Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #857478 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-07-12 01:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-07-14 16:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 36 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 01:22 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 15:24 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 11:46 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 15:56 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 16:13 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 18:58 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 19:15 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 02:04 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-07-14 18:52 -0400
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:10 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-07-15 17:59 -0400
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-07-16 03:17 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-07-16 14:58 -0400
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Reed Manfredi <aria@iiemnddf.em> - 2022-07-16 19:22 +0000
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-07-17 17:39 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-07-17 17:59 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-07-18 23:54 -0400
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-07-19 03:29 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-07-16 15:32 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-07-17 05:40 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-07-16 13:50 -0500
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-07-14 19:15 +1000
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Darin Sordi <asad@dodndais.ra> - 2022-07-14 10:53 +0000
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-07-16 12:20 +1000
No "length", no "time", no "entropy" at The Infinitely Precise Start of The Big Bang. "Dick's DriveIn" <Dicks@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2022-07-15 20:23 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Yosi Nicastro <iyso@cttosira.ns> - 2022-07-16 08:00 +0000
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-07-16 19:01 +1000
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Jess De campo <eeej@saejoscs.sm> - 2022-07-16 09:26 +0000
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-07-16 13:55 -0500
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-07-16 21:33 +0200
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-07-16 16:02 -0500
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-07-17 09:29 +0200
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-07-17 12:00 -0500
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-07-17 18:56 -0700
People make "useful/probable" assumptions. "Dick's DriveIn" <Dicks@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2022-07-14 08:57 -0700
Re: Webb shows universe goes back 13.7 billion years fools won't realize the universe is infinite so cannot have a beginning Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:14 -0700
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 13:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jjgfj1FauunU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #857773 |
On 7/15/2022 4:59 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 7/14/2022 7:10 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 08:52:03 UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> On 7/14/2022 5:04 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> On Thursday, 14 July 2022 at 12:15:56 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 6:58:59 PM UTC-7, >>>>> banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> What is infinite cannot expand. >>>>> There is zero evidence for this claim. If you have actual evidence, >>>>> let's see it, Banjo-Boy. >>>> >>>> It is logic at work here. Anything that can expand, has to be >>>> finite. Expansion is impossible for the infinite. >>> Nope. Consider an infinite piece of graph paper on rubber. Stretch the >>> rubber so that the distance between each grid line increases by 10%. Or >>> doubles, whatever. The whole graph paper can do this, all it is is >>> multiplying a distance by a constant. >> >> If it is infinite it cannot be stretched. >> Nobody and nothing can do the stretching. > > I knew that you'd come up with some sort of "can't manipulate something > infinite". Yet the fact remains, an infinite grid (or 3d grid) can be > expanded just fine, even if your peabrain isn't able to comprehend it. > >>> You'll see the increase in distance is proportional to the original >>> distance. That's what they see in the universe. Galaxies at apparent >>> increased distance have a larger redshift. >> >> They also have equal blueshift which is ignored by the dishonest. > > Nope, only blueshifted galaxies are ones close by, within our local > cluster. >>>> >>>> I know this concept is beyond the comprehension of you mentally >>>> deficient mean minded pseudoscientists, being naturally obtuse and >>>> pig headed, and covering same with arrogance and abuse, of being >>>> totally wrong; but this concept of the universe as infinite is >>>> fundamental from my Hindu background, and I thank the brilliant >>>> western engineers who have demonstrated this. >>>> >>>>>> Just one photo of Hubble and now Webb shows that. >>>>> This is not correct. Wherever did you get such a notion? >>>> >>>> The one from Hubble said in the note that the colour depended upon >>>> the velocity. Half the galaxies were blue and the other half red. > >>> What an idjit!!! Those photographs are FALSE COLOR, in the infrared! >> >> This is the latest trick. >> The colour refers to the radial velocity of the distant galaxy, put in >> artificially to show just that. > > Not for that picture. Read the associated text. White is the foreground > massive galaxy cluster, orange are background galaxies gravitationally > lensed by the foreground cluster. Notice the orange galaxies are > distorted or curved? That's why they picked that portion of sky for the > demo image, all those gravitationally lensed galaxies make it interesting! >> >>> Obviously for infrared, they cannot use the real colors, they must use a >>> false color system of some sort, and you need a key to know which color >>> means what. (In addition, a young galaxy will have a large number of >>> bright, short-lived hot (blue) stars while old galaxies will only have >>> long-lived red stars. This applies to parts of galaxies as well) >> >> I have written about the workings of the universe here in this ng. > > As if you knew anything about that. You're just like Plutonium (your > virtual twin), he must be up to 200 "books" by now, yet he doesn't know > a damn thing about physics or math. You're no better. > >> High time they got the due notice from honest folk. > > Which excludes yourself, of course. Keep this up and his anal complex will emerge again. > >> Too many liars, fools and thieves around, to suppress! >> But thanks to great engineering, that bad will pass. >> Cheers, >> Arindam Banerjee >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-14 19:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <jja552FafcsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #857478 |
