Cause of the Big Bang

[machiaventa]

Dear Fellows:
I just finished reading a paper on the origin of the Universe.The most interesting theory was that in the beginning Gravity, strong and weak Nuclear forces and elctromagnetism existed as one entity. When gravity split off the Big Bang was the result. Once gravity no longer held these forces together the result was the big bang. I believe for this to work Hydrogen and Helium already must have existed in large quanties. H-70% Helium- 30% ratio probably. In other words the Universe in one form or another has always been there.:D:shrug:


Machiaventa Speaks

[Bradley364]

And now Machiaventa will shut it.

Grats....err...your point?

More importantly...so what?

[Myles]

I'm off. God is bound to show up.

[Yorda]

The most interesting theory was that in the beginning Gravity, strong and weak Nuclear forces and elctromagnetism existed as one entity. When gravity split off the Big Bang was the result.

This modern Big Bang myth sounds similar to the ancient Greek myth. The difference is that they now have four forces instead of four elements. But the ancients also had one more, fifth element, called the ether.

[spidergoat]

Actually, the universe had to cool considerably for atoms to exist.

[machiaventa]

This modern Big Bang myth sounds similar to the ancient Greek myth. The difference is that they now have four forces instead of four elements. But the ancients also had one more, fifth element, called the ether.
Read some more.The Greeks were refering the human body not the Universe.

Machiaventa

[Myles]

This modern Big Bang myth sounds similar to the ancient Greek myth. The difference is that they now have four forces instead of four elements. But the ancients also had one more, fifth element, called the ether.

Ether you believe that or you don't. The choice is yours.

[Yorda]

Read some more.The Greeks were refering the human body not the Universe.

Machiaventa

"In Greek mythology, Chaos or Khaos is the original state of existence from which the first "gods" appeared. In other words, the dark void of space. It is made from a mixture of what the Ancient Greeks considered the four elements: earth, air, water and fire."

"Together the four concepts represent the primal, fundamental state of the beginning, they are what always was. In the myth, however, their interaction ultimately proved to be unbalanced, resulting in the arising of a new entity ("Big Bang"). When the entity opened, it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside. After a long interval of rest, Ra, together with the other deities, created all other things."

Ether you believe that or you don't. The choice is yours.

the ether wasn't really an element because it was made of the 4 elements. it's like the super-force that scientists are looking for. the unification of the 4 forces

[blobrana]

Hum,
yes, i would agree.
Khaos was the cause.

ie, if you have a glass of water there is a non zero chance that one day, someday, it will all just jump out, and for no apparent reason.

[James R]

I just finished reading a paper on the origin of the Universe.The most interesting theory was that in the beginning Gravity, strong and weak Nuclear forces and elctromagnetism existed as one entity. When gravity split off the Big Bang was the result. Once gravity no longer held these forces together the result was the big bang.

Not exactly. The four forces (including gravity) are thought to have separated from one another at different times following the start of the big bang. The splits happened as the average temperature of the universe decreased sufficiently due to the expansion.

I believe for this to work Hydrogen and Helium already must have existed in large quanties. H-70% Helium- 30% ratio probably.

I don't think so. The four forces were already separate before any helium nuclei could form. (Hydrogen nuclei are simply protons.)

In other words the Universe in one form or another has always been there.:D:shrug:

There is no evidence for that one way of the other, yet.

[Reiku]

I devised a wild, somewhat audasity-fuelled idea, totally based on solipsm. If the Strong Anthropic Principle is correct, then in all definition, the cause of big bang would be us, because it cae into existence with these conditions, required for life...

[TruthSeeker]

"In Greek mythology, Chaos or Khaos is the original state of existence from which the first "gods" appeared. In other words, the dark void of space. It is made from a mixture of what the Ancient Greeks considered the four elements: earth, air, water and fire."

"Together the four concepts represent the primal, fundamental state of the beginning, they are what always was. In the myth, however, their interaction ultimately proved to be unbalanced, resulting in the arising of a new entity ("Big Bang"). When the entity opened, it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside. After a long interval of rest, Ra, together with the other deities, created all other things."



the ether wasn't really an element because it was made of the 4 elements. it's like the super-force that scientists are looking for. the unification of the 4 forces
Makes you wonder if they were up to something......

[kaneda]

The Egyptians had a universe from four elements too.

As to the cause of the big bang, that's easy. Red shift and CMB. Without them, people would have come up with a more realistic theory.

[AlphaNumeric]

As to the cause of the big bang, that's easy. Red shift and CMB. Without them, people would have come up with a more realistic theory.Ignorant claims based on preconceptions and poor research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence).

[OilIsMastery]

If you want to know the cause of the Big Bang go look in the religion forum.

[Yorda]

science can never find the absolute cause of anything because science has to do with observing things. and a cause cannot be observed because everything that can be observed is an effect, not the actual cause.

[Prince_James]

Yorda:

Together the four concepts represent the primal, fundamental state of the beginning, they are what always was. In the myth, however, their interaction ultimately proved to be unbalanced, resulting in the arising of a new entity ("Big Bang"). When the entity opened, it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside. After a long interval of rest, Ra, together with the other deities, created all other things."

Ra is Egyptian. Helios is Greek.

[Yorda]

Ra is Egyptian. Helios is Greek.

yes, but they represent the same thing. just like the egyptian ogdoad is the same as the 4 elements in chaos.

[kaneda]

Ignorant claims based on preconceptions and poor research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence).


I provided plenty of evidence of physorg forum and because you were proved wrong so often, you chucked me off. Must be tough here, not being able to do that to those who disagree with you.

[kaneda]

If you want to know the cause of the Big Bang go look in the religion forum.


The big bang idea is science's equivalent of creationism. Believers invent ever more impossible things to keep the idea going.

eg:

Dogma: Dark energy is making the universe expand.
Critic: How do you know dark energy exists?
Dogma: The universe is expanding, isn't it? That's proof.

:D

[machiaventa]

I am made of the same things the Sun is and I reside in the universe,all else in purley conjecture.The smartest man is one who admits he really knows nothing for sure.

Machiaventa:confused:

[blobrana]

Hum,
I'm sure you'll learn a few things here.

[OilIsMastery]

This should be in the Religion forum. The Cause of the Big Bang is called God.

[TruthSeeker]

No! The cause of the Big Bang is OIL!!!!! Everything is OIL!!! :rolleyes:

[EndLightEnd]

There was no big bang.

[JDawg]

This should be in the Religion forum. The Cause of the Big Bang is called God.

How about you save your religious babble for the religion forums? This is a science forum.

[AlphaNumeric]

This should be in the Religion forum. The Cause of the Big Bang is called God.But what if our universe is a 'bubble' inside another universe? What if the larger universe is the one created by God as the first cause but ours is equivalent to a bubble of gas expanding in boiling water?

In that case, the creation of all we can see is not immediately caused by God any more than the supernova which ended up forming our solar system, which we do readily investigate without religious people whining, created the Earth.

So how are we to know if you're investigating 'the first cause' or not? We could be ignoring vital parts of 'God's work' simply because of our ignorance and 'fear' about treating on God's work. John Paul II once said to Hawking he was happy to people to investigate up to the Big Bang but not at the BB since that was the moment of God's creation of everything. But how are we to know? Without investigation, we cannot know.

Before we understood about the fact the Earth hasn't been here for as long as much of the universe (since the universe is AT LEAST 13 billion years old), people thought that investigating the Earth's formation was investigating the moment of Genesis. But now we know better and noone complains about physicists working out how the Sun formed.

Now we're just going from how our solar system formed to how our space-time formed. But given we now have concepts of how there might have been something before and our BB wasn't the moment of 'Genesis' we should check.

[OilIsMastery]

There can only be one First Cause and by definition there is no cause before the first cause.

[Enmos]

This should be in the Religion forum. The Cause of the Big Bang is called God.

Shut the fuck up Oil. Shoo..

[AlphaNumeric]

There can only be one First Cause and by definition there is no cause before the first cause.You didn't even read what I said, did you?

My point is that what caused our BB might not have been the First Cause. There might have been something before. It might have been one of many 'Secondary Causes'. But we won't know unless we investigate it.

[JDawg]

Alpha,

I tend to agree. While M-Theory is still in the realm of philosophy, I think it's a far more attractive idea that the BB was just a piece of the puzzle, as opposed to the entire puzzle.

But at some point, don't you have to have something from nothing? That is to say, if the BB isn't the first of its kind, or even the only one in existence, and there is some other force at work, don't you at some point have to find that something, ultimately, came from nothing?

[blobrana]

The ending of our universe will lead to many other big bangs.

[kaneda]

A multiverse has been proposed as the cause of the big bang, so it allows for overall energy conservation (ie: they lose energy, we gain). However, this just puts the overall origin back one stage. More important about such an idea is why it happened? Why would a multiverse which is overall stable produce yet another universe?

[kaduseus]

Why do people continue to call it a big bang theory - it's pure conjecture!!!!
They still haven't worked out what gravity is........oh it's a force!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Big Bang = Creationist conjecture - John Paul II even gave hawking a medal.
....Which isn't fair, i want a medal
...no i want an apple
...no i want the moon on a stick!

[James R]

The big bang idea is science's equivalent of creationism. Believers invent ever more impossible things to keep the idea going.

eg:

Dogma: Dark energy is making the universe expand.
Critic: How do you know dark energy exists?
Dogma: The universe is expanding, isn't it? That's proof.

If you think scientists just make stuff up because it sounds good, you don't know much about science.

Why do people continue to call it a big bang theory - it's pure conjecture!!!!

You might want to research the scientific meaning of the word "theory". Get back to me once you've done that. A brief google search should do the trick.

[AlphaNumeric]

If you think scientists just make stuff up because it sounds good, you don't know much about science.Watch out, Kaneda will have a go at you for telling you something he should already know.

For instance, that dark energy is not responsible for the universe expanding, but for the expansion accelerating. Dark energy was put into GR by Einstein to keep the universe static, since he said GR otherwise implied the universe was expanding or contracting. Hubble then showed it was expanding. No need for dark energy. Now we find the expansion is accelerating, which does need dark energy.

So it's been put in and taken out as experiments have been refined from "We don't know, we think it's static" to "Expanding" to "Expanding and accelerating".

Yet again, Kaneda shows he doesn't put half as much research into his 'debunking' as he'd like people to think.

[kaneda]

If you think scientists just make stuff up because it sounds good, you don't know much about science.


How about giving me some evidence of dark energy which makes up 3/4 of the universe and explaining where it comes from in increasing quantities and how it suddenly appeared several billion years ago?

You're like OmegaNumeric. You think because someone disagrees with dogma, they must be ignorant.

[kaneda]

Watch out, Kaneda will have a go at you for telling you something he should already know.

For instance, that dark energy is not responsible for the universe expanding, but for the expansion accelerating.

Once again I have to point out basic science to you. Several billion years ago, dark energy took over from the big bang as the cause of expansion of the universe.

OmegaNumeric = :shrug:

No hope.

[James R]

How about giving me some evidence of dark energy which makes up 3/4 of the universe and explaining where it comes from in increasing quantities and how it suddenly appeared several billion years ago?

As far as I am aware, it didn't suddenly appear.

As for evidence, I suggest you check out the many astronomy sites on the internet that will introduce the concept for you and explain why it is necessary.

You're like OmegaNumeric. You think because someone disagrees with dogma, they must be ignorant.

I judge you on what you write.

[Reiku]

Hi Kenada, good to see your back!!!!! HOW was your trips?

......................

Now, i have been on the fence concerning two possible theories. One which i devised, and another which agrees well quantum mechanically.

1) There is a proposal that just like how virtual particles ''pop'' out of the nothingness of the quantum aether, the universe has been proposed with a same mechanism.

** Nothingness, in the sense virtual negative energy is not considered i physics as being a real entity, but does has real physical effects on real entities... (Something i still find difficult to grasp :) )

and..

2) I propose a super-time curve, or a CTC, a Closed Timelike-Curve, which would superlink the beginning and end together, so theiris no longer a difference between the two points of big bang and big rip/or/big crunch, so that the beginning is the shadow of the end as being also the beginning itself. This would give the beginning, a beginning so to say.

Just thought i'd say what i thought about big bang. I don't think the theory is wrong, but our concepts about how to look at it, not that mine are necesserily right. Of course.

[AlphaNumeric]

Once again I have to point out basic science to you. Several billion years ago, dark energy took over from the big bang as the cause of expansion of the universe.

OmegaNumeric = :shrug:Can you provide sources?

The effect from dark energy has been tiny. That's part of the problem models have with it, it's very fine tuned because the universe is very close to being flat (ie no dark energy).

If the universe was just a little bit different in it's behaviour we'd not need dark energy in our models. Until 10 years ago we couldn't even measure the derivation from 'flat' enough to know it wasn't. The universe has been expanding since the big bang and a tiny tiny amount of that has been increased by dark energy. But since it's an exponential effect, it gets more and more powerful as time passes. However, the derivation from the "No dark energy, usual expansion" to "A tiny amount of dark energy, accelerating expansion" is only now coming to light.

If the universe wasn't expanding and was static, then we'd need dark energy again, as something to hold off the collapse due to gravity. This was the original view point of Einstein when he first proposed the cosmological constant.
You're like OmegaNumeric. You think because someone disagrees with dogma, they must be ignorant.No, I think you're ignorant because you post things like this (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1894215&postcount=14) when a simple Google or Wiki would tell you there's more evidence for the BB. You talk about how the stuff I say is easy to find and yet... you haven't found it...

Then there's things like not knowing any GR but claiming to know better than everyone else in the world who does do GR.

Things like that. We don't have to jump to conclusions about your ignorance. You provide us with plenty of evidence.
Now, i have been on the fence concerning two possible theories. One which i devised, and another which agrees well quantum mechanically.So the first is nonsense and the second you don't know how to critique?

[EmptyForceOfChi]

How would anybody expain where all of the mass come from ie trillions of stars/planets/rock etc, also empty void/space I find it hard to grasp how dimensional emptyness was created in the first place.



peace.

[blobrana]

Hum,
i would start with wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic

[Fraggle Rocker]

I graph time on a log scale. You can get closer and closer to the Big Bang but you can never quite reach it. And you can certainly never go past it and start asking "What came before the Big Bang?"

This model gives time an Absolute Zero like temperature. There is no such thing as "before the Big Bang" just like there is no such thing as "five degrees below Absolute Zero." We can put the words into a grammatically correct sentence, but the question is meaningless. Not everything we can say has meaning.

We model time as passing at a constant rate. But that's just the way we perceive it with these senses and cognitive abilities we happen to be born with. It doesn't mean that rate of passage is "reality," whatever that means. Not to mention, we've only been observing it for a few hundreds of thousands of years and we have no idea how time passed billions of years ago. Maybe it was much slower. Maybe my log scale isn't just a model but an accurate representation of reality.

[Crunchy Cat]

Dear Fellows:
I just finished reading a paper on the origin of the Universe.The most interesting theory was that in the beginning Gravity, strong and weak Nuclear forces and elctromagnetism existed as one entity. When gravity split off the Big Bang was the result. Once gravity no longer held these forces together the result was the big bang.

Never saw that pre-bing bang theory. Any references available?


I believe for this to work Hydrogen and Helium already must have existed in large quanties. H-70% Helium- 30% ratio probably.

Wouldn't work as atoms didn't weren't around for quite some time after the initial inflation.


In other words the Universe in one form or another has always been there.:D:shrug:

Many theories support the idea that reality always exists; however, our universe might be a blip of change in reality.

[blobrana]

"Why was the big bang so very big? It has been a struggle to explain why the infant universe expanded so rapidly. But now Stephen Hawking at the University of Cambridge, and colleagues, think they are close to perfecting an answer - by treating the early cosmos as a quantum object with a multitude of alternative universes that gradually blend into ours."

Read more (http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19826624.300)

[Mike Honcho]

1. Mass is merely a property of (some) quantum particles, even then it doesn't exist at the energies theorized by the big bang. Never mind talk of actual atoms existing in the extreme early universe.
2. By particles I mean bundles of quantum probability of energy potentially existing within areas of space (please reference the Wave Function). In other words no particles exist at fundemental levels anyway. Particulate properties merely arise in interacting systems of many of these various probabilities.
3. As such the only thing which surely exists is the potential for everything.
4. From this infinite potential energy (contained most densely in nothingness) sprang everything whether via BB or other events. Conservation of energy is observed.
5. Everything quite literally is nothing.
6. Fortunately nothing contains evertything.
7. I'm a decent counter.

[Walter L. Wagner]

Blobrana:

Are you going to pay for a subscription, and then copy the article for all of us to read?

[blobrana]

Hum,
there is no need.
The information is in the abstract “quantum object with a multitude of alternative universes that gradually blend into ours".

Prof Stephen Hawking proposes that we cannot know the initial conditions present at the bigbang because the beginning of the universe had a multitude of quantum states and histories.
He then proposes that the `gradually blending` of these multi universes into one single universe (a wave collapse) released the energy to allow the universe to expand.

[kaneda]

[QUOTE=EmptyForceOfChi;1908741]How would anybody explain where all of the mass come from ie trillions of stars/planets/rock etc, also empty void/space I find it hard to grasp how dimensional emptiness was created in the first place.[QUOTE]

That is the big problem. How do we get something from nothing? A theory that has gained interest since 2002 is that nothing produced the lot (the universe does balances out). If you take it that +1 and -1 = 0 and +trillion and -trillion = 0 so there is an infinite potential there. Pluses would be matter and energy and minus, gravity.

At present, one theory is pretty much as good as another as we just don't know.

[kaneda]

Taking out the nonsense and insults, we are left with:


If the universe wasn't expanding and was static, then we'd need dark energy again, as something to hold off the collapse due to gravity. This was the original view point of Einstein when he first proposed the cosmological constant.


The universe at an alleged 158 billion light years in diameter can barely hold it's own against gravity. Yet we are expected to believe it was once much smaller. In fact, quantumally small, and still expanded.


A pity you don't use your few gray cells instead of just parroting text books.

[kaneda]

Prof Stephen Hawking proposes that we cannot know the initial conditions present at the bigbang because the beginning of the universe had a multitude of quantum states and histories.
He then proposes that the `gradually blending` of these multi universes into one single universe (a wave collapse) released the energy to allow the universe to expand.


A black hole is almost ultimately stable. Pack stuff in far tighter and it should be ultimately stable. What movements are you going to have in something that makes neutronium look like a vacuum?

[AlphaNumeric]

The universe at an alleged 158 billion light years in diameter can barely hold it's own against gravity. Yet we are expected to believe it was once much smaller. In fact, quantumally small, and still expanded.Throw a ball up at escape velocity and it will forever be slowing down but it will never actually stop. Throw it a tiny tiny amount slower andat some point it will slow down, stop and come back.

The universe was 'thrown outwards' a tiny tiny fraction above 'escape velocity'.
A pity you don't use your few gray cells instead of just parroting text books.A pity you're too stupid to understand those books.

[Montec]

Hello all

"Dark energy" can also be looked at as the reduction of "gravity" over time. IE reducing an "effect" (gravity) is the same as adding in an opposite "effect"(dark energy).

:)

[kaneda]

Throw a ball up at escape velocity and it will forever be slowing down but it will never actually stop. Throw it a tiny tiny amount slower andat some point it will slow down, stop and come back.

The universe was 'thrown outwards' a tiny tiny fraction above 'escape velocity'.
A pity you're too stupid to understand those books.


Again you show a basic lack of ability to grasp facts and just rush to insult. The Universe in it's early days was far beyond the density needed to make a black hole. There is no escape velocity for a black hole.

You can't even quote from the right books. Loser.

[kaneda]

Hello all

"Dark energy" can also be looked at as the reduction of "gravity" over time. IE reducing an "effect" (gravity) is the same as adding in an opposite "effect"(dark energy).

:)


Right. Gravity we know moves at light speed so as expansion continues, there is greater distances between everything, so less attraction, so taking the brakes off of expansion.

[AlphaNumeric]

Again you show a basic lack of ability to grasp facts and just rush to insult. The Universe in it's early days was far beyond the density needed to make a black hole. There is no escape velocity for a black hole.This is something you and I have been over many times.

If the universe entered expansion before a sufficent amount of matter had time to exchange gravitational influence to form black holes, then there's no problem with "How did it escape it's own event horizon?". The event horizon would only form if the gravitational interactions had enough time to propogate between enough matter to reach critical density.

The same thing is occuring right now in the universe. There's some objects in the universe we have never seen and will never see because the light from those distance galaxies is unable to reach us because the expansion of the universe is moving us away from those galaxies faster than light. With no way for light and gravity to go between us and those galaxies, we cannot influence one another. Similarly, at the beginning of the universe, there wasn't enough time for enough matter to become aware of each other to form a black hole.

You'll find that there's plenty of work on considering what happens if inflation doesn't occur soon enough. The entire universe collapses back in on itself. Or if it occurs too soon it makes the matter in the universe too diffuse to form galaxies and the structures we see.
You can't even quote from the right books. Loser.I have yet to see you quote from any. Every time you make an attempt at correcting me, you get it wrong. Every time I ask you for a source, you don't provide one.

And every time you call me a name all you do is demonstrate your hypocrisy. You and people like Walter spend so much time whining about mainstream work but you don't actually read any of it. What kind of a loser does that make you? :shrug:

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

It's good to read something interesting on the 'big bang' for a change without all the KOOKS claiming,
'God caused it, We caused it, consciousness caused it, 3 headed aliens with green toes caused it'...this is the only interesting thread on the big bang i've read on the forums so far,or I should say the only one that has believable points actualy most of the others would only be believed by the under 13 population and the retarded (imo).

Rekiu....A quick question

In post11 you claim...
the cause of big bang would be us, because it cae into existence with these conditions, required for life...

Then 2 weeks later in post40 you say you can't decide between....

just like how virtual particles ''pop'' out of the nothingness of the quantum aether, the universe has been proposed with a same mechanism.
AND
I propose a super-time curve, or a CTC, a Closed Timelike-Curve, which would superlink the beginning and end together
Have you decided which it is to be..? have you changed your mind about us being the cause..?
I've read a bit of your thread on it, but don't really get the math.



OILISMASTERY This should be in the Religion forum. The Cause of the Big Bang is called God.
If you want to know the cause of the Big Bang go look in the religion forum
Yep and santa claus should be in world events, and the tooth fairy in biology.


V.interesting though the thread....
(Imo) A truth is easy to explain and prove, A falsehood is generaly complicated.

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. Let's try and explain it again. The universe is finely balanced between expansion and collapse at (alleged) 158 billion light years in diameter. At 380,000 years when matter first appeared and the universe was that much smaller, everything was concentrated in a relatively tiny area. It seems to me that at such a small size, the gravity from 7x10^22 solar masses would be sufficient to overcome expansion to the point of collapsing?

Check on the size of the local group and how little mass it has, but it holds together despite expansion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group

I quote sources like here but you ignore them because they show you wrong. Or like in a recent case: "He's only been doing astronomy in that field for 50 years. What does he know?"

You hardly ever reveal sources, which would show where you copied from, so not surprising.

You even copy my insults. How low can you get?

How about answering my points instead of just empty boasting? That would make a change.

[AlphaNumeric]

At 380,000 years when matter first appeared No, matter appeared in the first moments of the universe. By 3 minutes nucleosynthesis was over and the universe then spent around 1/3 of a million years cooling down. At 380,000 years it cooled below the plasma ionisation temperature of hydrogren and the electrons, which had previously been buzzing about free, formed atoms around the slew of protons hanging around.

Matter had been there the entire time, it was in plasma form, not atomic/molecular form.

Yet another demonstration of your ignorance.
Check on the size of the local group and how little mass it has, but it holds together despite expansion:It's gravitationally bound. Expansion over something the size of our local group is tiny. It's 70km/s per megaparsec. Our local group is about 3 megaparsecs across. That's a grand total of 210km/s expansion across the entire region. Andromeda is currently plowing towards us at 300km/s. Hence galaxy speeds are entirely fast enough to overcome the expansion across our local group.

See, 20 seconds thought and a quick check of the speed of Andromeda relative to us and it turns out you're wrong. Again.
Or like in a recent case: "He's only been doing astronomy in that field for 50 years. What does he know?"And how many major astronomers can I name drop who have more experience, aren't considered cranks and who support the BB?

If it came down to a popularity contest, the mainstream view wins. Tautologically so.
You even copy my insults. How low can you get?About as low as the quality of your insults.
How about answering my points instead of just empty boasting? That would make a change.How about you demonstrate working knowledge rather than saying "You're a liar, you aren't a PhD student." as if what I do or don't do has any effect on the validity of my comments.

Do you still think I maintain numerous independent websites, going back many years, all for the purposes of fooling people like you? :roflmao: Why don't you ever demonstrate you have working knowledge of GR?

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. I sometimes forget what a point scoring idiot you are, looking for every trivial chance to put someone else down. Next time I'll say SOLID matter so you can't score points off of it. Of course, this is just down to BB dogma anyway so it's not as though we were talking about something real.

Both our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are attracting each other gravitationally, so both are moving towards each other at accelerated speeds, so not normal speed as you would have realised had you given it 1 second's thought, which is asking a lot of you.

Not being a trusting person I checked the wiki and found we are approaching each other at 100-140 km/s. They used a figure quoted from space.com . hypertextbook comes up with 130 km/s. Where was your figure from?

The BB has serious problems with it. Just because someone can identify distant star clusters, how does this equate with their personal knowledge of the BB? They believe it because that is what they have been taught. not because they have done any research on it, or in most cases, ever given it a moment's thought.

My insults can't be that bad if you quote them back to me. A pity they don't have a text book which you can quote insults from.

Why don't you display any knowledge which could not have been quoted from a text book or an internet site? An educated 12 year old with a search engine could do as well as you do.

A PhD student who spends all his time on internet forums? Like a pig with wings.

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. I've done this separately so you can't deliberately ignore it like you have so many times in the past in your creationist zeal for your support of the BB idea.

Explain how SOLID matter once created could overcome mutual attraction at BB+380,000 years when everything was so close together.

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric. I sometimes forget what a point scoring idiot you are, looking for every trivial chance to put someone else down. Next time I'll say SOLID matter so you can't score points off of it. Of course, this is just down to BB dogma anyway so it's not as though we were talking about something real.So you got it wrong but it's irrelevent because you don't believe in it? :shrug:
Both our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are attracting each other gravitationally, so both are moving towards each other at accelerated speeds, so not normal speed as you would have realised had you given it 1 second's thought, which is asking a lot of you.The local cluster is all gravitationally attracted, hence why all of it can overcome expansion. How are you not getting that?

Galaxies close enough will be bound together. Enough that they over come expansion. You've basically saying "Those don't count because they are gravitationally bound". So they don't count because they are a counter example?
Not being a trusting person I checked the wiki and found we are approaching each other at 100-140 km/s. They used a figure quoted from space.com . hypertextbook comes up with 130 km/s. Where was your figure from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy
The table on the right hand side, the red shift is 300km/s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy#General_information
First sentence.

About half of that is due to our motion within the Milky Way, but then that means various parts of the two galaxies will be roughly anywhere from approaching at as little as 50km/s through to perhaps as much as 500km/s.

Suffice to say, the speeds involves are the same magnitude as the expansion across 300 million parsecs. Hence the velocities of galaxies in the local cluster are well within the range to be over coming expansion. If they were out by an order of magnitude, say only moving at 20km/s then you'd be right. But they aren't so you're not.
Why don't you display any knowledge which could not have been quoted from a text book or an internet site? An educated 12 year old with a search engine could do as well as you do.Funny how I help people with their homework, stand up to challenges and display the ability to reply to multiple specific points people raise in their posts. It's almost as if I can reply ontopic to things quickly and easily.

Find me a single post of yours where you demonstrate you can do physics. Where you calculate something.
A PhD student who spends all his time on internet forums? Like a pig with wings.I can't help but notice you ignored my questions. Do you think I, somehow, maintain (and have maintained for years) multiple websites relating to Cambridge, physics, maths, rowing, conferences and even www.arxiv.org ? Come on, explain how my name appears on all the websites I linked you to. I added this (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/forum.html) last week for you. So how is it I'm listed as a PhD student in a physics department? Or I've attended conferences? And given talks?

If you are right, why do you avoid addressing that? Is it because your only answer, other than admiting you're wrong, involves claiming there's a large web of conspiracies which I'm the centre of, all for the purpose of fooling you.

Tell me, do you wear a tin foil hat?

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric. I've done this separately so you can't deliberately ignore it like you have so many times in the past in your creationist zeal for your support of the BB idea.I didn't ignore it. I had to correct you on it!

And nice hypocrisy, given you ignore my challenges and questions.
Explain how SOLID matter once created could overcome mutual attraction at BB+380,000 years when everything was so close together.A plasma is not solid. And how close do you think it was? If you're going to make claims, let's see you make quantified ones. I could easily say "It was a diffuse plasma which underwent recombination and developed galaxies from there". It's as vague a reply as your claim was but something tells me you won't accept it. Once again, showing hypocrisy.

After 3 minutes, the universe had cooled and diffused enough to no longer be able to undergo fusion. So the nuclei which had been created, along with all the free protons, couldn't stick together but given the almost perfect uniformity of the material and it's still very high temperature, there's no main centres of density to collapse into (yet) and the high velocity means that it's able to support itself against collapse easily.

As time goes on the material continues to thin out, many billions and billions of times over, by which point the majority of the material is much more diffuse than stellar material (since it was already less dense than stellar material after a few minutes). The few areas which are denser have collapsed into the beginnings of galaxy clusters and some black holes, as seeded by dark matter (which isn't self supporting via it's temperature).

By t+380,000 years you've still got a material so hot it's literally white hot but quite diffuse. At that level of diffusion it's hot enough to stop itself collapse in most regions. Most regions which have begun collapse heat up enough to self support.

No doubt you're just itching to say "Quoted from a textbook", though it's all from memory and it's all stuff you should know if the information was something you bothered to look up. The fact you keep saying "solid" when it's not doesn't do you many favours. It's a 'dense' plasma but only in the sense that it's dense compared to nebulae we see now, particularly given all the electrons in the entire universe were free, effectively more than doubling the free particles in the universe and all of them being charged. If you suddenly ionised the interstellar dust everywhere, we'd not be able to see any stars!

So your 'solid material' wasn't solid at all. And all of this is done in explicit calculations in plenty of published papers which you can find on places like www.arxiv.org free of charge (damn those physicists and providing their work for all to see! It's almost like they have nothing to hide!). All your claims inevitably are devoid of calculations. If you know quantum mechanics, relativity and cosmology to the level you claim and you have so much free time on your hands and your dislike of the BB is so great and you're so sure you're right, why don't you type up some of your calculations?

Could it be you are not able to do mainstream physics, you are ignorant of most of it and all you can do is furiously wave your arms and jump about, proclaiming there are conspiracies against you, instigated by people like myself, who you think are about a dozen (if not more!) posters and moderators of websites who ban you. :roflmao:

It's always good to come on here, after banging my head against trying to turn a meson equation of motion from string theory into a Schrodinger equation format for most of the day, and see nuts like you. You remember me that whatever my problems in physics are, yours run much much deeper. :roflmao:

[James R]

Explain how SOLID matter once created could overcome mutual attraction at BB+380,000 years when everything was so close together.

Explain how a ball can go upwards when you throw it.

[Montec]

Hello kaneda. et al.
Explain how SOLID matter once created could overcome mutual attraction at BB+380,000 years when everything was so close together.
Some of us don't believe that "everything was so close together".

For example, no mass/gravity equates to very fast time rate so energy can travel "very fast". This is an expansion phase. Mass (initial seed) starts to form and slows the "time rate" down which intern "traps" more energy. Random pockets/areas of mass form out of the energy.

Just some thoughts.

:)

[kaneda]

Explain how a ball can go upwards when you throw it.

Try throwing it up under a million G-force.

[kaneda]

So you got it wrong but it's irrelevent because you don't believe in it? :shrug:

Another point for you. This point scoring is reallllly borrring!

The local cluster is all gravitationally attracted, hence why all of it can overcome expansion. How are you not getting that?

Galaxies close enough will be bound together. Enough that they over come expansion. You've basically saying "Those don't count because they are gravitationally bound". So they don't count because they are a counter example?

Gravitation is such that at 158 billion light years in diameter, the universe is balanced. At 1/36052 of it's present age when the universe was positively tiny and everything was packed in very densely, it continued to expand. I can't make it any easier than that for you. Get a 10 year old to explain it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy
The table on the right hand side, the red shift is 300km/s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy#General_information
First sentence.

I got different speeds elsewhere but the wiki is so accurate.....

About half of that is due to our motion within the Milky Way, but then that means various parts of the two galaxies will be roughly anywhere from approaching at as little as 50km/s through to perhaps as much as 500km/s.

That is irrelevant because the galaxy is a "closed system" in such circumstances.

Funny how I help people with their homework, stand up to challenges and display the ability to reply to multiple specific points people raise in their posts. It's almost as if I can reply ontopic to things quickly and easily.

You can quote answers from text books but not think up anything new.

Find me a single post of yours where you demonstrate you can do physics. Where you calculate something.

I can show you wrong, so what does that make you?

I can't help but notice you ignored my questions.

Again you use criticisms I have made of you. Doh!

Do you think I, somehow, maintain (and have maintained for years) multiple websites relating to Cambridge, physics, maths, rowing, conferences and even www.arxiv.org ? Come on, explain how my name appears on all the websites I linked you to. I added this (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/forum.html) last week for you. So how is it I'm listed as a PhD student in a physics department? Or I've attended conferences? And given talks?

If that is true, let me congratulate you on doing such a good job of hiding your intellect.

Tell me, do you wear a tin foil hat?

Only when debating with you. I heard idiocy is contagious.

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. Babbling that you are correct is not an answer.

