to believe Neptune (the planet) did not exist tells us a great deal about where your thought processes are.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2015BTW I never wrote anything about Alexander the Great. Never met the guy. Perhaps it was one of your imaginary friends whispering in your ear
Johnpaily
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015What is eternal is Information or Light. The Big Bang and Universe needs to be understood from Biological point. Universe transforms the whole system and conquers time through information or light unfolding. Here the first and second law of energy unites thus uniting all developments in science and bridging it with spiritual knowledge of the ancient world– https://www.scrib...-Complex
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2015The two are EXACTLY the same.......do the checklist like I suggested. Just why do you think there are so many cosmologists so hopeful that the James Webb telescope spectrometry will find galaxies on the other side of that vaunted Primordial Cloud? It puts a lot of distance between them & Creationist/Big Bang Cosmology...........uuuhhhh, a little tongue in cheek here, they're praying for it.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2015Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 13, 2015Benni
2.2 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2015..........so do you know what the Primordial Gas Cloud is? What do you the the ramifications for current Cosmology will be if the James Webb telescope discovers galaxies beyond it? I think it will be the spearhead leading the charge to ditch the Big Bang.
richardwenzel987
not rated yet Feb 13, 2015ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015You probably should have paid at least 12 year old to write for you instead of an 8 year old. "Buy-bull" would have actually been funny and made sense.
ConfoundedSociety
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015Why did you edit my post to make it look like I said the opposite of what I did? I said that I don't doubt your assertion.
And they aren't the same. Just because there was a Big bang doesn't mean there's a god.
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015If James Webb could not discover galaxies beyond it, something other more advanced telescope (may be not in our life time) will. It is just a matter of time. The ramification is that there is always galaxies beyond the galaxies we just discovered, which means the universe has no boundary, My 2 cents.
ConfoundedSociety
1.5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2015Considering you've cut and pasted that in response to three entirely different posts tells me that you don't understand what it means.
It's irrelevant to the point I made, since it's referring to whether or not the universe has a finite size, not a finite past.
As for the paragraph itself, space would need to be infinite in one way or the other (either truly infinite or curved back on itself so that you can truly travel forever in "one direction" and never reach the edge) or expanding at or above the speed of light (relative to anyone standing inside the universe.)
Imagine the "edge" of a finite universe. Imagine a star there. Where does the light go?
Losik
Feb 13, 2015jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015Just like tying to say 10^9999999999 is the largest number, but that number +1 is even larger, and so on...
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 13, 2015I like this. You pointed out "as we observe" which is very important.
In the future, people will discover farther and farther, and the notion that there is boundary (of universe) will not stand. Once that happens, people will know that there is no centre of universe either. "Single point" or BB will become outdated topics.
mburger
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2015mburger
not rated yet Feb 13, 2015Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2015......on what.......a Valentine day heart? That won't hurt..... lol :)
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 13, 2015.....hope my head will not bump into the edge of universe....I know HE would rescue me...lol...happy V-day.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2015interesting question... methinks, IMHO-
they know it is SAFE to TROLL here as the MODS don't moderate, really (benni, rc, cd, antiG, the eu... etc)
so they're protected, thus it spreads by word of mouth
for some, it is simply TROLLING a public site (shooty, antiG)
there are the people who think they know something but don't (rc, benni)
there are those who simply LIE about their abilities and education (waterprophet/ALCHE, Benni)
then there is the pseudoscience acolyte promoting their favorite religion/view (cd, reset, hannesalfvie, rc, zephir, reg mundy ) they are wanting to SOUND smart, but failing
others are highly educated but branch out to learn because they're curious (AA_P, Thermodynamics, Q-Star)
mostly i think it is the TROLL mentality, as it seems to breed here IYKWIM
notice no TROLL here is actually trying to push their pseudoscience on AAAS/ScienceMag?
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2015Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2015there is no control through fear... that is your own fear of the science which you cannot comprehend
just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't true
the science shows us thatjust like a fearful idiot, you dislike being exposed as a fraud: i back up my claims and interpretations of the evideince with actual links to evideince, unlike you, who speculates wildly and then appeals to self-authority "i'm a nuclear engineer, so it must be right"
RULE 37, you idiot!and of course, anyone semi-literate can read that it says "IF i wanted"... you even support this with the link!
are you stupid or illiterate?
