Official Call For Papers

[Michael]

Some Information about Dark Energy (from a non-cosmologist), in case people are afraid this is actually just completely unfounded:

It is "completely unfounded". Dark energy doesn't do anything to anything in any "controlled" experiments here on Earth. What makes you think it does something "out there somewhere"? Why doesn't that same argument work for you as it relates to God by the way?

Further "Evidence for Dark Energy" (with associated references) LINKY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Evidence_for_dark_energy

Care to show me a single controlled experiment on Earth where "dark energy" caused even two atoms to "accelerate" or caused "space" to expand? These are all "point at the sky and add math to ad hoc claims" exercises. Not a single controlled experiment supports any of these claims. Not one.

Now, again, I'm not in a position to mount a stern defense of Lamda-CDM theory nor even of "Dark Energy", but it sounds to me like this is much more robust than mere ex cathedra statements from the "priesthood" about what IS or ISN'T.

Except for the fact that dark energy is just as shy around the lab as God you mean? Even theists believe that they will one day meet God, whereas the Lambda-cult seems to revere a dead inflation deity that they will NEVER be able to meet and they have no hope of ever verifying in a lab. I noticed that you conveniently ignored that "dark flow" evidence that blows inflation out of the water. Why?

QUOTE]It sounds to me like any of a number of scientific concepts still in debate and discussion. [/QUOTE]

Please explain to me what is different between "God", "dark energy" and "inflation" as it relates to empirical physics. None of them show up in a lab, but you seem to "lack belief" in only one of them. Why?

Science should be able to freely discuss concepts even before they have become "Law".

(And, of course, the same should be said for Plasma Cosmology, etc.)

The difference of course is that I can claim:

God is the physical universe. The universe is electric and contains an almost limitless number of "circuits" just like the circuits in our brains that give rise to human awareness and consciousness. Not once have I evoke any "metaphysical" ideas, nor have I proposed anything that is not known to exist in nature. My "theory" includes nothing that cannot be empirically shown to exist with the possible exception of God's consciousness, but even that consciousness has a physical "cause", just like everything else, and human do report communing with God.

Now of course to be fair, PC/EU theory is not a "theistic" belief system per se, but it is infinitely more "credible" than dead inflation deities and dark energies galore.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Neither GR or Hubble's law require a 'creation event'. What makes you think that all matter and energy was ever collected to a single 'point' (something smaller than a breadbox)? LeMaitre's "creation event" is not based directly on either GR or expansion, but rather it is directly related to the Genesis accounts of a creation event. Alfven's 'big bang' theory is not a 'creation event' per se, and it satisfies GR and expansion.

Again, I look forward to something from LeMaitre that indicates that this is necessarily a "religious" concept.

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than a one line WIKI claim on that one.

Why? You didn't even bother to address:

1. Your claim that LeMaitre thought this to be a "religious" concept
2. The very real point that it doesn't matter what religion one is when they come up with an hypothesis.

So in your opinion it was simply a "coincidence" that his scientific beliefs and spiritual opinions were congruent? You don't find that a bit "convenient'?

No more so than the fact that Gell-Mann had enough knowledge of Buddhism to leverage the 8-Fold way in classifying sub-atomic particles.

Honestly do you really think that all cosmologists who accept that the Big Bang explains

Cosmic background microwave radiation
universe large scale homogeneity
Hubble Diagram
Abundance of light elements
Time dilation in supernova curves

all do so because it fits with Genesis as a Belgian Catholic Priest interpretted it????

His religious and scientific beliefs are congruent.

Oh, then you will be interested to know that in science "correlation is not causation".

Congruent or not, doesn't matter. Kekule had a dream of a snake eating its tail and from that he figured out the shape of the benzene molecule doesn't mean benzene is made of snakes.

Of course it is "faith based". What physical evidence can you present to demonstrate that all mass and energy was ever collected to a single point in time and space. That whole *assumption* is based on pure faith.

vide supra.

There is no difference between them. The Big Bang theory *is* a "creation myth". No one can physically demonstrate that all matter and energy were collected to a single point.

I don't get it. You seem to be pretty scientifically savvy. Yet you treat science in the same way creationists treat it, with a total lack of subtlety and understanding of said subtlety.

Let's go over it again:

Science looks at the data available and builds a model based on only those factors which help explain the data. This is the "Model". It is not necessarily thought to be absolute proof, but it makes use of known factors (in the present case gravity and light and energy) and it produces a model to describe it.

To my knowledge no scientists actually believes that a theory is ever proven beyond any doubt (that is a common creationist misconception of how scientists actually work).

In fact, science works under the assumption that a model asymptotically describes reality, and the more features of a given system that are described by a model the better the "fit" is for the model.

In the present case no one is expected to "prove in a lab" that the Singularity was thus or so. It is extrapolated from the available data. If they can, then great! To my knowledge the description of matter just after the BB is currently one small reason why we built the LHC.

Again, Creationists, for instance, have difficulty with "forensic science", which is good because they are so pious they will never ever be accused of a crime, so they don't have to trust forensics. But all science of unobserved past events (even geology in some cases) rely on a "forensic approach". In the present case the forensics is based on known behavior of gravity, energy etc. But with a twist extrapolating backwards to explain how the universe wound up looking like it does.

Now as I've said numerous times I'm not a cosmologist, I'm a geochemist. I do know a thing or two about energy and matter, but I don't pretend to know the details on the BBT or lambda CDM. But I do recognize, as a scientist, that when a large number of scientists who specialize in a specific field wind up working with a given model that there is probably some reason to believe said model is effective for them. I assume the quantum model of the atom is correct because it works in my daily work and I don't have to solve the Schroedinger equation just to know what's going to happen when I put two chemicals together.

