pywakit

walkntune wrote:

 

My eyes are actually very open to the majesty of existence and it is found only through awareness and humility to the truth and not from our own methods.Truth can only be seen by faith that it is in front of you.If you have to search for it then you must believe that it is missing or why else would you search?

Yes. I don't doubt for a moment your eyes are open. I wish all believers shared your curiosity. It isn't so much that truth is 'missing'. Physics existed long before Man came along to 'discover' it. As did chemistry and EM. All we are trying to do is understand the truth that is in front of us. Science gives us a very effective manner in which to reveal truths that are already there. Does it have limits? That remains to be seen. So far science has shown that 'truths' which seemed to have no answer before turn out to have very simple answers. In most cases, very beautiful answers.

Does the universe care what we do and do not understand? I don't think so, but WE care, and that's all that really matters.

Religion is not 'bad' per se, as long as it does not hinder our search for answers. There is nothing good in ignorance other than 'bliss'. Lol.

But if 'we' don't try to understand the universe we exist in ... then who? Shall we live our lives out in ignorant bliss, or take the risk we might not like the answer?

I say ... take the risk. We can always learn to adapt. We always have.

I could be wrong here but it sounds like your rebuttal was within your own realm of logic and reasoning! LOL

 

If your realm of logic and reasoning changes tomorrow, will your reality change with it?

Only my perception if it. Lol. The universe does not exist for my benefit. It just exists. I happen to think it's a beautiful place to be ...

One thing that believers just won't accept is this is the only existence they get. What a shame it would be to spend your life worshipping a make-believe idol, when there is so much to learn of the physical universe, and so little time to learn it ....

But there is nothing I can say that will open your eyes to the true majesty of existence. Mores the pity.

I will go to my death wondering how humans can still believe that some entity built the universe just for us. All 350 billion galaxies and counting. They must really think they are special.

Ok. One more attempt.

When men wrote the bible, they looked around them and realized how complicated everything was. From the number of droplets in an ocean wave, to a forest with infinite individual needles, to all the biological species ... and of course, to the shining glory of life itself ... MAN.

Clearly this was a complex place. Beyond the scope of any man's brain to comprehend. By comparison, the night sky was pretty simple. The 'stars' ( maybe a couple thousand ) were the same ( except for a few wanderers ) every night. Yes, they shifted a little from season to season, but they always returned, and the pattern of lights never changed.

Is it any wonder that it took God 6 days to create all the complexity around them, but merely willed the heavens into existence ... instantaneously? Nope. Makes perfect sense. Or it would of then. But considering there must be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 OTHER stars and planets .... at least ... WITH ALL THE SAME COMPLEXITY as ours .... do you think the authors, if they'd known ... would have written it the way they did? I don't think they would have.

Seems a little silly, doesn't it? God could have willed ours into existence in .0000000000000000000000000001 seconds with time left over. Lol. Always makes me laugh when believers accuse me of having an ego. I would think it would be impossible to believe that out of so many stars and planets ... out of all the life that must exist throughout the local universe .... just the followers of Jesus were chosen to live in paradise for eternity. Now THAT'S some serious ego.

Well, if indoctrination wasn't effective, nobody would do it ....

Lol. Yes, perhaps you are right in your first statement. As for the last ... concepts like 'prayer' and 'worship' are alien to me. I couldn't even worship Shakira. And I already talk to myself too much.

Merged post follows:

Postby Timothy on December 27th, 2009, 2:19 am

Why must logic or reason coincide with reality or existence itself, if existence precedes human mind and reality flows from the human mind?

Where does the consistency between logic and reason, and existence or reality arise from?

Why must our mind necessarily determine how things actually are? To say things must be logical or reasonable is to say that we decide how things must be. To think solely within the realms of logic or reason, is to think within boundaries that will never illuminate that which is, to us, unreasonable or illogical.

 

Furthermore, must logic and reason conform to reality, or must reality conform to logic and reason? If the former, how can we say things must be logical or reasonable? If the latter, how can we say 'we' do not decide how reality appears? Or where does logic and reason appear beyond the human mind? To say that everything is or must be logical or reasonable is to say that the universe is wrought of mind.

Why must logic or reason coincide with reality or existence itself, if existence precedes human mind and reality flows from the human mind?

This question is well-constructed meaningless verbage. To begin with, reality exists whether or not I am there to observe it. As an observer, however, if I wish to quantify my observations, I have to have some structural mechanism for doing so. Otherwise each seperate event bears no relationship to another, and I start from scratch each time. I remain hopelessly confused. " ... if existence precedes ... " What existence? Mine? The universe? An acceptance of reality, and an agreed upon language, and definitions allows us to quantify, and communicate the reality. Without it we may as well be mute. It is a nonsensical question.

Where does the consistency between logic and reason, and existence or reality arise from?

Another nonsensical question. I'm getting a head-ache.

Why must our mind necessarily determine how things actually are?

Because 'not determining' results in total chaos. Communication is impossible because we each have our own definitions of EVERYTHING.

To say things must be logical or reasonable is to say that we decide how things must be.

That is an illogical statement on it's face. The two do not follow. It makes a ridiculous claim. No we don't. We just agree on a language so we can understand each other. It has nothing to do with 'deciding how things must be'.

To think solely within the realms of logic or reason, is to think within boundaries that will never illuminate that which is, to us, unreasonable or illogical.

That is incorrect. With out logic and reason we would be incapable of recognizing what IS unreasonable, or illogical.

Furthermore, must logic and reason conform to reality, or must reality conform to logic and reason?

Logic and reason foster comprehension of the observed reality, and give us a manner in which to express that comprehension, and set agreed upon rules for communication.

If the former, how can we say things must be logical or reasonable?

Reality is. If you don't like it, don't participate.

If the latter, how can we say 'we' do not decide how reality appears?

Again, reality is. Logic and reason allow us to quantify that reality. A common language in which to express it.

Or where does logic and reason appear beyond the human mind?

This is silly. It requires a mind to use the tools of logic and reason.

To say that everything is or must be logical or reasonable is to say that the universe is wrought of mind.

Not surprisingly, I am not following the logic here. A does not infer B. A does not imply B. A does not have anything at all to do with B. The universe exists whether or not we are around to observe it. That is called ... reality.

To everyone who has participated ... I hope 2010 is a satisfying, and productive year for you.

Thank you for being so patient with me ...

Sorry Martin. I am not the most tactful human alive .... Neil DeGrasse Tyson ( a very patient man, in my experience ), Seth Shostak, and Frank Drake come to mind also.

Thank you for attempting to straighten me out on GR. Clearly I have misunderstood it's scope, and limitations. I will study harder, I promise.

As grumpy as I can get with science, I am not anti-science at all. I think you must know this by now. Quite the contrary. I fully expect science to explain all the mysteries of the universe in time ... Like you, I hope within my life time.

I would use Dark Energy as an example of my 'suspicion'. I have read 'theoretical' models that seem to approach it's existence as a 'given' ... then building on or incorporating DE into the model. This is annoying to me, as it only lends further authenticity to an unproven 'hypothetical'. Much the same with Hawking Radiation. Not all respected scientists are in agreement with either of these, as I am sure you know.

It is wrong of me to cast aspersions on you or any other scientist. It isn't my intent.

You wrote:

 

I was not claiming an absolute certainty that there is no substance that expands ...

We may be talking at cross-purposes here. I don't think space DOES expand. What I am asserting is that space is an energized structure without form ( infinite ), but with certain properties, and limitations. And these properties are possibly mis-identified as an outside force ( DE ) working on both it, and matter. And that matter/energy in the visible local universe are an integral ( borrowed energy ) and transitory part of a previously existing ( eternal ) structure.

My main goal is to devise, or have someone else think of a way to devise, experiments that would tend to infer my model as opposed to the current standard model, and others waiting in the wings. At the same time I wait patiently for someone to say ... " Ok, jerk. Here's your critical flaw!" Lol. In which case it's back to square one.

In the meantime, I just maintain my desire to contribute something meaningful to Mankind. I could have less lofty goals, I suppose ... but if you are going to dream, you might as well dream big.

Your patience rivals Dr. Tyson's. Thank you again.

Merged post follows:

To everyone who has participated ... I hope 2010 is a satisfying, and productive year for you.

Thank you for being so patient with me ...

Undeserved flattery, but thank you. Honestly, I am very surprised I have not been banned permanently. I glanced through the offences of suspendees and I think I am guilty of all of them. Maybe nobody is really paying any attention to me .... Lol.

Anyway, I went through your stuff, and I really am unqualified to make judgements. But I have to side with Moo, SwansonT, and others. You actually start off quite well, but then things get a little murky.

There is either an inherent capricious nature to the meta-physical, it is directed by an intelligence, or it doesn't exist. I'm in the 'does not exist' camp.