I never said plasma was solid matter. You are so desperate now that you are making things up.

So, in Wonder Land after 3 minutes where you have the whole mass of the universe in a light year or so (thanks to magical fairy dust). Even if the lot does not collapse into a black hole, how is expansion going to overcome that? Can expansion move material off of the surface of a neutron star?

There is no bias in expansion. It is uniform, like tossing a coin a billion times. Expansion at the rate claimed would not allow even hydrogen to form.

Plasma collapses into neutron stars without any problem.

Solid as in elements. Below a certain temperature, it is no longer plasma.

I have found people who like calculations yourself on science forums are uniformly close minded. You are as alike as sheep with every last hint of imagination knocked out of you. Nothing new and you don't want anything new. Just the same old, same old. The equations of Wonder Land where strings really exist as do all the impossible stuff that you dream up.

Deep as in castles built ever higher on clouds which is why many left the superstring field some years back. A scientific dead end they called it. You can do the maths 24/7/365 but it will never be of any use in the real world. All you are doing is making new suits of clothes for the Emperor.

[AlphaNumeric]

Gravitation is such that at 158 billion light years in diameter, the universe is balanced. At 1/36052 of it's present age when the universe was positively tiny and everything was packed in very densely, it continued to expand. I can't make it any easier than that for you. Get a 10 year old to explain it.Throw a ball upwards at 11.6km/s + 0.000000001mm/s and in a billion years it'll be just moving and you might think "Wow, it's so close to stopping!" but it doesn't make the fact it was thrown upwards wrong.

The universe is very close to not being outside it's own 'escape velocity'. So?
You can quote answers from text books but not think up anything new.Evidence? I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate it's impossible for me to think up anything new.

You will find the work discussed towards the end of this (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/Work/Orbifolds.pdf) published nowhere. I literally right now have a .tex file opened with a half completed paper written up which will be published by the end of the summer on that.
I can show you wrong, so what does that make you?Except noone but you thinks you've shown me wrong and that doesn't answer my question. Show me where you've demonstated you can do actual physics. I have this (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/work.html). What about you?
If that is true, let me congratulate you on doing such a good job of hiding your intellect.Well done on being unable to say "I was wrong!". I prove that I'm a PhD student doing theoretical physics and you accept it but still manage to avoid saying "I was wrong".

And everyone else thinks I'm intelligent, including the people who allow me to do a PhD and the people who gave me a degree in maths from Cambridge. What evidence do you have?
I never said plasma was solid matter. You are so desperate now that you are making things up.You said "Explain how SOLID matter once created could overcome mutual attraction at BB+380,000 years when everything was so close together.". The universe at 380,000 years old went from a semi-diffuse plasma to a transparent gas which was already clumping into galaxies.

'Solid' and 'elements' are not synomymous. The fact you capitalised 'solid' implies that even more.
So, in Wonder Land after 3 minutes where you have the whole mass of the universe in a light year or so (thanks to magical fairy dust). Even if the lot does not collapse into a black hole, how is expansion going to overcome that? Can expansion move material off of the surface of a neutron star?Noone said that expansion pulls apart neutron stars. Infact, it doesn't. Why are you making up strawmen?
There is no bias in expansion. It is uniform, like tossing a coin a billion times. Expansion at the rate claimed would not allow even hydrogen to form.And yet calculations show expansion does explain what we see.

Unless you want to provide us with your calculations to demonstrate otherwise?
neutron stars. Infact, it doesn't. Why are you making up strawmen?
I have found people who like calculations yourself on science forums are uniformly close minded. Translation : "I've found that people who can do science disagree with me".
You are as alike as sheep with every last hint of imagination knocked out of you. Nothing new and you don't want anything new. Just the same old, same old. The fact I'm a PhD student proves otherwise. I do original research. Have you done any?
which is why many left the superstring field some years back. A scientific dead end they called it.Like who? Witten still does strings. Infact, he was at the conference I was at (http://www.math.upenn.edu/StringPhenom2008/people.html) about 6 weeks ago. My name is 3 above his.

Still think I'm a faker about claiming to be a PhD student?

Go on, link to a single thread where you show working knowledge in relativity or quantum mechanics. I bet you can't. All you have in your sad little life is coming online and throwing insults at people who are more successful at physics than you. You have to pretend I'm the centre of a huge conspiracy all about you just so you can avoid saying "I was wrong". When I get my paper published, I'll be sure to point it out to you ;)

[EndLightEnd]

Heres my take on the universe, which allows an infinite universe (as einstein believed) and accounts for the expanding we observe today.

In the universe everything is just a cycle, built on a cycle, built on a cycle.

The earth revolves around the sun, which revolves around the galaxy, which revolves around the Magellanic Clouds, etc...

The expanding we see today is merely the result of a much larger cycle we cannot fully observe, and the acceleration caused by sinusoidal progression.

I suspect billions of years in the future we will observe contraction.

[RussT]

I have been on BAUT for over three years "arguing with the Big Boys" and understand this implicitly and explicitly!

Here's a little secret for everyone...

Our Universe has NEVER been in any danger what-so-ever of 'Collapsing in on itself'.

SO, all of the alternative theories are right that the Big Bang Never happened, (There is NO 'naked singularity'... that is the EFE 'inside solution' (Schwarzschild) for an 'spherically' expanding 'naked singularity', everywhere the center of a finite but unbounded universe,) BUT BUT BUT...

ALL of the alternative's are WRONG, because they do not use "Real" SMBH's at all.

The ONE THING that Mainstream has never allowed/considered....is the answer...

"Something" Going Through those SMBH's!!!

Lee Smolin and Lisa Randall are the closest to 'getting it'.

Lee Smolin's..."A constant at the "pit" of the Black Holes
Lisa Randall's "Gravity Leaking" TO our Universe. (Only it is not really "Gravity", it is just the (God) particle that gives electrons and protons their mass).

AND, the whole key to all of this is...

When the "Jets" turn on the first time for SMBH's and THEN, when do they turn on again!!!

The "First Time" the Jets turn on for a SMBH is when a 3 second to 500 second GRB goes BOOOOOOOMMMMMM...that is the electrons/protons being created for that particular "New Galaxy" or Dwarf Galaxy.

There are 10 dwarfs for every one galaxy, and the long GRB's (3 Second to 500 second) are in exactly that ratio.

ALL of the Quasars are fully formed and evolved Elliptical Galaxies NOT new galaxies being formed!

Alphanumeric and JamesR

According to mainstreams "Just-so-Story", the Milky Way is modeled as...'as old as the oldest galaxy in the universe', SO, how 'massive' was the SMBH at the core of the Milky Way, say 13.2 billions years ago???

Was it in the Billions of sol masses, as a quasar, and has slowly dwindled in mass since it's inception?

AND, what about M87, did it start out as aa puny few million sol mass SMBH, and build to what it is today, OR???

There's more....like what is "Coming Through" those SMBH's and what it means!!!

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

There's more....like what is "Coming Through" those SMBH's and what it means!!!

What does SMBH stand for ___ ___ black hole...?

[blobrana]

RE:>> he treats the early cosmos as a quantum object with a multitude of alternative universes that gradually blend into ours.

Here is another link (http://quasar9.blogspot.com/2008/06/hawking-colleagues.html) about Stephen Hawking`s answer to the bigbang and inflation.
It is a bit easier to understand than my cryptic answer.

"For this, one needs a theory of the wave function of the universe."

(And supermassive black holes (SMBH) are not needed)

[Diode-Man]

RE:>>

"For this, one needs a theory of the wave function of the universe."

(And supermassive black holes (SMBH) are not needed)

If all life forms suddenly disappeared from the Universe, would the Universe disappear as well? Such a statement naturally seams stupid... however...

A Universal that has no lifeforms and no consciousness, passes through time like eons to seconds, and perhaps faster. I theorize that self-awareness actually slows down time and perhaps even creates it. If the big bang really does repeat itself over and over then this would happen trillions of times per moment of unobserved time. (Or indeed, infinite cycles per second) **DUN DUN DUN**

The number of stars in existence is literally incalculable. To think the Universe has an edge is comparable to believing you can fall off the edge of the Earth by sailing too far. But it is equally retarded to think that the Universe is a sphere that you can appear on the other end of by going to the "edge."

Who really needs Steven Hawking to think for them if they realize time doesn't exist without consciousness?

[blobrana]

Hum,
While there are important philosophical points to what you say, we really don't need you to say that time doesn't exist without consciousness.
Right or wrong, it is unimportant to this thread, or to Hacking's latest theory.

[goose]

If all life forms suddenly disappeared from the Universe, would the Universe disappear as well? Such a statement naturally seams stupid... however...

A Universal that has no lifeforms and no consciousness, passes through time like eons to seconds, and perhaps faster. I theorize that self-awareness actually slows down time and perhaps even creates it. If the big bang really does repeat itself over and over then this would happen trillions of times per moment of unobserved time. (Or indeed, infinite cycles per second) **DUN DUN DUN**


This is the same thing as saying that when someone dies, everything vanishes according to that person. Well, if you want to take it that far, then yes, what your saying is perfectly accurate. The universe only has time according to the person that is observing it. However, lets say that i have 5 seconds to live, when i die, do you cease to exist? according to me you do, but according to you it doesnt. Lets break me and you down to a single atom, and go through the same scenario, you get the same result if an atom did infact die. Well, what if both of us are dead? does the 5 seconds after our death no longer exist? Not to us, but the 5 seconds is still there. In turn, the universe with no lifeforms still exsits regardless of the fact that we arnt there to see it.


Who really needs Steven Hawking to think for them if they realize time doesn't exist without consciousness?

"Time" only exists in the way that we made it up... how we perceive time to be. So in this way, time in the way we use it doesnt exist without consciousness, but time as the dimension does exist regardless if were here to see it or not. If you have an object traveling at any speed, then there has to be time as a dimension or else it couldnt get from point A to point B. All movement is based off of time (ie. m/s - m/s^2 and so on)

[kaneda]

Throw a ball upwards at 11.6km/s + 0.000000001mm/s and in a billion years it'll be just moving and you might think "Wow, it's so close to stopping!" but it doesn't make the fact it was thrown upwards wrong.

Throwing a ball upwards suggests on a planet or moon. It moving for a billion years suggests it being in space. Make up your mind. If it moves at a constant speed, why should someone think it is close to stopping?

The universe is very close to not being outside it's own 'escape velocity'. So? Evidence? I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate it's impossible for me to think up anything new.

You still don't get it. Escape velocity depends on the mass and density an object is trying to escape from. The mass remains the same but the density was far, far more than it is now. Hugely different escape velocities, something that seems to be light years beyond your ability to comprehend.

Since you are just regurgitating old arguments, I think that is sufficient proof. I have yet to see you ever come up with anything new.

You will find the work discussed towards the end of this (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/Work/Orbifolds.pdf) published nowhere. I literally right now have a .tex file opened with a half completed paper written up which will be published by the end of the summer on that.
Except noone but you thinks you've shown me wrong and that doesn't answer my question. Show me where you've demonstated you can do actual physics. I have this (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/work.html). What about you?
Well done on being unable to say "I was wrong!". I prove that I'm a PhD student doing theoretical physics and you accept it but still manage to avoid saying "I was wrong".

How easy to copy the work of others.

And everyone else thinks I'm intelligent, including the people who allow me to do a PhD and the people who gave me a degree in maths from Cambridge. What evidence do you have?

Who is this "everyone"? You're not on physorg where your toadies are impressed with your ability to parrot things.

You said "Explain how SOLID matter once created could overcome mutual attraction at BB+380,000 years when everything was so close together.". The universe at 380,000 years old went from a semi-diffuse plasma to a transparent gas which was already clumping into galaxies.

A question you have yet to answer.

'Solid' and 'elements' are not synomymous. The fact you capitalised 'solid' implies that even more.
Noone said that expansion pulls apart neutron stars. Infact, it doesn't. Why are you making up strawmen?
And yet calculations show expansion does explain what we see.

Unless you want to provide us with your calculations to demonstrate otherwise?
neutron stars. Infact, it doesn't. Why are you making up strawmen?
Translation : "I've found that people who can do science disagree with me".
The fact I'm a PhD student proves otherwise. I do original research. Have you done any?
Like who? Witten still does strings. Infact, he was at the conference I was at (http://www.math.upenn.edu/StringPhenom2008/people.html) about 6 weeks ago. My name is 3 above his.

I had to use SOLID because you were point scoring and so differentiate plasma from cooler material.

Again, you have to explain how a universe with a density like a neutron star or greater could continue to expand. Feel free to continue to evade the question.

What great discoveries in the real world has Witten come up with?

Still think I'm a faker about claiming to be a PhD student?

If you are, you have shown a singular inability to go beyond what you have been taught.

Go on, link to a single thread where you show working knowledge in relativity or quantum mechanics. I bet you can't. All you have in your sad little life is coming online and throwing insults at people who are more successful at physics than you. You have to pretend I'm the centre of a huge conspiracy all about you just so you can avoid saying "I was wrong". When I get my paper published, I'll be sure to point it out to you ;)

I don't go in for vain boasting like you. You still have to show that you can do something new and not just parrot what you have been taught.

[kaneda]

RE:>> he treats the early cosmos as a quantum object with a multitude of alternative universes that gradually blend into ours.

Here is another link (http://quasar9.blogspot.com/2008/06/hawking-colleagues.html) about Stephen Hawking`s answer to the bigbang and inflation.
It is a bit easier to understand than my cryptic answer.

"For this, one needs a theory of the wave function of the universe."

(And supermassive black holes (SMBH) are not needed)


I read what Hawking said and it blew my BS meter. Even AlphaNumeric has never managed to do that. Does Hawking think he can get away with such nonsense by hoping that people will not understand his babble?

[kaneda]

If all life forms suddenly disappeared from the Universe, would the Universe disappear as well? Such a statement naturally seams stupid... however...

A Universal that has no lifeforms and no consciousness, passes through time like eons to seconds, and perhaps faster. I theorize that self-awareness actually slows down time and perhaps even creates it. If the big bang really does repeat itself over and over then this would happen trillions of times per moment of unobserved time. (Or indeed, infinite cycles per second) **DUN DUN DUN**

The number of stars in existence is literally incalculable. To think the Universe has an edge is comparable to believing you can fall off the edge of the Earth by sailing too far. But it is equally retarded to think that the Universe is a sphere that you can appear on the other end of by going to the "edge."

Who really needs Steven Hawking to think for them if they realize time doesn't exist without consciousness?

Life is irrelevant to the universe. Time is change and continues whether we are here to measure it or not as in we have only been around for several million years while the universe is billions of years old.

The number of stars is said to be about 7x10^22 though bigger and better telescopes will no doubt increase that number. However, as there is a maximum distance we can see on Earth due to material and water in the air, there is no reason why this should not happen in space where because it is so much more rarefied we can see much further, as in over 13 billion light years. There is of course a limit because of the age of the universe.

Why should a finite universe not have an "edge" or boundary?

[AlphaNumeric]

If it moves at a constant speed, why should someone think it is close to stopping?Where did I say it would be moving at a constant speed. It would be slowing down.
How easy to copy the work of others.Ah, so it's something you don't understand and cannot hope to understand and because you don't like me you attempt a cheap shot.

Where's your original research then?
Who is this "everyone"? You're not on physorg where your toadies are impressed with your ability to parrot things.While my attitude might not be a good example, you'll find on these forums I'm considered fairly knowledgable. Where's examples of you discussing high level physics and maths then?
A question you have yet to answer.Your inability or unwillingness to accept an answer doesn't mean one wasn't provided.
What great discoveries in the real world has Witten come up with?He considerably simplified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberg-Witten_theorem) the search for the 'next Standard Model', thus saving physicists huge quantities of work when it comes to finding something superior to the Standard Model. No-Go theorems are often the most powerful theorems in all of physics.
If you are, you have shown a singular inability to go beyond what you have been taught.How do you know? You don't know my work, I haven't discussed the details of it with you and you don't even know what's in textbooks never mind what is developed beyond that.

And undoubtedly if I did try to have a discussion with you on it, you'd just say "It's wrong, it's string theory!" so an attempt at discussion is pointless. You won't discuss it and then complain I don't discuss it. Even BenTheMan, who is as close to my area of research as anyone I know (outside of my collaberators) doesn't do what I do and I don't follow what he does.

And you still couldn't say "I was wrong, you are a PhD student". You don't bother saying "All your evidence is a conspiracy!", you just don't refer to it. Why is that?
I don't go in for vain boasting like you. You still have to show that you can do something new and not just parrot what you have been taught.I'm 60% the way through writing a paper which will get onto ArXiv by the end of the summer. I'll let you know.

And I'm curious, where's the link to a post where you demonstrate you can do physics? I must have missed it.

[goose]

Life is irrelevant to the universe. Time is change and continues whether we are here to measure it or not as in we have only been around for several million years while the universe is billions of years old.

Thanks for repeating exactly what i said...

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. If a ball is travelling for a billion years, is it maybe losing momentum at a nanometer a year or some such nonsense? Or is it moving at a uniform speed as I pointed out?

You copy the work of others only, whether it is from an internet site or something you have learned. Nothing ever new.

The rest of the post is just more pomposity so not worth an answer.

Research? On other internet sites and in my mind. To you, research is one of those words you are not quite sure what it means since it can never involve you.

More pomposity about how smart you are. Or aren't. Your posts show your intellect so boasting is a waste of time.

Still no answer. Not that I expected one since there is none that you can copy from. Others dodge the question too.

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric. If a ball is travelling for a billion years, is it maybe losing momentum at a nanometer a year or some such nonsense? Or is it moving at a uniform speed as I pointed out?Suppose you take a sphere of material and blow it up. The outwardly expanding material will slow down it's expansion due to gravitational effects but if you blow it up 'enough', it'll never stop expanding. If you don't blow it up hard enough, it'll recollapse.

Simple enough for you?
You copy the work of others only, whether it is from an internet site or something you have learned. Nothing ever new.Evidence? I suppose the work I've done but which you don't know about, which you wouldn't understand even if I posted it, somehow doesn't count?
The rest of the post is just more pomposity so not worth an answer.In other words you don't want to address the fact I've proven I'm not a liar about myself because you cannot bring yourself to say "I was wrong". How sad.
esearch? On other internet sites and in my mind. To you, research is one of those words you are not quite sure what it means since it can never involve you.I've proven I'm a postgraduate student doing theoretical physics at a university. So your comments are nothing but a display you're experience blind hatred of me and cannot bring yourself to admit you're wrong.
More pomposity about how smart you are.You're the one who never shows any physics or maths knowledge but claims to know more about relativity and/or cosmology than anyone in mainstream physics. How's that for pompous? You don't even know any relativity!
Still no answer. Not that I expected one since there is none that you can copy from. Others dodge the question too.I did answer. Others replied too. All you did was demonstrate you don't bother to think about anything, you just deny it all.

If you gave a neutron star's material enough outward momentum, it would expand and spread out. So when you say "Again, you have to explain how a universe with a density like a neutron star or greater could continue to expand. Feel free to continue to evade the question." it's easily answerable without even having to stop and think about it. It's clear you don't even try to answer your own questions. I generally find that when I think "That can't be right!" about something in the mainstream, it's a good idea to leave it 'bubbling away' at the back of your mind for a while and then you'll have a sudden flash of inspiration about it. I went through a phase during April and May of it happening to me repeatedly when I made a break through in the area I'm currently working in.

We can discuss it if you want. It's a topic only a few people publish in and the area isn't in textbooks and hardly on Wikipedia. Infact, I wrote things like the Wikipedia page on orientifolds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientifold), not copied from it!

Besides, you seem to think learning from others is wrong. Did you learn nothing useful in school or from other people? Did you spontaneously develop English yourself? What about driving a car? Is all your knowledge self created or have you learnt things from other people? Do you think the human race would be as technologically advanced if we didn't pass on knowledge to one another?

What a very naive and narrow view of the world you must have. It'd be pitiful if you weren't so bitter and twisted.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Note from the moderators' community:

Kaneda, you need to dial it WAY back. Stop the personal insults immediately. Speak to the topic, not the other members.

The same goes for all of you. No trolling, no flaming, no personal insults. Those are all violations of the forum rules. This is a place of science.

[RussT]

Suppose you take a sphere of material and blow it up. The outwardly expanding material will slow down it's expansion due to gravitational effects but if you blow it up 'enough', it'll never stop expanding. If you don't blow it up hard enough, it'll recollapse.

Simple enough for you?

Yes, that has been the supposition since 1929 (LeMaitre/Friedmann).

The only problem is....It is absolutely "Meaningless"!

Why, because "Naked Singualrities" do NOT even exist!

All Hawking/Penrose/Thorne/Presskill had to do was continue their work on Cosmic Censorship and this would have become self-evident. BUT, noooooooooooo, mainstream Absolutely refuses to "Falsify Itself"!!!

AND, Inflation is NOT an 'obseravtion', but a mathematical "Fix"..."Trying" to fix the horizon/flatness problem, which it doesn't even do, which Joao Magueijo made very evident in his program that aired in June.

All of the "Horizons" being used (Including those in SR) do NOT even exist!!!

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1922873&postcount=72

Since you and James refused to respond to this, allow me to expand on what this means.

As I said, Our Universe has Never been in danger of collapsing in on itself.

I am the first person (that I know of, and I know about almost every theory out there) to show that Long GRB's (3 seconds to 500 seconds) are actually Massive Black Holes being created, creating the electrons/protons for that Massive Black Holes galaxy or Dwarf Galaxy! The Nuker Group has shown that SMBH's and Galaxy birth are intimately tied together, and those SMBH's being created are NOT because of the collapse of 'Baryonic Matter'!!! The whole universe was NOT filled with hydrogen/Helium!!!

Some where in this thread, Kaneda said that..."1 dimensional "Strings" could NOT be bent/curved"....that is absolutely Wrong!

Singularities at 0 are meaningless, and Singularities at a "Point" do NOT exist in or outside of a Black Hole!!! There are NO Non-rotating Black Holes, stellar or Super Massive!!! The Only Black Holes that even exist are Kerr Rotating Black Holes....Period!

SO, the ONLY 'Singulairties' that "Real"...That Physically Exist, are the Ring Singualrities inside of SMBH's (Forget stellar balck holes for now!!!).

SO, knowing that the electrons/protons are created when a SMBH is made to create a New Galaxy, puts a whole new spin on "Initial Conditions" of how does Our Space Get Here!!!

SO, once I figured out that 'space' could be going "Out Of Our SMBH's", then I figured that "Space Could Be coming "IN" our Universe" from outside.

When I found Lisa Randall's "Gravity Leaking" to Our Universe, it all suddenly made perfect sense!!!

The ONLY thing Einstein got right, is the E-R Bridges, where he was loojing for the 'electrons' coming through to our universe!!!

http://www.krioma.net/articles/Bridge%20Theory/Einstein%20Rosen%20Bridge.htm


The prediction of the existence of black holes did not trouble Einstein, but he found that the black holes contained a singularity at its centre; this is a point of infinite density where time comes to an end. At the point of the singularity, all the known laws of physics start to breakdown. For Einstein this was a very troubling thought and he did not like them, the idea that they were shielding from the outside world by the event horizon of the black hole was not enough for him and he did not like the “concept that if you can not see it then do not worry about it.”

So he went to work with Nathan Rosen and in 1935 they produced a paper that produced evidence for a bridge between a black hole and a white hole, this was called the Einstein-Rosen Bridge.



Figure 1

The purpose of the paper of Einstein and Rosen was not to promote faster-than-light or inter-universe travel, but to attempt to explain fundamental particles like electrons as space-tunnels threaded by electric lines of force.

BUT, he did NOT know about SMBH's, OR "Ring Singualrities" OR the Huge Voids between the galaxy clusters OR Neutrinos/Non-Baryonic Dark Matter!!! Think about that!

SO, the Huge Voids between the galaxy clusters are "White Holes" releasing "Continually" Non-Baryonic Neutrinos, in Straight Line Motion at "c", carrying the Cosmic Micowave Background 2.73K 'energy'...in other words "Strings"...that make up ALL of "Space" traveling at "c" in Every/ALL directions.

Those Strings become our 3 dimensional Space, expanding to infinity (Unless the go down a Black Hole) in ALL/Every Direction, going right "Through ALL baryonic Matter!!!

That IS the Aether, and Expanding Space is "Going Right Through ALL baryonic Matter!

Particle/Wave Duality is...The Neutrinos, going in straight line motion at "c",,,Carrying or maybe better worded...with the 'energy emedded/spinning' IN the Neutrinos.

AND, those Neurtinos ARE the "Strings"...So they are 6d Micro, which tallies to 3d micro for left spin, and 3d micro for right spin.

When Those Strings become "Branes", in our universe, those Branes collide about once a Day (Long GRB's 3 to 500 seconds) and Create Massive Black Holes for new galaxies and dwarf galaxies.

Dark Matter Galaxies are the 'fading of GRB's to allow the hydrogen/helium to form, just like the Big Bang says the early universe did. Then, first light for a New galaxy looks like this...

http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/public/images/ngc2915/

Where the 'core' starts star formation first...

then the BCD's become LSB's, then HSB's, then Seyferts then Ellipticals.

It is all pertectly consistent and makes perfect sense once you unserstand it!

Smoke on that for a while.

[AlphaNumeric]

I am the first person (that I know of, and I know about almost every theory out there) to show that Long GRB's (3 seconds to 500 seconds) are actually Massive Black Holes being created, creating the electrons/protons for that Massive Black Holes galaxy or Dwarf Galaxy! Where? What observations have you used? Where are your models, your analysis of data, your predictions?

I have a couple of astrophysics postgrad friends, one of whom specialises in active galactic cores, so feel free to show me something which is possibly viable science. By which I mean it'#s publishable material, not a Geocities website which looks like it was made by a colour blind 5 year old whose trying to induce seizures in people.
There are NO Non-rotating Black Holes, stellar or Super Massive!!! The Only Black Holes that even exist are Kerr Rotating Black Holes....Period!Of course not and you won't find an astrophysicist who thiks otherwise. However, when you do actual computations on the Kerr-Newman metric (having restored factors of k, c and G) you find that the rotating and charged effects are tiny compared to the gravitational ones. So except for some exceptional circumstances or very very precise models you can approximate a slowly rotating, close to neutral, black hole by a Schwarzchild one.

Like with so many things in physics, it's an approximation to help make explicit calculations easier, an 'effective theory'. People who don't do calculations often don't realise that there's a huge difference between writing down the equations of motion for something and solving them. We've known the equations of motion for quarks and gluons for 30 years. We're still a long way from 'solving them'.
which Joao Magueijo made very evident in his program that aired in June.If you're getting your information about astrophysics from pop science TV shows then you aren't doing serious work in the area. I don't watch 'The Elegant Universe' in order to learn about string theory, I read the hep-th section of www.arxiv.org for the latest stuff in my area.

Hence why I doubt you've actually done anything valid on black holes.
It is all pertectly consistent and makes perfect sense once you unserstand it!Except you have no working model. When I was 16 I came up with a 'consistent and simple' way for the universe to create itself using tachyons. Now, 8 years and a **** ton of maths and physics later I look back and realise how fantastically naive I was. Simply giving a 2 paragraph arm waving 'idea' isn't 'constant and perfect', it's BS. If someone had asked me "How does your theory account for the observed levels of isotopes in the universe?" I'd have no clue how to answer it. Just like I'm sure if I asked you for explicit detailed calculations you'd be unable to provide them.

But go on, suprise me.
Smoke on that for a while.I suggest you stop smoking the banana skins you're obviously hitting.

[RussT]

Where? What observations have you used? Where are your models, your analysis of data, your predictions?

If you would have read and responded to my first post, you would have seen a few of them.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...3&postcount=72


I have a couple of astrophysics postgrad friends, one of whom specialises in active galactic cores, so feel free to show me something which is possibly viable science.

Great, if you cannot answer the questions I posed in the above thread (How Massive was the MW SMBH 13.2 billion years ago) then maybe they can.

In that first post above, I said that I have been on BAUT for 3+ years and understand all of this intimately.


Originally Posted by RussT
There are NO Non-rotating Black Holes, stellar or Super Massive!!! The Only Black Holes that even exist are Kerr Rotating Black Holes....Period!


Of course not and you won't find an astrophysicist who thinks otherwise.

That's funny, because the only way the Pro's on BAUT could get away from what I showed was to keep asking me to show "Proof" the SMBH and it's accretion disc in M31 was rotating...LOL


However, when you do actual computations on the Kerr-Newman metric (having restored factors of k, c and G) you find that the rotating and charged effects are tiny compared to the gravitational ones.

I am not going to go into this now, as it will side track the 'singularity' issues, BUT the Magnetic Field of a Kerr Rotating SMBH is MUCH more important than you or anyone even realizes!


So except for some exceptional circumstances or very very precise models you can approximate a slowly rotating, close to neutral, black hole by a Schwarzchild one.

Sorry, But that is simply BS. There is either a "Point" singularity OR a "Ring" singularity in the depths of a SMBH.

In fact, besides the fact that a Non-rotating black hole does NOT even exist, for a 'point' singularity to even have the possibility of existing, there is another problem with the Schwarzschild "Point" solution. Once the event horizon forms, then 'space' would be 'flowing over' the event horizon as water over a waterfall. SO, how does 'space' that is 'falling straight down' over the event horizon, Come to a "point"

I am/have shown that Naked Singularities and Point Singularities DO NOT even exist in our universe! Period!!!

The ONLY singularities that DO PHYSICALLY EXIST...ie; Are "Real" are "Ring Singularities "Inside SMBH's". That is very specifically Einsteins E-R Bridges...ie; the ONLY thing Einstein got right!

SO, IF the High Energy Gamma Ray Bursts are where the electrons/protons for Each Galaxy are being created, when, as the Nuker Team suggests (although they have a different, but wrong galaxy/SMBH creation scheme) the Birth of a galaxy and it's SMBH are intimately tied together, THEN the Universe did NOT start of HOT and full of hydrogen/helium....the first 3 minutes of an EFE "Inside Solution" of an Expanding "Naked Singularity", everywhere the center of a finite but unbounded universe...is just made up as is Inflation...ALL of that math is meaningless unless and until you can produce a Non-rotating SMBH!

But, just to show that I do really understand that of which I speak...;)

I am saying/showing that "Space" (Yes, your "Strings"...which is showing how String/"M" theory CAN become..."BackGround Independent"...Yes, I understand Witten and Lee Smolin as well! The reason String/"M" theory is not being able to be shown to work or be testable is because it is following mainstream!!!) is "Coming/going straight Through" those "Ring Singularities".

SO, when considering the SMBH's in the Universe level above Ours (Fractal Universes), when 'space' goes 'past' the event horizon in those SMBH's, it gets spaghettified and goes down to it's (Torus) Ring Singularity, and "Straight Through" to the 'worm hole' and then Out at the White Hole....which is a Void in between our galaxy cluster. Each of OUR Voids, is connected to a SMBH in the universe level above ours.

SO, that is the "Constant at the "pit" of a Black Hole, that Lee Smolin predicts.

That "Constant" "Coming Straight Through" IS Lisa Randall's "Gravity Leaking" TO OUR UNIVERSE...Simple.

That Constant is Neutrinos/Strings/Microwave Energy that forms Branes...Trust me.......that is A WHOLE LOT OF ENERGY when those Branes Collide and GO BOOOOOM and create a GRB...the BIGGEST EXPLOSIONS since the Big Bang that never happened...a New SMBH and it's electrons/protons...a new galaxy!

Those Neutrinos are traveling at "c" in every/all directions, just like the CMB is, and is ALL of space, the aether that makes String Theory Background Independent AND "Testable"!!!

Long GRB's (3 to 500 seconds) are Strings/Neutrinos/quantum Gravity in action ie; the "Mechanism"...when "ALL THAT ENERGY" as two Branes colliding forms the SMBH and the electrons/protons to start that galaxy/dwarf galaxy.

[AlphaNumeric]

If you would have read and responded to my first post, you would have seen a few of them.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...3&postcount=72Link doesn't work.
In that first post above, I said that I have been on BAUT for 3+ years and understand all of this intimately.And look at people like Kaneda, Zephir, Farsight and Reiku. They've been online for years and managed to learn nothing. You don't learn and do publishable work by doing discussions on internet forums.
That's funny, because the only way the Pro's on BAUT could get away from what I showed was to keep asking me to show "Proof" the SMBH and it's accretion disc in M31 was rotating...LOLI would imagine that they were asking you to show it's rotating enough to be worth including in the calculations. Most calculaitons involving black holes are done on Schwarzchild ones because it's a damn sight nicer than a Kerr metric.
In fact, besides the fact that a Non-rotating black hole does NOT even exist, for a 'point' singularity to even have the possibility of existing, there is another problem with the Schwarzschild "Point" solution. Once the event horizon forms, then 'space' would be 'flowing over' the event horizon as water over a waterfall. SO, how does 'space' that is 'falling straight down' over the event horizon, Come to a "point"Space-time doesn't flow like that. Material within it would be forced to 'flow like a river' but only because the 'channel' it's in (ie the space-time) is causing it to do that.

There's no t in the Schwarzchild metric. And Killing vectors involving time in the Kerr one relates to it's rotation, not somethign flowing over it's event horizon.
But, just to show that I do really understand that of which I speak...If you really do understand that of which you speak, you should have no trouble turning all the arm waving in your post about the EFE and inflation and black holes into proper rigorous quantative derivations. Derive the equations of motion for the 'flowing' of space-time around a black hole and not test particles within the space-time. Go on, full blown maths. I suspect you can't.
Those Neutrinos are traveling at "c" in every/all directions, just like the CMB is, and is ALL of space, the aether that makes String Theory Background Independent AND "Testable"!!!Are you claiming to have proof to the background independence of string theory? Would you care to provide it, in explicit detail?
Long GRB's (3 to 500 seconds) are Strings/Neutrinos/quantum Gravity in action ie; the "Mechanism"...when "ALL THAT ENERGY" as two Branes colliding forms the SMBH and the electrons/protons to start that galaxy/dwarf galaxy.You do realise that strings and neutrinos are quite different, right? Quantum gravity and strings exists on energy scales trillions of trillions of times higher than neutrino rest masses or even kinetic energies.

