Shape of the universe discussion thread

[prometheus]

Time only goes forward, direction of time is not the issue in the paradoxes. What is "an infinite time direction"?

I was using a bit of short hand for a time direction that is infinite in extent.

You say I don't get it, that it is not about infinite time direction which I would have never thought it was, and then you point out to me that it deals with an infinite amount of time. I will give you credit for understanding the paradoxes of Zeno's day but you should be able to see that they apply to the issue I have with your thinking.

That paradox doesn't apply to this, other than the fact that in zeno's day they thought it was a big problem but it was eventually sorted out. As far as I'm concerned there is a big problem with your thinking that may or may not be sorted out eventually.

I do, but that simply means that you believe that I am saying that there can be an infinite amount of time between two events and I am saying that in a universe that has always existed there has never been a time when events were not occurring.

That implies to me that I can always pick two events such that there is an infinite period of time between them. I can't see how there is a contradictory conclusion.

Let me ask you the same question, can you see the difference. An event occurs at a point in time and there is always a finite length of time between two events. If you take now as a time event, and pick any time event in the past that is on the continuum of all time events, there is a finite length of time between them.

Yes that's true (in fact it's a tautology because you've assumed the result you wanted to get out).

What I am trying to get you to understand is the difference between a time continuum that starts with a beginning event, say the Big Bang, and a time continuum that has no beginning, say in a universe where Big Bangs are common events across the infinite landscape of a greater universe that had no beginning. Let "now" be an event on both continuum and so there is a finite length of time between now and the point in time that marks the beginning on your continuum. There are no events prior to your beginning point on your continuum. There is a point in time on my continuum that corresponds to the beginning point on your continuum, however there are prior events on my continuum and in fact if there was no beginning, you cannot go back to a point in time the marks the beginning on mine and so my continuum is infinite and yours is finite.

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that, on an infinite time direction it is always possible to define a pair of events that are separated by an infinite period of time. It's patently absurd to argue any different. What you are trying to do is say the universe had no beginning and events are always separated by finite time. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Your entire "cosmology" is basically a set of tautologies and non sequiturs. You assume some things with no explanation and say some things that don't follow from them. Can you not see this?

That is an unsettled issue in cosmology. If the issue was as simple as you make it out to be, it would be settled.

What's unsettled? The age of the universe? That's pretty well agreed upon by anyone whose opinion I value.

You must get this monkey off your back. You brag about how your are tested and respected in your community. Bring people in your community to me that support your view.

Why can't you just argue logically why I am wrong? Wouldn't that be a far better way to discredit me?

 

[quantum_wave]

...
That implies to me that I can always pick two events such that there is an infinite period of time between them. I can't see how there is a contradictory conclusion.

You say that, and I say you can't. Go ahead and pick two events that are have an infinite period of time between them.

...
What I'm trying to get you to understand is that, on an infinite time direction it is always possible to define a pair of events that are separated by an infinite period of time. It's patently absurd to argue any different. What you are trying to do is say the universe had no beginning and events are always separated by finite time. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Yes it does, but I will wait to see how you do it. Time is passing .

Your entire "cosmology" is basically a set of tautologies and non sequiturs. You assume some things with no explanation and say some things that don't follow from them. Can you not see this?

You are pointing out that you think I assume some things and give no explanation. And you point out that you think that I say some things that don't fit with other things I say. And you ask if I see that.

Here's my view. I know cosmology well enough to know what the issues and problems are and I assume people who are interested also know cosmology well enough to see that my speculations address the important issues and problems.

The things you think I assume are identified by me as speculations. Not only that but I ask people to discuss those speculations with me and show me what they think and what their speculations would be.

I claim to have a method to my speculation and that includes that each new speculation follows the previous speculation. You have to follow my speculations step by step and address the first step that you think is out of line. We may quickly come to a point where we don't and can't agree as you and I have on the possibility that the universe has always existed.

What's unsettled? The age of the universe? That's pretty well agreed upon by anyone whose opinion I value.

Fine.

Why can't you just argue logically why I am wrong? Wouldn't that be a far better way to discredit me?

Normally it would be but consider my treatment of your ignorance as mild compared to what you have said about me and how you have successfully whined to moderation to get your ignorance imposed on me being able to talk about my ideas in the Cosmology forum. I love cosmology and know it well enough to discuss it on the appropriate forum. Also, if I could discuss it in the Cosmology forum the discussion would be more civil which I would welcome. Here I Pseudoscience there is so much vitriol that personal feelings soon enter the discussion and no real cosmology gets discussed. You have had you wishes imposed on me. Why come to me and complain about my method of discrediting you. Like I would care.

 

[prometheus]

You say that, and I say you can't. Go ahead and pick two events that are have an infinite period of time between them.

I think after much avoidance of the question you agreed that on a line of length x the maximum separation of two points is x right? If you have a universe that has always existed, in other words a time direction of infinite extent it follows that the maximum separation of two points on that time direction is infinity. What is so special about your time that it doesn't follow this kind of logic?