RULE 37
epic failure for benni troll
PS, the only difference between you and RC is that you log in from different places and you have different log-in names
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2015that is about as much as i read
[nice spelling job there... you know spellcheck is FREE right?]
https://www.googl...af4331c2
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 13, 2015Below in quotes posted by Stumpy on July 27, 2014, expert consensus builder & authority in all matters relating to Funny Farm Science. Click on the link at the bottom of this post to verify he made this post to me. Anything else anybody thinks he may be a consensus builder on with this kind of attitude?
"@benni-haha
ROTFLMFAO
you DO REALISE that if I wanted to steal your info, I would just ping your server and get your internet IP which would give me the ability to go right to your doorstep? Easy since I KNOW your login here AND when you are on."
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Hey there El Stumpo, care to repeat that threat again about committing identify theft against me followed up by threats to confront me personally at my "doorstep"? You, the King of Copy & Paste at this site are the worst source this site has ever seen for an excuse as someone interested in science, along with your foul mouth & record of profanity more conducive to a porn site.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2015RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 13, 2015And the only difference between this poor poor Stumpy and a rotting tree stump is that the latter has more innate intelligence and integrity...and doesn't need to resort to insane stalking, half-truths, outright lies and just plain reality-denial as 'a way of life'.
Poor Stumpy still hasn't apologized for calling me a troll when I was RIGHT and he/his "smart peoples" WRONG. :)
The mainstream articles are all here at physorg for anyone to read and confirm I was right all along. But what does this dumber-than-tree-stump Stumpy do?...he still denies reality and facts while continuing his pathetically moronic pretense that he has any intelligent or original, let alone 'lucid', contribution to make to science and humanity discourse here or elsewhere.
He just trolls and spams the internet as "Stumpy the STUPID".
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2015Nice irrelevant distraction from your lack of ability to demonstrate any education, troll boy
like i said... IF, you illiterate geriatric windbag TROLL
learn to read
https://www.whois.net/
TROLL FEST- i will leave you two lovers alone
Especially considering they're both illiterate and neither can read!
LMFAO
https://www.googl...!6m1!1e1
PS- to BOTH
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
Thanks for making me popular, getting me published and providing hours of posts for my research
I couldn't have done it without yall (and the eu)
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 13, 2015Great Copy & Paste expertise, America's housewives are being given one dandy of a run for their money by you these days.......the only expertise a retired old codger of a firefighter like you has ever demonstrated on this site.
redmudislander
not rated yet Feb 13, 2015from: Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
Feb 09, 2015
"If inflation isn't eternal backwards, likely it has fluctuated into being - the universe is zero energy and inflation is a quantum scalar field after all - and it has then done so an infinite number of times, making an infinite set of eternal multiverses that stretches back and forward into eternity."
Shouldn't that read, " . . . an infinite set of 'temporal' multiverses . . . " ?
drf30_1999
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2015stinsonmarri
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2015Blessings!
Losik
Feb 14, 2015redmudislander
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2015Um, there is no biblical mention of any witnesses to His resurrection.
Only a discovery in the morning that "the stone" (had been) "rolled away".
kochevnik
5 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2015Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2015Any mathematical calculation is only as good as the science behind it, it's the reason I believe in the Differential Equations Einstein uses in his GR.
redmudislander
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2015Um, there is no biblical mention of any witnesses to His resurrection.
Only a discovery in the morning that "the stone" (had been) "rolled away".
someone11235813
4 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2015Technically speaking the atom cannot be split in the sense that it keeps it's elemental identity.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2015have you figured out how to comment to the admin with the PM's down?
did you ever find that "contact" link at the bottom of every freakin PO page?
you never did tell me about how all that worked out for you... or why you couldn't figure it out being an engineer and all...
http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv
thanks
http://www.sci-en...-flags2/
ANd hey, how come you couldn't demonstrate your knowledge of differential equations when queried by a physics student?? (thefurlong)
with you going on-and-on about them, and being such a great engineer and all, i thought that would be easy for you. that is what you claim, anyway...
