I've devised a brief explanation of how to describe that Universe as a Hypersphere that I believe would answer certain questions concerning the Origin and eventual Fate of our neck of the woods.
It makes assumptions regarding the nature of spacetime and singularities and draws connections our of human mythology.
Specifically, this cosmology is actually the oldest cosmology in human history, just reinterpreted to reflect 'modern' knowledge.
I hope you find it entertaining.
http:\\morlock.newdor.com/Solid%20State%20Universe.doc
I should add that the Solid State Universe theory has large ramifications that apply to the concept of Hawking Radiation.
Simply put, under this cosmology Hawking Radiation should not exist.
And attempts at verifying the existence of such a radiation using the Large Hadron Collider will prove unsuccessful and possibly catastropic in the long term.
Simply put, under this cosmology Hawking Radiation should not exist.
And attempts at verifying the existence of such a radiation using the Large Hadron Collider will prove unsuccessful and possibly catastropic in the long term.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 16 2006, 02:18 AM)
...Simply put, under this cosmology Hawking Radiation should not exist...
This is not good, because from the AWT the Hawking's Radiation concept follows by rather simple way.
This is not good, because from the AWT the Hawking's Radiation concept follows by rather simple way.
Thats a shame. Because then there really must be a flaw in your framework. Hawking Radiation would not be able to exist in a closed Universe.
But if you want to try to adapt your AWT research to this model, go right ahead.
Just remember... closed system. Eternal Universe recreating an Infinite supply of galaxies.
Oh... and we're currently the accelerated implosion of spacetime, not the accelerated metric expansion of space.
Red shift on a galactic level is just an illusion of distance. The singularities and mass of galaxies are actually imploding the spacetime between galaxies.
But if you want to try to adapt your AWT research to this model, go right ahead.
Just remember... closed system. Eternal Universe recreating an Infinite supply of galaxies.
Oh... and we're currently the accelerated implosion of spacetime, not the accelerated metric expansion of space.
Red shift on a galactic level is just an illusion of distance. The singularities and mass of galaxies are actually imploding the spacetime between galaxies.
I'd appreciate any comments or questions regarding this topology.
I'm not getting much back when it gets sent out.
I'm not getting much back when it gets sent out.
This is a counter-argument against Hawking Radiation, based on a topological analysis.
http:\\morlock.newdor.com/Solid%20State%20Universe.doc
I am too new to this forum. I cannot post a direct link.
I believe the experiments being conducted by CERN will have longterm consequences for humanity.
Stephen Hawking is a brain in a jar who has lost his mind.
He is planning on forcing mankind to leave this planet through the development of at least one black hole in the LHC facilities.
One mini-black hole would not immediately consume Earth. It would move like a bullet, orbiting Earth's gravity well. This would be the real Hawking Radiation.
This man has clearly lost his mind. Experiments at CERN must be stopped at all costs.
Eden is at stake.
http:\\morlock.newdor.com/Solid%20State%20Universe.doc
I am too new to this forum. I cannot post a direct link.
I believe the experiments being conducted by CERN will have longterm consequences for humanity.
Stephen Hawking is a brain in a jar who has lost his mind.
He is planning on forcing mankind to leave this planet through the development of at least one black hole in the LHC facilities.
One mini-black hole would not immediately consume Earth. It would move like a bullet, orbiting Earth's gravity well. This would be the real Hawking Radiation.
This man has clearly lost his mind. Experiments at CERN must be stopped at all costs.
Eden is at stake.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 17 2006, 07:25 AM)
This is a counter-argument against Hawking Radiation, based on a topological analysis.
http:\\morlock.newdor.com/Solid%20State%20Universe.doc
I am too new to this forum. I cannot post a direct link.
It was enough to read about the illusion of metric expansion, and it was clear that this theory isn't compatible with what we know from observations and results of a vast number of experiments.
http:\\morlock.newdor.com/Solid%20State%20Universe.doc
I am too new to this forum. I cannot post a direct link.
It was enough to read about the illusion of metric expansion, and it was clear that this theory isn't compatible with what we know from observations and results of a vast number of experiments.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 17 2006, 07:25 AM)
I believe the experiments being conducted by CERN will have longterm consequences for humanity.
Why you think so? Are you afraid that particles moving at relativistic speeds can create a black hole? I can tell you that everyday the earth is bombarded with high energetic particles from outer space. Many of these particles are having much larger energies than what can be created at CERN. So, you can relax!
Why you think so? Are you afraid that particles moving at relativistic speeds can create a black hole? I can tell you that everyday the earth is bombarded with high energetic particles from outer space. Many of these particles are having much larger energies than what can be created at CERN. So, you can relax!
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 17 2006, 07:25 AM)
Stephen Hawking is a brain in a jar who has lost his mind.
I think you should keep your personal opinions about Mr. Hawking to yourself. Believe me, with such attitudes to people, you'll hardly be taken seriously.
--
Geir
I think you should keep your personal opinions about Mr. Hawking to yourself. Believe me, with such attitudes to people, you'll hardly be taken seriously.
--
Geir
What do you think the Van Allen Radiation belts are?
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 17 2006, 08:20 AM)
What do you think the Van Allen Radiation belts are?
The earth is rotating. The inner core of the earth is soft and has electromagnetic properties. The movement of the inner mass differs with depth. This creates a magnetic field that changes the direction of incoming charged particles from outer space. How much the particle direction is bent or being changed depends on the speed and the charge of the particles. This will lead to a number of collisions between particles. Characteristic belts of plasma are created in this process, and this is that we call the Van Allen Radiation belts. Even so, many particles do not interact with the magnetic field, or do not collide with other particles until they reach the inner atmosphere. Some particles will even pass through the inner atmosphere and hit the earth. A few particles can even pass straight through the earth without interacting with anything.
--
GR
The earth is rotating. The inner core of the earth is soft and has electromagnetic properties. The movement of the inner mass differs with depth. This creates a magnetic field that changes the direction of incoming charged particles from outer space. How much the particle direction is bent or being changed depends on the speed and the charge of the particles. This will lead to a number of collisions between particles. Characteristic belts of plasma are created in this process, and this is that we call the Van Allen Radiation belts. Even so, many particles do not interact with the magnetic field, or do not collide with other particles until they reach the inner atmosphere. Some particles will even pass through the inner atmosphere and hit the earth. A few particles can even pass straight through the earth without interacting with anything.
--
GR
They would still qualify as singularities.
http:\\morlock.newdor.com/quantumatom.PNG
http:\\morlock.newdor.com/quantumatom.PNG
wrong post, sorry... 
No biggie.
Hey look!
A Time Loop!
A Time Loop!
SSU,
Worry not old bean, if my suppositions are correct, all particulate entities form black holes just as a matter of course (even photons); a direct consequence of trans-dimensional wave propagation.
Worry not old bean, if my suppositions are correct, all particulate entities form black holes just as a matter of course (even photons); a direct consequence of trans-dimensional wave propagation.
No, I've got no problem describing everything as a singularity.
My topology is solely based on the existence of a negative and positive singularity (black and white hole.)
But a large quantity of proton sized singularities orbiting at ground level could be troublesome.
Also... under my topology, I can point to the 'Big Bang' and the End of the Universe in the Night sky.
Want to hear more?
My topology is solely based on the existence of a negative and positive singularity (black and white hole.)
But a large quantity of proton sized singularities orbiting at ground level could be troublesome.
Also... under my topology, I can point to the 'Big Bang' and the End of the Universe in the Night sky.
Want to hear more?
For people who keep asking me why I don't directly link my pictures or theorys.
QUOTE
The error returned was:
Sorry, your post contains link(s), which are not allowed. New members are not allowed to make a post here linking elsewhere. Please remove all links from you post
Sorry, your post contains link(s), which are not allowed. New members are not allowed to make a post here linking elsewhere. Please remove all links from you post
I wouldn't mind someone trying to refute this analysis of a evolution of a Riemann Hypersphere.
In fact, I throw down the gauntlet in challenge to this entire forum.
Otherwise, I had a definite analysis for the topology of the Universe that cannot be refuted.
In fact, I throw down the gauntlet in challenge to this entire forum.
Otherwise, I had a definite analysis for the topology of the Universe that cannot be refuted.
Or at least... not refuted by anything we currently know about the origins of the Universe.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 21 2006, 09:24 AM)
Otherwise, I had a definite analysis for the topology of the Universe that cannot be refuted.
The problem people met when attempting to debunk utter gibberish is that there's no line of logic to follow. Refutting utter bollocks is actually a lot harder than refutting a coherent theory built on logic which only has a few things wrong.
You make claims about Hawking radiation yet I see nothing in your document which illudes to Hawking radiation. Infact, I see nothing about quantum theory and very very little about space-time (and most of that is nonsense).
If you think you've sufficent knowledge about Hawking radiation please explain in detail where the error is in this derivation of Hawking radiation. It's easy to talk crap and say "Look, I've solved all of physics' problems!" but lets see you actually use logic to refute something.
The problem people met when attempting to debunk utter gibberish is that there's no line of logic to follow. Refutting utter bollocks is actually a lot harder than refutting a coherent theory built on logic which only has a few things wrong.
You make claims about Hawking radiation yet I see nothing in your document which illudes to Hawking radiation. Infact, I see nothing about quantum theory and very very little about space-time (and most of that is nonsense).
If you think you've sufficent knowledge about Hawking radiation please explain in detail where the error is in this derivation of Hawking radiation. It's easy to talk crap and say "Look, I've solved all of physics' problems!" but lets see you actually use logic to refute something.
newdor.com
Go there.
Click the peace sign.
Read the paper, then argue with my logic.
