Big Bang or Big Bounce Model of the Universe?

Absolutely brilliant! I wonder if you realize just how smack on the nose you are? Well, probably you do, otherwise you would not have said the above, but let me expand, though it is waaaay off topic:

(My "intermediate training" was in population & evolutionary genetics) As you say, evolution is a population phenomenon. Specifically we define evolution to be the change in allele frequency over time. That's it, no more, no less, and you would have to a long way to find a professional geneticist who would disagree with this definition

Notice first that the concept of allele frequency only makes sense in a population.

Notice next that no mechanism is implied. For sure, mutation plus selection is one such, but there are others, most notably genetic drift. There are others too, but recombination, basically that individuals have sex etc, as you put it, is, since almost no populations are truly fully out-breeding, an extremely weak driver of evolution in and of itself (though, of course, it is important in drift, which is is essentially a sampling effect)

Notice also that a change in allele frequency need not imply any sort of "improvement" of a population or "direction of evolution" (whatever that means); though Darwin's naive (but simplisticly correct) ideas of adaptation via selection on mutations suggest this, other drivers of change in allele frequency do not.

Why am I posting this irrelevant shite? Because it's intended as an illustration that, while it is good to read pop-sci sources, it is important to understand that they at best skate over the surface, and at worst give a biased (or should I say outmoded) view of the subject in question, whatever it happens to be.

More importantly, if your only sources are popularizations and/or Wikipedia, you might be well advised NOT to develop your own theories until you understand your subject in some depth.

Most importantly, it is inadvisable, to say the least, to abuse those whose access to the topic in hand extends well beyond Wikipedia and pop-sci texts

Point to be taken in this thread, perhaps?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think this thread can be continued if we get back on topic. M1 responded to appropriate posts until post #12 or #13, and then AN trolled and sent the thread into flaming. I would like to hear M1's response to post #12 and explain what occurs in your model to interrupt the GR outcome of a universe where expansion is accelerating and where the heat death of the universe (Big Rip) is the predicted GR outcome. I'm OK with the answer of cooling dampening the expansion and then the collapse of galaxies and galaxy groups into a big crunch, but I would like to know more about the cause of the interruption of the expansion momentum of the galaxies as the universe cools.

It seems to me that as the distance between galaxies and groups increases, gravity is diminished due to the inverse square law.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just a note on evolution,

I agree that Wikipedia is not the source all to be all. However Wikipedia is good for: 1) initial searches for information, and 2) confirming of information and ideas.

After the initial searches, and confirming of information on "Wiki" one should compare that information with various other sources. A minimum of three different sources is typically required to confirm information about a topic or subject.

Not to mention that Wiki is "free" and is translated into many different languages; which gives the whole world access to the same information; is phenomenal.

Back, to evolution. At this current state in history Wikipedia is evolving into the world's largest repository for information. You can say the Wikipedia has an effect similar to gravity. Where gravity coagulates and condenses matter into a coherent thing. Similarly, Wikipedia coagulates and condenses information into a coherent thing. This is also a process called evolution.

The founder of Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales in my opinion should someday get a Nobel Prize; for his contribution to the world, and for creating an "environment" for "information" to "evolve."

Wikipedia is not like a tangible book, which would take at least a year to evolve/update. New information can be uploaded the same day, that the new information is presented to the world at large. This makes "Wiki" and "Evolution Information Machine." This cannot happen with a tangible book.

Lastly, people are very, very scrutinizing about what type of information is written and described on "Wiki." And I actually think that this is a better "scientific filtering" process than what the current academic journals provide. Those pay to play academic journals are very biased and cliquish; and are like ancient dinosaurs, like ancient relics of the past; a dying breed.

So, in the next three to five years of "Wiki - Evolution" if you have an open mind, you will have a different take about "Wiki"; which would end up being opposing to your posted statements.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are other "inverse distance" laws or rules, that govern matter and energy, that you are not considering.

You, should consider, the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) equations.

 

But to my knowledge none of those solutions allow for space to be shared between two expanding entities. There is one GR universe and the EFEs describe one universe. There is not room for preconditions outside of the geometry and yet, if there were preconditions there has to be space outside.