I will assume, especially when the specialists provide me with data and explanations as to why this model is reasonably effective that there is reason to believe it. I also realize, as any real scientist does, that new information could dramatically alter scientific concepts.

I don't know what little kids are taught about the big bang. I highly doubt it goes as far into the conjectural space as you seem to indicate. Having been a college educator I do know how science is taught to young adults. I also know the difficulty of teaching a fluid concept such as science to people who are new to the concept. Sometimes it is done with "authority", but with advanced levels the subtleties are taught.

No one can show that evil "dark energies' have any influence on the movements of even a single atom let alone cause the whole physical universe to accelerate.

No offense but the insistence of continuously referring to dark energy as "evil dark energy" in my mind screams "crackpot". I doubt very highly you wish to impress readers with that image. Might want to discuss the concept without resort to "inflammatory rhetoric".

But, how do you explain the items listed in my previous post (from the external link) that act as some evidence of "dark energy"?

These are purely ad hoc constructs intended to 'keep the myth alive", otherwise it would have died a natural death a long time ago.

Again, this is the kind of rhetoric that usually screams "crackpot". Ideas in science, especially on the edges of conjecture, are usually far more fluid than this. There is no "grand conspiracy" of scientists actively trying to keep the "truth" hidden. There is some degree of inertia for models that appear to explain the systems effectively, but that is not the same as hiding the truth or NOT letting a bad model die a "natural death".

I've been in the sciences as both a student, an educator and a professional now for 27 years and I've seen the ebb and flow of ideas. I have yet to see the "grand unified conspiracies" that Creationists and "crackpots" seem so desperately to want there to be. Be it in the area of "peer review" or in the areas of actively hiding data.

I'm not saying you are a "crackpot". Far from it. You appear to be quite savvy on much of this information, but perhaps you need to explain how your personal pet hypotheses are superior to the standard cosmological explanations. Regardless of how "no one has shown this or that in the lab", show us how your ideas have been proven or supported. I assume based on your insistence on "lab proof" that the ideas you support have been proven on a universal scale.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Consider me a "hard atheist" as it relates to inflation and DE.

Oh well, then. I'm an atheist and a "weak atheist" at that because I know there is no logical defense of a "universal negative". Personally I find "strong atheism" (the idea that "There is no God") to be repellent from a logic standpoint, so you'll forgive me if I find any sort of "hard atheism" (ie an attempt at defense of a "universal negative") to be equally repellent intellectually.

No, I can't physically demonstrate they do not exist, but in science the onus of responsibility falls on the one proposing their existence.

Indeed. However as you know the best that can be done is to test against the null. In my case as an atheist I start with the null hypothesis "There is no God" and test against that. I have so far failed to reject the null. However I cannot say "There is no god" because I've not seen all the data and all the universe and all the times. I can say "I fail to reject the null hypothesis".

So perhaps what you meant to say was "I see no reason to believe there was ever inflation or dark energy" (which is rather different than your actual statement). However, as was discussed earlier, there appears to be reason to invoke these concepts to explain how we got the universe we have. Doesn't necessarily mean they are there, but it is at least some evidence thereof.

Why are you an atheist if not because you "lack belief' in something that has not been empirically demonstrated in the lab?

vide supra.

I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe there is a God. If said information came in that helped move the needle I'd be able to reject the null hypothesis with some degree of statistical probability.

Why are you giving the dead inflation deity a free pass?

To the extent that I understand cosmology I see some evidence presented to me that the Big Bang model is more likely true than, say, the Genesis creation myth. Or the Iriqouis creation myth, or the Australian Aboriginal creation myth, or the Egyptian Creation myth, etc.

I hold no "opinions" one way or the other about what came "before" the big bang as there seems to be no reason.

 

[plindboe]

Every SUSY theory, every "dark energy" theory, and every "inflation" theory is "dogma". By "dogma" I mean it cannot be demonstrated in an empirical experiment, but rather it requires an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer".

Again you write something that doesn't follow logically from what you're responding to. I've no doubt you're an intelligent and knowledgable guy, but there's something very wrong with your logical thinking skills. You seem to make non sequiturs all over the place. I'm not sure whether it's a side effect of you being too emotional whenever you consider these issues or whether it's a more serious cognitive problem. When you misinterpret even the simplest sentences so regularly, it stands to reason that your brain makes an even greater muddle out of material that's complex and requires alot of research.

I'm just amused that several folks in this thread dislike theistic creation theories, but they seem to give standard theory a free pass.

I doubt such a general statement was what you meant when you quoted me and made the non sequitur "Evidently you don't apply the same standard to science that you do toward theistic/atheistic debate". You need to admit your errors, instead of applying such diversionary tactics, especially if you want to be taken seriously. You obviously want to be seen as some sort of authority of science, but when you combine your authorative claims with aggression, poor logic, arrogance and manipulative tactics, you're essentially shooting yourself in the foot.

My basic argument is still valid Peter. There is no valid empirical evidence to support *any* creation science theory, including Lambda-CDM theory.

Quite possibly, haven't looked into any of them. Since physics isn't the field I've chosen to pursue, I'll continue to shrug my shoulders until evidence turns up and some sort of consensus is forming. Until then, I'll let the experts in the relevant field battle it out.

Peter

 

[Michael]

Again you write something that doesn't follow logically from what you're responding to.

Um, here is what you said and what I was responding to:

I do, but that's got nothing to do with my statement. What I don't care about are unevidenced hypotheses about what the majority of dark matter consists of. If you have evidence showing that unevidenced hypotheses about dark matter are being taught as dogma in school, please share.

What I "shared" is the fact that none of the mythical entities being proposed by Lambda-CMD theory show up in controlled experimentation. They cannot be anything *other than* dogma because each one of those three metaphysical bad boys requires "faith" on the part of the believer, including SUSY theory. Also provided you with links to papers on Arxiv that demonstrate that SUSY theory is now the dominant "explanation' for "dark matter", yet no SUSY particle has ever been confirmed to exist in controlled empirical testing. What else could it be but "dogma"?