It's very simple... if the Universe is a Hypersphere then calculus can never describe it, only approximate.
Why?
Because of the number Pi. An infinitely long number that never repeats itself. Any calculations of the hypersphere require an approximation of pi.
The Universe is Infinite.
It is expanding and contracting.
It is Eternal.
The loophole of Hawking Radiation does not exist in the real Universe.
Go there.
Click the peace sign.
Read the paper, then argue with my logic.
It's very simple... if the Universe is a Hypersphere then calculus can never describe it, only approximate.
Why?
Because of the number Pi. An infinitely long number that never repeats itself. Any calculations of the hypersphere require an approximation of pi.
The Universe is Infinite.
It is expanding and contracting.
It is Eternal.
The loophole of Hawking Radiation does not exist in the real Universe.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 21 2006, 06:08 PM)
Refutting utter bollocks is actually a lot harder than refutting a coherent theory built on logic which only has a few things wrong.
It's easy to talk crap and say "Look, I've solved all of physics' problems!" but lets see you actually use logic to refute something.
Welcome to the club!
It's easy to talk crap and say "Look, I've solved all of physics' problems!" but lets see you actually use logic to refute something.
Welcome to the club!
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 06:33 AM)
It's very simple... if the Universe is a Hypersphere then calculus can never describe it, only approximate.
The only way to describe a hypersphere is with some coordinate geometry. For instance, S³, a sphere in 4D, would be defined as w²+x²+y²+z² = R², where w,x,y,z are your 4 space-time coordinates and R the radius of the hypersphere. That is an EXACT definition of a hypersphere in 4 dimensions centred on the origin. You can shift it's centre simply by translations w->w+w' , x->x+x' etc.
That's simple 'static' geometry. If you then wanted to describe a hypersphere in motion or things moving within or on it, you'd require 'vector calculus', the description of things moving through space and time.
The only way to describe a hypersphere is with some coordinate geometry. For instance, S³, a sphere in 4D, would be defined as w²+x²+y²+z² = R², where w,x,y,z are your 4 space-time coordinates and R the radius of the hypersphere. That is an EXACT definition of a hypersphere in 4 dimensions centred on the origin. You can shift it's centre simply by translations w->w+w' , x->x+x' etc.
That's simple 'static' geometry. If you then wanted to describe a hypersphere in motion or things moving within or on it, you'd require 'vector calculus', the description of things moving through space and time.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 06:33 AM)
Because of the number Pi. An infinitely long number that never repeats itself. Any calculations of the hypersphere require an approximation of pi.
Obviously you've never actually done maths or physics. A proper mathematician doing vector calculus always does it algebraicly, not numerically. Therefore you end up leaving the symbol π (pi) in your answers. Giving an answer in terms of pi is EXACT. For instance, you know the area of a circle is πr². If the radius is 1, then you have an area of π. That is EXACT. Wether you know the decimal expansion is irrelevent, you know the value IS pi! Of course if you turn it into a decimal expansion, 3.141592... then you end up with a rounding error, but if you'd doing the abstract analysis of the system, you don't bother doing that. I did 4 years of maths at uni and NEVER used a calculator, we had no need for one. Everything was expressed in EXACT terms algebraicly.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 06:33 AM)
The loophole of Hawking Radiation does not exist in the real Universe.
So you say a bunch of (incorrect) nonsense and then suddenly pull the corrollary "And therefore Hawking radiation doesn't exist" out of a hat? Sorry, that doesn't cut it in the world of science. You're either going to have to go step by step from your initial postulates/axioms of your model to proving Hawking radiation doesn't exist in an airtight method (which you utterly failed to do) or you're going to have to show a flaw in the logic of Hawking's derivation of the black hole radiation, as I linked to in my last post. You totally ignored that derivation I posted, so I'm guessing you either can't find a flaw in it or it's totally over your head. Considering you just displayed a lack of understanding of maths, I would imagine graduate level general relativity and quantum field theory is a bit over your head.
You've proved nothing other than that you can talk in vague terms and like making claims based on pretty pictures. You and Zephir would get along great.
You've proved nothing other than that you can talk in vague terms and like making claims based on pretty pictures. You and Zephir would get along great.
No, but I got you attention, didn't I?
He makes assumptions that imply a breakdown of symmetry on the smallest scale possible to allow for the evaporation to occur. Simply put, the point on the event horizon where Hawking Radiation would occur would have to be travelling faster than the speed of light.
This is a flawed model of quantum gravity. Black Holes absorb spacetime as well. Hawking's model doesn't take this into account, but instead explicitly leaves it out to allow for his Hawking Radiation to exist.
Now, if you don't understand philisophical arguments derived through analysis of mathematical formulas, there is an alternative. We can sit here and wait for them to test fire the LHC in a month or so. But even Stephen Hawking admits now that his logic may be inherently flawed and that CERN are being dumb monkeys right now.
QUOTE
The trans-Planckian problem may raise doubts on the physical validity of Hawking's result. Hawking's original derivation employed field modes of arbitrarily high frequency near the black hole horizon, although these do not appear in the final result. In particular, he used modes of frequency higher than the inverse Planck time, and at these scales the physical laws are unknown. A number of alternative approaches to the Hawking radiation have appeared in order to try to overcome or address this problem. Some of these are in connection with the Unruh effect.
The Hawking Radiation shows that the laws of black hole thermodynamics have a complete physical meaning.
The Hawking Radiation shows that the laws of black hole thermodynamics have a complete physical meaning.
He makes assumptions that imply a breakdown of symmetry on the smallest scale possible to allow for the evaporation to occur. Simply put, the point on the event horizon where Hawking Radiation would occur would have to be travelling faster than the speed of light.
This is a flawed model of quantum gravity. Black Holes absorb spacetime as well. Hawking's model doesn't take this into account, but instead explicitly leaves it out to allow for his Hawking Radiation to exist.
Now, if you don't understand philisophical arguments derived through analysis of mathematical formulas, there is an alternative. We can sit here and wait for them to test fire the LHC in a month or so. But even Stephen Hawking admits now that his logic may be inherently flawed and that CERN are being dumb monkeys right now.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 06:03 PM)
No, but I got you attention, didn't I?
You think getting someones attention by posting nonsense is a good thing?!
You think getting someones attention by posting nonsense is a good thing?!
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 06:03 PM)
He makes assumptions that imply a breakdown of symmetry on the smallest scale possible to allow for the evaporation to occur.
He doesn't take into account the probable discrete nature of space-time a quantum theory of gravity would have, but it's a step in the right direction. It still means that energies well above anything we've ever seen are possible (the energy a photon has if it's wavelength is a planck length is something we'll never be able to create probably), which means that while the final few moments of a black hole's existence is questionable as it's output increases, any 'normal' sized black hole (more than a few billion tons) will be radiating as expected.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 06:03 PM)
Simply put, the point on the event horizon where Hawking Radiation would occur would have to be travelling faster than the speed of light.
Nothing you've said implies that. Plus, you make the mistake of thinking Hawking radiation happens on the event horizon, it actually happens just above it (the closer, the more the effect).
While a spinning black hole has an ergosphere which forces objects within it to move rather than just 'hang', that doesn't imply any contradiction with light speed, just things must rotate around the black hole too. All it means is that an outward moving object would move in a spiral, not a radial line.
While a spinning black hole has an ergosphere which forces objects within it to move rather than just 'hang', that doesn't imply any contradiction with light speed, just things must rotate around the black hole too. All it means is that an outward moving object would move in a spiral, not a radial line.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 06:03 PM)
This is a flawed model of quantum gravity.
Of course it is! It's not a full blown theory of quantum gravity, it was one of the first tentative steps towards such a thing. While the ideas might break down at sub-planck distances, the 'approximation' it gives is very close. You'll still get cold black holes radiating as expected and until the last few nanoseconds of a black hole's existence it'll be as Hawking predicted. Wether they actually end up evaporating or perhaps the planck limit somehow cuts off the evaporation leaving a 'core' which is fairly inert (possible candidate for dark matter and some people have predicted as much) is still to be seen.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 06:03 PM)
Black Holes absorb spacetime as well. Hawking's model doesn't take this into account, but instead explicitly leaves it out to allow for his Hawking Radiation to exist.
Fancy showing the derivation of such a claim? I don't accept a picture or two and 'Because I say so'.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 06:03 PM)
Now, if you don't understand philisophical arguments derived through analysis of mathematical formulas, there is an alternative
I've not seen you give any arguments based on maths formula. If anything, you've shown you don't understand the ramifications of maths formula given you think any answer involving pi is inexact or that you can't describe a hypersphere using maths.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 06:03 PM)
We can sit here and wait for them to test fire the LHC in a month or so. But even Stephen Hawking admits now that his logic may be inherently flawed and that CERN are being dumb monkeys right now.
What is it with every nut who doesn't believe in Hawking radiation thinking CERN are only looking for Hawking radiation and black holes? If anything, the vast majority of reasons the LHC has been built are nothing to do with black holes. There's tons of stuff about top quarks, taus, neutrino oscillations, Higgs bosons, supersymmetric particles and CP violation which the LHC will be investigating. It'd be nice from an experimental point of view if a black hole was made and then evaporated via Hawking radiation but few people will be bothered if it doesn't appear! The LHC's primary 'reason d'etre' is not Hawking radiation and it most certainly is not being built on a whim of Hawking's! Some nuts seem to think he's the King of Physics, he says 'Jump!' and we ask 'How high?'. No, he's just a well known figure in physics. He has had little to no input on CERNs design and construction and most of his research is tested in other ways!
Try learning something about his work and the LHC before talking nonsense.