Normally it would be but consider my treatment of your ignorance as mild compared to what you have said about me and how you have successfully whined to moderation to get your ignorance imposed on me being able to talk about my ideas in the Cosmology forum. I love cosmology and know it well enough to discuss it on the appropriate forum. Also, if I could discuss it in the Cosmology forum the discussion would be more civil which I would welcome. Here I Pseudoscience there is so much vitriol that personal feelings soon enter the discussion and no real cosmology gets discussed. You have had you wishes imposed on me. Why come to me and complain about my method of discrediting you. Like I would care.

You know about cosmology? Why don't you discuss it then? Seriously, I know a fair bit about cosmology that I have learned over the course of my degree and from various conferences and seminars etc. For example, a classic cosmology question is why the elements are in their relative abundances (roughly 75% H, 25% He, a smattering of Li). When I first saw the explanation of that it took 2 or 3 hour lectures to show using GR and some other stuff.

Real cosmology is hard, just like physics and science in general. Crackpots want the kudos of "doing science" without putting the work in to actually do it properly. You claim to have done hours of research and reading - ask yourself can you really do proper cosmology like spending many hours working out things that are as seemingly minor as element abundances. The vitriol that you get from myself and AN is not personal - it's the dislike of your method because, in real science terms is basically worthless. If it fills the days for you then fine, but don't pass it off as something that has more value in real terms than it actually does.

For the last bit the point that you seem to have missed was that you aren't discrediting me.

 

[quantum_wave]

I think after much avoidance of the question you agreed that on a line of length x the maximum separation of two points is x right? If you have a universe that has always existed, in other words a time direction of infinite extent it follows that the maximum separation of two points on that time direction is infinity. What is so special about your time that it doesn't follow this kind of logic?

You are just unable to comprehend infinity then. You are making your ignorance painfully obvious. You would be better off to stop trying to convince those people who you know are watching.

You know about cosmology? Why don't you discuss it then? Seriously, I know a fair bit about cosmology that I have learned over the course of my degree and from various conferences and seminars etc. For example, a classic cosmology question is why the elements are in their relative abundances (roughly 75% H, 25% He, a smattering of Li). When I first saw the explanation of that it took 2 or 3 hour lectures to show using GR and some other stuff.

Real cosmology is hard, just like physics and science in general. Crackpots want the kudos of "doing science" without putting the work in to actually do it properly. You claim to have done hours of research and reading - ask yourself can you really do proper cosmology like spending many hours working out things that are as seemingly minor as element abundances. The vitriol that you get from myself and AN is not personal - it's the dislike of your method because, in real science terms is basically worthless. If it fills the days for you then fine, but don't pass it off as something that has more value in real terms than it actually does.

For the last bit the point that you seem to have missed was that you aren't discrediting me.

Really? You are kidding yourself. Calling me the crackpot when you are the one insisting that there can be an infinite amount of time between two points in time is an example of your self-deceit. It is just foolish to carry such denial out into the public forums and try to persuade others that you are not the one who looks dumb. It makes it obvious that you are ignorant to anyone who understands the difference between something finite and infinite. You don’t get it. The wiring in your mind must be insufficient to comprehend infinity. Retardation?

As for cosmology being hard, you again are ignorant of the history and issues in cosmology. You are talking about the rigor of doing the math and making the math correspond to observations. That is rigorous but it is mathematics. The math does not make a cosmology, the math follows the cosmology. Math can be made to follow any cosmology but it doesn’t make cosmology and it cannot perfectly correspond to observations. Study Gödel on mathematical certainty (or the lack thereof).

Don’t pretend that you are on top of cosmology when you do the math of cosmology either. Do you realize that there are issues that you can’t put the math to? You probably think that renormalization in QFT is a good practice (it is made up to remove nonsensical “infinite” answers). You probably think that exponential inflation is a good aspect of your pet cosmology (it is a fix to avoid dealing with the possibility of a greater universe). You probably think it is a done deal that particles pop out of nothing (you need energy first for that to happen). You don’t know what “nothing” is (it is no energy) and you don’t know what infinity is (it requires comprehension).

Think about it and get it through your mind that you are the crackpot because you can’t deal with infinities and you know little or no cosmology.

And don't try to convince yourself that what you and AN are doing is not personal. It is very personal when you resort to the lowest character of man (deceit) to try to wash away views that you cannot comprehend.

 

[prometheus]

You are just unable to comprehend infinity then. You are making your ignorance painfully obvious. You would be better off to stop trying to convince those people who you know are watching.

Really? Do me the courtesy of explaining why my understanding is deficient.

As for cosmology being hard, you again are ignorant of the history and issues in cosmology. You are talking about the rigor of doing the math and making the math correspond to observations. That is rigorous but it is mathematics. The math does not make a cosmology, the math follows the cosmology. Math can be made to follow any cosmology but it doesn’t make cosmology and it cannot perfectly correspond to observations. Study Gödel on mathematical certainty (or the lack thereof).

Ahh, the classic, "maths not physics" argument. I love it! If you're not doing any mathematics how can you ever hope to produce a prediction that can be experimentally tested. Experiments usually produce numbers you know.

Don’t pretend that you are on top of cosmology when you do the math of cosmology either. Do you realize that there are issues that you can’t put the math to? You probably think that renormalization in QFT is a good practice (it is made up to remove nonsensical “infinite” answers). You probably think that exponential inflation is a good aspect of your pet cosmology (it is a fix to avoid dealing with the possibility of a greater universe). You probably think it is a done deal that particles pop out of nothing (you need energy first for that to happen). You don’t know what “nothing” is (it is no energy) and you don’t know what infinity is (it requires comprehension).

