Yes that's all very good but you still haven't given us YOUR views of the previous link you submitted to us. How about YOU tell us what YOU think for once?
Xenu may not have said it in the nicest way but he's fundamentally right about you.
BR I was asking a question to Outsider concerning constants or rather if some things are indeed constant or not. It is up in the air really depending on who you ask. I was curious as to what Outsider thought in particular.
Why don't you either join in with your own opinions or questions or BUZZ OFF! Go babysit some other AI member for a change. You are so immature with your ranting over my dialogue here on the boards. Get something to do with yourself.
BR I was asking a question to Outsider concerning constants or rather if some things are indeed constant or not. It is up in the air really depending on who you ask. I was curious as to what Outsider thought in particular.
Why don't you either join in with your own opinions or questions or BUZZ OFF! Go babysit some other AI member for a change. You are so immature with your ranting over my dialogue here on the boards. Get something to do with yourself.
Fellowship
once you convince yourself
the universe falls into place
you've got your ideas
and your posse of friends
you all make up rules
and the fun never ends
but still there's a problem, leaves you gasping for air
you look for some meaning, blank smiles are all that's there
and still water stales a soft summer breeze
you cling to your hopes while you drop to your knees
Regarding a previous post about a supposed Universe boundary, well there's a virtual one. There is a distance at which we will never see further. As shown by Hubble's law, the farther an object is from us, the faster it moves away due to the expansion. At some distance that speed becomes higher than lightspeed, and there goes our chances to see anything coming from this part of the Universe. But why bother: the Universe is EVERYTHING by definition, so a boundary has no sense . An infinite but still expanding universe is plausible, and probably right. Some inifinites are bigger than others. Mathematics can justify so many absurd statements!
The reason we see quasars from the farthest (and oldest) parts of the universe is mainly because they are the only things bright enough to be visible. Those are very active galaxies that emit tons of radiation by God knows what processes. Probably black holes but we're not even sure of that. Black holes are not yet well defined, since they rely both on General Relativity and the Standard Model, two incompatible theories as of today.
My cosmology class is far away in my memory, but I think the problem with some stars being older than the actual Universe was mostly solved by the Inflationary Universe Theory.
At last, my own opinion on the age of the universe: It's around 15 billion years, no matter what any religious text might say. The Bible should never be taken litterally: Jesus always taught using parables, so why wouldn't God himself romanticize what really happened to tell us his message? Assuming God exists...
What do you think about the findings in "This Link"
Just more to make things interesting with this issue.
Fellows
Um, I think with the passing of huge amounts of time that constants like the speed of light can change. Space changes with time however, the older the universe gets the less dense (atoms actually have to become bigger to continue to be atoms" space will be given that Omega(another constant) stays the same. But we are talking about a scale of 10^32 years. It's theorized that even protons will decay by that time because of something called quantum tunneling. The expanding universe will probably be affected by the expansion of space-time. But we don't even know if we are in a closed universe or an open one.
Hehe, I know it's not easy to grasp. Let's take as an example integer numbers and numbers with deicmals (real numbers). While there is both an infinity of each, we can say that the real group is bigger than the integer group. Why? Going between 1 and 2 in the integers, you have only 2 elements, 1 and 2. In the real numbers, you've got 1, 1.1, 1.01, 1.001, 1.011, and on and on... Therefore for every element in the integer group, you have an infinite number of them in the real group. The infinite number of real numbers can then be said to be a bigger infinite than for integers. A similar argument applies for the universe. We can't mesure its actual size, but we may use a scale factor. We define that the present size is 1 unit (that unit might be infinitely big), and after a certain time, due to expansion, it has become 1.2 for instance. That mean that the distance between 2 points would be after that same time 1.2 time what it was before. The scale of the universe has changed, it got larger in a way, but its size is still, well, infinite. But a bigger infinite. Only the ratio between the two sizes could be really mesured: n divided by 2*n is 1/2, even if n is infinite!
Hope that helped. Enough maths, this is summer, my brain, and yours, shouldn't have to go through this until a few months...
Of course Alcimedes is right. Everyone especially FCiB needs to read hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy now!!! And don't forget to bring a towel!
pfflam you are awesome. My view is that either the universe will decay into a bunch of grey matter at the same temperature due to entropy, or suck back in then have another Big Bang. I would think these two theories are mutually exclusive. I never thought of this before now! What is right: entropy, or the reoccurring Big Bang theory where everything gets sucked in and spit back out in an infinite loop of Big Bangs?
Either way we have to fight the destruction of the Universe?