Try learning something about his work and the LHC before talking nonsense.
Ok... I'm done with the gibberish and leghumping of long dead scientists that are now being worshipped as Gods.
Go live in your fantasy world of numbers where the Universe exists solely to benefit your own intellect.
Personally, I think the cranks here have more on the ball than you do if all you're planning on doing is attacking my sentences one by one without ever mentioning anything about the theory that you've immediately refuted without ever giving a single plausible explanation.
If you want to argue about planck lengths and other such gibberish, go right ahead.
If you want to assume that a flawed model for quantum gravity is based on the correct assumptions, then go right ahead.
And if you want to assume that the Universe has a point origin instead of a cyclical nature, go right ahead.
But it doesn't mean you ever approach anything that at all replicates reality just by moving random numbers and symbols around on a page.
As for spacetime implosion... how do you think you're existing right now? By your own logic you're not.
Go live in your fantasy world of numbers where the Universe exists solely to benefit your own intellect.
Personally, I think the cranks here have more on the ball than you do if all you're planning on doing is attacking my sentences one by one without ever mentioning anything about the theory that you've immediately refuted without ever giving a single plausible explanation.
If you want to argue about planck lengths and other such gibberish, go right ahead.
If you want to assume that a flawed model for quantum gravity is based on the correct assumptions, then go right ahead.
And if you want to assume that the Universe has a point origin instead of a cyclical nature, go right ahead.
But it doesn't mean you ever approach anything that at all replicates reality just by moving random numbers and symbols around on a page.
As for spacetime implosion... how do you think you're existing right now? By your own logic you're not.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 11:38 PM)
leghumping of long dead scientists that are now being worshipped as Gods.
Ah, another typical response. I consider certain mainstream theories and results to at least be vaguely right and suddenly I'm praising Einstein or Hawking (who, incidentally, isn't dead yet!) as gods.
If anything, I've told a crank or two on here Einstein was fallible and that they shouldn't canonise things like E=mc² or Einstein's comments about 'god playing dice' etc.
Everyone is subject to making mistakes, even well known physicists.
Ah, another typical response. I consider certain mainstream theories and results to at least be vaguely right and suddenly I'm praising Einstein or Hawking (who, incidentally, isn't dead yet!) as gods.
If anything, I've told a crank or two on here Einstein was fallible and that they shouldn't canonise things like E=mc² or Einstein's comments about 'god playing dice' etc.
Everyone is subject to making mistakes, even well known physicists.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 11:38 PM)
Go live in your fantasy world of numbers where the Universe exists solely to benefit your own intellect
No, just my world where evidence and logic are required before I accept someone's model of reality and where maths can be a very powerful tool.
You thought that maths couldn't describe a hypersphere, I demonstrated with a few lines of description you were wrong. Hardly living in the fanstasy world you think I am.
Again, you fall smack inline with typical crank behaviour. Maths is useless and anyone who actually knows any or uses any is a mindless automaton detatched from reality. I have to break it to you but that's very much wrong in the case of a lot of physicists. The computer infront of you is evidence of that.
You thought that maths couldn't describe a hypersphere, I demonstrated with a few lines of description you were wrong. Hardly living in the fanstasy world you think I am.
Again, you fall smack inline with typical crank behaviour. Maths is useless and anyone who actually knows any or uses any is a mindless automaton detatched from reality. I have to break it to you but that's very much wrong in the case of a lot of physicists. The computer infront of you is evidence of that.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 11:38 PM)
Personally, I think the cranks here have more on the ball than you do if all you're planning on doing is attacking my sentences one by one without ever mentioning anything about the theory that you've immediately refuted without ever giving a single plausible explanation.
The problem with your 'theory' is that there's nothing to it other than a few pictures. Where are your predictions? Your logic? Your evidence? You claim to disprove Hawking radiation yet nothing in your paper illudes to it in any way, you just come out with "And therefore Hawking radiation doesn't exist". What about Unruh radiation? Are virtual pairs nonexistent? How exactly do black holes pull in space-time? Where are your equations? Your details? Your descriptions of the dynamics of space-time? A few pictures and some description which boils down to "Because I say so" doesn't count.
Fine, planck length physics might pose a problem for Hawking radiation, but nothing in your paper says much about that, you had to use a Wiki page's quote to say that. Where's your evidence that the equations of relativity imply space-time gets pulled into a black hole, rather than it just being curved space-time which is static?
Infact, a Schwarzchild solution is static! It's part of how you prove it's uniqueness. Hence the space-time doesn't move itself, but the things within it move in a new way (ie curved light paths).
If you claim something specific, you should back it up. Feel free to get down to the guts of relativity in proving your claim that space-time flows in a black hole solution. I think Birkhoff's Theorem might be of particular interest to you
I find it humerous that you claim I'm not able to refute anything when I can ask you a series of questions you should have addressed but haven't.
Fine, planck length physics might pose a problem for Hawking radiation, but nothing in your paper says much about that, you had to use a Wiki page's quote to say that. Where's your evidence that the equations of relativity imply space-time gets pulled into a black hole, rather than it just being curved space-time which is static?
Infact, a Schwarzchild solution is static! It's part of how you prove it's uniqueness. Hence the space-time doesn't move itself, but the things within it move in a new way (ie curved light paths).
If you claim something specific, you should back it up. Feel free to get down to the guts of relativity in proving your claim that space-time flows in a black hole solution. I think Birkhoff's Theorem might be of particular interest to you
I find it humerous that you claim I'm not able to refute anything when I can ask you a series of questions you should have addressed but haven't.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 11:38 PM)
And if you want to assume that the Universe has a point origin instead of a cyclical nature, go right ahead.
Where did I say that? I just talked about the mathematical method to describe a hypersphere (a very simple extension of a normal sphere or circle). Besides, even if I had commented I'm a proponent of the big bang theory, that doesn't mean I'm not a proponent of a cyclical universe theory. There's nothing contradictory about holding those two views.
Personally, I don't have any concrete opinion about what, if anything, came before the big bang, it's utter conjecture at present so any opinion would be a matter of total faith.
Personally, I don't have any concrete opinion about what, if anything, came before the big bang, it's utter conjecture at present so any opinion would be a matter of total faith.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 11:38 PM)
But it doesn't mean you ever approach anything that at all replicates reality just by moving random numbers and symbols around on a page.
I suggest opening any physics textbook you come across, you can 'replicate reality' in small parts pretty well using fancy symbols and letters. Again, that computer infront of you is testiment to that
Sure, we don't have a collection of symbols and letters which replicate ALL of reality at once, but we've been slowly working our way towards it for the last few hundred, if not thousands, of years and will continue to do so. If you don't think physics written in the language of maths has any use or has got us anywhere, I assume you're utterly blind to all the technology with surrounds you.
And as for pi and the hypersphere... tell me the EXACT surface area of a sphere, let alone a hypersphere.
Pi is an infinite number. You can only approximate.
Hi SSU,
AlphaN gave an excellent description of how to increase your accuracy of equations which involve fractions.What he meant was, leave pi as pi during symbolic derivations, then once you have the equation at hand only then do you plug in the numbers.
In fact, my Derive 6 by Texas Instruments can express pi to 500+ decimal places if the user so wishes.
Further, pi is not an infinite number. What about sqrt(2), same situation?
Surface area of sphere, well the volume equates to (V)=(4/3).pi.r^3
Differentiating volume w.r.t. radius equates to 4.pi.r^2
As such, I do not see your problem regarding fractional part of pi resulting in loss of accuracy?
Keep Well
Darren
Sure, we don't have a collection of symbols and letters which replicate ALL of reality at once, but we've been slowly working our way towards it for the last few hundred, if not thousands, of years and will continue to do so. If you don't think physics written in the language of maths has any use or has got us anywhere, I assume you're utterly blind to all the technology with surrounds you.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 11:38 PM)
As for spacetime implosion... how do you think you're existing right now? By your own logic you're not.
Care to run that one by me again? Where did I say anything about a space-time implosion and where did I imply I don't exist by my logic?
If space is experiencing 'metric expansion' then the co-moving distance between two points is increasing without a growth in the spacetime between the two. This is accepted as fact.
Hence, the spacetime (emphasis on time) for light traversing this stretched space would be altered as well. This implies that space isn't expanding between points as an increase in the co-moving distance, but spacetime is being imploded towards galactic gravity wells, creating the appearance of an increase in the co-moving distance. The metric expansion still occurs, but we only experience time as we do because of the spacetime implosion towards galactic core, hence accelerated implosion towards a point source rather than a simple expansion.
And as for pi and the hypersphere... tell me the EXACT surface area of a sphere, let alone a hypersphere.
Pi is an infinite number. You can only approximate.
Hence, the spacetime (emphasis on time) for light traversing this stretched space would be altered as well. This implies that space isn't expanding between points as an increase in the co-moving distance, but spacetime is being imploded towards galactic gravity wells, creating the appearance of an increase in the co-moving distance. The metric expansion still occurs, but we only experience time as we do because of the spacetime implosion towards galactic core, hence accelerated implosion towards a point source rather than a simple expansion.
And as for pi and the hypersphere... tell me the EXACT surface area of a sphere, let alone a hypersphere.
Pi is an infinite number. You can only approximate.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 22 2006, 11:32 PM)
And as for pi and the hypersphere... tell me the EXACT surface area of a sphere, let alone a hypersphere.
Pi is an infinite number. You can only approximate.
Hi SSU,
AlphaN gave an excellent description of how to increase your accuracy of equations which involve fractions.What he meant was, leave pi as pi during symbolic derivations, then once you have the equation at hand only then do you plug in the numbers.