Quantum field theory is something I do understand, and you clearly do not. Renormalisation in QFT is not something "made up to remove nonsensical “infinite” answers." When you quantise a field you get particles. If these particles interact with other particles or themselves you get divergences because the field you had originally is the bare field - the particles you get from quantising are particles that appear on their own. In reality this is not possible because the particles would be surrounded by a cloud of virtual particles with which it can interact. Renormalisation is the way you add the effect of this dressing of the particle into the theory.

Plus, you can't argue with it because QFT's are the most accurate theories of physics ever.

Think about it and get it through your mind that you are the crackpot because you can’t deal with infinities and you know little or no cosmology.

You don't know what a crackpot is either? There isn't too much that you do know is there? I like the way how when you don't know something, instead of going to find it out from a book or webpage or something you simply make up a definition.

And don't try to convince yourself that what you and AN are doing is not personal. It is very personal when you resort to the lowest character of man (deceit) to try to wash away views that you cannot comprehend.

I've been asking you the same question for a while now and you are refusing to answer - Why can I not have events that are separated by an infinite period of time? It's a typical crackpot response to just fob the question off and roll out the insults.

On the subject of being a crackpot or not, today I worked out what $$\mu_c$$ is for $$SU(N)$$ $$\mathcal{N}=4$$ supersymmetric Yang Mills with an $$\mathcal{N}=2$$ hypermultiplet of fundamental matter on $$S^3 \times S^1$$. What physics have you done today?

 

[quantum_wave]

Really? Do me the courtesy of explaining why my understanding is deficient.




Ahh, the classic, "maths not physics" argument. I love it! If you're not doing any mathematics how can you ever hope to produce a prediction that can be experimentally tested. Experiments usually produce numbers you know.



Quantum field theory is something I do understand, and you clearly do not. Renormalisation in QFT is not something "made up to remove nonsensical “infinite” answers." When you quantise a field you get particles. If these particles interact with other particles or themselves you get divergences because the field you had originally is the bare field - the particles you get from quantising are particles that appear on their own. In reality this is not possible because the particles would be surrounded by a cloud of virtual particles with which it can interact. Renormalisation is the way you add the effect of this dressing of the particle into the theory.

Plus, you can't argue with it because QFT's are the most accurate theories of physics ever.



You don't know what a crackpot is either? There isn't too much that you do know is there? I like the way how when you don't know something, instead of going to find it out from a book or webpage or something you simply make up a definition.



I've been asking you the same question for a while now and you are refusing to answer - Why can I not have events that are separated by an infinite period of time? It's a typical crackpot response to just fob the question off and roll out the insults.

On the subject of being a crackpot or not, today I worked out what $$\mu_c$$ is for $$SU(N)$$ $$\mathcal{N}=4$$ supersymmetric Yang Mills with an $$\mathcal{N}=2$$ hypermultiplet of fundamental matter on $$S^3 \times S^1$$. What physics have you done today?

You cannot have two events separated by an infinite period of time. That is the answer! That is the answer that you cannot grasp and that alone makes you ignorant. Figure it out yourself and quit begging for me to educate you; you cannot learn it.

You constantly employ evasion and defer the issue to the phony short comings that you insist characterized who I am. The problem is that I already know who I am and you not only underestimate my intelligence but you try to inflate your intelligence on the web. But wait, you are making it clear you are ignorant with every post.

And you are also ignorant in your faith in QFT, QED, QCD, and the Standard Model. You must be aware of the search for a deeper theory, right? What you did today added nothing to figuring it out. There may be, probably are things going on in nature that take place at infinitesimal levels that we cannot observe and to say they will correspond to QFT which is far from complete is also ignorant.

Sorry, you are a loser. Your vitriolic references to me, someone who only has your greater understanding at heart, make it completely uninteresting for me to continue to show you to be a fool so don't ask me again.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-2213-evasion-and-error.aspx

 

[prometheus]

You cannot have two events separated by an infinite period of time. That is the answer! That is the answer that you cannot grasp and that alone makes you ignorant. Figure it out yourself and quit begging for me to educate you; you cannot learn it.

Quantum wave proclaims it so it's true. Never mind logic and deductive reasoning. The fact that quantum wave believes something should be proof enough to the rest of humanity of the intrinsic value of it.

Don't be so egotistical. If you can't explain the why then I will be forced to conclude that you can't and you have no other justification for your view other than "you like it the best," which is hardly a scientific attitude.

You constantly employ evasion and defer the issue to the phony short comings that you insist characterized who I am. The problem is that I already know who I am and you not only underestimate my intelligence but you try to inflate your intelligence on the web. But wait, you are making it clear you are ignorant with every post.

If by asking questions you think I am deferring the issue, then fine. Most people would simply call that curiosity.

And you are also ignorant in your faith in QFT, QED, QCD, and the Standard Model. You must be aware of the search for a deeper theory, right? What you did today added nothing to figuring it out. There may be, probably are things going on in nature that take place at infinitesimal levels that we cannot observe and to say they will correspond to QFT which is far from complete is also ignorant.