As rpenner explained, we know there was a point in time in the first instant after the big bang when the whole of the GR universe was a tiny hot ball with unknown internal characteristics and origin.

Where in the EFEs or related equations and geometries is there any accommodation for outside space where preconditions could have existed?

And the inverse square law does apply in may places throughout science and not just to gravity as you say but in regard to the interruption of expansion where galaxies of great mass are moving away from each other at a faster rate, is the any inverse square law that will off set the gravitational inverse square law?

 

Magneto_1, what's your reply to this post?

(Sadly, plagiarism is almost never the last refuge of the crackpot. Most start on "inspired" writing so very, very early.)

 

Section 2.6 of the 2009-2010 University of Phoenix's Faculty Handbook details the "Faculty Code of Conduct" which describes as a "major categor[y] of misconduct", "Failure to uphold standards of academic integrity, including but not limited to: Plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty ..." (page 23) Another major category is "Defamatory statements, undocumented allegations, attack upon personal integrity, or harassment of any kind" (page 24) While some major categories are clearly tied to on-campus or work-hours behavior, these are examples where no such limitation is readily apparent.

Section 8.3 of the same document holds that "Any person who believes that a faculty member has violated the Faculty Code of Conduct should bring that concern to the attention of the campus Director of Academic Affairs (DAA)" (page 69, emphasis added) and details the steps required, with a written response due from the University of Phoenix in 10 days.

https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/content/FAResources/facultyacknowledge/sources/2009FacultyHandbook.pdf

I feel that many apologies to many parties are due from Mr. Kemp. I am of the strong opinion that he has fallen short of any standard of rational argument in the larger part of his history of 188 posts. I am of the opinion that Mr. Kemp has sought to mislead readers about his own proficiencies through the dishonest practice of thanking people for material beyond his ability to read, parse, and use. I think we have multiple instances of obvious plagiarism and in some cases can track them to their original uncited sources and date of authorship. Continued hostility from Mr. Kemp reads as bluster in the face of the overwhelming competence of his critics.

In light of his posts #70 and #80 in this thread, I feel Mr. Kemp wants no part of the academic ethics I, on my best days, aspire to and no part of of the benevolent fellowship of those who seek to improve human wisdom. Therefore, I see no ethical obstacle to draft a formal written complaint and the economic disincentives are slight indeed. It may be bad form, but post #80 has outraged and blinded me to the scorn of my peers and the risk of possible expulsion from this blessed forum. He has goaded me with his vile and base libels until my sclera colors with blood and my spleen convulses. And now, I blacken his name to the heavens, asking all and sundry powers to take revenge for my fallen former patient self.

Oh, wait. That long-running batch job just finished.

Now accepting rational arguments for alternative courses of action.

 

What are you up too??

First, the reply assumed the readers and more specifically "RPenner" and "AlphaNumeric's Sockpuppet Guest254", were very knowledgeable about the "Magnetic Monopoles" and the "Divergence of the Magnetic Field."

Sorry for assuming that the readers were knowledgeable about "Magnetic Monopoles;" and my appologies more specifically to "RPenner" and "AlphaNumeric's Sockpuppet Guest254", I assumed that they were already familiar with the Divergence of the Magnetic field; I was wrong.

Next, let's look at the post, without the truncation:

The wiki paragraph is given as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#Maxwell's_equations

"Like all vector fields the B-field has two important mathematical properties that relates it to its sources. (For magnetic fields the sources are currents and changing electric fields.) These two properties, along with the two corresponding properties of the electric field, make up Maxwell's Equations. Maxwell's Equations together with the Lorentz force law form a complete description of classical electrodynamics including both electricity and magnetism.

The first property is the divergence of a vector field A, ∇ · A which represents how A 'flows' outward from a given point. As discussed above, a B-field line never starts or ends at a point but instead forms a complete loop. This is mathematically equivalent to saying that the divergence of B is zero. (Such vector fields are called solenoidal vector fields.) This property is called Gauss's law for magnetism and is equivalent to the statement that there are no magnetic charges or magnetic monopoles. The electric field on the other hand begins and ends at electric charges so that its divergence is non-zero and proportional to the charge density (See Gauss's law).