RULE 37
thanks for making it easy to prove you a liar!
DarkLordKelvin
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2015No, that is not correct ... when an atom is split by nuclear fission, or any other kind of nuclear decay for that matter, then it changes its elemental identity.
mburger
1 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2015To join the star brothers we will have to kick it up big time.
Exploring outer space is a big part of realizing that potential but before we can do this we need to master some inner space. We have been given a royal flush DNA hand by the designers before us and now the fail will be determined by, "can we utilize these resources?" So called extraneous DNA and atrophied brain chemicals are the key.
Getting out of the fog of nonsense, like the big bang theory is a welcome start, but it really comes down to each of us forming a functional relationship with reality (not presently the norm). Optimism yes, but then every time it emerges, a 100 religious Easter bunny idiots drown out the prospect of any progress.
Johnpaily
1 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2015HeloMenelo
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2015Thanks for exposing these dumb clowns for what they are, man they rub it in each time you lay the proof on the table... brilliant..!
jvj-WI-US
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2015The universe must not have been created, and has always existed. It defies logic, but must just be accepted. If everything had to be created, what then created the creator? You end up with an endless loop of creator's being created. This endless loop is the same as not having a beginning.
One of the laws of physics states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed... If this is so, the universe and it's contents could not have been created, and can not end.
ConfoundedSociety
3 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2015So?
Ummm… But you think It's OK for the universe to never have been created? You don't even realize the hypocrisy there, do you?
jvj-WI-US
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2015Having an infinite loop of creators being created, is the same as not having a beginning. Existence would still exist, just in a different form. That would be like explaining that a tree came from an acorn, but not saying where the acorn came from. You would not have explained where the tree came from, just how it changed.
I am not trying to shame or downgrade anyones opinion. I just want to offer that stating the universe started as a dot, does not explain how it started. It just offers a different configuration. The dot is still there with no explanation of how it started.
jscroft
5 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2015@Losik, I'm not sure this is fair. While in principle it's true that a single observation can falsify centuries of water-tight theorizing, in practice it isn't that simple. The observation has to be TRUE, for one thing, and for another it has to be a consequence of a mechanism that ACTUALLY conflicts with theory (instead of an unguessed third option, like the long-term effects of anisotropic thermal radiation from a space probe).
The confirmation of new physics requires a certain degree of enthusiasm. I get it. But it doesn't follow that those who don't share your enthusiasm are blind Luddites out to protect their fat sinecures. The hard man to convince is the one you WANT to win over.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2015No. It's saying either is possible. And no one is saying that the universe HAD to be created, simply that, based on current observations, that makes the most sense.
Why? First, no one disclaiming either must be true, only that they believe it be true. Second, what rules are you referring to? That something can exist without being created or could have been created? How is that a rule?
ConfoundedSociety
4 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2015Again, I'm missing your point, apparently. If you are comfortable saying the universe has always been here, you must be comfortable with the claim that any creator has always been. And the Big Bang doesn't necessitate a beginning either. That's just as far back as we can see.
The acorn was on the ground when we came across it. Where did it come from? We could make a guess based on what we can observe around it, but we can't know since we didn't witness the event that put it there. We know acorns enough to realize that it didn't used to be there (or the tree would have grown long ago) but can only speculate on it's origin.
j______
1 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2015to resolve that paradox, we as observers have to have a universe and it needs to be observed, otherwise it couldn't be infinity, it would just be nothing.
the "big bang" is the possible, the "big crunch", total entropy, when everything is nothing is a return to paradox. our observable laws, electro-magnetisim, particle/wave, why the edges distort, follow logically from the paradox of the infinite. quantum mechanics doesn't mean there are alternate simultaneous realities, but that as long as the laws are followed everything else is fair game.
i'm not dogmatic, but it's fun, horrible and wonderful and really explains the diversity of human perceptions. we're just processing waves that couldn't exist, but have to. :)
bbbbwindows
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2015The newest data coming in from Chandra is confirming the work of Halton Arp. Arp was a student of Edmund Hubble and worked at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. His book "Seeing Red" provided substantial proof that red shift was an intrinsic property of age and not distance/velocity.
