Sorcerer

I'm not so much amazed at how often it is misunderstood, but rather how often it isn't even considered as a thought at all.

Yes Mordred, but what in the cosmological principle says that, that is not allowed?

I was thinking about the objection to there being a singularity based on the cosmological principle and realised how this violates the isotropic and homogenous nature. I was thinking of 3D from 1 moment to the next, but not of the following moments in 4D, so missed that it was an anomally, which stands out against the rest of time. So for example at no other point in 4D does the universe gain dimensions and this makes that moment anisotropic. However, there are a few moments like this at the beginning of the universe which also are anomalous. For instance at no other point in time does the universe undergo recombination change phase from plasma to gas and have photons decouple from matter. So this moment, ironically, being anisotropic in time also creates evidence for isotrophy. All I can really say on these anomalies to resolves them with regards to the cosmological principle is that just as we ignore the small scale fluctuations over 3D which statistically even out so we can regard the universe as isotropic and homogenous. So too we can ignore the few points in the universes evolution where anomalous events occur, because on the larger scale of time, these events are statistically irrelevant. So again I come to the conclusion that the cosmological principle does not deny there being a change from a singularity to a 3 dimensional universe at the first moment of time.

So, it could be the flying spaghetti monster for 10-49 seconds then.

I would be hard to conduct experiements under the conditions that existed in the first 10-49 seconds after the big bang though, so our testing is inherently rather biased.

Well that's been the idea for a few decades now I guess. Yes I agree its a good aproximation, but, the good and poor adjectives are subjective, I think approximation is the key word. What is with the 10-49 Seconds anyway, why isn't that 0 then? Is that the time it takes for POINT to become a sphere with a planck length diameter?

Then if you need to abandon the singularity because the theories predictions are self defeated, you should abandon the entire theory itself. Or atleast understand it is a poor aproximation of reality. I think it was general relativity or is that what you mean by classical? What is with the 10-49 Seconds anyway, why isn't that 0 then? Is that the time it takes for POINT to become a sphere with a planck length diameter?

That was pointed out the theory only describes the universe from a time of 10-49 seconds onwards (according to what Mordred posted before). But the reasoning that lead to the creation of the idea, inevitably leads to the crossing of spacetime at the origin, where it has no volume and is infinitely dense. This logical consequence was abandoned because we lack the tools to describe it with our current knowledge. But that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't what happened before that. It doen't necessarily mean it is either, however that would be the conclusion from the reasoning which first created the theory. The fact that you need to give a time of 10-49 seconds, implies that time before it.

Yes, yes, but I had objection to there not being an explosion, it is not necessary for a point or singularity to be viewed as an explosion, when it moves from 0 spatial dimension to 3. Why would you consider 0 dimension changing to 3 dimensions an explosion? A point in the middle of a sphere is equidistant from the edge and thus the dimensional change is isotropic and homogenous, but there is no increase in volume, just the dimensional shift to it, its illogical to consider no volume becoming volume an increase. Just as it would be illogical to consider a point a shorter line, than a line segment, because it isn't a line. It is also illogical to consider there being a change in direction, a point has 2 cooridinates but this one has no reference so they are meaningless and there is no time, there is no direction and there can't be change when time begins after the point. Maybe if you have to use calculus, you will find that your argument holds, but calculus is only an approximation. It can only describe limits as they approach 0, never actually 0 itself.

I understand this. But I was just wondering what part of the cosmological principle tells us "that the Universe did not have an origin point nor is the result of an explosion." The Big Bang model, if it only describes time from 10-49 seconds onwards doesn't tell us that the universe did not have an orgin point. It doesn't tell us anything about time before then. The logical reasoning which led to the big bang theory, can still be taken to its conclusion and lead to a singularity. Just because current science, (or any science ever), can't explain it doesn't invalidate extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity to yield an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.

I'm sorry, I don't how the cosmological principle prevents an origin point. An origin point is perfectly isotropic and homogenous. If you take the balloon analogy and interpolate, you end up with all 3 points converging, the same ratio of change still occurs between points at all times even at the first (or last) instant, when it is undefined for all of them, only the angles drop to 0 at 0 distance between points. And I don't see how this violates the principle. Am I missing something? By origin point, I assume you mean as in a mathematical point, one of 0 size, what about an origin point of non zero size?

