Origins of the UNIVERSE

[Qev]

Spacetime is quantized, that much is pretty well established through quantum theory, but I'm still not seeing how this relates to the scale of the universe being limited to finite extent. I must be missing something here.

The same principle applies to the universe as the dropping ball, if the universe were to be infinite in size, there could be no differentiation between 1 meter and 1,000 kilometers, they would be mathematically represented by x/infinity. The same could be said about "time" if the universe was infinitely in age 1 second would be represented as 1 sec/infinity.

This is the theoretical reason why time had to begin at some point - the BB is the most logical.

Isn't that kind of like claiming that there's no difference between 1 and 1000 in the set of integers, since the set is infinite? Just because you have an infinite number of Planck units of space doesn't mean there are no differences in relative position between objects. Certainly, on the scale of an entire infinite universe, such differences would be infinitesimal, but like you've said, that's not zero.

[Martin]

To quantize distance and or time you need a starting point and an end point (correct?) If there is no end point then it cannot be quantized (correct?). If I understand this correct then this debate is ineffectual!! Trying to apply inadequate mathematics is the fatal flaw in trying to understand that which we are not currently capable of.

You can quantize a distance traveled and the time to achieve this and you can quantize an estimated distance/time but why would anyone think that this could be applied to infinity is beyond my understanding. Its not infinity that is flawed –it is the calculations that you are trying to apply to it.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Infinity is an intangible concept that cannot be measured quantitatively, as the concepts of "like" and "beauty" based on human perception.

Space/time has a beginning, for argument sake, the BB.

Space/time has an endpoint, here and now.

Space/time will have a final endpoint, when entropy reaches it's upper limit.

I just quatitized space/time.

What's your next point?

[BMAONE23]

Hello All

When you think of it wikipeda is just as accurate as other sources.

can some one explain or copy and paste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

I cannot download it.

1st

Achilles and the tortoise
"You can never catch up."

"In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead." (Aristotle Physics VI:9, 239b15)
In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, we imagine the Greek hero Achilles in a footrace with the plodding reptile. Because he is so fast a runner, Achilles graciously allows the tortoise a head start of a hundred feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run a hundred feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point; during this time, the tortoise has "run" a (much shorter) distance, say one foot. It will then take Achilles some further period of time to run that distance, during which the tortoise will advance farther; and then another period of time to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, Zeno says, swift Achilles can never overtake the tortoise. Thus, while common sense and common experience would hold that one runner can catch another, according to the above argument, he cannot; this is the paradox.

[BMAONE23]

Hello All

When you think of it wikipeda is just as accurate as other sources.

can some one explain or copy and paste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

I cannot download it.

2nd

The dichotomy paradox
"You cannot even start."

"That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal." (Aristotle Physics VI:9, 239b10)
Suppose Homer wants to catch a stationary bus. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.



The resulting sequence can be represented as:
1/16 1/8 1/4 1/2 1

This description requires one to complete an infinite number of steps, which for Zeno is an impossibility. This sequence also presents a second problem in that it contains no first distance to run, for any possible first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first after all. Hence, the trip cannot even begin. The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel over any finite distance can neither be completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion.

This argument is called the Dichotomy because it involves repeatedly splitting a distance into two parts. It contains some of the same elements as the Achilles and the Tortoise paradox, but with a more apparent conclusion of motionlessness. It is also known as the Race Course paradox.

[BMAONE23]

Hello All

When you think of it wikipeda is just as accurate as other sources.

can some one explain or copy and paste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

I cannot download it.

3rd

The arrow paradox
"You cannot even move."

"If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless." (Aristotle Physics VI:9, 239b5)
Finally, in the arrow paradox, we imagine an arrow in flight. At every moment in time, the arrow is located at a specific position. If the moment is just a single instant, then the arrow does not have time to move and is at rest during that instant. Now, during the following instants, it then must also be at rest for the same reason. The arrow is always at rest and cannot move: motion is impossible.

Whereas the first two paradoxes presented divide space, this paradox starts by dividing time — and not into segments, but into points. It is also known as the fletcher's paradox.