[Reiku]

Where did I say it would be moving at a constant speed. It would be slowing down.
Ah, so it's something you don't understand and cannot hope to understand and because you don't like me you attempt a cheap shot.

Where's your original research then?
While my attitude might not be a good example, you'll find on these forums I'm considered fairly knowledgable. Where's examples of you discussing high level physics and maths then?
Your inability or unwillingness to accept an answer doesn't mean one wasn't provided.
He considerably simplified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberg-Witten_theorem) the search for the 'next Standard Model', thus saving physicists huge quantities of work when it comes to finding something superior to the Standard Model. No-Go theorems are often the most powerful theorems in all of physics.
How do you know? You don't know my work, I haven't discussed the details of it with you and you don't even know what's in textbooks never mind what is developed beyond that.

And undoubtedly if I did try to have a discussion with you on it, you'd just say "It's wrong, it's string theory!" so an attempt at discussion is pointless. You won't discuss it and then complain I don't discuss it. Even BenTheMan, who is as close to my area of research as anyone I know (outside of my collaberators) doesn't do what I do and I don't follow what he does.

And you still couldn't say "I was wrong, you are a PhD student". You don't bother saying "All your evidence is a conspiracy!", you just don't refer to it. Why is that?
I'm 60% the way through writing a paper which will get onto ArXiv by the end of the summer. I'll let you know.

And I'm curious, where's the link to a post where you demonstrate you can do physics? I must have missed it.

''Where did I say it would be moving at a constant speed. It would be slowing down.''

Maybe you never said it, but as i have explained, i don't think you understand relativity to a great extent past the mathematical equations and expressions. From a photons point of view, yes, it will slow down, and be frozen totally in time, but since consciousness exists, there is a new member on the relativitsic map. So in reference to a photon moving through space, not only does it require a real measurement made by an observer, but this is the whole point of SR.

To a photons reference, if it had a consciousness, then it would actually see the things about it flash by, while it's environment, such as it's stucture, so in this case, we can call the structure the spaceship, it's inside here nothing actually changes. The world around it changes niether, but this is why consciousness, and the very definition of conscious-observer universe is more than just an abstraction, or should i say, psuedobabble?

So there is much more to it, than either of you have contemplated about what relative actually means, instead of some logic moving relative without a counter reference, and a third, which is causing more and more attention each day in physics... why we observe anything at all. What reference would a universe have, without an observer, as much as a photon would have without a spacetime surrounding it?

[kaneda]

Suppose you take a sphere of material and blow it up. The outwardly expanding material will slow down it's expansion due to gravitational effects but if you blow it up 'enough', it'll never stop expanding. If you don't blow it up hard enough, it'll recollapse.
Simple enough for you?

We are not talking a balloon here. We are talking material at black hole density expanding somehow. It is balanced at 13.7 billion years but can expand easily at 380,000 years. It seems that I cannot make it simple enough for you since crayons and drawings are impossible here.

BS removed

If you gave a neutron star's material enough outward momentum, it would expand and spread out. So when you say "Again, you have to explain how a universe with a density like a neutron star or greater could continue to expand. Feel free to continue to evade the question." it's easily answerable without even having to stop and think about it. It's clear you don't even try to answer your own questions. I generally find that when I think "That can't be right!" about something in the mainstream, it's a good idea to leave it 'bubbling away' at the back of your mind for a while and then you'll have a sudden flash of inspiration about it. I went through a phase during April and May of it happening to me repeatedly when I made a break through in the area I'm currently working in.


You are gibbering again. OK we have a neutron star with an escape velocity of 2/3 light speed. How fast was expansion? If faster than that, what is going to slow it down?

We can discuss it if you want. It's a topic only a few people publish in and the area isn't in textbooks and hardly on Wikipedia. Infact, I wrote things like the Wikipedia page on orientifolds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientifold), not copied from it!

This is counting how many angels can balance on the head of a pin. Anything provable?

Besides, you seem to think learning from others is wrong. Did you learn nothing useful in school or from other people? Did you spontaneously develop English yourself? What about driving a car? Is all your knowledge self created or have you learnt things from other people? Do you think the human race would be as technologically advanced if we didn't pass on knowledge to one another?

What a very naive and narrow view of the world you must have. It'd be pitiful if you weren't so bitter and twisted.

Learning is good but it is expected that people would move on from what they have learned. You seem to find that very difficult.

The usual insults borrowed from elsewhere to end up a naturally poor post.

I see others have spotted that you are a phoney. What good is someone who can only repeat what is on internet sites and in text books? It is like debating with a wall.

[kaneda]

And look at people like Kaneda, Zephir, Farsight and Reiku. They've been online for years and managed to learn nothing. You don't learn and do publishable work by doing discussions on internet forums.


This from a vacuous parrot who has never, ever in all his years on forums posted anything original. Not only does he post EXACTLY what is on a number of internet forums, he even copies other people's insults because he is too dim to think up any of his own.

Even Nick on physorg showed you wrong time after time so you had to use your moderator powers to get him banned. How low can you get?

[saudade]

My god that guy uses a lot of quotation marks...

[Gravage]

How do you know that universe is 158 billion light years in diameter?
Didn't astronomers simply measured that the universe is 13.7 billion light years old?
There is no way than it can be 158 billion light years in diameter.

[James R]

The universe can be bigger in light-years than its age in years, because the speed-of-light limit does not apply to the expansion of spacetime. Thus, we can see light from further away than the time it could have travelled since the start of the universe if the universe had not been expanding in the meantime.

[kaneda]

Gravage. The big bang idea has it that the whole universe is blowing up like a balloon. Draw spots on a balloon and blow it up and everything moves away from everything else. It is done by a four (physical) dimensional hypersphere where our 3D universe is the surface. However it doesn't explain what is on the inside or outside of the hypersphere and what would happen were it punctured. It would also suggest that there is ever more space which if endlessly stretched would change basic laws, like the speed of light.

It means that something distant can move away from us faster than light without breaking the light barrier because although expansion on a balloon's surface is even, the further you go away from any point, the faster it is expanding from that point. Difficult to explain but easy to demonstrate if you mark a balloon and blow it up or even put marks at set intervals along an elastic band and stretch it.

The BB idea however has many serious problems with it and has fallen out of favour with a fair number of people so it is pure conjecture about the size of the universe since we can only see a set distance, and that might be down to haze and not age.

[blobrana]

< off topic>

@kaneda, @AlphaNumeric

Hum,
you make have use for the `Automatic Insult Generator`...

http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Insult-Generator-Download-77828.html

< /off topic>

[AlphaNumeric]

W It is balanced at 13.7 billion years but can expand easily at 380,000 years. It seems that I cannot make it simple enough for you since crayons and drawings are impossible here.Define 'easily'.
You are gibbering again. OK we have a neutron star with an escape velocity of 2/3 light speed. How fast was expansion? If faster than that, what is going to slow it down? Expansion is driven by at least one scalar field, which follows the FRW metric's behaviour and in string theory the scalar field is known as an inflaton. Racetrack models (http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0406230v3) lead to an explaination of inflation, the CMB, the strength of gravity compared to other forces and many other concepts in physics. I have given talks (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/Work/AlgeGeom.pdf) on such things.
Learning is good but it is expected that people would move on from what they have learned. You seem to find that very difficult.In other words you don't understand it so you won't try.
I see others have spotted that you are a phoney. What good is someone who can only repeat what is on internet sites and in text books? It is like debating with a wall.And yet you refuse to address all the independent websites I've given which back up my claims.

Come on, if I'm a phoney why does my name appear on university websites, published papers, conference delegates, Cambridge rowing websites and as editors/posters on numerous websites?

How can I be a phoney if I go to conferences (http://www.math.upenn.edu/StringPhenom2008/people.html) and give talks (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/thursday/ThursdaySeminar.html)? You keep avoiding actually debunking such evidence. :p
This from a vacuous parrot who has never, ever in all his years on forums posted anything original. Not only does he post EXACTLY what is on a number of internet forums, he even copies other people's insults because he is too dim to think up any of his own.
Tell you what Kaneda, why don't you head over to the Physics & Maths section of these forums and discuss my work with me? I keep offering to do such things with you and Reiku but you both keep running away?

I have nothing to hide. You two seem to.
Even Nick on physorg showed you wrong time after time so you had to use your moderator powers to get him banned. How low can you get?About as low as proclaiming there's an internet wide conspiracy dating back years against you? ;)
and has fallen out of favour with a fair number of people Like who? Farsight once claimed Witten had chucked string theory, saying it was useless. And yet he and I went to a strings conference (http://www.math.upenn.edu/StringPhenom2008/people.html) just last month. You'll find creationists on Youtube who dub over Hawking lectures using the Mac 'Speak out loud' program to try to make people think Hawking denounces evolution.

So rather than just saying "People say..." be specific.

Just like I keep askign you to be specific with your calculations and you never are.

[kaneda]

Define 'easily'.

Expansion supposedly overcame an incredible gravitational pull yet we see sparse collections of distant galaxies hanging together, ignoring expansion.

Expansion is driven by at least one scalar field, which follows the FRW metric's behaviour and in string theory the scalar field is known as an inflaton. Racetrack models (http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0406230v3) lead to an explaination of inflation, the CMB, the strength of gravity compared to other forces and many other concepts in physics. I have given talks (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/Work/AlgeGeom.pdf) on such things.
In other words you don't understand it so you won't try.
And yet you refuse to address all the independent websites I've given which back up my claims.

Inflation is just mythology and would have still been limited by light speed. Ideas about areas of space expanding and joining up can only be done where there are a number of big bangs in the "same area". As I tell creationists, when talking about god, first prove god exists. These other forces must be proved to exist too, to show they are more than just a convenience to make the BB work.

Come on, if I'm a phoney why does my name appear on university websites, published papers, conference delegates, Cambridge rowing websites and as editors/posters on numerous websites?

How can I be a phoney if I go to conferences (http://www.math.upenn.edu/StringPhenom2008/people.html) and give talks (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/thursday/ThursdaySeminar.html)? You keep avoiding actually debunking such evidence. :p

You must have a very light schedule if you can post on a number of forums each day. While you can repeat information on websites, you are unable to come up with anything new, even with any speculation. The few times I have talked with knowledgeable people in fields of science, they have been able to speculate and extrapolate. Something you have never been able to do.

Tell you what Kaneda, why don't you head over to the Physics & Maths section of these forums and discuss my work with me? I keep offering to do such things with you and Reiku but you both keep running away?

I spend very little time here and find it difficult to believe that you reserve all your originality for debating elsewhere. Debating with you is like debating with an internet site. Anything not on the site is rejected as wrong.

I have nothing to hide. You two seem to.
About as low as proclaiming there's an internet wide conspiracy dating back years against you? ;)

Where did I claim this? Have you actually thought up something new, even if it is a lie?

Like who? Farsight once claimed Witten had chucked string theory, saying it was useless. And yet he and I went to a strings conference (http://www.math.upenn.edu/StringPhenom2008/people.html) just last month. You'll find creationists on Youtube who dub over Hawking lectures using the Mac 'Speak out loud' program to try to make people think Hawking denounces evolution.

It has to be wondered how useful string theory will ever be other than in the most exotic circumstances. As to misquoting Hawkings, that is typical of the depths of which creationists stoop and despicable.

So rather than just saying "People say..." be specific.

Just like I keep askign you to be specific with your calculations and you never are.


Unlike you who has nothing else but calculations and quotations. Are you sure you are not a physics computer programme made to answer posts here? I don't like using the term AI as you don't seem to display any intelligence.

[kaneda]

Blobrana. AlphaNumeric doesn't need an insult generator. He uses insults other people use against him, claiming them as his own.

[AlphaNumeric]

Expansion supposedly overcame an incredible gravitational pull yet we see sparse collections of distant galaxies hanging together, ignoring expansion..Expansion slowed down a lot you know. Inflation was rapid expansion. Then inflation stopped.

Infact, if you had sat an introductory cosmology course you'd know there are various ways of solving the equations of motion for the scale factor of the universe in the FRW metric. One of them is exponential growth, ie inflation, the others are more mundane things like a(t) = \sqrt{t}. It tends to a levelling out, but it still always growing.

Would you like to be shown a bit more of the details or are you going to be able to find the information online yourself?
Inflation is just mythology and would have still been limited by light speed.And despite having had it explained to you many times and it being explained online in many places, you continue to fail to understand.

Only objects moving within space-time cannot move relative to one another faster than light. Objects being carried by space-time can move relative to one another as fast as you like. That's what the cosmological horizon at the edge of our visible universe is. Objects are being carried away from us, by space-time expansioon, almost as fast as light. Then, due to more expansion, they reach relative light speed and disappear from our view.

Neither they, nor us, are moving at light speed. It's space-time expansion doing it all.

So space-time expansion isn't limited at all because relativity constraints are on objects moving through space-time nor space-time itself.
As I tell creationists, when talking about god, first prove god exists. You should know, you never prove anything is true in physics, you only validity your claims or falsify them. I can never prove that letting go of a brick will cause it to fall but I doubt you'd jump off a building to prove me wrong.

Besides, you've just demonstrated you don't even understand mainstream models of inflation anyway.
You must have a very light schedule if you can post on a number of forums each day.Such is the life of a student. I guess you never did a PhD from your lack of understanding.
While you can repeat information on websites, you are unable to come up with anything new, even with any speculation.I have offered to talk with you on my work, you ignored the request.

How am I able to discuss anything new with you when you won't discuss anything new with me, even when I offer? You're blaming me for your unwillingness to talk. :eek:
I spend very little time here and find it difficult to believe that you reserve all your originality for debating elsewhere. Debating with you is like debating with an internet site. Anything not on the site is rejected as wrong.I don't debate online any of my research because I find the internet isn't a good medium for it other than to ask a few particular questions. Here and on PhysicsForums.com I have asked questions which are over the heads of almost everyone. Infact, if you look on physicsforums.com the majority of my recent posts (I had to reregister as 'AlphaNumeric2' due to a password screw up and my uni email account) go unanswered (ie the one about Lie algebras). I worked out by about 2 weeks later, it's an open question in linear algebra! And then a week later I worked out the solution! It'll be published this summer.
Where did I claim this?I apparently run PhysOrg. I apparently banned you, Nick and anyone else who got in my way. I apparently maintain numerous independent websites all for the purpose of fooling you into thinking I'm someone I'm not. I have multiple accounts on multiple forums, all for the purpose of fooling you. You are the only reason I posted outside of the main 'New Theories' forum on PhysOrg.

Those are just some of the "AlphaNumeric is involved in a large conspiracy for the purposes of fooling me!" claims you've made about me.
Have you actually thought up something new, even if it is a lie?As I said, it's "Damned if I do, damned if I don't". I research an area of string theory, so if I'm published you can just say "It's wrong!". If I don't get published, you can say "You've never done anything original!".

The only way you'd accept any work of mine is if I published something you already agreed with.

So it's catch 22.

Tell me Kaneda, where have you been published?
Unlike you who has nothing else but calculations and quotations. Are you sure you are not a physics computer programme made to answer posts here? I don't like using the term AI as you don't seem to display any intelligence.And we're back to the conspiracies. :rolleyes:

Still waiting for your quantitative calculations Kaneda. Why didn't you quote that part of my post?

[Dr Mabuse]

If you think scientists just make stuff up because it sounds good, you don't know much about science.
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii18/drmabuse06/lol.gif

this statement is hilarious...

you're serious aren't you?...

[RussT]

“ Originally Posted by RussT
That's funny, because the only way the Pro's on BAUT could get away from what I showed was to keep asking me to show "Proof" the SMBH and it's accretion disc in M31 was rotating...LOL ”


I would imagine that they were asking you to show it's rotating enough to be worth including in the calculations. Most calculaitons involving black holes are done on Schwarzchild ones because it's a damn sight nicer than a Kerr metric

You mean "Easier"....BUT, I will say again...Schwarzschild "Non-Rotating" SMBH's DO NOT EXIST!!! SO, until you can show me a Non-rotating Black Hole, ALL of the maths pertaining to any solutions for "Static Non-rotating Black Holes is "Meaningless"...ie; modeling nothing that exists in our universe. Do you get that? Or Not?

http://www.universetoday.com/2007/05/29/supermassive-black-holes-spin-at-the-limits-of-relativity/

More on the other stuff later...Got things to cover on BAUT...like this...

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/76731-what-if-cdm-ruled-out-observations.html

By the Way, the poster of that OP is "Published"!!!

[RussT]

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii18/drmabuse06/lol.gif

this statement is hilarious...

you're serious aren't you?...

Thanks for going back and finding that "quote" Dr Mabuse!

I was going to do the same, with this as the punchline...

Can You Say...........WIMPS... (CDM)...:D

Don't get the wrong idea here though...I just mean Weakly Interacting "Massive" Particles.

Non-baryonic Dark Matter is "Needed" to answer the galaxy rotation problem!!!

They first modeled "Neutrinos", which IS the answer, but of course, they did not fit the Big Bang model, so they HAD to come up with something "ELSE"/WIMPS.

[AlphaNumeric]

You mean "Easier"....BUT, I will say again...Schwarzschild "Non-Rotating" SMBH's DO NOT EXIST!!! SO, until you can show me a Non-rotating Black Hole, ALL of the maths pertaining to any solutions for "Static Non-rotating Black Holes is "Meaningless"...ie; modeling nothing that exists in our universe. Do you get that? Or Not?Do you know what an 'effective theory' is?

An 'effective theory' is a simplification which makes computation of physical phenomena easier but is sufficiently close to be viable as a description of said phenomena.

For instance, Newtonian dynamics is wrong. If you're being as accurate as possible, you must include things like relativistic corrections. But if you're modelling a ball thrown into the air or a car driving along a road or even a rocket going to the Moon, do you need relativity? Nope, Newton does just fine and it's MUCH easier to do calculations using Newtonian physics than relativity.

Similarly, Schwarzchild black holes are a valid effective theory if you're modelling say the effect the SMBH at the centre of our galaxy has on our solar system. The rotation and charge effects on our Sun are too tiny to be worth considering and the Schwarzchild metric is much easier to work with than the Kerr-Newman one. Heck, at this distance you can approximate the SMBH with just Newtonian theory!

So I ask again, do you understand what an 'effective theory' is?

[kaneda]

Expansion slowed down a lot you know. Inflation was rapid expansion. Then inflation stopped.

The edges of any area is limited by the speed of light, so inflation was limited by light speed overall.

And despite having had it explained to you many times and it being explained online in many places, you continue to fail to understand.

I don't agree with you so I must be wrong. Pompous as usual.

Only objects moving within space-time cannot move relative to one another faster than light. Objects being carried by space-time can move relative to one another as fast as you like. That's what the cosmological horizon at the edge of our visible universe is. Objects are being carried away from us, by space-time expansioon, almost as fast as light. Then, due to more expansion, they reach relative light speed and disappear from our view.

Space-time is limited by light speed which is why EMR and gravity travels at the speed it does. There is no known force which is going to carry anything faster. That is just part of a wish list for the BB idea.

Neither they, nor us, are moving at light speed. It's space-time expansion doing it all.

So space-time expansion isn't limited at all because relativity constraints are on objects moving through space-time nor space-time itself.


Expansion requires a 4 (physical) dimension hypersphere as Nick told you many times. Like waves moving through water, there are obvious limits.

Besides, you've just demonstrated you don't even understand mainstream models of inflation anyway.
Such is the life of a student. I guess you never did a PhD from your lack of understanding.
I have offered to talk with you on my work, you ignored the request.

Your pomposity is showing.

How am I able to discuss anything new with you when you won't discuss anything new with me, even when I offer? You're blaming me for your unwillingness to talk. :eek:

I give you new things and you tell me that they cannot be because (effectively) they are not in your text books.

I don't debate online any of my research because I find the internet isn't a good medium for it other than to ask a few particular questions. Here and on PhysicsForums.com I have asked questions which are over the heads of almost everyone. Infact, if you look on physicsforums.com the majority of my recent posts (I had to reregister as 'AlphaNumeric2' due to a password screw up and my uni email account) go unanswered (ie the one about Lie algebras). I worked out by about 2 weeks later, it's an open question in linear algebra! And then a week later I worked out the solution! It'll be published this summer.

Maths on unknown quantities often just proves maths. I am sure you can work out what you want about superstrings, etc but when it comes to proving that they actually exist, that is where it all falls flat.

I apparently run PhysOrg. I apparently banned you, Nick and anyone else who got in my way. I apparently maintain numerous independent websites all for the purpose of fooling you into thinking I'm someone I'm not. I have multiple accounts on multiple forums, all for the purpose of fooling you. You are the only reason I posted outside of the main 'New Theories' forum on PhysOrg.

Those are just some of the "AlphaNumeric is involved in a large conspiracy for the purposes of fooling me!" claims you've made about me.
As I said, it's "Damned if I do, damned if I don't". I research an area of string theory, so if I'm published you can just say "It's wrong!". If I don't get published, you can say "You've never done anything original!".

You are ranting. I never claimed any of that. What I did claim: I find it strange that shortly after debating with you on Physorg for the first time, I suddenly get 3 warnings (out of 5) within 2 weeks whereas I had none in the several months before or for about a year after.

The only way you'd accept any work of mine is if I published something you already agreed with.

So it's catch 22.

I originally did not believe in the big bang in it's early days, then I accepted it, then I found out lots of problems with it and finally rejected it. I can change but I need something logical to work with.

Tell me Kaneda, where have you been published?
And we're back to the conspiracies. :rolleyes:

No interest. Why should I go through all the hassle of publishing?

Still waiting for your quantitative calculations Kaneda. Why didn't you quote that part of my post?


It was said about a decade ago that the calculations needed for defining what happens to a steel girder when it was heated took a certain computer 20 years to work them out. A new chip cut that down to mere months. Now you probably do not know those calculations needed for knowing what happens to a steel girder when you heat it, but regardless you probably know what happens to a steel girder when you heat it. You can't see the forest for the trees and are straight jacketed by maths. A number of others I have come across on forums are EXACTLY like you are.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Your pomposity is showing. I give you new things and you tell me that they cannot be because (effectively) they are not in your text books.No, what is showing is his respect for the scientific method. One of its cornerstones is the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. When a student or a layman makes an assertion that contradicts a textbook, that is a classic case of an extraordinary assertion. Do you supply the extraordinary evidence with it?

[RussT]

Expansion requires a 4 (physical) dimension hypersphere as Nick told you many times. Like waves moving through water, there are obvious limits.

Finally I see something that You consider an "answer".

You are correct in most of the things you are saying about the Big Bang Being Wrong!

It never happened............However, you or Nick (And yes I have seen much of Nick
s postings on PhysOrg) do NOT have a clue as to what "Replaces" the Naked Singularity!

You see, You need to truely understand what singularities are and ARE NOT to solve the mystery of how "Our Space is Getting Here" and where the High Energy gamma Radiation is creating the electrons/protons to form galaxies!

Alpha is very knowledgable on mainstream Physics!

SO, your continual asking...'show me something New" is Moot!

[RussT]

Do you know what an 'effective theory' is?

An 'effective theory' is a simplification which makes computation of physical phenomena easier but is sufficiently close to be viable as a description of said phenomena.

Yes, I do. And I now understand that this mistake has being made for far far too long!


For instance, Newtonian dynamics is wrong.

Yep, it sure is ;)


If you're being as accurate as possible, you must include things like relativistic corrections. But if you're modelling a ball thrown into the air or a car driving along a road or even a rocket going to the Moon, do you need relativity? Nope, Newton does just fine and it's MUCH easier to do calculations using Newtonian physics than relativity.

Yep again. In an arena where the maths were developed around a system where 99% of the mass is at the center of the system. The "approximation" has worked awesomely for most of NASA's tremondously successful and exciting missions...I love it...However...


Similarly, Schwarzchild black holes are a valid effective theory if you're modelling say the effect the SMBH at the centre of our galaxy has on our solar system. The rotation and charge effects on our Sun are too tiny to be worth considering and the Schwarzchild metric is much easier to work with than the Kerr-Newman one. Heck, at this distance you can approximate the SMBH with just Newtonian theory!

Let me introduce you to a new term that I have coined that is VERY pertinent to soo many scenarios...."Domain Of Applicability".

Why did you chose the solar system...why not the galaxy rotation curve dynamics?

The entire problem all along has been extending Newton to "Global Domains".

The "Approximation" that Newton developed has been 'useful', but has absolutely nothing to do with how our universe is working.

[AlphaNumeric]

Yep, it sure is ;)
You do realise that relativity is superior to Newtonian dynamics, right?

[Cannon]

So if gravity can pull faster than the speed of light, couldn't a gravity well stop this all? You can distort gravity through super magnets and rotation around a center point. This goes back to the solar scale. Make one to model with magnets and make a few vacuumes to put some nifty energy converting orbs traveling in a circular direction, the same as the earth and the sun. Then go ahead and dumb a few hundred thousand kilovolts of electrecty into a 1 ton ball of plutonium and use another magnet to get those nifty litter orbs spinning. Oh to make it all work you would need it at 100% effency. Wait, carbon wire, only 6 inches long but it runs at 0 ohms. Want the math behind it?

[RussT]

You do realise that relativity is superior to Newtonian dynamics, right?

"Domain(s) Of Applicabilty" ;)

Where?,,,The precession of Mercury/Close Binaries.

Alpha, I realize that I am throwing this at you somewhat piecemeal, BUT in my earlier posts, I have gone into enough detail, that IF you really understand what NO Naked Singularity(s) exist=No Big Bang (Cosmic Censorship), and NO "Point Singularities" Exist (There are NO Non-rotating BH's)...

That leaves ONLY 'Ring Singularities'=SMBH's in the Universe level "Above Ours"=E-R Bridges to Our Voids netween galaxy clusters, for "Quantum Gravity" to "Come Through"=Lisa Randall's "Gravity Leaking"....That is "Point Particles"=Neutrinos/Strings.

Those Neutrinos/Strings are "Leaking" Continually/spewing the Cosmic Microwave background 2.73k lowest energy state of Neutrinos....From Each of Our Voids, In Straight line Motion.

Those Strings/Neutrinos make up ALL of Our "Space" and are traveling at "c" In ALL/Every direction. Yes, Space is Absolute!

The Biggest problem in phyics is that the theoretical Energy according to the standard model, and "inflationary "Vacuum Energy" + Hubble Flow "Vacumm Energy + Dark Vacuum Energy (Cosmological Constant/variable/Lambda), is that it is 10^122 OOM above what the "Observed" energy state is!

Baryonic Matter is ~4 %, which leaves 96%...~23% of that is supposed to be CDM, which leaves ~73% as "Vacuum Energy"...Which is completely "Undefined" and CDM WIMPS do NOT even exist...SO, all 96% is "Undefined"...with NO Hope of ever defining it!!! Why, because Naked Singularities do NOT Exist....read my lips....taking a singularity out of a Black Hole was the Biggest Blunder ever (Well, actually there is a bigger blunder, but more later once you understand what I am showing here!)

Try this...and hopefully you will understand more...

Tim is by far the most knowledgable on BAUT!

http://www.bautforum.com/648294-post66.html

[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
But there is one more point. It is not true that there is no evidence for multiple universes. Dark matter & dark energy are not observed, but are rather assumed to exist, as a consequence of observation. But how do we know that dark matter & dark energy are the most suitable interpretations? What if the other universes are not so "unobservable" after all? What if we have misinterpreted the observations, and the force we interpret as "dark matter" is really gravity leaking out of the other universes, and into ours? I can readily imagine a multi-universe theory, which includes such an effect, and therefore is not simply "consistent" with observation, but actually predicts the observed effects we call dark matter & dark energy, as consequences of the communication of information between universes.

My Bold[QUOTE]

The Cosmic Microave "Background" being the "Observed" microwave energy of Neutrinos/Strings traveling at "c" in Every/All directions IS Our Expanding Universe/Spewing Neutrinos from Our Voids in all directions, Expanding in Every/All directions to Infinity....the universe was Never Shrunk Down To a Point!!!! SO, above I showed how this handles the 10^122 OOM problem, and Now I am showing how this handles the Temp Equilibruim problem at horizons and larger distances!!!

Alpha...Note the word "Background" In the CMBR....that is Strings and makes String/"M" Theory "Background Independent"!!!

When those Strings become Branes....they Collide in "Empty Space" about once a day as...............GRB's that make a new SMBH/NEW Galaxy!!!

If you take the time to understand what I am showing you here, rather than trying to find one thing you waqnt to Rail against, and then ask some well considered questions, I can show you how String/"M" theory can be shown to work and how it van be "Testable"!!!

Cheers

RussT

[AlphaNumeric]

Those Neutrinos/Strings are "Leaking" Continually/spewing the Cosmic Microwave background 2.73k lowest energy state of Neutrinos....From Each of Our Voids, In Straight line Motion.Neutrinos don't leak the CMB.
Those Strings/Neutrinos make up ALL of Our "Space" and are traveling at "c" In ALL/Every direction. Yes, Space is Absolute!
Neutrinos don't move at c. Strings don't move at c (other than their ends).
Baryonic Matter is ~4 %, which leaves 96%...~23% of that is supposed to be CDM, which leaves ~73% as "Vacuum Energy"...Which is completely "Undefined" and CDM WIMPS do NOT even exist...SO, all 96% is "Undefined"...with NO Hope of ever defining it!!! Why, because Naked Singularities do NOT Exist....read my lips....taking a singularity out of a Black Hole was the Biggest Blunder ever (Well, actually there is a bigger blunder, but more later once you understand what I am showing here!)Naked singularities are not part of the big bang model.

Alpha...Note the word "Background" In the CMBR....that is Strings and makes String/"M" Theory "Background Independent"!!!
So you don't actually know what 'background independent' means then?
When those Strings become Branes....they Collide in "Empty Space" about once a day as...............GRB's that make a new SMBH/NEW Galaxy!!!
So you don't actually know what branes are then?
can show you how String/"M" theory can be shown to work and how it van be "Testable"!!!
Given your slew of errors, you obviously don't know anthing about string theory either. Do you?

[RussT]

“ Originally Posted by RussT
Those Neutrinos/Strings are "Leaking" Continually/spewing "AS" the Cosmic Microwave background 2.73k lowest energy state of Neutrinos....From Each of Our Voids, In Straight line Motion. ”

Alpha
Neutrinos don't leak the CMB.

If you would have read it correctly...............Neutrinos "ARE" the CMB...the lowest energy state...2.73k


“ Originally Posted by RussT
Those Strings/Neutrinos make up ALL of Our "Space" and are traveling at "c" In ALL/Every direction. Yes, Space is Absolute! ”

Alpha
Neutrinos don't move at c.

Don't tell that to SN1987A...I'll look up the reference for it if you like...better yet...you're so knowledgable....do the work yourself...unless of course you are Nit-picking because it is .9999997c.

“ Originally Posted by RussT
Baryonic Matter is ~4 %, which leaves 96%...~23% of that is supposed to be CDM, which leaves ~73% as "Vacuum Energy"...Which is completely "Undefined" and CDM WIMPS do NOT even exist...SO, all 96% is "Undefined"...with NO Hope of ever defining it!!! Why, because Naked Singularities do NOT Exist....read my lips....taking a singularity out of a Black Hole was the Biggest Blunder ever (Well, actually there is a bigger blunder, but more later once you understand what I am showing here!) ”

Alpha
Naked singularities are not part of the big bang model.

I tell you I have been on BAUT with the "Big Boys" for 3 years and you come up with that lame and tired denial (Is more than just a river in Egypt!)

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/56655-does-cosmic-censorship-show-inside-solution-impossible.html


After Stephen Hawking said the following… “that even in light of the new calculations, there is no “generic” way in which naked singularities might form according to the known laws of physics”.

The following is a direct quote from Dr. Preskill, so they are NOT a reporters words!

But Dr. Preskill replied: “Stephen, I’m surprised to hear you, of all people, say that. There’s one naked singularity that we all agree existed: the Big Bang. The universe itself.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml


NARRATOR: The very beginning of the Big Bang was the single biggest mystery in all of cosmology. It was called the singularity.

PAUL STEINHARDT: When you extrapolate Einstein's general Theory of Relativity back to the beginning you discover what we call a singularity, a cosmic singularity, which is to say that the equations blow up.


Gee, Don't you feel silly!

When are you going to realize that mainstream has been fooling itself, Because it absolutely refuses to 'Falsify' itself...they even switched to a 'generic naked singularity'...But the answer to quantum Gravity "Before 0" is NOT Inflation or any other Ekryptic nonesense...The Universe was NEVER shrunk down to any 'small size'....period!!!

None of the expanding or contracting horizons ever existed!!! The "Sperical Cow" is dead.

“ Originally Posted by RussT
Alpha...Note the word "Background" In the CMBR....that is Strings and makes String/"M" Theory "Background Independent"!!! ”

Alpha
So you don't actually know what 'background independent' means then?

mainstream's Vacuum Energy is 100% 'undefined', as I showed above.



For one thing it is both infinitely long, but only a very small distance across.

That IS ALL of 'space'/neutrinos traveling at "c" to Infinity...Our Expanding Universe!

PAUL STEINHARDT: That eleventh dimension will, at its maximum size, could be something like a trillionth of a millimetre.

BURT OVRUT: Well this is 10 to the -20 of a millimetre. That's taking a millimetre and dividing it by 10 with 20 zeros after it, so that's very, very small.


The astonishing conclusion was that all the matter in the Universe was connected to one vast structure: a membrane.