Let's get started: first things first, conserve energy and don't buy a PC.
...all this against the complete expansion to nullity.
I remember joking with my physics teacher in high school that the universe might be just one particle short of closure, and that humanity's job might be to create that one particle.
Hehe, I know it's not easy to grasp. Let's take as an example integer numbers and numbers with deicmals (real numbers). While there is both an infinity of each, we can say that the real group is bigger than the integer group. Why? Going between 1 and 2 in the integers, you have only 2 elements, 1 and 2. In the real numbers, you've got 1, 1.1, 1.01, 1.001, 1.011, and on and on... Therefore for every element in the integer group, you have an infinite number of them in the real group. The infinite number of real numbers can then be said to be a bigger infinite than for integers. A similar argument applies for the universe. We can't mesure its actual size, but we may use a scale factor. We define that the present size is 1 unit (that unit might be infinitely big), and after a certain time, due to expansion, it has become 1.2 for instance. That mean that the distance between 2 points would be after that same time 1.2 time what it was before. The scale of the universe has changed, it got larger in a way, but its size is still, well, infinite. But a bigger infinite. Only the ratio between the two sizes could be really mesured: n divided by 2*n is 1/2, even if n is infinite!
Hope that helped. Enough maths, this is summer, my brain, and yours, shouldn't have to go through this until a few months...
Greetings
You bring up the resolution of the matter however I still would have to think that infinity is infinity no matter how you slice it.
You bring up the resolution of the matter however I still would have to think that infinity is infinity no matter how you slice it.
Why would you have to think something that simply isn't true?. Cantor proved (see the link that I posted) that the infinity of integers is smaller than the infinity of real numbers, because no matter how you try to map each member of the set of integers N to each member of the set of real numbers R, there will remain unmatched members in R.
This is not proof (because failing to imagine a match that works is not the same as proving that no exhaustive matching exists), but it will give you a feel for the problem:
Consider mapping the value 0 in N to the value 0 in R, and then, for the rest of N, map n in N to 1/n in R. Not only do the integers only cover the measley range [-1, 1], but they do so very porously, because no irrational numbers are mapped, leaving an unmapped infinity of members between each and every mapped member of R.
Comments
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Some great websites / weblink lists to get lost in learning over this issue of cosmology:
allacademic.com
physicsweb.org
space-time.info
Cornell Theory Center
Physical Sciences Information Gateway
SciTecLibrary.com
Scirus.com
All worth a Bookmark!
Fellowship
Yes that's all very good but you still haven't given us YOUR views of the previous link you submitted to us.
Bah, you remind me of the Bad Religion album titled "No Substance."
Originally posted by BR
Yes that's all very good but you still haven't given us YOUR views of the previous link you submitted to us. How about YOU tell us what YOU think for once?
Xenu may not have said it in the nicest way but he's fundamentally right about you.
BR I was asking a question to Outsider concerning constants or rather if some things are indeed constant or not. It is up in the air really depending on who you ask. I was curious as to what Outsider thought in particular.
Why don't you either join in with your own opinions or questions or BUZZ OFF! Go babysit some other AI member for a change. You are so immature with your ranting over my dialogue here on the boards. Get something to do with yourself.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
BR I was asking a question to Outsider concerning constants or rather if some things are indeed constant or not. It is up in the air really depending on who you ask. I was curious as to what Outsider thought in particular.
Why don't you either join in with your own opinions or questions or BUZZ OFF! Go babysit some other AI member for a change. You are so immature with your ranting over my dialogue here on the boards. Get something to do with yourself.
Fellowship
once you convince yourself
the universe falls into place
you've got your ideas
and your posse of friends
you all make up rules
and the fun never ends
but still there's a problem, leaves you gasping for air
you look for some meaning, blank smiles are all that's there
and still water stales a soft summer breeze
you cling to your hopes while you drop to your knees
there's no substance!(2x)
The reason we see quasars from the farthest (and oldest) parts of the universe is mainly because they are the only things bright enough to be visible. Those are very active galaxies that emit tons of radiation by God knows what processes. Probably black holes but we're not even sure of that. Black holes are not yet well defined, since they rely both on General Relativity and the Standard Model, two incompatible theories as of today.
My cosmology class is far away in my memory, but I think the problem with some stars being older than the actual Universe was mostly solved by the Inflationary Universe Theory.
At last, my own opinion on the age of the universe: It's around 15 billion years, no matter what any religious text might say. The Bible should never be taken litterally: Jesus always taught using parables, so why wouldn't God himself romanticize what really happened to tell us his message? Assuming God exists...
