Starship Asterisk*

If<<<< I was biblical minded, when .x.x.x.x.. said to to an unbeliever ''cut a peace wood,, you will find me... move a rock,,you will find me''. Of course my rational mind would kick in and tell me,, GOD=Gravity... That,s why I could only explode at a predicted velocity... What is in the middle of our galaxy? what is in the middle of most galaxies in the hole universe? why would the center of our universe be any different? what is the point of an empty space over 2 billion light years across with a very high gravity field? Time really will tell... looking forward to there reports...

Mark

aristarchusinexile wrote:... your postings carry a lot more weight with me since I read 'Reinventing Gravity' (MOG) by John Moffat.

Why Moffat thinks that gravity needs reinventing? The Big Bang's gravity has problems quantum mechanics, inflation, quasars, accelerating expansion, dark energy, and credibility. Einstein's gravity (the one with static universe) has none of them. So maybe Moffat is reinventing BB's gravity? But then he is barking at wrong tree.

Hi aristarchusinexile,

I just asked John Moffat which tree he's barking at (Einstein's of BB's) and let see what he says.

harry wrote:The paper was writen as a journal a paper to sell.

The logic behind is this. The image shown is about 13.3 Gyrs and at that distance we have 10^9 galaxies observed.

Think of the complexity of just one galaxy containing billions of stars.
Than think of the life of one star being 12 Gyrs phase. Many stars go through many phases and rejuvination.

Now try to work it out.

How can one galaxy form in just 400 million years?
How can a cluster of galaxies form in just 400 million years?
How can a super cluster, which is a cluster of clusters of local clusters of galaxies formed in just 400 million years?

I am utterly unable to see the connection between the your initial observations of the age of the Universe and of stars, and the length of time it takes a galaxy to form. What exactly is the problem you see?

aristarchusinexile wrote:I know I posted this elsewhere on the forum, but really, the sheer uncommon sense of Big Bang came clear to me last night. Infinite density would require infinite energy to explode it.

Why?

Infinite energy would explode infinite density to nothingness

Why?

Also, infinite energy would be required to hold together infinte mass, so there would be no extra energy available to explode it.

Where are you coming up with the idea that the Universe has infinite energy (mass)? That is not an assumption of most theories. And while most theories treat t=0 as a mathematical singularity (i.e. infinite energy density), there is no requirement that this actually describe the physical reality. No theory completely describes conditions at t=0; the physics in play during the first fraction of a second are largely unknown.

Chris wrote: Why?

What else could explode infinite mass besides infinite energy?

Chris wrote: Why?

Think "Infinite", Chris. But of course, you have a point. If the infinite energy were directed by a supreme intelligence with infinte power, anything would be possible, even a universe. However, that scenario invokes a Creator. Without intelligent control, infinite energy would either refuse to allow infinite mass to explode, or explode it totally into nothingness. It would be brute either way.

Also, infinite energy would be required to hold together infinte mass, so there would be no extra energy available to explode it.

Chris wrote: Where are you coming up with the idea that the Universe has infinite energy (mass)? That is not an assumption of most theories. And while most theories treat t=0 as a mathematical singularity (i.e. infinite energy density), there is no requirement that this actually describe the physical reality. No theory completely describes conditions at t=0; the physics in play during the first fraction of a second are largely unknown.

The Bang singularity is commonly said to have held infinite mass, or is it not commonly said?
I never said the universe has infinite energy, I said it would take infinite energy to explode infinite mass .. and that it would explode it infinitely, to nothing .. meaning no universe. So, no Bang either way you look at it. Or, if there was a Bang, there had to be a Creator to control it.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Think "Infinite", Chris...

That doesn't mean anything. I still have no idea how you came to your conclusions. They don't follow any logic I understand.

The Bang singularity is commonly said to have held infinite mass.

Commonly by who? It is entirely uncertain if the Universe has infinite volume. If not, it contains a finite amount of energy, and therefore its state at t=0 consisted of a finite amount of energy (and by equivalence, mass).

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Think "Infinite", Chris...

Chris wrote:That doesn't mean anything. I still have no idea how you came to your conclusions. They don't follow any logic I understand.

To my logic it is amazingly clear. What else can I say?

Ari wrote:The Bang singularity is commonly said to have held infinite mass.

Commonly by who? It is entirely uncertain if the Universe has infinite volume. If not, it contains a finite amount of energy, and therefore its state at t=0 consisted of a finite amount of energy (and by equivalence, mass).

Commonly by PHD authors writing books found in public libraries. You're right, though, the universe cannot have infinite volume, because it is not infinite. There is no beginning in infinity; and in Big Bang there is a beginning. I agree .. the universe has finite mass.

I don't understand why I'm having so much trouble with the quote mechanism. Forgive the format.

Chris .. from Wiki - "Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"Infinite density" - does it or does it not infer infinite mass? I think it must. As you and I see that the universe does not hold infinite mass, Relativity seems to say the Bang was not the way the universe began. Unless infinite density does not contain infinite mass .. but I can't see how that can be possible .. anyway, infinite energy would still be required to explode infinite density.

A side note: From Wiki - "In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesto_Slipher How come Hubble gets all the credit?

aristarchusinexile wrote:"Infinite density" - does it or does it not infer infinite mass?

density is mass per unit volume, as volume goes to zero, density goes to infinity, regardless of the mass involved.

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:"Infinite density" - does it or does it not infer infinite mass?

density is mass per unit volume, as volume goes to zero, density goes to infinity, regardless of the mass involved.

Genuine thanks for your input, Bystander, I thought you had me out of a black hole, but my understanding of infinite is all encompassing .. if density at one point is infinite, in the way I look at things, there can be no other points of density.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Genuine thanks for your input, Bystander, I thought you had me out of a black hole, but my understanding of infinite is all encompassing .. if density at one point is infinite, in the way I look at things, there can be no other points of density.

It doesn't work that way. Density is inversely proportional to volume. For a given amount of mass, as volume increase, density decreases, and vice versa. Zero volume, infinite density. Infinite volume, zero density

"The Absolute Infinite is mathematician Georg Cantor's concept of an "infinity" that transcended the transfinite numbers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_I ... ti_paradox

So .. I guess this is the infinit which I picture .. boundless .. never ending.

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Genuine thanks for your input, Bystander, I thought you had me out of a black hole, but my understanding of infinite is all encompassing .. if density at one point is infinite, in the way I look at things, there can be no other points of density.

It doesn't work that way. Density is inversely proportional to volume. For a given amount of mass, as volume increase, density decreases, and vice versa. Zero volume, infinite density. Infinite volume, zero density

Right! If there is mass, there can never be zero density. Mass must, then, arise out of nothing .. but this is exactly what Pascual Jordan was saying, making stars out of nothing .. ( which John Moffat also says in Reinventing Gravity .. no singularities ). Eureka!

aristarchusinexile wrote:Commonly by PHD authors writing books found in public libraries.

I don't think it is common at all.

You're right, though, the universe cannot have infinite volume, because it is not infinite.

I did not say that the Universe cannot have infinite volume. I said that this is an unanswered question. It may be infinite, or not. We don't yet have the means to know.

There is no beginning in infinity;

Is that some kind of philosophical statement? Because is doesn't mean anything from a physical or mathematical standpoint.

I agree .. the universe has finite mass.

You agree with whom? This is something that is not known.

JimJast wrote:Hi aristarchusinexile,

I just asked John Moffat which tree he's barking at (Einstein's of BB's) and let see what he says.

His book, which you should read before saying he is wrong, and MOG, says no singularities, so no Bang.

I also just sent him an email .. "John, I enjoyed 'Reinventing Gravity' and agree with your scientific ideas, and am happy to see you mention Pascual Jordan, who is neglected for the obvious reason that his ideas said no Big Bang was not necessary; however, you are simply wrong when saying according to the Christian church the universe is earth centred. The Roman Catholic denomination appears to have believed and enforced an earth-centred universe at one time, but nowhere is it found in the bible that the earth is centre of the universe, or even solar system. In fact, the bible states there are other beings such as ourselves throughout the universe.

I hope this email finds you well.

Bob Mosurinjohn, Peterborough, Ontario.

Chris Peterson wrote: I don't think it is common at all.

You've said you read papers, and told me I shouldn't read books, so I assume you read no books, only papers, so how can you comment on the commonality or not?