The astonishing conclusion "SHOULD" have been...NOT one whole universe as a membrane.................BUT, that Strings, going to infinity made up our universe and became Strings/Branes inside our universe!!!

When Einstein introduced Lambda, it was his biggest blunder, because that got everyone thinking of the universe as One single entity, either 'static', expanding, or contracting.

NONE of those is even a possibilty!!!

BUT, you and mainstream just ignore perfectly valid evidence against that!!!

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/56088-fractal-universe.html

[QUOTE]
"The universe is not a fractal," Hogg insists, "and if it were a fractal it would create many more problems that we currently have." A universe patterned by fractals would throw all of cosmology out the window. Einstein's cosmic equations would be tossed first, with the big bang and the expansion of the universe following closely behind.

Hogg's team feel that until there's a theory to explain why the galaxy clustering is fractal, there's no point in taking it seriously. "My view is that there's no reason to even contemplate a fractal structure for the universe until there is a physical fractal model," says Hogg. "Until there's an inhomogeneous fractal model to test, it's like tilting at windmills."

Pietronero is equally insistent. "This is fact," he says. "It's not a theory." He says he is interested only in what he sees in the data and argues that the galaxies are fractal regardless of whether someone can explain why.[QUOTE]

But you will ignore this too....I'm sure ;)

[AlphaNumeric]

If you would have read it correctly...............Neutrinos "ARE" the CMB...the lowest energy state...2.73kThe CMB is made up of photons. Do you understand the difference? And you definitely can get colder states,
Don't tell that to SN1987A...I'll look up the reference for it if you like...better yet...you're so knowledgable....do the work yourself...unless of course you are Nit-picking because it is .9999997c.
You've failed to understand the physics there.

The neutrinos from that supernova reached Earth before the photons because they interact with the dust in space less than photons. Photons travel through water at about 0.7c. Any particle travelling faster than 0.7c creates Cernekov radiation, an optical sonic boom. That doesn't mean that electrons moving through reactor moderators like water are photons. The dust in space has a very very slight optical index and so over 50,000 light years, light is slowed enough to arrive later than it should by about 20 minutes. Neutrinos travel VERY close to the speed of light, so close that we cannot actually measure the difference, but because they don't interact with the dust, they aren't slowed.

But they have mass and thus travel slower than light. How do we know? Their mass differences have been measured through neutrino oscillations. It's been the biggest thing in particle physics in the last decades, neutrinos have mass and thus the right handed neutrinos have HUGE mass, which the Standard Model cannot explain. I should know, a friend of mine researches it and a professor in my department is one of the most prolific publishers on the 'see-saw mechanism' in the UK.

So we have experimental evidence they don't travel at c. But you don't know this because you don't know mainstream physics. Try to keep up.
I tell you I have been on BAUT with the "Big Boys" for 3 yearsAnd Zephir was here and on PhysOrg for years and learnt nothing. And I've been with 'the big boys' too. Except the people I work with or learnt from have 'Professor' before their name and got their PhDs from people with 'Hawking' as their surname....
Gee, Don't you feel silly!So you have a quote where Hawking agrees with me and a second quote which doesn't actually support you. Wow.
When are you going to realize that mainstream has been fooling itself, Because it absolutely refuses to 'Falsify' itselfThe mainstream admits errors all the time. The neutrinos having mass being just a recent example. Only cranks with a private agenda think there's some conspiracy going on.
Alpha
So you don't actually know what 'background independent' means then?

mainstream's Vacuum Energy is 100% 'undefined', as I showed above.
That isn't 'background independent'. I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independent The section on diffeomorphisms is a relevent part.

If you're going to use terminology, know what it means.
The astonishing conclusion "SHOULD" have been...NOT one whole universe as a membrane.................BUT, that Strings, going to infinity made up our universe and became Strings/Branes inside our universe!!!
Do you know the difference between a brane and a string? For instance, what's the difference between a d-string and an f-string? You only need a 1 or 2 line answer for that.
But you will ignore this too....I'm sure
The distribution of matter within the universe is different from coming up with a model to describe the space-time of the universe. One tells you how to understand the interplay between matter, energy and gravity, the other tells you how matter itself is distributed, within which you make use of the former theory to work out the specific dynamics.

So someone working out how to turn string theory into a working description of the universe isn't trying to address the distribution of matter, he's trying to just understand the behaviour of matter on even the simplest levels. Once that theory is working you then turn to the issue of galaxies. And people have done that with GR. We have very good models of galaxy and solar system formation.

And it's funny you accuse me of ignoring things when you flat out ignored my question about wether you know string theory. You talk a lot about it but you don't display any understanding of it. Afraid to answer? And don't say "I've been on BAUT for 3 years!". If you think that makes you competant at physics then you really are naive.

[kaneda]

RussT. A singularity is like god. While it answers many awkward questions, it does not exist.

AlphaNumeric is knowledgeable like an internet site is knowledgeable. However, who wants to debate with an internet site?

AN is unable to speculate or extrapolate on a subject.

[kaneda]

No, what is showing is his respect for the scientific method. One of its cornerstones is the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. When a student or a layman makes an assertion that contradicts a textbook, that is a classic case of an extraordinary assertion. Do you supply the extraordinary evidence with it?


Science at one time was easily provable to anyone with the right equipment but it moved outside the lab into speculation and extrapolation. Parts of astronomy concerning the big bang, black holes, etc are not provable. The "extraordinary evidence" is not there. Theories may be 100% true or 100% false but probably somewhere in between. It is wrong to point to a text book on an increasing number of subjects in science as though they are infallibly true because that cannot be proved.

I am sure that if you asked AlphaNumeric to talk on superstrings, he could do so for hours, talking about what is in text books on them but if you asked him for proof that they exist, then he could show you none because there is no proof. They are a speculation. So should they be denounced because their is no "extraordinary evidence"?

[kaneda]

As to the CMB, we have billions of trillions of stars giving out all sorts of EMR for billions of years and we have to look through this to see the "edge of the universe". Do all those photons just vanish or....?

I overlook fields and mornings like this morning, there is a mist about a mile away. Of course, the mist is where I am too but is too nebulous to see close up. Distance where I am looking through so much of it, makes it look "solid".

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric is knowledgeable like an internet site is knowledgeable. However, who wants to debate with an internet site?You keep saying this but you also keep demonstrating you don't know what is on so many websites. If all the things I say are so easy to find, why can't you find them?

For instance, solutions to the FRW metric. You'll find them talked about in any course in cosmology and yet you don't know about them. Why is that?
AN is unable to speculate or extrapolate on a subject.And your evidence for that is? The fact you don't know about topics you claim are all over the net and so I have to waste time correcting you on?

If you were able to understand relativity, we could have a more meaningful discussion but you don't want to try. Instead, if you don't understand it you say it's wrong and you'll be damned if you're going to change your mind.

I can speculate and extrapolate, it's just I do that on topics which you could never understand. Come on, if you think you're right, go over to the Physics and Maths forum and let's have a discussion about my research. I've now finished writing my paper and I'm just waiting for two guys in Spain to finish their paper on the same topic (I generalised their result!) and then we'll publish together. Should be mid August. I'll remember to bring it to your attention.
I am sure that if you asked AlphaNumeric to talk on superstrings, he could do so for hours, talking about what is in text books on them but if you asked him for proof that they exist, then he could show you none because there is no proof. They are a speculation. So should they be denounced because their is no "extraordinary evidence"?So we should denounce every single prediction made by science? Because 'prediction' means someone predicts something before it's seen. Einstein's prediction of the curvature of light rays was seen as crazy. By your logic, we should have told him to shut up and go back to his office. And yet a few years later, there was the evidence. Dirac predicted a doubling of the number of particles due to 'antimatter'. Crazy! Then a year later we saw the positron for the first time. Someone (I forget who) predicted a third family to the Standard Model to explain the symmetries in the 2 families we'd already seen. Then a few years later, we saw the bottom quark.

Science is the process of taking what we've seen, creating a model and predicting things we haven't seen. By definition, the things we haven't seen don't have evidence yet and by your logic, therefore are nonsense.
As to the CMB, we have billions of trillions of stars giving out all sorts of EMR for billions of years and we have to look through this to see the "edge of the universe". Do all those photons just vanish or....?No, but just like we can see photons of a visible wavelength without seeing infra red, we can measure photons of 'temperature' 2.7K without having to see all the starlight photons (which are in the IR to UV range mostly).

Don't you know anything about light?

I'm still waiting for your quantitative calculations to support your claims. What's the matter, can't you do any physics?

[Walter L. Wagner]

The neutrinos from that supernova reached Earth before the photons because they interact with the dust in space less than photons. Photons travel through water at about 0.7c. Any particle travelling faster than 0.7c creates Cernekov radiation, an optical sonic boom. That doesn't mean that electrons moving through reactor moderators like water are photons. The dust in space has a very very slight optical index and so over 50,000 light years, light is slowed enough to arrive later than it should by about 20 minutes. Neutrinos travel VERY close to the speed of light, so close that we cannot actually measure the difference, but because they don't interact with the dust, they aren't slowed.

AN:

I believe the better explanation is that the neutrinos originate from the interior of the SN during its implosion, and then pass through the churning mass at nearly c. The electromagnetic signature being issued concurrently with the neutrino release, however, has to make its way through a huge overburden of material that retards that signal by about 1/2 hour. Thus, the neutrinos have about a half-hour 'head-start' on their journey compared to the visible-light photons that we see as a SN here on Earth, which are eventually liberated from the surface of the SN [and not from the interior where the neutrinos are liberated] about 1/2 hour after the neutrinos had already departed.

That is why, if we had a good neutrino detector, it is believed we could see a CB of neutrinos that originate even farther away than the CMB.

Where did you hear the "outer-space has an index-of-refraction explanation"?

[AlphaNumeric]

Walter, you've returned. How's the calculations on showing Hawking radiation can tunnel material external to the black hole into it's singularity coming? It's been more than a month and you've been completely silent on the matter.

The compression wave which moves through the star as it explodes does so at close to the speed of light. There's plenty of papers on 'neutron star kicks' which do numerical simulations which show the blast moves at tremendous speeds. Plenty of photons are then produced at the surface.

As for the index of space, are you denying that it contains dust and that dust interacts with light?

[Walter L. Wagner]

20 minutes time delay in only 50,000 years seems like a tremendously large index of refraction for a near vacuum of outer space with only a few cold H molecules floating around that would retard light passing through a pure vacuum.

Do you have any calculations showing such a large retardation of 20 minutes for every 50,000 years of light travel? Any empirical evidence?

Of course, we know that the total delay of the photons, compared to the neutrinos, would come from both of those factors [not quite perfect vacuum; delay from the interior to the exterior of the star].

I'm simply suggesting that it appears that the 20 minute retardation might have a major component caused at the point of origin [SN], rather than due exclusively to the travel through space.

The neutrinos are primarily [almost exclusively?] prompt neutrinos from the SN explosion, arriving virtually simultaneously at 3 different neutrino detectors for the SN1987A burst, and for very short duration. While such a rapid 'detonation' causing such a huge burst of neutrinos would cause a rapid shock-wave exploding outward from the deep interior of the star, I've not seen the calculations which detail how long it would take for that shock-wave to reach the star's original surface and cause a visible signal.

I'm open to the possibility that it could take as short as 10 minutes, and that there is also a 10 minute retardation while travelling through space, giving the 20 minutes delay at the neutrino observatories.

However, let's have you put some calculations out there to show there is some substance to your extraordinary claim that the 20 minute retardation is due entirely to the index of refraction of the not-quite-pure vacuum of deep space, and none from the SN itself.

[AlphaNumeric]

These aren't my calculations and I wouldn't know the first thing about how to do the calculations. I am just passing on causes which I have read.

And just to prove I'm not above admitting I'm wrong, it would seem that the main delay is causes by a delayed photon output. The shock wave does move through the star very quickly, as displayed in Figure 2 (http://www.chjaa.org/2006/Italy/P23_p174-182.pdf) and slide 17 (http://www.ba.infn.it/~now/now2006/Talks/plenary/arm2/Cardall.ppt).

And it's funny how you completely ignored my comment on black holes. Remember, I don't have to provide numbers to back up my claims to a court, you do. I'm not trying to sue a multinationally funded almost complete project through irrelevent courts in Hawaii, you are. You're the one who has to put his physics where his claims are.

Unsurprisingly you go quiet whenever I challenge you do give the details. I have yet to see you do a single GR or QM calculation.

But if you'd rather continue this over in the proper thread, just say. ;)

[Walter L. Wagner]

Thanks for looking up those results. My 'guesstimate' appears to have been quite accurate. You might try reading some of my posts from before you joined. I've commented on this previously.

I would find it interesting to see how much each of those two factors contributes to the retardation. If we observe some more SNs, say at 25,000 and 100,000 years [and of equal size stars and hence equal size internal retardations], we might actually be able to measure the contribution due to the interstellar medium retardation [but don't hold your breath waiting for the data].

For some reason you seem to believe that I'm required to do your work. It doesn't work like that. Consequently, I tend to ignore irrelevant requests; or ones in which I have previously provided answers.

Anyway, back to your comment: "Remember, I don't have to provide numbers to back up my claims to a court, you do."

Actually, I believe it will be the other way around. Something called the Precautionary Principle as adopted by the EU. However, we'll see.

Cheers,

[AlphaNumeric]

You might try reading some of my posts from before you joined. I've seen enough of your posts to know you couldn't 'physics' your way out of a wet paper bag.
For some reason you seem to believe that I'm required to do your work.I'm 103% sure you couldn't do my work.
Anyway, back to your comment: "Remember, I don't have to provide numbers to back up my claims to a court, you do."

Actually, I believe it will be the other way around. But you should be able to back up your claims. Otherwise what are you basing them on? :shrug:

[RussT]

RussT. A singularity is like god. While it answers many awkward questions, it does not exist.

AlphaNumeric is knowledgeable like an internet site is knowledgeable. However, who wants to debate with an internet site?

AN is unable to speculate or extrapolate on a subject.

A singularity is like god. While it answers many awkward questions, it does not exist.

If you would have really understood ny posts to Alpha, I explained that the ONLY 'Singularity' that 'physically exists'; IE...is "Real" is the Ring Singularity in SMBH's! (I won't go into detail where I have shown that by extending 'space' "THROUGH" the Ring, that actually eliminates the "Singularity", which is the ONLY solution before 0 that exists.

ALL of you Anti-BBer's have spent so much time and mental effort railing "Against Singualrities", that you have Never even realized that the singularity that is Wrong,,,,,,,,,,,is the "Naked Singualrity".

OUR Space IS getting here "Through" the Torus Ring Singularities of 'The Other End of SMBH's!!!

[RussT]

So someone working out how to turn string theory into a working description of the universe isn't trying to address the distribution of matter, he's trying to just understand the behaviour of matter on even the simplest levels. Once that theory is working you then turn to the issue of galaxies. And people have done that with GR. We have very good models of galaxy and solar system formation.

Alpha. you have not even considered a single thing I have shown you!!! :shrug:

Mainstream does NOT have a clue as to how SMBH's are created!!!

ALL, of 'space' is STRINGS...Neutrino's, vibrating with the smallest energy unit in the universe...the CMB...........the Cosmic MicroWave Background Radiation.

Those Neutrinos are ALL traveling at "c", in every direction making up ALL of space expanding at "C" in every direction.

They are going right through you body right now in every/all dierctions...right through the earth...all of the empty space between every particle is "FILLED" with Neutrinos traveling at "c" in every direction.

About once a day and GRB goes BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM...That is Quantum Gravity....Neutrinos, with that tiny vibrating energy, but a HUGE amount of energy when you understand that there really are two Branes that have collided (The biggest particle acclerator in the universe), and you have the most massive explosions in the Universe since the Big Bang....YOU See....there was NO Big Bang,,,Mini Bangs do make New galaxies, just not quite the way that Hoyle envisioned ;)

SO, Einstein was a little corect...E-R Bridges are 'Real" IE...Physically Exist....he did Not know about SMBH's in the core of galaxies.

And, Hoyle was a little correct,,,Mini Bangs do make New Galaxies.

There is one other famous astronomer that was a little correct...to finish out the rest of the story, BUT I will not go into that until this part is understood.

[AlphaNumeric]

Alpha. you have not even considered a single thing I have shown you!!! :shrug:Did you ignore where I responded to your post, bit by bit.
ALL, of 'space' is STRINGS...Neutrino's, vibrating with the smallest energy unit in the universe...the CMB...........the Cosmic MicroWave Background Radiation.Strings and neutrinos are not the same thing. If you're working in string theory (which, for the record, I do) then you'd model the neutrino as a mode of oscillation on the string.

They are going right through you body right now in every/all dierctions...right through the earth...all of the empty space between every particle is "FILLED" with Neutrinos traveling at "c" in every direction.And you ignored the evidence I posted about the neutrinos having mass. Their non-zero mass is a huge thing because the Standard Model has to be improved in order to explain it. If something has rest mass, it CANNOT move at c.

Either address the evidence or stop accusing me of ignoring bits of your post when you do the same!

And you also ignored my comment about the difference between strings and branes? Why is that? Can you tell me the difference? It's pretty much directly from the definition of branes. Don't you know what defines them?

You talk about me ignoring your posts but you ignored everything I said. I asked you direct questions, you ignored them. Your hypocrisy is approaching Kaneda's.

[EndLightEnd]

You both ignore each others posts because your both convinced the other person is wrong.

[AlphaNumeric]

Considering there's experimental evidence for neutrino masses (http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/) they cannot move at the speed of light.

Considering I research string theory, I know the difference between a brane and a string.

Considering I research string theory, I know neutrinos and strings are not synonymous.

Considering the CMB is photon based and neutrinos do not interact with photons, I know the CMB isn't neutrino based.

Considering I've been taught 'black holes' at Cambridge by someone who is a professor and had Hawking as his PhD supervisor, and the majority of our lecture course was on Kerr-Newman black holes and astrophysicists working in such things do often consider such black holes, the claim they don't is wrong.

But it's not like I have evidence to back up everything I just said or anything....:rolleyes:

[kaneda]

RussT. A neutron star has an escape velocity of 2/3 light speed. At that density, neutrons still exist! When the neutrons break down because of more mass and presumably the protons also break down, I see no reason for elemental particles, like the electron and quark to break down under relatively not much more pressure.

I think any sized black hole has a solid sphere inside of it of these elemental particles. SMBH's spin at near light speed because the core spins at the same speed. A singularity, having no dimensions would not spin.

I never read your posts to AN as I never read his posts to you. I did not want to join in the argument as he is like debating with a text book. As he stalks me, I have to suffer it at times or like a creationist, he will think the lack of an answer means he is right.

[AlphaNumeric]

Kaneda is too scared to discuss things. Time and again he has shown to be a liar and ignorant of the things he claims to know all about and which he says can be found easily online.

He, like Walter, never provides any calculations to back him up. And he believes I stalk him, when I post in only two threads in this forum and he posts in many more. But then he believes I'm ab out 15 posters on PhysOrg and a moderator and I banned him. Heaven forbid he broke the rules and the mods on PhysOrg banned him for it....

[kaneda]

You keep saying this but you also keep demonstrating you don't know what is on so many websites. If all the things I say are so easy to find, why can't you find them?

If I don't agree with you, it does not mean I do not know what you are talking about. Merely that I do not agree with you.

For instance, solutions to the FRW metric. You'll find them talked about in any course in cosmology and yet you don't know about them. Why is that?And your evidence for that is? The fact you don't know about topics you claim are all over the net and so I have to waste time correcting you on?

You start off with a uniform unbiased inflation, then an expansion the same. Plasma changes to non plasma matter. Flip a coin 2 trillion times and you will get exactly 1 trillion heads and 1 trillion tails. So with non-plasma matter, there is no bias here either, so we can assume the FLRW metric produces a perfectly homogeneous and isotropic universe. No stars, no clusters, just an ever expanding haze.

If you were able to understand relativity, we could have a more meaningful discussion but you don't want to try. Instead, if you don't understand it you say it's wrong and you'll be damned if you're going to change your mind.

If you were able to do anything but quote word for word what you have learned, we could have a discussion. It's like trying to debate with a text book. Or a creationist. Not a lot of difference since both think their book is infallibly true.

I can speculate and extrapolate, it's just I do that on topics which you could never understand. Come on, if you think you're right, go over to the Physics and Maths forum and let's have a discussion about my research. I've now finished writing my paper and I'm just waiting for two guys in Spain to finish their paper on the same topic (I generalised their result!) and then we'll publish together. Should be mid August. I'll remember to bring it to your attention.

Why should I go there when you come here to stalk me, to post on a subject you seem to know little about. An intelligent 12 year old with a search engine could post most of your answers, probably without all the childish insults. Show me something original. Anything that you have not copied from somewhere.

So we should denounce every single prediction made by science? Because 'prediction' means someone predicts something before it's seen. Einstein's prediction of the curvature of light rays was seen as crazy. By your logic, we should have told him to shut up and go back to his office. And yet a few years later, there was the evidence. Dirac predicted a doubling of the number of particles due to 'antimatter'. Crazy! Then a year later we saw the positron for the first time. Someone (I forget who) predicted a third family to the Standard Model to explain the symmetries in the 2 families we'd already seen. Then a few years later, we saw the bottom quark.

Science is the process of taking what we've seen, creating a model and predicting things we haven't seen. By definition, the things we haven't seen don't have evidence yet and by your logic, therefore are nonsense.
No, but just like we can see photons of a visible wavelength without seeing infra red, we can measure photons of 'temperature' 2.7K without having to see all the starlight photons (which are in the IR to UV range mostly).

A bit of rambling here. Any hidden purpose to it?

Don't you know anything about light?

Define "light". This is a science forum and not a kiddie's forum.

I'm still waiting for your quantitative calculations to support your claims. What's the matter, can't you do any physics?

And I'm still waiting for proof that strings exist to show me that you are not wasting your whole life by chasing a dream. :bawl: :bawl: :bawl:

If I can't do any physics but can show you wrong time after time, what does that make you? Besides a pompous braggart, that is.

[kaneda]

Kaneda is too scared to discuss things. Time and again he has shown to be a liar and ignorant of the things he claims to know all about and which he says can be found easily online.

He, like Walter, never provides any calculations to back him up. And he believes I stalk him, when I post in only two threads in this forum and he posts in many more. But then he believes I'm ab out 15 posters on PhysOrg and a moderator and I banned him. Heaven forbid he broke the rules and the mods on PhysOrg banned him for it....


Ranting again, loony toons. :shrug:

Grow up, loser! :shrug:

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. I just checked out the Physics and Math forum and there is some serious BS on it. I can't bring myself to post there. It would be like telling some little kids there is no Santa Claus.

[AlphaNumeric]

If I don't agree with you, it does not mean I do not know what you are talking about. Merely that I do not agree with you.And yet I have to keep correcting you on information. You've failed to understand gravity, inflation, nucleosynthesis, recombination and string theory. All of which you could find online easily, but you haven't.
If you were able to do anything but quote word for word what you have learned, we could have a discussion. It's like trying to debate with a text book. Or a creationist. Not a lot of difference since both think their book is infallibly true.Wether I'm simply copying and pasting from a book/website or coming up with posts myself, the validity of the science is unchanged. Something you fail to grasp.
You start off with a uniform unbiased inflation, then an expansion the same. Plasma changes to non plasma matter. Flip a coin 2 trillion times and you will get exactly 1 trillion heads and 1 trillion tails. So with non-plasma matter, there is no bias here either, so we can assume the FLRW metric produces a perfectly homogeneous and isotropic universe. No stars, no clusters, just an ever expanding haze.You aren't certain to get exactly a trillion heads and a trillion tails. And if you'd ever learnt about cosmology, you'd know one of the first things you learn how to model are perturbations to the uniform nature of the universe. You use the FRW metric to work out how perturbations, generated on a quantum scale before inflation, expand up to galaxy sized things upon inflation stopping.

Would you like me to go through it with you? It seems this is another thing you don't know about. See, it's not a case of you just not agreeing, you're ignorant of the basic things of mainstream cosmology. If you're not, answer question 4 (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/examples/C10d.pdf).
Why should I go there when you come here to stalk me, to post on a subject you seem to know little about. An intelligent 12 year old with a search engine could post most of your answers, probably without all the childish insults. Show me something original. Anything that you have not copied from somewhere.If I'm stalking you, why are the majority of my posts elsewhere and why do I not reply to the majority of your posts in this forum?

And if the majority of what I say can be found with a search engine, why are you ignorant of it? You're basically admitting you don't bother to try and learn anything about the mainstream models.

And I'll show you something original in about a month, when my collaberators in Madrid finish 'English-ising' their paper and we can publish our papers together. I'm a PhD student. I'm paid to do original work.

Show me something original you've done.
A bit of rambling here. Any hidden purpose to it?What about it didn't you understand? The 'rambling' is about how you cannot just denounce anything we have no evidence for. Any good theory predicts things we've not seen before. Relativity and quantum mechanics both did.
Define "light". This is a science forum and not a kiddie's forum.So suddenly the use of the word 'light' is not precise enough? What else could it mean other than 'electromagnetic radiation'? You're the guy who thinks if you flip a coin 2 trillion times it's certain to be exactly half heads and half tails. :rolleyes:

I keep challenging you to do the details of your claims. But you don't. So please stop being a hypocrite. I'm able to do the details of relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology. I've proven that plenty of times. I've asked you to link me to a single post of yours where you do the details of any of those and you can't. Go on, prove me wrong.
And I'm still waiting for proof that strings exist to show me that you are not wasting your whole life by chasing a dreamSo if you'd met Einstein in 1916 you'd have said to him "We've no evidence for either special or general relativity, you've wasted your life". Or to Dirac in 1932 "You've predicted 'antimatter'? You've just doubled the number of supposed particles in the universe. You're insane!".

You don't seem to understand how science has worked throughout history. After all, what is a 'prediction' but saying "I expect a never before seen thing to occur".
If I can't do any physics but can show you wrong time after time, what does that make you? Besides a pompous braggart, that is. Except you've never done any physics and you've never shown me wrong. Notice how on PhysOrg and here everyone disagrees with you? Or maybe that's just a huge conspiracy! :rolleyes:
AlphaNumeric. I just checked out the Physics and Math forum and there is some serious BS on it. I can't bring myself to post there. It would be like telling some little kids there is no Santa Claus.I was right, you're too scared. You always claim to have all the answers but you'll never address direct questions.

If you know so much about all the problems in physics, why are you a no name crank living in France whose never done any physics or maths since high school and all you can do is call people who do do research and have proven they can do physics 'losers'? Like all the other cranks online, you are too scared to put your physics where your mouth is because you know you're wrong, deep down.

Feel free to prove me wrong. I've challenged people like Farsight to a £500 bet that he cannot get published in a reputable journal like JHEP if he submitted his work. He submitted his work to a journal and didn't take my bet. I wonder why? If you think you're right and I'm so obviously wrong, I'll challenge you to the same bet. We both send undated cheques to a trusted 3rd party (though since you think everyone is a sock puppet of mine you probably don't trust anyone) and you submit your 'thoughts' to a reputable journal. I'll happily format your work for you to make it met the criteria some journals have for submission (and send it back to you first so you can see I am not altering the words) and then we wait. If it's rejected, I get your cheque. If it's accepted and published, you get my cheque and you get to gloat here and PhysOrg about how I've been proven wrong by mainstream physicists.

Up for it or are you too chicken? I've got nothing to hide.

[kaneda]

And yet I have to keep correcting you on information. You've failed to understand gravity, inflation, nucleosynthesis, recombination and string theory. All of which you could find online easily, but you haven't.

You just keep blabbing the same nonsense and then get upset because I don't agree with your nonsense. Boring!

Wether I'm simply copying and pasting from a book/website or coming up with posts myself, the validity of the science is unchanged. Something you fail to grasp.
You aren't certain to get exactly a trillion heads and a trillion tails. And if you'd ever learnt about cosmology, you'd know one of the first things you learn how to model are perturbations to the uniform nature of the universe. You use the FRW metric to work out how perturbations, generated on a quantum scale before inflation, expand up to galaxy sized things upon inflation stopping.

You seem to forget that this is speculation and extrapolation. There is not a shred of hard evidence to back it up (a bit like strings). What perturbations? You're parroting the unsupported guesswork of others. It's laughable, saying this is science. You are as gullible as any creationist, and almost as smart.

Would you like me to go through it with you? It seems this is another thing you don't know about. See, it's not a case of you just not agreeing, you're ignorant of the basic things of mainstream cosmology. If you're not, answer question 4 (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/examples/C10d.pdf).
If I'm stalking you, why are the majority of my posts elsewhere and why do I not reply to the majority of your posts in this forum?

You are just using maths to show how many angels can fit on a the head of a pin. Meanwhile lets see some real world evidence to back up this mathsworld babble. You don't have any ready quotes to use word for word when I use speculation or extrapolation, so with nothing to parrot, you are helpless.

And if the majority of what I say can be found with a search engine, why are you ignorant of it? You're basically admitting you don't bother to try and learn anything about the mainstream models.

Again for the terminally stupid. Because I don't agree with something you go on about, that does not mean I am ignorant of it.

And I'll show you something original in about a month, when my collaberators in Madrid finish 'English-ising' their paper and we can publish our papers together. I'm a PhD student. I'm paid to do original work.

Jabbering again about you are a PhD student so must have a clue what you are talking about. If you are paid to do original work, how do you survive on just one penny a year?

Show me something original you've done.

All the stuff you denounce because there is no ready answer you can quote word for word from an intertnet site or text book.

What about it didn't you understand? The 'rambling' is about how you cannot just denounce anything we have no evidence for. Any good theory predicts things we've not seen before. Relativity and quantum mechanics both did.
So suddenly the use of the word 'light' is not precise enough? What else could it mean other than 'electromagnetic radiation'? You're the guy who thinks if you flip a coin 2 trillion times it's certain to be exactly half heads and half tails. :rolleyes:

If you meant EMR, why didn't you use the correct expression?

With such a large sample, yes it would be exactly one trillion of each since inconsistencies would iron themselves out. Dig out a text book on probabilities and see if there is anything you can quote word for word from about it.

I keep challenging you to do the details of your claims. But you don't. So please stop being a hypocrite. I'm able to do the details of relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology. I've proven that plenty of times. I've asked you to link me to a single post of yours where you do the details of any of those and you can't. Go on, prove me wrong.
So if you'd met Einstein in 1916 you'd have said to him "We've no evidence for either special or general relativity, you've wasted your life". Or to Dirac in 1932 "You've predicted 'antimatter'? You've just doubled the number of supposed particles in the universe. You're insane!".

You just quote word for word what you have been taught. You have proven you have a good memory but very little else it seems.

All you have proven is that you are pompous Mr I'm A PhD Student. I have shown you wrong a number of times and you just deny it, like any creationist. Denial is not a valid form of debate.

Einstein. Wasn't he the guy who couldn't work out the Double Slit experiment? It took me all of several seconds.

You are babbling again, going off on some side track delusion.

You don't seem to understand how science has worked throughout history. After all, what is a 'prediction' but saying "I expect a never before seen thing to occur".
Except you've never done any physics and you've never shown me wrong. Notice how on PhysOrg and here everyone disagrees with you? Or maybe that's just a huge conspiracy! :rolleyes:
I was right, you're too scared. You always claim to have all the answers but you'll never address direct questions.

The delusions! The delusions! Stay out of the sun.

If you know so much about all the problems in physics, why are you a no name crank living in France whose never done any physics or maths since high school and all you can do is call people who do do research and have proven they can do physics 'losers'? Like all the other cranks online, you are too scared to put your physics where your mouth is because you know you're wrong, deep down.

More babbling. I don't think nutters should be allowed out in the community.

Feel free to prove me wrong. I've challenged people like Farsight to a £500 bet that he cannot get published in a reputable journal like JHEP if he submitted his work. He submitted his work to a journal and didn't take my bet. I wonder why? If you think you're right and I'm so obviously wrong, I'll challenge you to the same bet. We both send undated cheques to a trusted 3rd party (though since you think everyone is a sock puppet of mine you probably don't trust anyone) and you submit your 'thoughts' to a reputable journal. I'll happily format your work for you to make it met the criteria some journals have for submission (and send it back to you first so you can see I am not altering the words) and then we wait. If it's rejected, I get your cheque. If it's accepted and published, you get my cheque and you get to gloat here and PhysOrg about how I've been proven wrong by mainstream physicists.

I proved Kent Hovind wrong and he didn't pay up. Since you work on denial, I can't believe you'd pay up wither. You'd just deny it, while ranting about how you'd won. Still a loser.

Up for it or are you too chicken? I've got nothing to hide.

Still a loser. You're not in a school playground now. Your posts here are all the proof that anyone needs that you are a loser who is literally unable to think of anything new, Mr I'm A PhD Student.

[AlphaNumeric]

You seem to forget that this is speculation and extrapolation. There is not a shred of hard evidence to back it up (a bit like strings). What perturbations? You're parroting the unsupported guesswork of others. It's laughable, saying this is science. You are as gullible as any creationist, and almost as smart.Other than it accurately models things like the layout of the universe, the CMB and the ratio of elements in the universe.
You are just using maths to show how many angels can fit on a the head of a pin.So you claim that mainstream models predict a uniform haze, I prove otherwise and rather than admit you're wrong you just decide it's irrelevant?
Again for the terminally stupid. Because I don't agree with something you go on about, that does not mean I am ignorant of it.
You aren't even reading what I'm saying, are you? Do you just copy and paste the same sentence each time? I'm proving you're ignorant of something, so it's not that I think you're ignorant, I know you're ignorant.
All the stuff you denounce because there is no ready answer you can quote word for word from an intertnet site or text book.So you can't actually give a specific example then?
If you meant EMR, why didn't you use the correct expression?So tell me, since you ignored it last time, when I say "light" in a discussion about the CMB, what else could I be referring to?
With such a large sample, yes it would be exactly one trillion of each since inconsistencies would iron themselves out. Dig out a text book on probabilities and see if there is anything you can quote word for word from about it.What you are trying to refer to is 'the law of large numbers' which relates to probability by saying "As the number of samples goes to infinity, the proportion of results for a particular criteria, A, goes to P(A)". In other words, things occur with their given probability.