In fact, my Derive 6 by Texas Instruments can express pi to 500+ decimal places if the user so wishes.
Further, pi is not an infinite number. What about sqrt(2), same situation?
Surface area of sphere, well the volume equates to (V)=(4/3).pi.r^3
Differentiating volume w.r.t. radius equates to 4.pi.r^2
As such, I do not see your problem regarding fractional part of pi resulting in loss of accuracy?
Keep Well
Darren
Ok... perhaps this will explain it better.
If you've got a mass circling a singularity, it's orbital decay could be described as a spiral. But using pi to describe the spiral leaves you with a spiral that stretches on into infinity without ever reaching the center.
I'm lacking certain words to describe the concept I've visualized, but I'm trying.
Imagine the universe is composed of two singularities that appear to be expanding away from each other. Each has it's one galactic mass about them. Now for visualization, imagine that these singularities are actually the center of two spools on a tape deck, but instead of winding in one direction or the other, they're both winding the tape in. The spacetime would be the tape and the galactic mass would be the music on the tape. As the tape stretches, we get the appearance of metric expansion however the music on said tape would be stretched as well (hence, less spacetime exists between each singularity, but piles up around it).
This is what I mean by the illusion of metric expansion.
Now once each singularity has absorbed the mass of the it's component galaxy, there should be nothing left to create the spacetime the singularity exists within. At that point, the singularities, the only objects left in the universe would begin pulling on the remaining spacetime between the two. Their pull would then bring them together from an infinite distance because the time between the two would be 1/infinity at this point. Hence my spiral analogy. Two orbiting points receding from each other at an infinite distance, but also approaching each other as the time between each is approaching, but never quite reaching zero.
I may have to re-explain a portion of this analogy, but you might start to get what I'm talking about.
If you've got a mass circling a singularity, it's orbital decay could be described as a spiral. But using pi to describe the spiral leaves you with a spiral that stretches on into infinity without ever reaching the center.
I'm lacking certain words to describe the concept I've visualized, but I'm trying.
Imagine the universe is composed of two singularities that appear to be expanding away from each other. Each has it's one galactic mass about them. Now for visualization, imagine that these singularities are actually the center of two spools on a tape deck, but instead of winding in one direction or the other, they're both winding the tape in. The spacetime would be the tape and the galactic mass would be the music on the tape. As the tape stretches, we get the appearance of metric expansion however the music on said tape would be stretched as well (hence, less spacetime exists between each singularity, but piles up around it).
This is what I mean by the illusion of metric expansion.
Now once each singularity has absorbed the mass of the it's component galaxy, there should be nothing left to create the spacetime the singularity exists within. At that point, the singularities, the only objects left in the universe would begin pulling on the remaining spacetime between the two. Their pull would then bring them together from an infinite distance because the time between the two would be 1/infinity at this point. Hence my spiral analogy. Two orbiting points receding from each other at an infinite distance, but also approaching each other as the time between each is approaching, but never quite reaching zero.
I may have to re-explain a portion of this analogy, but you might start to get what I'm talking about.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 02:25 AM)
If you've got a mass circling a singularity, it's orbital decay could be described as a spiral. But using pi to describe the spiral leaves you with a spiral that stretches on into infinity without ever reaching the center.
What happens if an external force or a particle moves this mass out of orbit? Or what if this orbiting mass, at some point, breaks into several smaller particles with different physical properties?
--
GR
What happens if an external force or a particle moves this mass out of orbit? Or what if this orbiting mass, at some point, breaks into several smaller particles with different physical properties?
--
GR
I'm talking about points. I'm not introducing macroscopic or quantum effects, just the math required to describe it.
Your whatifs have no bearing on the direction of this discussion.
Again for the new page:
Attempted explanation of spacetime implosion as an observable corollary of metric expansion.
Your whatifs have no bearing on the direction of this discussion.
Again for the new page:
QUOTE
If you've got a mass circling a singularity, it's orbital decay could be described as a spiral. But using pi to describe the spiral leaves you with a spiral that stretches on into infinity without ever reaching the center.
I'm lacking certain words to describe the concept I've visualized, but I'm trying.
Imagine the universe is composed of two singularities that appear to be expanding away from each other. Each has it's one galactic mass about them. Now for visualization, imagine that these singularities are actually the center of two spools on a tape deck, but instead of winding in one direction or the other, they're both winding the tape in. The spacetime would be the tape and the galactic mass would be the music on the tape. As the tape stretches, we get the appearance of metric expansion however the music on said tape would be stretched as well (hence, less spacetime exists between each singularity, but piles up around it).
This is what I mean by the illusion of metric expansion.
Now once each singularity has absorbed the mass of the it's component galaxy, there should be nothing left to create the spacetime the singularity exists within. At that point, the singularities, the only objects left in the universe would begin pulling on the remaining spacetime between the two. Their pull would then bring them together from an infinite distance because the time between the two would be 1/infinity at this point. Hence my spiral analogy. Two orbiting points receding from each other at an infinite distance, but also approaching each other as the time between each is approaching, but never quite reaching zero.
I'm lacking certain words to describe the concept I've visualized, but I'm trying.
Imagine the universe is composed of two singularities that appear to be expanding away from each other. Each has it's one galactic mass about them. Now for visualization, imagine that these singularities are actually the center of two spools on a tape deck, but instead of winding in one direction or the other, they're both winding the tape in. The spacetime would be the tape and the galactic mass would be the music on the tape. As the tape stretches, we get the appearance of metric expansion however the music on said tape would be stretched as well (hence, less spacetime exists between each singularity, but piles up around it).
This is what I mean by the illusion of metric expansion.
Now once each singularity has absorbed the mass of the it's component galaxy, there should be nothing left to create the spacetime the singularity exists within. At that point, the singularities, the only objects left in the universe would begin pulling on the remaining spacetime between the two. Their pull would then bring them together from an infinite distance because the time between the two would be 1/infinity at this point. Hence my spiral analogy. Two orbiting points receding from each other at an infinite distance, but also approaching each other as the time between each is approaching, but never quite reaching zero.
Attempted explanation of spacetime implosion as an observable corollary of metric expansion.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 05:18 AM)
I'm talking about points. I'm not introducing macroscopic or quantum effects, just the math required to describe it.
Your whatifs have no bearing on the direction of this discussion.
You know, I can construct a number of fantasy worlds on my own, which doesn't care so much about current knowledge in physics. Since this is a physics forum, and you want to discuss such fantasy worlds, I think we don't have anything more to discuss. Bye!
--
GR
Your whatifs have no bearing on the direction of this discussion.
You know, I can construct a number of fantasy worlds on my own, which doesn't care so much about current knowledge in physics. Since this is a physics forum, and you want to discuss such fantasy worlds, I think we don't have anything more to discuss. Bye!
--
GR
Man... don't be a douche. The whole Pi argument was how approximations of Pi cannot be used to mathematically describe the Universe we live in by the same argument you just used against me. If you'd read back more than one post, you'd have known that.
I'm using singularities to answer the age old question of an Unstoppable Force meeting an Immovable Object. In this situation both force and object apply to a singularity and it's event horizon. And in this interpretation, the anwer is they would never meet but would recede into infinity.
Either way, that's just a digression from the original point of attempting to explain the concept of accelerating spacetime implosion using the tape deck analogy.
I'm using singularities to answer the age old question of an Unstoppable Force meeting an Immovable Object. In this situation both force and object apply to a singularity and it's event horizon. And in this interpretation, the anwer is they would never meet but would recede into infinity.
Either way, that's just a digression from the original point of attempting to explain the concept of accelerating spacetime implosion using the tape deck analogy.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 12:32 AM)
Hence, the spacetime (emphasis on time) for light traversing this stretched space would be altered as well. This implies that space isn't expanding between points as an increase in the co-moving distance, but spacetime is being imploded towards galactic gravity wells, creating the appearance of an increase in the co-moving distance.
Nope, the 'universe expansion metric' doesn't talk about galaxies at all, it just considers an empty space-time which is expanding and has a certain amount of curvature.
Nope, the 'universe expansion metric' doesn't talk about galaxies at all, it just considers an empty space-time which is expanding and has a certain amount of curvature.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 12:32 AM)
but we only experience time as we do because of the spacetime implosion towards galactic core, hence accelerated implosion towards a point source rather than a simple expansion.
Can you back that up with any general relativity or is all you've got just vague descriptions? The importance is in the details.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 12:32 AM)
And as for pi and the hypersphere... tell me the EXACT surface area of a sphere, let alone a hypersphere.
Pi is an infinite number. You can only approximate.
Pi is an infinite number. You can only approximate.
4πr². As for higher dimensional onces, you can easily find out the formula using Google. By chance, I wondered how to compute it a few days ago (it came up in a supersymmetry question I was doing) and the method is understandable to anyone who knows a bit of integration (watch out, calculus!)
Also, you don't mean to say 'pi is an infinite number'. That is obviously false, since 3<pi<4. What you mean is 'The decimal expansion of pi is non-repeating'. The proper name is 'irrational' (pi is also transcendental but that's not important right now). By doing algebraic manipulation so that you leave your answer as a function of pi, you allow anyone wanting to work out the numerical value to work it out to an arbitrary number of places. Want 10 decimal places? No problem. 100? Fine. A billion? It'll take a while but no problem. Any degree of accuracy you want can be attained.
Infact, we know pi's decimal value far more than any physical quantity. We know pi to over a trillion digits. If you measured the entire visible universe's radius to within 1 planck length, you'd have a value accurate to about 60 decimal places. And we know pi to over a trillion. Using a 100 digit value of pi would make be so accurate that a single quantum fluctuation in the entire universe would drown out your error.