You need to admit your errors, instead of applying such diversionary tactics, especially if you want to be taken seriously.

There was nothing "evasive" about my answer. If you have evidence that these things actually exist in nature, let's see it. If not, you simply buy the dogma that's been handed you without empirical justification. That's faith, not science.

You obviously want to be seen as some sort of authority of science, but when you combine your authorative claims with aggression, poor logic, arrogance and manipulative tactics, you're essentially shooting yourself in the foot.

Whereas your personal attacks on individuals is somehow "better"? The only "manipulation" going on in this conversation is your diversion of the topic from the actual issues (DM, DE, inflation) toward the individual. That's the only manipulative tactic going on here.

Quite possibly, haven't looked into any of them. Since physics isn't the field I've chosen to pursue, I'll continue to shrug my shoulders until evidence turns up and some sort of consensus is forming. Until then, I'll let the experts in the relevant field battle it out.

Peter

So why wouldn't that apply to the topic of God too? Why aren't you up in arms about them teaching a metaphysical forms of "creation science" in the classroom? Got a single gram of "dark matter"? What makes you think that they didn't just blow their mass calculations big time? What's with the metaphysical gap filler? The only thing that you know for sure it that their mass estimation techniques of galaxies is pitifully flawed. In no way does their blown mass estimate necessitate an invocation of a special form of SUSY particle with ad hoc property assignments, but that is exactly what we see.

arXiv.org Search

SUSY theory is a purely *hypothetical* branch of particle physics and not one single SUSY particle has been verified to exist in nature. What else can these theories then be if not "dogma" that requires an act of faith on the part of the believer?

 

[Michael]

Oh well, then. I'm an atheist and a "weak atheist" at that because I know there is no logical defense of a "universal negative". Personally I find "strong atheism" (the idea that "There is no God") to be repellent from a logic standpoint, so you'll forgive me if I find any sort of "hard atheism" (ie an attempt at defense of a "universal negative") to be equally repellent intellectually.

Fair enough. I guess I simply "lack belief" in things that cannot be empirically shown to exist as a rule.

Indeed. However as you know the best that can be done is to test against the null. In my case as an atheist I start with the null hypothesis "There is no God" and test against that. I have so far failed to reject the null. However I cannot say "There is no god" because I've not seen all the data and all the universe and all the times. I can say "I fail to reject the null hypothesis".

Why exactly do you label yourself an atheist, and why do you not "lack belief" in inflation and DE and SUSY particles as well? Why single out one idea for "lack of belief" and not all of them?

So perhaps what you meant to say was "I see no reason to believe there was ever inflation or dark energy" (which is rather different than your actual statement).

Sure, and that's probably more accurate. I will admit however that I seriously lack belief in inflation and DE. DM is something that I'm willing to consider as long as the experiments themselves are 'controlled". In other words, the LHC may in fact one day find evidence of SUSY particles. It's not a given of course, but I do accept it's at least physically "possible" to verify or falsify that concept. That is not true of DE. Where does DE even come from? Inflation is dead and gone so verification is impossible and no type of observation is ever considered a "falsification" of that idea, not even those "dark flows".

I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe there is a God.

But you have a reason to believe in a dead inflation deity and dark energy?

If said information came in that helped move the needle I'd be able to reject the null hypothesis with some degree of statistical probability.

Since you're one of a tiny minority of humans that doesn't believe in a "creator", that's rather unlikely don't you think?

To the extent that I understand cosmology I see some evidence presented to me that the Big Bang model is more likely true than, say, the Genesis creation myth. Or the Iriqouis creation myth, or the Australian Aboriginal creation myth, or the Egyptian Creation myth, etc.

How? How is "inflation did it" better than God did it? What other vector or scalar field in nature experiences multiple exponential increases in volume without a significant drop in density? When did "dark energy" have any effect on any controlled experiment? Where does it even come from? Since when did objects move faster than light, or when did space ever expand here on Earth?

I hold no "opinions" one way or the other about what came "before" the big bang as there seems to be no reason.

The laws of thermodynamics insist that no energy was ever created or destroyed. Something predated this particular physical universe even if had a "creation date". Since there is no physical evidence that all matter and energy was ever collected to a single location, there's no evidence it has a "creation date" in the first place.

 

[Michael]

Again, I look forward to something from LeMaitre that indicates that this is necessarily a "religious" concept.

Why would he insist that all matter and energy was ever collected to a point in the first place if not to be able to have a "creation process"? What evidence do you have to demonstrate that all matter and energy were collected to a single point?

Why? You didn't even bother to address:

1. Your claim that LeMaitre thought this to be a "religious" concept

I did. I demonstrated that GR and expansion don't necessarily require a "creation event" and yet he chose to dream up a "creation story" albeit on a somewhat longer timeline, but an equally unsupportable timeline. Matter does not move faster than light, "space" does not expand, and this universe is far too large to have been created only 13.7 billion years ago.

2. The very real point that it doesn't matter what religion one is when they come up with an hypothesis.

And yet he came up with a 'creation event' that 'just so happens' to jive with his religion? I hear you, but the evidence is somewhat "suspicious' and the idea a little to "convenient" if you ask me. I hear you to a point, but only to a point.

I'm going to skip some of the redundant stuff.

Honestly do you really think that all cosmologists who accept that the Big Bang explains

Cosmic background microwave radiation
universe large scale homogeneity
Hubble Diagram
Abundance of light elements
Time dilation in supernova curves

all do so because it fits with Genesis as a Belgian Catholic Priest interpretted it????

