Starship Asterisk*

Hm, I'm also reminded of my program when viewing the discussions here, except that it was an earlier version under development, where the logic to remember past moves was flawed, and the program got into a loop because it made the same moves over and over again...

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?

-Noel

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

We're still just babies, and haven't even crawled from our little crib (the little tiny thing known an Earth and its closest surroundings).

Then again... 50 years from now, we could still be trying to figure what's really at the bottom of earth's ocean. We just don't know when everyone is focused on what THEY think is most important, instead of just learning, learning, exploring, learning more, exploring more, and just keeping tabs of it all, not trying to prove anything just yet, until we can actually find ways to create things on our own that are being created all the time in space.

Hello Dr Skeptic

You said

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)

I must say you put your words in a nice way.

Next look at it from a scientist point of view.

Do not just really on the words " Main stream" even a dead log floats down stream.

There are many issues over the standard models and I'm not the only person who questions their logic.

People come up with so called evidence supporting the standard models and yet they do not hold water.

Dr Skeptic, keep reading.

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

Arramon said

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

Now how can you argue with that response? Hit the nail on the head.


====================================
NeolC

Sometimes sheets hit the fan. Going around in circles is part of human nature. History repeats itself time and time again.

bystander wrote:

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!

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.

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... hp?t=12876

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".

The only research using infinity as a base point today is by pseudo scientist "want-to-Be's" lacking the concepts of empirical science. There is a reason they are shunned by the academic world, to imply infinity as a solution to a problem is equivalent as saying a "Angel did it", convenient, but not science - the empirical proof supporting the theory is 100% totally removed. A non-limit would need to be observed to be proven.


The limits infinity removes cannot be selectively argued - its all or none.

bystander wrote:

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.

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.

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... ght=#90439

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. ...

bystander wrote:

bystander wrote:

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.

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.

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... ght=#90439

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. ...

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.



Infinity is a man-made concept not found in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

Hello Dr Skeptic

You said

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.

And you call the ad hoc ideas that support the Big Bang Theory as science.
I have read every so called evidence for the BBT and not one holds water.


Mate, do you know what science is?

harry wrote:Hello Dr Skeptic

You said

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.

And you call the ad hoc ideas that support the Big Bang Theory as science.
I have read every so called evidence for the BBT and not one holds water.


Mate, do you know what science is?

I absolutely do.

Science starts with empirical data, data that can be measured and observed, properties of the data can also be remeasured and re-observed. Data points that can't be measured or observed can be extrapolated between empirical point if the extrapolated data doesn't contradict any other empirical points.

Infinity cannot exist as an empirical data point as a scientific reference in any science, it can be used as a conceptual point as in "what if?". "What ifs" are not measurable, observable, repeatable or "actual science". Don't get me wrong, "Best Guess" is a wonderful scientific tool but the "best guess" in the end needs to be supported by actual scientific tools or we'll end up having the argument how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

So if I'm wrong, show me where my "actual science" is flawed.

If you can use the non-provable "infinity" to define parts of your theory then I can use "God" equally in mine.

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.

I might suggest you follow your own advice, but since it would fall on deaf ears, I'll refrain.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:Infinity is a man-made concept not found in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

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:If you can use the non-provable "infinity" to define parts of your theory then I can use "God" equally in mine.

Your "science" is beginning to sound more like religion. Speculation ≠ Science.

Shouting from the rooftops don't make it so.

bystander wrote:

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.

I might suggest you follow your own advice, but since it would fall on deaf ears, I'll refrain.

Shouting from the rooftops don't make it so.

As you shout from from the rooftops.

bystander wrote:

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.

I might suggest you follow your own advice, but since it would fall on deaf ears, I'll refrain.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:Infinity is a man-made concept not found in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

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:If you can use the non-provable "infinity" to define parts of your theory then I can use "God" equally in mine.

Your "science" is beginning to sound more like religion. Speculation ≠ Science.

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.

I, along with the rest of the academic community rely on empirical evidence to support theoretical beliefs - can you explain to me again how your use of infinity isn't a "tool of convenience" to circumvent concepts you don't understand?

You are correct, I cannot prove infinity exists. Infinity is not a thing, it's a mathematical concept. When I say 1/∞ = 0, what I mean is, as x gets extremely large, the value of 1/x aproaches zero. When I say the set of integers is infinite, I'm stating the fact that there is no greatest integer. No matter what value you pick as the greatest value, I can always find one larger. Infinity and operations involving infinity are mathematically well defined.

I'll agree the observable universe (your "empirical" universe) is finite. We can, after all, observe it. But the universe is more than what we observe, what we can measure. Many cosmologies make preditions that cannot be observed, cannot be proved. Some cosmologies predict a closed, finite universe. Others predict an open, infinite universe. None are provable. The observations simply don't exist in order to be able to prove or disprove these theories. However, I would be willing to bet, in the mathematical construct of those theories, the concept of infinity was used.

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.

Submit your own "proof", sir. Before you do consider this list of fallacies and remember just because I can't prove there is a God, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Just because you can't prove God doesn't exist, is not a proof he does.

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.

It is statements like:

Harry said:

If you think along the recycling universe you would have infinity to work it self out.

is what makes academic scientist want to hurl.