Therefore for physical applications, we essentially have the exact value of pi. Mathematically we have it's exact value too, we just express it in terms of integrals or series. For instance pi = 4 arctan(1). That's a perfect value for pi.
Also, you don't mean to say 'pi is an infinite number'. That is obviously false, since 3<pi<4. What you mean is 'The decimal expansion of pi is non-repeating'. The proper name is 'irrational' (pi is also transcendental but that's not important right now). By doing algebraic manipulation so that you leave your answer as a function of pi, you allow anyone wanting to work out the numerical value to work it out to an arbitrary number of places. Want 10 decimal places? No problem. 100? Fine. A billion? It'll take a while but no problem. Any degree of accuracy you want can be attained.
Infact, we know pi's decimal value far more than any physical quantity. We know pi to over a trillion digits. If you measured the entire visible universe's radius to within 1 planck length, you'd have a value accurate to about 60 decimal places. And we know pi to over a trillion. Using a 100 digit value of pi would make be so accurate that a single quantum fluctuation in the entire universe would drown out your error.
Therefore for physical applications, we essentially have the exact value of pi. Mathematically we have it's exact value too, we just express it in terms of integrals or series. For instance pi = 4 arctan(1). That's a perfect value for pi.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 12:32 AM)
Man... don't be a douche. The whole Pi argument was how approximations of Pi cannot be used to mathematically describe the Universe we live in by the same argument you just used against me. If you'd read back more than one post, you'd have known that.
For someone claiming :
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 12:32 AM)
I'm talking about points. I'm not introducing macroscopic or quantum effects, just the math required to describe it.
You really don't know much about maths, physics and experimental error do you?
The definition of a hypersphere as w²+x²+y²+z²=R² doesn't involve pi and that's the exact mathematical definition of a hypersphere in 4 dimensions with radius R. Plus, as I just outlined, the universe is far less perfect than our knowledge of pi's decimal value.
I suggest a basic course in vector calculus, the kind 1st year physicists or mathematicians learn. Perhaps then you'll see what describing motion in multiple dimensions looks like mathematically. You hardly post ANY maths, never mind accurate methods to describe motion in space-time!
Once you've grasped vector calculus. then move onto tensors and GR and maybe you'll see just how far you are from something useful. But what would I know about vectors, GR and higher dimension? Oh wait....
The definition of a hypersphere as w²+x²+y²+z²=R² doesn't involve pi and that's the exact mathematical definition of a hypersphere in 4 dimensions with radius R. Plus, as I just outlined, the universe is far less perfect than our knowledge of pi's decimal value.
I suggest a basic course in vector calculus, the kind 1st year physicists or mathematicians learn. Perhaps then you'll see what describing motion in multiple dimensions looks like mathematically. You hardly post ANY maths, never mind accurate methods to describe motion in space-time!
Once you've grasped vector calculus. then move onto tensors and GR and maybe you'll see just how far you are from something useful. But what would I know about vectors, GR and higher dimension? Oh wait....
You know what?
Shove it up your ***, Alpha.
What do you think causes the expansion metric? Of course galaxies are involved. That's how we *** measure it. Redshifted light, you pompous ***.
And you can take your 'irrational, transcendental' pi and stick it straight where the sun doesn't shine as well. Put it right next to the square root of 2.
Go eat a ***. You just don't like running into concepts that force you to think outside your little box. That's why you come in here to *** on the 'cranks'.
And you think your knowledge of math is somehow more perfect than reality itself. Or that any level of approximation is somehow 'good enough' for measuring Universal scale.
In my opinion, any Grand Unified Theory has to be based on something so simple that the average everyday person should be able to understand it without taking several years of math.
So take your math analysis and *** off.
Shove it up your ***, Alpha.
What do you think causes the expansion metric? Of course galaxies are involved. That's how we *** measure it. Redshifted light, you pompous ***.
And you can take your 'irrational, transcendental' pi and stick it straight where the sun doesn't shine as well. Put it right next to the square root of 2.
QUOTE
The definition of a hypersphere as w²+x²+y²+z²=R² doesn't involve pi and that's the exact mathematical definition of a hypersphere in 4 dimensions with radius R. Plus, as I just outlined, the universe is far less perfect than our knowledge of pi's decimal value.
Go eat a ***. You just don't like running into concepts that force you to think outside your little box. That's why you come in here to *** on the 'cranks'.
And you think your knowledge of math is somehow more perfect than reality itself. Or that any level of approximation is somehow 'good enough' for measuring Universal scale.
In my opinion, any Grand Unified Theory has to be based on something so simple that the average everyday person should be able to understand it without taking several years of math.
So take your math analysis and *** off.
Ahem.
Now... back to the original point.
I'll throw some formulas up here later for the gravity analysis I'm deriving, but I want it kept simple and I'm not posting anything until I can grasp and explain it completely.
The time analysis is still simple.
A white hole winds time out, black holes wind time in. We're sitting next to a black hole (GCC), therefore we experience time as it's wound in.
Now... back to the original point.
I'll throw some formulas up here later for the gravity analysis I'm deriving, but I want it kept simple and I'm not posting anything until I can grasp and explain it completely.
The time analysis is still simple.
A white hole winds time out, black holes wind time in. We're sitting next to a black hole (GCC), therefore we experience time as it's wound in.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 05:03 PM)
And you think your knowledge of math is somehow more perfect than reality itself.
No, I said that maths is more 'perfect' or accurate than real physics ever is. There's no experimental error in maths. No rounding errors. No annoyance of experiments at all.
No, I said that maths is more 'perfect' or accurate than real physics ever is. There's no experimental error in maths. No rounding errors. No annoyance of experiments at all.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 05:03 PM)
You just don't like running into concepts that force you to think outside your little box.
Actually I like thinking about new things. For instance, I read a paper which talked about the CMB and the notion of an absolute reference frame. It forced me to think about relativity, an expanding universe and the CMB and understand things I previously different.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 05:03 PM)
So take your math analysis and *** off.
It's more than just maths analysis, it's about scientific method. You claim to disprove Hawking radiation yet you offer no evidence, no logical derivation, no viable counter of any kind. That isn't science, that's your opinion.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 05:03 PM)
What do you think causes the expansion metric? Of course galaxies are involved. That's how we *** measure it. Redshifted light, you pompous ***.
The point is, you'd see the redshift from low mass (ie weak gravity) luminous objects. It's not due to gravity wells and the expansion metrics used (the Friedman-Robertson-Walker metric) doesn't require galaxies, it's just about a universal space-time.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 05:03 PM)
In my opinion, any Grand Unified Theory has to be based on something so simple that the average everyday person should be able to understand it without taking several years of math.
Why? It's very hard to describe electromagnetism without knowing differential equations and vector calculus, never mind the motion of subatomic particles and black holes.
Of course you can give qualative descriptions of those ideas that most people can understand but it's being a touch optimistic to think the universe is so simple you can instantly understanding without any precursor knowledge. After all, that implies you expect everything in the universe to be nice and intuitive. I doubt the universe is that nice.
Of course you can give qualative descriptions of those ideas that most people can understand but it's being a touch optimistic to think the universe is so simple you can instantly understanding without any precursor knowledge. After all, that implies you expect everything in the universe to be nice and intuitive. I doubt the universe is that nice.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 05:03 PM)
And you can take your 'irrational, transcendental' pi and stick it straight where the sun doesn't shine as well. Put it right next to the square root of 2.
It's not my fault if someone claiming to be giving the maths to describe a black hole seems to have quite a number of basic misunderstandings of maths.
Obviously you get 'cheesed' a bit when someone actually corrects you and points out flaws in your logic. If so, why do you bother coming on these sites? Rather than coming on a discussion forum, where people can challenge your ideas, why not just make a website and post a big monologue there so that noone can say "Actually, I think you're in error here...". You obviously don't want discussion or correction, you want a slap on the back and a big "Well done, you're obviously so insightful". Well tough. I can't help it if you come up short in places.
Obviously you get 'cheesed' a bit when someone actually corrects you and points out flaws in your logic. If so, why do you bother coming on these sites? Rather than coming on a discussion forum, where people can challenge your ideas, why not just make a website and post a big monologue there so that noone can say "Actually, I think you're in error here...". You obviously don't want discussion or correction, you want a slap on the back and a big "Well done, you're obviously so insightful". Well tough. I can't help it if you come up short in places.
I've got no problem with having people point out errors in logic.
But my basic analysis of pi, the square root of 2 and you could even through phi into the mix still holds.
Proper analysis of a universal frame would not allow for a non-algebraic expression without producing a number that runs off into infinity.
Having said that, a simple analysis of the concept of two singularities meeting would validate that assumption. These two points would never meet under solid state theory, but would recede into infinity, hence the terminus concept which is validated by an analysis of a subset of the hypersphere.
My point about Hawking Radiation was simply that it's derived from an expanding universe model that predict certain variables which would not be present in a cyclical universe.
Hence, singularities would not 'evaporate' and black holes would eventually recede into infinity as they reunify.
Here's a quote from Johann Masreliez, who I've asked to evalute the Solid State Universe Theory from his observations of an expanding spacetime metric.
The metric expansion of space makes no mention of the effects of this metric expansion on time. My theory attempts to reunify time with the concept of metric expansion and does so by positing accelerated implosion, removing the concept of an inital Big Bang.
Say, SSU, what the hell is a metric when it's around?I'd really like to know?
Darren
But my basic analysis of pi, the square root of 2 and you could even through phi into the mix still holds.
Proper analysis of a universal frame would not allow for a non-algebraic expression without producing a number that runs off into infinity.