Faded - Ben Harper

With fusion?

Bob suspects his wife is having an affair with the milkman. He is talking to his mates at work about it and they suggest he buys a surveillance camera to find out the truth before he confronts her about it. So Bob decides to go shopping after work, he doesn't earn much and finds he only has $15 to spend. He goes to the local security shop and enquires about their cameras. Bob, "How much is this one?" Salesman, "Thats $80." Bob, "Hmmmmm, oh, got anything cheaper" Salesman, "Well, theres this one, its $30" Bob, "Na forget it, bye." So Bob leaves, feeling rather sad. The next day at work he's telling his mates about how he doesn't have enough money for a camera, when one of his friends suggests he gets a parrot. Bob is rather surprised, his friend tells him that his parrots always telling him stuff about what happened during the day. So Bob thinks this is a rather good idea, and decides to get a surveillance parrot. So after work Bob heads off down to the pet store. He sees some rather nice parrots in the window. He steps inside and speaks to the salesman. Bob, "How much for this one." Salesman, "Thats $60." Bob, "Oh, got anything cheaper?" Salesman, "yeah check over there in the bargin bin." So Bob wanders over to the bargin bin, it has a label which says $10, he thinks, "perfect". He looks in and sees a collection of bedraggled animals, 3 legged cats, dogs with 2 tails, mangy looking ferrets.... right in the corner sitting rather awkwardly on a perch is a parrot with no legs. Bob is amazed, "a parrot with no legs sitting on a perch!!!", he shouts, hearing this the pet store owner come over and says, "yes thats a rather rare one, he uses his penis to balance", Bob says "I'll take it". So Bob takes his parrot with no legs home and introduces it to his wife, when they are alone he has a chat with his parrot, he says, "now I want you to watch her very carefully, tell me everything she does when the milk man comes, I want to know every detail you hear." The no-legged parrot replies in its parrot voice, "OK". So Bob sets the no-legged parrot up with a good veiw of the front door and heads off to work. He comes home and asks the parrot, " so what happened?", the no-legged parrot says, "He gave her 2 bottles of milk and a kiss on the lips, then left", Bob starts to get angry, but not sure anything too serious is going on he decides to wait. He comes home the next day and asks the parrot, " so what happened?", the no-legged parrot says, "He gave her 2 bottles of milk, a kiss on the lips, and felt her tits, then left", Bobs face starts to boil with anger, but still not sure anything to much is going on yet he decides to wait. He comes home the next day and asks the parrot, " so what happened?", the no-legged parrot says, "He gave her 2 bottles of milk, a kiss on the lips, and felt her tits, and lifted her dress", the parrot pauses, Bobs waits then getting real mad he screams, "AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED???", the parrot replies, " I don't know, I cracked a stiff and fell off my perch."

Yeah carnivorous plants are a bitch to grow, unless you live in a swamp.

Hi, I'm Ben... *waves* *cheezy grin* I'm 24 and have BSc in Plant and Microbial Science, I have been looking for science related work here in Christchurch NZ but competition is tough and work is scarce, I am considering going to teachers college next year and training to become a Biology/Science teacher. I enjoy listening to heavy rock music and getting in the mosh pit, I also like old school techno and was a raver into hardcore back in the day. I like gardening and horticulture, mountain biking, fishing, tramping and camping (basically anything to do with the outdoors). I am an amateur poet, I used to write alot, got awards for creative writing back in Highschool, but since then haven't written much. My favourite science topics are evolution, genetics and biochemistry. I also enjoy cosmology, but I am however hopeless at physics and maths, although I did pass my highschool final calculus and stats exams with A's..... all this was quickly forgotten on the hard summer break. I like philosophy and I consider myself an agnostic, I like to challenge faith and make people admit things when they don't know them for sure.

ROFLMAO at the thought, I cant imagine how you didn't drown from laughing.

R U hot? Come to NZ and lets talk about how to remove pre-zygotic barriers!