Every claim of metaphysical/supernatural powers, events, occurrences has failed in the laboratory. There have been some famous ones, like Uri Geller who claimed to bend spoons with his mind. All such claims have been proven to be fraudulent. It defies logic that the event could occur outside the lab, but the moment you walk through a door, they evaporate.

The american, and russian governments both spent millions, and many years trying to prove the existence of metaphysics for military/political applications. Yes, they took it quite seriously. They gathered up all the self-proclaimed psychics, and mediums in the world and tried like crazy to eke performances out of them. More often than not, they performed worse than control groups ... meaning they were incapable of improving upon normal expectations for 'chance'. As far as having a difference in proven experimental evidence ( like the double-slit experiment ) there was no observed effect.

Yet the myths live on, the current generation of perps counting on the ignorance, and gullibility of their audiences, and their own clever slight-of-hand tricks. And the stories continue to circulate among the ignorant convincing them that there must be truth to it ....

I would continue to explore the basic tenet of your theory, but I would also accept that there is no reason for researchers to 'fix' the experiments in such a manner that the results are skewed toward physical answers. On the contrary, I think science would be quite excited to find psychic phenomena are real.

At some point, it's time to move on as the horse is long dead ... this doesn't mean it can't be revived one day though ... so keep the thought on the back burner ...

I've been busy, and chose to address your request first. I'll still cover Timothy's post in a while. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

Merged post follows:

To everyone who has participated ... I hope 2010 is a satisfying, and productive year for you.

Thank you for being so patient with me ...

Another point to remember is ... all religions are 'models of the universe'. But they are not THEORETICAL models because they lack any physical evidence to support their model, there is no way to create an experiment to support their model, and they are incapable of accurately predicting any physical phenomena. So they are HYPOTHETICAL models. Purely speculative. And therefore useless in determining anything of a physical nature or structure in the universe.

There is a reason why philosophy or beliefs must stay out of the laboratory ...

A short story:

Two neighbors ( both highly intelligent, and both with a strong belief in the Designer ) each in their respective yards, are relaxing under a tree. It is a pleasant summer, and they while away the afternoon contemplating the world around them.

At about the same moment an apple falls on both, conking them hard on the head.

"Ooowwww!" "Ooowwww!"

The first man rubs his injured head and asks ... "Why did that apple fall?"

The second man rubs his injured head and asks ... "Why did that apple fall on ME?"

The second man retreats to his study, and spends hours ... days ... deep in thought, nursing his bruised head.

Firmly believing that the Designer 'has a plan for him' ... he begins to speculate on the possibilities.

What if ... this was a sign from above?

What if ... the Designer is trying to send me a message?

What if ... ( remembering what he was doing when the event happened ) I am being punished for contemplating the nature of the world I live in?

Why did He DO this to ME?

Weeks pass. He eventually leaves his study no closer to a solution than the day he walked in, concluding that it is an unsolvable mystery.

The first man retreats to his study, too. He spends hours ... days ... deep in thought, nursing his bruised head.

Of course, he immediately realizes that it was foolish for him to sit under the tree at that time of year, for the ground is always littered with apples in mid-summer.

Still, he is curious. What makes things fall? Is it the Designer's hand? Or are there other forces involved?

He devises a series of experiments. The results of those experiments inspire him to make further predictions, and devise more experiments.

He leaves his study weeks later with a handful of empirical evidence, having laid the foundation for one of the most momentous discoveries in human history.

Gravity's cause and effect.

The second man shall remain nameless.

The first man is Sir Isaac Newton.

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

Merged post follows:

I never take it personal first since I feel I have more to gain than to give by being in these discussions.I believe in humility and I care less whether someone takes my opinions as the word of God or not.Sorry If I don't take all science to be the word of God either.There is even so much debate between the sciences. Who is the rational one?Which rational truth will be here 100 years from now? If all of reality falls into one nice formula will this make all others become obsolete and irrational?

 

Some see E=mc2 as a scientific formula having a major impact on science. I say maybe it had a bigger impact on psychology.

 

 

I would like you to demonstrate this instead of claiming it so I can see your point of view?

I also don't take science as the word of God. Meaning scientists are frequently wrong. I can't find much fault in what you say above. After a meal, I will address Timothy's post.

That was nice. But not very logical. Irrationality is just that. Irrational. It fails to follow reason and logic and assumes facts not in evidence thereby rendering communication pointless. There is no such thing as being 'sort of' pregnant, any more than you can be 'sort of' irrational. You either are or you are not.

The post by Timothy is a very good example of an 'appearance' of rational thought when it really is nothing of the kind. It makes false assumptions every step of the way, and in doing so claims 'false' choices as valid and reasonable ones.

Essentially, he said 'nothing'. And made no valid, or rational

/logical point. It may appear reasonable on the surface, but it lacks any substance.

The point is, you can't claim irrational thought as a useful method or tool in determining the nature and structure if the universe. Art is not rational or irrational. It is only a form of expression. It does not seek to answer anything. It conveys a view, nothing more. There is no such thing as 'artistic truth'.

And it was neither irrational nor arrogant on my part. It was annoyance. Lol. Look, we can examine the concept that 'God did it' then once we have determined it's potential value in scientific inquiry ( none ) we put it on the back burner, and get back to rational considerations. We can always come back to it at some future time and re-examine to see if our understanding of it, or what it offers provides a better solution than the ones we are coming up with.

Don't let my irritation with religion bother you please. You seem like a very thoughtful human, and the world never has enough people like you.

Martin, you will only make me appear more obtuse if you drag me down this road. Lol. Ok. How shall I respond? My understanding of GR is that is describes the properties and relationships of matter/energy in the established medium we call 'space'.

I am always a little suspicious when science claims an absolute. "Since there is no substance called space ... " We are certain this statement is true because .... ?

We can see ( through measurements ) that some force ( dark energy ) is acting on the 'medium'. We seem to now be claiming this as an absolute. But that is an assumption based on another assumption. That space has no 'substance' of it's own. But does it really follow? The reality is ... there IS a measurable force at play. It seems equally likely that space DOES have substance. This is what logic tells me. What I am trying to do is pin down which explanation best fits the evidence.

"No gain in velocity." Hmm. I don't think I am being clear here. Once released from the bottle the atoms charge out to become equidistant inside the box. They are changing their positions in space. That change does not occur instantaneously. What I am trying to establish here is that 'something' is causing the atoms to change position. Whether repulsive or not. And that the relative velocity to distance may be an important measurement. There is a force at play here.

The visual I would use would be a cubic room ( vacuum chamber ) 100x100x100 ft. At one end, centered on the wall we have the nozzle for the nitrogen bottle. We manage to release 100 atoms from the bottle simulataneously. What are the velocities/corresponding positions of the atoms relative to the nozzle and each other at 1/1000th of a second? 10/1000ths? 100/1000ths? What is the maximum velocity the atoms will achieve before settling into isotropy? How quicly to they achieve isotropy? What is the 'braking' mechanism once they achieve it? Do the atoms 'run past' isotropy and then 'readjust' their relative positions?

You say that the behavior of nitrogen atoms can not be applied to the behavior of galaxies, and what I am suggesting is that there could be a relationship, but we haven't figured it out yet because we haven't studied and compared the numbers, or we lack the capacity to make such comparisons.

I sincerely hope I am not giving you a head ache ... If these are stupid questions just tell me to shut up.

I apologize for any misunderstanding.

You wrote:

 

I came from a point of view of being a devout Christian ....

I really had no intent on attacking you personally. My attack is on irrationality as an accepted, and valid state of mind. I will read your posts.

The statements you made that I rebutted are very familiar to me. They ( as all similar writings ) are stated in such a manner as to be construed as 'truth' ... a given. You wrote them trying to communicate a viewpoint to others, and I felt that counter-point was justified on the off-chance someone might take such irrational, and incorrect statements as 'truth'.

Truth is not relative. It is not subject to interpretation. Truth is fact. Truth is REALITY. That does not stop us from interpreting it any old way we choose, does it? This is where the 'irrationality' comes in. There is nothing wrong with looking at 'evidence' and coming to different conclusions as long as you arrived there rationally. Irrational explanations are 'fairy tales' and have no place in scientific inquiry. If you choose to sit back and let God determine your fate ... if you choose to go in the library and spend your life in the 'pseudo-non-fiction' section, that is fine. I am not suggesting that is what you do, though. It sounds as if you are trying.

As far as keeping an 'open mind', I studied the bible open to the 'possibility' that my view on the existence of 'higher powers' could be flawed. The more I studied it, the more I came to understand how and why it was written. And the more flaws became apparent. I gave it a fair reading, though. And I read it again. And again. It really just boiled down to "It's our opinion that God did it". And lots of people agreeing that no evidence was going to be required to back it up. This is not a useful tool when trying to understand how the universe functions. This road dead-ends in about 20 feet.

