no; it's as if you are trying to confuse me. That's ok, we're working out of different dictionaries. I do appreciate your comments, you seem to have spent considerable time on this.
It's amazing
Atlan if you got it together then share it with the world.
I read thousands of scientific papers.
And I still don't get it.
Evidence is evidence.
Prove me wrong, if you can prove the BBT is correct and supported by other scientists beyond question.
Don't get me wrong I do respect your opinion.
Atlan if you got it together then share it with the world.
I read thousands of scientific papers.
And I still don't get it.
Evidence is evidence.
Prove me wrong, if you can prove the BBT is correct and supported by other scientists beyond question.
Don't get me wrong I do respect your opinion.
The BB hangup is "dividing by zero". I'm on board with that, it makes sense not to allow dividing by zero.
Another hangup is that when extrapolating backwards in time, at some point the particles are too energetic to interact. (Speed of light problem)
The universe is obviously expanding, meaning it was all compacted at one point.
Perhaps, the universe bounced off itself at a time greater than "t=0" when it was not so energetic to collapse our physics? Such a hard bounce would not violate the laws of physics and would give us the current universe.
The only problem I see is "how did the last universe collapse"? Our current universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, how does it turn around and collapse?
Another hangup is that when extrapolating backwards in time, at some point the particles are too energetic to interact. (Speed of light problem)
The universe is obviously expanding, meaning it was all compacted at one point.
Perhaps, the universe bounced off itself at a time greater than "t=0" when it was not so energetic to collapse our physics? Such a hard bounce would not violate the laws of physics and would give us the current universe.
The only problem I see is "how did the last universe collapse"? Our current universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, how does it turn around and collapse?
Last edited:
Harry, you well know Cosmology (metaphysics) is unprovable! Don't ask me to prove my presumptions and assumptions, my picturing, my modeling, I can no more prove what must always be based upon philosophical interpretations from the intrinsically varying and contrarying (Schrodinger cat and Heisenberg uncertainties) observed micro- and macro-cosmic physics of essentially an Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe than you or Cat, or Bill, or anyone else can!
I lose my regard for you for you when you demand "prove me wrong..."! As the song goes, "I did my way" (I do it my way) and you, yours, without proofs of physics (herein cosmological metaphysics) that can never have anything to do with proof (will always be theory), much less be proven!
Harry, you know -- I've believed you knew -- that our "observable universe (u)" is a strictly relative universe (u) to us and no concurrently existing real-time (t=0) universe (it is quantum discreet (singular) and no quanta discreet (plural) real-time "Cantor set"-like universe (u) of divided, dividing, universes (u))!
Cantor set - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Ad #55:
No one, it appears (it seems), but a lifelong historian can divide (compartmentalize and keep compartmented(!)) space and spaces, time and times! History is always repeating in its large aspect, though rarely seen to in its small local details (histories). It's (time's) no more linear than a standing wave (REALTIME (t=0)) of countless many wayward rogue waves (SPACETIME ((t=+1) (t=-1)).
No one, it appears (it seems), but a lifelong historian can divide (compartmentalize and keep compartmented(!)) space and spaces, time and times! History is always repeating in its large aspect, though rarely seen to in its small local details (histories). It's (time's) no more linear than a standing wave (REALTIME (t=0)) of countless many wayward rogue waves (SPACETIME ((t=+1) (t=-1)).
Last edited:
I would like to return to division by zero, and the problems it can cause.
Why do we try to bring “infinity” into legitimate science? The CMB is good evidence of BB theory, and I do not believe that science needs the idea of a singularity. Any ideas of division by zero (in GR), giving infinite density and temperatures is unsupportable.
I am delighted to find that serious attention has been drawn to these difficulties by Open University texts published by Cambridge University Press. Here is just a start from what I have been pleased to read regarding the problems arising from division by zero and like mathematical operations - and trying to apply the results to reality.
In the OU text on Galaxies and Cosmology we find:
and
Goodbye INFINITE temperatures and densities etcetera. <Cat>
Now I Googled “what is the highest temperature which has actually been achieved scientifically?” I am not interested in theoretical estimates like 10^32 deg. C. What has actually been achieved? And the highest I have found so far is this:
4 trillion degrees C is 4 x 10^12. Please advise if you find any higher!
You may even have seen that INFINITE temperatures are possible. Is this utter unscientific nonsense? The reason I am asking is to question statements like this:
May I remind you, from above:
Let us emulate the honesty of those quoted.
Cat
Why do we try to bring “infinity” into legitimate science? The CMB is good evidence of BB theory, and I do not believe that science needs the idea of a singularity. Any ideas of division by zero (in GR), giving infinite density and temperatures is unsupportable.
