Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #532033 > unrolled thread

INFINITY

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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
    INFINITY HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 06:20 -0800
      Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 08:40 -0600
        Re: INFINITY benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 12:01 -0500
          Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 13:16 -0800
            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 "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 14:43 -0800
                                  Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 17:24 -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 Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 14:48 -0800
                                Re: INFINITY "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 15:05 -0800
                      Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-13 15:59 -0800
                        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 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 14:27 -0800
                              Re: INFINITY pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-15 14:35 -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 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 HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 15:39 -0800
                                        Re: INFINITY pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-16 20:14 -0800
                          Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 14:57 -0800
                  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 HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 10:27 -0800
          Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 11:55 -0800
            Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 13:14 -0800
              Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. "Efftard J. Smith" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-11-12 18:10 -0800
                Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 08:15 -0800
                  Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 12:35 -0500
                    Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 04:15 -0800
                      Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 14:24 -0500
                        Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 18:21 -0800
                          Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 04:16 -0500
                            Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 03:10 -0800
                          Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:26 -0800
      Re: INFINITY benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:59 -0500
    Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 08:43 -0600
    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
    Re: INFINITY "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 10:16 -0800
      Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 15:12 -0600
    Re: INFINITY Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-16 15:58 -0800
      Re: INFINITY "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 16:47 -0800

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#532033 — INFINITY

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]

#532039

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]

#532079

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]

#532167

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]

#532171

>
> 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]

#532190

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]

#532076

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#532077

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!

-- 

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]

#532105

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.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#532194

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]

#532260

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]

#532264

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]

#532296

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]

#532348

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]

#532351

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]

#532660

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]

#532722

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]

#532814

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]

#532820

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]

#532822

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 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web