Theology is the study of "others' irrational and baseless opinions built on unfounded and unsupported claims." To think that people will make a life-long career out of this is absolutely stunning to me. All those books in the library, and you spend your whole life on just one. Could you ( not you specifically ) be any more irrational?

Yes. Einstein. My bad. It is very important to remember that nothing happens in a vacuum. Einstein danced on egg-shells. The view in America, and Europe was rather devoutly religious. The world view was on very shaky ground at that time. The universe was getting way too big for comfort. To claim atheism, or non-theism outright would have been to lay himself open to the most severe of attacks ... on his character ... and by extension ... on his science. I vaguely recall reading that many years ago now. And feeling disappointed, as it was clearly said to placate and sooth rumblings from the 'religious community' which was 90 plus % of the world.

I can't help but notice you did not actually defend any of the statements I rebutted. Instead, you simply said I was wrong in assuming you are religious. So I would respectfully ask you go back and either falsify my comments, or concede yours were inaccurate.

That said, thank you very much for the complimentary remarks. I think you are very much NOT your typical believer. As you said yourself ... before, you shunned the very word 'science'. At least you are trying to include rational thought. This is a good thing.

Uh oh. Thinking as a philosopher rather than a scientist. As much as I would like to consider it a compliment to be compared to Aristotle, he was, after all, rather ignorant as to the true functions of the universe.

So yes. Bad thinking. Lol. But you are kind.

So now I must ask the obvious. "As far as we know......" Have there ever been any studies of this nature? Do we have the capability of making such comparisons? And perhaps I fail to glean all the information contained in your post. I was more concerned with the INCREASING RATE OF ACCELERATION of the atoms from initial release to isotropic positions, rather than measurements of a 'static' state of being.

We know that the galaxies farthest from us ( in time and space ) are 'moving away' faster than those closer. My contention is the atoms leave the bottle at a certain velocity and quickly accelerate. They go from 'zero' to (x) ... then back to 'zero' again once equidistance ( general isotropy ) has been achieved within the box.

How long does it take to reach maximum velocity? The idea here is space takes a given volume/number of atoms from 'rest' and pulls them apart. The more massive ( and therefore, the stronger the gravitational force ) the structure, the longer it takes to accelerate that mass. As before ... even if there was a correlation, it could be attributed to dark energy.

More bad thinking?

Merged post follows:

Furthermore, if we removed the walls of the box, giving the atoms infinite space in which to disperse, what 'would' be the maximum velocity achieved? I don't think there will be a point where the atoms say "Ok. We are far enough from each other now." will they ... Point being, there is no 'repulsive' force. The atoms are much too far apart to have any further possible relationship/interaction. ( communication )

The other point being ... it seems illogical that 'space' is actually expanding between any two atoms, anymore than 'space' is expanding between galaxies.

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

I don't know who posted this to begin with, but I could not disagree more strenuously. I have read a similar ( if not the same ) passage before and it is just another example of believers creating 'truisms' that are completely manufactured, irrational at their core, and designed to imbue a sense of credibility where none exists.

I don't appreciate being lumped in with the 'we'. I think there are many more who would agree with me. I don't mean to offend, but believers as a rule are incapable of distinguishing reality from opinion. They also think there is safety in numbers, and if enough people share the belief, there must be some inherent truth. They also are incapable of grasping that reality and beliefs are completely, distinctly diametrically opposed. To them beliefs ARE reality. And furthermore, as they are unable to discern the difference, they claim that EVERYONE has beliefs. "You can't see the air, but yet you believe in it". How many times have I heard this nonsense?

I am a non-theist. I don't have 'beliefs'. I don't wonder if the physical universe is just a grand 'shared' illusion, or my own. There is zero evidence of spirits, elves, ghosts, witches, gods, or whatever. The universe exists. Period. I have always understood ... since I was 4 years old that god(s) were manufactured deities, with zero evidence to back them up. OPINIONS. Nothing more. I consider myself reasonably intelligent, and I am not in that 'position' at all. YOU may be in the position of the little child, and I am sorry for that. I recommend the first thing you do is locate the section marked 'ENGLISH' since you clearly speak/write it. Next go to the 'NON-fiction' section. This will be a good starting point for you. Not so overwhelming, perhaps.

Understand that you will never be able to read all the books, but that's ok, because most of it is garbage. People's completely unsupported opinions. Entertainment value ... perhaps some interesting philosophical constructs ... but that's about all.

To say that this scenario is "... the attitude of even the most intelligent human being towards God" makes the irrational pre-supposition that your god's existence ever had any credibility to begin with. It didn't. Oh the arrogance of it all .... to assume 6 billion non-believers in your god are all messed up, but you are in the right camp. They have an opinion. You have an opinion.

I am not familiar enough with other religions' 'holy books' but I am familiar enough with the bible to dismantle it in 10 paragraphs, or less. Ok. Maybe 15. Lol. Of course, if you are a true believer you know that's not possible, right? That's only if you are incapable of rational thought, or logic. Only when you close your eyes real tight and cover your ears.

I'm going to step on another few sets of toes and assert that not only is it simple to disprove the christian god, but all other religions as well. Every single one claims special instructions set down from this 'higher power', or 'deity'. They all make claims about the universe we live in. They can all be proved to be nothing more than the active imaginations of very clever, but ultimately ignorant people.

Well, you say ... getting a little steamed .... lol ... you can't prove a negative. We may have the facts a little off, but NOBODY can prove god(s) doesn't exist.

Yes you can. The answer lies in the 'actual' infinite universe ... the real, physical one, and the 'eternal' universe ... again ... the real one. Not the one believers of all religions made up.

Is this too off topic? Lol. I thought from what I read so far that it was kind 'open season' on the subject. I'll shut up now ....

Shoot. Ok. The world would be much better off without ignorance. It would still be imperfect, but if people realized this is the only existence they get, they just might change their behavior a little. Maybe people would quickly realize there is no 'glory' in dying for god, or country. It just means you are dead. That might make it harder for leaders to send soldiers to war, don't you think? It also would make us better stewards of our planet, since the people would figure out that their deity isn't going to "come and take them to heaven so they don't really need to worry about the condition they left the planet in ....."

( edit )

Don't get me wrong. I am all for fantasy and illusion. We all need breaks from reality. I like to imagine Shakira running out of gas at my home, no cell service, and needs to borrow my land line. She falls in love with me and never leaves. *sigh* Well, at least I DO have a home ... and cells DON'T work as no tower is close by ... and Shakira EXISTS. So it's POSSIBLE! Lol. Ok. Just wishful thinking. I know the difference between reality ... and fantasy. And I don't really have this fantasy. Still ..... nothing wrong with dreams.

Again, sorry for offending everyone.

Merged post follows:

walkntune wrote:Well considering maybe 80% or so of the people on the planet believe in a God of some sort I believe the effects would be devastating.

Unless they are brain-dead, when they stop crying they will learn to adapt. And learn how to be happy, and content in other ways. They certainly won't all drop dead.

Merged post follows:

Moo wrote:

 

The quote can be interpreted here and there, btw, but I am curious, as a side note, to know why is it so important -- or why is it important at all -- to use Einstein as support for your beliefs *AT ALL* ?

 

Whatever you believe in is your business.. what difference does it make if Einstein supports your beliefs or not? Einstein's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) have no bearing over his scientific achievements, just like his treatment to his wife and kids (not a very nice one, according to his biography, he cheated, abandoned them, was too much into his work, etc) has no bearing *AT ALL* on his scientific achievements.

 

In other words, why is this even an issue?

Moo, this is just a common tactic of believers. ( and salespeople, too ) It's called 3rd party endorsement. Designed to lend authority, and credibility where none exists. And it is very effective.

Merged post follows:

walkntune wrote:

 

You see there is an on going debate through the ages between science and religion.Both are just different interpretations of the very same truths of understanding the force of nature or the cosmic order.To be able to understand and see both sides is what pushes and advances or knowledge and achievements further to come closer to truth. Any stance on either side is nothing more than a limit and makes one fall in the fatal errors category. Every ability to observe and understand our universe has evolved with a purpose and was never meant to be suppressed.Don't crush the abilities we have to interpret the world which people make religions out of just because people misuse this tool and maybe put in a little more imagination in then they should through folklore stories in order to get a point of truth across.(guns don't kill people,people kill people)

We are so busy trying to rely on one method and suppress another that we blind ourselves not realizing that the more tools we can bring to a job the better.

I came from a point of view of being a devout Christian and I embrace science very openly even though at one point I would have shunned the very word itself. I can recognize why religion is so far out there from rational and logical thinking but I also recognize the truth that it sees and why over 6 or so billion people on the planet follow a religion of some sort.

My point in a nutshell is to be open to understanding or universe and not closed to any method.It created us and gave us our understanding and abilities to comprehend.