I am delighted to find that serious attention has been drawn to these difficulties by Open University texts published by Cambridge University Press. Here is just a start from what I have been pleased to read regarding the problems arising from division by zero and like mathematical operations - and trying to apply the results to reality.
In the OU text on Galaxies and Cosmology we find:
and
Goodbye INFINITE temperatures and densities etcetera. <Cat>
Now I Googled “what is the highest temperature which has actually been achieved scientifically?” I am not interested in theoretical estimates like 10^32 deg. C. What has actually been achieved? And the highest I have found so far is this:
4 trillion degrees C is 4 x 10^12. Please advise if you find any higher!
You may even have seen that INFINITE temperatures are possible. Is this utter unscientific nonsense? The reason I am asking is to question statements like this:
May I remind you, from above:
Let us emulate the honesty of those quoted.
Cat
Last edited:
billslugg, I hope you don't mind if I import the following from another thread to answer, as it seems to fit well here. If you are not happy, just tell me, and I will delete reference to it immediately.
"It is fair to say there simply was no time before t=0."
Of course you are completely correct, in the sense that, according to accepted theory, t = 0 separates the "initial act" (which you rightly classify as metaphysics) from BBT (which is science).
However, t = 0 is such a convenient shorthand, that it is now common practice to use it to separate "the act" from BBT. I try to differentiate by putting it in quotes "t = 0". Would you find this acceptable, kept in context? I am afraid that there is some usage which I consider incomprehensible. (By "act", I am not suggesting any causal effect.)
I could try to adopt, say, xero, or zero point, or the nexus, referring to the metaphysical element.
How do others feel about this, too?
This said, whatever terminology may be accepted (it has to start somewhere) it could be used for anything which preceded BBT, e.g., nexus between cyclic elements.
"It is also theorized that the creation of mass at t=0 is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational potential, thus conservation issues are solved."
I understand the suggestion, but, personally, I cannot see it as any improvement over the ludicrous BB itself. Let's be honest, Fred Hoyle intended it as derogatory!
What do you think about it?
Cat
"It is fair to say there simply was no time before t=0."
Of course you are completely correct, in the sense that, according to accepted theory, t = 0 separates the "initial act" (which you rightly classify as metaphysics) from BBT (which is science).
However, t = 0 is such a convenient shorthand, that it is now common practice to use it to separate "the act" from BBT. I try to differentiate by putting it in quotes "t = 0". Would you find this acceptable, kept in context? I am afraid that there is some usage which I consider incomprehensible. (By "act", I am not suggesting any causal effect.)
I could try to adopt, say, xero, or zero point, or the nexus, referring to the metaphysical element.
How do others feel about this, too?
This said, whatever terminology may be accepted (it has to start somewhere) it could be used for anything which preceded BBT, e.g., nexus between cyclic elements.
"It is also theorized that the creation of mass at t=0 is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational potential, thus conservation issues are solved."
I understand the suggestion, but, personally, I cannot see it as any improvement over the ludicrous BB itself. Let's be honest, Fred Hoyle intended it as derogatory!
Nature.com
What do you think about it?
Cat
My comments are as I remember them! From what I've read, the concept of time does not exist prior to t=0. I also read that prior to 10E-43 s the energy of each particle was so incredibly large that their wavelength was so infinitely small it was less than the average distance between particles thus they could not communicate. It is also expressed as each particle is a tiny black hole and cannot give energy to the next particle thus no more contraction can occur. The universe was essentially one giant black hole. It did not stay a black hole very long because energy pushing out overcame the attraction. The standard Black Hole equations do not apply where there is energy pushing outward.
billslugg, I am around to discuss the above, but, meanwhile here is an IC article:
Was the Big Bang just a Big Bounce?
Cat
Was the Big Bang just a Big Bounce?
The Big Bang might have been just a Big Bounce | Imperial News | Imperial College London
A new study of the early universe reveals how it could have been formed from an older collapsing universe, rather than being brand new.www.imperial.ac.uk
Cat
I think a Big Bounce makes a lot of sense except for the universe is now accelerating its expansion. So how does a contraction occur?
I know of the diversity of ideas "in the mill" and there is no shortage of "grist".
Trying to keep an open mind, without turning it into a rubbish receptable is one of my aims.
#57 fairly represents some of my aims.
I am well aware of problems with cyclic systems, but, imho they are no greater than problems with the BB. See the Fred Hoyle extract, for example.
Things change over time.I do enjoy airing ideas which are reasonably sane.