Having said that, a simple analysis of the concept of two singularities meeting would validate that assumption. These two points would never meet under solid state theory, but would recede into infinity, hence the terminus concept which is validated by an analysis of a subset of the hypersphere.
My point about Hawking Radiation was simply that it's derived from an expanding universe model that predict certain variables which would not be present in a cyclical universe.
Hence, singularities would not 'evaporate' and black holes would eventually recede into infinity as they reunify.
Here's a quote from Johann Masreliez, who I've asked to evalute the Solid State Universe Theory from his observations of an expanding spacetime metric.
QUOTE (Johann Masreliez+)
Thanks. It appears that the universe is sustained by cyclic processes, the
progression of time being the most fundamental of these.
Johan
The metric expansion of space makes no mention of the effects of this metric expansion on time. My theory attempts to reunify time with the concept of metric expansion and does so by positing accelerated implosion, removing the concept of an inital Big Bang.
Also, is it not possible that neutrinos are actually the energy state of electrons orbiting protons? That a neuton is a sum of the binding energy between protons, electrons and the neutrino/spacetime, creating a magnetically aligned state that creates the concept of an orbiting electron/proton sphere?
progression of time being the most fundamental of these.
Johan
The metric expansion of space makes no mention of the effects of this metric expansion on time. My theory attempts to reunify time with the concept of metric expansion and does so by positing accelerated implosion, removing the concept of an inital Big Bang.
Also, is it not possible that neutrinos are actually the energy state of electrons orbiting protons? That a neuton is a sum of the binding energy between protons, electrons and the neutrino/spacetime, creating a magnetically aligned state that creates the concept of an orbiting electron/proton sphere?
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 09:02 PM)
The metric expansion of space makes no mention of the effects of this metric expansion on time. My theory attempts to reunify time with the concept of metric expansion and does so by positing accelerated implosion, removing the concept of an inital Big Bang.
Say, SSU, what the hell is a metric when it's around?I'd really like to know?
Darren
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
Woot. I can add links now.
Woot. I can add links now.
QUOTE
The metric expansion of space is a key part of science's current understanding of the universe, whereby spacetime itself is described by a metric which changes over time in such a way that the spatial dimensions appear to grow or stretch as the universe gets older. It explains how the universe expands in the Big Bang model, a feature of our universe supported by all cosmological experiments, astrophysics calculations, and measurements to date.
The expansion of space is conceptually different from other kinds of expansions and explosions that are seen in nature. Our understanding of the "fabric of the universe" (spacetime) requires that what we see normally as "space", "time", and "distance" are not absolutes, but are determined by a metric that can change. In the metric expansion of space, rather than objects in a fixed "space" moving apart into "emptiness", it is the space that contains the objects which is itself changing. It is as if without objects themselves moving, space is somehow "growing" in between them.
Because it is the metric defining distance that is changing rather than objects moving in space, this expansion (and the resultant movement apart of objects) is not restricted by the speed of light upper bound that results from special relativity.
Theory and observations suggest that very early in the history of the universe, there was an "inflationary" phase where this metric changed very rapidly, and that the remaining time-dependence of this metric is what we observe as the so-called Hubble expansion, the moving apart of all gravitationally unbound objects in the universe. The expanding universe is therefore a fundamental feature of the universe we inhabit—a universe fundamentally different from the static universe Albert Einstein first considered when he developed his gravitational theory.
The expansion of space is conceptually different from other kinds of expansions and explosions that are seen in nature. Our understanding of the "fabric of the universe" (spacetime) requires that what we see normally as "space", "time", and "distance" are not absolutes, but are determined by a metric that can change. In the metric expansion of space, rather than objects in a fixed "space" moving apart into "emptiness", it is the space that contains the objects which is itself changing. It is as if without objects themselves moving, space is somehow "growing" in between them.
Because it is the metric defining distance that is changing rather than objects moving in space, this expansion (and the resultant movement apart of objects) is not restricted by the speed of light upper bound that results from special relativity.
Theory and observations suggest that very early in the history of the universe, there was an "inflationary" phase where this metric changed very rapidly, and that the remaining time-dependence of this metric is what we observe as the so-called Hubble expansion, the moving apart of all gravitationally unbound objects in the universe. The expanding universe is therefore a fundamental feature of the universe we inhabit—a universe fundamentally different from the static universe Albert Einstein first considered when he developed his gravitational theory.
Hi SSU, Hmm... I sort of get the idea but extremely vaguely.The other week I was playing around circles on Cartesian coordinates using a cheapo graphic maths program. Although my equation for a half circle was correct, I kept on plotting an ellipse, then suddenly I realised my coordinate system was not symmetric, y not equal to x. Setting the coordinates symmetrical solved my problem, so I now know how to draw half circles on symmetrical Cartesian graph paper!
Best Regards
Darren
Best Regards
Darren
Just hop back to the tape deck analogy at the top of the page.
It's the best explanation I can give you for it... you've got to remember, you're talking about spatial expansion occuring in a temporal frame of reference.
It's the best explanation I can give you for it... you've got to remember, you're talking about spatial expansion occuring in a temporal frame of reference.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 04:03 PM)
You know what?
Shove it up your ***, Alpha.
What do you think causes the expansion metric? Of course galaxies are involved. That's how we *** measure it. Redshifted light, you pompous ***.
And you can take your 'irrational, transcendental' pi and stick it straight where the sun doesn't shine as well. Put it right next to the square root of 2.
Go eat a ***. You just don't like running into concepts that force you to think outside your little box. That's why you come in here to *** on the 'cranks'.
And you think your knowledge of math is somehow more perfect than reality itself. Or that any level of approximation is somehow 'good enough' for measuring Universal scale.
In my opinion, any Grand Unified Theory has to be based on something so simple that the average everyday person should be able to understand it without taking several years of math.
So take your math analysis and *** off.
Shove it up your ***, Alpha.
What do you think causes the expansion metric? Of course galaxies are involved. That's how we *** measure it. Redshifted light, you pompous ***.
And you can take your 'irrational, transcendental' pi and stick it straight where the sun doesn't shine as well. Put it right next to the square root of 2.
Go eat a ***. You just don't like running into concepts that force you to think outside your little box. That's why you come in here to *** on the 'cranks'.
And you think your knowledge of math is somehow more perfect than reality itself. Or that any level of approximation is somehow 'good enough' for measuring Universal scale.
In my opinion, any Grand Unified Theory has to be based on something so simple that the average everyday person should be able to understand it without taking several years of math.
So take your math analysis and *** off.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 10:02 PM)
Proper analysis of a universal frame would not allow for a non-algebraic expression without producing a number that runs off into infinity.
You need to learn there's a difference between an infinite number (ie a number whose value is unbounded) and a number with a non-terminating decimal expansion. 1/3 has a non-terminating decimal expansion (though not in bases 3, 6, 9 etc). Pi is a little different in that it's non-terminating in any rational base but that doesn't mean it's infinite. Calling it as such confuses your comments and for someone trying to make mathematical statements, you are asking to do something wrong.
You need to learn there's a difference between an infinite number (ie a number whose value is unbounded) and a number with a non-terminating decimal expansion. 1/3 has a non-terminating decimal expansion (though not in bases 3, 6, 9 etc). Pi is a little different in that it's non-terminating in any rational base but that doesn't mean it's infinite. Calling it as such confuses your comments and for someone trying to make mathematical statements, you are asking to do something wrong.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 10:02 PM)
My point about Hawking Radiation was simply that it's derived from an expanding universe model that predict certain variables which would not be present in a cyclical universe.
Nope. The derivation is only interested in the space-time directly around a black hole. What the space-time asymptotes to isn't too important. It doesn't matter if the universe is infinite and flat or just huge but closed. It's about the gravitational effect on quantum fields just above the event horizon. The time dependence of the space-time curvature averages across the universe is irrelevent, particularly given how slow it would be changing.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 23 2006, 10:02 PM)
Also, is it not possible that neutrinos are actually the energy state of electrons orbiting protons? That a neuton is a sum of the binding energy between protons, electrons and the neutrino/spacetime, creating a magnetically aligned state that creates the concept of an orbiting electron/proton sphere?
Not really. The neutrino has near zero rest mass. An electron-proton system wouldn't. The electron-proton system contains charged particles so it would interact with light, neutrinos don't. Also, such a decay would violate a number of quantum conservation principles (never mind energy and momentum).
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 24 2006, 09:26 AM)
You need to learn there's a difference between an infinite number (ie a number whose value is unbounded) and a number with a non-terminating decimal expansion.
I'm truly impressed with your efforts. If you manage to convince SSU, then you deserve a prize!
--
GR
I'm truly impressed with your efforts.
If you manage to convince SSU, then you deserve a prize! --
GR
A neutrino would not necessairly have to interact with light under that system. Instead it would be providing the spacetime for light to exist within.
Hawking Radiation still posits a vacuum energy near the event horizon of a black hole to allow the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs.
Vacuum Energy
This energy would not exist under Solid State Universe Theory. Space devoid of matter would not contain vacuum energy as it would also be devoid of the spacetime to create said energy within.
Pi, being non-repeating and non-terminating, currently appears to be able to run off to an infinite 'decimal expansion'. This does not make the nature of the number any less infinite when searching for accuracy. The Universe as a hypersphere would be based off of pi, not 1/3.
Pi, the square root of 2, and Phi are three irrational numbers that our suppposedly 'rational' universe is based upon. They cannot be approximated without violating the 'spirit' of the number.
Hawking Radiation still posits a vacuum energy near the event horizon of a black hole to allow the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs.