The second mathematical property is called the curl, such that ∇ × A represents how A curls or 'circulates' around a given point. The result of the curl is called a 'circulation source'. The equations for the curl of B and of E are called the Ampère–Maxwell equation and Faraday's law respectively. They represent the differential forms of the integral equations given above.

Magnetic field, like all pseudovectors, changes sign when reflected in a mirror: When a loop of wire (black), carrying a current is reflected in a mirror (dotted line), the magnetic field it generates (blue) is not simply reflected in the mirror; rather, it is reflected and reversed.The complete set of Maxwell's equations then are:"​

Here is my paragraph:

A magnetic (B-field) line never starts or ends at a point but instead forms a complete loop. This is mathematically equivalent to saying that the divergence of the (B-field) is zero. The magnetic vector fields are called solenoid vector fields; meaning that there is no starting or stopping point. This property that a magnetic (B-field) line never starts or ends at a point but instead forms a complete loop is called Gauss's law for magnetism and is equivalent to the statement that there are no magnetic charges or magnetic monopoles.​

Now, you judge:

Now let's look at the rules:

Idea-expression divide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide

Some courts have recognized that there are particular ideas that can be expressed intelligibly only in one or a limited number of ways. Therefore even the expression in these circumstances is unprotected, or extremely limited to verbatim copying only. In the United States this is known as the merger doctrine, because the expression is considered to be inextricably merged with the idea.​

Wikipedia:Non-free content

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_free_content#Text

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea.

Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.​

Fair use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Amount_and_substantiality

The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use.​

Now, do some physics!!

 

Judge, that based on five (5) pages of posts presenting and defending physics, relative to your two (2) to three (3) posts; of complete nonsense!

 

Red = verbatim from second paragraph of this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnetic_field&oldid=430261966#Maxwell.27s_equations
Orange = verbatim with case change or changed positions
Green = Added
Blue = Added to the detriment of the text. Particularly the first set of blue parenthesis.

The last major edit to the block was on Wikipedia was on July 2, 2008.

(underlined sections correspond with the current version).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnetic_field&oldid=223012389#Maxwell.27s_Equations

Further, Wikipedia readily demonstrates many ways to say much the same thing.

 

Look, give it a rest!!

As a lawyer, your (Orange, Green, and Blue) destroys your case!! Especially your, "Blue" reference. If you can have an opinion about what is and is not detriment means that the paragraph is different, or opinionated. I thought that you were a smart guy!

You are truncating the paragraph to make it say what you want it to say; and this really makes you look like an idiot. I presented to you the "Fair Use" links.

You are completely embarrassing yourself!! But that you are use too!!


Look, this is a "Physics & Math Forum" if you are not able to add value by either presenting physics in an enlightened way or refuting physics in an intelligent manner, find some other place to take a "dump."

Because you are not presenting any physics, you are presenting "Crap"!!:bugeye:

This appears to be a forum that allows the physicist to be attacked and not the physics!!

Look, if you can't take it. Don't dish it out!! People that live in glass houses, should not throw rocks!!

Therefore, I will repeat:

The Tree and Its Fruit

Beware of false prophets (physicists - AlphaNumeric, RPenner & CPTBork) who come disguised as harmless sheep (claiming to be physicists) but are really vicious wolves.

You can identify them by their fruit (posts), that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes (good physics) from thornbushes (their postings), or figs from thistles (their postings)?

A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit.

So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down (eventually falsified) and thrown into the fire (loses all respect and credibility).

Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

I don't make any pretences about being a sheep.

Furthermore, what do you mean 'claiming to be physicists'. I've proven to you I am, I have shown you my peer reviewed published work, which is more than can be said for you. CptBork is working towards a PhD. You haven't got one, nor are you working towards one. By any reasonable measure, CptBork and I are more legitimately called 'physicist' than you.