This one fact will invalidate the "Big Bang Theory" as well as an inflationary universe. I find this comforting as these concepts made no sense whatsoever.
The latest radio telescope data is also validating the electric model of the universe put forth by plasma physicists. Gravity based theories such as black holes, neutron stars and dark matter will be the next to fall.
Maybe then cosmology can return to being an observationally based science with experimental confirmation. It currently resembles a religion with it's foundation being unproven mathematical constructs.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2015Too existential.
It came from the oak tree in your yard. I've been hit on the head by them as I mow mine...
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2015Not existential at all. Just following the previous metaphor. Please explain what the oak tree is in this metaphor. Sounds like God.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2015Sounds like a Universe that recreates itself via looping. Why all the "where did the Universe come from?" speculation when it's tuff enuff to take in all that is here, already?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2015ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2015Because that's the whole subject of the article.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2015who are we, what are we, where did we come from... Where did the Universe come from...
All existentialist crap... that is just an excuse to not get out and get your hands dirty doing the actual work...
Real scientists may not always have it right. But they get up, dust themselves off and get back on that horse until they DO get it right...
That means - quit worrying about the past and focus on the future...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2015Not copies - we're just seeing the back side of the Universe we already live in. It's a big loop...
ConfoundedSociety
3 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2015Scientists can't stand leaving something at "we don't know." The Big Bang necessitates that we will never know what happened prior. They don't like it.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2015And that's a bad thing?!?
I wouldn't bet a lot on that...
Ahhh.... and you do?
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2015I prefer the word awareness to consciousness...
And thru an almost infinite number of sensory mechanisms, "everything" is aware of everything else...
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2015Universe has no beginning or ending, nor does it have edges (infinite size and time). It has and will always be there. old stars will die and new starts will born....perpetually.
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2015This one is absolutely right. It is hard to fine common language here.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2015FYI… just because there's a research paper, doesn't make it true. Even the guys that came up with this want to look into it more. It's all just preliminary. Even if it weren't, there's still no proof.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 201599% of everything scientists thought they knew at one point or another has been proven false. What makes you think you'll be right the next time?
bbbbwindows
2 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2015Carl Sagan made the comment that if this work is verified it would invalidate the data used to propose both the big bang and inflation.
It appears that the "standard model" is not going to survive the new data coming in from missions with advanced technology. Gravity just doesn't appear to have the power to cause planet, star or galaxy formation. Tweaking this theory by adding mathematical constructs such as black holes, neutron stars and dark matter/energy has done a disservice to all cosmologists
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2015That is why it is difficult to find the 1%. Although you are current in the majority (99%), time will tell.
jim_zhao_cc
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2015Any rational person will believe that universe can not be created, and shall not have beginning or ending.
jim_zhao_cc
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2015Perfect and beautiful statements. We can still see smart people here.
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2015When you re-invent the wheel, you still have - a wheel...
baudrunner
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015That's why the greatest amount of this Universe's energy goes into making grandiose impressions. It's how anything gets made.
mburger
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2015baudrunner
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015mburger
4 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2015jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2015He was trying to say that universe could not have beginning either because things could not be created (law of physics) or because, if it were created, there was already creator there so there was time before beginning, which means no beginning.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2015Unless - the Universe is the creator, recreating itself...
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 26, 2015Which also means no beginning. Mathematically, if you can demonstrate that there is something before the beginning, then there is no beginning.
icouce
not rated yet Feb 28, 2015jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Mar 04, 2015If we remove the people who have "scientist" jobs but are actually religious, then the consensus of infinite universe would be more than 99%.
russell_russell
5 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2015The objective (observer-independent) reality of external events has two labels:
1.) God
2.) Realism.
Number 1 researches the 'when' (of events) with an infinite timeline.
Number 2 researches the 'where' (of events) with non-locality and locality.
Both 1 and 2 are undefined properties.
Undefined properties are observer-independent.
Your objective reality, the concept that the universe exists with well-defined properties, independent of what we choose to observe and measure is a foregone conclusion.