Just take what works from all methods and leave the rest.You can't just take one tool and work on your car and fix everything, there are many intricate parts that need specialized tools to get the job done. So it is with our universe. If you use a method that is only logical then you can only see and understand what is logical. Reality and truth are way more than just logical and takes many different tools to study and comprehend.

This is the kind of stuff that drives me nuts. Here we have a very 'authoritative' piece.

You wrote:

 

You see there is an on going debate through the ages between science and religion.

No there isn't. For one, science didn't really exist until about 500 years ago. And it was ... for the most part ... on the side of religion ... 2nd, a debate requires a minimum of 2 rational parties.

You wrote:

 

Both are just different interpretations of the very same truths of understanding the force of nature or the cosmic order.

No they aren't. One deals with reality, and evidence. The other relies totally on "I read a book and I believe it's contents."

You wrote:

 

To be able to understand and see both sides is what pushes and advances or knowledge and achievements further to come closer to truth.

This is not accurate, either. Whenever religion hears something that conflicts with their beliefs, their preferred method was/is to torture and kill the messenger. ( don't forget to get the confession signed! ) To stamp out all heretical speech before it infects others. What advances can religion claim in 'advancing our knowledge of the universe'? I can think of NONE.

You wrote:

 

Any stance on either side is nothing more than a limit and makes one fall in the fatal errors category.

?????

You wrote:

 

Don't crush the abilities we have to interpret the world which people make religions out of just because people misuse this tool and maybe put in a little more imagination in then they should through folklore stories in order to get a point of truth across.(guns don't kill people,people kill people)

In other words ... telling lies to spread the truth. Now there is some rational thinking. Oh yes. I forgot. The 'ends justify the means' ... right? As long as it's for a 'good' cause.

You wrote:

 

We are so busy trying to rely on one method and suppress another that we blind ourselves not realizing that the more tools we can bring to a job the better.

This one is particularly amusing. Science has no interest in 'suppressing' religion. Science just wants religion to leave them the hell alone. You have it backwards. Religion has a rich history of suppression. Science does not. And by the way ... what tools did you bring?

You wrote:

 

I came from a point of view of being a devout Christian and I embrace science very openly even though at one point I would have shunned the very word itself.

This is because you fail to see you were indoctrinated from earliest childhood.

You wrote:

 

I can recognize why religion is so far out there from rational and logical thinking but I also recognize the truth that it sees and why over 6 or so billion people on the planet follow a religion of some sort.

You realize it is irrational, yet you can ignore that reality ... and find safety, and apparently 'truth' in the irrationality of 6 billion people. Hmmm.

You wrote:

 

My point in a nutshell is to be open to understanding or universe and not closed to any method.It created us and gave us our understanding and abilities to comprehend.

Saying God did it is hardly a 'method'.

You wrote:

 

Just take what works from all methods and leave the rest.

In other words ... "It's a free country and you can believe whatever you want to believe."

You wrote:

 

You can't just take one tool and work on your car and fix everything, there are many intricate parts that need specialized tools to get the job done.

'God did it' is not a 'tool'. It's an unsupported, irrational opinion.

You wrote:

 

So it is with our universe. If you use a method that is only logical then you can only see and understand what is logical.

God cast his children into the barren wastelands for wanting a little more knowledge than God felt like giving. If science ( and eventually, rational thought ) had not risen IN SPITE of religion I would not be able to do this ( rebutt your statements ) ... Lol.

You wrote:

 

Reality and truth are way more than just logical and takes many different tools to study and comprehend.

So reality and truth are ILLOGICAL? I suppose so .... if you are incapable of recognizing it ...

Having grown up in a christian home and on a christian island, I am very familiar with all these little pearls of wisdom. I swear, they teach you all the same stuff. Never changes. It's called ... "How to cast doubt on reality." Believers do a swell job. And they have been successful for thousands of years with these methods. Because there is a never-ending supply of weak-minded individuals already struggling with their own childhood indoctrinations. And religion offers them a 'home'. And 'love'. And strength in numbers.

I really don't like tearing everything you said apart. I wouldn't feel the need if you had simply refrained from saying it. But I think in fairness, anything said here is 'debatable' ... so all of the above was my 'rebuttal'.

Doesn't God have a sufficient number of coerced fans, yet? Or maybe you might not consider the threat of ETERNAL torture ( as the only alternative to 'loving' your God ) as coersion. Hmmmm. Let's see. Pulling my arms off. Nope. Hell is much worse. Poking my eyes out. Nope. Hell is much worse. My wife leaving me for my best friend. Nope. Hell is much worse. Watching my son die. Nope. Hell is all these things and much much more. And the pain never stops. For EVER. And believers claim their God loves us so much he has granted us FREE choice. Can you define 'irrational' please?

Oh, by the way ... believers point to God's great sacrifice to show his love for us. He gave his 'only begotten Son' for us. Wow. Having lost my own son, I am rather impressed. It's been 23 years and I am still in agony over it. He was my only child, and 7 when he drowned. Must be terrrible for God, too. Never to see h....... woooops. Hang on now. Isn't Jesus with God? Yes. I think he is. So I guess God didn't really make that big a sacrifice for us after all. Well, I'm glad. Because I wouldn't wish this pain on my worst enemy ... if I had one ... which I don't. I wouldn't even wish it on God. And I can think of nobody more deserving ....

Py, I have highlighted what I think is a mistake in reasoning. Accepting present expansion doesn't mean assuming a beginning. Because the expansion doesn't need to extend that far back.

 

When people apply quantum mechanics to the law of gravity one result that comes up (in some of the analysis) is that quantum effects make gravity repel at very high density (like what is conjectured around big bang 13 some billion years ago.

 

That could mean that the bang was a bounce. A contracting phase reached a high enough density that the force reversed and started an expanding phase.

 

I don't want to elaborate further right now, but logically one cannot infer back in time to an "infinitely small point."

 

The most revolutionary thing going on in cosmology, at present, is the research called quantum cosmology. If you want get a taste of it, here is a keyword search in a research publications database called Spires:

 

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=dk+quantum+cosmology+and+date%3E2005&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=citecount%28d%29

 

Please let me know if your computer can't get the listing. I have set the date so only papers from after 2005 show up and I have set the ordering so that the most often referenced papers appear first. These are typically the ones that other researchers consider most important. Ground-breaking research tends to be referenced more often.

Yes, of course to your first statement. However, I was tired and not thinking clearly. As I was formulating the paragraph my original intent was to use the word 'could', as opposed to 'would'. Then I forgot what I was talking about. Lol. I have been following a lot of models, and I am a little familiar with the 'possibility' of gravity repelling at high densities. There seems to be no evidence of such an anomaly, no observations that bear it out, and as yet no real consensus on it's 'probability'. And that is 'one' result. I believe the other result is the opposite.

The model(s) you describe does not adequately address other issues such as hydrogen/helium levels, nor CMBR. It does seem to create the need for another mechanism for the creation of CMBR in the first place. So in short, I have a few problems with any 'bounce' theory. Please correct me if my information is inaccurate.

It also does not deal satisfactorily with entropy, or isotropy ( I think ), the loss or gain of mass per bounce ( potentially 'running out of steam' ) in the local universe, and it does not offer a satisfactory mechanism for the expansion to reverse.

So this is, I suppose, why I would have subconsciously just dismissed the 'bounce' possibilty, and claimed an absolute. I was in error to do so.

Either way, of course, I do not think space allows 'infinitely small' any more than it allows 'infinitely big'. Just because math produces an infinite answer does not mean that the universe must obey our math. The fact is, we continue to refer to a singularity as 'infinitely small' when we have zero evidence of any such thing occurring in the universe. Extremely small, yes. But to be infinitely small, I think it would have to contain an infinite amount of mass. And we don't have an infinite amount laying around. Or there would have to be an arbitrary 'trigger' point where gravitational collapse can not be stopped, or reversed. Or it would have to have a maximum limit of mass, a minimum limit to size, then it would have to 'shunt' mass somewhere else. It sure doesn't seem to be returning the information to the universe. Yet. ( Hawking radiation may or may not be a real phenomena, but I don't think we are going to get rid of any black holes that way.) And we have yet to see a black hole turning inside out. Thankfully.

It appears that the properties of space become inflexible at some point. It allows bending and stretching just so much, then it puts the bakes on. A photon is the easiest ( possible ) evidence of this. We assume the photon's max velocity is 300,000 kps based solely on it's observed speed. I would disagree with this assumption. It is just as likely that a photon has 'infinite' velocity potential, but the lines of energy ( the medium ) in space that it travels in do the limiting.

I will check out the latest from the resource you have provided. And thank you for being such a gentleman. I hope I can reciprocate ...

Merged post follows:

Martin, tell me if this experiment makes any sense. Maybe I am looking at this the wrong way.