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

*tosses calculator out the window*

*relaxes and uses 12% brain capacity to ponder instead*

Sounds like we need some super-scopes to see into the smallest of particles and find out what came first, the single-cell chicken or its egg...and if that egg isn't just part of a basket full of eggs. =b

Why people even want to assume a limit on something they can't totally see is in itself a contradiction of beliefs, or theories, or whatever you wanna call it. But so is stating that no limits exist on something that we may never fully understand. Seeing radiation from an archaic event doesn't explain what's beyond our own perceptions of the limit to only that one event.

Multiple events could have produced the universe we can barely see, just as a single event could have produced multiple universes we can't see... humans may not have that understanding within our current confines, and we may need new 'eyes' to comprehend what we don't know. Figuratively and metaphorically.

It would be great to 'postulate' an answer to anything we can't comprehend without the fullness of all 'facts', toss in a theoretic unknown variable to hopefully balance our equations. Fine and dandy within the limitations of the mathematical process, but it doesn't hurt to believe that many alternatives could exist, just as believing only one possible answer could be responsible for everything.

Until we are handed these answers on a plate, labeled 'What you seek", we can only guess, because estimates leave out details we fumble over when the results of one persons's theories don't hash out with someone else's theories (beliefs, or calculations). Having a list of possible variations is alot more likely than formally declaring that one thing is certain, or that one thing isn't. We don't know.

What we do know is visible to us, through technology and our understanding of current science, and what we don't know is invisible, because technology and current science is still child's play compared to what's truelly happening around us. Kind of hard to get the big picture when you're looking from the inside out.

10,000 years and we think we can solve what's been happening for over 10 billion. wow... 10 billion years could even be a fractional percentage of the entire evolution of existence in itself.

O.o !pop

d'oh... my brain...

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.

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.

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.

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!"

Hello Bystander

I like the way you write.

You may or may not find this interesting reading

http://www.dailygrail.com/node/5955

I read an article by a guy who proposed that the universe has in fact already reversed and everything was well on it's way back to singularity citing red shift and the Great Attractor as part of the proof of his "theory". I can't imagine the calls for empirical proof he must get!

But what do I know, I could be the blind man with his hand on the elephants leg telling everyone I know that the beast is shaped like a tree and furiously scribbling down all my hard won, repeatable empirical data as proof. If the general population had never seen such an animal they would be receiving only part of the picture thinking it the whole.

I on the other hand would be buzy full time generating arguments based on my theory, supported by my data (or anyone else's who would put on the blindfold and go feel that elephant leg!) so I could refute the other blind guys' theories who were with me but "observing"a different part of the same creature!

My Point? V838 has spawned an amazing thread. BBT, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, multi-dimentions, you name it it's here. I recently came off a conversation a guy who believes everything that is now in existence is less than 7,000 years old. I asked him about fossles.....you don't want to know the answer to that one. But! (clever mechanism, think I'll use it again). BUT! I keep trying to have a mind that remains open as best as I can. Who knows, maybe the universe IS shaped like a tree.

Hi, astrolabe,

Glad you decided not to leave the APOD discussion forum after all. I apologize if my disagreement with Harry had disillusioned you earlier.

In order to judge the validity of the discussions in this forum, I either go to the online texts provided by the astronomy departments at various universities or check the following web site.

http://www.badastronomy.com/

You will learn more about our fantastic universe as you read the discussions in this forum and in the links in the APOD explanations.

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

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.

The Latest explanation I've encountered, which is related to the big fizz, (Edwards is his last name I believe) there is a point (Space/Time doesn't exist there so we need to refer to it as a point) that is like a boiling pot of inter-dimensional goo that "bubbles-off" new universes as randomly as a pot of H2O boils off steam then as entropy wins Space/Time and Mass/Gravity are re-absorbed and re-fuel the pot. Our universe would be only one of these bubbles and as bubbles in a pot, there is no reason they would need to be uniform in size or content.

Earthly physics and perception don't always apply to the massive scope of the universe.

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.

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.

Harry,

Limiting the universe to "Newtonian physics" does not work. It will never work. It is wrong.
Quoting people who's best work was done a half century ago is not helping you argument.

If you are so strongly insisting Newtonian Physics can answer everything, please explain to me using Newtonian Physics: how entanglement works. (which has repeatedly been proven it does)

Hello Dr Skeptic

I was just noting where the Big Bang came from.

Are you still sitting on the fence.


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

Tell us what you think,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I'm just learning as I'm going along.


I have read 1000 papers this year,,,,,,,,and you would think that I know more and yet I find myself knowing how little we know.

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?

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?

With all the exotic, obscure mathematics involved in quantum mechanics and entanglement ("spooky action at a distance" ), I'm surprised you have such a problem with the concept of infinity. With all the accuracy of the predictions of quantum mechanics, it still has a big problem with gravity, one thing with which Newton and Einstein both did well, and on which most (all?) cosmologies depend, at least to some extent.

Entanglement, though well documented, seems to be counterintuitive and nonproductive. Gravity, on the other hand, has a major influence on my everyday life.

I'm still waiting for "The Grand Theory of Everything", or perhaps what we need is "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything".