Starship Asterisk*

Ockham would think so.

Oops, the forum software included the comma in that first APOD link of yours, Astro_uk.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980324.html

Hello All

Smile,,,,,,,Hello Martin,,,,,Harry Harry Harry. Reminds me of my science teacher. He kept on saying , just agree with the model and move forward.

I cannot agree with something built from fantasy.

Martin said

astro_uk undone a whole year of your postings in the matter of minutes and all you can say is "observational evidence will overide"

If you think thats all I siad,,,,,,,,,,think again. I do not mind discussing this subject till the cows come home. Win, lose or draw without discussion without opposite points of view we are nothing.


As for uk day,,,,,,,,,you can have any day you want.

Smile, if you think I will give up on what I think,,,,,,,,,think again.

We would not have this discussions if I just agreed.

We would be out there smelling the roses.

I welcome all critics.

At this moment in time, all models are up for discussions.

But ! I hope its based on facts and observayions rather than, hoo Haa and favorite emotional stand on models that favor the day.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for recyclic universe.

We see the birth of stars and their deaths.

We see the evolution of galaxies. We see them in different forms and sizes, we see them colliding we see them reforming, we see active black holes ejecting new matter back into the galaxies, we see active black holes forming the structure of the galaxies, we see the lack of activity within the main centre black hole and its effect on the galaxies. The information is out there, look for it. As Mr Skeptic would say , start using your brains.

Dr. Skeptic wrote: Let me help you understand the question first.

On another thread I posted:

-Everything - as in everything - is measured in quantum units ⇒ summations of quantum units cannot = f∞. Period!

Summation: The universe cannot be infinite in size, mass or age.

But isn't that a tautology? You are saying something finite cannot be infinite. The whole point of infinity is that (summations of) quantum units cannot encompass it, by definition.

You can break the circuit by introducing a construct of some kind, eg. "God", or another tautology.

Hello again Harry

I'd love to have a discussion with you, but what happens is I present you with scientific proof and then you present me with snippets you have read from papers which you clearly don't understand and links to crank websites "Einstein was wrong" etc
links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html fill this in

As for Dr Skeptics argument for the summation of quantum units - there are a number of examples where discreet quanta do tend to infinity (atomic energy levels etc) so I wouldn't use that as an argument as to why the universe is not infinite. Although BB evidence shows that it isn't infinite.

Cosmo

rummij wrote:

Dr. Skeptic wrote: Let me help you understand the question first.

On another thread I posted:

-Everything - as in everything - is measured in quantum units ⇒ summations of quantum units cannot = f∞. Period!

Summation: The universe cannot be infinite in size, mass or age.

But isn't that a tautology? You are saying something finite cannot be infinite. The whole point of infinity is that (summations of) quantum units cannot encompass it, by definition.

You can break the circuit by introducing a construct of some kind, eg. "God", or another tautology.

The question here is how the universe formed (quantitative), for physicists. The other side of the question is why (qualitative), for philosophers.

As for Dr Skeptics argument for the summation of quantum units - there are a number of examples where discreet quanta do tend to infinity (atomic energy levels etc) so I wouldn't use that as an argument as to why the universe is not infinite. Although BB evidence shows that it isn't infinite.

Discreet quanta tending to infinity does not = infinity. There will always be a quantum limit.

you're right its been a long while since I've done any quantum although I'm unsure why space itself should be quantised and not just the objects in it (I'm not supporting an infinite universe here its just I have never heard your argument from anyone else)

20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

very funny

Hello Harry, I’m glad to see that a sense of humor still remains.


REMEMBER:

Science without humor is like religion

Hello Cosmo

Which part of which link do you think I do not understand?
As for wikipeda,,,,,,,,,,,take it with a bit of salt.

At this particular point in time there is no one model that I would favor. The model does not exist.

I need more info on star formation, comapct stars, black holes and their jets, galaxy formation, movements of the cluster of galaxies and so on.
There are too many missing links. I think it may take another 5 to 10 years for some results to flower.


As for "Einstein was wrong", you bet he was wrong on a number of times and issues and facts and conclusion. He was just a man, a very smart man and very humble.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Martin

You got to smile, mate and do not take it to heart. Being wrong is OK, being open minded is OK, able to accept being wrong is OK.

If you know me by know, I will argue on the other side of the fence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

some links to read

Is The Universe Static Or Expanding?
http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html

Is string theory in trouble?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fun ... 825305.800

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=88edua1k
The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning


On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies
http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html

The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/QUASARS/Quasars.html


RUFUS'S GALAXY WEB PAGE
The Steady State Galaxy Theory
An Alternative To
The Big Bang Theory
http://www.galaxytheory.com/#SHA


Plasma Physics and Astrophysics
Research Papers and Proposals
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/


For those who want to say I do not understand, I would agree. But because I do not understand the reality of whats happening out there, I'm searching for the observations and facts and what ever that would give me the info to work with.

If you have that evidence please show me. I do read all. But that does not mean I agree with all.

Smile,,,,,,,,,,

I give up Harry:)

Good luck with the research into the new theory of the Universe. I look forward to citing it in future papers.

Cosmo

BMAONE23 wrote:Ockham would think so.

Exactly.

cosmo_uk -NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Don't give up -he is starting to crack -I can tell

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

As for Dr Skeptics argument for the summation of quantum units - there are a number of examples where discreet quanta do tend to infinity (atomic energy levels etc) so I wouldn't use that as an argument as to why the universe is not infinite. Although BB evidence shows that it isn't infinite.

Discreet quanta tending to infinity does not = infinity. There will always be a quantum limit.

I'm still not exactly getting how a quantized spacetime rules out an infinite spacetime. Not that I'm arguing that the universe has to be infinite; we can only observe a rather limited part of it.

Qev wrote:

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

As for Dr Skeptics argument for the summation of quantum units - there are a number of examples where discreet quanta do tend to infinity (atomic energy levels etc) so I wouldn't use that as an argument as to why the universe is not infinite. Although BB evidence shows that it isn't infinite.

Discreet quanta tending to infinity does not = infinity. There will always be a quantum limit.

I'm still not exactly getting how a quantized spacetime rules out an infinite spacetime. Not that I'm arguing that the universe has to be infinite; we can only observe a rather limited part of it.

Imagin a ball dropped.

The time and distance it takes can be ÷2

That product also is ÷2

And so on until the smallest quantum unit is reached

If there is no minimum quantum limit, it would take an ∞ number of time and distance units for the ball to hit the floor

That introduces that equation ∞ ∗ 1/∞ = the time and/or distance it would take for the object to strike the floor.

It would make no difference if the ball was dropped from 1 meter or 1 kilometer, ∞/∞ would be the mathematical representation for the event.

∞/∞ is an indefinitive statement, concluding, space and time need a quantum minimum.

Hi Dr S

I appreciate that space time needs to be quantized for various theories (some apsects of black hole theory and string theory). But your argument is not one that proves space is quantized, that is just an example of tending to a limit. Just like a geometric series.

Look up Zeno's paradox

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

Cosmo

Cosmo,
The inherent problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can make it say anything they desire so it is probably an unreliable source. If you go back to your link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

you will now notice the line added "(edited for editing purposes)" has been added at the beginning of the article. I added that to it and could therefore have adjusted it to read anything I might want it to say. (Unreliable source of information).

cosmo_uk wrote:Hi Dr S

I appreciate that space time needs to be quantized for various theories (some apsects of black hole theory and string theory). But your argument is not one that proves space is quantized, that is just an example of tending to a limit. Just like a geometric series.

Look up Zeno's paradox

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

Cosmo

The problem with the modern solution to Zeno's paradox is the inferred ∑ set to reach ∞ increments.

As stated earlier, approaching ∞ is not = to ∞.

It is a useful tool to make that assumption, to a mathematical purest, it is a necessary violation. Another way to define it as a tool is "rounding off to the last significant digit". It however still does not allow ∞ to be a "real number".

BMAONE23 wrote:Cosmo,
The inherent problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can make it say anything they desire so it is probably an unreliable source. If you go back to your link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

you will now notice the line added "(edited for editing purposes)" has been added at the beginning of the article. I added that to it and could therefore have adjusted it to read anything I might want it to say. (Unreliable source of information).

You are correct with your statement, unreliable. It is also important to show where the errors are not to discredit everything posted on wikipedia, there is some good and useful information posted. The challenge is to know enough not to get burned by the misinformation.

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.

Hello Cosmo


Never ever give up,,,,,,,,,,,,,on what you think,,,,,,,,, hey I could be wrong.

Cosmo the more you discuss your point of view the more you will be able to see.

==========================================
I was asked to discuss the Big Bang theory and links that I have. For what its worth here are some links. As a Big Banger many years ago, I was attached to the model like glue.
As with all links that I post , it does not mean that I agree with them.
also it does not mean its correct or wrong.


The Big Bang

Inflating the Universe
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060323.html


The first 3 minutes
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... oc.html#c1


Big Bang Model
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... ng.html#c1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before 1 Planck time
Era of 1 Planck time
Separation of the strong force
Inflationary period
Quark-antiquark period
Quark confinement
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... ck.html#c1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bang Time Line
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... in.html#c1"


Physical Keys to Cosmology
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... mo.html#c1

Red Shift
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... hf.html#c1

Expanding Universe
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... le.html#c0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1: Observations of Global Properties
Part 2: Homogeneity and Isotropy; Many Distances; Scale Factor
Part 3: Spatial Curvature; Flatness-Oldness; Horizon
Part 4: Inflation; Anisotropy and Inhomogeneity
Bibliography
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm


Inflationary Period in Big Bang
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... at.html#c1


Cosmology: The Study of the Universe
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html


WAS COSMIC INFLATION THE 'BANG' OF THE BIG BANG?
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/G ... tents.html

Tests of the Big Bang: Expansion
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest1.html

Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

New Three Year Results on the
Oldest Light in the Universe
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html


NEW SATELLITE DATA ON UNIVERSE'S FIRST TRILLIONTH SECOND
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_or/PressRelease_03_06.html

Scientists keep hammering on the Big Bang theory like it is some kind of divine truth. It's only a theory, so why not give it up and find something else that fits the data better?
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q55.html

Big bang: NASA gets to the heart of all matter
http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/big- ... 22240.html

Is The Universe Static Or Expanding?
http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html

Is string theory in trouble?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fun ... 825305.800

Index of Papers, Books and relevant links
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/index.html

========================================
If you have links please added to the list

Firstly BMAONE23 I couldn't care less what the accuracy of wikipedia is I was just giving an overview on Zeno's paradox for those who were unfamiliar. Just because something is in wikipedia it does not mean it is incorrect.

Like I said before Dr S I am fully aware that there are numerous scientific reasons why space time needs to be quantised but your proof using a type of Zeno's paradox is not a scientific one. I presume you are not a Dr of Physics as I first thought.

Qev wrote: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.

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.

cosmo_uk wrote:Firstly BMAONE23 I couldn't care less what the accuracy of wikipedia is I was just giving an overview on Zeno's paradox for those who were unfamiliar. Just because something is in wikipedia it does not mean it is incorrect.

Like I said before Dr S I am fully aware that there are numerous scientific reasons why space time needs to be quantised but your proof using a type of Zeno's paradox is not a scientific one. I presume you are not a Dr of Physics as I first thought.

That is not my proof of anything, it is a response.

If there is an error in logic of the scientific fundamentals. please explain.

Proclaiming isn't proving.