This doesn't mean that if you do a large, but finite, number of tests you're certain to get the exact proportion, it means that if you keep doing more and more tests, the proportion (say for coin tosses) will tend to 50/50.

Why a trillion? By your logic, the probabiliy of getting 1trillion-1 heads and 1trillion+1 tails is zero (otherwise 50/50 wouldn't be certain). Arte you really claiming that? If you know any probability you'll know how to work out the probability of getting such a result, and it's not zero (it's actually \phantom{a}^{2.10^{12}}_{10^{12}-1}C \; 2^{-2.10^{12}} ).
I have shown you wrong a number of times and you just deny it, And yet whenever I ask you to give an example or to back up your claims with quantative stuff, you fail.

And why is it noone believes you?
Einstein. Wasn't he the guy who couldn't work out the Double Slit experiment? It took me all of several seconds. Pardon? What do you mean 'couldn't work out'? And let's see your workings. Einstein got a Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect.
More babbling. I don't think nutters should be allowed out in the community.What's the matter, don't want to explain why you're a nobody living alone in France, not studying physics and maths, unable to do physics or maths and has to validate his existence by pretending to have all the answers on websites like this? ;) Why aren't you publishing your 'work'?
I proved Kent Hovind wrong and he didn't pay up. Since you work on denial, I can't believe you'd pay up wither. You'd just deny it, while ranting about how you'd won. Still a loser..Kent Hovind's claims are impossible to win. So you lie about having proven him wrong in a way which meets his criteria.

And I would pay up, hence the undated cheques. If you want we can both deposit money into a trusted 3rd person's account, so we know the money is there?
Still a loser. You're not in a school playground now. Your posts here are all the proof that anyone needs that you are a loser who is literally unable to think of anything new, Mr I'm A PhD Student.I've proven I'm a PhD student. I guarantee I'll have a paper on www.arxiv.org in the next month or two. That's original research. Where's yours? Nowhere. Where's the evidence you can do relativity? Nowhere, you considering it 'counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin'.

Do you still claim I'm not a PhD student? I've got nothing to hide. I keep challenging you to discuss the details of work and you keep running away.

[Walter L. Wagner]

What you are trying to refer to is 'the law of large numbers' which relates to probability by saying "As the number of samples goes to infinity, the proportion of results for a particular criteria, A, goes to P(A)". In other words, things occur with their given probability.

This doesn't mean that if you do a large, but finite, number of tests you're certain to get the exact proportion, it means that if you keep doing more and more tests, the proportion (say for coin tosses) will tend to 50/50.

Why a trillion? By your logic, the probabiliy of getting 1trillion-1 heads and 1trillion+1 tails is zero (otherwise 50/50 wouldn't be certain). Arte you really claiming that? If you know any probability you'll know how to work out the probability of getting such a result, and it's not zero (it's actually \phantom{a}^{2.10^{12}}_{10^{12}-1}C \; 2^{-2.10^{12}} ).


This is correct.

[AlphaNumeric]

Watch out Walter, if you agree with me in correcting Kaneda, he might accuse you of being a sock puppet of mine! And that I'm suing CERN (or whatever it is you're doing) under a false nam simply to lull him into a false sense of security when it comes to my sock puppet, 'Walter Wagner'. ;)

[kaneda]

Other than it accurately models things like the layout of the universe, the CMB and the ratio of elements in the universe.

With computers, you get out what you put in, like dark matter.

Perturbations on that scale are not predictable so the layout could not be worked out in anything other than the very widest terms.

There are other explanations for the CMB.

The density of the early universe suggests that (as in a super-nova), mostly heavy elements would be produced. Were it diffuse enough to produce mostly hydrogen and some helium, then expansion would probably have made sure that never happened.

So you claim that mainstream models predict a uniform haze, I prove otherwise and rather than admit you're wrong you just decide it's irrelevant?

You have proved nothing. You have produced circumstantial evidence that comes to a conclusion you want.

You aren't even reading what I'm saying, are you? Do you just copy and paste the same sentence each time? I'm proving you're ignorant of something, so it's not that I think you're ignorant, I know you're ignorant.[/QUOTE]

Is this to try and hide your own ignorance? I repeat something to you and you just mumble the same nonsense as before.

So you can't actually give a specific example then?

The big bang. Here! Doh!

So tell me, since you ignored it last time, when I say "light" in a discussion about the CMB, what else could I be referring to?

Not everyone is a PhD student like you. Don't your teachers teach you exactitude in science? Sloppy work.

What you are trying to refer to is 'the law of large numbers' which relates to probability by saying "As the number of samples goes to infinity, the proportion of results for a particular criteria, A, goes to P(A)". In other words, things occur with their given probability.

This doesn't mean that if you do a large, but finite, number of tests you're certain to get the exact proportion, it means that if you keep doing more and more tests, the proportion (say for coin tosses) will tend to 50/50.

Why a trillion? By your logic, the probabiliy of getting 1trillion-1 heads and 1trillion+1 tails is zero (otherwise 50/50 wouldn't be certain). Arte you really claiming that? If you know any probability you'll know how to work out the probability of getting such a result, and it's not zero (it's actually \phantom{a}^{2.10^{12}}_{10^{12}-1}C \; 2^{-2.10^{12}} ).

The larger the number, the less likely to have any noticeable bias.

And yet whenever I ask you to give an example or to back up your claims with quantative stuff, you fail.

And why is it noone believes you?

You ignore anything that might or will prove you wrong. Who is this Mr Noone who doesn't believe me?

Pardon? What do you mean 'couldn't work out'? And let's see your workings. Einstein got a Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect.

A photon is a wave. How big is a wave? Can you have one wave? Think about it.

What's the matter, don't want to explain why you're a nobody living alone in France, not studying physics and maths, unable to do physics or maths and has to validate his existence by pretending to have all the answers on websites like this? ;) Why aren't you publishing your 'work'?

Personal attacks. A sure sign you are losing, from past experience. All downhill from here.

Kent Hovind's claims are impossible to win. So you lie about having proven him wrong in a way which meets his criteria.

And I would pay up, hence the undated cheques. If you want we can both deposit money into a trusted 3rd person's account, so we know the money is there?

A poor mind like yours might not be able to beat Hovind but I can.

I'm not allowing any loony stalker access to my personal details.

I've proven I'm a PhD student. I guarantee I'll have a paper on www.arxiv.org in the next month or two. That's original research. Where's yours? Nowhere. Where's the evidence you can do relativity? Nowhere, you considering it 'counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin'.

Do you still claim I'm not a PhD student? I've got nothing to hide. I keep challenging you to discuss the details of work and you keep running away.

The same old whine (and a bit of ranting) that you are smart so you must be right. A fallacy as other people here can see.

[kaneda]

Almost half a million papers on arxiv. Is that where they go to die in obscurity?

[AlphaNumeric]

Perturbations on that scale are not predictable so the layout could not be worked out in anything other than the very widest terms.

There are other explanations for the CMB.

The density of the early universe suggests that (as in a super-nova), mostly heavy elements would be produced. Were it diffuse enough to produce mostly hydrogen and some helium, then expansion would probably have made sure that never happened.So you didnb't know the density equations existed until I told you and now you're certain they predict something different to what they have been proven to predict?

Their predictions match observations so your claims are false.
You have proved nothing. You have produced circumstantial evidence that comes to a conclusion you want.You said homogeneous haze was predicted. I proved otherwise by providing a model of variations. Hardly circumstancial.
The big bang. Here! Doh!So you back up your claim with your claim? Akin to "I'm right because earlier I said I'm right."
Not everyone is a PhD student like you. Don't your teachers teach you exactitude in science? Sloppy work.I asked you what else 'light' could mean in a discussion about the CMB. You cannot provide me with an alternative interpretation so the terminology is perfectly adequate. I don't need to be exact when there's only one possible meaning to the words I use.

And are you telling me non-PhD students don't know what 'light' means?
The larger the number, the less likely to have any noticeable bias.Nope. The larger the number in a binomial distribution with n samples and probabilities p and q=1-p, the closer the distribution becomes to a normal distribution with mean np and variance npq. That's high school stuff.

That also doesn't disprove what I demonstrated, that the probability of getting something other than exactly 50/50 is not zero, as you claim it was.

Do you understand and accept this? Or do you still claim the probability of getting anything oher than exactly 50/50 is zero?
You ignore anything that might or will prove you wrong.Like where? You do the same, you just ignored that even Walter says you're wrong! Even the cranks don't agree with you!
A photon is a wave. How big is a wave? Can you have one wave? Think about it.The photon is a point particle.
Personal attacks. A sure sign you are losing, from past experience. All downhill from here.Aren't you the guy who calls me a loser who will never do anything original and accuses me of being the centre of a huge conspiracy to stalk you?

Nice hypocrisy.
A poor mind like yours might not be able to beat Hovind but I can.No, I don't claim that, talkorigins says it. Hovind requires you to prove the big bang and since you don't believe in it, you're obviously lying.
The same old whine (and a bit of ranting) that you are smart so you must be right. A fallacy as other people here can see.You didn't actually respond to what I said. You said I'll never do anything original, I said I've prove you wrong shortly. I asked you if you still thought I wasn't a PhD student, you ignored the question. I didn't say "I'm a PhD student, therefore right". I never have.

Rather than construct strawmen, address the direct questions I ask you. What are you hiding?

[Vkothii]

A Question:
With computers, you get out what you put in, like dark matter.I know what a computer is; can I ask what you might say a "computer" is, then, seeing as you claim "what comes out" is "what you put in"?

Please.:)

[kaneda]

vkothil. The idea is that missing mass must be dark matter so anything that cannot be explained in terms of mass is automatically labelled DM by computers.

[kaneda]

So you didnb't know the density equations existed until I told you and now you're certain they predict something different to what they have been proven to predict?

I knew of them. Another example of your judging anyone who doesn't agree with your dogma. It's prophecies made AFTER we have all the relevant information on the result.

I asked you what else 'light' could mean in a discussion about the CMB. You cannot provide me with an alternative interpretation so the terminology is perfectly adequate. I don't need to be exact when there's only one possible meaning to the words I use.

The title of this thread is "Cause of the big bang". Not what do you reckon the CMB is made of? Yes, only one meaning, but I always knew you were a parrot anyway.

And are you telling me non-PhD students don't know what 'light' means?

For many members of the public and younger people, light is visible light. You should learn to be more exact in what you say and learn to whine less when caught out.

Nope. The larger the number in a binomial distribution with n samples and probabilities p and q=1-p, the closer the distribution becomes to a normal distribution with mean np and variance npq. That's high school stuff.

That also doesn't disprove what I demonstrated, that the probability of getting something other than exactly 50/50 is not zero, as you claim it was.

Do you understand and accept this? Or do you still claim the probability of getting anything oher than exactly 50/50 is zero?

Ever larger samples of heads and tails mean ever closer to 50/50. Try it with a coin since you seem to have little else to do.

Like where? You do the same, you just ignored that even Walter says you're wrong! Even the cranks don't agree with you!

You think Walter is an idiot and he is agreeing with you. Haven't you made the connection yet? I see the cranks agree with you. :D :D :D

The photon is a point particle.

Wrong. Particles do not travel at lightspeed as even most 1st year junior school kids know. A photon is a wave which cannot leak into the surrounding medium (as a wave in water does), so is discrete, behaving LIKE a particle.

Aren't you the guy who calls me a loser who will never do anything original and accuses me of being the centre of a huge conspiracy to stalk you?

First part truth. Second part lies. 1 out of 2 isn't bad for you.

Nice hypocrisy.
No, I don't claim that, talkorigins says it. Hovind requires you to prove the big bang and since you don't believe in it, you're obviously lying.

talkorigins is a great site for evolution but they know about as little as you do when it comes to cosmology. I think trueorigins may be more your style.

You didn't actually respond to what I said. You said I'll never do anything original, I said I've prove you wrong shortly. I asked you if you still thought I wasn't a PhD student, you ignored the question. I didn't say "I'm a PhD student, therefore right". I never have.

I'm going to buy myself a large house in the Canaries when I win the Pools shortly. We can all dream.

Rather than construct strawmen, address the direct questions I ask you. What are you hiding?

I do address the questions but you do not have a ten year old to explain the answers to you, which seems beyond your ability to understand them, so you endlessly keep asking them again.

Like someone who sees the neighbourhood bore heading towards him, I dodge you when I can. That is why I am "hiding" from you.

[AlphaNumeric]

I knew of them. Another example of your judging anyone who doesn't agree with your dogma. It's prophecies made AFTER we have all the relevant information on the result.So why did you claim that mainstream models predict a uniform haze if you knew the models contained perturbations from uniformity?

You just contradicted yourself. That's why I said you were ignorant of it, you claimed they didn't exist now are claiming you knew they did.
The title of this thread is "Cause of the big bang". Not what do you reckon the CMB is made of? Yes, only one meaning, but I always knew you were a parrot anyway.I didn't bring up the question of "Is the CMB something other than light?", someone else did. I was correcting them.
For many members of the public and younger people, light is visible light. You should learn to be more exact in what you say and learn to whine less when caught out.So you're saying I should be more specific, because younger people and people in the public think "Light is visible light" but if I'd said "Electromagnetic radiation" it would have been better? I doubt that would have been clearer to most people who have no idea what 'electromagnetic radiation' is.

And I can be more exact, I keep saying to you that you should back up your claims with quantative results but you don't. Can't you be more exact?

Which of us has proven to have working, quantative, knowledge of physics? Only me. If you claim differently, link to a post of yours where you do quantative analysis of something.
Ever larger samples of heads and tails mean ever closer to 50/50. Try it with a coin since you seem to have little else to do.Changed your tune again. That's precisely what I just said, it's the law of large numbers. You claimed a sample of 2 trillion will have exactly 1 trillion of heads and 1 trillion of tails. Now you're saying it'll just tend to 50/50 as you do more.

You ignored my direct question. Do you still claim you'd get exactly 1 trillion of each or, most likely, just something very close to 50/50?
You think Walter is an idiot and he is agreeing with you. Haven't you made the connection yet? I see the cranks agree with you. Walter and I both told you it won't be exactly 50/50 and now you've changed your tune, but can't admit it.

Just like when I provided plenty of evidence I'm a PhD student and you couldn't admit you were wrong, you just stoped saying "You're lying about being a PhD student" and continued with "You'll never do anything original!".

You honestly cannot swallow your pride and say "I was wrong", can you? I managed it in this thread.
Wrong. Particles do not travel at lightspeed as even most 1st year junior school kids know. A photon is a wave which cannot leak into the surrounding medium (as a wave in water does), so is discrete, behaving LIKE a particle.The 'length' of the flucutation in the photon field in QED is zero, it's a point. The fluctuation is described via things like Fourier analysis, hence the wave properties but it's entirely localised to a point.

Just like your whining about me saying 'light', you try to pretend you know quantum mechanics by trying to nit pick. Anyone familiar with QM will know that saying 'wave' or 'particle' is not literally correct but all the quantum entities are called 'particles' for convenience, they happen to have wave properties.

Besides, I can prove I can describe such quantum processes (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/Work/Scalar%20QCD%20Paper.pdf). Can you? Or are you only able to try to nit pick on concepts you don't understand?
First part truth. Second part lies. 1 out of 2 isn't bad for you.So your claims I'm a moderator on PhysOrg, as well as having about a dozen sock puppets there and that you were the sole reason I posted outside of the Theories forum isn't a claim there's a conspiracy on PhysOrg, centred on me, aimed at you?

What would you call that then? I'd call it paranoid delusions.
talkorigins is a great site for evolution but they know about as little as you do when it comes to cosmology. I think trueorigins may be more your style.Hovind's claim required proof that the universe came from nothing via the BB. So to prove him wrong, you must have proven the BB true.

So either you're lying or you don't understand cosmology.
I do address the questions but you do not have a ten year old to explain the answers to you, which seems beyond your ability to understand them, so you endlessly keep asking them again.I asked you to provide quantative results that show the BB and inflation should have produced heavy elements. You ignored it. I asked you to provide quantative results which show inflation should have not occured, the universe must recollapse back in on itself if it came from a BB. You ignored it.

So both big claims you've made you cannot back up. And yet you claim you can do physics and you've proven me wrong? All you have are unsubstantiated claims which are proven wrong in plenty of papers, where those models are shown to predict precisely what you claim they don't. But we've already established you don't go looking for such things. Ignorance, after all, is bliss for you.

[kaneda]

So why did you claim that mainstream models predict a uniform haze if you knew the models contained perturbations from uniformity?
You just contradicted yourself. That's why I said you were ignorant of it, you claimed they didn't exist now are claiming you knew they did.

The FLRW metric predicts a uniform homogeneous universe. You have to add to it to get the lumpy bits. However I don't agree with the perturbations since it would need a bias where they do not even out. If you don't understand, ask. I'm not contradicting myself.

I didn't bring up the question of "Is the CMB something other than light?", someone else did. I was correcting them.

So you're saying I should be more specific, because younger people and people in the public think "Light is visible light" but if I'd said "Electromagnetic radiation" it would have been better? I doubt that would have been clearer to most people who have no idea what 'electromagnetic radiation' is.

If you corrected them, why not use the correct term?

And I can be more exact, I keep saying to you that you should back up your claims with quantative results but you don't. Can't you be more exact?

Which of us has proven to have working, quantative, knowledge of physics? Only me. If you claim differently, link to a post of yours where you do quantative analysis of something.

You claim to work in strings. OK, give me proof that they exist and that you are not swindling people by claiming money for working on something that does not exist. I await your proof.

Changed your tune again. That's precisely what I just said, it's the law of large numbers. You claimed a sample of 2 trillion will have exactly 1 trillion of heads and 1 trillion of tails. Now you're saying it'll just tend to 50/50 as you do more.

The Brain of Britain. 50/50 is the same as one trillion/one trillion out of two trillion. Your next question. What is 1+1?

You ignored my direct question. Do you still claim you'd get exactly 1 trillion of each or, most likely, just something very close to 50/50?

You are so incompetent that the only way you can win an argument is to lie about what other people say.

Walter and I both told you it won't be exactly 50/50 and now you've changed your tune, but can't admit it.

You call Walter a crank. You agree with a crank. That makes you a crank. What's new?

Just like when I provided plenty of evidence I'm a PhD student and you couldn't admit you were wrong, you just stoped saying "You're lying about being a PhD student" and continued with "You'll never do anything original!".

How is it that a PhD student can spend all his time on internet forums? Not what you lie about. You have yet to answer that question. Or do anything original.

You honestly cannot swallow your pride and say "I was wrong", can you? I managed it in this thread.

Right back at ya, you pompous quack.

The 'length' of the flucutation in the photon field in QED is zero, it's a point. The fluctuation is described via things like Fourier analysis, hence the wave properties but it's entirely localised to a point.

The double slit experiment requires very special conditions and what is called "one photon".

Just like your whining about me saying 'light', you try to pretend you know quantum mechanics by trying to nit pick. Anyone familiar with QM will know that saying 'wave' or 'particle' is not literally correct but all the quantum entities are called 'particles' for convenience, they happen to have wave properties.

Looks like a bit of back tracking there.

Besides, I can prove I can describe such quantum processes (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/Work/Scalar%20QCD%20Paper.pdf). Can you? Or are you only able to try to nit pick on concepts you don't understand?

You just parrot what you've been taught. You have a good memory but the analytical abilities of a creationist.

So your claims I'm a moderator on PhysOrg, as well as having about a dozen sock puppets there and that you were the sole reason I posted outside of the Theories forum isn't a claim there's a conspiracy on PhysOrg, centred on me, aimed at you?

What would you call that then? I'd call it paranoid delusions.

Show me where I said you have a dozen aliases (second time of repeating this deliberate lie). You are Euler. Possibly one other. I have never said more, liar!

Hovind's claim required proof that the universe came from nothing via the BB. So to prove him wrong, you must have proven the BB true.

The Hovind claim I answered asked for proof of evolution. I gave him a number of transitional fossils. So you are babbling incoherently again.

So either you're lying or you don't understand cosmology.
I asked you to provide quantative results that show the BB and inflation should have produced heavy elements. You ignored it. I asked you to provide quantative results which show inflation should have not occured, the universe must recollapse back in on itself if it came from a BB. You ignored it.

Evidence to show that strings exist and you are not a cheat and a liar? I am still waiting from someone who claims to know physics and be a PhD student.

So both big claims you've made you cannot back up. And yet you claim you can do physics and you've proven me wrong? All you have are unsubstantiated claims which are proven wrong in plenty of papers, where those models are shown to predict precisely what you claim they don't. But we've already established you don't go looking for such things. Ignorance, after all, is bliss for you.

The delusions! The delusions! The only way you can win an argument is to convince yourself in your delusional world. :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. Explain the evidence for the hypersphere to me? Show me evidence for negative energy and explain how there can be ever more of it? Explain what is inside the hypersphere? Explain how we can have ever more space? Lots more when you've answered this lot.

Perhaps it's all made up like strings are?

[Mike Honcho]

Let me summarize the last 8 pages for those just joining us..

No Life Nerd X said:
Blah, Blah Blah (quote previous hypothetical dribble) therefore I'm great and you suck.

Really Needs to Get Laid Y replies:
(quote (qoute previous hypothetical dribble))
blah blah blah
(reference unproven theoretical bullshit)
hence I am surely great and even you must agree that you totally suck.


Which I Mike Honcho take personal offense to as I am the greatest and you all equally suck.
Now go suck a tit.

[AlphaNumeric]

The FLRW metric predicts a uniform homogeneous universe. You have to add to it to get the lumpy bits. However I don't agree with the perturbations since it would need a bias where they do not even out. If you don't understand, ask. I'm not contradicting myself.You don't agree with the concept that quantum mechanics results in perturbations due to quantum fluctuations?
If you corrected them, why not use the correct term?'Light' is the correct term. Light either means 'electromagnetic radiation' or it means 'something which doesn't have a lot of weight'. Clearly from the context of the discussion it wasn't the latter.
You claim to work in strings. OK, give me proof that they exist and that you are not swindling people by claiming money for working on something that does not exist. I await your proof.1. You ignored my challenge you show you have working knowledge in physics.

2. Working in theoretical physics doesn't require you prove your area exists before hand. That's why it's called 'theoretical' and not 'practical'.

And you ignored my previous discussions about having physicists predict things before they are seen. Dirac predicted antimatter before it was seen. Did he swindle people? Einstein predicted time dilation and gravitational deflection of photons before they were seen. Did he swindle people? You continue to construct straw men.

Now can you show where you have working quantitative knowledge of physics or not?
he Brain of Britain. 50/50 is the same as one trillion/one trillion out of two trillion. Your next question. What is 1+1?Try to read and understand what I said. You initially claimed it would be exactly 50/50. I explained it only tends to 50/50. You then changed your tune and agreed it would tend to 50/50. And you are unable to admit you changed your claim.
You are so incompetent that the only way you can win an argument is to lie about what other people say.Feel free to reread your own posts to check.

Besides, aren't you the guy who creates strawmen all the time? Who avoids answering direct questions like "Where have you demonstrated you have quantitative knowledge of physics?" and "Where's your original work?". Feel free to dodge them, again.
You call Walter a crank. You agree with a crank. That makes you a crank. What's new?
Are cranks always wrong? No. Besides, the fact flipping coins a lot doesn't mean you'll get a certain result with 100% chance is so simple even Walter understood it. Shame you didn't.
How is it that a PhD student can spend all his time on internet forums? Not what you lie about. You have yet to answer that question. Or do anything original.I hbave answered that question many times.

24 hours in a day :
I sleep for 6~8 hours
16 hours left
I eat, shower, shave and **** for 2 hours a day
14 left
I work for between 1 and 8 hours a day
At least 6 hours left

6~13 hours left, within which I can post, if I wanted to, hundreds of times. I can type between 50 and 100 words a minute depending on the topic, the time and my level of sleep. I don't have to keep referring to websites or books because the stuff I post to correct you and others on this website is so simple I remember it all.

PhDs are pretty laid back. Just this last week I went home Friday~Monday and went out 2 of those evenings, didn't sleep and thus wiped out 96 hours. Does it mean I'm behind on my PhD? Not a chance! My supervisor is on holiday for a month. I'm the only guy in my office. I've not seen my other supervisor in 3 weeks. Bags of time.

I'm still waiting for you to debunk all the evidence I provided about who I am and what I do. You just seem to ignore it. Got something to hide?
Looks like a bit of back tracking there.No back tracking. Just having to explain to you basic quantum mechanics. Besides, how many physicists do you converse with each day. I converse with a fair few professors a week. When talking to one of my supervisors, when I say something like "And it emits a few particles like mesons" he doesn't correct me with "You mean the mesons are travelling as waves and are emitted in discrete packets", there's an unspoken understanding between people who do understand it what various things mean. The people who nitpick over such things are typically those who don't work in such areas and are desperate to show they have just a tiny tiny bit of understanding.

If you're so knowledgable, go over to the maths and physics forum and prove people like myself and BenTheMan wrong in a technical discussion. I have nothing to hide.
The Hovind claim I answered asked for proof of evolution. I gave him a number of transitional fossils. So you are babbling incoherently again.
You mean the $250,000 claim of Hovind? If you bothered to look it up you'd find it asks for proof of the BB too. Infact, number 1 on his list is

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

So you proved that did you? I'm not babbling incoherently when a simple Google brings up Hovind's challenge and the first point boils down to "Prove the Big Bang". You're blaiming me for you not having read it.
Evidence to show that strings exist and you are not a cheat and a liar?
Strawman. The existence of strings is independent of wether I'm a PhD student or not.
AlphaNumeric. Explain the evidence for the hypersphere to me? Show me evidence for negative energy and explain how there can be ever more of it? Explain what is inside the hypersphere? Explain how we can have ever more space? Lots more when you've answered this lot.
Hypersphere? That was Nick's clap trap. Are you having trouble remembering that far back? Maybe that explains why you don't remember all the evidence I post backing up who I am and what I do? ;)

[quantum_wave]

I did try to read the whole thread but when I took a peek at the last page I saw the convenient summary by my buddy honcho and decided to skip the "you suck" sh$t and jump in since the cause of the BB is one of my favorite topics :shrug:.

Lately you are becoming a part of a rare breed if you insist that BBT shouldn't be questioned, and especially if you insist the on a zero volume infinitely dense onetime starting point 13.7 billion years ago. What ever started the Big Bang expansion or what ever the pre-conditions were, our complete universe as an infinitely dense zero volume singularity is pretty hard to substantiate.

My position is that students should be taught BBT, General Relativity, the Cosmological Principle as part of their general science education. Fine, because BBT is the standard and most widely supported theory, the best science can do without speculating about new physics, new evidence, etc.

But my position also is that there isn't any great pillar of BBT that isn't without its problems. You name the pillar whether it is GR, the Cosmological Principle, CMBR, WMAP, inflation, nucleosynthesis, the red shift and Hubble constant, the cause of the big bang, the cause of expansion, the cause of accelerating expansion, and the explanation or lack thereof of galaxy formation and movement.

As an observer my opinion is that there will be a solution to the incompatibility of GR and quantum mechanics someday so maybe we will all know if there was a "before" the big bang or the cause of the expansion and accelerating expansion that we observe.

Let me address the question of new space, i.e. the volume of space increasing as expansion of the big bang universe proceeds. The big argument for this premise is that it is the only plausible explanation for the kind of expansion that we observe, i.e. everything is moving away from everything else at the galactic level (aside from some local clusters of galaxies).

That premise might very well be true and if it is then BBT might very well be correct and new space is being created by the expansion, but there is another explanation for the co-moving expansion that is observed that supports the premise that space already existed and that the observable universe is expanding into space that was already there.

Prior to matter formation and gravity being exerted by mass there was supposed to be exponential expansion of the budding universe. This inflation is necessary to make a connection between the causal event and what we observe today. Without exponential expansion in the first instant, before the matter formation and the start of photon emissions from matter, there wouldn't have been enough time passed yet to cause the consistent background temperature of the cosmic microwave background.

So if expansion was underway when matter formed then when matter formed it had relative momentum imparted to it as it formed. Even though local gravity affected local matter, all structure that formed from the first matter would have the momentum of the initial expansion imparted to it, so all structure like say galaxies that formed would be moving away from all other galaxies because of the conservation of the initial momentum of matter. This means that the space that the galaxies are expanding into could have always existed.

I’m not saying there is any proof, but the evidence of expansion supports this scenario even if the Big Bang and nucleosynthesis happened as the standard theory predicts. Maybe space was already there when the expansion began and when the CMBR was emitted :eek:.

[quantum_wave]

Let me address another pillar of Big Bang Theory, the Cosmological Principle. It fits nicely with General Relativity to form a solid basis for BBT.

Simply put, the Cosmological Principle states that the entire universe looks pretty much the same everywhere and no matter where you are in it, everything seems to be moving away from everything else in a similar fashion at the overall galactic level.

Though it is true that some very large scale structure is delectable in the cosmic microwave background that structure can be attributed to quantum fluctuations in the early universe and could have resulted in a variety of large scale structure patterns, so the pattern that we observe has no special significance and doesn't detract from the overall homogeneity.

Even with the coincidental large structure that we observe, everything is moving away from everything else and we cannot detect an edge or a center of expansion.

Under these circumstances which are in accord with BBT, the Cosmological Principle is in tact. But if my alternative premise to the "new space" pillar of BBT as stated in the previous post were correct, then would the Cosmological Principle apply to the greater universe that consists of infinite space that has always existed?

We don't have much to go on but our observable universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. The expansion is thought to have begun 13.7 billion years ago and the expanding universe, our arena in infinite space as it then would be, is considered finite in content.

General Relativity is track-able and when backtracked it reaches its tiniest dimensions about 13.7 billion years ago. Under the premise that space already existed then the entire arena of our known universe occupied the tiniest of spaces within the existing infinite space, a big crunch. That would not comply with the Cosmological principle because a single tiny infinitely dense entity like our arena some 13.7 billion years ago, sitting alone in space, would actually have to be considered inhomogeneous and not isotropic.

You might even have to consider it the center of the universe. But the thing that brings the Cosmological Principle back into play is the finite nature of our arena (our expanding universe). If infinite space was very much like the space that contains our expanding universe, then it would still be homogeneous if every where we looked we could see other similar arenas playing out where some were contracting into big crunches, some crunches had burst into expansion, and some had experienced the complete disbursal of their contents in the form of receding galaxies out into the greater universe.

Under those homogeneous conditions, isotropy would again come into play because in all directions we would see crunches forming, bursting and disbursing without any preferred direction, without any edge, and without any detectable center in the greater universe.

[quantum_wave]

While I’m at it I may as well mention vacuum energy known as negative energy density and better known as the cosmological constant. The current debate among BBT enthusiasts is what the value of lambda (the cosmological constant) is.

If the universe was flat, i.e. meaning it will not collapse and it will not proceed to a Big Rip, then the value of lambda would be 1.

Current estimates based on the apparent accelerating expansion indicate a positive lambda and a negative overall energy density.

The interesting thing about lambda is that it is a constant and as the universe expands and the energy density of the universe declines, the constant remains … well, constant. The implication is that if we are expanding due to a positive lambda, we will continue to expand until the ultimate fate of expansion is realized in the form of what is called the Big Rip or the heat death of the universe.

It is a chilling prospect but it would take a long time so we talk about it in a kind of unconcerned acknowledgment.

If what I posted about the creation of space, and if the theory that new space comes into existence as the universe expands then there is nothing to stop expansion, the energy density of the universe will continue to decline and will approach the limit of zero. Yikes, really cold.

On the other hand, if space always existed and we simply occupy an arena of finite matter and energy expanding into existing space there still would be a Big Rip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip) in our future.

But if the suggestion that I made about our finite arena being only one of a potentially infinite number of arenas within infinite space that had always existed, then we can forget about a Big Rip because the complete entropy of the rip would be defeated by the infinite landscape of the greater universe.

That would make the universe capable of continuing to support life forever, and would also imply that it has always existed and probably then would have always supported life.

[kaneda]

You don't agree with the concept that quantum mechanics results in perturbations due to quantum fluctuations?

Even on that level, they would be incredibly small and just about balance out as in the heads and tails. It would need the BB to expand into a previously existant universe for such large scale structure to exist so quickly. As i have already pointed out, if you do not have heavy elements form because everything is packed in so tightly (that it should collapse into a black hole), then expansion should stop simple elements like hydrogen forming.

'Light' is the correct term. Light either means 'electromagnetic radiation' or it means 'something which doesn't have a lot of weight'. Clearly from the context of the discussion it wasn't the latter.

You were caught out. Stop whining.

1. You ignored my challenge you show you have working knowledge in physics.

Neither do you. You just quote what people can find on internet sites. Big deal. Don't wear out your search engine.

2. Working in theoretical physics doesn't require you prove your area exists before hand. That's why it's called 'theoretical' and not 'practical'.

You reckon I can get a job trying to prove Santa exists in theoretical physics? Pull the other one. It's got strings on.

And you ignored my previous discussions about having physicists predict things before they are seen. Dirac predicted antimatter before it was seen. Did he swindle people? Einstein predicted time dilation and gravitational deflection of photons before they were seen. Did he swindle people? You continue to construct straw men.

The Wright brothers predicted flying machines before they flew. Arthur C Clarke predicted satellite communication, etc. Mystic Meg predicts all the time. Your point?