[toejam]

Surely all those "paradoxes" are no such thing, simply proofs that theoretical philosophy , even though it seems logical, is plain wrong. They are simply a kind of reductio ad absurdum.

[BMAONE23]

The arrow paradox is true in a way.
In any given moment of time nothing is in motion.

Motion only occurs because time passes and consequently, time only exists because there is motion to indicate its flow.

Therefore if it were possible to stop time it would be possible to freeze motion. But if your time were frozen, you wouldn't be aware of the fact that time had stopped as you would also be frozen in that moment.

[BMAONE23]

The Dichotomy Paradox might be stated another way too:

You can't get there from here.

In order to get anywhere you must first get 1/2 way there. Then before you get the rest of the way, you must again travel 1/2 the remaining distance, etc...

Mathmatically it would resemble

0, 1/2, 3/4, 7/8, 15/16, 31/32, 63/64, 127/128, ...

[Dr. Skeptic]

I prefer to keep explanation to simple concepts I'll try this.

E=mc^2

All mass can be expressed as an eV quantity, movement can be expressed as eV passed from one space/time quantum unit to the next.

ακολουθήστε τους αριθμούς

[Qev]

Infinity is an intangible concept that cannot be measured quantitatively, as the concepts of "like" and "beauty" based on human perception.

Space/time has a beginning, for argument sake, the BB.

Space/time has an endpoint, here and now.

Space/time will have a final endpoint, when entropy reaches it's upper limit.

I just quatitized space/time.

What's your next point?

'Here and now' is a position in spacetime, not an endpoint. Entropy doesn't signify the end of spacetime, just the end of any useful work that can be done in it. Various theories conflict that a maximum entropy can even be reached, in fact.

[harry]

Hello Dr Skeptic

Are you Greek or just write greek

I read your post, that means I'm Greek.

What numbers?

===========================================

Time has no start or end point.

It's man's definition of events that gives us start and end point.

Time is not an object that can be changed.

==========================================
Hello Qev, please define entropy.


==========================================
Entropy as Time's Arrow
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... op.html#e1

Entropy and Disorder
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... op.html#e3

===========================================

[Dr. Skeptic]

Time has no start or end point.

It's man's definition of events that gives us start and end point.

Great proclamation - where is the proof?

Or, let's hear your arguments contrary the logic in question.

Unreliable websites and inconclusive observations don't count.

The numbers are the math!

'Here and now' is a position in spacetime, not an endpoint. Entropy doesn't signify the end of spacetime, just the end of any useful work that can be done in it. Various theories conflict that a maximum entropy can even be reached, in fact.

Here and now is a fluid end point, unless you can prove forward time travel.

X=X'+entropy where X= any event, X' is the product. without proof of an influx of matter/energy into the universe, it will be lost to entropy. Theoretically entropy is energy lost into non-universe dimensions.

[harry]

Hello Dr Skeptic


I stated a fact , not a fantasy.

Fantasy needs to be proven.

You can use what ever maths and numbers you want, you can make it look great , but! you canot make it real.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Hello Dr Skeptic


I stated a fact , not a fantasy.

Fantasy needs to be proven.

You can use what ever maths and numbers you want, you can make it look great , but! you canot make it real.

What you are stating is not facts, it's an interpretation of incomplete data via limited observations. If you can't quantify your arguments, it is not conventional science.

[BMAONE23]

X=X'+entropy where X= any event, X' is the product. without proof of an influx of matter/energy into the universe, it will be lost to entropy. Theoretically entropy is energy lost into non-universe dimensions.

I was under the impression that basic physics teaches that energy can never be lost, only transferred between objects. How could it be "Lost" to entropy?

[Dr. Skeptic]

Conservation of mass/energy is true in conventional physics measuring large objects where accuracies and losses are nominal.

The chemical equation: {2⋅H2 + O2 ⇒ 2⋅H2O ➚ energy } reaction takes place, the net expelled energy is not enough to repeat the reverse reaction {energy ➘ 2⋅H2O ⇒ 2⋅H2 +O2}. The same entropy is evident on all scales, there is no perpetual motion found in the universe. Entropy wins every time.