We don't post our work here trying to convince people its worthwhile, while you do. What does that say about you? When you've posted incorrect work I've corrected you but you haven't listened. What does that say about you? Just because you don't like being corrected doesn't mean our corrections aren't 'good physics'.

Where's your 'good fruit'? None of your work is published, you've got no legitimate research to your name, you have no advanced qualifications and you're not employed as a researcher. If by his research you know a physicist then you're not a physicist.

You are in a state of denial because you don't like what actual physicists say to you. You try to denigate CptBork, myself and others saying we 'claim' to be physicists but you've seen research from myself, you know I'm not lying about that. Then compare that with yours, a complete absence of anything valid.

Look in the mirror a bit before trying to call other people's work into question.

Correcting Magneto isn't trolling, it's stopping a deceptive liar from spreading misinformation. I know you feel a kindred spirit with him because you both get corrected by me but too bad.

If you assumed Rpenner, Guest and I are very knowledgeable about that stuff copying from Wikipedia is even less justified because we're familiar with the basics, which is what Wikipedia cover.

Even if we were beginners quoting from Wikipedia and not making it clear you're doing so (even though several people called you out and said "I know you're quoting Wikipedia") is still unacceptable. Doesn't matter if Wikipedia have a fair use policy, that means you're allowed to quote it but in any scientific discussion you should state you're quoting it. If Wikipedia's license didn't allow copying it would mean you can't quote it, regardless of whether you cite it or not.

One of the corner stones of science is correctly attributing work to people. Plagiarism is one of the cardinal sins of research and you've been caught doing it. Now you're trying to dig yourself out.

If you man up and face up to it and admit it perhaps people will.

Are you claiming to be a lawyer now?

Let us know when you learn any and aren't just copying from Wikipedia.

 

Of course, this is not the first time Robert Louis Kemp has been caught plagiarizing. Other examples

and here

There are many, many more. What is so telling about these is the level of material he feels the need to plagiarize. Take the magnetic monopole quote for instance. The material he's quoted from Wikipedia is basic enough so that a first year undergraduate would easily understand it. After all, it is only elementary vector calculus. And yet Robert Louis Kemp is not familiar enough with this material to formulate his own sentence on the subject matter.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: the man is a complete fraud.

 

I think you are wrong here. I think he uses the word complex in the sense that it is complicated.
For him it is complex GR in the sense that it is complicated GR and this is why he doesn't understand it. It's too complex

 

Good grief, another wannabe clone drone enters the fray. You can be so proud. I'll look for you to be kicking me first chance you get. Troll away.

 

You don't correct. That is a one step process. You troll after correcting. And don't always flame me when I stand up against your unprofessional conduct, that is bad form and you are wrong about me but you react because I'm not afraid of your trolling. You have never actually shown where I'm wrong, only where we disagree on speculation. People with standards might not be as boisterous as the trolls but we know who the trolls are. Credibility is lost when you go beyond correcting and get into vengeance and hate.

 

You are going over board on this flaming. You don't get this upset about someone using words from a common reference source in their work when there isn't anything remarkable about the reference used. Now if he is describing new science or findings and it is taken from some one, then you would have a case. You are just piling on to be with "in crowd". Low class characters seem to behave that way.

 

Actually I'm just in the final stages of a Master's degree, keeping things nice and simple for now. Maybe a Ph.D. attempt will be in the cards later, but I'm not in a rush, trying to soak up as much as I can along the way before I get too specialized. It's a shame Magneto had to make an issue of my academic background to hide the stupidity in his posts, because even a high school student should be able to sniff out the poop contained therein (doubtlessly, someone lacking even that level of background might be ignorant enough to think others won't notice).

It's also funny that he's boasting about jobs he's applied for, whereas I never boasted that multimillion dollar decisions are already being made based on my research.

 

The moderator should put an end to the trolling, and if they want to call me a troll for objecting to this kind of behavior then that is fine too. It would be a simple matter to set standards for the forum and then enforce them. I would gladly be banned for life for objecting to this crap if it meant that the trolls were banned too. At least I could read discussions without having every interesting thread turn into a flame fest.

 

Until now you mean.