Is eeryone happy with the Big Bang? I'm not.

[phlogistician]

Astronomy is all math? You wish.

Dude, I used to work with a bunch of Astronomers, and believe me, they were pretty good mathematicians. Astronomy relies on data analysis, so a sound grasp of maths and statistical methods is required. These guys often wrote their own code to analyse data, or wrote modules for software like Ftools, or IDL.

But Astronomy is a Science - Math isn't.

Astronomy is mostly maths, you just have to accept this. Even if you just gaze at solar system objects, there comes a point where you will count the craters on the Moon notice small craters overlapping on big ones, and then wonder, ... 'Are big craters covering up smaller, older craters, and have there been more impacts than we can see, and by how much?' Then you'll want to do some statistics,...

Like Tesla said, Mathematicians replace Science with stuff you need a Phd in Math to figure out.

You can't do science without maths. Experimenting and fiddling about with electricity is fun, but it needs quantising at some point, we can't merely indulge in qualitative measures.

I agree with Newton - Gravity is Universal. It's gravity that runs the Cosmos - not anti Gravity.

Do you also wear a wig? Newton was clever, sure, but he wasn't perfect. He didn't understand gravity perfectly, nobody does.

 

[Boris2]

What do you mean by "we can only know our volume?" I don't understand...

hubble volume or obsevable universe.

 

[astrocat]

Baloney. You are making bald assertions that very much contradict what we see.

Moderator action:
Thread moved to pseudoscience.

I always knew you wouldn't like this at Sciforus.com, and nothing I have said contradicts what we see when we look up at the night sky.

If you want to move this to Psuedo-science, I don't mind - anything's better than the cesspool - right?

My conclusions are all based on Scientific evidence. I realise also that this thinking is totally new to you - but that doesn't make it faulty. Why don't you just let me go on fielding these questions - I think people are more 'intrigued' than 'upset' by this thread.

Actually, I've said it all - if you read my answers. You already know I believe we're falling into a Black Hole at the center of the Universe.

It's also my belief that everything with mass must have a center of mass. I learned that in Physics class, way back.

 

[astrocat]

pseudoscience??
i would think it was regular science..(just cause he doesn't want to acknowledge the real science doesn't necessarily make it pseudo..:shrug

Thanks for the vote of support, Squirrel. I believe you're right. But I have to take what I'm given.

 

[astrocat]

The cesspool is where this thread belongs.

I think at least you should provide some reason for your viewpoint. Otherwise that's a pretty bald statement.

 

[astrocat]

Dude, I used to work with a bunch of Astronomers, and believe me, they were pretty good mathematicians. Astronomy relies on data analysis, so a sound grasp of maths and statistical methods is required. These guys often wrote their own code to analyse data, or wrote modules for software like Ftools, or IDL.



Astronomy is mostly maths, you just have to accept this. Even if you just gaze at solar system objects, there comes a point where you will count the craters on the Moon notice small craters overlapping on big ones, and then wonder, ... 'Are big craters covering up smaller, older craters, and have there been more impacts than we can see, and by how much?' Then you'll want to do some statistics,...



You can't do science without maths. Experimenting and fiddling about with electricity is fun, but it needs quantising at some point, we can't merely indulge in qualitative measures.



Do you also wear a wig? Newton was clever, sure, but he wasn't perfect. He didn't understand gravity perfectly, nobody does.

Of course some math is necessary in Science, but I like quoting Tesla, who said, "Modern scientists have subsituted Math instead of Experiment and they go wandering off in formula after formula until they have something with no relation to reality."

Fire, the greatest of discoveries, was discovered without Math. Math is handy, but not neccessarily essential. And no, I don't wear a wig, but Newton is generally considered to be the father of modern Physics. I don't think I'm wrong in that.

 

[astrocat]

hubble volume or obsevable universe.

Oh, thanks Boris. Yes, I agree with you. Yes, we can only know 'for sure' the Observable Universe. And maybe it is a special part, or maybe there are other parts of the universe that are more special. These things we can't know for sure.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Why don't you just let me go on fielding these questions - I think people are more 'intrigued' than 'upset' by this thread.

Do you have a working model of any gravitational phenomenon? If not then why should anyone think your claims about the real world are worth listening to?

And to answer your question a few pages ago, yes I am a mathematician and you'll find every single competent astrophysicist is half decent at maths too.