Vacuum Energy
This energy would not exist under Solid State Universe Theory. Space devoid of matter would not contain vacuum energy as it would also be devoid of the spacetime to create said energy within.
Pi, being non-repeating and non-terminating, currently appears to be able to run off to an infinite 'decimal expansion'. This does not make the nature of the number any less infinite when searching for accuracy. The Universe as a hypersphere would be based off of pi, not 1/3.
Pi, the square root of 2, and Phi are three irrational numbers that our suppposedly 'rational' universe is based upon. They cannot be approximated without violating the 'spirit' of the number.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 05:12 PM)
A neutrino would not necessairly have to interact with light under that system. Instead it would be providing the spacetime for light to exist within.
The neutrino not interacting with light is an experimental fact. A neutrino being a proton and an electron would interact with light. Given such a system is a hydrogen atom and such an atom interacts with light, that's another experimental fact.
For such a system not to interact with light would require a complete rewriting of quantum mechanics, since about 1915 onwards.
Just because a system is charge neutral doesn't mean it doesn't display electric and magnetic properties. The neutron is neutral but since it's actually a collection of cancelling charges, it does show things like a magnetic orientation.
The neutrino not interacting with light is an experimental fact. A neutrino being a proton and an electron would interact with light. Given such a system is a hydrogen atom and such an atom interacts with light, that's another experimental fact.
For such a system not to interact with light would require a complete rewriting of quantum mechanics, since about 1915 onwards.
Just because a system is charge neutral doesn't mean it doesn't display electric and magnetic properties. The neutron is neutral but since it's actually a collection of cancelling charges, it does show things like a magnetic orientation.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 05:12 PM)
Hawking Radiation still posits a vacuum energy near the event horizon of a black hole to allow the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs.
It more just requires the Uncertainty Principle, where the fluctuations due to uncertainty are particles in the quantum field.
A vacuum energy is slightly different and depends on things like the Hamiltonian of the system. The Uncertainty Principle doesn't require such a thing.
A vacuum energy is slightly different and depends on things like the Hamiltonian of the system. The Uncertainty Principle doesn't require such a thing.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 05:12 PM)
This energy would not exist under Solid State Universe Theory. Space devoid of matter would not contain vacuum energy as it would also be devoid of the spacetime to create said energy within.
Space would be devoid of space-time? That's an interesting one.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 05:12 PM)
Pi, being non-repeating and non-terminating, currently appears to be able to run off to an infinite 'decimal expansion'
What do you mean 'currently'. It's a mathematical fact!
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 05:12 PM)
he Universe as a hypersphere would be based off of pi, not 1/3.
How does that invalidate the fact, in a system where my definition of pi is exact, I can describe a multidimensional sphere?
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 05:12 PM)
Pi, the square root of 2, and Phi are three irrational numbers that our suppposedly 'rational' universe is based upon. They cannot be approximated without violating the 'spirit' of the number.
You take a mathematical term to literally mean it's usual usage. A common mistake. Plenty of 'everyday words' are used in maths not to mean the same thing as common usage. Irrational, compact, closed, dense, field, transcendental, manifold, bra, function, etc etc
Mathematicians called them 'irraitonal' because when their existence was first realised (over 2000 years ago) they seemed to be at odds with the common notion of what defines a number. However, their existence isn't irrational, it's essential! They shouldn't be called 'irrational' but 'required' or 'extensions'.
A right angled triangle with perpendicular sides both 1 unit has an hypotenuse of length root(2). Are you saying I can't draw such a triangle? Or a circle? It would seem such 'irrational' notions do exist in our universe and maths allows us to describe them perfectly. When you get into physical measurements, then you get a rounding error, but then if you look hard enough you can't draw a perfect right angled triangle or circle, just an approximation to it to a high degree. Perhaps nature isn't as perfect as you seem to think it might be.
Hence, if you think nature is perfect, maths can describe it's 'irrationality'. If you think nature isn't quite perfect, then taking 'approximate' values is not only inevitable, it's required because so does nature!
Mathematicians called them 'irraitonal' because when their existence was first realised (over 2000 years ago) they seemed to be at odds with the common notion of what defines a number. However, their existence isn't irrational, it's essential! They shouldn't be called 'irrational' but 'required' or 'extensions'.
A right angled triangle with perpendicular sides both 1 unit has an hypotenuse of length root(2). Are you saying I can't draw such a triangle? Or a circle? It would seem such 'irrational' notions do exist in our universe and maths allows us to describe them perfectly. When you get into physical measurements, then you get a rounding error, but then if you look hard enough you can't draw a perfect right angled triangle or circle, just an approximation to it to a high degree. Perhaps nature isn't as perfect as you seem to think it might be.
Hence, if you think nature is perfect, maths can describe it's 'irrationality'. If you think nature isn't quite perfect, then taking 'approximate' values is not only inevitable, it's required because so does nature!
Bah... that's bullshit.
The maths you're using to describe the Universe are first and foremost derived from observations of the Universe. Our Universe exists to create the square root of 2, Pi and Phi. These numbers do not create the universe.
Which do you think came first? Math or the Universe?
Go derive pi from a different base number system and tell me if you find any interesting results.
We can describe a hypersphere with pi through approximation... but we can not accurately measure one.
Space does not exist without matter. That's an assumption already made about the Universe in the closed model. It's where the whole concept of metric expansion comes from in the first place.
I have no problem with assuming that the Universe has an irrational component that defies logic and mathematical representation. But that does not make it any less perfect in providing the ultimate bitchslap to any scientist who tries to put himself up on the same pedestal as the Creator of said Universe.
The maths you're using to describe the Universe are first and foremost derived from observations of the Universe. Our Universe exists to create the square root of 2, Pi and Phi. These numbers do not create the universe.
Which do you think came first? Math or the Universe?
Go derive pi from a different base number system and tell me if you find any interesting results.
We can describe a hypersphere with pi through approximation... but we can not accurately measure one.
Space does not exist without matter. That's an assumption already made about the Universe in the closed model. It's where the whole concept of metric expansion comes from in the first place.
I have no problem with assuming that the Universe has an irrational component that defies logic and mathematical representation. But that does not make it any less perfect in providing the ultimate bitchslap to any scientist who tries to put himself up on the same pedestal as the Creator of said Universe.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 07:01 PM)
The maths you're using to describe the Universe are first and foremost derived from observations of the Universe.
Actually, much of maths was developed before it's physical applications were realised. Complex numbers and Riemannian geometry are two ones which immediately spring to mind.
Actually, much of maths was developed before it's physical applications were realised. Complex numbers and Riemannian geometry are two ones which immediately spring to mind.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 07:01 PM)
Our Universe exists to create the square root of 2, Pi and Phi. These numbers do not create the universe.
I never said the numbers do create the universe, but there is a very strong link between the mathematical notions of certain things and the physical world. How do you think physics manages to be so accurate in some of it's work yet use maths as it's language?
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 07:01 PM)
Which do you think came first? Math or the Universe?
Asking such questions causes me to question if you have any knowledge in maths beyond (hopefully) highschool.
Maths is an abstract construct within our minds. We create links between those abstractions and the physical world and often use the logical connections within maths to predict and model the physical processes we see around us. Maths no more came before the universe than English did. It is something we create.
Of course, now you're wandering into more philisophical grounds because maths is considered something which we'd have in common with any sufficently advanced alien race. This is because, as you said, our initial drive to develop maths was physical need. Counting, timing etc. Then it developed under more logical and formal ground and many consider logic to be a universal notion, so while we create it in our minds, logic would lead anyone to create similar abstract notions too. Hence why civilisations which never had contact all shared notions of number systems, counting, often basic algebra etc
Maths is an abstract construct within our minds. We create links between those abstractions and the physical world and often use the logical connections within maths to predict and model the physical processes we see around us. Maths no more came before the universe than English did. It is something we create.
Of course, now you're wandering into more philisophical grounds because maths is considered something which we'd have in common with any sufficently advanced alien race. This is because, as you said, our initial drive to develop maths was physical need. Counting, timing etc. Then it developed under more logical and formal ground and many consider logic to be a universal notion, so while we create it in our minds, logic would lead anyone to create similar abstract notions too. Hence why civilisations which never had contact all shared notions of number systems, counting, often basic algebra etc
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 07:01 PM)
Go derive pi from a different base number system and tell me if you find any interesting results.
When pi is derived, no number system is considered (another reason why I'm wondering how much maths you actually know). Fractions, for instance, are not based on any number system (though Egyptians did have some novel ideas about them). 1/2 is base independent. In base 10 it's 0.5. In base 8 it's 0.4. In base 3 it's 0.111..., an infinitely long decimal expansion.
Hence, 'deriving pi' in terms of integrals, fraction summations, continued fractions etc actually tells you far more about the number than it's decimal expansion would, given they aren't tainted by arbitary choices we make (base 10 is an arbitrary choice after all, based on our evolutionary development of 5 digits per hand or foot).
Hence, 'deriving pi' in terms of integrals, fraction summations, continued fractions etc actually tells you far more about the number than it's decimal expansion would, given they aren't tainted by arbitary choices we make (base 10 is an arbitrary choice after all, based on our evolutionary development of 5 digits per hand or foot).
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 07:01 PM)
We can describe a hypersphere with pi through approximation... but we can not accurately measure one.
We can describe a hypersphere perfectly in terms of maths. If you measured one physically, you'd find it's not perfect if you measure accurately enough. So true, we can't accurately measure one, that's a physical fact because they don't exist in perfection.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 07:01 PM)
Space does not exist without matter. That's an assumption already made about the Universe in the closed model. It's where the whole concept of metric expansion comes from in the first place.
