Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.astronomy > #278953 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-10 23:55 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-11-12 22:51 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 60 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.astronomy
INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-10 23:55 -0800
Re: INFINITY HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-11 19:57 +1100
Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 08:46 -0600
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 11:55 -0800
Re: INFINITY David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-11-11 14:19 -0600
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 13:12 -0800
Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-11 16:29 -0700
Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 08:43 -0600
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 13:16 -0800
Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-11 16:28 -0700
Re: INFINITY gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-11 21:21 -0600
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 19:40 -0800
Re: INFINITY je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-11-12 02:02 -0800
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 09:39 -0800
Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:47 -0600
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 23:25 -0800
Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 09:09 -0600
Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 15:52 -0500
Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 15:07 -0600
Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 15:11 -0600
Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 16:39 -0500
Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 16:11 -0600
Re: INFINITY Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-13 23:44 +0100
Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 19:39 -0500
Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 18:50 -0600
Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 04:39 -0500
Re: INFINITY Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 11:19 -0800
Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-14 13:21 -0700
Re: INFINITY Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 14:48 -0800
Re: INFINITY Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 16:59 -0800
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-13 15:59 -0800
Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-13 18:08 -0700
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-14 11:46 -0800
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-14 12:04 -0800
Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-14 13:15 -0700
Re: INFINITY palsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 11:34 -0800
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 14:27 -0800
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 15:07 -0800
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 16:23 -0800
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 21:56 -0800
Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-16 08:31 -0700
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-16 11:16 -0800
Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:29 -0600
Re: INFINITY dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-16 15:50 -0500
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-16 13:48 -0800
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-16 14:45 -0800
Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-17 14:48 -0700
Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-17 14:47 -0700
Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-14 13:17 -0700
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 14:57 -0800
Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-16 11:39 -0700
Re: INFINITY benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 14:06 -0500
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 11:42 -0800
Re: INFINITY benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 13:15 -0500
Re: INFINITY Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 10:26 -0800
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 19:37 -0800
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 18:25 -0800
Re: INFINITY David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-11-12 13:04 -0600
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 11:54 -0800
Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 22:51 -0800
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 23:55 -0800 |
| Subject | INFINITY |
| Message-ID | <5642F478.55FD@ix.netcom.com> |
Okay, you guys seem to get this "infinity" thing all wrong... Albert Einstein is quoted as saying "...I'm not sure about the universe." Im other words, Einstein is "not sure" that the universe is infinite. If he ain't sure, what makes you guys who are dumber than him.. more surer than him??? I mean, if you look that way..all the way, you will see the back of your head. that is finite. or on a google page is determined by google's entire network.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 19:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <tm064b9tp2tmcu01t5n4pdqqcdeadi5jkp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #278953 |
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:55:36 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Okay, you guys seem to get this "infinity" thing all wrong... > > >Albert Einstein is quoted as saying "...I'm not sure about the universe." > > >Im other words, Einstein is "not sure" that the universe is infinite. > >If he ain't sure, what makes you guys who are dumber than him.. more surer than him??? Einstein was no less dumb than any other used car salesman. >I mean, if you look that way..all the way, >you will see the back of your head. that is finite. My head defines a spatial interval aka a length. A collection of lengths defines a volume in Space. Space is just a convenience. NO objects = NO space. >or > >on a google page is determined by google's entire network.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 08:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <R4CdnVPxCtskyd7LnZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #278954 |