The QFT's that we know of that describe nature at the moment ignore gravity. There are lot's of regimes like most of the time here on earth where this is a perfectly valid approximation scheme. Just look at the predictive power of the standard model.

Any new and deeper theory must reduce to the standard model (and also general relativity) when you make the appropriate approximations simply because the SM and GR work really well in their realms of validity. The only theory that I know of right now that does this is string theory.

As for your "there may be other things going on" comment, if we can't observe it then it has no role in our interaction with the universe, therefore it might as well not happen. You can say that miniature unicorns are responsible for a fifth force between protons and neutrons that is exactly canceled by an opposite force caused by fairies. It wouldn't matter because it has no observational consequences so the question of the existence of these forces is not physics, it's philosophy, and rather pointless philosophy at that.

Sorry, you are a loser. Your vitriolic references to me, someone who only has your greater understanding at heart, make it completely uninteresting for me to continue to show you to be a fool so don't ask me again.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-2213-evasion-and-error.aspx

Yep I'm a loser. I'm a loser that will have a PhD in a little while and already has published work and will certainly publish more before I'm done. People have already taken my work and used it to enhance their own understanding. What have you done? Written reams and reams of crap on internet forums and google docs that is so vacuous that even you yourself must be able to to see that there is no value in it whatsoever. Please please don't kid yourself that what you are doing is figuring out a deeper theory. When you've completed the monumental waste of time that is quantum wave cosmology the world will not understand one jot more about the universe than it did before.

Is this a psychology experiment? Please say it is. My faith in the ability of people to learn and develop would be severely shaken if I was to conclude that someone could really be so self deluded as you appear to be.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Study Gödel on mathematical certainty (or the lack thereof).

This is something cranks regularly trot out and which they so obviously don't understand. Many people hear, in passing, about how Godel's theorem says there's questions maths cannot answer. What they fail to learn, because they aren't actually interested in finding out, is that Godel's theorem is not all reaching, it only applies to logical structures of sufficient complexity that they are able to construct such self-referencial statements as "I am inconsistent".

It's a bit like intelligence. You have to have a certain level of self awareness to say "I am". Such things as geometry are not sufficiently complex (as defined by Godel) to be able to make such statements and so the Incompleteness Theorem doesn't apply to them and therefore there aren't undecidable statements in geometry. There are in set theory, because it has the right kind of structure.

But good job on over reaching your very short grasp of mathematics.

You probably think that renormalization in QFT is a good practice (it is made up to remove nonsensical “infinite” answers).

Another example. Yes, renormalisation might have originally been considered by mathematicians as physicistis being a little slap dash but since then it has been put on a rigorous footing by mathematicians.

You probably think that exponential inflation is a good aspect of your pet cosmology (it is a fix to avoid dealing with the possibility of a greater universe)

No, it was actually done to explain how the visible universe appears to be thermally equalised, which non-exponential inflation models couldn't do. Instead the entirety of our visible universe was originally a tiny tiny region in the early universe which did have time to equalise in temperature and then inflation blew it up so much the temperature perturbations are over our cosmological horizon.

So even standard qualitative cosmology you seem to be getting wrong, making claims about something you've never learned about.

and you don’t know what infinity is (it requires comprehension).

And let me guess, your method of learning no science and no maths is the best way to go about comprehending 'infinity'?

And don't try to convince yourself that what you and AN are doing is not personal. It is very personal when you resort to the lowest character of man (deceit) to try to wash away views that you cannot comprehend.

In this post I've corrected errors you've made about your claims of mainstream physics. In previous posts of yours you've claimed I have a mental illness, I consider my life worthless and I'll forever be unhappy. And now you're whining we're making things personal? You don't address the criticisms I make of your attempts to do science or your claims about mainstream work and you simply spew out a slew of unfounded vitriolic personal attacks.

Time and again I can't help but feel that the criticism you throw at us is simply a result of you projecting your flaws onto us.

You constantly employ evasion and defer the issue to the phony short comings that you insist characterized who I am. The problem is that I already know who I am and you not only underestimate my intelligence but you try to inflate your intelligence on the web. But wait, you are making it clear you are ignorant with every post.

Again, you complain we characterise you, yet you see not hypocrisy from you posting this? Are you a mental health professional?

And if we're wrong about you, how come you achieve nothing. The work Prom and I do you don't see on these forums, we are more than the sum of our posts. All of your work is on display and you've gotten nowhere in years. If you're as intelligent as you claim, why do you need to resort to lying and ad homs? You call us ignorant but time and again we've got to correct you on something as simple as what inflation is for.

I previously asked you in a post you utterly ignored if you'd explain how you are defining 'ahead' so we can see how you justify you saying you're 'ahead' of us because every reasonable definition such as education, amount of knowledge, published work, working ability, we beat you. I wonder why you ignored that.....

 

[quantum_wave]

Quantum wave proclaims it so it's true. Never mind logic and deductive reasoning. The fact that quantum wave believes something should be proof enough to the rest of humanity of the intrinsic value of it.

Don't be so egotistical. If you can't explain the why then I will be forced to conclude that you can't and you have no other justification for your view other than "you like it the best," which is hardly a scientific attitude.