[harry]

Hello Dr Skeptic

Matter takes many forms (phases)

Energy cannot be lost or gained. It can be tranfered, but! never lost.


========================================

If you do not know a fact when you see it. Than I think you need more info on the subject.

Time cannot be changed or altered. If you think this is not a fact, its up to you to prove it.


Many people take on the word TIME, place it in some maths equations and think they can later time. Oh! add several dimensions and your right.

As for science being conventional, smile, you call this science.

But! thats my opinion.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Facts can never be proven to be true, but can be proven to be not true.

I could elaborate but you could not understand it, refer to it as "voodoo" science and ignore it.

It will never be my responsibility to educate those who refuse to learn.

[harry]

Dr Skeptic

Are you a child.

What possible info have you to give?. What have you given?

You may have your opinions, and I respect them.

But! please keep your discussions to the subject and not to giving yourself browny points.

How old are you?

[Dr. Skeptic]

My age is of no consequence.

You have on numerous occasions referred to mathematical explanation as "fantasy"

Direct evidence discrediting your theory is ignored.

You have repeatedly posted inaccurate, out-dated, and unscientific information.

You have made it abundantly evident your theory exceeds you education level.

You have not made any "Scientific" rebuttals.

I love a good argument but both parties need to follow the rules of engagement; to argue science, you need to argue with science and I'm not sure you're there yet.

Work more on your science fundamentals and you'll soon see why it is frustrating for the rest of us.

[harry]

Hello Dr Skeptic

You make statements that do not hold water.

Who are you to state something is inaccurate?

If there is direct evidence discrediting any of my ideas. Please direct them to me, rather than hear say.

Sometimes papers old are as accurate as their evidence.
Please note the paper and which part is inaccrate.
I normally state that although I post the links, I may even disagree with the totality of the paper.

My education level, cannot be judged by you. Making statements like that, shows me the lack of education you have.

What info I have made to this web link is recorded?

If I was you focus on the discussion points and stop trying to gain browny points by putting people down?

[Dr. Skeptic]

You are driving Model-T Fords, the rest are driving racecars and you are not keeping up. The science of astrophysics and particle physics has progressed far beyond your understanding proven by what you post, you are blind to the obvious inaccuracies in your evidence.

Others have posted far better evidence than I, and you relentlessly persist to post non-scientific arguments based on tabloid speculation incapable to gain any point in a true debate by individuals in the field.

I don't understand what you mean by "Brownie Points", that would assume I'd be placing my self-worth on this blog - hardly true. Are Brownie Points" here important to you?

I have had no intention of putting anyone down, I would be delited if you would exit your Model-T, ask pertinent questions, learn something valid and stop propagating non-scientific, tabloid speculations.

[Martin]

COM’ on Harry, Harry and Harry. The Dr. has some valid points. You have a tendency to ignore current observations and changes to old speculation. However, you are imaginative I will give you that.

Harry you remind me of the young men that USED to ring my doorbell with white shirts and backpacks on. They were selling religion because someone told them to -not because they could justify doing so. Your inability to constructively debate any given point on its merits remind me of such religious fanatics.

Anyone who seeks one answer for all questions is wasting their time. Any answer unequivocally brings more questions that can’t be answered by the original solution. It’s the nature of our reality. Even the M-theory invites further mystery.

Remember UK day? Please address the logical posts, point for point, and you may begin to gain at least some respect with non BBT theories.

I too can accept an alternate theory and I do know a few respectable scientists that doubt it themselves. However, they are only quick to ridicule the BBT. They are not quick to replace it with something else -just yet. This is mostly due to the FACT that "something else" does not have enough scientific support.

[harry]

Hello Martin

I think Dr Skeptic has valid points.

Than again so do I, read the links of the posts.

Iteresting points on star formation in regards to the core of the sun.
and information on Black holes.

I have been discussing these issues with the writer of the papers.

I'd rather focus on the discussion and not on Modet -T fords.

Than again if I had one, I would love it.

I will trade my 928S for one.

Tell me one thing that is old and wrong.