On 11/11/15 2:57 AM, HGW wrote: > A collection of lengths defines a volume in Space. Not true a collection of length in 1-D space only defines a collection of lengths. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 11:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56439D3D.4747@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #278956 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 6:46:18 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 11/11/15 2:57 AM, HGW wrote: > > > A collection of lengths defines a volume in Space. > > > > Not true a collection of length in 1-D space only defines a collection > > of lengths. > > > > A universe of physical > objects as mathematical > objects, has that each > relation among them, and > those among them, etcetera > and ad infinitum, each is > another physical object, > and there are not finitely > many of them. > > The universe of physical > objects as mathematical > objects would be its own > "powerset" of physical, > mathematical objects, and > contain itself. It is > thus Absolute and Infinite. > > In concrete mathematical > resource terms, it's all > one "Continuum". > > There is just the one > Universe. i'm talking about REAL infinities, not mathematical infinities. There is no REAL infinity. The universe is finite. or as they say...nothing last forever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 14:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n207pa$p7e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #278961 |
> > i'm talking about REAL infinities, not mathematical infinities. > > There is no REAL infinity. The universe is finite. > > > or as they say...nothing last forever. > Hey you, ignorant one no one knowledgeable is claiming our universe is infinite, nor that anything lasts forever you are a particularly inept troll not to mention an idiot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 13:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5643AF2E.695F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #278963 |
David Staup wrote: > > > > > i'm talking about REAL infinities, not mathematical infinities. > > > > There is no REAL infinity. The universe is finite. > > > > > > or as they say...nothing last forever. > > > > Hey you, ignorant one > > no one knowledgeable is claiming our universe is infinite, nor that > anything lasts forever > > you are a particularly inept troll > > not to mention an idiot Is David trying to Staup something???? He cannot even spel Startup correctly...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5pj74bhvr5qrcog0ujss1odl9rqqic4a8l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #278965 |
INDEED, THE FAKER IS AN IDIOT! Saul Levy On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:12:14 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >David Staup wrote: >> >> > >> > i'm talking about REAL infinities, not mathematical infinities. >> > >> > There is no REAL infinity. The universe is finite. >> > >> > >> > or as they say...nothing last forever. >> > >> >> Hey you, ignorant one >> >> no one knowledgeable is claiming our universe is infinite, nor that >> anything lasts forever >> >> you are a particularly inept troll >> >> not to mention an idiot > > >Is David trying to Staup something???? He cannot even spel Startup correctly...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 08:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <R4CdnVDxCtuCyd7LnZ2dnUU7-TkAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #278953 |
On 11/11/15 1:55 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > Okay, you guys seem to get this "infinity" thing all wrong... It's just a concept... -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 13:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5643B049.145B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #278953 |
benj wrote: > > On 11/11/2015 09:40 AM, Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 11/11/15 8:20 AM, HVAC wrote: > >> The universe is finite yet unbounded. Since objects near the end of > >> our ability to see are moving away from us at speeds approaching > >> light, this effectively makes the universe, to us, infinite > >> > > > > Well... we could quibble about *why* the universe might be infinite. > > Many a physicist argue the the overall flatness of the universe is > > a dead giveaway that it is infinite. But I'd settle for Huge! > > Actually Sam, for once you are right...sort of. Universe is HUGE and > finite, but not flat. It only appears flat to us because our instruments > are not sensitive enough to measure the tiny curvature. > More information being posted in my threads...i will not stand for it. Get this straight for once and for all.. The universe is flat, not curved...it is only curved...mathematically. I don't allow misinformation being spread in my threads...do it on ohter threads where people don't care if children are reading misinformation. (sorry kids, a lot of inconsiderate people are out there)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 16:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2nj74b9vbuv44urbcibbnsnhiic5dvbb3e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #278966 |
FAKER IS STILL A FRAUD! Saul Levy On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:16:57 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >benj wrote: >> >> On 11/11/2015 09:40 AM, Sam Wormley wrote: >> > On 11/11/15 8:20 AM, HVAC wrote: >> >> The universe is finite yet unbounded. Since objects near the end of >> >> our ability to see are moving away from us at speeds approaching >> >> light, this effectively makes the universe, to us, infinite >> >> >> > >> > Well... we could quibble about *why* the universe might be infinite. >> > Many a physicist argue the the overall flatness of the universe is >> > a dead giveaway that it is infinite. But I'd settle for Huge! >> >> Actually Sam, for once you are right...sort of. Universe is HUGE and >> finite, but not flat. It only appears flat to us because our instruments >> are not sensitive enough to measure the tiny curvature. >> > > >More information being posted in my threads...i will not stand for it. > > >Get this straight for once and for all.. > >The universe is flat, not curved...it is only curved...mathematically. > > >I don't allow misinformation being spread in my threads...do it on ohter >threads >where people don't care if children are reading misinformation. > > >(sorry kids, a lot of inconsiderate people are out there)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 21:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n210k5$l1d$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #278966 |
On 11/11/2015 3:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> benj wrote:
>>
>> On 11/11/2015 09:40 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> On 11/11/15 8:20 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>>> The universe is finite yet unbounded. Since objects near the end of
>>>> our ability to see are moving away from us at speeds approaching
>>>> light, this effectively makes the universe, to us, infinite
>>>
>>> Well... we could quibble about *why* the universe might be infinite.