 

[astrocat]

Do you have a working model of any gravitational phenomenon? If not then why should anyone think your claims about the real world are worth listening to?

And to answer your question a few pages ago, yes I am a mathematician and you'll find every single competent astrophysicist is half decent at maths too.

How did i know you were a mathematician? Of course I can provide working models of a Gravity operated Universe.

It's important to look at the behaviour of the Cosmos as a complete package, rather than as individual phenomena - for example, the Expansion, alone.

Let's look at the Expansion of the Observable Universe as being part of a much bigger picture. We know, for example, that the expansion started Slowly and has since Sped Up. Can we at least agree on that, Alphanumeric?

 

[AlexG]

We know, for example, that the expansion started Slowly and has since Sped Up.

No it didn't. Have you ever heard of Inflation Theory?

 

[phlogistician]

Of course some math is necessary in Science, but I like quoting Tesla, who said, "Modern scientists have subsituted Math instead of Experiment and they go wandering off in formula after formula until they have something with no relation to reality."

Like I said, experimentation has value, but at some point you need to start modelling and measuring. That is science.

Fire, the greatest of discoveries, was discovered without Math.

So what?

Math is handy, but not neccessarily essential.

If you were a scientist, you' know how wrong you are.

And no, I don't wear a wig, but Newton is generally considered to be the father of modern Physics. I don't think I'm wrong in that.

And what is the name of his most famous publication? FFS, you are dim.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

How did i know you were a mathematician?

Because I give a shit about people justifying their claims and I actually know the place of mathematics within physics, unlike yourself?

Of course I can provide working models of a Gravity operated Universe.

Lets see it then.

It's important to look at the behaviour of the Cosmos as a complete package, rather than as individual phenomena - for example, the Expansion, alone.

You make it sound like you think physicists only look at one bit at a time. I suggest you find out what physicists actually know and do before claiming things about their approaches to material you haven't bothered to find out about. Your comments about mathematics suggest you have no problem simply inventing your own view of things.

Let's look at the Expansion of the Observable Universe as being part of a much bigger picture. We know, for example, that the expansion started Slowly and has since Sped Up. Can we at least agree on that, Alphanumeric?

As said, haven't you heard of inflation?

 

[astrocat]

No it didn't. Have you ever heard of Inflation Theory?

It's way too complicated. Science likes the simpler answers. If the Expansion is Speeding Up, that's because it always was. I don't care for any other explanation.

The Universe started as a great big cloud of Hydrogen. We know what a huge cloud of hydrogen can do - Sol is a good example, no?

 

[astrocat]

Like I said, experimentation has value, but at some point you need to start modelling and measuring. That is science.



So what?



If you were a scientist, you' know how wrong you are.



And what is the name of his most famous publication? FFS, you are dim.

I already said i agree some math is helpful in Science, but you should be aware that some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made without it. The name of Newton's publication, in case you don't know, was In Priginal I believe. Newton taught us Gravity was Universal.
I think he was smarter than you. What's FFS? Please explain.

The Universe started as a collection of Hydrogen atoms that attracted other Hydrogen atoms (by Gravity) until a Huge Hydrogen cloud had assembled into a Warm, Smooth, Soupy early universe.

Everything w. mass must have a center of mass (Physics 101) and at the center of this cloud, where Temperatures and Pressures were greatest,
evolution occurred fastest. Soon, at the center, Black Holes formed.

Eating the Universe out, from the center, the Cosmos began to fall into the Center, Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure, the evolutionary process started. There was also a good deal of Clumping Up, as we fell.

We are still falling. At present our local Group of Galaxies is falling towards Hydra Centauri, but in such a way that we can never reach it, because Hydra Centauri itself is being dragged off towards The Great Attractor. This was discovered by a group of scientists who called themselves the 'Seven Samurai' in the 1980s. I have heard that 'Alumni' of these Seven Samurai say that the Great Attractor itself is falling into an even more masive structure they called the Shapely Convention.

What they described, these Seven Samurai, was an Observable Universe made up almost entirely of these Ever lengthening, speeding up Streams.

The only place you can find these ever lengthening speeding up streams is in a Vortex, and that's what the Universe is.

Shaped much like the Milky Way Galaxy, or the Whirlpool Galaxy, complete w. a Black Hole at the center.

Now, you may not like this, but that's actually what's happening.