No. Statistically speaking most cosmologists are atheists. Atheists however are entirely human just like the rest of us and they are prone to believe in creation events too. We humans like beginnings and endings. We can't relate well to "eternity" and "infinity". We like things "tidy and neat". The universe is not homogeneously distributed as those "dark flows" demonstrate. Unfortunately humans don't give up their belief systems easily or quickly, even when there is ample evidence that they are wrong. There were valid explanations for a background radiation long before inflation theory become popular.

I don't get it. You seem to be pretty scientifically savvy. Yet you treat science in the same way creationists treat it, with a total lack of subtlety and understanding of said subtlety.

That's not true. I do understand these subtleties, more than most in fact. I realize that DE lack empirical support from controlled experimentation. I realize that is also true of inflation. I realize that those dark flows are not congruent with inflation theory. I also realize that our universe is electric. It is because I do understand these issues rather well that causes me to reject them.

Ultimately you are the only one of us that is actually a "creationist", because I personally lack belief in the whole idea of all matter being condensed to a single point, or that our universe was created from a single specific event, whereas you do not show any such lack of belief, or at least you show no lack of belief that I can discern.

Science looks at the data available and builds a model based on only those factors which help explain the data.

The available data shows that the universe is larger than 27.4 billion light years across, matter doesn't travel faster than light, and "space" (physically undefined) never "expands" in the lab. Those are the facts. They are all incongruent with a creation date of 13.7 billion years. Those are the facts.

This is the "Model". It is not necessarily thought to be absolute proof, but it makes use of known factors (in the present case gravity and light and energy) and it produces a model to describe it.

It does that by introducing "supernatural" forms of energy into the equation. How can "inflation did it" be any better than "God did it" from the perspective of science, especially in light of those dark flows?

To my knowledge no scientists actually believes that a theory is ever proven beyond any doubt (that is a common creationist misconception of how scientists actually work).

Yet you personally chose to support their beliefs, and reject God? I'm not sure how you make your choices since they "seem* (at least from the outside looking in) to be random. In one case you seem to reject a 'creation event' that involves a "higher consciousness", but you willingly accept "supernatural" ideas. I don't get it.

In fact, science works under the assumption that a model asymptotically describes reality, and the more features of a given system that are described by a model the better the "fit" is for the model.

Those dark flows don't "fit' inflation theory.

Again, Creationists, for instance, have difficulty with "forensic science", which is good because they are so pious they will never ever be accused of a crime, so they don't have to trust forensics. But all science of unobserved past events (even geology in some cases) rely on a "forensic approach". In the present case the forensics is based on known behavior of gravity, energy etc. But with a twist extrapolating backwards to explain how the universe wound up looking like it does.

That's fine until you start postulating "causes" that defy the laws of physics like inflation does. What other vector or scalar field in nature does what inflation does in terms of retaining constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume? How is that not an "extraordinary" claim?

Now as I've said numerous times I'm not a cosmologist, I'm a geochemist. I do know a thing or two about energy and matter, but I don't pretend to know the details on the BBT or lambda CDM. But I do recognize, as a scientist, that when a large number of scientists who specialize in a specific field wind up working with a given model that there is probably some reason to believe said model is effective for them.

Likewise I'm sure that all theists have some reason to believe in God and have a model of God that works for them. I fail to see how that gives inflation theory a free pass while God theories are rejected in your world. It doesn't seem to add up.

I assume the quantum model of the atom is correct because it works in my daily work and I don't have to solve the Schroedinger equation just to know what's going to happen when I put two chemicals together.

Yes, but these models can and have been 'tested' in the standard scientific manner and subatomic particles show up in a real experiment. Compare and contrast that to dark energy or inflation.

I will assume, especially when the specialists provide me with data and explanations as to why this model is reasonably effective that there is reason to believe it. I also realize, as any real scientist does, that new information could dramatically alter scientific concepts.

So you have "faith" in scientists, even when you don't understand their reasoning, but you have no faith in theists, even though your own personal experiences of God, or lack thereof cannot possibly be anything other than a subjective viewpoint?

I don't know what little kids are taught about the big bang. I highly doubt it goes as far into the conjectural space as you seem to indicate.

How many shows on the Discovery Channel have you watched recently? They may not get the "full explanation", but they certainly hear about inflation and dark energies and dark matter.

No offense but the insistence of continuously referring to dark energy as "evil dark energy" in my mind screams "crackpot".

That might be a valid criticisms actually. It was actually "shock value" commentary on my part. I was however trying to point out that the "properties" being assigned to "dark energy" are purely ad hoc. There is no property of "dark energy" (evil or otherwise) that can be verified in a controlled experiment.

I doubt very highly you wish to impress readers with that image. Might want to discuss the concept without resort to "inflammatory rhetoric".

I hear you.

But, how do you explain the items listed in my previous post (from the external link) that act as some evidence of "dark energy"?

How exactly in your mind does the fact that the universe appears to be accelerating support the idea of "dark energy"? When did "dark energy" cause the acceleration of even one atom, or when did "space" ever expand in a controlled experiment? Where's the correlation here between the observation and the insistence that this observation is related to "dark energy"? I don't see any physical connection. Why not call it "God energy"?

Again, this is the kind of rhetoric that usually screams "crackpot". Ideas in science, especially on the edges of conjecture, are usually far more fluid than this. There is no "grand conspiracy" of scientists actively trying to keep the "truth" hidden. There is some degree of inertia for models that appear to explain the systems effectively, but that is not the same as hiding the truth or NOT letting a bad model die a "natural death".

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on that point. I see every reason to let inflation die a natural death an no reason to put any faith at all in that idea, particularly in light of recent discoveries.

I've been in the sciences as both a student, an educator and a professional now for 27 years and I've seen the ebb and flow of ideas. I have yet to see the "grand unified conspiracies" that Creationists and "crackpots" seem so desperately to want there to be. Be it in the area of "peer review" or in the areas of actively hiding data.