If by asking questions you think I am deferring the issue, then fine. Most people would simply call that curiosity.

Lol, you know that the experience that I have with you and your sock Guest are that you have employed a passive aggressive approach with me since my earliest threads here at SciForums. Admittedly you have come out of your shell and moved to a more aggressive approach since then. I have to admit that is progress. I think that is who you are; a person who uses the net to express otherwise repressed feelings. Am I wrong? I’m not sure how you could convince me that I am wrong and doubt you want too but if you don’t try then I guess I could take that as acknowledgment.

The QFT's that we know of that describe nature at the moment ignore gravity. There are lot's of regimes like most of the time here on earth where this is a perfectly valid approximation scheme. Just look at the predictive power of the standard model.

Any new and deeper theory must reduce to the standard model (and also general relativity) when you make the appropriate approximations simply because the SM and GR work really well in their realms of validity. The only theory that I know of right now that does this is string theory.

I know and that is why I asked if you (/AN/anyone actually) knew what Susskind meant by the Cosmic Landscape and what Smolin has to say about Susskind's view (I know you do but in the spirit of our adversarial relationship that is how I think we sometimes approach each other on topics, tongue in cheek). Also I wanted to discuss the difference between Susskind's view of the Landscape vs. how I use the phrase "landscape of the greater universe". I brought books by both with me today. (I’m out in nature today at a pavilion on the salt marsh at Tampa Bay, using my new Verizon wireless card to connect to the Internet. Pretty cool for an old guy.)

As for your "there may be other things going on" comment, if we can't observe it then it has no role in our interaction with the universe, therefore it might as well not happen. You can say that miniature unicorns are responsible for a fifth force between protons and neutrons that is exactly canceled by an opposite force caused by fairies. It wouldn't matter because it has no observational consequences so the question of the existence of these forces is not physics, it's philosophy, and rather pointless philosophy at that.

Until we find a way to observe it. Until then you go ahead and make fun but tuck this little exchange away in the back of your mind. I don’t know if there is a level of order below the fundamental particles. Your objection to the possibility is equal to my objection to the way you characterize me for wanting to discuss the impact that such a deeper level of order would have on QM and QFT. You said, “The only theory that I know of right now that does this is string theory”. I too am aware of that. I find it very interesting, not from a “do the math” perspective like you, but from the hopes placed on QFT, quantum gravity, and a deeper BBT or alternative, and from the perspective of an interest in science . I wish you had enough interest in it to answer the question I posed in a recent post about Susskind’s current take on String Theory and how it compares with Smolin. Do you? I’m not qualified to talk about the work you do but I am allowed to be interested in science and for a layman I have done pretty well at seeking out some understanding of cosmology. However, you should be qualified to talk about the things I discuss but you don't. Of if you do it has been lost in the back and forth exchanges of disgust with each other.

Yep I'm a loser. I'm a loser that will have a PhD in a little while and already has published work and will certainly publish more before I'm done. People have already taken my work and used it to enhance their own understanding. What have you done? Written reams and reams of crap on internet forums and google docs that is so vacuous that even you yourself must be able to to see that there is no value in it whatsoever. Please please don't kid yourself that what you are doing is figuring out a deeper theory. When you've completed the monumental waste of time that is quantum wave cosmology the world will not understand one jot more about the universe than it did before.

Is this a psychology experiment? Please say it is. My faith in the ability of people to learn and develop would be severely shaken if I was to conclude that someone could really be so self deluded as you appear to be.

Don’t worry, I am not that self deluded but no, this is not an experiment. This point in our exchanges is the result of the passive aggressive and outright frontal attack you initiated on me from the start. You aren’t interested in what I am interested in but you have taken the time over the past year to convey your position on my area of interest and on my motives and intelligence.

I guess that is why I have taken repeated jabs at your intelligence about the "Zeno Time" issue; sort of payback for your treatment of me. I doubt if anyone thinks there is an intelligence problem there, and maybe I will stop pointing it out every time you post on my threads; and maybe you will change your approach to how you post on my threads. We will see.

I guess I am as astonished by the reaction of people like you as you are at someone like me.

 

[quantum_wave]

This is something cranks regularly trot out and which they so obviously don't understand. Many people hear, in passing, about how Godel's theorem says there's questions maths cannot answer. What they fail to learn, because they aren't actually interested in finding out, is that Godel's theorem is not all reaching, it only applies to logical structures of sufficient complexity that they are able to construct such self-referencial statements as "I am inconsistent".

It's a bit like intelligence. You have to have a certain level of self awareness to say "I am". Such things as geometry are not sufficiently complex (as defined by Godel) to be able to make such statements and so the Incompleteness Theorem doesn't apply to them and therefore there aren't undecidable statements in geometry. There are in set theory, because it has the right kind of structure.

But good job on over reaching your very short grasp of mathematics.

I know the perspective in which Gödel’s mathematical consistency must be taken. But in the relationship that has developed between me and Prom over the past year, that in my view warrants the absurd reference to Godel just like he feels warranted to spend a year in a passive and frontal attack, not on my ideas, but on my right and my interest in discussing my views.