>>> Many a physicist argue the the overall flatness of the universe is
>>> a dead giveaway that it is infinite. But I'd settle for Huge!
>>
>> Actually Sam, for once you are right...sort of. Universe is HUGE and
>> finite, but not flat. It only appears flat to us because our instruments
>> are not sensitive enough to measure the tiny curvature.
>>
>
>
> More information being posted in my threads...i will not stand for it.
I agree, your threads always had minimal to zero information in them,
lets all do our share and keep them that way.
>
>
> Get this straight for once and for all..
>
> The universe is flat, not curved...it is only curved...mathematically.
you silly, if the universe is flat, why is the earth a sphere ?
and yes, Earth is only curved at the edges.
>
>
> I don't allow misinformation being spread in my threads...do it on ohter
> threads
> where people don't care if children are reading misinformation.
only idiots read misinformation, give your children an IQ
test quick......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 19:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56440A3C.1B9C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #278977 |
gilber34 wrote:
>
> On 11/11/2015 3:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > benj wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/11/2015 09:40 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>> On 11/11/15 8:20 AM, HVAC wrote:
> >>>> The universe is finite yet unbounded. Since objects near the end of
> >>>> our ability to see are moving away from us at speeds approaching
> >>>> light, this effectively makes the universe, to us, infinite
>
> >>>
> >>> Well... we could quibble about *why* the universe might be infinite.
> >>> Many a physicist argue the the overall flatness of the universe is
> >>> a dead giveaway that it is infinite. But I'd settle for Huge!
> >>
> >> Actually Sam, for once you are right...sort of. Universe is HUGE and
> >> finite, but not flat. It only appears flat to us because our instruments
> >> are not sensitive enough to measure the tiny curvature.
> >>
> >
> >
> > More information being posted in my threads...i will not stand for it.
>
> I agree, your threads always had minimal to zero information in them,
> lets all do our share and keep them that way.
>
> >
> >
> > Get this straight for once and for all..
> >
> > The universe is flat, not curved...it is only curved...mathematically.
>
> you silly, if the universe is flat, why is the earth a sphere ?
>
> and yes, Earth is only curved at the edges.
>
> >
> >
> > I don't allow misinformation being spread in my threads...do it on ohter
> > threads
> > where people don't care if children are reading misinformation.
>
> only idiots read misinformation, give your children an IQ
> test quick......
It is the scientific community (and NASA) that are the major
distribution of misinformation.
mis·in·for·ma·tion
?misinf?r'maSH(?)n/
noun
noun: misinformation
false or inaccurate information, especially that which is
deliberately intended to deceive.
https://www.google.com/#q=define+misinformation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 02:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <charlie-gordon1492-C6CE1A.02023712112015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #278977 |
In article <n210k5$l1d$1@speranza.aioe.org>, gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: > > The universe is flat, not curved...it is only curved...mathematically. > > > you silly, if the universe is flat, why is the earth a sphere ? > > and yes, Earth is only curved at the edges. The universe appears to have zero global curvature; mathematicians refer to zero curvature as flat. This an additional definition to the old definition of a primarily two dimensional surface with little relief in the third dimension. The earth is nearly spherical body in a local hyperbolic geometry which appears over long distance to become Euclidean geometry. -- Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 09:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5644CEEF.2BAD@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #278983 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 2:02:42 AM UTC-8, je suis charly wrote: > > In article <n210k5$l1d$1@speranza.aioe.org>, gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> wrote: > > > > > > The universe is flat, not curved...it is only curved...mathematically. > > > > > > > > > you silly, if the universe is flat, why is the earth a sphere ? > > > > > > and yes, Earth is only curved at the edges. > > > > The universe appears to have zero global curvature; mathematicians refer to zero > > curvature as flat. This an additional definition to the old definition of a > > primarily two dimensional surface with little relief in the third dimension. The > > earth is nearly spherical body in a local hyperbolic geometry which appears over > > long distance to become Euclidean geometry. > > > > -- > > Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments > > of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from > > coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true > > of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye. > > On peut commencer avec "il n'y a peut de l'Universe". > > One can start with "there is only the Universe". > One can start with "there is nothing but the Universe". > > On peut commencer avec "il n'y a plus de l'Universe". You got everything wrong...(you need to get off the math road) "there is nothing AND the universe" Where do you think the universe came from?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 11:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Ye2dneGJ5rgITdnLnZ2dnUU7-I2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #278988 |
On 11/12/15 11:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Where do you think the universe came from?