But this is what I would do:

Since I think it is the 'homogenizing' property of space that makes the nitrogen released in a vacuum rush to equidistance, as opposed to a 'repelling' force of the atoms ( pulled, rather than pushed ), I would take the formula that expresses the accelerating velocity of that 'repulsion' and apply it to various ages of galaxies we know to be receding from us. I would then also apply it to the local group of galaxies to see if their gravitational attraction is in any way affected by space's 'tugging'. Maybe all this has already been done ... If so, my apoplogies.

Anyway, I would think we would find a correlation between/among these phenomena.

Bad thinking?

I suppose so, since it could just as easily be attributed to 'dark energy'.

Thank you Martin.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. More specifically, nothing happens in an absolute void ...

In the interests of understanding each other maybe you wouldn't mind if I gave a 'brief history of time' as pertains to pywakit's existence.

Before I do, though ... I am already a little familiar with models that don't require a BB. In fact, my model doesn't really require a 'bang' so much as it requires a black hole ( the last black hole ) to reach it's critical mass limit and release it's stored energy. Whether that is a 'reaction' or the limits of angular momentum, it doesn't really matter. The effect is the same. So in short, my model does not conflict with the non-BB models ... as far as where the mass comes from. And I use the term BB in it, because that is easier conceptually. And hopefully makes the transition from the standard model not so abrupt.

My approach to science is one of acute suspicion. I love science, but my relationship with scientists is not so loving. I'm kidding, but there are several reasons I would feel this way. Valid reasons. Get to that in a minute.

Yes Martin, I am a 'layman'. From a scientist's p.o.v. this is ( understandably so ) a dismissive term. But it assumes facts not in evidence ... such as what that layman's level of understanding and comprehension may or may not be. The assumption is a layman will have little grasp of the subject at hand.

I think of all those thousands of 'learned men and women' who must have been so extremely annoyed with Edison for daring to take the accumulated knowledge of electromagnetism and chemistry ( stealing it!) and putting together an electric light bulb. Before they figured it out .... How vexing.

I have done exactly what Edison did. I 'steal' from the workers in the trenches. An analogy would be my Corvette. Yes, if pressed I suppose given sufficient time I could build one myself. But it was much easier to simply 'steal' the hard work of so many and just order it from the factory. Yellow, convertible, 6M, and waaay too fast. Lol. I did this in 2000 and I must confess, I have never felt guilty as I blast though the gears.

I would feel guilty I suppose about stealing the necessary knowledge to produce my model but for the snubs of scientists through out my lifetime. Nothing you did, of course ....

Mankind took a stance a long time ago. We were not here by accident, and neither was our universe, regardless of it's size. Science began as an effort to explain why we were special, as opposed to just 'explaining'. It is easy to assert this as nearly all scientists of the day professed a belief in god, or some higher ( cognitive ) authority. There is nothing rational, or scientific about this belief. For me, it's been like living in a mad-house with no walls for half a century. EVERY body is clearly irrational. Lol. Faith is just a manufactured term for 'irrational belief with absolutely no supporting evidence'. This was still very evident when I was a child of six some fifty-one years ago.

I was born without a 'belief CAPACITY'. Raised on a devoutly christian island, this was a nightmare. Like living in the 'twilight zone'. Actually very frightening. But this is the basis for my arrogance and obnoxious behavior. And also how I came to understand the universe as I do.

Martin, I learned very quickly that adults can be very very wrong even as they insist they are not. In sunday school I made the mistake ( at age 6 ) of questioning god's word, his will, his level of rationality, his judgements, and his very existence. I had already grasped that there was no proof that he existed by the time I was 4, so for me, this relegated him to 'tooth fairy' status. Maybe he DID exist, but the burden of proof was on the believers. And they weren't offering any.

My 'mistake' caused the islanders to make me a pariah for more than 5 years. No child was allowed to speak to me for fear I might infect them with my satanic thoughts. No bs. This is what happened. I was beaten so many times I can't count. My family hated me for they were now suspect too in the eyes of the islanders.

This incident took place at the beginning of the summer, and as none of my family could stand the sight of me, and I was likely to be beaten if noticed, I requested permission to sleep outside for the summer. Permission granted. ( we lived on a 100 acre farm, btw. )

Overhead each night was a brilliant expanse of stars. ( no streetlights, no neighbors ) I was desperate for relief from my nightmare, and I would lay under the stars and beg some alien race to come get me ... Pathetic really. But the flip side was I spent a great deal of time contemplating the universe. The real one I could see as opposed to this mythical one everyone believed in.

I worked out the 'transit method' that summer. Trying to explain it to adults who were certain that god put us here, and there were no other planets in the universe ( which I already visualized as 'infinite' ) was an exercise in futility. Not to mention further beatings. But Martin ... time proved me right. And everyone else wrong. My conclusions were not based on faith, or my own desperate wishes. They were based on 'not' having faith. 'Not' being blinded. Logic said .... there are all those stars. They are suns. If our sun has planets, then other suns do too.

But science did not 'officially' agree with me. Yes, there 'probably were' but "We can't know for sure, and we never will because the light from stars is much too bright to ever see a non-radiating object next to it."

It took me 4 years to get up the courage to write to NASA. But 'somebody' had to tell them how to find planets because they were clearly not figuring it out for themselves. I ws unaware, by the way, that Struve had written a short paper on this method in 1952 ... and science ignored him, too. NASA saw no need to write me back and thank me, nor even a nice note to encourage my further interest in astrophysics ... and this just told me that even the brightest of scientists can blind themselves to 'truth'.

Martin, I have been correct in every prediction I have ever made regarding the 'big' picture. For 50 years. All the 'adults' were wrong. Now that I'm all grown up, is it so hard to see where my rather antagonistic attitude comes from? I have very high confidence in my ability to look at big pictures. 50 years of being correct does that to you. 50 years of scientists being 'incorrect' ( at least as far as the big picture goes ), or at best being afraid to commit in the face of ( in my view ) overwhelming evidence does not make me easily intimidated when very nice, well-intentioned scientists like you tell me I lack sufficient 'academics' to understand how our universe operates.

I did not just 'think up' my model. Out of a 'void'. I have stolen every bit of pertinent information I could ( and still do ) from all you nice scientists, to create this model. I am not afraid to commit, nor am I afraid to suffer the sometimes abusive and dismissive reactions from 'learned men'. It is fully expected, and completely understandable that you or others would feel the way you do.

I have much to learn ... and some things I will clearly never grasp. But that doesn't matter to me when I'm hitting 150 ( yikes! ) in my vette. I am confident in the underlying physics, and engineering ( and genius ) that went in to building it. I am equally confident in the genius that unravelled astronomy.

You said you may 'jump ship' soon. This just further illustrates my point. There is no real, current consensus on the structure and processes that form the physical unverse we occupy. There are 1000 different interpretations from the observations we have to date. You claim Friedman's universe has done a wonderful job. Other very respected scientists do not agree. I think my model is more 'Occam' than the standard model, and that all observations and experiments, and math support mine just as well. In addition, the other models out there require some pretty serious 'magic acts' to solve their deficiencies. My model requires no such magic. No superphysics. No 'hypotheticals' that conflict with known laws and properties of space.

Yes, I am very confident. I don't think I am your standard 'layman'. But I still reserve the right to say .... Oooops. I was wrong. It would be tough, but I would survive it.

Please forgive my lack of economy in expressing this to you. And please forgive my attitude. It is not directed at you, or any individual. Scientists don't have a lock on 'blindness'. I am just as capable of being wrong, too.

I hope we can continue the debate. I hope we can both understand each other better now. I really do understand your viewpoint. I just don't necessarily agree.

Merged post follows:

Couple more points I forgot. On the 'methodology of science'.

50 years ago, as I lay on the grass and stared up at the beautiful expanse of stars, I would think about what the scientists said.

"There 'might' be no other planets outside our solar system. We can not know for 'sure'."

This was complete insanity to me. We knew they were stars. We knew there were other galaxies of stars ... thousands of them. This meant that at the very least there were going to be TRILLIONS to QUADRILLIONS of stars in the KNOWN visible universe.

But our star 'may' be the only one with planets. Hmmm. Really. So what you are telling me is there are quadrillions of suns in the universe. And just one has planets. The rest? Just hanging out by themselves ....

This was not 'science'. This was religion. The only rational, reasonable, and logical assumption would have been ...

Our star has planets. We can't be sure at this time how our planets came to exist, but what we have observed to date is that there is very likely a physical process involved. Therefore the probability of all those other stars NOT having planets is effectively zero, unless ours were put here by some deity. Since we have zero evidence of that either, this is the model we will use until proven otherwise.

Taking this stance would not have hampered scientific inquiry in any way. In fact, it might have sped the process up considerably. And there would have still been left open the possiblity of observations disproving that model.

But religion stopped them. All of them. From treating the problem truly objectively.