Another example. Yes, renormalisation might have originally been considered by mathematicians as physicistis being a little slap dash but since then it has been put on a rigorous footing by mathematicians.

Obviously, and QFT is a work in progress like all science is. I realize the importance of QFT in advancing science. It must be phenomenally hard to work on QM and QFT from a mathematical perspective and bringing gravity in ... wow, I am behind the effort, believe me.

No, it was actually done to explain how the visible universe appears to be thermally equalised, which non-exponential inflation models couldn't do. Instead the entirety of our visible universe was originally a tiny tiny region in the early universe which did have time to equalise in temperature and then inflation blew it up so much the temperature perturbations are over our cosmological horizon.

So even standard qualitative cosmology you seem to be getting wrong, making claims about something you've never learned about.

Excuse me but I have learned a lot more about it than you give me credit for. We see a thermalized background and in order for it to be causally connected to the big bang we need for there to have been exponential Inflation to maintain the connection between what we observe since Hubble. Hubble and Silpher who’s work led to the coined phrase “red shift” from his work with spectral lines of nebulae have made the observations that establish expansion, as you know.

And let me guess, your method of learning no science and no maths is the best way to go about comprehending 'infinity'?

Is this your defense of Prometheus’ view?

In this post I've corrected errors you've made about your claims of mainstream physics. In previous posts of yours you've claimed I have a mental illness, I consider my life worthless and I'll forever be unhappy. And now you're whining we're making things personal? You don't address the criticisms I make of your attempts to do science or your claims about mainstream work and you simply spew out a slew of unfounded vitriolic personal attacks.

Time and again I can't help but feel that the criticism you throw at us is simply a result of you projecting your flaws onto us.

Again, you complain we characterise you, yet you see not hypocrisy from you posting this? Are you a mental health professional?

And if we're wrong about you, how come you achieve nothing. The work Prom and I do you don't see on these forums, we are more than the sum of our posts. All of your work is on display and you've gotten nowhere in years. If you're as intelligent as you claim, why do you need to resort to lying and ad homs? You call us ignorant but time and again we've got to correct you on something as simple as what inflation is for.

I previously asked you in a post you utterly ignored if you'd explain how you are defining 'ahead' so we can see how you justify you saying you're 'ahead' of us because every reasonable definition such as education, amount of knowledge, published work, working ability, we beat you. I wonder why you ignored that.....

Maybe my vitriolic attacks are a learned response to what I have misinterpreted as your attacks on my threads over the past year. In this post I addressed your first few paragraphs in the same attitude that you shared your understanding of math and science with me.

I will address your statements and complaints in the spirit that I perceive you are making them.

Do you have thousands of hours of reading and study on the topic of cosmology? I do. Call me a liar about that again and we can address it further

 

[fedr808]

I think that the universe acts kind of like a tesseract does.

A novel theorized that if one were to build a house out of a tesseract and by some means it collapses and refolds back into the hypercube, that once you enter no matter where you went in the house you would end up where you started, ie, you go down a hallways, you end up in the same room you were in.

So if someone were to travel to the end of the universe, they would simply just end up ont he other end of the universe.

if you dont get this go to wikipedia, look up the tessarect, and then go down till you see an animated version of itself. And imagine the little box in the middle being a room. (a tessarect basically looks like a large cube with a smaller cube inside and the corners are connected.

 

[quantum_wave]

I think that the universe acts kind of like a tesseract does.

A novel theorized that if one were to build a house out of a tesseract and by some means it collapses and refolds back into the hypercube, that once you enter no matter where you went in the house you would end up where you started, ie, you go down a hallways, you end up in the same room you were in.

So if someone were to travel to the end of the universe, they would simply just end up ont he other end of the universe.

if you dont get this go to wikipedia, look up the tessarect, and then go down till you see an animated version of itself. And imagine the little box in the middle being a room. (a tessarect basically looks like a large cube with a smaller cube inside and the corners are connected.

:humor: I love them.
I have found that after a few of these I see that same thing .

No, really I appreciate your post. Here is the link you referred to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

As you know, it is a 4-D representation. You have suggested that is the way the universe works and I respect that suggestion. I suggest that that the universe is 3-D space and that time is not coupled with space to form the fabric of spacetime. Do you respect me saying that?

Both of our views have to be considered in the light of observation and one observation that is pretty solid is that our observable universe is expanding. Expanding is a word that can refer to the idea that it is continuing to inflate as in General Relativity and BBT, or it can refer simply to the observation that galaxy groups are all moving away from each other.

The Inflationary view solves the problem of connecting what we observe, i.e. expansion across a thermalized background of cosmic microwave radiation to the Big Bang itself. Without that causal connection BBT would not be able to explain the thermalized background.

On the other hand, if the Big Bang event occurred within an existing thermalized background it would still look like we observe, but there would no need for that causal connection. We could consider cosmologies that did not imply that space itself began with the Big Bang.

I won't mention the hundred billion degree thermal radiation that had to also accompany the Big Bang to make the causal connection. That temperature or something in that vicinity would be the required temperature of the very tiny infant universe when it was the size of say a pea. There is a question in my mind of how it got that hot that fast, say 10^-30 seconds but that is another issue unless someone wants to discuss it here.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Lol, you know that the experience that I have with you and your sock Guest

Guest is not Prom's sock. He is not a sock of anyone. I have spoken to him and he is someone who is very educated in mathematics and if you bothered to go into the Maths & Physics forum you'd see his posts are quite different to those of Prom. I know cranks tend to think "OMG, two people who know stuff, they must be one and the same person!" because they don't like accepting there's more people who know more than them but even you have to admit you have zero evidence for your claim. If you want more, ask a moderator to check their IPs. They will not match.

I know the perspective in which Gödel’s mathematical consistency must be taken

I would disagree.

that in my view warrants the absurd reference to Godel

Or more likely you were once again wrong and now you're trying to dig yourself out of that particular hole.

Obviously, and QFT is a work in progress like all science is.

'Obviously'? So why did you say something which was factually false?

Excuse me but I have learned a lot more about it than you give me credit for

I give you credit for what I've seen you talk about so if you feel I'm not giving you enough credit its because of your shortcomings in showing all this supposed knowledge.

Is this your defense of Prometheus’ view?

Are you claiming that your approach, which is to avoid any and all detailed and quantitative work a good approach?

Do you have thousands of hours of reading and study on the topic of cosmology? I do. Call me a liar about that again and we can address it further

How many of those hours were spent reading papers or undergraduate level textbooks or lecture notes? I'd wager enough to count with two hands. So yes, I do have more hours of reading and studying than you. Remember the question sheet I linked you to? This one. I can do that sheet. I'm sure you can't. So by any measuring stick and definition used by anyone who has done cosmology you haven't 'studied' cosmology, you have made a lengthy superficial examination of someone else's work, utterly avoiding the details. Take a look at the recent cosmology papers on ArXiv. All of them out of your reach because you don't know even high school mathematics to a decent level. Now while I'm not doing cosmology I can grasp the majority of the methods in any of those papers. I can check any calculations I don't immediately think "Seems plausible", you can't.

So yes, I am calling you a liar in that 'study' to anyone who has done cosmology research will mean textbooks, journals, lecture notes, algebraic details. Don't delude yourself that you're 'doing' cosmology if you are avoiding all of that.

 

[quantum_wave]

guest is not prom's sock. He is not a sock of anyone. I have spoken to him and he is someone who is very educated in mathematics and if you bothered to go into the maths & physics forum you'd see his posts are quite different to those of prom. I know cranks tend to think "omg, two people who know stuff, they must be one and the same person!" because they don't like accepting there's more people who know more than them but even you have to admit you have zero evidence for your claim. If you want more, ask a moderator to check their ips. They will not match.

I would disagree.

Or more likely you were once again wrong and now you're trying to dig yourself out of that particular hole.

'obviously'? So why did you say something which was factually false?

I give you credit for what i've seen you talk about so if you feel i'm not giving you enough credit its because of your shortcomings in showing all this supposed knowledge.

Are you claiming that your approach, which is to avoid any and all detailed and quantitative work a good approach?

How many of those hours were spent reading papers or undergraduate level textbooks or lecture notes? I'd wager enough to count with two hands. So yes, i do have more hours of reading and studying than you. Remember the question sheet i linked you to? this one. I can do that sheet. I'm sure you can't. So by any measuring stick and definition used by anyone who has done cosmology you haven't 'studied' cosmology, you have made a lengthy superficial examination of someone else's work, utterly avoiding the details. Take a look at the recent cosmology papers on arxiv. All of them out of your reach because you don't know even high school mathematics to a decent level. Now while i'm not doing cosmology i can grasp the majority of the methods in any of those papers. I can check any calculations i don't immediately think "seems plausible", you can't.

So yes, i am calling you a liar in that 'study' to anyone who has done cosmology research will mean textbooks, journals, lecture notes, algebraic details. Don't delude yourself that you're 'doing' cosmology if you are avoiding all of that.

a**h***.

 

[fedr808]

:humor: I love them.
I have found that after a few of these I see that same thing .

No, really I appreciate your post. Here is the link you referred to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

As you know, it is a 4-D representation. You have suggested that is the way the universe works and I respect that suggestion. I suggest that that the universe is 3-D space and that time is not coupled with space to form the fabric of spacetime. Do you respect me saying that?

Both of our views have to be considered in the light of observation and one observation that is pretty solid is that our observable universe is expanding. Expanding is a word that can refer to the idea that it is continuing to inflate as in General Relativity and BBT, or it can refer simply to the observation that galaxy groups are all moving away from each other.

The Inflationary view solves the problem of connecting what we observe, i.e. expansion across a thermalized background of cosmic microwave radiation to the Big Bang itself. Without that causal connection BBT would not be able to explain the thermalized background.

On the other hand, if the Big Bang event occurred within an existing thermalized background it would still look like we observe, but there would no need for that causal connection. We could consider cosmologies that did not imply that space itself began with the Big Bang.

I won't mention the hundred billion degree thermal radiation that had to also accompany the Big Bang to make the causal connection. That temperature or something in that vicinity would be the required temperature of the very tiny infant universe when it was the size of say a pea. There is a question in my mind of how it got that hot that fast, say 10^-30 seconds but that is another issue unless someone wants to discuss it here.

Yah I can respect that, my comment on the tessarects was not so much the shape of the universe, but people wonder, "what happens if i hit the end of the universe?" will I hit a solid wall? will i exit the universe and go into another? Well I figure that like a tessarect when you go through one side, you end up at the other.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

a**h***.

I replied to your post point by point, you couldn't do the same.

I responded without swearing, you couldn't do the same.

I retorted claims you'd made, explained my comments and asked you to back up your claims, you couldn't do the same.

You keep saying how we do nothing but reply with vitriol and personal attacks and yet you do that? You still haven't explained how you have any reason to say I'm mentally ill, given you are not a health professional, you don't know me and all you have to go on is that I keep pointing out factual mistakes you make.

If you weren't wrong about Godel or renormalisation, you'd have retorted with a little more than 'a**h***'. If you had evidence Guest was Prom's sock puppet you'd have replied with it. If you have done 'work' which is more than superficial pop science book reading, you'd have said so. You keep trying to convince us you've got a great deal more work and experience in cosmology than either of us yet when I calmly explain why pop science books aren't going to get you anywhere (else why would cosmology degrees, PhDs and research positions require you to know the details?) and ask if you have anything more than that you reply with just 'a**h***'.

If you have nothing to hide, you'd reply with a little more detail and a little less mindless swearing. People complain I reply with long replies but I have nothing to hide. If someone wants to throw down with the mathematical details, in order to see if my knowledge is a little bit more than just learnt from Wikipedia, I'll do so. I have yet to meet a crank who will do the same.

So, can you justify your claim you've got a great deal of work in cosmology under your belt or are you going to be man enough to admit none of it would even be considered 'work' in an undergrad cosmology lecture course? Please reply to reply coherently, without swearing and without inventing lengthy personal back stories for me in an attempt to deflect the conversation away from the actual question.

 

[quantum_wave]

I replied to your post point by point, you couldn't do the same.

... an attempt to deflect the conversation away from the actual question.

Don’t be such a dope. I summed your response up and responded appropriately as A**H***. That perfectly reflects who you are based on the response you made to exactly the kind of post you are begging for now.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Thank you for proving all the criticisms Prom and I have been making about you correct.

 

[quantum_wave]

Yah I can respect that, my comment on the tessarects was not so much the shape of the universe, but people wonder, "what happens if i hit the end of the universe?" will I hit a solid wall? will i exit the universe and go into another? Well I figure that like a tessarect when you go through one side, you end up at the other.

The idea of the universe having tessarect characteristics is well worth considering in the face of questions like those.

I submit that those questions arise out of what Big Bang Theory, the current cosmological consensus, says about it. It says that there was no "before" the BB because time began at the BB. It says that there is no space "outside" the expanding universe because space was created at the BB.

Can you say unintuitive?

But Big Bang supporters say it is the best cosmology to date because it addresses what we observe better than any other.

And they say, by the way the universe doesn't care what we think is unintuitive and that there is no reason why Humans should be intuitive enough to grasp it. The consensus is the best grasp we have and they say there is no "before" or "outside". So thinking people begin to ask questions like what happens when you get to the edge.

They say forget the edge, there is none. Every point is the center. They agree it is not intuitive but remember, the universe doesn't care if you think it is unintuitive. Sort of like the universe thinks you are a dope to ask questions like that :shrug:.

I am one of the people that thinks that there are better answers and that they are intuitive.

What about "space" cannot be created, it has always just been everywhere.
What about "time" did not all of a sudden start, it has always been passing.
What about "energy" did not appear out of nothing, out of nowhere; energy cannot be created or destroyed.

It may seem unintuitive to talk about a universe that is infinite and has always existed and that is occupied everywhere by energy density but it makes what we observe much easier to explain.

Agree or disagree?

 

[quantum_wave]

If you want to talk about the landscape of the universe in terms of the standard cosmology you talk about General Relativity and a universe that is flat, open, or closed. When you talk about the landscape of the greater universe from Quantum Wave Cosmology perspective you are talking about arena action.

When you talk about the inertial connection between all mass in the standard cosmology you are talking about General Relativity and a universe characterized by the way mass curves spacetime; the geometry of spacetime is the connection between mass that governs motion (i.e. the inertial connection). When you talk about the inertial connection between all mass in Quantum Wave Cosmology you are talking about quantum action and the gravity aether. In General Relativity mass curves spacetime and in QWC mass follows the path of lowest energy density through the gravity aether. More on that in the Spacetime vs. QWC Gravity thread sooner or later but check out the Aether, Mass, and Gravity in QWC thread in the meantime.

If you want to talk about the beginning and the end in terms of the standard cosmology you talk about the Big Bang and the cold, dark universe of heat death, or its companion theory the Big Rip. When you talk about the beginning and the end in Quantum Wave Cosmology there isn’t any.

Note: Don’t take this wrong, QWC does not include or endorse any philosophy (I know a few will laugh). But a cosmology can be appealing from a philosophical perspective or it can be unappealing to the philosophical mind. There is a huge difference between the standard cosmology that predicts a Big Rip that ends all hope for living beings and Quantum Wave Cosmology that predicts that the survival instinct of Humans, of living beings if you like, can be realized. I might have to elaborate on that statement in a philosophy forum but it is just a note here to remind me for later.