Now can you show where you have working quantitative knowledge of physics or not?

I don't think I could show you it was Monday today. You have your own ideas and refuse to listen to anyone else who doesn't agree with them.

Try to read and understand what I said. You initially claimed it would be exactly 50/50. I explained it only tends to 50/50. You then changed your tune and agreed it would tend to 50/50. And you are unable to admit you changed your claim.
Feel free to reread your own posts to check.

As I have not flipped a coin a few trillion times, I cannot be 100% certain, but neither can you. We know that the larger the sample, the closer to 100% At such a large number, it should be 100%.

Besides, aren't you the guy who creates strawmen all the time? Who avoids answering direct questions like "Where have you demonstrated you have quantitative knowledge of physics?" and "Where's your original work?". Feel free to dodge them, again.

You answer none of my questions so why should I answer yours? At least I don't start ranting because you have a different opinion to mine, like some people I could name.

Why is it only ignoramouses who constantly use the term "straw men". Straw for brains?

Are cranks always wrong? No. Besides, the fact flipping coins a lot doesn't mean you'll get a certain result with 100% chance is so simple even Walter understood it. Shame you didn't.
I hbave answered that question many times.

I suppose you must be right some times so I'll have to admit you could be right once in a blue moon. However if I want someone to back me up, I have never been desperate enough to use someone I consider to be a crank.

24 hours in a day :
I sleep for 6~8 hours
16 hours left
I eat, shower, shave and **** for 2 hours a day
14 left
I work for between 1 and 8 hours a day
At least 6 hours left

Do you teleport yourself between home and class? Do you never do anything else with your time? No TV? Pub? No life.

You do as little as one hour in class? It shows.

6~13 hours left, within which I can post, if I wanted to, hundreds of times. I can type between 50 and 100 words a minute depending on the topic, the time and my level of sleep. I don't have to keep referring to websites or books because the stuff I post to correct you and others on this website is so simple I remember it all.

You don't have to take time to think either because you just parrot the work of others.

PhDs are pretty laid back. Just this last week I went home Friday~Monday and went out 2 of those evenings, didn't sleep and thus wiped out 96 hours. Does it mean I'm behind on my PhD? Not a chance! My supervisor is on holiday for a month. I'm the only guy in my office. I've not seen my other supervisor in 3 weeks. Bags of time.

Again this explains why you parrot stuff so much.

I'm still waiting for you to debunk all the evidence I provided about who I am and what I do. You just seem to ignore it. Got something to hide?
No back tracking. Just having to explain to you basic quantum mechanics. Besides, how many physicists do you converse with each day. I converse with a fair few professors a week. When talking to one of my supervisors, when I say something like "And it emits a few particles like mesons" he doesn't correct me with "You mean the mesons are travelling as waves and are emitted in discrete packets", there's an unspoken understanding between people who do understand it what various things mean. The people who nitpick over such things are typically those who don't work in such areas and are desperate to show they have just a tiny tiny bit of understanding.

What evidence? Get some sleep. You're having delusions.

Nitpicking as in getting something right? Such sloppy work. No wonder if the people who teach you are the same: So lots of lumps come out of this radioactive whatchacallit and there's some wavey stuff too.

If you're so knowledgable, go over to the maths and physics forum and prove people like myself and BenTheMan wrong in a technical discussion. I have nothing to hide.

Why, when I can do it here? You mean technical as in this is what we say and if you say it's wrong, you are wrong. Show me how one dimensional strings can bend. Let's see the photos.

You mean the $250,000 claim of Hovind? If you bothered to look it up you'd find it asks for proof of the BB too. Infact, number 1 on his list is

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

So you proved that did you? I'm not babbling incoherently when a simple Google brings up Hovind's challenge and the first point boils down to "Prove the Big Bang". You're blaiming me for you not having read it.

I think Hovind must have been proved wrong so often that he expanded the original offer. A bit like you.

Strawman. The existence of strings is independent of wether I'm a PhD student or not.

Today's word is strawman. That is strawwww mannn! Got it. Straw man! Learn a new word, OmegaNumeric. The old one is long past it's sell by date.

Hypersphere? That was Nick's clap trap. Are you having trouble remembering that far back? Maybe that explains why you don't remember all the evidence I post backing up who I am and what I do? ;)

Perhaps you would like to quote something from an internet site showing how expansion works without using a hypersphere? Then again, I don't think you understand it, which is why Nick had to keep pointing it out to you and you just babbled to make it look like you knew what you were talking about.

I judge people by their posts and not what they claim. I have found educated people can go beyond their particular field, that they can extrapolate and speculate. You have never, ever done this. A smart 12 year old with an internet search engine could post what you have done. You are redundant here, just useful for answering questions from people who are too lazy to use a search engine to find out for themselves what the official opinion is.


Still :shrug: and :bawl:

[kaneda]

Maybe space was already there when the expansion began and when the CMBR was emitted :eek:.


A number of BB problems would be solved if there has been a previous universe which didn't fully collapse before it expanded again.

[quantum_wave]

A number of BB problems would be solved if there has been a previous universe which didn't fully collapse before it expanded again.This is true. That is what you and I understand and what I tried to show with my few posts on this thread.

Anyone who won't acknowledge that a greater universe exists surrounding our expanding observable universe is pretty much stuck in BBT. Probably a good place for them given its eventually outcome :).

[AlphaNumeric]

Even on that level, they would be incredibly small and just about balance out as in the heads and tails.No, overall they tend to sum to zero, like heads and tails go to 50/50, but locally you'd get perturbations, just like tossing a coin twice isn't going to give you 50/50 heads and tails all the time.
You were caught out. Stop whining. I wasn't caught out. As explained, you were pointlessly whiny about an issue which wasn't actually an issue.

You stop whining ;)
Neither do you. You just quote what people can find on internet sites. Big deal. Don't wear out your search engine.Still ignoring all the evidence I provided I'm an actual PhD student.
You reckon I can get a job trying to prove Santa exists in theoretical physics? Pull the other one. It's got strings on.Strawman. You don't seem to be able to avoid them!
The Wright brothers predicted flying machines before they flew. Arthur C Clarke predicted satellite communication, etc. Mystic Meg predicts all the time. Your point?So other people predicting things is okay but physicists shouldn't?
I don't think I could show you it was Monday today. You have your own ideas and refuse to listen to anyone else who doesn't agree with them.Hypocrisy overload! :eek:
As I have not flipped a coin a few trillion times, I cannot be 100% certain, but neither can you. We know that the larger the sample, the closer to 100% At such a large number, it should be 100%.Why a trillion? Why not 1000?

The probability of getting 2 trillion heads in a row is 2^{-2 \textrm{ trillion}}. That isn't zero. I posted the probability of getting 1 trillion-1 heads, it's non-zero.

As I explained to you, the law of very large numbers only becomes exact when you infinitely many tests. Below that you only get an approximation. Statisticians do this all the time. If you sample n times and get probability p, what's the change you're within q of the 'real probability'? Ask a statistician.

Are you seriously saying that magically, beyond 2 trillion tests all probabilities become exact? That would mean the probability of getting anything other than exact is zero. Which is obviously false.
You answer none of my questions so why should I answer yours? At least I don't start ranting because you have a different opinion to mine, like some people I could name.
You do rant. You continue to maintain I'm a mod on PhysOrg and I banned you. And I do answer your questions. And I post lengthy explanations. Just look back through this thread. I've repeatedly challenged you to do the details of your claims, you refuse. Got something to hide?
Why is it only ignoramouses who constantly use the term "straw men". Straw for brains?
The logic goes like this :

You make a lot of strawmen and plenty of people tell you. You consider anyone who disagrees with you an idiot. Thus you see a lot of idiots telling you make strawmen. Of course you fail to realise the common denominator is you making a lot of strawmen.
Do you teleport yourself between home and class? Do you never do anything else with your time? No TV? Pub? No life.I live 5 minutes walk from campus, though I do the majority of my work at home. I don't have class. I've told you that many times here and PhysOrg. Is your memory so poor or are you deliberately 'forgetting' in an attempt to justify things you know to be lies? I had class for 4 years. Now I learn by reading books, reading papers and talking to professors. And I don't watch TV other than when I'm in the kitchen making food.

And as for the rest of my personal life, I said I've got between 6 and 13 hours a day left. Plenty of time to do things like playing cricket, doing karate, playing golf, going to the gym. Like I said, last week I wiped out 4 days by doing out twice with friends for a lengthy evening/morning.

It's 4.39pm now. I spent 3 hours today helping a fellow student of my supervisor on something she's having trouble with because I'd done something similar in the past. But then I've been up since about 5.30am and before I went into the department at 10am I wrote a Mathematica program for her, added in some graphs to my paper and went through it for typos. And all before I had lunch.

Are you so unfamiliar with time organisation? Or do you think there's only about 4 hours in a day?
You don't have to take time to think either because you just parrot the work of others.
Unsubstaniated claims. Of course if you wish to discuss the details, head over to the physics and maths forum and we can do so. Ben works in a similar area to me so he would be able to tell if what I'd discuss with you is new or not. You can easily check places like ArXiv. Not many people publish in what I do.
Why, when I can do it here? You mean technical as in this is what we say and if you say it's wrong, you are wrong. Show me how one dimensional strings can bend. Let's see the photos.
Nice attempt at asking for evidence noone claims exists. Who said photos of strings exist? You deny things like the wave equation on a string. That's been around since Newton's time. The motion of a photon is one dimensional too. There's considerable applications for 2d field theory to graphene.

Just because you don't understand and are unwilling to learn doesn't make it wrong.
oday's word is strawman. That is strawwww mannn! Got it. Straw man! Learn a new word, OmegaNumeric. The old one is long past it's sell by date.You stop making them, I'll stop pointing them out. Fair?
Perhaps you would like to quote something from an internet site showing how expansion works without using a hypersphere?Expansion is when the a(t) parameter in the FRW metric increases. Inflation is when it's increasing exponentially. The topology of space-time is irrelevent, only that a(t) is increasing so everything in the space-time sees everything else (ignoring bound systems) move away from it.
I have found educated people can go beyond their particular field, that they can extrapolate and speculate. You have never, ever done this.Because I don't discuss my work. You keep refusing to engage me in a discussion on it so I don't post it. If I spammed it here, you'd say it's counting angels on a pin. Catch 22. Either you don't want to see it or you ignore it (and would still claim it's copied and pasted). As I said, I'm down to checking for typos now so it'll be on ArXiv as soon as two guys in Spain publish their work (which mine generalises).
ou are redundant here, just useful for answering questions from people who are too lazy to use a search engine to find out for themselves what the official opinion is.And despite you saying stuff about the BB is so easy to find, why do I keep having to correct you.

You didn't know about the perturbation description. I had to tell you. And you think that tossing two trillion coins will get exactly 50:50 every time. If you knew high school stats you'd know otherwise. I did mention the law of large numbers but obviously you didn't go look it up.

Every time you say "All you post can be found online" you prove you don't bother to look. And thus you're dishonest when it comes to your claims about mainstream because you make little or no effort to check if your claims hold water. Which they always seem not to.

[quantum_wave]

Of course the primary pillar of the Big Bang Theory is General Relativity. It is a thing of beauty in its ability to explain the movement of objects in spacetime and to predict those movements. It features the coupling of space and time, it describes mass in terms of its energy equivalent, and it uses the curvature of spacetime associated with mass to define the effect of gravity and predict the movements of objects in space.

It is a mathematical model that tracks the Big Bang universe from the instant after the Big Bang until now and into the future as far as you might want to go. It can be described as a co-moving coordinate system that displays the inflation of the universe as new space is added to the universe as it expands.

I have supported BBT as the standard cosmology and have supported it being taught as part of a student’s basic science education. I also pointed out that it was the best science could do with the current evidence and without speculating about as yet undiscovered physics. But I also support teaching it as theory and mentioning alternative theories.

In that regard I made three recent posts on this thread about the pillars of Big Bang Theory where I suggested alternatives. I pointed out an alternative to the creation of new space and that there is a possibility that space already existed before the big bang occurred. I mentioned that suggestion combined with the finite nature of our expanding universe and keeping the cosmological principle intact suggests that the greater universe could be infinite and cosmologically flat with a lambda of 1, and could be filled with a potentially infinite number of arenas similar to our own expanding arena.

Now I want to suggest that though the movement of objects under the influence of gravity is almost perfectly described by General Relativity, the movement of objects in space does not require space and time to be coupled and it does not require the fabric of spacetime to be warped by mass.

How can I be so audacious? It is easy. Objects move through space as if space was curved by mass. But if gravity reaches across space to affect distant objects, those objects would also move as if space was curved because gravity travels at near the speed of light and by the time it reaches and effects distant objects, the source object has changed location.

This results in a curved effect between observed objects caused by gravity waves that travel as expanding spherical waves. The wave reaches the object and gives it a little tug toward the location that the first object occupied when the wave was emitted. An instant later the next wave reaches the object and gives it a little tug toward a slightly different location that was occupied by the first object as the second wave was emitted an instant after the first wave. Follow this procedure over time and you will get a curved movement of objects due to their relative movement and the propagation speed of spherical gravity waves, not due to the warped fabric of spacetime.

Quantum scientists are looking hard for the Higgs boson and a Higgs field that would convey the force of gravity across space but they aren’t claiming that the discovery of the boson will change the way we calculate the effect of gravity. I expect we will be using Einstein’s field equations for that purpose for a long time.

But the discovery of the Higgs boson or some other cause of gravity and field will add a feature to the universe that has been discounted since the Michelson–Morley experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment).

That feature is referred to as aether, or a gravity field or energy background to the universe across which gravity waves can travel. If they find it the implications are that though General Relativity has done a fine job of describing the effect of gravity, it was wrong about the coupling of spacetime and the warping of the spacetime fabric by mass.

Mass and gravity will become linked by the gravity waves emitted by mass as a characteristic of mass itself and not as a characteristic of curved spacetime. And at the same time the incompatibility issue between quantum mechanics and General Relativity will be resolved in favor of quantum mechanics.

[kaneda]

You've become a bore AlphaNumeric and I have gotten tired of showing where you are wrong, so see no point in catering to your delusions.

[AlphaNumeric]

More likely you're backed into a corner. I've shown I've got plenty of time to work and do as I wish. I've shown that probabilities don't magically become exact when you get to some large number you picked. I've shown that despite your claim everything I say can be found easily online, you don't know most of it. I've shown you cannot point to a single example of you doing physics. I've shown you are wrong about physicists trying to brush things under the rug to support 'the status quo'.

So you're not tired of showing me wrong, you're tired of being shown wrong.

Tell me, at how many tests do probabilities become exact? If I keep tossing coins when does it become exactly 50/50 from that point on? 100 tosses? 1000? A million? A billion? You say it's happened by 2 trillion, is it exactly at 2 trillion or does it happen before? How do you know? Why does every statistic theorem say otherwise? Why is it when you compute what binomial statistics (ie the stats of events with 2 possible outcomes) says about the matter, it contradicts you?

And I'm still waiting for your calculations on how inflation cannot explain the light element distribution we observe, when every published paper on the matter says otherwise. Do you not have the calculations to back up your claims?

And why do you continue to avoid refuting the plethora of evidence I've provided I'm a PhD student. You keep claiming I can't do anything original but my job says otherwise.

So much for showing I'm wrong. :rolleyes:

[Reiku]

Oh shut the fuck up.

[Reiku]

You've become a bore AlphaNumeric and I have gotten tired of showing where you are wrong, so see no point in catering to your delusions.
Look, he's just out for what billy called, ''a pissing contest.''

[quantum_wave]

So here is the cause of the Big Bang; but of course if there was a cause of the Big Bang then we will have to rename Big Bang Theory. The new name will have to represent a cosmology that enables our big bang universe but which also explains the “before” and “beyond” the Big Bang.

But first, why do I think the Big Bang even had or needed a cause?

It is not so much that Big Bang Theory doesn't mention the cause, which it doesn't. It is more that the law of inertia requires a force to set the universe into motion. So I think the expansion that we observe needed a force. That force seems to have been applied to whatever composed our arena which is now the observable universe. It was a force that occurred before BBT picks up and goes into inflation and nucleosynthesis.

General Relativity Theory, a pillar of BBT, backtracks to a zero volume universe if you go back 13.7 billion years ago. And if you consider the mass and energy now displayed in the observable universe you have to realize that it would have all been contained in that zero volume of space. That means that GR implies a start point of zero volume and infinite density that is referred to as a singularity.

It is called a singularity because the math, and GR is a mathematical model, fails at the start point. That is why BBT starts the instant after that singularity would have come into our “look back”. The theory calls it an event horizon and we just can't look back to before that point in time using GR or BBT as described by Sean Carroll in this blog at Cosmic Variance (http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/).


Many possibilities have been explored. The most believable are models that deal with a universe before the big bang as one of decreasing entropy. Without some unforeseen changes, the entropy of our current known universe follows the arrow of time forward to complete entropy where there is no useful energy left and life and circumstances as we know them have long since dissolved into an infinite fineness, referred to as a de Sitter universe (Note: De Sitter, one of Einstein's associates, predicted dark matter and developed a solution to Einstein's field equations that assumed a universe with a positive expansion and only dark matter.)

One possibility mentioned by Carroll is Quantum Loop Gravity (LQG). The math of LQG, one of the reverse entropy models with math that describes a universe before the Big Bang, is able to avoid the singularity of General Relativity Theory by defining a finite universe at the instant of the big bang. This approach describes a big "bounce" that marks the end of a period of reverse entropy that preceded our expanding universe.

Critics argue that this bounce either seems too convenient or too inconvenient as interpreted from Sean Carroll's response to a blog at Bad Astronomy by Phil Plait (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/). I include his quote below but first, the important thing about LQG is the math that accomplishes the astonishing feat of surviving the singularity produced by the math of GR. The disappointing thing about this reverse entropy model is the uncertainty about what such a prior universe might be like.

I didn't use the word uncertainty just to imply that we aren't sure, which of course we are not. I used the word uncertainty because it appears that the reason Carroll and I'm sure others have trouble with the reverse entropy cosmologies in general and LQG in particular is because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) which has become a pillar of modern quantum mechanics.

Maybe it is necessary to explain the quantum realm; I see how it could block the road to reason beyond BBT.

It blocks the vary reasoning that we will need more than ever to work our way back into the reverse entropy models. It threatens to apply that same road block that BBT applied for several decades that kept science from breaking the Big Bang singularity barrier to reach reverse entropy models. It says that by breaking the singularity barrier we enter a universe that existed before our universe and concludes that because of the uncertainty principle applied to the bounce point of minimum entropy, we cannot be sure of anything about what such a prior universe might be like. Sounds the same as we heard from BBT, "Why talk about before the Big Bang since we can't know anything about it due to the event horizon", doesn't it?

In Quantum Wave Cosmology the cause of the Big Bang was the burst of a big crunch. Does that make QWC a reverse entropy model? Yes. But that does not mean that QWC is disappointing like the LQG model as described by Sean Carroll. I mentioned this comment above, "The real problem with all such models is that, from the point of view of the other side of the bounce, the entropy is decreasing as the universe collapses, which seems crazily finely-tuned. Either that, or the entropy is at a minimum at the bounce, for no especially good reason. Singularities are going to have to be resolved somehow, but reality is likely to be quite a bit more complicated than simple bounce models."

That is why Quantum Wave Cosmology exists. It solves the entropy problem without being fine tuned at all in the sense of what causes the collapse into a big crunch. And there is good reason why entropy at the bounce is at a minimum. QWC is not a simple bounce model, and not simply a reverse entropy model.

So this is where I scrap that particular application of the Uncertainty Principle. This is where I let reasonable and responsible speculation take over from it. This is where we go not "before" the Big Bang, not back into a "prior" universe, but out into the greater universe of Quantum Wave Cosmology within which our expanding universe is just a tiny and temporary arena in a greater universe, an infinite universe that has always existed.

[kaneda]

So much for showing I'm wrong. :rolleyes:


The trouble with dealing with creationists, even scientific creationists is that the moment you get bored with proving them wrong, they claim it is a victory.

You're still a loser OmegaNumeric.

[kaneda]

And I'm still waiting for your calculations on how inflation cannot explain the light element distribution we observe, when every published paper on the matter says otherwise. Do you not have the calculations to back up your claims?

And why do you continue to avoid refuting the plethora of evidence I've provided I'm a PhD student. You keep claiming I can't do anything original but my job says otherwise.

So much for showing I'm wrong. :rolleyes:


Real world evidence for inflation?

Real world evidence that you have done anything new?

[AlphaNumeric]

Real world evidence for inflation?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation#Observational_status

I thought you said this stuff was easy to find online? So why haven't you found it?
The trouble with dealing with creationists, even scientific creationists is that the moment you get bored with proving them wrong, they claim it is a victory.Is it too much to ask for you to tell me at what point probabilities become exact? Is it 100 coin tosses? 1000? 10^{6}? When?
Real world evidence that you have done anything new?
As I said, I'll be publishing within the month. But if you want to discuss things, head over to the physics and maths forum. I keep offering to discuss things with you, you keep running away.

You have yet to debunk the evidence I provided to prove I'm a PhD student. You also have yet to show you can do any physics. For instance, you claimed inflation cannot account for the light elements in the universe. Where's your evidence?
You're still a loser OmegaNumeric. You can keep saying that all you like. The fact remains you have yet to back up your claims. Must be sad being inferior in physics to such a loser like me ;)

[kaneda]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation#Observational_status

I thought you said this stuff was easy to find online? So why haven't you found it?

The first line of the wiki link says it is an idea. It is there to make the BB idea work. It is like saying that the Earth was created for mankind. So, any real world evidence?

Is it too much to ask for you to tell me at what point probabilities become exact? Is it 100 coin tosses? 1000? 10^{6}? When?
As I said, I'll be publishing within the month. But if you want to discuss things, head over to the physics and maths forum. I keep offering to discuss things with you, you keep running away.

When samples are large enough, inconsistencies should be ironed out. Pretty much like the chaos idea which is ying and yang on a small scale.

I have been to the physics and math forum and found lots of UNSUPPORTED IDEAS there. Space is full of 1D strings. Oh really? Evidence is.....well it sounds good.

Who's running away, burger boy? All I see is your dust and the yellow streak on your back turning red from the speed you are running away.

You have yet to debunk the evidence I provided to prove I'm a PhD student. You also have yet to show you can do any physics.

You have yet to prove you can do any physics. A 12 year old could parrot as you do.

Get someone to explain my answers to you, like Nick. Maybe he can make them simple enough?

For instance, you claimed inflation cannot account for the light elements in the universe. Where's your evidence?

Simple hydrogen atoms are moving apart too fast to form stars. If you say they are close enough to do so, then they are all close enough to and so will form a black hole. Since matter was supposedly created in the first millionth of a second, it is sheer nonsense to believe that expansion could continue.

Where's the evidence you have ever thought for yourself?

You can keep saying that all you like. The fact remains you have yet to back up your claims. Must be sad being inferior in physics to such a loser like me ;)

Again, ask Nick to explain some science to you. All you can do is quote the work of others so you are just having more delusions that you know some physics (other than as a parrot does).

Alpha wanna cracker?

[kaneda]

Another question you RAN AWAY from. You have a whole universe of matter formed at 10^-6 second. At what point is it big enough to avoid collapsing into a black hole?

Clue. At supposedly 158 billion light years across, it is close to the point where it might collapse, despite dark energy.

[AlphaNumeric]

I provided plenty of evidence of physorg forum and because you were proved wrong so often, you chucked me off. Must be tough here, not being able to do that to those who disagree with you.Yet more unfounded paranoid delusions.

If I'm a mod there, why don't I ban StevenA, when my views of him are explained in the last paragraph here (http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=22635&view=findpost&p=363493)? He's even worse than you. You're clearly a liar, he's more insidious.

And if you kept proving me wrong, why can't you do it here, why do you keep avoiding my challenges to debunk my evidence I am who I say I am, why do you keep avoiding discussing physics, why are you unable to point to a single post of yours where you do actual physics, why do you keep demonstrating ignorance in things you whine about and why do you continue to tell such transparent lies?
Another question you RAN AWAY fromNice hypocrisy. You ran away from my request you back up your claims about inflation being unable to explain light elements. You ran away from my challenge to discuss my work. You run away from any request you post a link to a post of yours where you do physics.

I've provided evidence to back up my claims. You just post denial. Go on, prove me wrong.

[AlphaNumeric]

The first line of the wiki link says it is an idea. It is there to make the BB idea work. It is like saying that the Earth was created for mankind. So, any real world evidence?It's an idea with evidence. Just like gravity is an idea. A theory is a model which has experimental validation. Gravity, evolution, the big bang.

Or are you going to go down the creationist path of not understanding basic terminology and concepts in science?
When samples are large enough, inconsistencies should be ironed out. That's the law of large numbers I mentioned. That doesn't mean probabilities become exact at some finite number of samples, which is what you claimed.

You're changing your story because you know you're wrong and you cannot bend what you said. Probabilities become exact in the limit of your number of samples going to infinity. At any finite number of samples you have a non-zero probability of your sampling mean being different from your theoretical mean.

You said it would be exact. I asked you to tell me at what number of samples it would become exact. You avoided answering that direct question. And yet you complain I run from things! :rolleyes:
Who's running away, burger boy? All I see is your dust and the yellow streak on your back turning red from the speed you are running away.How am I running? I asked you a question, you quoted it but didn't answer it. Why? Because you know that if you answered it you'd have to admit you're wrong.

Every step of the way I provide back up to my claims. You provide "Because I say so" and hypocrisy.
You have yet to prove you can do any physics. A 12 year old could parrot as you do.So I just got a degree and a masters and onto a PhD because I can't do physics?

If it's so easy to do what I can do, it shouldn't take you long to do a few questions I had as homework years ago. Come on, let's see you put your physics where your mouth is.

Here (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft.html) is a link to the lecture notes I had for quantum field theory. At the bottom are the homework sheets for the course. I'll give you 24 hours to do say ..... 3 of them. If a 12 year old can use lecture notes to do the questions, you shouldn't have any problems.

Mind you, you are implying that given lecture notes anyone can pass any exam in anything without effort. Can I assume you got the top first in your university? Do you?
Simple hydrogen atoms are moving apart too fast to form stars. If you say they are close enough to do so, then they are all close enough to and so will form a black hole. Since matter was supposedly created in the first millionth of a second, it is sheer nonsense to believe that expansion could continue.Calculations? All I see if "Because I say so". You need to back up your claims, not just repeat them.

You do understand how science is about justifying claims, right? You didn't believe me about being a PhD student so I provided evidence. I don't believe your claims, so now it's your turn.
Where's the evidence you have ever thought for yourself?For what must be the 4th or 5th time, head over to the maths and physics forum and we can talk about my work. And as I've said, I'll be publishing my work in this coming month.
Get someone to explain my answers to you, But noone else here believes you either...

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. Gravity, yes. Evolution, yes. Big bang is just guesswork as is many of it's tenets.

Science is supposed to be factual and not guesswork.

Again you babble about numbers and run away from any answer I give. what's new?

I have asked a number of questions here which you totally ignored. Keep running.

Still babbling about working for a PhD in the hopes that it might make anything you say worth reading.

You are happy to believe in strings without any real world evidence. Double standards.

From what I saw of the maths and physics forum, lots of guesswork but no evidence.

No one believes me either? You admit they do not believe you?

[kaneda]

Steven A2 is a new poster. You can hardly give him 5 warnings because he has seen through you and exposed your lack of knowledge like so many others before him. People will guess if you do it too many times.

You are blathering again, AN. After you won an argument against me, solved the world's food and fuel problems, what did you do next?

I thought you would be at Beijing in the Olympics. Show you an argument where you are proved wrong yet again and another gold for Britain in the running events!

[kaneda]

Another question you RAN AWAY from. You have a whole universe of matter formed at 10^-6 second. At what point is it big enough to avoid collapsing into a black hole?

Clue. At supposedly 158 billion light years across, it is close to the point where it might collapse, despite dark energy.


Your answer is......running away.

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric. Gravity, yes. Evolution, yes. Big bang is just guesswork as is many of it's tenets.It explains a lot of facts. Just like QM or relativity or electromagnetism or Newtonian physics or fluid mechanics or statistical physics do.
Again you babble about numbers and run away from any answer I give. what's new?.How have I run away? I addressed your 'answer', explained why it's wrong and asked you to explain the implications of your claims. Which you
run away from.

Why do you tell lies which are clear to anyone reading the thread?
I have asked a number of questions here which you totally ignored. Keep running.Which ones?

I've asked you to provide evidence for your claims. Where is it? Why are you happy to complain I don't address your questions when you ignore mine?
Still babbling about working for a PhD in the hopes that it might make anything you say worth reading.It proves I can do physics because the people who do physics have seen I am able to do physics well enough to be given some qualifications in it.

Where's your evidence you can do physics? Tell me, did you do a physics degree? A direct question you have previously ignored : : Where have you demonstrated you grasp mainstream physics on a working level? Please provide a link to such a post of yours.
You are happy to believe in strings without any real world evidence. Double standards.Another direct question you have previously ignored : How is it double standards for people in physics to work on theories which predict things? I have given you examples in the past (and present) of people believing in predictions of their theories. Antimatter, time dilation, red shifting, the third family in the SM, photon-photon scattering. Heck, even the behaviour of Halley's comet! Are you saying was unscientific of those people to develop theories which predicted previously unseen phenomena?
From what I saw of the maths and physics forum, lots of guesswork but no evidence.Then why don't you join in and start providing evidence for your claims? I keep asking you to provide evidence for your claim that inflation cannot explain light elements but that's another direct question you have previously ignored..

Besides, maths isn't about guess work. You do understand how it works, right?
No one believes me either? You admit they do not believe you? People do believe me. Hence why I have so many unique positive feedbacks on PhysOrg. Hence why I'm paid by professors to teach quantum mechanics to undergraduates. Hence why I'm associated with Cambridge University's online teaching group for maths and physics. Hence why I have a degree and masters.

Feel free to start a poll asking who people thing says more viable maths and physics, you or me. I have nothing to fear. Particularly in maths, you don't post anything to do with maths. Nor quantitative physics.

Now I've asked you three direct questions, which I've asked you previously. Are you going to answer them or are you going to continue with your hypocrisy?
Steven A2 is a new poster. You can hardly give him 5 warnings because he has seen through you and exposed your lack of knowledge like so many others before him. People will guess if you do it too many times.
It's StevenA's new account. He openly says he's got a new account because, apparently, he's lost his email account for his main one.

And why haven't I banned waste of bandwidths like Ubonatuva, DavidD, Precursor, Farsight and Sylwester? I wonder how they, like you, can function in society with all their delusions and beliefs in their divine knowledge.
You are blathering again, ANThis is your typical excuse to avoid addressing anything I said. For instance, you claimed in another thread that people were jumping ship from String theory. I listed well known string theorists who are still in the research area and you said this (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1959789&postcount=24). You ignored my question "So who has jumped ship?" and you ignored my evidence you were wrong.
Your answer is......running away.I've given you an answer many times. It's not my fault you don't understand it. The answer is :

It was always expanding fast enough that the material in small enough regions to otherwise collapse into a black hole was expanding fast enough not to be in casual contact. It would only collapse is gravity could pull the material together in a collapse. If gravity couldn't connect the material then it wouldn't collapse.

You seem to have problems understanding this, despite having asked it many times and me having explained it many times. Shall I type slower so you can keep up? Try asking your buddy Nick, though I'm certain he doesn't understand either. Now what about that don't you grasp, because I'm happy to explain it if you make the effort to understand. I have nothing to hide.

Just like I have nothing to hidfe about discussing my research with you but you're unwilling to take up my offer. And then you complain I am not talking about my research, despite it being your fault!

[EndLightEnd]

Shall I type slower so you can keep up?

You typing slower doesnt change the speed he reads.:bugeye:

[kaneda]

AlpghaNumeric. Creation explains how everything got here but that does not mean it is correct.

You have shown that you do not understand odds and large numbers. Lies are probably the nearest you have ever come to originality.

Ignored: Matter created within the first millionth of a second of the big bang. You have failed to explain why it did not collapse into a black hole. Where you running off to? I just pointed out one of the questions you did not answer?

You just quote accepted physics. As I have pointed out with you for years now, you have nothing original and a smart kid with a search engine could do just as well. A PhD STUDENT should be able to do something original, from what they have learned. You cannot.

You have discovered how to use the colour red. Who says you are wasting your time on this forum? Did you know there are other colours besides red? All the same colours as your crayons.

You just deny all my posts like the good little creationist you are, so a waste of time trying to prove anything to you since you will just deny it. Or run away.

I ask you for evidence of strings and you tell me it's something I have ignored. Does it get any worse than this?

Predictions are known for what they are afterwards, after something is discovered. Talk of fairies and they do not appear and that is not predictions. No evidence of strings. Fairy tales for grown ups.

You ask me for evidence but can provide none yourself. Double standards!

Creationists use maths to prove that life cannot have come from inanimate chemicals. Maths means nothing unless it can show a provable result and with strings, it cannot.

Physorg is full of nasty little crawlers where each of you give each other positives in return for positives back and bullies like yourself give out negatives. People even use aliases to give themselves positives (your refusal to do this with your Euler identity while laudable was a bit of a giveaway).

Since all teachers have to do is repeat the accepted norm, you are ideally suited for the job. AN wanna cracker?

I prefer theory rather than mathsworld. Theory is new stuff. Why are you running away?

What you post is what others have taught you. Nothing new. Most of it can be found quickly with a search engine, which makes you irrelevant on forums.

Your 3 questions are delusions, but what else from such a meagre mind? When you have an ability to understand instead of just parrot, then you will know why you are wrong.

I don't know anything about physorg since you had me banned from there for disagreeing with you so cannot comment on others.