You keep associating me with a creationist, but you're the only one of us defending a creation theory. The term "crackpot" seems like one of those "catch all" phases that scientists tend to throw around rather than calling the the disbeliever 'evil'. It seems to serve the same basic purpose.

I'm not saying you are a "crackpot". Far from it. You appear to be quite savvy on much of this information, but perhaps you need to explain how your personal pet hypotheses are superior to the standard cosmological explanations. Regardless of how "no one has shown this or that in the lab", show us how your ideas have been proven or supported. I assume based on your insistence on "lab proof" that the ideas you support have been proven on a universal scale.

EU theory isn't based on demonstrating things at a "universal" scale. It started with the work of Kristian Birkeland in a lab in real empirical tests that were intended to "explain" aurora and events inside our solar system. It is a theory that relates to things here inside our solar system as well as to events outside our solar system, but it is not a "creation" oriented theory per se, nor must it be treated that way. You seem to be implying that I need a "better" theory on a large scale, but the one that is popular fails the large scale observations anyway, so how can it be "better" than something that requires no faith in anything other than what can be shown to have a real effect on real things in real experiments?

 

[Hespera]

Still doing the weird punctuation as if it does anything but make you look anything but unschooled.

As someone said.....

No offense but the insistence of continuously referring to dark energy as "evil dark energy" in my mind screams "crackpot".
QUOTE////////////


You think you can poke holes in astrophysics? What is easy is to poke holes in your ideas.

Your idea that "If there was a valid scientific basis for their beliefs, *someone* would have provided that evidence over the last say 7 years or so." makes no sense. Nothing unusual in it taking a long time to come up with evidence for a theory. Whats the curoff point? At 18 months the theory is reasonable but after 23 it isnt? At 24 we conclude that the theory is proved wrong?

You give yourself away, asking the differnce between infinite and expanding.
​

Evidently you did not grasp the implication of the *need* (real physical need actually) for an infinite universe to be in motion. That doesn't surprise me actually, but it only demonstrates *your* lack of understanding of these issues, not mine. QUOTE/////////


So you want to keep insisting on an infinite universe? Here is one of many many sources on how its not infinite. Why even try to go on to other things whenyou are stuck on that bit on nonsense?

[SIZE=+3]Can anything 'real' be infinite?[/SIZE]​

We often here the terms 'infinite' and 'infinity', sometimes used in connection with the size of the universe, such as an infinite universe for example. The terms more properly belong in the world of mathematics, where for example we may have an infinitely long string of numbers as the result of a calculation, such as pi. The terms are very real to mathematics, but can anything real, not theoretical, be infinite?