It was one thing to understand the mentality of christians and their 'special' status in the universe. Quite another to understand the mentality of scientists. To me, it was inexcusable that science could take such an illogical, and irrational stand .... all the while claiming the infallibility of scientific methodology.

Something wrong with my cognition here?

And by the way .... how do you think the religions of the world will react if/when science tries to tell them that we have sufficient evidence to assume an infinite universe .... filled with an infinite amount of matter/energy? I don't think they will like it very much at all ....

Merged post follows:

If in fact, we come down on the side of an infinite universe, generally isotropic, and therefore an infinite amount of matter/energy then we can make some assumptions based on measurements already taken of space around us.

There will be an infinite number of replicas of us in an infinite universe. There may be other mechanisms ... other laws of physics in play ... for other universes, but essentially whatever CAN happen, will happen an infinite number of times.

We will also be required to take the stance that the universe is eternal. To do otherwise would be to illogically, and irrationally presume infinity ( and from this 'moment' forward ... eternity ) began with us.

Reason sound so far?

CMBR. This is the measurement that would 'prove' my model, I believe. As you know, it is a closed loop. If the universe is infinite, and generally isotropic, then there will have been an infinite number of 'bangs' in all directions in the past. And the properties of space would apply universally. If the universes are 'leaking' at all ( can't have just one with this 'defect' in infinity ), then we would be getting CMBR from across the 'voids'. ( Because photons would be travelling throught the medium they always travel through. It doesn't matter how far it is when you have been travelling for eternity ...)

Anyway, the red shift would show this, would it not? I don't think it does. The argument that space itself is expanding collapses with an infinite/eternal universe. For that would mean a beginning. A starting point. If it's going in one direction now ( expanding ) it would shrink going back in time, to an infinitely small point.

Again, all we know is galaxies are moving away at accelerating velocities. It doesn't have to mean space is actually expanding. If there is no leakage, it ( our BB ) is a closed loop. To the last photon. The idea that photons will simply be absorbed back into space does not seem quite rational. We have captured photons that are over 13.5 billion years old ... that have stumbled through all kinds of gasses, gravitational fields, and matter on that journey. They seem rather hardy, don't they? I don't see any reason why they will just go 'poof' in a few more years. Particles, yes. Photons, no.

This seems a much better adjustment to the standard model than any others.

Merged post follows:

Martin wrote:

 

What I would mean by finite versus infinite is which version of the Friedman model. That is potentially decidable. Which fits better the infinite version of the model or the finite version? I expect that to be decided in my lifetime.

But I do not believe the model. I have no need to believe any description of the universe and its history. I rely on it, in the absence of anything better, for calculation and communication, and it is eminently reliable, but why believe?*

I agree with you. I am only trying to suggest a better model than what we have. One that makes no contradictions. I don't 'believe' in my model either. It just seems to fit the evidence better, and would be no less reliable.

Merged post follows:

I wrote:

Anyway, the red shift would show this, would it not? I don't think it does.

However, if the red shift showed CMBR 'leakage' from outside our local universe, then that would indicate either one-way universes, or an infinite universe so isotropic that each local universe gains exactly the same mass that it loses allowing for continuing BB/expansion/collapse/BB cycles.

But again, CMBR redshift measurements do not indicate leakage from other universes.

I do. My opinion is no less valid than yours. Lol.

Well, let's analyze "scientifically". It is a science forum, isn't it?

 

_"this thing was happened two time at me ." If the man travels with his girlfriend twice a day, and he knows his girlfriend let's say about 1 month, it means the probability to happen is 2/60. If they live in Belgium, that is not difficult to happen. If they know each other a year, it becomes 2/730. That can happen anywhere, except sahara I presume.

_"when the time im driving the car and my girl friend ask me the direction and speed. after i tell her 60km/h and east ..then she will use phone to call someone to report the direction and speed. then just some second i feel hot and sky are change color(..) If they drive east, and it is in the morning, the sky changing color is simply the sunrise. If it is in the evening, it is the sunset.

_"(...)and then the rain come". that is not a surprise on Earth. Maybe they live in some tropical country where it rains everyday at the same hour.

_"and the most terrible thing is she was know a man(..)" That is troubling, your girlfriend knowing another man.

_"he drive a car like mine" You mean a car with 4 wheels, or exactly the same model? That is troubling, except if your car is a Ferrari, that should explain your girlfriend's behaviour.

_"and that car was strike by lightning". That is the most troubling, because cars use to be insulated from the ground through tires. It seems to me a very strong indication that all the above is pure nonsense.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

After a few more thinking here are 2 explanations:

 

1. You are an ancient greek god (Zeus), and when your girlfriend speaks to another man, you strike his car with lightning.

 

2. You are a high positionned person in the maffia. You have put your girlfriend under surveillance, and give the order to burn the car of anyone talking to her.

 

In both cases, you are the bad guy, your girlfriend is not a witch.

Maybe she has to call the Police Department in case her (second) boyfriend's car is burned. I hope the guy was not inside (how could this happen twice?).

 

Maybe your question was not "how did" but "who did?".

And I thought scientists had no sense of humor! Lol.

By the way Martin ... I just take your word ( and other physicists ) on things like this ...

If this number is negative, the finite case is favored. If it is zero or positive then the infinite. The number is called omega-sub-k.

My understanding of the math is nearly non-existent. But the over-all conceptualization ... seems pretty simple.

Merged post follows:

The cosmicweb computer simulations are the work of Andrey Kravtsov. Truly wonderful. There are some longer ones which were shown by Smoot in his TED talk. Google "Smoot TED" for a great 18 minute lecture on structure formation by a Nobel cosmologist.

 

As I recall Kravtsov's computer animations show the condensation of dark matter only. Since there is is so much more of it, it dominates the process of structure formation.

 

Penrose gave a talk at Cambridge in 2005 where he explained that the entropy of the gravitational field is defined differently from the entropy of, for example, a gas. In the case of a gas, uniformity = high entropy. The gas spreads out to fill the box uniformly and entropy increases.

In the case of the gravitational field, uniformity is very unstable. Because of universal attraction. Clumping breeds more clumping. It is the opposite of gas intuition. In the gravitational field, uniformity = low entropy. The combination of geometry and matter naturally kinks and curdles and condenses (into cobwebby structure in this case) and entropy increases.

 

I don't agree with all of Penrose talk because some parts were exceedingly speculative but his diagrams explaining entropy and the second law as applied to cosmology were pretty effective. Let's google "Penrose Cambridge 2005" and see if we get the talk.

Martin, could you please explain how this applies to bounded/unbounded space? My understanding ( and attempts at comprehension ) of space is of 'bound' energy permeating infinity in a generally isotropic manner. Quantum fluctuations ( I think if it as a build up of static charge ) essentialy 'clumps' the 'fabric' of space together temporarily stretching the lines of energy. And space tries to immediately 'unclump' them always working toward a homogenous state. This is how I view the 'expansion' of space. Meaning space isn't actually expanding but working within it's own self-imposed limitations ( properties ) to smooth everything back out. This, as opposed to dark energy acting on space, stretching and expanding it ...

Am I way off here? Or is this an equally possible alternative to dark energy?

Like the atoms of gas 'trying' to become equidistant ( isotropic ) and gravity wanting to clump them together ( entropic ). A property rather than an outside force ...

Thanks so much! I appreciate your conciliatory gesture. I will try to explain some stuff even though it is nearly midnight here (pacific time) and getting near bedtime.

 

Standard cosmology goes back to 1915-1925, Einstein's equations and then Friedman's simplification which makes the uniformity assumption you mentioned (homog and iso.) which Einstein IIRC named the "cosmological principle".

There are other names besides Friedman's (Lemaitre, Robertson Walker) and various abbreviations for the model like FRW and FRWL. But let's just call it Friedman model.

 

Matter in this model is pictured as "dust". Uniformly distributed througout all space. And mathematically space can either be finite volume or infinite volume. Space has no boundary. This was the first big bang cosmology. IIRC Friedman presented it around 1925. At first Einstein didn't like it but then he did. I forget the details. It was published (I've seen fax of the original.)

 

There are many ways that space can be finite volume and boundaryless. A simple example is the so-called 3-sphere or hypersphere. Unless you have a taste for mathematics, the details are not terribly important. A lower dimensional analog would be a 2-sphere----space being only two dimensional and having the topology of the surface of a balloon.

 

The Friedman model and the Friedman equations that govern its expansion are able to take in both the spatial finite and the spatial infinite case.

 

Both versions of the model fit the observational data extremely well. One has to make very fine measurements to tell the difference. So far our observations are not fine enough to favor one over the other. But they get better every year. Practically speaking, it turns on a certain number which can be measured using data from supernovae, galaxy counts, and the cosmic microwave background. If this number is negative, the finite case is favored. If it is zero or positive then the infinite. The number is called omega-sub-k.