I don't know where to start with such a poor mind. I have SAID that some people left string theory because they realised it was a scientific dead end. First up on my search engine turned up a Guardian article (now on psudoscience which is where strings belong) which backed this up, showing that I am correct. You listed people still in the field. At no time have I said that 100% of people have left the field and I have recognised that work is still being done in the field. You are still in denial that anyone has left that scientific dead end of a field, or did all the newspapers lie? You have provided NO evidence that I am wrong and a simple use of a search engine will provide evidence that you are lying yet again.

Creationists have given me answers too and I don't understand them either. Nonsense has that effect on me.

Expanding in small regions? What utter rubbish! If a creationist came out with such JUNK first, scientists would have laughed at him. There is no bias in a BB, so matter and expansion would naturally be uniform.

Explain how the BB occurs without using a hypersphere. Then give me evidence for a hypersphere. Why are you running away? I see. Another question you can't answer.

The typing slower joke was old four decades ago when I first heard it but then again, I don't expect you to come out with anything new. That is like expecting a parrot to write a new Shakespeare play. You have explained nothing and your poor posts can hide nothing. They reveal all about you.

[AlphaNumeric]

You have shown that you do not understand odds and large numbers. Lies are probably the nearest you have ever come to originality.You ignored my questions about at what point probabilities become exact. You claim it happens at less than 2 trillion samples. So when is it?

I linked you to 'The law of very large numbers', which explains that sampling probabilities tend to the actual probability as the sample number goes to infinity. You have contradicted yourself by saying that at 2 trillion probabilities are exact and changing your claim to "As you do more samples the odds even out". The former is wrong, the latter is what the law of very large numbers states.

So the lies are yours.
gnored: Matter created within the first millionth of a second of the big bang. You have failed to explain why it did not collapse into a black hole. Where you running off to? I just pointed out one of the questions you did not answer?I point you to my last post where I said "It was always expanding fast enough that the material in small enough regions to otherwise collapse into a black hole was expanding fast enough not to be in casual contact. It would only collapse is gravity could pull the material together in a collapse. If gravity couldn't connect the material then it wouldn't collapse."

Why do you tell such transparent lies?

You just quote accepted physics. As I have pointed out with you for years now, you have nothing original and a smart kid with a search engine could do just as well. A PhD STUDENT should be able to do something original, from what they have learned. You cannot.What I have to keep correcting you on isn't an attempt to provide you with original research.

How many times have I offered to discuss my research with you? Why do you refuse to discuss it with me?
You have discovered how to use the colour red. Who says you are wasting your time on this forum? Did you know there are other colours besides red? All the same colours as your crayons.
It's a way of highlighting direct questions. You claim I ignore your questions but you ignore each question I ask, so now I highlight them to make it obvious to everyone what you're ignoring.
I ask you for evidence of strings and you tell me it's something I have ignored. Does it get any worse than this?
No, I directly replied to that question with "There isn't any". You lie yet again.
You ask me for evidence but can provide none yourself. Double standards!
I make a claim about inflation, I provide evidence. You make a claim about inflation, you cannot. There's the double standards. I've never claimed there was evidence for strings. Point me to a post where I have said otherwise.
What you post is what others have taught you. Nothing new. Most of it can be found quickly with a search engine, which makes you irrelevant on forums.I've offered to discuss my work with you many times. You don't want to discuss it.

And if what I post is irrelevant, why do you keep showing you don't know it?
I don't know anything about physorg since you had me banned from there for disagreeing with you so cannot comment on others.Evidence I banned you?
I don't know where to start with such a poor mind. I have SAID that some people left string theory because they realised it was a scientific dead end. First up on my search engine turned up a Guardian article (now on psudoscience which is where strings belong) which backed this up, showing that I am correct. You listed people still in the field. At no time have I said that 100% of people have left the field and I have recognised that work is still being done in the field. You are still in denial that anyone has left that scientific dead end of a field, or did all the newspapers lie? You have provided NO evidence that I am wrong and a simple use of a search engine will provide evidence that you are lying yet again.I provided evidence that the people who built string theory are still there. You provided a newspaper article which doesn't name anyone. Newspapers aren't very reliable. How many times have they posted things like "The BB explains the universe!", which you disagree with. Or "String theory, the theory of everything!", which you disagree with. You are using a reference source where you pick and choose what to accept.
Expanding in small regions? What utter rubbish! So it's wrong because you don't understand it, don't try to understand it and don't want to understand it? How open minded of you.
Explain how the BB occurs without using a hypersphere. Then give me evidence for a hypersphere. Why are you running away? I see. Another question you can't answer. Wait, so I'm supposed to explain why the BB doesn't need a hypersphere then explain why there's evidence against my answer? Do you even read your own questions?!

Do you understand that there's more than one 4 dimensional closed shape? 4-spheres are just the simplest example. To give you an easy to understand example, consider 2 dimensional objects. There's a 2-sphere, which is the surface of a ball. There's what is known as a simply connected Riemannian surface. Then there's a torus, a doughnut shape, which has a hole in it. Then there's a doughnut with 2 holes. 3 holes, 4 holes. So in 2 dimensions, there's infinitely many closed (closed meaning it's of finite size with no edge) objects. In 3 dimensions there's even more. In 4 dimensions there's even more again. There's a lot of differential geometry research about such things. The simplest examples are 4-tori, which are tori in 4 dimensions, the direct product of 4 circles (just like a doughnut is the direct product of 2 circles). I happen to do research into 6 dimensional tori. And a HUGE quantity of research goes into other 6 dimensional closed objects in string theory, the Calabi Yau shapes. 4 dimensional Calabi Yaus are known as K3 spaces.

So the universe can be build on any of those 4 dimensional shapes.
The typing slower joke was old four decades ago when I first heard it but then again, I don't expect you to come out with anything new. That is like expecting a parrot to write a new Shakespeare play. You have explained nothing and your poor posts can hide nothing. They reveal all about you.They reveal I have nothing to hide, I am well read, I offer to discuss my work with you and I can do quantitative physics. Your posts reveal you're a liar, delusional, ignorant and too scared to discuss my work with me and then whine about how there's no discussion of my work.

Tell you what, I'll write up a bit of my work for people to understand and then I'll post it in the physics and maths discussion. You can join if you want. When I did it on PhysOrg, none of the cranks could discuss it with me, it was too complicated and they all ran from actual research. I bet you do the same or just post "It's string theory so it's wrong".

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. To quote an example (wiki), 1000 flips produces 520 heads. 10,000 flips produce 5,096 heads so from 52% to under 51% (the wiki idiot claimed that 51% is larger than 52%). If you want to prove it and attest it to a lawyer that you flipped a coin two trillion times and it did not come out to exactly one trillion heads and one trillion tails, I will pay you £1,000. Easy money to prove me wrong. Or you can continue lying.

You did not answer my question but gave a response only an idiot would believe. Material expanding in regions of space? Even if this fairy tale nonsense were true, the whole lot is limited by light speed, as in the Hubble constant for the whole universe, so how big was the universe after the first millionth of a second? Answer it instead of running away.

Why should I care about your research where you have parroted the works of others, AlphaUnoriginal?

If red is for highlighting, then I could highlight my whole post to show where you have deliberately ignored things, lied and ran away. What a loser you are.

When I asked you in the example you gave, you ignored it and wittered on about a FEW people still working in the field, so ignored my answer. So a distortion to cover up a lie.

There is no evidence for inflation. It is an unproven explanation for an effect so you have provided no evidence. You admit there is no evidence for strings, so you cannot have provided any evidence for strings as you claim. Caught in another lie.

I have seen your posts here, how they 100% lack any spark of originality. Reading your work would be like reading an internet site on the subject concerned since I have never known you to post anything original. So a waste of time.

I have claimed that your posts are irrelevant and you now claim I do not know it (that they are irrelevant). Another new low.

Of course it was just coincidence that after several months there without a single warning, I start debating against you and showing you wrong in front of your mates and suddenly I get 3 uncalled for warnings in the space of 2 weeks. Just pure chance.

Of course the people who started string theory are still working on it as the people who started cold fusion are probably still working on that. They have money coming in to pay the bills so what do they care whether strings are right or wrong? Meanwhile, lots of others have left, believing it is a scientific dead end and that they have wasted their careers on it. Maybe they just have more morals than the creators of strings?

You don't understand how Santa Claus can exist? You don't try to understand and you don't want to understand to use your pompous words. Why should I believe in such blatant nonsense? The BB is science building another Piltdown Man.

Where are the abnormalities in all the different possible 4 physical dimensional shapes you claim the universe may be? How would a 4 physical dimensional hole affect the universe? You could not see across the hole so the universe would not be the same in all directions. How would it be affected by expansion? You are just C&P-ing ideas in the hope that they may fit. The 4D shape must be the same everywhere and cannot have holes in it, corners to it, etc.

What is to discuss about your work? You work in a field you admit you have no evidence for. Like scientists who are paid to lie for creationist organisations, you don't care where the money comes from, even though it has no goal since strings are a scientific dead end. As well as continuously lying, you have no morals. You call me ignorant but are unable to give any answer that cannot be found on an internet site or just doing a bit of maths. You just have a good memory but are a total idiot otherwise, as you continually prove. I called you delusional, so straight away you snatch the phrase and use it against me because you are incapable of thinking of anything new.

It's string theory so it's wrong

It is. You admit there is no evidence for it. You are just using maths to build castles on clouds and show us how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.

Still a loser. :bawl:

[Walter L. Wagner]

AlphaNumeric. To quote an example (wiki), 1000 flips produces 520 heads. 10,000 flips produce 5,096 heads so from 52% to under 51% (the wiki idiot claimed that 51% is larger than 52%). If you want to prove it and attest it to a lawyer that you flipped a coin two trillion times and it did not come out to exactly one trillion heads and one trillion tails, I will pay you £1,000. Easy money to prove me wrong. Or you can continue lying.

In that example, the smaller number of coin tosses [1000] produced an unequal number of heads and tails, with there being 40 more heads than tails [520 heads versus 480 tails; total= 1,000], but the greater discrepancy from 50/50.

The larger number of coin tosses [10,000] produced an unequal number of heads and tails, with there being 192 more heads than tails [5,096 heads versus 4,904 tails; total= 10,000], but the lesser discrepancy from 50/50.

One would conclude that that trend would continue as the number of tosses increased, so that the greater the total number of tosses, the greater the discrepancy between exactly equal numbers of heads and tails, even as the ratio of heads to tails approaches closer to exactly 50/50 [50% vs. 50%].

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric. To quote an example (wiki), 1000 flips produces 520 heads. 10,000 flips produce 5,096 heads so from 52% to under 51% (the wiki idiot claimed that 51% is larger than 52%).That's perfectly in line with the law of large numbers. In the infinite limit, the probabilitles go to 50/50 but in any finite limit there'll, over many different setups, still be variation.

You still haven't told me at what point it becomes exact. 100,000 tests? A million? A billion? When?
You did not answer my question but gave a response only an idiot would believe. Material expanding in regions of space? Even if this fairy tale nonsense were true, the whole lot is limited by light speed, as in the Hubble constant for the whole universe, so how big was the universe after the first millionth of a second? Answer it instead of running away.Simply saying "I don't believe it" and repeating your question doesn't make my answer wrong.
Why should I care about your research where you have parroted the works of others, AlphaUnoriginal?You haven't seen my work so that is a completely unsupported attempt at an insult.
There is no evidence for inflation. Yet, in seconds, I found papers which discuss the evidence. I thought you said you could find such things yourself? So why haven't you?
I have seen your posts here, how they 100% lack any spark of originality. Reading your work would be like reading an internet site on the subject concerned since I have never known you to post anything original. So a waste of time.How many times do you plan to repeat that when I admit I've not said anything you cannot find online because you don't understand that material? I have to keep explaining things students know because you keep making false claims about it.
Where are the abnormalities in all the different possible 4 physical dimensional shapes you claim the universe may be? How would a 4 physical dimensional hole affect the universe? You could not see across the hole so the universe would not be the same in all directions. How would it be affected by expansion? You are just C&P-ing ideas in the hope that they may fit. The 4D shape must be the same everywhere and cannot have holes in it, corners to it, etc.Can you prove it's the same everywhere? There are no corners in a torus or a Calabi Yau. Don't you know any geometry?

And the hole doesn't mean there's a gap, it means that depending on which direction you move, you loop back to different places. Think about moving along the surface of a torus, as if you were a person on a planet sized object like that.

Do you need me to explain this to you?
What is to discuss about your work? You work in a field you admit you have no evidence for. Like scientists who are paid to lie for creationist organisations, you don't care where the money comes from, even though it has no goal since strings are a scientific dead end. As well as continuously lying, you have no morals. You call me ignorant but are unable to give any answer that cannot be found on an internet site or just doing a bit of maths. You just have a good memory but are a total idiot otherwise, as you continually prove. I called you delusional, so straight away you snatch the phrase and use it against me because you are incapable of thinking of anything new.So I offer to discuss new work I've done and then you refuse and complain I refuse? How can you possibly think noone else will not see through the flaw in your logic? I offer to discuss work noone else has done and you don't want to?

You claim I am incapable of thinking of anything new, despite me saying "Do you want to discuss my new results". You refuse. So why do you blame me?

It doesn't matter whether strings exist or not, I have described a mathematical system and given a new result noone else has done. Even if strings don't exist, it has applications for mathematicians. Infact, Euler rang me up 2 days ago, he's doing a maths PhD at Cambridge, and it turned out his work can make use of mine. He had a problem which I had solved!

I am capable of thinking of something new. I am wanting to discuss it with you. Do you accept? If you don't, you cannot complain I am incapable of thinking up something new because you're unwilling to discuss it, probably out of fear you won't understand it and you'll be proven wrong. If you have nothing to hide, accept my offer. I have nothing to hide.

[AlphaNumeric]

I just found this (http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-06-19.pdf)

Paul has been picketing accelerators for more than a decade! And despite his worries about Fermilab, we're still here. And as this thread shows, he just changed, without skipping a beat, from Fermilab to the LHC. So despite the official Fermilab magazine saying he doesn't have a leg to stand on, in 1998, he claims he was nominated for a Nobel Prize that year. By who? For what? He's literally being laughed at by the people who are asked for nominations by the Nobel Prize comity!

Come on Walter, even you have to admit that Paul is a liar. None of his papers are anything to do with doing physics, he's unpublished in the area of physics, he's claiming he's found out three times he's been nominated for a Nobel Prize in an area he's unpublished and where the nominations are secret and he's a joke to the theoretical physics community.

[prometheus]

Come on Walter, even you have to admit that Paul is a liar. None of his papers are anything to do with doing physics, he's unpublished in the area of physics, he's claiming he's found out three times he's been nominated for a Nobel Prize in an area he's unpublished and where the nominations are secret and he's a joke to the theoretical physics community.

Why would Walter Wagner know about any of this since he's also unpublished in nuclear physics - the area he claims to be an expert in. Why does Walter Wagner continue to ignore my question on two separate threads now? Wagner is not a nuclear physicist any more than I am a jellyfish. Simple as that.

[Walter L. Wagner]

I just found this (http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-06-19.pdf)

Paul has been picketing accelerators for more than a decade! And despite his worries about Fermilab, we're still here. And as this thread shows, he just changed, without skipping a beat, from Fermilab to the LHC. So despite the official Fermilab magazine saying he doesn't have a leg to stand on, in 1998, he claims he was nominated for a Nobel Prize that year. By who? For what? He's literally being laughed at by the people who are asked for nominations by the Nobel Prize comity!

Come on Walter, even you have to admit that Paul is a liar. None of his papers are anything to do with doing physics, he's unpublished in the area of physics, he's claiming he's found out three times he's been nominated for a Nobel Prize in an area he's unpublished and where the nominations are secret and he's a joke to the theoretical physics community.

I believe Paul's stance is that each time we cross a new energy threshold, we take a new risk. So, it is a non-sequitur to assert that since we passed the previous risk without it materializing, we are free to continue at ever higher energy thresholds.

I'm surprised you just now learned about Paul's picketing. That is well and widely known, as he's posted about it in this thread.

And, as I said, I believe he's telling the truth about his nominations. I do not necessarily agree with the party who nominated him, but that is irrelevant as to whether or not he's lying, or being truthful. I'm sure we all know of some persons, at least in other areas, who were awarded Nobels that makes a lot of us wonder 'you got to be kidding'. Climate warming Nobels come to mind. And, simply being nominated is a far cry from being awarded one. I believe you need PROOF that someone is lying, not just your interpretation of circumstantial evidence, before making accusations against someone's character. It is a reflection on your own character, you know.

On another topic, do you know your evolutionary relationship to a jellyfish?

The word "threshold" has an interesting origin. Do you know it?

[Reiku]

Walter, he is limited to his own devices. That's like him knowing a complex chemistry-related evolution, which he does not.

[AlphaNumeric]

So can I put on my CV that I'm nominated for the Nobel Prizes in Peace, Literature and Physics then? I'm sure I can get someone to write to the Nobel people for me. Heck, I could just make a fake email account and nominate myself.

After all, Paul doesn't say who nominated him and since it's all private, noone can prove me wrong!

[Reiku]

Alphanumeric, you are a math-head. Not a coneptual math-head.

[prometheus]

On another topic, do you know your evolutionary relationship to a jellyfish?

You do realise that I am not Alphanumeric don't you? The evolutionary route between me and a jellyfish is irrelevant, the point is I am not a jellyfish even if my ancestors in the distant past were. It's funny that you should mention lying when you continually lie about being a nuclear physicist. To quote you, that says a lot about your character. You have no right to talk about the LHC because you don't understand it, just as I can't discuss many areas of biology because I'm not a biologist.

[kaneda]

That's perfectly in line with the law of large numbers. In the infinite limit, the probabilitles go to 50/50 but in any finite limit there'll, over many different setups, still be variation.

You still haven't told me at what point it becomes exact. 100,000 tests? A million? A billion? When?

Why don't you try it and find out. Ideal pasttime for someone who needs to get a life.

Simply saying "I don't believe it" and repeating your question doesn't make my answer wrong.

Right, so why do you say it to me?

You haven't seen my work so that is a completely unsupported attempt at an insult.

I have seen your asinine posts for years. Is your work somehow different?

Yet, in seconds, I found papers which discuss the evidence. I thought you said you could find such things yourself? So why haven't you?
How many times do you plan to repeat that when I admit I've not said anything you cannot find online because you don't understand that material? I have to keep explaining things students know because you keep making false claims about it.

Delusional ramblings. What's new?

Can you prove it's the same everywhere? There are no corners in a torus or a Calabi Yau. Don't you know any geometry?

The are millions of images of the universe. Perhaps you can point to one where it is not the same as elsewhere, in the sense of a spatial distortion caused by what we are talking about.

And the hole doesn't mean there's a gap, it means that depending on which direction you move, you loop back to different places. Think about moving along the surface of a torus, as if you were a person on a planet sized object like that.

We are aware of gravitational lensing. I think a distortion like a hole in the structure of the universe would be noticed.

Do you need me to explain this to you?
So I offer to discuss new work I've done and then you refuse and complain I refuse? How can you possibly think noone else will not see through the flaw in your logic? I offer to discuss work noone else has done and you don't want to?

More babbling.

You claim I am incapable of thinking of anything new, despite me saying "Do you want to discuss my new results". You refuse. So why do you blame me?

Leopard. Spots.

It doesn't matter whether strings exist or not, I have described a mathematical system and given a new result noone else has done. Even if strings don't exist, it has applications for mathematicians. Infact, Euler rang me up 2 days ago, he's doing a maths PhD at Cambridge, and it turned out his work can make use of mine. He had a problem which I had solved!

Castles on clouds. You rang yourself?

I am capable of thinking of something new. I am wanting to discuss it with you. Do you accept? If you don't, you cannot complain I am incapable of thinking up something new because you're unwilling to discuss it, probably out of fear you won't understand it and you'll be proven wrong. If you have nothing to hide, accept my offer. I have nothing to hide.

You claim to have some maths that will help more maths. How boring.

You spend all this time on various forums. You spend time on your PhD studies and on teaching. I wish I had 48 hours in a day.

[kaneda]

Walter L. Wagner. 1000 flips produces 520 heads so if consistent, 10,000 flips would produce 5,200 heads but it only produced 5,096 heads, so a fall of 104.

[AlphaNumeric]

Delusional ramblings. What's new?So I find evidence and you cannot retort it.
The are millions of images of the universe. Perhaps you can point to one where it is not the same as elsewhere, in the sense of a spatial distortion caused by what we are talking about.The nature of the universe as a whole isn't known yet. It's an open question but since we are considering closed topologies too, there's more to consider than just a 4-sphere. Inflation doesn't need the universe to be closed either.
More babbling.Why didn't you address what I said? I offer to discuss original work. You won't discuss it. Then you complain there's no discussion of my work. Which is your fault.
Castles on clouds. You rang yourself?You still haven't provided evidence I am Euler.
You claim to have some maths that will help more maths. How boring.What do you think mathematicians spend their time coming up with?

The maths of 'fields' and 'variational principles' and 'calculus' people like Newton and Lagrange came up with are now used in all of physics. Without them we'd not have things like supersonic planes, computers, satellites, telecommunications, lasers etc. So doing maths for mathematicians is hardly 'boring'.
You spend all this time on various forums. You spend time on your PhD studies and on teaching. I wish I had 48 hours in a day. I've given you a break down of a typical day for me. I don't need 48 hours to get 4 hours of work done a day. You never actually addressed my daily breakdown and said "You cannot possibly spend that amount of time doing that", you just said "No time for anything social?" when I pointed out I had 6~13 hours a day free after work and requirements like sleeping, eating and ****ing.
Walter L. Wagner. 1000 flips produces 520 heads so if consistent, 10,000 flips would produce 5,200 heads but it only produced 5,096 heads, so a fall of 104. Noone claimed it would be 5200 heads if you did 10 times as many, that isn't what the law of large numbers says. At least try to understand it. It says that as the number of samples goes to infinity, the percentage of heads to tails goes to 50/50. To use your 520 after 1000, that's 52/48. As you increase, the expected test mean will tend to 50/50. Tends to, where it equals the limit at n->infinity.

It's covered in the binomial distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution) where p=q=1/2 (since the probability of a heads or tails is equal). In the n->infinity limit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution#Limits_of_binomial_distribut ions) with p and q fixed, you get a normal distribution of results. Which means that when you repeat a set of n samples lots of times you find you get a varying set of end results. Sometimes it'll be 50/50, other times 51/49. You might even get 100/0, but that's very unlikely. But you get, by the Central Limit Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem), that the results, if repeated a lot, follow a normal distribution because any large statistical system will tend to that. Infact, look at the picture in the CLT link, it's about heads and tails of coin tosses. Doing 1000 tosses multiple times, gives you a different result a lot of the time and you end up with a spread which looks like a normal distribution.

So there's two lots of 'big processes' going on here. You have n coin tosses per test and then you repeat that a lot of times, say m. When m is big and n small you find that you get results which are all over the place. If you only toss a coin 2 times, you'll get cases of 2 heads and 0 tails 1/4 of the time. But as n gets big, 0 tails and n heads becomes increasingly unlikely, while a more even mix becomes more likely. But when you repeat your n tests a lot, you'll still get occasional examples where your n tests don't turn out to be 50/50, they can literally be anything from 0/100 to 100/0. But as n increases, they'll clump more about 50/50, but you'll never 'turn off' the non 50/50 results in some of your m trials until you do infinitely many coin tosses. You're basically saying it's impossible to throw a lot of heads in a row.

But since I'm pointing you at probability results which are taught to 17 year olds here in the UK and which anyone with a grasp of statistics can understand, I'm sure you'll just ignore what I'm saying as 'babble', despite it being a lengthy, source supported, explanation of how stats works which can be backed up by any statistician, stats book or even a Vegas casino. Not that you'll check, because you aren't interested in evidence, just telling everyone you are right and they are wrong, despite you showing no working understanding of any of the topics you whine about.

If you see all these problems in physics and maths, why are you whining online? Why aren't you writing papers and getting them published? Surely your results in probabilities would be of interest to mathematicians and statisticians? Why are you just proclaiming to have all the answers here and not actually getting it out to the wider community? Even Walter, who isn't actually a nuclear physicist has got off his backside and made his voice heard, even if I don't agree with what he says. He's challenging the people who matter. You're not even representing a challenge to people like me and I'm happy to admit I'm an insignificant speck in the physics community.

[D H]

1000 flips produces 520 heads so if consistent, 10,000 flips would produce 5,200 heads but it only produced 5,096 heads, so a fall of 104.
520 heads in 1,000 flips of a coin is consistent with the 50/50 odds that arise if the coin is fair. That deviation of 20 excess heads is not statistically significant; it represents a 1.26 sigma deviation from the mean. Do several experiments of 1,000 coin tosses and you will see 20 excess heads or more about 10% of the time.

On the other hand, 5,200 heads in 10,000 flips is much less consistent with 50/50 odds even though the heads/tails ratio remains at 52/48. The 200 excess heads in 10,000 tosses now represents a 4 sigma deviation from the mean. With another ten-fold increase in the number of flips, obtaining a 52/48 heads/tails ratio is nearly impossible because obtaining 2% more heads than expected is a 12 sigma event with 100,000 tosses. 1.26 sigma events happen all the time, 4 sigma events happen occasionally, 12 sigma events, hardly ever.

The law of large numbers is quite valid; it is the lifeblood of the insurance industry and Las Vegas.

[RussT]

This is absolutely hilarious!!!

So, WHO can enlightnen all of us on....

Why Heads is always winning the battle.

[fadingCaptain]

Somebody do this 10,000 times:

http://www.random.org/coins/

[kaneda]

So I find evidence and you cannot retort it.

Denial is not proof I am wrong.


The nature of the universe as a whole isn't known yet. It's an open question but since we are considering closed topologies too, there's more to consider than just a 4-sphere. Inflation doesn't need the universe to be closed either.

Inflation is unproven psuedoscience. Areas of space expanding is no better than saying goddidit. You still have not explained how something a trillion times the necessary density for a black hole can expand.

Why didn't you address what I said? I offer to discuss original work. You won't discuss it. Then you complain there's no discussion of my work. Which is your fault.

You have yet to produce anything new in any post you make, so another delusion.

You still haven't provided evidence I am Euler.

As I showed at the time, you slipped up and posted as Euler instead of ANother when you meant to insult me, and to give me negative feedback. You never explained why Euler did not give you positive feedback either.

What do you think mathematicians spend their time coming up with?

The maths of 'fields' and 'variational principles' and 'calculus' people like Newton and Lagrange came up with are now used in all of physics. Without them we'd not have things like supersonic planes, computers, satellites, telecommunications, lasers etc. So doing maths for mathematicians is hardly 'boring'.

Maths is only useful when it has a real world application.

I've given you a break down of a typical day for me. I don't need 48 hours to get 4 hours of work done a day. You never actually addressed my daily breakdown and said "You cannot possibly spend that amount of time doing that", you just said "No time for anything social?" when I pointed out I had 6~13 hours a day free after work and requirements like sleeping, eating and ****ing.

All that studying and teaching for a PhD is done in four hours. Need I say more. I did not include sex as half a minute is not worth mentioning.

Noone claimed it would be 5200 heads if you did 10 times as many, that isn't what the law of large numbers says. At least try to understand it. It says that as the number of samples goes to infinity, the percentage of heads to tails goes to 50/50. To use your 520 after 1000, that's 52/48. As you increase, the expected test mean will tend to 50/50. Tends to, where it equals the limit at n->infinity.

It's covered in the binomial distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution) where p=q=1/2 (since the probability of a heads or tails is equal). In the n->infinity limit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution#Limits_of_binomial_distribut ions) with p and q fixed, you get a normal distribution of results. Which means that when you repeat a set of n samples lots of times you find you get a varying set of end results. Sometimes it'll be 50/50, other times 51/49. You might even get 100/0, but that's very unlikely. But you get, by the Central Limit Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem), that the results, if repeated a lot, follow a normal distribution because any large statistical system will tend to that. Infact, look at the picture in the CLT link, it's about heads and tails of coin tosses. Doing 1000 tosses multiple times, gives you a different result a lot of the time and you end up with a spread which looks like a normal distribution.

So there's two lots of 'big processes' going on here. You have n coin tosses per test and then you repeat that a lot of times, say m. When m is big and n small you find that you get results which are all over the place. If you only toss a coin 2 times, you'll get cases of 2 heads and 0 tails 1/4 of the time. But as n gets big, 0 tails and n heads becomes increasingly unlikely, while a more even mix becomes more likely. But when you repeat your n tests a lot, you'll still get occasional examples where your n tests don't turn out to be 50/50, they can literally be anything from 0/100 to 100/0. But as n increases, they'll clump more about 50/50, but you'll never 'turn off' the non 50/50 results in some of your m trials until you do infinitely many coin tosses. You're basically saying it's impossible to throw a lot of heads in a row.

But since I'm pointing you at probability results which are taught to 17 year olds here in the UK and which anyone with a grasp of statistics can understand, I'm sure you'll just ignore what I'm saying as 'babble', despite it being a lengthy, source supported, explanation of how stats works which can be backed up by any statistician, stats book or even a Vegas casino. Not that you'll check, because you aren't interested in evidence, just telling everyone you are right and they are wrong, despite you showing no working understanding of any of the topics you whine about.

If you see all these problems in physics and maths, why are you whining online? Why aren't you writing papers and getting them published? Surely your results in probabilities would be of interest to mathematicians and statisticians? Why are you just proclaiming to have all the answers here and not actually getting it out to the wider community? Even Walter, who isn't actually a nuclear physicist has got off his backside and made his voice heard, even if I don't agree with what he says. He's challenging the people who matter. You're not even representing a challenge to people like me and I'm happy to admit I'm an insignificant speck in the physics community.

Wiki gave figures that showed 1,000 flips gave 52% heads and that 10,000 flips gave less than 51% heads, so going towards even as the numbers get larger. As I said, maths is only good where it can be proved in the real world. Ever larger numbers will even out chances as this shows. Anything else is just blathering.

Again using your hero Walter to back up what you say. How you must admire him to trust him so.

[AlphaNumeric]

Denial is not proof I am wrong.Denial about discussing my work doesn't mean it doesn't exist ;) Same goes for inflation evidence or strings.
Inflation is unproven psuedoscience. Areas of space expanding is no better than saying goddidit. There you go, denial.
You still have not explained how something a trillion times the necessary density for a black hole can expand.And yet more denial! Don't you remember me explaining to you how the material expands fast enough that the components aren't in casual contact with one another and so cannot gravitationally interact? Or are you going to deny I told you? Or are you just going to deny it's right without giving a detailed retort?
You have yet to produce anything new in any post you make, so another delusion.
And yet you deny my offer to discuss my work? Why?
another delusion.
As I showed at the time, you slipped up and posted as Euler instead of ANother when you meant to insult me, and to give me negative feedback. You never explained why Euler did not give you positive feedback either.
Euler has given me positive feedback. And where did I supposedly slip up? I seem to remember you thinking that Euler giving you a neg feedback without posting for a week meant he and I are the same person. It's as if you deny that it's possible for people to read your posts without replying?!
Maths is only useful when it has a real world application.
Find me an area of maths which doesn't have an ultimate application to physics.
All that studying and teaching for a PhD is done in four hours. Need I say more. I did not include sex as half a minute is not worth mentioning.4 hours a day. That's 1/6 of my life or about 1/4 of my conscious day. 2 solid months of work a year. About 1500 hours of work a year. Most people spend 8 hours a day at work, including lunch and breaks and time not spent actually working. The amount of productive work people do is comparable to my level of work per day. And I work weekends and through most holidays, most people don't. And some days I will end up working for many more hours. For instance, Sunday I worked for about 12 hours. I had trouble sleeping because I still had equations running through my head.
Wiki gave figures that showed 1,000 flips gave 52% heads and that 10,000 flips gave less than 51% heads, so going towards even as the numbers get larger. As I said, maths is only good where it can be proved in the real world. Ever larger numbers will even out chances as this shows. Anything else is just blathering.As usual, you deny everything I said, not realising that what I've said agrees with Wikipedia. I even gave multiple Wiki links demonstrating it. The fact is Wikipedia doesn't agree with you. You claim that at 2,000,000,000,000 tests it'll be certain to be exactly 50/50. Where does Wikipedia say that. Wikipedia says that it tends to 50/50 so at 2,000,000,000 it'll be very likely to be close to 50/50, closer than at 10,000 tests, which is even closer than 1,000 tests, but it'll not be certain to be exactly 50/50.

Do you understand the links I provided? All you did is deny what I said as 'blathering'. You didn't even discuss is. I'm willing to discuss it with you. I want to discuss it with you because I have nothing to hide.
Again using your hero Walter to back up what you say. How you must admire him to trust him so. I like how you interpret the fact noone agrees with you as evidence everyone is wrong, even more so than just the usual people disagreeing with you.

If you're so sure, let's discuss the paragraph you called 'blathering'. If it's 'blathering' you should be able to dissect and retort it easily. Let's go.

[RussT]

Once again, this is absolutely hilarious!!!

This is the same meaningless mathematical nonesense that stems from trying to find the 'Limit' at r=0 for the spherical universe EFE solution of T=0 in Schwarzschild for the 'inside solution' of an expanding "Naked Singularity".

There is NO solution there! Why, because speculating that the universe could 'collapse down to r=0/T=0 was NEVER a valid 'gravitational collapse' to begin with!!!

Singularities have NEVER been able to exist outside of a black hole in the first place!!!

The Cosmic Censorship theorum is precisely correct.

The ONLY reason, let me repeat that....the ONLY reason mainstream cosmologists did NOT continue with that whole line of correct reasoning, was because to do so was going to "Falsify" their beloved Big Bang 'expanding or contracting' "Horizons", and they would not know what to do on "Monday Morning".

