![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Since, in that case, it took action by the programmer to correct the issue, does that mean that divine intervention may be required to help push us all past repetetive discussion of the same things over and over?
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
-Noel
I must say you put your words in a nice way.You tend to go with an over simplified reality of the universe limited to your Earth bound perception of physics.
A cyclical universe is only possible if Space/Time and Mass/Gravity are reset back to zero which sounds a lot like a "Big Bang" type scenario to me. The reason you get hammered by the mainstream is: "BECAUSE THE SCIENCE DOESN"T WORK!
And, you despise the thought that any self-serving monument you build would not be permanent. Yes Harry, the empirical universe is 100%temporary - get use to it. Also stop inventing/propagating pseudo science that proves an outcome that isn't defined. (As in you must prove the universe is infinite before you can prove "why" it is infinite)
Now how can you argue with that response? Hit the nail on the head.I think give us humans another 30-50 years. Then we'll see what new observations have occured that could give better insight into how things really opperate. =b
Then I will have to await your proof that infinity exists in the empirical world and why the mathematical proof that it doesn't "doesn't hold water".bystander wrote:You make this argument over and over and it still doesn't hold water. Your views of infinity and empircism are flawed. This argument has been made before.Dr. Skeptic wrote:Infinity is not a number - it is a non limit - infinity does not exist in the empirical universe. Stating the universe is infinite in any way is forcing an empirical value to a non empirical concept - IT CANNOT BE DONE! PERIOD!
http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... hp?t=12876
http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... ght=#90439bystander wrote:Arguing that the universe has to be finite because you can't measure infinity is fallacious. Not being able to set a upper limit on the size of the universe does not preclude the ability to measure its parts and obtain empirical data. Nor does it preclude the possibility that the universe is expanding.Dr. Skeptic wrote:Sorry, I truly believe that using infinity in empirical science is for those who's concept of the universe is overly simplified and haven't weighed the consequences of implying it to the "big" picture.
A static universe is all but proved to be false by observations of this last year (check the Noble Prize), if the universe not static it cannot be infinite.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know. ...
I don't have a problem leaving you to your own prejudices, but if you can't support your theory with science please don't call it science until you can.bystander wrote:http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... ght=#90439bystander wrote:Arguing that the universe has to be finite because you can't measure infinity is fallacious. Not being able to set a upper limit on the size of the universe does not preclude the ability to measure its parts and obtain empirical data. Nor does it preclude the possibility that the universe is expanding.Dr. Skeptic wrote:Sorry, I truly believe that using infinity in empirical science is for those who's concept of the universe is overly simplified and haven't weighed the consequences of implying it to the "big" picture.
A static universe is all but proved to be false by observations of this last year (check the Noble Prize), if the universe not static it cannot be infinite.
I won't have this argument with you again, but, simply stated, the concept of infinity is not mutually exclusive to the gathering of empirical data, nor is an infinite universe necessarily static.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know. ...
And you call the ad hoc ideas that support the Big Bang Theory as science.I don't have a problem leaving you to your own prejudices, but if you can't support your theory with science please don't call it science until you can.
I absolutely do.harry wrote:Hello Dr Skeptic
You said
And you call the ad hoc ideas that support the Big Bang Theory as science.I don't have a problem leaving you to your own prejudices, but if you can't support your theory with science please don't call it science until you can.
I have read every so called evidence for the BBT and not one holds water.
Mate, do you know what science is?
I might suggest you follow your own advice, but since it would fall on deaf ears, I'll refrain.Dr. Skeptic wrote:I don't have a problem leaving you to your own prejudices, but if you can't support your theory with science please don't call it science until you can.
Of course infinity is a man made construct, designed specifically to allow him to more accurately model the observable universe. That's the purpose of mathematics. Maybe you should "actually" read the url you posted.Dr. Skeptic wrote:Infinity is a man-made concept not found in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity
Your "science" is beginning to sound more like religion. Speculation ≠ Science.Dr. Skeptic wrote:If you can use the non-provable "infinity" to define parts of your theory then I can use "God" equally in mine.
Shouting from the rooftops don't make it so.
As you shout from from the rooftops.bystander wrote:I might suggest you follow your own advice, but since it would fall on deaf ears, I'll refrain.Dr. Skeptic wrote:I don't have a problem leaving you to your own prejudices, but if you can't support your theory with science please don't call it science until you can.
Shouting from the rooftops don't make it so.
I still awaiting the scientific proof to support your concepts ... or anything other than vague pontifications.bystander wrote:I might suggest you follow your own advice, but since it would fall on deaf ears, I'll refrain.Dr. Skeptic wrote:I don't have a problem leaving you to your own prejudices, but if you can't support your theory with science please don't call it science until you can.
Of course infinity is a man made construct, designed specifically to allow him to more accurately model the observable universe. That's the purpose of mathematics. Maybe you should "actually" read the url you posted.Dr. Skeptic wrote:Infinity is a man-made concept not found in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity
Your "science" is beginning to sound more like religion. Speculation ≠ Science.Dr. Skeptic wrote:If you can use the non-provable "infinity" to define parts of your theory then I can use "God" equally in mine.
Shouting from the rooftops don't make it so.
is what makes academic scientist want to hurl.If you think along the recycling universe you would have infinity to work it self out.
No, not really. You seem to believe that the observable universe is mutually exclusive with a cosmology that supports an infinite universe. I have yet to see proof that these cosmologies are wrong (or right), and there is nothing in the concept of infinity that would support your belief.Dr. Skeptic wrote:Well look at that, with a little meaningful dialog it turns out we are on the same page after all. Infinity does exist in the conceptual universe but does not in the empirical universe. The problem arises when trying to breach and/or blend the boundaries between the two.
That's my last word on this, but I didn't want to leave anybody with the impression I support your position. As an agnostic, I'm completely willing to say, "I don't know!"What I'm saying to you is that your statements that an infinite universe cannot be measured and must be static are unfounded and without merit. Nothing about the finiteness of the universe precludes the ability to observe or measure that universe. The rate of expansion (or contraction) of the universe is not dependent upon our ability (or inability) to place an upper bound on the size of that universe.
I don't think you need to take the term "Bang" so literally, the BB has also been referred to as the "Big Fizz" - as the spray from an aerosol can. Also, what may look like a big bang from our "Relative Time" may not have been as "Instantaneous" as we perceive.NoelC wrote:I have a really stupid question...
People citing observational evidence of the "big bang" postulate that if everything's expanding, one could follow back in time to a moment when everything was in a singularity, then exploded.
How the hell does that follow?
What if, when you traced galactic motion back in time, you arrived not at a point, but instead the galaxies just expanded into existence.
I'm not saying I support this line of thinking, but I just don't see how expansion implies a single event.
If we see a lot of traffic leaving a stadium, do we assume that they all left at precisely the same time? In fact we know it's impossible for them to have done so.
This one thing, cited time and again by scientists in shows made for the public, has always bothered me.
-Noel
Fred Hoyle. (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) He collaborated with Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold and in 1948 they published two papers about the steady-state cosmology. Fred Hoyle introduced a negative-pressure C-field into Albert Einstein's equations. Steady-state model were eternal but needed the constant creation of the new born matter.
Fred Hoyle straggled against the model of expanding Universe having the beginning. Laughed and shouted: "Big Bang!" Thus the Big Bang theory acquired its name. And in 1972 after a regrettable dispute and after Hoyle's premature retirement from Cambridge in 1972 he found himself in isolation from the broad academic community. His later scientific writings, which continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s, dealt with such topics as Stonehenge, panspermia, Darwinism, paleontology, and viruses from space. But he never lost his interest in cosmology: His book A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality, coauthored with G. Burbidge and Narlikar, appeared in 2000.
Harry,harry wrote:Hello All
http://www.geocities.com/area51/nebula/3735/alt.html
Fred Hoyle. (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) He collaborated with Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold and in 1948 they published two papers about the steady-state cosmology. Fred Hoyle introduced a negative-pressure C-field into Albert Einstein's equations. Steady-state model were eternal but needed the constant creation of the new born matter.
Fred Hoyle straggled against the model of expanding Universe having the beginning. Laughed and shouted: "Big Bang!" Thus the Big Bang theory acquired its name. And in 1972 after a regrettable dispute and after Hoyle's premature retirement from Cambridge in 1972 he found himself in isolation from the broad academic community. His later scientific writings, which continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s, dealt with such topics as Stonehenge, panspermia, Darwinism, paleontology, and viruses from space. But he never lost his interest in cosmology: His book A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality, coauthored with G. Burbidge and Narlikar, appeared in 2000.
With all the exotic, obscure mathematics involved in quantum mechanics and entanglement ("spooky action at a distance"Dr. Skeptic wrote:I'm not sitting on a fence, I know what I know and more importantly, I know what I don't know.
If the universe is "recycled" it is not on a "Newtonian" scale and "infinity" is not one of it's variables.
So then, what are your thoughts on entanglement?