 

So whether space is finite or infinite volume is actually an observational problem. It is not a question for philosophers or for amateur common sense. We actually do not know. It could go either way. We have to measure.

This year the european space agency put a craft up about one million miles from earth to make measurements of the microwave background in part to be able to determine this omega-sub-k.

 

As with much of science, when an important number is measured there is an error-bar. The error-bar we have for this number is a very small interval right around zero. As I said, it could go either way. When the european data comes in it will shrink the error-bar down some more and it could still be around zero, or it could be on the positive side, or it could be on the negative side.

 

The US NASA craft that they reported on last year and this year, with the best data so far is called WMAP.

The european craft that just started collecting data this year is called Planck.

If you find any of this puzzling please ask questions.

It's bed time for me. I'll check this tomorrow.

And thank you for forgiving me ...

No, not puzzling at all. We really are not in much disagreement here. I have no ability to do the math myself, but no problem visualizing the various models. I was dimly aware ( lol ) that that the math allowed for finite or infinite. At the time the cosmological principle was proposed, we could see ( guessing here ) 1/1000th of space we can see now. Maybe 1/10,000th. Or less. You are so right in that this is an observational problem. Comparatively speaking, we were 'blind' at the time of Einstein's, and Friedman's work.

I have studied a little of the WMAP data, and I try to keep abreast of the latest developments. Cosmology incorporates several disciplines, and I am just grateful that I did not have to immerse myself in one at the expense of the rest. There is a great deal of information available, and it all is part of the larger puzzle.

I can appreciate the 'purist' logic here. I understand that the numbers still allow for either side to 'win'. I don't agree, partly because of my ( admittedly limited ) knowledge of space, and that pesky un-scientific common sense ... which has also served well in many discoveries throughout history ... plus, I suppose my ability to comprehend infinity ( imagined or not ), and my inability to comprehend finite space. Guess I have my own 'mind set'. As I already confessed to. We both know that 100 scientists can look at the same evidence and come up with 100 different interpretations. I think this is one of our greatest strengths. "Leave no stone unturned".

I am very excited to be living at this time in history. We ARE going to answer this question ... at least, to 'a reasoned conclusion' very soon. I am quite confident it will come down on the side of infinity.

Hope I'm right.

And thank you again. I am kind of obnoxious at times, aren't I?

Merged post follows:

I think he means filamentous like a spiders web...think of lots of dusty spiders webs. Found some great computer simulations here of the Universe in all its cobwebby glory! :

 

http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/filaments.html

 

The other simulations at the smaller scale look nice too.

I'm thinking Michael was being facetious.

Very interesting debate (except the civilities), please don't stop. I feel miserable because I belong to anothe time zone & cannot interact immediately because...sleeping.

 

A.

Martin, what is cob-webby ?

 

B.

I have the feeling neither you, me, the others, know what we are talking about. It should be preferable IMO to make some clear definitions-statements about the basic instances discussed.

Space: what is that?

1.Some propose it as "Pure Emptyness". Is "Pure Emptyness" have been observed anywhere? Is "P.E." something gigantic, or something very very small, as the "space" between elementary particles. Is P.E. the same thing some scientists call "the void" (ses below)?

2. Some propose it as the "receptacle of everything", which is a definition IMO that is coming from some kitchen rather than a laboratory, because in this case "space" looks like a casserole.BTW such expressions are used for Time as well. From the same Chef Coq is presume.

3. Some propose the "fabric of space", as if space itself was made from something. it is the point of String Theory if I am not abused:the Void. And the word 'fabric of space" is often used in trying to explain deformation of space due to gravitation in Einstein's Theories. I believe these are misleading expressions used by scientists trying to explain mathematical deformations of field lines. Lies For Children IMO.

4. Some propose space as the Universe itself. As if Matter Radiation & Space were one and the same thing, splitted in 3 different concepts. i really don't have a strong feeling about it, still wondering.

5. Some propose space as part of a Space-Time continuum (the Standard Model), where space & time are 2 entities made of the same "stuff" (?) and having interchanging capabilities. In this case, a discussion about "infinity of space" alone, without time, is completely out of sense.

6. maybe you can put a 6th or 7th definition, I ran out of ideas.

 

So, what are you talking about?

Very salient questions Michael. I need to stress once again, that I am not a 'proponent' per se of infinite space. I am just looking, to the best of my ability, at all the facts. The 'proven' math. The corroboraing experiments, and the observations. This 'leans' me toward infinity. There is no evidence that I am aware of to pull me over to the other side. If there were some, I would be happy to reassess my 'working model'.

There is nothing to make me believe that the space our universe occupies is somehow unique to our location, or that the properties exhibited are not universal. And universal means ... infinite. Until proven NOT to be infinite.

Martin is correct when he says that he did not personally presume anything. I made that presumption for him, based on his 'blue ribbon' comments. Strictly speaking, science won't go out on a limb and declare space finite, or infinite. But the closed model has become entrenched in 'our' thinking. So virtually all models ( theoretical, of course ) depict a finite universe. I am fighting a difficult battle ... but not one that I wasn't expecting, especially considering my backround.

#3 would be the way I would start to describe it. Sort of. Strings may or may not exist. But I think a good case can be made for space to 'be' energy, rather than 'nothing' with some force acting upon it.

I have no evidence that time did not exist before our local universe, and certainly time operates here in a linear fashion ... so what ( somewhat meager, I suppose ) evidence I have would lean toward time always existing. So let's include #5.

I call it the fabric of space for better visualization, but really, it's just appears to be a property that space has.

I don't believe there is any evidence in our local area that a complete void exists. An 'absolute' vacuum, devoid of matter, OR energy. So let's include #4, too. But let's say that matter and radiation are simply different manifestations of space's inherent energy. Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, and the matter and radiation had to come from somewhere. Space's ( possible ) energy stores seem like the likeliest place to start looking. As opposed to other dimensions, metaphysical solutions, or just 'came out of nowhere'.

Of course we need to keep our minds open to other solutions ... even if they seem a little off the wall at first glance. We need to continue to explore strings, and whatever other possibilities bright scientists come up with. Negative results is just as good as positive results. We still learn. In most cases we learn more by the negative results.

No, not a reasonable question. You should retract the question.

I did not assert or assume finiteness. You pretended that I did and asked me to justify something I had not claimed. You asked if I was presuming finiteness merely because it "sounded good".

 

I am offended by your misrepresentation and by the sarcastic suggestion that I would presume something without evidence because it sounded good (whatever that means).

 

You should retract the insulting question (which contains a misrepresentation) and apologize for having given offense.

 

Unless you are just trolling, you seem to suffer from a lack of information. If you want people to share facts with you, you have got to deal honestly and politely with them. If you do not, you will just be shooting yourself in the foot.

 

This may sound harsh but it is kindly meant.

 

This is what you need to start by retracting:

I accept the rebuke. Question is retracted. I am sorry for offending you, and I understand why you were. I will try harder to tone down the passion.

Another error: the Straw Man ploy.

 

I have not claimed that space is finite. I do not assume that it is. I've said we don't know finite or infinite.

 

You impute that "presumption" and challenge me to offer evidence.

Then you sneer. "Do you presume it because it sounds good to you."

 

But I have not presumed anything. **TILT**

No sneer intended. It was a reasonable question.

Merged post follows:

Could you ditch this attitude, please? This forum is intended to be for discussion, where people learn new and interesting things, not showing off that you're right and other people are wrong.

No attitude intended either. My very sincere apology for coming across that way. If you could, please just think of it as a 'passionate' attitude. Pointing out flaws that great scientists have made is just to illustrate a point. Not to belittle. Not to 'prove' I'm right, and everyone else is wrong. Having a mind set is understandable. I fight my own all the time. Sometimes emotions cloud reason, and sometimes people assume too much.

I wrote:

 

Is it conceiveable to you that YOUR reasoning might be flawed? I don't think it is. It certainly is conceivable to me that mine might be .....

How could a statement like this be construed as "I'm right and everyone else is wrong"? It does challenge, though. It wasn't intended to be a sneer by any means. Observing that 'I don't think it is' was not a baseless comment. Nor irrational. Just annoying.

A heated debate is not a bad thing. No one will die. Lol. As I recall, Einstein said some pretty bad things about Hubble. Galileo's peers said some bad things about him. No one likes their beliefs questioned. It's going to cause some heartburn.

Please don't take things personally. I will continue to do my best to remain reasonable. Again, if I am too annoying, or acting irrationally, I will understand if you choose to remove me.

Thanks again.

Lots of errors, too many to address the whole batch. Here's a logic error.

 

Consider yourself reigned in. Here we are talking simple logic. Not science. Not physics. Not astronomy.

 

I point out that A does not imply B.

You say "logic says" that therefore A must imply something else, like maybe not-B. That is an elementary non-sequitur.

 

Py I simply do not have time to correct all your mistakes. I will get back to this as time permits and point out a few more.