You're right, though, the universe cannot have infinite volume, because it is not infinite.

Chris wrote:I did not say that the Universe cannot have infinite volume. I said that this is an unanswered question. It may be infinite, or not. We don't yet have the means to know.

I apologize, and thanks for pointing out that I have to be more accurate. I said it though, and I have the means to know, but you probably won't accept The Book as an authoritative scientific source.

Ari wrote:There is no beginning in infinity;

Chris wrote:Is that some kind of philosophical statement? Because is doesn't mean anything from a physical or mathematical standpoint.

No philosophy. I suggest you study higher math than you have.

I agree .. the universe has finite mass.

Chris wrote:You agree with whom? This is something that is not known.

I thought I was agreeing with you, because you said a singularity doesn't have infinite mass, so it must have finite mass. I happen to know the universe has boundaries, so it is finite, so its mass is finite.

aristarchusinexile wrote:I suggest you study higher math than you have.

I think you need to study higher math. Particularly the mathematical concepts of limits and infinity.

aristarchusinexile wrote:You've said you read papers, and told me I shouldn't read books, so I assume you read no books, only papers, so how can you comment on the commonality or not?

Fair enough, if you're talking about it being common in some subset of books. But I wouldn't consider books to be the best source of information about what the astronomical community believes, outside of ordinary textbooks. I can assure you that very few astronomers say that the Universe at t=0 had infinite mass. All would agree that this in an open question, even though there would be proponents of theories arguing both possibilities.

I thought I was agreeing with you, because you said a singularity doesn't have infinite mass, so it must have finite mass.

I didn't say that. I said a physical singularity does not need to have infinite mass. If it has any mass, it necessarily has infinite density. But the mass can be anything, finite or infinite.

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:I suggest you study higher math than you have.

I think you need to study higher math. Particularly the mathematical concepts of limits and infinity.

Yes, we all need to study more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_I ... ti_paradox

Put the lim in the coconut and shake it all up, because there is no need for mass or singularity ... comment on your own agreement with Jodan?

Chris Peterson wrote: I didn't say that. I said a physical singularity does not need to have infinite mass. If it has any mass, it necessarily has infinite density. But the mass can be anything, finite or infinite.

I would read more accurately if I had my own internet connection .. lots of time at home, although acutally I'm very busy right now working many hours at night, sleeping daytime off and on, a short term thing necessary for my canoeing this summer . . not having internet at home, as are all the people in this employment office .. are great handicaps to me in this kind of forum .. but so also is someone not commenting on important revelations, like singularities not needed for mass to arise .. in fact, by your own statements which reveal that mass arises from nothing. I know it must be difficult to give up the whole idea of singularities as necessities, or even options, .. I really will be thinking of you all as I canoe this summer.

Anyway .. we have diverging views of infinit .. that is obvious.

aristarchusinexile wrote:His book, which you should read before saying he is wrong, and MOG, says no singularities, so no Bang.

I didn't say he was wrong, I just wanted to know, before bying his book, which particular theory of gravity was wrong according to him and needed reinventing (as there were a few of them out there). Apparently he didn't like any of them but probably for different reasons. I'm curious about the reasons for not liking Einstein's theory, since I think Einstein's theory is the simplest of them all and yet it explains all the observations.

See discussion at Asterisk Café: MOG.

aristarchusinexile wrote:in fact, by your own statements which reveal that mass arises from nothing.

I'm rather certain I never said that, either.

How much energy would it take, to squeeze every particle in the known universe into something smaller than an atom? unless something else is at play,, i,m not joining the party... not forgetting you must also squeeze the unknown universe into the same unit. smaller than small gets... and then in the same breath, say that this can not reverse... There is in my mind no doubt that some form of bang happened.. but just because you can see, very dense matter at high speed does not hand you the reason of things unknown...If the big bang came from nothing, its already broken the laws! I can not consider that the big bang was the start, because the big bang had a reason...every reason has a reason... What i feel it really is, is more of what we can already see, just on a larger scale. What is the escape velocity of that huge 2 billion light year mass/void in the center of our universe, that we can not see? All the energy in every part of the universe is not enough energy to fold it self in on its self to the atomic scale...but if there was energy from a unknown part, that we can not see,,it would explain everything...
why will you guys not even consider this?

mark