Einstein was right!

[Strange]

The model is NOT based on observation it is an attempt to explain a perplexing observation, maybe you should actually look at the model.

 

 

Therefore the model is consistent with the observations. As your model produces different results, it is WRONG.

[Butch]

Are you familiar with the model?

[Strange]

Are you familiar with the model?

 

 

I don't need to be. It is not relevant.

 

Your model produces results that do not match observations. Observations show that expansion started accelerating relatively recently. You say your model says something different. Therefore your model is wrong.

[Butch]

In science there are no facts,there are only speculations, hypothesis and accepted theories. No one is wrong or right, it is a discussion and a study. If you are inflexible, perhaps you should pursue applied science.

 

I do appreciate your challenges, but not your bashing.

[studiot]

If you have finished dancing with strange, how about responding to my post#36?

[Butch]

Dr. Perlmuter realized that if the expansion of the universe had been accelerating as observations indicated, for 13.8 billion years, it would be a very cold dead place. His model allows for a change in the rate of acceleration to match the current state of the universe.

 

My model presents a universe that is consistent with the Big Bang and Steady State. If it is correct, Perlmuter model could have a constant increase in acceleration, which to me seems a better model... He might agree. As for Hubble, it could be erroneous. We should always be questioning.

 

 

You posted this stuff in another recent thread, I can't now find - it may have been locked.

 

I asked you about it there but received no reply.

I did not want to appear to be hi-jacking the discussion, it was someone asking what force moved time or something like that.

Could you please restate your question?

[studiot]

I did not want to appear to be hi-jacking the discussion, it was someone asking what force moved time or something like that.

Could you please restate your question?

 

 

I would If I could find it.

 

I was hoping that your memory of that that other thread was better than mine.

 

I have no interest in Dr P and we should, in any case, not be discussing hearsay.

 

My points were of a mathematical nature, concerning your statements on infinity comparing them to similar processes in the solutions to common physical equations.

Edited November 15, 2016 by studiot

[Mordred]

So when are you going to show me YOUR MODEL complete with the required math?

 

I have yet to see you 3 dimensional volume in any equation you have shown.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

Ahh... My rules for infinity?

 

1)Any quantity that is a factor of infinity approaches infinity.

 

2)Any quantity that is not a factor of infinity approaches zero.

So when are you going to show me YOUR MODEL complete with the required math?

 

I have yet to see you 3 dimensional volume in any equation you have shown.

That is difficult to do on a 2d surface, the math is Space = 1/Time^2

Edited November 15, 2016 by Butch

[studiot]

Ahh... My rules for infinity?

 

1)Any quantity that is a factor of infinity approaches infinity.

 

2)Any quantity that is not a factor of infinity approaches zero.

 

I don't recall the exact words so this is the substance of what I said, but may not be all.

 

 

I observed that your two statements remind me of the solutions to common differential equations of physics which often have competing solutions, one of which grows indefinitely and the other dies away.

The trick is balancing this competition.

 

The second part was about your understanding of 'infinity'.

 

Please expand on what you mean by factors of infinity.

Mathematically infinity has no factors.

 

Do you understand what a singularity is and what a removable singularity is, or what poles and zeros are in mathematical analysis?

[Butch]

Space is 3 dimensional and expands equally on all axis.

[studiot]

Space is 3 dimensional and expands equally on all axis.

 

This is said apropos of what ?

[Butch]

An example of my rules and a part of my hypothesis that I did not wish to discuss just yet, but good a time as any I suppose.

 

Extend the graph above with limits of infinity, what do you get?

[Mordred]

1/time^2 hold on stop tbe presses how completely useless. All these claims and not a single equation that shows how redshift works. You can"t even that equation to calculate proper distance. Let alone use it to derive well tested Lorentz equations under GR

Edited November 15, 2016 by Mordred

[studiot]

An example of my rules and a part of my hypothesis that I did not wish to discuss just yet, but good a time as any I suppose.

 

Extend the graph above with limits of infinity, what do you get?

 

Well if that contains an answer to one of my questions, I don't see it.

 

I would remind your obligations under of the rules of this forum to answer questions, fairly put, about details of your hypotheses.

[Butch]

I never said this was in any way to explain red shift.

Did you extend the graph?

[studiot]

I never said this was in any way to explain red shift.

Did you extend the graph?

 

Since I didn't ask that why should I care?

 

I will repeat my question one more time.

 

What do you understand a factor of infinity to mean, since you introduced the term and it appears contrary to common mathematical usage to me?

Edited November 16, 2016 by studiot

[Butch]

If we plot y=1/x^2 with limits of infinity we get something like this:

[studiot]

So you are not going to answer my question?

[Butch]

The hyperbolic curve becomes a right angle. This is because with limits of infinity x=1 is the equivalent to x=0.

The implication for my hypothesis is that if time is infinite the universe expands into existence at an infinite rate of acceleration @ T0.

This seems impossible at first, but after all does the universe exist one nanosecond ago?

If you know calculus, you know what limits of infinity represents.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Butch

[Strange]

In science there are no facts,there are only speculations, hypothesis and accepted theories. No one is wrong or right, it is a discussion and a study. If you are inflexible, perhaps you should pursue applied science.

 

 

Hyptheses and theories need to be supported by evidence. You have totally failed to do this.

[studiot]

You will be better understood if you use standard language.

 

For example

 

If two numbers m and n, when multiplied together, yield the number N then m and n are said to be factors of N so long as m and n are not equal to N or 1. (Some people extend this to say that N is prime if the only two 'factors' of N are N and 1)

 

There are no numbers m, or n that satisfy this for [math]N = \infty [/math]

 

I think you mean something else and I was trying to help you find whatever it is.

Edited November 16, 2016 by studiot

[Strange]

Dr. Perlmuter realized that if the expansion of the universe had been accelerating as observations indicated, for 13.8 billion years, it would be a very cold dead place.

 

 

The observations show that it has only recently started accelerating. It has not been accelerating for 13.8 billion years.

 

 

 

My model presents a universe that is consistent with the Big Bang and Steady State.

 

That is impossible. The two models are mutually contradictory. And one of them is falsified by the evidence.

 

 

 

Perlmuter model could have a constant increase in acceleration, which to me seems a better model...

 

It could. But that is not what the data shows.

 

Why are you ignoring observation and making up random nonsense. That is not how science works.

 

 

 

As for Hubble, it could be erroneous.

 

How so. The observations have been repeated and extended over the decades. Where do you propose the errors in the observations come from?

 

 

 

Ahh... My rules for infinity?

 

1)Any quantity that is a factor of infinity approaches infinity.

 

2)Any quantity that is not a factor of infinity approaches zero.

 

That doesn't really mean anything.

 

 

 

That is difficult to do on a 2d surface, the math is Space = 1/Time^2

 

Again: THAT DOES NOT MATCH THE DATA. Therefore it is WRONG.

[Butch]

A factor of infinity is irrational as is infinity, however an example would be 1/2 infinity.

[Strange]

Space is 3 dimensional and expands equally on all axis.

 

 

Congratulations on making a correct statement. Even a broken clock is right occasionally.