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8FTr2qMutA
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that it is
impossible to simultaneously measure the position and
momentum of a particle with arbitrary precision. In our
everyday lives we virtually never come up against this
limit, hence why it seems peculiar. In this experiment a
laser is shone through a narrow slit onto a screen. As the
slit is made narrower, the spot on the screen also becomes
narrower. But at a certain point, the spot starts becoming
wider. This is because the photons of light have been so
localised at the slit that their horizontal momentum must
become less well defined in order to satisfy Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle.
Quantum vacuum fluctuation (or Quantum Fluctuation for short)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
Quoting from the above Wikipedia page:
"In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or
quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary
change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising
from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
"According to one formulation of the principle, energy and
time can be related by the relation
∆E · ∆t ≥ h/4π
"That means that conservation of energy can appear to be
violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation
of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The
effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in
the effective charge of the electron, different from its
"naked" charge.
"In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the
eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not
the same as (i.e., the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the
particle number operators.
"Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the
origin of the structure of the universe: according to the
model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation
began were amplified and formed the seed of all current
observed structure."
Quoting from A USENET Posting by Steve Carlip (UC Davis):
"CMB fluctuations give evidence for (though not proof of)
inflation.
"So far, I haven't said anything about where the initial
density variations of the pre-recombination plasma came
from. There are many possibilities. We know, at least, that
they must be there -- even if we try to start with a
perfectly smooth, unvarying plasma, the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle tells us that there must be a minimum
level of quantum fluctuations.
∆E · ∆t ≥ h/4π
"Inflationary" models propose that the very early Universe
-- before the time of primordial nucleosynthesis --
underwent a very rapid expansion. Such an expansion would
smooth out/dilute any earlier inhomogeneities, leaving only
the quantum fluctuations, which would be "stretched" in size
by the rapidly expanding space.
"Such models predict a special pattern of fluctuations. In
particular, although any particular fluctuation is random,
the average number at any particular scale is predictable.
This pattern on initial variations, in turn, should show up
in the details of the CMB variations. So far, observations
match the predictions of inflation very well. Most people in
the field don't consider this conclusive -- one can imagine
other ways of getting a similar pattern of initial
perturbations -- but it is suggestive."
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 23:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56459072.3A14@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #278989 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:47:05 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 11/12/15 11:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Where do you think the universe came from? > > > > > > > > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8FTr2qMutA > > > > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that it is > > impossible to simultaneously measure the position and > > momentum of a particle with arbitrary precision. In our > > everyday lives we virtually never come up against this > > limit, hence why it seems peculiar. In this experiment a > > laser is shone through a narrow slit onto a screen. As the > > slit is made narrower, the spot on the screen also becomes > > narrower. But at a certain point, the spot starts becoming > > wider. This is because the photons of light have been so > > localised at the slit that their horizontal momentum must > > become less well defined in order to satisfy Heisenberg's > > uncertainty principle. > > > > Quantum vacuum fluctuation (or Quantum Fluctuation for short) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation > > > > Quoting from the above Wikipedia page: > > > > "In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or > > quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary > > change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising > > from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. > > > > "According to one formulation of the principle, energy and > > time can be related by the relation > > > > ∆E · ∆t ≥ h/4π > > > > "That means that conservation of energy can appear to be > > violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation > > of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The > > effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in > > the effective charge of the electron, different from its > > "naked" charge. > > > > "In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the > > eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not > > the same as (i.e., the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the > > particle number operators. > > > > "Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the > > origin of the structure of the universe: according to the > > model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation > > began were amplified and formed the seed of all current > > observed structure." > > > > Quoting from A USENET Posting by Steve Carlip (UC Davis): > > > > "CMB fluctuations give evidence for (though not proof of) > > inflation. > > > > "So far, I haven't said anything about where the initial > > density variations of the pre-recombination plasma came > > from. There are many possibilities. We know, at least, that > > they must be there -- even if we try to start with a > > perfectly smooth, unvarying plasma, the Heisenberg > > uncertainty principle tells us that there must be a minimum > > level of quantum fluctuations. > > > > ∆E · ∆t ≥ h/4π > > > > "Inflationary" models propose that the very early Universe > > -- before the time of primordial nucleosynthesis -- > > underwent a very rapid expansion. Such an expansion would > > smooth out/dilute any earlier inhomogeneities, leaving only > > the quantum fluctuations, which would be "stretched" in size > > by the rapidly expanding space. > > > > "Such models predict a special pattern of fluctuations. In > > particular, although any particular fluctuation is random, > > the average number at any particular scale is predictable. > > This pattern on initial variations, in turn, should show up > > in the details of the CMB variations. So far, observations > > match the predictions of inflation very well. Most people in > > the field don't consider this conclusive -- one can imagine > > other ways of getting a similar pattern of initial > > perturbations -- but it is suggestive." > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > > community, and physics-related social issues. > > How did the inflationary period attenuate? You talk about "inflationary" as if is real...it's just a fudge factor. It's used to add fudge to 'the big bang'. What i find strange is... that the majority of the 'scientific community' talk as believe that think that say that 'the big bang' happen. It's not even a Fact. The Big Bang is not a fact. That aside... I have a photograph that shows you what the big bang looked like a few seconds after it happen. You will see the big bang in a color photograph... and at the same time you can see what existed at the time of the big bang... what I call the stable stars...the green stars. The big bang stars are red shifted because you can see the big bang stars shooting in all directions at once...while the green stars remain stable because they existed before the big bang. http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg The Starmaker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 09:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <F6-dnWGU8uTfYNjLnZ2dnUU7-a2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #279019 |
On 11/13/15 1:25 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Big Bang is not a fact
Oh man, is the evidence for the big bang strong!
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: *Tests of Big Bang Cosmology*
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 15:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <75ic4bpda95qrd34m6cear14bnsijlb47p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #279023 |
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:09:54 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 11/13/15 1:25 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> The Big Bang is not a fact
>
>
> Oh man, is the evidence for the big bang strong!
Oh, man, is the argument for the big bang wrong!
> No Center
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
With no center, then everything could not
have been "all in one place" at any time.
It does seem rational that the universe
would look the same (as far as expansion
goes) from any point of observation.
That seems to be counter to the idea
of a big bang, if every place in the universe
was very hot at any time, then there would
be no way for it to cool, each region would
be receiving and absorbing as much energy
as it radiates.
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
So, is the universe 14 Billion years old,
or not? How could the visible universe be
78 Billion light years in size if light velocity
is c, and the age of the universe only be 14 By?
All the inferences of the two pages
seems to support or even require that light
being recycled half a visible universe away,
and having been the source of all new stars,
with the universe infinitely old and infinite
in size.
And instead of galaxies not expanding,
everything _is_ expanding, but because the
measuring units and devices expand too,
nothing is observed to be expanding, except
the spectral lines of distant galaxies are
shifted.
> Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
>
> WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
>
> WMAP: *Tests of Big Bang Cosmology*
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
There seems to be a problem with everything
being hot and the universe infinite in size, that leaves
no place for heat to radiate to, and no place for the
universe to expand into.
If the universe always looked as it does now,
then the starlight leaving here today could become
stars half a visible universe away some day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 15:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qNOdnRB18rW7zNvLnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #279029 |
On 11/13/15 2:52 PM, kefischer wrote: > With no center, then everything could not > have been "all in one place" at any time. Not true. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 15:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qNOdnRN18rVxzNvLnZ2dnUU7-eUAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #279029 |
On 11/13/15 2:52 PM, kefischer wrote: > There seems to be a problem with everything being hot and the > universe infinite in size, that leaves no place for heat to radiate > to, and no place for the universe to expand into. No -- the expanding universe cools. After about 380,000 hears of expansion the thermal energy is free to roam. We detect it today with q black-body radiation temperature on the order of 2.7 Kelvin. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy
csiph-web