[SIZE=+1]An infinite Universe? [/SIZE]​

[SIZE=+1]Coma galaxy cluster[/SIZE]​

Naturally in mathematics we can have infinity, numbers go on for ever, but numbers are not real, they are abstract. I cannot imagine anything 'real' that we could apply an infinite number to. The only thing I can imagine that could be really infinite is nothing, the 'nothing' I described earlier in Where did the universe come from? and we have no idea if that exists.
The concept of infinity is a puzzling one. For example: imagine a standard pack of playing cards that consists of just one of each card but two jokers. Imagine that the packs of playing cards are infinite in number (A thought exercise only of course). We therefore have more jokers than any other card in each pack, so do we have more jokers in total? You could reply that as the packs are infinite in number they can't be counted so it would be impossible to know. However, as the ratio of jokers to other cards in each pack is fixed, then at anynumber of packs there will always be more jokers. This would appear to indicate, that mathematically, we can have degrees of infinity. Sounds odd doesn't it? It is a valid mathematical argument though.
We have a theory for black holes that describes infinite density. See Exploding Black Holes? What does it mean, other than an unresolvable equation that occurs in mathematics? Exactly what is infinite density? Taking a rather simplistic view it could be argued that if one black hole has infinite density then nothing else can have ANY density. Clearly though in this sense we can have lots of infinite density, so the term obviously carries a meaning in mathematics that does not have the same meaning outside of it. Is the term used in the theory only because that is the way the sums work out, regardless as to its significance in the real world, or is it real?
Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.
Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite. Stephen Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time' (1989 page 44) describes the universe as being "finite but unbounded". The simplest answer is that as the universe is known to be expanding, it cannot possibly be infinite. To be precise, the dictionary definition of the word universe is "all that is. The whole system of things." In this sense the universe is not expanding into anything other than itself, for whatever it is expanding into is part of the universe, there being nothing else but the universe. However, for the sake of simplicity, I am referring only to our Big Bang expanding universe as 'the universe'. (Even if you happen to disagree with the Big Bang theory, the term 'universe' will still have the same meaning here, as it refers to 'our' universe only, and does not include whatever may or may not exist outside of it.) I will try and explain a finite universe as some people understandably have problems with it.
A good place to start is to understand the very real difference between infinity and a large number.
For example, imagine an ordinary size diamond, as you would expect to find set in a typical lady's engagement ring. Now imagine a super-being armed with super-tweezers, picking out atoms from this diamond one at a time, one every second, since the creation of the universe, some 13 billion years ago. How much of the diamond would by now have been removed? The answer is you couldn't tell without looking through an electron microscope, less than a millionth of the atoms would have been removed. Try and imagine how many atoms there are in that diamond. Now try and imagine how many atoms there are in the entire universe. It is a very large number, but it is finite, and is 10 followed by 80 zeros, (maybe a few more zeros, maybe a few less), expressed as 10 to the 80th. If you want to see what it looks like.........
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
0r written as - One hundred million, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion. billion, billion
Even this very large number would count as nothing when compared with infinity, because infinity is NOT A LARGE NUMBER be absolutely clear on this point, IT IS NOT A LARGE NUMBER, infinity is ALL THERE IS, it is NOT a number. You could keep counting (or measuring) for ever, and never reach infinity, it is only a description. Infinity describes a thing as having no end, no limit, no boundary or edge, it literally goes on FOREVER, ad infinitum.
Because infinity is not a number, large numbers are no 'nearer' to infinity than small numbers. Number 1 billion for example is no nearer to infinity than number 1, because the two, numbers and infinity, are in no way related. It is then impossible to approach infinity, a thing is either infinite and immeasurable, or finite and measurable, it cannot be part way towards infinity. Imagine running up a 'down' escalator, never moving forward. If you run for a week you are no nearer reaching the end of the escalator than if you run for a minute, you cannot get any closer to something that has no end.
An infinite universe for example would exist in every direction forever, there could be nothing else, ONLY the universe. It is then very easy to understand why our universe cannot be infinite, it is because it is expanding. It cannot be both infinite and expanding. It could be infinite OR expanding, but CANNOT possibly be both, that is a contradiction in terms, and we do know it is expanding. For an explanation of the Big Bang and why we know the universe is expanding. See The Big Bang Theory
I understand that many people have a problem with the idea of our universe being finite, that it has an 'end' to it, a boundary. They ask what this boundary would be physically like, as though it were some form of partition that we couldn't get through. However, there is not a particular direction that we could set off in our warp speed space craft that would lead us to a boundary, no matter how far or fast we travelled. The explanation for this seeming impossibility is that space-time is curved, thus you would be travelling in a circle that only appears to be a straight line. If it were possible to direct a laser beam from here through the centre of the universe it would not hit the other side of the universe, it would eventually hit the back of your head (metaphorically speaking). Einstein demonstrated how matter in the universe distorts the space-time continuum by accurately predicting how much our Sun distorted local space. He used a total eclipse of the Sun (as the only time that stars and the Sun can be seen at the same time in close proximity) to demonstrate that a star that was behind the Sun, and therefore not visible from our line of sight, would in fact be visible (in the darkness of totality) because the Sun warps the space-time around it and thus curves the light beam around the Sun, enabling us to see the star. Strictly speaking, the Sun does not actually curve the light around itself, the entire space-time continuum is curved, the light is still travelling in a 'straight' line.
Galaxies naturally create even larger distortions, and the total mass of the universe gives a distortion that results in our 'straight' line of light curving forever through the universe and never reaching the 'end'. That's why Hawking's describes it as 'finite but unbounded'. As an aid to visualization, but not an accurate representation, consider an ant crawling around a huge beach ball and never coming to the end, it would consider the beach ball as infinite as it has no boundaries. If you now consider the ant as only a two dimensional creature and crawling round a three dimensional beach ball, you could understand why the ant would consider the beach ball to be infinite, the three dimensional picture, that shows how restricted its movement really is, is simply not available to it. Thus with the universe, from our perspective, restricted to our view from within the universe, it appears to be infinite, but this is just an illusion, we are confined to the limits of our universe and cannot escape from it. We are bounded within a finite universe.
The next question that people naturally follow up with is to ask what it is that our finite universe is expanding into. This is a good question and one that can never be answered, we will never be able to escape the confines of our universe to find out. We can only theorise about this, and there are plenty of theories to choose from. I tend to think that we are expanding into an infinite nothing, but for a fuller description check out my page Where did the universe come from? but the truth will never be known. Your guess is as good as mine, probably ;-)
So what is there within our universe that we can truly apply the term infinity to? The universe itself is finite. Infinite mass, in black holes for example, would only appear to be a mathematical description. The age of the universe is finite, and even the number of particles in it is finite.
vation.

 

[Hespera]

For someone who *****studied******** for "30 years" he "sure" aint leanred very *************************MUCH*************************

this is from them "ignorant hillbillies' at "NASA"

Is the Universe Infinite?

The shape of the universe is determined by a struggle between the momentum of expansion and the pull of gravity. The rate of expansion is expressed by the Hubble Constant, Ho, while the strength of gravity depends on the density and pressure of the matter in the universe. If the pressure of the matter is low, as is the case with most forms of matter we know of, then the fate of the universe is governed by the density. If the density of the universe is less than the "critical density" which is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant, then the universe will expand forever. If the density of the universe is greater than the "critical density", then gravity will eventually win and the universe will collapse back on itself, the so called "Big Crunch". However, the results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as the "dark energy". If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever.
Geometry of the Universe

The density of the universe also determines its geometry. If the density of the universe exceeds the critical density, then the geometry of space is closed and positively curved like the surface of a sphere. This implies that initially parallel photon paths converge slowly, eventually cross, and return back to their starting point (if the universe lasts long enough). If the density of the universe is less than the critical density, then the geometry of space is open, negatively curved like the surface of a saddle. If the density of the universe exactly equals the critical density, then the geometry of the universe is flat like a sheet of paper. Thus, there is a direct link between the geometry of the universe and its fate.
The simplest version of the inflationary theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, predicts that the density of the universe is very close to the critical density, and that the geometry of the universe is flat, like a sheet of paper. That is the result confirmed by the WMAP science.
Measurements from WMAP

The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were open, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about half a degree across. If the universe were flat, the spots would be about 1 degree across. While if the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be about 1.5 degrees across.
Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.

 

[Hespera]

For someone who *****studied******** for "30 years" he "sure" aint leanred very *************************MUCH*************************

this is from them "ignorant hillbillies' at "NASA"

Is the Universe Infinite?

The shape of the universe is determined by a struggle between the momentum of expansion and the pull of gravity. The rate of expansion is expressed by the Hubble Constant, Ho, while the strength of gravity depends on the density and pressure of the matter in the universe. If the pressure of the matter is low, as is the case with most forms of matter we know of, then the fate of the universe is governed by the density. If the density of the universe is less than the "critical density" which is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant, then the universe will expand forever. If the density of the universe is greater than the "critical density", then gravity will eventually win and the universe will collapse back on itself, the so called "Big Crunch". However, the results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as the "dark energy". If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever.
Geometry of the Universe

The density of the universe also determines its geometry. If the density of the universe exceeds the critical density, then the geometry of space is closed and positively curved like the surface of a sphere. This implies that initially parallel photon paths converge slowly, eventually cross, and return back to their starting point (if the universe lasts long enough). If the density of the universe is less than the critical density, then the geometry of space is open, negatively curved like the surface of a saddle. If the density of the universe exactly equals the critical density, then the geometry of the universe is flat like a sheet of paper. Thus, there is a direct link between the geometry of the universe and its fate.
The simplest version of the inflationary theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, predicts that the density of the universe is very close to the critical density, and that the geometry of the universe is flat, like a sheet of paper. That is the result confirmed by the WMAP science.
Measurements from WMAP

The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were open, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about half a degree across. If the universe were flat, the spots would be about 1 degree across. While if the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be about 1.5 degrees across.
Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.

 

[Michael]

Still doing the weird punctuation as if it does anything but make you look anything but unschooled.

Likewise you continued reliance upon personal insults and personal attacks only makes you look desperate and uneducated IMO.

As someone said.....

No offense but the insistence of continuously referring to dark energy as "evil dark energy" in my mind screams "crackpot".
QUOTE////////////

Someone was also careful to point out it was the "behavior" he was complaining about and not me personally. I actually tend agree with him on that point.

You think you can poke holes in astrophysics? What is easy is to poke holes in your ideas.

You seem to have missed the point completely. My point is that *all* cosmology "creation events" and beliefs are easy to poke holes in. No large scale cosmology theory is immune.

Your idea that "If there was a valid scientific basis for their beliefs, *someone* would have provided that evidence over the last say 7 years or so." makes no sense. Nothing unusual in it taking a long time to come up with evidence for a theory. Whats the curoff point? At 18 months the theory is reasonable but after 23 it isnt? At 24 we conclude that the theory is proved wrong?

How many years shall I talk with astronomers and how many astronomers do I have to speak with before accepting the fact that none of them (or you) can physically demonstrate their case? 2 lifetimes?

So you want to keep insisting on an infinite universe?

No, I just pointed out that it "could be' infinite, not that it was infinite.

I cannot imagine anything 'real' that we could apply an infinite number to. The only thing I can imagine that could be really infinite is nothing, the 'nothing' I described earlier in Where did the universe come from? and we have no idea if that exists.

So this whole thing is one big argument from ignorance? He can't "imagine" an infinite universe (even though he can apply math to it), so therefore it can't be infinite? How is that even a scientific argument?

 

[Michael]

this is from them "ignorant hillbillies' at "NASA"

Ah, now there is a really "fair" debate tactic eh? Did I call NASA ignorant?

Is the Universe Infinite?

The shape of the universe is determined by a struggle between the momentum of expansion and the pull of gravity. The rate of expansion is expressed by the Hubble Constant, Ho, while the strength of gravity depends on the density and pressure of the matter in the universe. If the pressure of the matter is low, as is the case with most forms of matter we know of, then the fate of the universe is governed by the density. If the density of the universe is less than the "critical density" which is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant, then the universe will expand forever.

Since it is expanding faster today than ever before, how do you know it's in not "forever" expanding?

If the density of the universe is greater than the "critical density", then gravity will eventually win and the universe will collapse back on itself, the so called "Big Crunch".

Ooops, no big crunch can happen if the universe continues to accelerate, now can it?

However, the results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as the "dark energy". If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever.

How would that not lead to an infinite, eternal expansion again?

The simplest version of the inflationary theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, predicts that the density of the universe is very close to the critical density,

But it's not equal to or less than the critical density because it is accelerating.

The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were open, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about half a degree across. If the universe were flat, the spots would be about 1 degree across. While if the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be about 1.5 degrees across.
Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.

A "flat" universe isn't limited to being "finite", and our universe continues to accelerate, so that argument is utterly moot. That same geometric data blew inflation theory away.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf

It turns out that inflation theory has "holes" in it, not to mention "dark flows" that defy the whole notion of a homogeneous layout of matter as predicted by inflation theory. Now of course nothing but an empirical test of inflation could verify it actually exists, and that was never done, so how exactly do you suggest we falsify inflation theory if not with those gaping holes and giant flows that inflation failed to predict?

 

[Hespera]

Did you say this? its a cut and paste quote from you.

Michael....
"A Big Bang theory in a generic sense may indeed have a tiny bit of "reason" behind it, but only if you *ASSUME* that the universe is not eternal and infinite."


Michael...
"No, I just pointed out that it "could be' infinite, not that it was infinite."


Not the same are they? The above is not at all what you "just pointed out"

In any case it could not be infinite.
And its not astonomers making an assumption as you said.

if you were not satisfied that you have made enough arguments form ignorance. here is some more on infinite universe.

WMAP- Shape of the Universe

or you can go find your own.



oh........ and, "desperate"? hee hee. spare me.

 

[Michael]

Did you say this? its a cut and paste quote from you.

Michael....
"A Big Bang theory in a generic sense may indeed have a tiny bit of "reason" behind it, but only if you *ASSUME* that the universe is not eternal and infinite."
Michael...
"No, I just pointed out that it "could be' infinite, not that it was infinite."

Not the same are they? The above is not at all what you "just pointed out"

How *exactly* in your mind are these incongruent statements? Did I make any claims as to the finite or infinite nature of the universe in either sentence?

In any case it could not be infinite.

Of course it can be infinite because it's thought to be accelerating, not slowing down and not even remaining at a constant speed. We don't even know what "caused' the event and there are many "multiverse' theories floating around.

oh........ and, "desperate"? hee hee. spare me.

So far you've failed to present a single specific scientific argument to support your point, you've tossed links at me that don't actually support your point in the final analysis. I've never made any claims about the infinite or finite nature of the universe yet you continue to hurl personal insults my way and act like I've made specific claims anyway. What should that behavior tell me about you exactly?

 

[DeathMagus]

to PUNISH THE COWS OF EARTH?

Best. Cheeseburger. Chain. Motto. Ever.

 

[Michael]

It is then very easy to understand why our universe cannot be infinite, it is because it is expanding. It cannot be both infinite and expanding. It could be infinite OR expanding, but CANNOT possibly be both, that is a contradiction in terms, and we do know it is expanding. For an explanation of the Big Bang and why we know the universe is expanding.

Hoy Vey. The universe can be "infinitely expanding" and be in constant motion. An infinite universe need not be stationary. This is a really *terrible* argument and it's based on cheesy, unsupported statements. An infinite universe does not have to be "stationary" to be infinite. That's another of those imaginings that the author cant seem to wrap his head around.

 

[plindboe]

Um, here is what you said and what I was responding to:

Exactly, and again you ignore the words "taught as dogma in school". Notice that I didn't ask you for more of your authorative claims about science, but to provide evidence (for "taught as dogma in school") or admit your error.

There was nothing "evasive" about my answer. If you have evidence that these things actually exist in nature, let's see it. If not, you simply buy the dogma that's been handed you without empirical justification. That's faith, not science.

It's a curious thing to require evidence from me for a claim I haven't made. And, btw, who said I buy any of it? That's another assumption you've made about me.

Whereas your personal attacks on individuals is somehow "better"? The only "manipulation" going on in this conversation is your diversion of the topic from the actual issues (DM, DE, inflation) toward the individual. That's the only manipulative tactic going on here.

It's meant as advice, but I understand why you see it as attacks. I hope you'll think about it though.

Btw, I'm not using any manipulative diversion tactics, I've politely, but clearly expressed that I don't have enough interest or knowledge about these things to discuss them. Why you can't accept that, is a puzzle.

I'm considering asking you what's best, Pepsi Max or Coca-Cola Light. When you say you don't have any interest discussing it, I'll simply keep asking. Do you not see a problem with such behaviour?

So why wouldn't that apply to the topic of God too? Why aren't you up in arms about them teaching a metaphysical forms of "creation science" in the classroom?

More assumptions. If there's a scientific consensus I say it should be taught in science class, but never as dogma. This accounts to all ideas, whether we're talking dark matter, God, gravity, evolution or fairies.

Got a single gram of "dark matter"?

Having a gram of something is the scientific criteria for determining truth?

That said, in post 72 you stated "While the lensing data does suggest that we *grossly* underestimate the mass inside galaxies, that is not surprising considering the limits of our current technologies". According to the definition I gave earlier, and that you didn't state any disagreement with, you thereby stated that data suggests that dark matter exists.

Peter

 

[uke2se]

Michael, would you say that your argument in any way supports a different state past?

 

[Michael]

Exactly, and again you ignore the words "taught as dogma in school". Notice that I didn't ask you for more of your authorative claims about science, but to provide evidence (for "taught as dogma in school") or admit your error.

Well, it's definitely taught in school, so evidently you're irked about the term "dogma". I've explained to you several times that there is no physical empirical evidence that inflation or DE or SUSY particles exist, so it's impossible for it to be anything other than "dogma" that one must accept on faith.

It's a curious thing to require evidence from me for a claim I haven't made. And, btw, who said I buy any of it? That's another assumption you've made about me.

Okey Dokey

It's meant as advice, but I understand why you see it as attacks. I hope you'll think about it though.

Btw, I'm not using any manipulative diversion tactics, I've politely, but clearly expressed that I don't have enough interest or knowledge about these things to discuss them. Why you can't accept that, is a puzzle.

I accept it.

More assumptions. If there's a scientific consensus I say it should be taught in science class, but never as dogma. This accounts to all ideas, whether we're talking dark matter, God, gravity, evolution or fairies.

What else would you call it if not dogma? Inflation and DE are certainly not supported by empirical physics. They certainly "made up" these things in a purely ad hoc manner. These things are only necessary to save an otherwise failed cosmology theory from utter ruin. No other field of science or study of science requires or needs them in any way.

Having a gram of something is the scientific criteria for determining truth?

If I asked you for a gram of ordinary matter, or some physical evidence that it exists, would you have a problem providing it? Why should I put faith in something that fails to show up in a lab 100% of the time?

That said, in post 72 you stated "While the lensing data does suggest that we *grossly* underestimate the mass inside galaxies, that is not surprising considering the limits of our current technologies". According to the definition I gave earlier, and that you didn't state any disagreement with, you thereby stated that data suggests that dark matter exists.

Peter

No, I simply accept that our galaxy estimates are way off and that we grossly underestimate the mass of galaxies. Period.

I've also been clear that some forms of "missing mass" theories (like MACHO or neutrino forms) are not "unacceptable" to me because they are known to exist and we can't "see" them from here, so there is no "extraordinary" claim being made when using these things to 'explain' matter we can't easily locate in satellite images. If however you intent to use hypothetical SUSY particles to fill in the gaps of your mass estimation theories, I will expect to see evidence that SUSY particles actually exist in nature and have the "properties' you assign to them. I'm not asking for anything unusual here.

There are at least three different forms of metaphysical entities being stuffed into Lambda-CMD theory that defy physical empirical support in controlled experimentation. Is that my fault somehow?

 

[Michael]

Michael, would you say that your argument in any way supports a different state past?

No. My argument is that all "creation theories" tend to be based on a "different state past", be it via "inflation" or some other "different state past".