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2015if you tell truth in any science forum, you will be banned. if is a fact. proof it yourself at http://fuckedscience.com or http://www.thenak...=54194.0
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Joe_Chang
Mar 09, 2015jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Mar 10, 2015Most scientists believe that universe is made up of sub-universes, which is made up with galaxies, stars, ...
Universe is infinite. the number of sub-universes are infinite, the number of stars are infinite, ...
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2015jeffensley
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2015Fascinating stuff. Would a layperson get anything out of "Seeing Red"? And I wonder if inflation isn't happening, would we be able to do away with the very untidy dark matter and dark energy theories?
Dethe
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2015jeffensley
3 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2015Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2015That's not my notion of 'objective reality', nor is it one backed by facts established by experiment.
Nor is it compatible with your own definition of Realism....
russell_russell
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2015Of course not. Realism is dead. We agree. God is dead too.
I do not see where we are disagreeing. Enlighten your readership.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2015A Realist definition of objective reality would be this... "... the concept that the universe exists with well-defined properties, independent of what we choose to observe and measure",... which you said was "a foregone conclusion",... and so seemingly agreeing with the Realist definition?
Independent Reality does not have well-defined properties of it self, since first we must supply the conceptual structure defining those properties for them to be knowable... i.e. the underlying reality is only a 'particle' or 'wave' to the extent that experimental apparatus and theory makes use of those concepts,... while the underlying reality, of itself, is neither.
Independent objective reality would be unknowable as it is in itself, which is to say as unconceptualized, formless. It can be said to be Objective since it informs experiment, it says "no", as d'Espagnat would say.
TopCat22
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2015Dark Energy is postulated to account for the homogeneity of the universe because there would not be enough time in the less than 14 billion years since the postulated big bang occurred for everything to have spread out so evenly. If we interpret instead that everything is flying away faster than the speed of light at the visible BB boundary (BBB) then there was plenty of time up to infinity before the BBB to eliminate the Dark Energy required for inflation. Inflation is then a property of time and space as new space-time is created between every point in space-time inflating everything exponentially.
russell_russell
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2015- with literally any meaning human language has to offer..
Realism and God(s) remain undefined.
We do just fine leaving these terms undefined.
We do just fine abandoning these labels.
Independent objective reality "can be said" (!!) to be Objective since independent objective reality "informs" (!!!!) experiment.
Informs? Seriously? What science asserts that?
Realism says that.
Gods says that.
That is like saying a 2d surface has all information being projected (or not) to 'our' 'realm' to underscore an unattainable, underlying reality.
Only 'independent objective reality' forbids (says 'no') to even making such a postulate.
We both disagree to realism and (any) god.
Count on my support for your positivism to my last breath.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2015Ok, I understand now, and agree.
I mean 'independent reality' can be justified as being considered as Objective Reality (albeit unknowable as it is in itself (i.e. without conceptual form)), in the sense that it is why science is Inductive and not Deductive,.... but NOT in the sense of supplying conceptual form and therefore well-defined independent properties, as the Realist would have it.
There must be a 'something' that says "no" to empirical verification of arbitrary constructions of reality. This limited sense of objective reality is necessary to avoid pure idealism. Objective reality must "inform" or "guide" experimentation.
russell_russell
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2015That suffices to arrive at the 'something' where any map (construction) remains a map of the 'something' that "informs" you of anything, especially the "no" to any map or mapping.
Postulate objective reality as information projected to accommodate, provide or eliminate any constraint!
Need consistency? No problem. Need inconsistency? No problem.
Simply postulate there can be no 'shortage' of information.
The only 'something' that will 'sell you short' or 'short change' you is your assumption that objective reality has a 'must-do' list of properties or whatever.
You can assume this if you like.
Experimentation delivers information. The dictates of information is experimentation.
fjmrichards
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2015Losik : Dependence of cosmic divergence (and/or of cosmic convergence) of electro-magnetical radiation on the size of the material body of the observor would suggest that the Jaina description of the subtle jiva as aequivalent in size to that of the material body (which is spatially occupied by the jiva), is involved.
fjmrichards
3 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2015fjmrichards
3 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2015