Ok. Thanks. So should I assume that isotropy does not imply 'finite' either? If so, then how have you, or anyone else arrived at the presumption that it IS finite? Where is your actual evidence? The math? The obsevations? Or do you presume it because it sounds good to you?

My 'logic' is not a stand alone elementary exercise. It is a rational look at all available evidence, and arriving at a reasonable 'working' model. I do not make assumptions. I do not 'assume' the universe is either finite, or infinite. I am just reporting what the evidence infers without preconceptions. At least, that's what I am trying to do. It seems you are the one jumping to false, and unsupported conclusions ( no offense ) about me, my understanding of the universe, my familiarity with the standard model, or other models.

Attack my model. Or my facts. Not me. Fair? I have already conceded your intellectual superiority. Now prove it is actually superior in this field. Have yet to see the evidence.

Safety in numbers is not evidence. So how many 'hypothetical' models are out there anyway? Quite a few. What makes you think any of them are right? Certainly, at best ... LOGICALLY ... only one COULD be right. All pretty bright people. How could so many be wrong? Or is that too logical an exercise?

The fallback position of continually repeating I am too obtuse to understand gets tiresome. You have yet to point out an actual flaw with my reasoning, or my facts. Your perception that it is flawed ( and you just stating that it is flawed ) does not guarantee the flaw. Is it conceiveable to you that YOUR reasoning might be flawed? I don't think it is. It certainly is conceivable to me that mine might be .....

Your 'blue ribbon panel' ( very impressive, I must say ) has made a presumption of a finite universe as a working model. If it has boundries ... whether 600 billion light years or 600 septillion light years squared ... it's finite. What is that presumption based on?

How many brilliant people made similar arguments to yours when defending the steady state universe? The evidence for an expanding universe was pouring in. Did the brilliant scientists just say ... "Hmmm. Ok. Guess we were wrong."? Or did they go to their graves unable to accept reality? Really. You have much too high an opinion of yourselves. But then, I do too. I'm trying to work on it.

Originally Posted by Martin

'Wakit you have a lot of mistakes here. You sound so sure of yourself that no one is likely to want to try to correct you.

 

In cosmology we don't assume that the universe is exactly homogenous and isotropic. That is assumed to be true only as a largescale approximation.

Moreover it is not an assumption about empty space devoid of matter. It is an assumption about distribution of matter.

 

The distribution of matter is assumed to be co-extensive with space and to be approximately uniform (homog. and iso.) in the largescale average.

 

That's one mistake.

 

we don't assume that the universe is exactly homogenous and isotropic

 

Alright. We have an immediate problem.

 

1. Your use of the word 'universe'. Please be more specific. So you mean the hypothetical model that is 600 billion light years across? Or just our visible local universe.

 

2. I never said 'exactly'.

 

3. You wrote "Moreover it is not an assumption about empty space devoid of matter. It is an assumption about distribution of matter.

 

The distribution of matter is assumed to be co-extensive with space and to be approximately uniform (homog. and iso.) in the largescale average.

Again, where? In that 600 billion light year universe? And are we talking about distribution of matter in our local universe as opposed to that 600B one? One would think there is a distinction. What do those models predict for density of matter out side our local universe?

 

But in general terms, I agree. There will be 'approximate' isotropic distribution of matter in the local universe. I think it is safe to say that 'distribution' number is significantly lower when looking at the 'universe' outside our universe.

 

You wrote:

 

Another mistaken idea you have is that homog. and iso. imply infinite.

Logic says they imply one of 3 things. Infinity. Finite. Or Nothing. Lol. Feel free to make your case for 'Finite', or 'Nothing'. Uniformity of space at the very least 'infers' infinity. What evidence do you have to refute that other than 'theoretical models' that 'satisfy' a finite universe, but require ( let's face reality here ) magic, or re-writing physics? I have said this so many times. Mathematical probability/certainty does not equate to actually existing.

 

You wrote:

 

There are many cosmo models which satisfy the uniformity principle which have space be a finite volume, with a finite circumference. They have been studied for years and are well-known. That case has not been ruled out and NASA published an estimated lower bound on the size just this year.

As I recall it amounted to a circumference of about 600 billion light years.

That was a blue-ribbon NASA report from the WMAP mission.

Do I read this correctly? A 'lower bound'? Hmm. Ok. What's the 'higher bound'. My gosh. You scientists really have a hard time with infinity don't you? Lol. I have always loved the 'safety in numbers' defense. Works great if you are an antelope. I have said this before too. There is no safety in numbers. There is safety in truth.

 

Well, anyway I'm seeing a small problem because our expanding bubble of matter/energy is estimated by some to be around a 156 billion light year diameter. Others are still stuck at about 90. So what's the average dens ... oh never mind. Lol.

 

You wrote:

 

So it is ridiculous to claim that uniform implies space infinite. It is not rational. Counterexamples abound!

 

Oh really? Name one. Hypotheticals don't count. It's ridiculous to claim uniformity implies 'finite'. Or nothing.

 

You wrote:

 

If you don't already understand this, then you need to be asking questions at this forum, not making statements.

 

Well, I do ask questions. I have never claimed to be 100% certain. I have invited one and all to tear apart anything I say. I have to make the statements before you can debate them ... I assume. Or was I supposed to just accept that I couldn't possibly know as much or more than you about the universe ( cosmologically speaking ) and just study all the wonderful posts you all have made for the last year. Incredibly, I did not come up with any of this by reading tarot cards.

 

That said, I do not deny for a second that you all have a skill set far beyond my abilities. That does not preclude me from generally comprehending the evidence. Or looking at the problem with fresh eyes. It shouldn't take any of you but a few seconds to dismantle some crack pot idea, and kick the offender to the curb. I couldn't help but notice many of you tend to get a little emotional over this ....

 

Really. You should be a little more open-minded. "Out of the mouths of babes." You never know who is going to come up with an excellent idea. Edison never went to college. Wonder if he would have passed muster with you all.

 

You wrote:

 

Sounds like DeGrasse-Tyson was trying to explain, but couldn't take the time to hammer it in. He probably had to oversimplify and leave out part of the message, but he gave you the important part. We don't know whether space has finite volume or infinite volume. We assume matter is coextensive with space, distributed approx uniformly (the structure looks cob-webby at smaller scale and clustery at even smaller, galactic, scale).

As new data comes in, it is analyze and the results are tabulated using both the finite and infinite models because we don't know yet.

 

But we are getting closer to knowing, so stay tuned.

 

Sounds like you made another incorrect assumption. Dr. Tyson had plenty of time to explain. And his point was totally understandable. But he is not infallible. Einstein wasn't. Galileo wasn't. Newton wasn't. Why would I assume Neil wasn't? And why would I assume I'm not, either?

 

I also assume matter is coextensive with space. But there simply is no evidence of any kind that infers space is finite. It is pure speculation. Inferring space is infinite is reliant on math, experiments, and observations.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

No.

 

Lol.

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Py - Chill out. I'm frankly surprised that Martin has bothered wasting any time at all with you. The least you could do is to lose the attitude and see about improving your own understandings since he has offered to help in doing so.

 

Sorry you feel I need to chill. I was just being playful. I didn't really care that Martin called me 'wakit' It made me laugh. Hence all the lol's ...

 

Always up for improving my understanding. That's what it's all about right? But don't expect me to just accept what I am told as 'fact'. People make mistakes all the time. Again, I am not challenging conventional physics. Just conventional wisdom. New ideas are good. Yes? I have heard most of the 'old ideas', and I have found them lacking in one way or another. Not the physics, per se, ( although the reliance on unproven/untested superphysics is reasonable grounds for debate ) My problem, and it should be yours too, is the reliance on the hpotheticals. You give them a life of their own. An undeserved life.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

iNow, your own attitude is very off-putting to someone who is just trying to post his own ideas. You may have the best of intentions when you make your posts, but you must realize that the attitude you give off with them has unintended negative effects. Please try to be nicer.

 

pywakit, seeing as this thread was split off from another and it's now basically "yours", go for it.

 

Thank you. Feel free to reign me in when I get out of line ...

Ok. Sorry for stooping to that level. It's so funny. I was admonished on another thread for starting off with ... "I'm not that smart." 'Doesn't lend any credibility to your theories'. I was told. And then that was immediately followed by another admonishment for being 'egotistical'. Can't win. Lol.

Just read your message. I didn't put this thread here. Or are you talking about my model? If somebody wants to move it, it won't bother me. As far as 'accepted science', I am in almost complete agreement with you. Where I differ is where you insist that we stay within the bounds of mainstream theory. Since I am proposing nothing that requires 'new physics' or magic to make the model work, I fail to see how this violates the 'known and accepted' physics rule.

So may I go ahead and rebutt your assertions now? Thanks. And Py is fine. You do know who Pywakit was, don't you? Just a little whimsy from a non-theist.