On 12-July-22 6:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > So big bang time keeps on getting pushed back. > And the edge of the universe not found. > Far more galaxies instead. > Amazing how humans can be so clever and so stupid at the same time. 13.7 billion years seems to have been the estimate for a while. There is no expectation of finding an edge, and no assumption that an edge exists. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darin Sordi <asad@dodndais.ra> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-14 10:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <taosjp$20o$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #857657 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > On 12-July-22 6:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> So big bang time keeps on getting pushed back. >> And the edge of the universe not found. >> Far more galaxies instead. >> Amazing how humans can be so clever and so stupid at the same time. > > 13.7 billion years seems to have been the estimate for a while. > There is no expectation of finding an edge, and no assumption that an > edge exists. which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you have to have it at the later. You kiss ass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 12:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <jjelijF21ddU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #857666 |
Reposted because of troll strategy of posting to one newsgroup, with follow-up only to another. On 14-July-22 8:53 pm, Darin Sordi wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 12-July-22 6:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> So big bang time keeps on getting pushed back. >>> And the edge of the universe not found. >>> Far more galaxies instead. >>> Amazing how humans can be so clever and so stupid at the same time. >> >> 13.7 billion years seems to have been the estimate for a while. >> There is no expectation of finding an edge, and no assumption that an >> edge exists. > > which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you > have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. If you think of the big-bang as the blowing up of a finite sized object, then that would be true. That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then started expanding at the the big bang. Even if the universe has an edge of some sort, it could have been so far away at the time of the big bang that the expansion puts it forever beyond Earth's light cone, meaning that we'd never see it, no matter how long we wait. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dick's DriveIn" <Dicks@Jeff-Relf.Me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 20:23 -0700 |
| Subject | No "length", no "time", no "entropy" at The Infinitely Precise Start of The Big Bang. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jul.15--8.23pm.Seattle.2022> |
| In reply to | #857776 |
We make "useful/probable" assumptions about what's beyond our horizon, 13.8 GigaYears ago. How fast the "standard" clock ticks & how large the "standard" ruler is varies greatly over those 13.8 GigaYears; it's observer dependent. No "length", no "time", no "entropy" at The Infinitely Precise Start of The Big Bang: From our perspective, the "standard" clock ticks ever-slower the closer it is to the start of the Big Bang; locally, it ticks normally, as it does here. "Life" is that videogame playing in your head; without it, you're just meat. "eXergy" ( potential entropy ) created/destroys us; without it, we couldn't drive to the store. "God" (nature) programmed us to consume residual eXergy as the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yosi Nicastro <iyso@cttosira.ns> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 08:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tatr7b$7mt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #857776 |
Sylvia Else wrote: >> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you >> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. > > That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to > say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then > started expanding at the the big bang. infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's nonsense. I beg you to reconsider.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 19:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <jjfd43F5go9U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #857788 |
On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you >>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. >> >> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to >> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then >> started expanding at the the big bang. > > infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's > nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas about what is possible. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jess De campo <eeej@saejoscs.sm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 09:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tau07o$4ki$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #857790 |
Sylvia Else wrote: >>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing >>> to say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but >>> then started expanding at the the big bang. >> >> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's >> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. > > If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's > how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas > about what is possible. now you talk bullshit. You really do. So there's no need to have it as 13.6 byo, as "human idea".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 13:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jjgfsgFb08uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #857790 |
On 7/16/2022 4:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you >>>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. >>> >>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to >>> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then >>> started expanding at the the big bang. >> >> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's >> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. > > If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's > how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas > about what is possible. > > Sylvia. We only know what we observe, all else is speculation. Some of the posters to these newsgroups don't understand and don't want to know the difference between science and science fiction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 21:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1pv7evq.mbx8mc13tloonN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #857809 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 7/16/2022 4:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: > >> Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >>>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you > >>>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. > >>> > >>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to > >>> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then > >>> started expanding at the the big bang. > >> > >> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's > >> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. > > > > If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's > > how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas > > about what is possible. > > > > Sylvia. > > We only know what we observe, all else is speculation. Some of the > posters to these newsgroups don't understand and don't want to know > the difference between science and science fiction. Yes, but what is 'observing'? Jan -- "No experimental result should be believed until it has been confirmed by a reliable theory" (Arthur Eddington)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 16:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jjgnbiFc4e1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #857815 |