Cat
Very good question. Maybe we are just not up to understanding some things yet. See the D+ being in the flatlander analogy.
Look at the progress following the invention of calculus! We are progressing gradually.
There is undoubtedly a long way to go yet.
Just out of pure imagination, what if (OK, OK) dark matter and or dark energy, neither of which we have hardly any knowledge of, can change in just 1% of the way the BB, perhaps, "exploded"?
I read somewhere (possibly nonsense?) that dark matter may form a halo but kept away from the galactic centres by, e.g., orbital motion. Maybe there could be interchange to reverse expansion?? OK, pure imagination, but just to make a point. OK, some poor choices of words in there.
Cat )
Just to go mad, "what if" repulsive dark energy turned into attractive dark matter, under some conditions? Just as a thought. We know next to nothing. Does DM have dark quarks and dark electrons et cetera, for example?
Last edited:
I may be just dumb but I do not understand this. Dividing by zero means you divide by nothing. That means you do not divide. That is no sum takes place. It does not mean infinity!
To me, dividing by an infinitely small number gives infinity. Is this just me being pedantic? Is it accepted as a loose thing to say? I am not having a go at you Cat I just find it somewhat odd
Dividing by zero means that the zero you are dividing by means something else besides "nothing".I may be just dumb but I do not understand this. Dividing by zero means you divide by nothing. That means you do not divide. That is no sum takes place. It does not mean infinity!
To me, dividing by an infinitely small number gives infinity. Is this just me being pedantic? Is it accepted as a loose thing to say? I am not having a go at you Cat I just find it somewhat odd
'0' is not a number in the decimal numbering system. It is half of the system of binary base2 and extending out from there, the first number of base10, base16 (0-F), and so on. Getting away from the decimal system (1-10), division by '0' works in the system for a purpose....
If I divide 5 by 0 (i.e. nothing) I get 5, not infinity. If I give you £5 or $5 and ask you to share it - but with no one - it doesn't go infinite.
The binary system is simply This or That not nothing
Learn something!
((+1) (-1)) = 1/0 as in:
((matter (+1)) (antimatter (-1))) = 1 (unity)/0 (null or disunity)
Learn something!
1x-1=-1 yes agreed except it is minus not plus but I guess you made a typo, and 1/0 also as 1/0=1
What I do not understand is why 0=disunity except that it is the absence of unity. Am I correct?
So, 5/disunity =5 , not infinity.
Am I correct to say that any mathematical statement incorporating infinity must also have another element that is also infinity?
E.G. You might say you can travel around the Earth infinitely but to do so you have to add infinite Time.
E.G. You might say you can travel around the Earth infinitely but to do so you have to add infinite Time.
What is there in the absence of unity?! Define, pin down its makeup in and/or of the universe, what it is!
Definition of UNITY
the quality or state of not being multiple : oneness; a definite amount taken as one or for which 1 is made to stand in calculation; identity element… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
Is it "infinite '0'?! It certainly isn't finite ("1")! Of course, infinite '0' asymptotically never zeroes . . . except relatively speaking!
Last edited:
Ok but it was DISunity I asked about (I supposed the absence of unity i.e. '1' therefore disunity = 0)What is there in the absence of unity?! Define, pin down its makeup in and/or of the universe, what it is!
Definition of UNITY
the quality or state of not being multiple : oneness; a definite amount taken as one or for which 1 is made to stand in calculation; identity element… See the full definition
You may not believe or understand it, but I've enjoyed our discourse so far immensely!
------------------------------
I.Q. 142 and "Intuitive visual mathematician":
(Through two careers . . . ****! "How (and sometimes "Why") is it you keep jumping into manure and coming up smelling like a rose?!")
------------------------------
I.Q. 142 and "Intuitive visual mathematician":
(Through two careers . . . ****! "How (and sometimes "Why") is it you keep jumping into manure and coming up smelling like a rose?!")
Last edited:
That's good. We need mental stimulation - I fall asleep too often nowadays
FWIW, I'm fine with or without quotes. It is both clear and simple what is meant either way. It is often used to help delineate science from pseudoscience, or metaphysics.
Any respected peer-reviewed papers on that? If CERN physicists make it clear that their equations completely fail for suggested conditions of the universe prior to t = 1E-12 sec., then don't expect any real science for t=0. Suppositions aren't uncommon, of course.
After the CMBR discovery, which killed the Steady State theory, only Hoyle and I think Bondi, were the only holdouts against the BBT.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 141
-
-
-
-
-
The great silence: Just 4 in 10,000 galaxies may host intelligent aliens
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 107
-
James Webb Space Telescope witnesses a black hole 'killing' its galaxy (photo)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram