What, no Big Bang?!

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

I perceive the infinity of space/time a little differently to Hawkin's over-simplified ever-expanding bi-directional cones from a current space/time locus. I guess I disagree with his expansion exponent more than anything.

forgive me I must have missed your paper in astrophysics. but then again in this age of Wikipedia expertise any idle thought can stand shoulder to shoulder to the considered work of a man like Hawkins.

[LewisM]

I fail to see your thoughts anywhere other than to belittle those who have stated their opinion.

Hawkins simplified the space/time construct for his book. Anyone can recognise that, and it has been mentioned by peer review previously. It is a known simplification of an exceedingly concept task that even mathematicians actually fail to explain or conceptualise (yet you seem to have a grasp on it).

Please explain it. We are all ears and elbows.

[AG Hybrid (Adrian)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

forgive me I must have missed your paper in astrophysics. but then again in this age of Wikipedia expertise any idle thought can stand shoulder to shoulder to the considered work of a man like Hawkins.

*High five*

When I was an undergrad studying Ag-Science a professor once told me (politely of course)after I gave my opinion on a scientific subject matter in a thesis that unless I have a doctorate or defending one in said subject matter "No one cares about what you think!". Especially on a subject where many people with doctorates work on and you don't.

Perhaps this thread should be moved to the Amateur Science forums.

[sjastro]

Lewis,

Frankly I have no idea what you are going on about.

You refer to bidirectional cones, are you to referring to light cones in Minkowski space? If so what is the relevance?
Where does Hawkins (or more precisely Hawking) fit into the picture and what about these peer reviews you refer to.

The mathematics behind space time expansion and why the Universe is not expanding into existing space is actually straightforward.
It does require a command of General Relativity and an understanding of the RW metric on which modern cosmology is based on.

Regards

Steven

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by KenGee

Well its clear you can't. infinity is a mathematical construct not a physical thing.

Infinity is infinity. It has nothing to do with mathematics!
To make mathematics work we need a term for extremely large infinitely large or extremely small which has also been called infinity but is actually a definable boundary.

Barry

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by KenGee

Well its clear you can't. infinity is a mathematical construct not a physical thing.

Infinity is infinity, never starting or ever finishing. It has nothing to do with a mathematical conception!

To make mathematics work we need a term for extremely large or extremely small which has also been called infinity but is actually a definable boundary.

As I said in my first post this subject is too controversial for the forum and will cause friction between the free thinkers and the accademics who use rote learning for what they don't understand!

Barry

[sjastro]

As I said in my first post this subject is too controversial for the forum and will cause friction between the free thinkers and the accademics who use rote learning for what they don't understand!

Translation:

I resent individuals that know more or exhibit a greater understanding than I do, so I will put them down by attacking their intellectual abilities.

[rustigsmed (Russell)]

I do enjoy watching cosmologists discussing the varying theories of the universe. It officially blows my mind - fact is stranger than fiction. One thing for sure - is that the universe is often a counter-intuitive and strange place ... and or places.

[Steffen]

If there is one thing Hawkins has taught me it's that you can't trust a one-legged man.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Translation:

I resent individuals that know more or exhibit a greater understanding than I do, so I will put them down by attacking their intellectual abilities.

Whoaa!.. big bang turning into big bash. Take it easy guys. I bet in another universe you're all having a laugh.

[JohnH]

Originally Posted by LewisM

Exactly right, but in simple 2 dimensions (where we slice the sphere into a circle) it indeed WOULD have a centre, and it would have a radial edge - unless the "edge" kept expanding as you approach it, which again loops back into infinity. Which again stipulates that what is beyond this infinitely expanding sphere. And we are purportedly within this ever-expanding sphere, which implies we have a central point SOMEWHERE. And again, what beyond the limit of expansion, even if we consider this multi-universe within universe idea (which does make sense to me, but again creates more infinity issues). Lex parsimoniae!

I perceive the infinity of space/time a little differently to Hawkin's over-simplified ever-expanding bi-directional cones from a current space/time locus. I guess I disagree with his expansion exponent more than anything.

Umm - nope can't agree there. This sphere idea I mentioned was an analogy, the idea is not that we are "inside" a sphere at all.

As I understand Hawking's model if you were to try to get to the "edge" of the universe (or the beginning for that matter) you would find it impossible - because it has properties like the surface of a sphere - that is you will never find an edge - you can move in 3 dimensions plus time but there is no "outside" and no need for a beginning either. Of course this is a theory and my understanding of it is limited so my explanation may not help you grasp it but it works for me. There are other theories yes, but for now at least, there is little evidence for multiverses or more exotic theories. Studies of dark matter and dark energy might give us such evidence.

[sjastro]

Translation:

I resent individuals that know more or exhibit a greater understanding than I do, so I will put them down by attacking their intellectual abilities.

Originally Posted by multiweb

Whoaa!.. big bang turning into big bash. Take it easy guys. I bet in another universe you're all have a laugh.

You are absolutely right. I should not have reacted that way.
The more likely explanation is the Dunning Kruger effect.

Regards

Steven

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Translation:

I resent individuals that know more or exhibit a greater understanding than I do, so I will put them down by attacking their intellectual abilities.

That sort of comment is just the sort of friction I was driving at when a topic is too controversial. Lets not get into any arguments

Please my post was not aimed at anyone but first hand experience I had when working with a few graduates some years ago.

Barry

[cybereye (Mario)]

I didn't realise that posting a link to an article would end in a virtual barnie!!

When I did my Cosmology course I found it very interesting and I was amazed that I could study a subject in which about 95% of matter/energy in the Universe was not really understood. I know we can see the effects of Dark Matter but I don't believe anybody has actually detected any. A bit like wind - you can see/feel the effects of wind but can't actually see it...

[rustigsmed (Russell)]

Originally Posted by cybereye

I didn't realise that posting a link to an article would end in a virtual barnie!!

When I did my Cosmology course I found it very interesting and I was amazed that I could study a subject in which about 95% of matter/energy in the Universe was not really understood. I know we can see the effects of Dark Matter but I don't believe anybody has actually detected any. A bit like wind - you can see/feel the effects of wind but can't actually see it...

And smell it

[TheAstroChannel (Sean)]

Lets refrain from the conflicting wording we are giving out! I was enjoying all your comments and information until the last few

[TheAstroChannel (Sean)]

Originally Posted by Shark Bait

Catalyst recently aired a special 'Custom Universe - finetuned for us?' http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/vodcast/

I found parts of that show really hard to comprehend. The article seems to have touched on a couple of points mentioned by some of the people interviewed during that show.

It would be great if the answers to some of the big questions could be solved in my lifetime. Even if they were, the experts would then have to find a way to explain it so that it all made sense.

I too, watched the episode and i can tell you, when it had finished.. i couldn't bring half of the many theories that were explained into my 16 year old brain!

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Shark Bait

Catalyst recently aired a special 'Custom Universe - finetuned for us?' http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/vodcast/

I found parts of that show really hard to comprehend. The article seems to have touched on a couple of points mentioned by some of the people interviewed during that show.

It would be great if the answers to some of the big questions could be solved in my lifetime. Even if they were, the experts would then have to find a way to explain it so that it all made sense.

Cosmology occasionally borders on the philosophical and/or SF.

Brain Greene came closest to bringing up the Anthropic Principle, namely if the Universe was any different we wouldn't be around to observe it, hence our existence is simply coincidental with the parameters as they are, rather than the parameters being fine tuned for our existence to occur.
I much prefer this explanation.

There is much resistance in mainstream science to a Multiverse.
The Multiverse is beyond our Universe's particle horizon hence there is no way we can test for its existence. This puts it beyond the realm of Science into Philosophy.

Regards

Steven

[Shark Bait (Stu)]

Originally Posted by TheAstroChannel

I too, watched the episode and i can tell you, when it had finished.. i couldn't bring half of the many theories that were explained into my 16 year old brain!

Didn't make it any easier having a 40 year old brain either.

[rustigsmed (Russell)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Cosmology occasionally borders on the philosophical and/or SF.

Brain Greene came closest to bringing up the Anthropic Principle, namely if the Universe was any different we wouldn't be around to observe it, hence our existence is simply coincidental with the parameters as they are, rather than the parameters being fine tuned for our existence to occur.
I much prefer this explanation.

There is much resistance in mainstream science to a Multiverse.
The Multiverse is beyond our Universe's particle horizon hence there is no way we can test for its existence. This puts it beyond the realm of Science into Philosophy.

Regards

Steven

i find most theories fascinating, i do start to struggle when a model is relying on some kind of 'other' that can't be tested. it seems to me a shifting of the goal posts is happening, to some degree atleast, to make a solution fit.