On 7/16/2022 2:33 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >> On 7/16/2022 4:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: >>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>>>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you >>>>>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. >>>>> >>>>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to >>>>> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then >>>>> started expanding at the the big bang. >>>> >>>> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's >>>> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. >>> >>> If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's >>> how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas >>> about what is possible. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> We only know what we observe, all else is speculation. Some of the >> posters to these newsgroups don't understand and don't want to know >> the difference between science and science fiction. > Yes, but what is 'observing'? If English is not your first language, please refer to freely available resources that will answer your question thoroughly. It is not a trick word.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-17 09:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1pv8clg.98liky1kigdk0N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #857816 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 7/16/2022 2:33 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > > >> On 7/16/2022 4:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: > >>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you > >>>>>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. > >>>>> > >>>>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to > >>>>> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then > >>>>> started expanding at the the big bang. > >>>> > >>>> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's > >>>> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. > >>> > >>> If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's > >>> how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas > >>> about what is possible. > >>> > >>> Sylvia. > >> > >> We only know what we observe, all else is speculation. Some of the > >> posters to these newsgroups don't understand and don't want to know > >> the difference between science and science fiction. > > > Yes, but what is 'observing'? > > If English is not your first language, please refer to freely available > resources that will answer your question thoroughly. It is not a trick word. So it is really to hard for you to get the point? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-17 12:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jjitgtFmkg0U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #857846 |
On 7/17/2022 2:29 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >> On 7/16/2022 2:33 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/16/2022 4:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: >>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you >>>>>>>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to >>>>>>> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then >>>>>>> started expanding at the the big bang. >>>>>> >>>>>> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's >>>>>> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. >>>>> >>>>> If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's >>>>> how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas >>>>> about what is possible. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> We only know what we observe, all else is speculation. Some of the >>>> posters to these newsgroups don't understand and don't want to know >>>> the difference between science and science fiction. >> >>> Yes, but what is 'observing'? >> >> If English is not your first language, please refer to freely available >> resources that will answer your question thoroughly. It is not a trick word. > > So it is really to hard for you to get the point? So it is really to hard for ^you* to get the point?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-17 18:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea0cb376-5fad-47a4-a6c3-8fd5d39066a4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #857815 |
On Sunday, 17 July 2022 at 05:33:58 UTC+10, J. J. Lodder wrote: > whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > > On 7/16/2022 4:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 16-July-22 6:00 pm, Yosi Nicastro wrote: > > >> Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> > > >>>> which invalidates your former statement. You put a margin to a one, you > > >>>> have to have it at the later. You kiss ass. > > >>> > > >>> That is not how cosmologists consider the big-bang. There is nothing to > > >>> say that the universe has not always been infinite in size, but then > > >>> started expanding at the the big bang. > > >> > > >> infinite and expanding makes no sense. In physics. Never will. It's > > >> nonsense. I beg you to reconsider. > > > > > > If the universe has no upper limit to its mass or extent, then that's > > > how things are. The universe has no need to comply with human ideas > > > about what is possible. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > We only know what we observe, all else is speculation. Some of the > > posters to these newsgroups don't understand and don't want to know > > the difference between science and science fiction. The Big Bang effect. > Yes, but what is 'observing'? It implies noting and recording and analyzing everything about an experiment or experience faithfully and as correctly as possible. And not making things up, or ignoring what is detrimental to some cherished theory. > > Jan > > -- > "No experimental result should be believed until it has been confirmed > by a reliable theory" (Arthur Eddington) Convenient notion that for pseudoscientists promoting rubbish theories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dick's DriveIn" <Dicks@Jeff-Relf.Me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-14 08:57 -0700 |
| Subject | People make "useful/probable" assumptions. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jul.14--8.57am.Seattle.2022> |
| In reply to | #857657 |
No "time" (entropy) at the ( infinitely precise ) start of the Big Bang.
From our perspective, clocks tick ever-slower the closer
they are to the start of the Big Bang but, locally,
they tick normally, as they do here.
We make "useful/probable" assumptions about
what is beyond the horizon, 13.8 GigaYears ago.
"Life" is that videogame playing in your head; without it, you're just meat.
"eXergy" ( potential entropy ) created/destroys us;
without it, we couldn't drive to the store.
"God" (nature) programmed us to consume residual eXergy as
the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-14 16:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aff4d3a2-1f1e-4a2d-bc21-2fe9c45fab54n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #857657 |
On Thursday, 14 July 2022 at 19:15:21 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 12-July-22 6:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > So big bang time keeps on getting pushed back. > > And the edge of the universe not found. > > Far more galaxies instead. > > Amazing how humans can be so clever and so stupid at the same time. > 13.7 billion years seems to have been the estimate for a while. > > There is no expectation of finding an edge, and no assumption that an > edge exists. In which general relativity theories are rubbish. Good thinking. > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web