 

[astrocat]

Because I give a shit about people justifying their claims and I actually know the place of mathematics within physics, unlike yourself?

Lets see it then.

You make it sound like you think physicists only look at one bit at a time. I suggest you find out what physicists actually know and do before claiming things about their approaches to material you haven't bothered to find out about. Your comments about mathematics suggest you have no problem simply inventing your own view of things.

As said, haven't you heard of inflation?

You use strong language to defend your position - of course some math is necessary in Physics, but I don't believe Physics is about Math.

For a model of the Universe, I like the Vacuum Cleaner (VC). Systems going into a VC tend to Speed Up, Cool Down, Expand as they Lose Pressure. It's really Inward expansion, towards a central point. Inward expansions all start Slowly and Speed Up, just as all Outward Expansions start Fast and Slow Down (Your basic explosion, or Big Bang).

In addition, at the nozzle of the VC is a vortex, and here particles of dust become electronically charged, and stick together. At the nozzle there are no more particles, it's all clumps.

I wonder how you guys have Clumping Up, with everything in your Cosmos flying away from everything else. Anyway there's my model.

How common is this Inward Expansion, and how far do you have to go to find it? Every time you breathe in, you mimic a Vacuum Cleaner, and there's your Inward expansion right there at the end of your nose.

 

[AlexG]

It's way too complicated. Science likes the simpler answers. If the Expansion is Speeding Up, that's because it always was. I don't care for any other explanation.

The Universe started as a great big cloud of Hydrogen. We know what a huge cloud of hydrogen can do - Sol is a good example, no?

Yes, it's far too complicated for you to understand, so just dismiss it.

If you don't care for any other explanation, then obviously any other explanation must be wrong.

This is why I think your thread belongs in the cesspool.

 

[phlogistician]

I already said i agree some math is helpful in Science, but you should be aware that some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made without it.

If you were a scientist you'd understand the necessity of Maths. You don't, because you aren't.

The name of Newton's publication, in case you don't know, was In Priginal I believe.

Do you? Do you really

Because noob, I think it was 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.'

Note the final word.

The Universe started as a collection of Hydrogen atoms that attracted other Hydrogen atoms (by Gravity) until a Huge Hydrogen cloud had assembled into a Warm, Smooth, Soupy early universe.

No it didn't.

Everything w. mass must have a center of mass (Physics 101) and at the center of this cloud, where Temperatures and Pressures were greatest,
evolution occurred fastest. Soon, at the center, Black Holes formed.

Oh dear.

Now, you may not like this, but that's actually what's happening.

Saw it with your third eye, did you?

 

[phlogistician]

but I don't believe Physics is about Math.

You don't believe ?

Your opinion does not alter reality.

If you were a scientist, you'd know how wrong you are.

 

[Stryder]

The Universe started as a collection of Hydrogen atoms that attracted other Hydrogen atoms (by Gravity) until a Huge Hydrogen cloud had assembled into a Warm, Smooth, Soupy early universe.

To my knowledge cosmology has moved on from Georges Lemaître's, "hypothesis of the primeval atom". Mainly in the sense that the universe wasn't born of atoms, but of pure energy. The energy would obviously intensify and eventually generate mass, which then would cause pockets to assemble from attraction and cause cooling elsewhere. This stage is where the implied nature of elements is then defined.

Personally, I go with an emulation theory where volumes of space duplicate the exact same energy pattern as dimensional parameters are defined, after a set duration of time and when the parameters have been completed, a "Conway's game of Life" algorithm (Rather than just a plain symmetry algorithm) is then executed to generate a fractal evolution. Obviously there would always be an "observation" platform used for "readjustment" should the evolved fractal become "Historically Inaccurate".

 

[AlphaNumeric]

For a model of the Universe, I like the Vacuum Cleaner (VC). Systems going into a VC tend to Speed Up, Cool Down, Expand as they Lose Pressure. It's really Inward expansion, towards a central point. Inward expansions all start Slowly and Speed Up, just as all Outward Expansions start Fast and Slow Down (Your basic explosion, or Big Bang).

That isn't a model since you can't model anything using what you just said. You clearly have no clue as to what a 'model' in physics actually involves, demonstrating your comments about what physics does or doesn't involve you are basing on ignorance.

Do you really think that knowing nothing about physics and maths is a good way to go about telling people what physics and maths involves?