Now I need some sleep!
Originally posted by Matlock
Regarding a previous post about a supposed Universe boundary.
An infinite but still expanding universe is plausible, and probably right. Some inifinites are bigger than others.
What? That does not compute
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What do you think about the findings in "This Link"
Just more to make things interesting with this issue.
Fellows
Um, I think with the passing of huge amounts of time that constants like the speed of light can change. Space changes with time however, the older the universe gets the less dense (atoms actually have to become bigger to continue to be atoms" space will be given that Omega(another constant) stays the same. But we are talking about a scale of 10^32 years. It's theorized that even protons will decay by that time because of something called quantum tunneling. The expanding universe will probably be affected by the expansion of space-time. But we don't even know if we are in a closed universe or an open one.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What? That does not compute
Fellows
Hehe, I know it's not easy to grasp. Let's take as an example integer numbers and numbers with deicmals (real numbers). While there is both an infinity of each, we can say that the real group is bigger than the integer group. Why? Going between 1 and 2 in the integers, you have only 2 elements, 1 and 2. In the real numbers, you've got 1, 1.1, 1.01, 1.001, 1.011, and on and on... Therefore for every element in the integer group, you have an infinite number of them in the real group. The infinite number of real numbers can then be said to be a bigger infinite than for integers. A similar argument applies for the universe. We can't mesure its actual size, but we may use a scale factor. We define that the present size is 1 unit (that unit might be infinitely big), and after a certain time, due to expansion, it has become 1.2 for instance. That mean that the distance between 2 points would be after that same time 1.2 time what it was before. The scale of the universe has changed, it got larger in a way, but its size is still, well, infinite. But a bigger infinite. Only the ratio between the two sizes could be really mesured: n divided by 2*n is 1/2, even if n is infinite!
Hope that helped. Enough maths, this is summer, my brain, and yours, shouldn't have to go through this until a few months...
Georg Cantor's Aleph
pfflam you are awesome. My view is that either the universe will decay into a bunch of grey matter at the same temperature due to entropy, or suck back in then have another Big Bang. I would think these two theories are mutually exclusive. I never thought of this before now! What is right: entropy, or the reoccurring Big Bang theory where everything gets sucked in and spit back out in an infinite loop of Big Bangs?
Either way we have to fight the destruction of the Universe?
Let's get started: first things first, conserve energy and don't buy a PC.
Originally posted by pfflam
...all this against the complete expansion to nullity.
I remember joking with my physics teacher in high school that the universe might be just one particle short of closure, and that humanity's job might be to create that one particle.
Originally posted by Matlock
Hehe, I know it's not easy to grasp. Let's take as an example integer numbers and numbers with deicmals (real numbers). While there is both an infinity of each, we can say that the real group is bigger than the integer group. Why? Going between 1 and 2 in the integers, you have only 2 elements, 1 and 2. In the real numbers, you've got 1, 1.1, 1.01, 1.001, 1.011, and on and on... Therefore for every element in the integer group, you have an infinite number of them in the real group. The infinite number of real numbers can then be said to be a bigger infinite than for integers. A similar argument applies for the universe. We can't mesure its actual size, but we may use a scale factor. We define that the present size is 1 unit (that unit might be infinitely big), and after a certain time, due to expansion, it has become 1.2 for instance. That mean that the distance between 2 points would be after that same time 1.2 time what it was before. The scale of the universe has changed, it got larger in a way, but its size is still, well, infinite. But a bigger infinite. Only the ratio between the two sizes could be really mesured: n divided by 2*n is 1/2, even if n is infinite!
Hope that helped. Enough maths, this is summer, my brain, and yours, shouldn't have to go through this until a few months...
Greetings
You bring up the resolution of the matter however I still would have to think that infinity is infinity no matter how you slice it.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
You bring up the resolution of the matter however I still would have to think that infinity is infinity no matter how you slice it.
Why would you have to think something that simply isn't true?. Cantor proved (see the link that I posted) that the infinity of integers is smaller than the infinity of real numbers, because no matter how you try to map each member of the set of integers N to each member of the set of real numbers R, there will remain unmatched members in R.
This is not proof (because failing to imagine a match that works is not the same as proving that no exhaustive matching exists), but it will give you a feel for the problem:
Consider mapping the value 0 in N to the value 0 in R, and then, for the rest of N, map n in N to 1/n in R. Not only do the integers only cover the measley range [-1, 1], but they do so very porously, because no irrational numbers are mapped, leaving an unmapped infinity of members between each and every mapped member of R.