As one of the most learned posters on BAUT put it....


Originally Posted by Tensor
That's one of the main reasons for the search for a quantum theory of gravity. It should be able to tell us what is happening before reaching a radius of zero.

Now, the answer for quantum gravity, or more correctly, the particle that gives elctrons/protons their mass, can be found 'Before r=0', However, that has absolutely nothing to do with T=0 or T=10^-43....that 'just-so-story' never existed.

The answer before r=0, for how and where, the particle that gives electrons/protons their mass, comes to our universe, and gives us our "Space", can ONLY be found in SMBH's....that IS, the "Ring Singularities", where 'Space' is coming 'through those Torus Rings!

In other words, there is NO r=0 solution, and there is no "Point Solution", because there are NO non-rotating SMBH's, so the only "Real" solution is "Space Coming Through Torus Rings" in the depths of SMBH's. Once you extend SPACE through those rings, that eliminates Cosmic Singularities!

Now, I do not expect amateurs to fully understand this, though it should make sense, BUT I do expect any so called Pro's to understand 'How the 'singularity' was just eliminated!!!

[Vkothii]

the only "Real" solution is "Space Coming Through Torus Rings" in the depths of SMBH's. Once you extend SPACE through those rings, that eliminates Cosmic Singularities!I'd like to get a handle on how toroidal regions that are non-existent singularities, or non-singular something-or-others, create "space", presumably space that has energy in our universe...?

You're saying solutions to Kerr or Sch'ld BH singularities, via GR, give a "real" solution, that predicts the creation of spacetime? It's a theory that attempts to explain quantum gravity, a semi-classical result, or what?

[quantum_wave]

I'd like to get a handle on how toroidal regions that are non-existent singularities, or non-singular something-or-others, create "space", presumably space that has energy in our universe...?

We've gotten so smart that we have found that space wasn't always just there, it is created by co-moving coordinates. Don't bother talking about what was there where space is now because there was no there until the coordinates made it.

I'm just saying, we are too smart to buy into the idea that space is infinite and has always been there, way too smart for that.

Where is the smilie for :super-smart:?

[Reiku]

When time (the primordial unit) came into existence, (so did space itself).

[RussT]

I'm just saying, we are too smart to buy into the idea that space is infinite and has always been there, way too smart for that.

This doesn't define anything useful at all! You might as well evoke GOD.

Always was, always will be.


When time (the primordial unit) came into existence, (so did space itself).

This is pure myth, and actually, 'science' cannot determine Either.

The is no way to determine when the universe started OR if it is infinite or finite in Time or Space.

However, IF you understand that 'something' can "Go Through" SMBH's, the initial conditions that describe 'how our space gets here', and then 'how Matter is created" and New Galaxies are formed, then we CAN understand 'How Our Universe Is Working"!!!

[quantum_wave]

RussT, did you just miss the humor and sarcasm part?

Oh well, it was a good chance to take another trip through the SMBH :)

[RussT]

RussT, did you just miss the humor and sarcasm part?

I just figured that you were suggesting that the QSSC type anti-Big Bang was the correct way to view 'how the universe is working'....sorry.

Oh well, it was a good chance to take another trip through the SMBH

I understand this completely now, and I am saying that the ONLY answer to how our space is getting here, and figuring out what our space is made of, and how fast it is traveling, and Then showing how New Galaxies are being Born...with the creation of the SMBH's for each galaxy, one at a time, is.....

"Space" going "OUT" of OUR SMBH's, down to a lower Universe, and...the SMBH's in an Upper Universe, sending us OuR Space.

Those are "Real" Physical BLack Holes, and the 'Space' can then be shown to be "REAL"...

Neutrinos, carrying the CMB 'energy', that is the ZPE....that is "REAL"...not the unreal "Virtual Particle "Foam" BS......as soon as they had to make virtual particles to make their stuff work, they should have known they were wrong.

[quantum_wave]

I understand this completely now, and I am saying that the ONLY answer to how our space is getting here, and figuring out what our space is made of, and how fast it is traveling, and Then showing how New Galaxies are being Born...with the creation of the SMBH's for each galaxy, one at a time, is.....

"Space" going "OUT" of OUR SMBH's, down to a lower Universe, and...the SMBH's in an Upper Universe, sending us OuR Space.

Those are "Real" Physical BLack Holes, and the 'Space' can then be shown to be "REAL"...

Neutrinos, carrying the CMB 'energy', that is the ZPE....that is "REAL"...not the unreal "Virtual Particle "Foam" BS......as soon as they had to make virtual particles to make their stuff work, they should have known they were wrong.OK, let's look at that. First, to help me understand the situation here, how many dimensions is the space in this whole picture? Try to answer with one number like 4 or 3 or something because I have another question but I need to know the answer to this question first.

[Reiku]

RussT

Do you know what imensely annoying about reading your posts.. and also seems to be perfectly identical to Bishops style as well? You often, and unduly, skip down a line once you have not even finished a proper paragraph, and then soak all your words in '' '' . It's very annoying, and i tent to not read your stuff because of this.

Maybe you will change this habbit?

[RussT]

OK, let's look at that. First, to help me understand the situation here, how many dimensions is the space in this whole picture? Try to answer with one number like 4 or 3 or something because I have another question but I need to know the answer to this question first.

The quick answer is this...

Space is ALL Neutrinos going at "c" in ALL/Every Direction, non-collisionally!

Gazillions are going through your body right now in ALL directions without colliding in any way!

That is Non-baryonic DM in 3D Euclidian Space.

The ONLY place where 'space' becomes 4D is "IN" Black Holes.

Time is "Constant" and non-dimesional....Time does NOT make a 4th spacial dimension!

[Reiku]

RussT

Do you know what imensely annoying about reading your posts.. and also seems to be perfectly identical to Bishops style as well? You often, and unduly, skip down a line once you have not even finished a proper paragraph, and then soak all your words in '' '' . It's very annoying, and i tent to not read your stuff because of this.

Maybe you will change this habbit?

Maybe that's a catagoric ''no.''

[Reiku]

The quick answer is this...

Space is ALL Neutrinos going at "c" in ALL/Every Direction, non-collisionally!

Gazillions are going through your body right now in ALL directions without colliding in any way!

That is Non-baryonic DM in 3D Euclidian Space.

The ONLY place where 'space' becomes 4D is "IN" Black Holes.

Time is "Constant" and non-dimesional....Time does NOT make a 4th spacial dimension!

It was once believed neutrino's did move at ''c'', but that is no longer true. Also, the way you treat a black hole, is if it is a seperate entity to space itself, which it is not.

[kaneda]

That's perfectly in line with the law of large numbers. In the infinite limit, the probabilitles go to 50/50 but in any finite limit there'll, over many different setups, still be variation.

You still haven't told me at what point it becomes exact. 100,000 tests? A million? A billion? When?
Simply saying "I don't believe it" and repeating your question doesn't make my answer wrong.
You haven't seen my work so that is a completely unsupported attempt at an insult.
Yet, in seconds, I found papers which discuss the evidence. I thought you said you could find such things yourself? So why haven't you?
How many times do you plan to repeat that when I admit I've not said anything you cannot find online because you don't understand that material? I have to keep explaining things students know because you keep making false claims about it.
Can you prove it's the same everywhere? There are no corners in a torus or a Calabi Yau. Don't you know any geometry?

And the hole doesn't mean there's a gap, it means that depending on which direction you move, you loop back to different places. Think about moving along the surface of a torus, as if you were a person on a planet sized object like that.

Do you need me to explain this to you?
So I offer to discuss new work I've done and then you refuse and complain I refuse? How can you possibly think noone else will not see through the flaw in your logic? I offer to discuss work noone else has done and you don't want to?

You claim I am incapable of thinking of anything new, despite me saying "Do you want to discuss my new results". You refuse. So why do you blame me?

It doesn't matter whether strings exist or not, I have described a mathematical system and given a new result noone else has done. Even if strings don't exist, it has applications for mathematicians. Infact, Euler rang me up 2 days ago, he's doing a maths PhD at Cambridge, and it turned out his work can make use of mine. He had a problem which I had solved!

I am capable of thinking of something new. I am wanting to discuss it with you. Do you accept? If you don't, you cannot complain I am incapable of thinking up something new because you're unwilling to discuss it, probably out of fear you won't understand it and you'll be proven wrong. If you have nothing to hide, accept my offer. I have nothing to hide.


Same old, same old. Nothing new. Proof you are incapable of thinking of anything new.

[quantum_wave]

The quick answer is this...

Space is ALL Neutrinos going at "c" in ALL/Every Direction, non-collisionally!

Gazillions are going through your body right now in ALL directions without colliding in any way!

That is Non-baryonic DM in 3D Euclidian Space.

The ONLY place where 'space' becomes 4D is "IN" Black Holes.

Time is "Constant" and non-dimesional....Time does NOT make a 4th spacial dimension!Lol, no flame here in this statement, but I know what it feels like to have no observational evidence. There is no way to prove that space is not non-collisional neutrinos. But when I weigh your "background" with mine, my background (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1965282&postcount=55) begins to sound better to me :).

You say yours IS dark matter, and in mine, dark matter forms from the background energy since the energy density resides above the equalization threshold (above equilibrium level). Dark matter is pre-particle matter and in a universe where energy has always existed and has always had an average universal energy density above the matter formation threshold, both matter (fundamental particles), and dark matter have always existed.

Since dark matter feels and exerts gravity, it "hangs" around large structure in the universe like in and around galaxies but it has no charge and cannot be directly detected. In QWC the energy density and therefore the density of dark matter is lower in intergalactic space.

QWC takes place in 3-D space but there is no 3 + 1 space and space and time are not coupled. Black holes are high density accumulations of matter and energy where the compression of gravity is go great that nothing can escape. They are defeated in QWC only when they encompass a content that is equivalent the finite matter and energy of our expanding arena. That condition sets off an energy density so great that matter cannot function and in QWC mass has gravity, so when mass can't function gravity can't either.

Our arena is one of a potentially infinite number of such arenas that are always forming and playing out in the greater universe which has an infinite amount of energy.

Time is the same in your cosmology as it is in mine.

If dark matter is non-collisional as you predict, then how does it interact to cause the gravitational effect observed that accounts for dark matter theory?

[quantum_wave]

The quick answer is this...

Space is ALL Neutrinos going at "c" in ALL/Every Direction, non-collisionally!

Gazillions are going through your body right now in ALL directions without colliding in any way!

That is Non-baryonic DM in 3D Euclidian Space.

The ONLY place where 'space' becomes 4D is "IN" Black Holes.

Time is "Constant" and non-dimesional....Time does NOT make a 4th spacial dimension!

Lol, no flame here in this statement, but I know what it feels like to have no observational evidence. There is no way to prove that space is not non-collisional neutrinos. But when I weigh your "background" with mine, my background (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1965282&postcount=55) begins to sound better to me :).

You say yours IS dark matter, and in mine, dark matter forms from the background energy since the energy density resides above the equalization threshold (above equilibrium level). Dark matter is pre-particle matter and in a universe where energy has always existed and has always had an average universal energy density above the matter formation threshold, both matter (fundamental particles), and dark matter have always existed.

Since dark matter feels and exerts gravity, it "hangs" around large structure in the universe like in and around galaxies but it has no charge and cannot be directly detected. In QWC the energy density and therefore the density of dark matter is lower in intergalactic space.

QWC takes place in 3-D space but there is no 3 + 1 space and space and time are not coupled. Black holes are high density accumulations of matter and energy where the compression of gravity is go great that nothing can escape. They are defeated in QWC only when they encompass a content that is equivalent the finite matter and energy of our expanding arena. That condition sets off an energy density so great that matter cannot function and in QWC mass has gravity, so when mass can't function gravity can't either.

Our arena is one of a potentially infinite number of such arenas that are always forming and playing out in the greater universe which has an infinite amount of energy.

Time is the same in your cosmology as it is in mine.

If dark matter is non-collisional as you predict, then how does it interact to cause the gravitational effect observed that accounts for dark matter theory?RussT, I have been hoping you could answer that question. Isn't it as simple as the possibility that the neutrino sea that you predict is more like a suspension of neutrinos in an energy background. The background consisting of energy density with density fluctuations caused by quantum waves the expand spherically at the speed of light. If so, I guess the neutrinos would ride the quantum waves like cosmic surfers :cool:.

But perhaps more realistically, if we can talk reality in such speculative degrees, neutrinos would be emitted from high energy events like the collapse of stars or the collisions of high energy particles.

As if we could address the nature of neutrinos in regard to mass, we would find indications that they can have mass. (http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/)

On the other hand it seems important in standard theory that we consider the photon to have zero rest mass. But it is possible that even photons have positive rest mass (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html).

You may have realized that in my cosmology (QWC) which we have discussed, anything that stands out from the energy background must be composed of fundamental energy quanta, the incremental unit of mass and energy and that includes photons.

The energy they carry is produced by quantum waves from quantum action at the source and the quantum wave "complex" that is a photon is made up of multiple quantum waves emanating spherically form a source. The source has an energy level and the energy of the photons emanating from the source at that particular energy level will produce photons that "communicate" the energy level of that source.

[AlphaNumeric]

Same old, same old. Nothing new. Proof you are incapable of thinking of anything new.Yes, your reply was the same old stuff. No retorts, too scared to discuss my work, too scared to come into the maths and physics forum. You obviously do have a lot to hide, given you refuse to engage me in any actual quantitative discussion on any topic.

[quantum_wave]

I keep wondering why this type of conversation seems to creep into almost every thread where either of you makes a post. Do you actually know each other, or do you think the entire community cares what you think of each other. Very boring. Why doesn't anyone say anything about this "virus"?

I'm not on a crusade to interfere but when I post and subscribe to a thread I get an email saying there was a reply. It often turns out to be off topic drivel. Can we split threads like this and send the off topic debate elsewhere? Or is everyone happy reading the same off topic conversation over and over on numerous threads?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Let me just say.... this all appears to be poo.
Show me a physicist who knows what caused the big bang and I'll show you a Nobel Prize winner. The honest ones all answer the same. "We don't know." Perhaps I should make a prediction of wild rabid flying gerbils bursting from the anus of all of those who have "evidence" of a first cause that is more than pure speculation.

[quantum_wave]

Are you making that prediction? If so I sure don't want to see your evidence :D.

[RussT]

RussT, I have been hoping you could answer that question. Isn't it as simple as the possibility that the neutrino sea that you predict is more like a suspension of neutrinos in an energy background. The background consisting of energy density with density fluctuations caused by quantum waves the expand spherically at the speed of light. If so, I guess the neutrinos would ride the quantum waves like cosmic surfers :cool:.

But perhaps more realistically, if we can talk reality in such speculative degrees, neutrinos would be emitted from high energy events like the collapse of stars or the collisions of high energy particles.

As if we could address the nature of neutrinos in regard to mass, we would find indications that they can have mass. (http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/)

On the other hand it seems important in standard theory that we consider the photon to have zero rest mass. But it is possible that even photons have positive rest mass (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html).

You may have realized that in my cosmology (QWC) which we have discussed, anything that stands out from the energy background must be composed of fundamental energy quanta, the incremental unit of mass and energy and that includes photons.

The energy they carry is produced by quantum waves from quantum action at the source and the quantum wave "complex" that is a photon is made up of multiple quantum waves emanating spherically form a source. The source has an energy level and the energy of the photons emanating from the source at that particular energy level will produce photons that "communicate" the energy level of that source.

Sorry, I missed this post.

I will respond to this Fri/Sat...

[Mr. Hamtastic]

My evidence would require a volunteer... Any takers? I'm sure I can find a wild rabid gerbil and strap some wings onto it. Then I would insert it into the Anus of my volunteer. Then I would encourage my volunteer to claim to know what caused the big bang. Then we wait. Maybe I should get several different volunteers, not sure what will happen if the gerbil DOESN'T come flying out. Might need a replacement volunteer in that case. :)

[quantum_wave]

I don't qualify. All of my cosmology comes with a disclaimer. No new evidence, reasonable speculation, and we will never know for sure. However, it is a bit better than the flying gerbil speculation if you allow any distinction at all.

I am far enough into the speculation game that I recognize three main categories, wild, idle, and responsible. "Gerbils where the sun don't shine" is "wild", Green Meanies leaving a trail of multi-verses as they wind their way across the greater universe is "idle", and a potentially infinite energy background from which energy quanta stand out and of which all matter is composed is responsible on my personal scale.

Do you see any difference from your perspective or is all speculation just wild anal fantasy?

[RussT]

I don't qualify. All of my cosmology comes with a disclaimer. No new evidence, reasonable speculation, and we will never know for sure. However, it is a bit better than the flying gerbil speculation if you allow any distinction at all.

I am far enough into the speculation game that I recognize three main categories, wild, idle, and responsible. "Gerbils where the sun don't shine" is "wild", Green Meanies leaving a trail of multi-verses as they wind their way across the greater universe is "idle", and a potentially infinite energy background from which energy quanta stand out and of which all matter is composed is responsible on my personal scale.

Do you see any difference from your perspective or is all speculation just wild anal fantasy?

BUT, you don't understand how the Big Bang concept has warped what you think.

Thinking our "Visable Universe" was once a 'smaller' 'spherical' shape in the past, that is somehow part of a larger 'spherical' universe is meaningless!!!

Mainstream thinks that they are actually covering ALL potentials for what the universe can be when they consider "Static" (Einsteins Original "Blunder") or "Open" (Flat and Expanding forever), Or "CLosed" (Contracting back down to whatever 'smaller' size it originated from.

ALL of that is absolutely "Meaningless"~~~The Universe has NEVER had any chance what-so-ever of "Gravitationally Collapsing" in on itself....PERIOD!!!!

Therefore, the Naked Singularity expanding does NOT and Has NEVER existed!!!!

Neither do ANY of the Expanding OR Contracting "Horizons"!!!

In addition, you are taking 'Virtual Particles' as "Real".........They DO NOT exist.

So, I'll ask you the same question I asked Bishadi, which he never answered.

How do the elctrons/protons/neutrons get their Mass?

As far as I can tell, you think that the "Virtual Particles" 'sea' "Foam" become "Real" electrons/Protons that imbue(d) 'space' with Hydrogen/Helium....is that correct?


NOW, When I say, that SMBH's are NOT created by the collapse of Baryonic Matter...........Do you understand what that really means?....

AND, that IS from "New Observation"...........Mine......that Long GRB's (3 to 500 seconds) are New SMBH's for galaxies and Dwarf galaxies, from the collapse of Non-Baryonic Neutrinos, which IS the Cause/Effect for the High Gamma Radiation the imbues the electrons/protons with their Mass/Energy...:cool:

[Reiku]

Russ, why do you soak most of all your words in '' ''?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

quantum wave-perhaps this would work better. I would hesitate to toss about suppositions that fly completely in the face of established theory for fear that we may live in a truly infinite number of dimensions and multiverses and this may be the one that by doing so a wild rabid gerbil may fly from my anus. Or perhaps all the subatomic particles in the universe will become suddenly stable in the form of a lovely set of very large blue/white knitted socks.

[quantum_wave]

Mr. Hamtastic, I concede that there are a potentially infinite number of possible cosmologies, but when you refer to established theory, that is an oxymoron isn't it?

Are you referring to General Relativity as the established theory? What about the incompatibility issue? Or is it Particle Theory? Where is the graviton? Or quantum theory? Where is the Higgs boson? Or Big Bang Theory? What caused the big bang?

There is no established unifying theory and that is what I am speculating about; a unifying force that causes mass to form, causes gravity, dark energy, dark matter, expansion, accelerating expansion and defeats entropy in a universe of energy that has always existed.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Interesting. And you don't like string theory or loop theory because? I find them a bit bizarre and they tend to make me light-headed but they seem ok to me. I can roll with them, myself. An infinite sea of energy where hiccups create mass? Therefore we could all simply hiccup out of existence at any moment?

[kaneda]

Yes, your reply was the same old stuff. No retorts, too scared to discuss my work, too scared to come into the maths and physics forum. You obviously do have a lot to hide, given you refuse to engage me in any actual quantitative discussion on any topic.

The same vain and empty boasting to cover your ignorance. What's new? None of your thought processes for a start. AN wanna cracker?

[kaneda]

BUT, you don't understand how the Big Bang concept has warped what you think.

Thinking our "Visable Universe" was once a 'smaller' 'spherical' shape in the past, that is somehow part of a larger 'spherical' universe is meaningless!!!


Right. It's serious quackery, the idea that our universe was incredibly small, way beyond what was needed to make a black hole and yet somehow expanded. It's like scientists who believe in religion, where they compartmentalise subjects so they can believe in serious science and serious quackery at the same time and see no conflicts in both points of view.

[quantum_wave]

Interesting. And you don't like string theory or loop theory because? I find them a bit bizarre and they tend to make me light-headed ... My sentiments too. but they seem ok to me. I can roll with them, myself. I can't roll with them because they have all of those extra dimensions. If you tell me that the human mind can't envision what you predict as reality, then I can't roll with you. An infinite sea of energy where hiccups create mass? Therefore we could all simply hiccup out of existence at any moment?Not really. The amount of energy in the universe, meaning the average universal energy density sets the average amount of matter vs. background energy. The ratio of matter to energy universally is approximately constant and varies within a narrow range in Quantum Wave Cosmology.

However, the process of explaining QWC to someone who has not lived with it for several years requires a step by step communication. The quanta that stand out from the background comply with the universal ratio of matter to energy and so there is no chance of instantaneous or spontaneous symmetry breaking on the arena scale of things. It all happens in a gradual process in finite arenas of space because there are thresholds of energy density that determine the stages of the arena process and the thresholds must follow a sequence.

The key to QWC is that when mass accumulates as in a big crunch (a contraction phase) within its own arena of space, there is a threshold of maximum energy density that is reached that causes the big crunch to fail from within and send the arena into an expansion phase. The limit is called critical capacity of a big crunch and it keeps any more than a certain amount of mass from accumulating in any particular big crunch.

QWC defines a universe that has a potentially infinite amount of energy and matter in a fixed ratio, there are a potentially infinite number of finite arenas at any given time. Arenas are huge (equivalent to our known universe) temporary high energy density fluctuations on a scale equivalent to what we call our known and currently expanding universe. Ours is an arena of expansion within the greater universe that has many such arenas in various stages of contraction and expansion.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

qw-so let me see if I got this straight. There's this sea of energy. On this sea of energy floats an infinite number of universes. These universes are either expanding or contracting due to the current energy density of the surrounding sea. So tomorrow we could find ourselves looking through telescopes and seeing a blue shift? How does energy density affect matter within these universes, or are the universes considered bits of matter, the universe's own integral laws deciding what the matter within does? Are there any laws governing this sea of energy besides the ratio of mass to energy?

[quantum_wave]

qw-so let me see if I got this straight. There's this sea of energy. You would be talking about the potentially infinite energy background of the greater universe.On this sea of energy floats an infinite number of universes.Within the potentially infinite universe, the energy background supports a potentially infinite number of finite arenas (finite in volume and energy content).These universesarenas are either expanding or contracting due to the current energy density of the surrounding sea.The arenas expand or contract based on the arena phases that are controlled by various energy density thresholds and by their energy density relative to "critical capacity" which is the threshold that marks the maximum possible energy density. So tomorrow we could find ourselves looking through telescopes and seeing a blue shift?Not tomorrow because our arena is still in the expansion phase. It is conceivable but unlikely that we could look out and see a galaxy or other mass moving toward us. Our arena is too young and too early in its expanding phase for a rogue galaxy from outside the arena to appear(IMHO). The blue shift view would typify the phase after our expansion has played out and our energy density is equalized with the greater universe (at the average energy density). Out there after our expansion has played out, there is an environment of equalized energy density that hosts the galactic remnants of multiple arenas that have played out. Without the ongoing expansion of the arenas due to unequalized energy density, gravity begins to take control. The remnant galaxies, matter and energy from the history of played out arenas mix and merge and form new arenas which contact (where blue shift applies). Such contracting arenas lead to the formation of new big crunches. How does energy density affect matter within these universes, or are the universes considered bits of matter, the universe's own integral laws deciding what the matter within does? No, they are not considered bits of matter but there is a "turtles all of the way down" concept and discussion elsewhere that might look at the individual arenas that way, but that subject is in "higher" QWC :).Are there any laws governing this sea of energy besides the ratio of mass to energy?Yes, that is what I mean when I refer to energy density thresholds, and the energy density of an arena that occurs in phases. The lowest energy density occurs when the arena first forms out in the greater universe and begins contracting under the force of gravity. The highest possible energy density occurs in the core of a big crunch that has reached critical capacity.

[jsispat]

I have ulternate theory reg earth formation. our earth has biological growth only and meteroids are seed of planets.outer layer or crust is bark of earth and bark is dead snik or shrinked skin only so do not have any biological symptoms.

[kaneda]

jsispat. We know that apart from a crust 10 - 30 miles thick, the Earth is molten and mostly aluminium, iron, etc.

[AlphaNumeric]

The same vain and empty boasting to cover your ignorance.Are you only capable of projecting your own short comings onto other people? You have yet to show anywhere you have working knowledge of any area of physics. You claim to be competent at GR, but I've never seen you do any calculations in it to derive results. Can you provide me with a link?

If you're unable to grasp concepts and you're unable to do calculations, then you are the definition of 'ignorant' when it comes to physics. Even if you think I'm a parrot, the fact I can do physics, as defined by other physicists, shows I'm at least not ignorant.
What's new? None of your thought processes for a start. AN wanna cracker?I don't claim to be doing research into cosmology. I do claim to be correcting your misunderstandings and ignorance of mainstream cosmology. And yet you continue with this strawman.

You claim no evidence for inflation exists. I show otherwise. You claim mainstream models don't account for derivations from perfect homogeneity and isotropy. I show otherwise. You claim something about GR. I show otherwise. You then claim you knew about them all along, yet your comments and claims prove otherwise.

Your ability to say "I disagree" doesn't make you a good free thinker if the reason you disagree is ignorance. I am not attempting to discuss original research of mine in cosmology. I never have. I have never claimed to. I have repeatedly tried to correct your ignorance of sometimes even high school level physics.

And each and every thing I've corrected you on you have gone on to ignore, lie about and insult not just myself but a multitude of other people, some of whom you claim are my sock puppets, not that you have any evidence of that other than we all disagree with you. Amazingly, the more people who agree with me, the more you think I'm wrong. When all and sundry, even the cranks, agree with me (the probability issue for instance) you don't see that as "Heck, everyone says I'm wrong", you see it as "Well if the cranks agree with him, he's definitely wrong!", even though those cranks are often the people agreeing with you about the supposed incorrectness of the mainstream view. :rolleyes:

Of course, now that I've typed more than 2 paragraphs without quoting you, you're losing interest or you're unwilling to reply because you know a lot of this criticism hits pretty damn close to the mark so it's likely you'll just mass quote this post and say "Incoherent rambling, take your medication". All the while knowing that I'm considered a coherent, knowledgeable poster here and you're considered the lonely incoherent rambling old kook who, despite years of whining, still hasn't shown even passing familiarity with any mainstream physics.

So feel free to continue with the 'LoserNumeric' and 'You're a parrot, skwork!', every time you post those without any discussion of physics you demonstrate your own ignorance, inability to discuss things and your delusions that you're contributing something. Funny how so many of your threads about mainstream physics are just "Inflation is a joke. Discuss". Can't you do anything more? And the pathetic answer is that no, you can't. Possibly that's why you're so quick to jump to name calling and nothing else. You know your postings are pathetic too.

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. Where are your contributions? You are just behaving like a kid in a playground who can't get his way and just rehashing old nonsense you have posted. Bit of a waste of space, as usual.

[Tht1Gy!]

"Why was the big bang so very big? It has been a struggle to explain why the infant universe expanded so rapidly. But now Stephen Hawking at the University of Cambridge, and colleagues, think they are close to perfecting an answer - by treating the early cosmos as a quantum object with a multitude of alternative universes that gradually blend into ours."

Read more (http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19826624.300)

I went there and for a small fee I can read the rest of the article. :rolleyes:Tell us, do you get a cut from that site?:bugeye:

[Crunchy Cat]

AlphaNumeric. Where are your contributions? You are just behaving like a kid in a playground who can't get his way and just rehashing old nonsense you have posted. Bit of a waste of space, as usual.

He actually demonstrated that you are a liar.

[kaneda]

Crunchy Cat. Why don't you produce evidence that I am a liar instead of just producing evidence that you are an extremely nasty person who pokes their nose into the business of others?

[kaneda]

Tht1Gy! As the article points out, inflation is just an ad hoc explanation and there is no fundamental theory that explains inflation. The idea of areas of space expanding and joining together has been around for a few years but there is no evidence for it. It is acceptable to put forwards inflation as an idea but not as a theory because that would suggest that there was evidence for it instead of just a necessity for it.

[Tht1Gy!]

Tht1Gy! As the article points out, inflation is just an ad hoc explanation and there is no fundamental theory that explains inflation. The idea of areas of space expanding and joining together has been around for a few years but there is no evidence for it. It is acceptable to put forwards inflation as an idea but not as a theory because that would suggest that there was evidence for it instead of just a necessity for it.

What the fuck are you talking about?:bugeye: I was chiding a poster, who is NOT you, about possibly being on the make/spamming.

As far as 'the article' is concerned, um so fucking what?

Also, since you bring your "inflation debate" up, while I might agree with you that AN is a bit full of himself, there is one excuse for arrogance: being able to back it up. And while I've had limited encounters with AN he does seem to be able to "back it up".
I would never presume to go toe to toe with him when it comes to crunching numbers. Or anyone else for that matter, I admit that. I might challange him or someone on concepts, (I'm not right now) but if you step into his ring/domain, i.e. the hard numbers, you should play the same game, using the same rules.

[Tht1Gy!]

Crunchy Cat. Why don't you produce evidence that I am a liar instead of just producing evidence that you are an extremely nasty person who pokes their nose into the business of others?

The business of others??? Take out a bank loan, get an engineering degree and build a fucking bridge.:bugeye:
This is a non-formal debate forum, and if Crunchy Cat wants to call you a liar, [so, while childish ;)] Crunchy Cat can call you a liar.



Ps Hey Crunchy Cat, I'm just teasing you. No offence is intended. ;)

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat. Why don't you produce evidence that I am a liar instead of just producing evidence that you are an extremely nasty person who pokes their nose into the business of others?

Why would I invest the time and effort to re-perform the demonstration that AlphaNumeric already performed? He showed you to be a liar. If you don't like that then maybe it will motivate you to get your thoughts, education, positions, and behaviors straightened out.

[Ophiolite]

Crunchy Cat. Why don't you produce evidence that I am a liar instead of just producing evidence that you are an extremely nasty person who pokes their nose into the business of others?Why don't you go away? Your posts fall into one of two categories. Either you are pontificating on topics of which you clearly have no knowledge and only a smattering of a relevant vocabulary, or you are bludgeoning your way through attempted character assassinations.
You are both unpleasant and ignorant. Disappear, please.

[Crunchy Cat]

Ps Hey Crunchy Cat, I'm just teasing you. No offence is intended. ;)

Buy me some beer and I'll help you tease me :).

[Tht1Gy!]

:roflmao:

I don't drink beer tho, (I am an alcoholic). Would herbal intoxicants suffice? ;)

[Tht1Gy!]

KanedaCrunchy Cat. Why don't you produce evidence that I am a liar instead of just producing evidence that you are an extremely nasty person who pokes their nose into the business of others?


Why don't you go away? Your posts fall into one of two categories. Either you are pontificating on topics of which you clearly have no knowledge and only a smattering of a relevant vocabulary, or you are bludgeoning your way through attempted character assassinations.
You are both unpleasant and ignorant. Disappear, please.

To Kaneda: Or at the very least: SiTFU!!!

[Crunchy Cat]

:roflmao:

I don't drink beer tho, (I am an alcoholic). Would herbal intoxicants suffice? ;)

A buzz is a buzz is a buzz :m:

[Tht1Gy!]

We are so on the same page with this one!!:D

(Even if you are an atheist. lol)

[quantum_wave]

Finally this thread is starting to make sense to me :cool:.

[Tht1Gy!]

I have incontrovertible proof that the big bang was caused by the Great Arkelsneezure.*

Beware the Great White Handkerchief. :eek:

*Source: Douglas Addams

[kaneda]

The business of others??? Take out a bank loan, get an engineering degree and build a fucking bridge.:bugeye:
This is a non-formal debate forum, and if Crunchy Cat wants to call you a liar, [so, while childish ;)] Crunchy Cat can call you a liar.

Ps Hey Crunchy Cat, I'm just teasing you. No offence is intended. ;)

How did you escape your keepers?

[kaneda]

Why don't you go away? Your posts fall into one of two categories. Either you are pontificating on topics of which you clearly have no knowledge and only a smattering of a relevant vocabulary, or you are bludgeoning your way through attempted character assassinations.
You are both unpleasant and ignorant. Disappear, please.


If I am wrong, show where I am wrong. If you just rant, people are going to doubt your sanity.

[kaneda]

Time wasters aside, back to the original thread with some ideas. For the BB to work, we need something from nothing. The idea of a multiverse is a problem as it just pushes the first cause back one step without solving anything because you then have to explain how that came about. Saying it has always existed is nonsense. So called virtual particles need highly specific conditions as they appear and disappear and it suggests that we are merely making visible what is already there but what we cannot see (ie: they are forming from more fundamental particles or a 4D particle is becoming 3D for a moment. Importantly, they do not stay but vanish so are ultimately of no use to us.)

A problem here is that we have the whole universe appearing in one point (some would say far more, as in the cause of the CMB) instead of just some very basic particles appearing. This is possibly where a multiverse could come in, where there has been an accumulation of material over an unbelievable amount of time and suddenly there is enough for a whole universe.