There's plenty of models of expanding space-time in relativity which don't include matter of any kind. However when you throw in quantum theory, you do get matter for certain. However, your claim that space cannot exist without matter is more an opinion which I've yet to see you validation than gospel truth given we can have models without matter but talking about space-time.
As you so loudly said in the other thread (and a touch of paraphrasing), do you expect us to believe your model without a shred of evidence?
As you so loudly said in the other thread (and a touch of paraphrasing), do you expect us to believe your model without a shred of evidence?
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 07:01 PM)
I have no problem with assuming that the Universe has an irrational component that defies logic and mathematical representation.
I'm hoping you're using 'irrational' in a sense other than illuding to the mathematical notion of irrationality, for the reason I outlined in my previous post.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 07:01 PM)
But that does not make it any less perfect in providing the ultimate bitchslap to any scientist who tries to put himself up on the same pedestal as the Creator of said Universe.
I'm hard pressed to think of any scientist who considers himself on the same level as God, even the atheistic ones who don't believe in the blasphemy of saying they are comparible to God.
Simply being able to understand and model the universe doesn't imply you're on the same level as it's creator (if such a creator even exists, which I personally don't think).
Simply being able to understand and model the universe doesn't imply you're on the same level as it's creator (if such a creator even exists, which I personally don't think).
So if one could prove that the Universe was a hypersphere, with the concept of Pi built directly into its intrinsic existence, the physical representation of the Universe would be less perfect than the math which can only describe it by approximation?
I call shenanigans on you, Sir.
My interest in this discussion is purely philisophical. There are fields of philosophy that describe math, physics and cosmology and it is the root of assumptions inherent in this field that I am addressing.
Math cannot predate observations that create the knowledge of formulation of these observations. Your complex number and hypersphere analogy involves extrapolation from previously understood formulations, which gives the flaw in your argument.
As for spacetime, as I said previously the entire concept of an expanding universe is that it's based on a metric expansion of points in spacetime, not the physical expansion of the universe into the space around it. If the Universe could be compressed into a single point by this logic, there would be no dimensional spacetime around that point for 'space' to exist within.
As for the Universe being irrational and the concept of singularities, I'll refer back to the question of two singularities orbiting each other in a deteriorating spiral. By mathematical logic, removing 'evaporation' from the equation, these two points in spacetime would recede into infinity as their orbital velocity around each other approaches the speed of light. Accurately measuring the spiral through pi would involve reiterations extending onwards into infinity. There is no other way for math to describe such a spiral.
I have never said that scientists consider themselves on the same playing field as God. But scientists who follow after do have a tendency to put their learned predecessors on pedestals, much like the followers of Pythagoras.
I call shenanigans on you, Sir.
QUOTE
The first proof of irrational numbers is usually attributed to Hippasus of Metapontum, a Pythagorean who produced a (most likely geometrical) proof of the irrationality of the square root of 2. The story goes that Hippasus discovered irrational numbers when trying to represent the square root of 2 as a fraction (proof below). However Pythagoras believed in the absoluteness of numbers, and could not accept the existence of irrational numbers. He could not disprove their existence through logic, but his beliefs would not accept the existence of irrational numbers and so, as legend had it, he had Hippasus drowned. Theaetetus worked with other quadratic irrationalities, but it wasn't until Eudoxus developed a theory of irrational ratios that Greek mathematicians accepted irrational numbers. Euclid's Elements Book 10 is dedicated to classification of irrational magnitudes.
My interest in this discussion is purely philisophical. There are fields of philosophy that describe math, physics and cosmology and it is the root of assumptions inherent in this field that I am addressing.
Math cannot predate observations that create the knowledge of formulation of these observations. Your complex number and hypersphere analogy involves extrapolation from previously understood formulations, which gives the flaw in your argument.
As for spacetime, as I said previously the entire concept of an expanding universe is that it's based on a metric expansion of points in spacetime, not the physical expansion of the universe into the space around it. If the Universe could be compressed into a single point by this logic, there would be no dimensional spacetime around that point for 'space' to exist within.
As for the Universe being irrational and the concept of singularities, I'll refer back to the question of two singularities orbiting each other in a deteriorating spiral. By mathematical logic, removing 'evaporation' from the equation, these two points in spacetime would recede into infinity as their orbital velocity around each other approaches the speed of light. Accurately measuring the spiral through pi would involve reiterations extending onwards into infinity. There is no other way for math to describe such a spiral.
I have never said that scientists consider themselves on the same playing field as God. But scientists who follow after do have a tendency to put their learned predecessors on pedestals, much like the followers of Pythagoras.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 08:26 PM)
So if one could prove that the Universe was a hypersphere, with the concept of Pi built directly into its intrinsic existence, the physical representation of the Universe would be less perfect than the math which can only describe it by approximation?
I call shenanigans on you, Sir.
/shames head into table
Maths is exact, given it's abstract. Numerical values in both maths AND physics are approximates. Both because the universe isn't sure of it's own state (uncertainty principle) and experimental error.
Whatever philosophy you want to read into that, fire away because I don't think you and I are on the same page. There are plenty of books dedicated to the philosophy of maths though, or taking a lecture course in 'the history of maths' or perhaps 'the fundamentals of maths' would be wise.
I call shenanigans on you, Sir.
/shames head into table
Maths is exact, given it's abstract. Numerical values in both maths AND physics are approximates. Both because the universe isn't sure of it's own state (uncertainty principle) and experimental error.
Whatever philosophy you want to read into that, fire away because I don't think you and I are on the same page. There are plenty of books dedicated to the philosophy of maths though, or taking a lecture course in 'the history of maths' or perhaps 'the fundamentals of maths' would be wise.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 08:26 PM)
Math cannot predate observations that create the knowledge of formulation of these observations. Your complex number and hypersphere analogy involves extrapolation from previously understood formulations, which gives the flaw in your argument.
Of course complex numbers or Riemannian geometry was built on previous ideas, what the hell do you think mathematical development is?!
Similarly, what do you think physics development is? Newton said "I have only seen so far because I was standing on the shoulders of giants", he built on others work. Maths obvious allows us to make predictions of experiments before they are done, that's what predictions are.
Similarly, what do you think physics development is? Newton said "I have only seen so far because I was standing on the shoulders of giants", he built on others work. Maths obvious allows us to make predictions of experiments before they are done, that's what predictions are.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 08:26 PM)
not the physical expansion of the universe into the space around it
Logical error. If there was 'space' around the universe, it would be part of the universe by definition. Saying that, you can have finite, bounded, closed space-times which aren't embedded in a larger notion of space-time, so there would be no 'outside', despite there only being a finite 'inside'. Some of that Riemannian geometry for you
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 08:26 PM)
As for the Universe being irrational and the concept of singularities, I'll refer back to the question of two singularities orbiting each other in a deteriorating spiral. By mathematical logic, removing 'evaporation' from the equation, these two points in spacetime would recede into infinity as their orbital velocity around each other approaches the speed of light. Accurately measuring the spiral through pi would involve reiterations extending onwards into infinity. There is no other way for math to describe such a spiral.
I really think you should learn some maths and physics before thinking you've turned over not just the last century of relativity but quite a lot of mathematical philosophy and the foundation of mathematical physics.
Plus, you give no reason why Hawking radiation doesn't exist other than "I don't like the alternative". How scientific of you...
Plus, you give no reason why Hawking radiation doesn't exist other than "I don't like the alternative". How scientific of you...
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 08:26 PM)
But scientists who follow after do have a tendency to put their learned predecessors on pedestals, much like the followers of Pythagoras.
I hardly think saying "He/She gave enormous contributions to our understanding" is even close to considering them god-like, particularly given when you look at such people a little more widely you find them full of human faults.
We're on the same page...
I'm arguing that the Universe is not an abstract concept, but it can still maintain both a rational and irrational existence.
As for spacetime... the concept of the Universe 'expanding' into a medium is a necessairly false one. The medium for expansion would be part of the Universe. That non-existent 'outside' would actually be those straight lines you see on the hypermeridians of a Riemann Hypersphere. They're circles of infinite radius, which means that even spatial dimensions can be infinite in the geometry of the hypersphere.
My analysis of Hawking Radiation as derived by an expanding universe model versus a closed cyclical universe model still stands. If a singularity not only absorbs mass but the spacetime created by that mass, then there is no mechanism to create the Hawking Radiation in the first place.
Now... for others who might be reading this... stop quoting everything I say and offer counterarguments without parroting everything back. And rather than saying 'go read a book' say 'here read this' and provide the link. Otherwise you're just filling space to make your post look longer.
I'm arguing that the Universe is not an abstract concept, but it can still maintain both a rational and irrational existence.
As for spacetime... the concept of the Universe 'expanding' into a medium is a necessairly false one. The medium for expansion would be part of the Universe. That non-existent 'outside' would actually be those straight lines you see on the hypermeridians of a Riemann Hypersphere. They're circles of infinite radius, which means that even spatial dimensions can be infinite in the geometry of the hypersphere.
My analysis of Hawking Radiation as derived by an expanding universe model versus a closed cyclical universe model still stands. If a singularity not only absorbs mass but the spacetime created by that mass, then there is no mechanism to create the Hawking Radiation in the first place.
Now... for others who might be reading this... stop quoting everything I say and offer counterarguments without parroting everything back. And rather than saying 'go read a book' say 'here read this' and provide the link. Otherwise you're just filling space to make your post look longer.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 09:07 PM)
My analysis of Hawking Radiation as derived by an expanding universe model versus a closed cyclical universe model still stands. If a singularity not only absorbs mass but the spacetime created by that mass, then there is no mechanism to create the Hawking Radiation in the first place.
Aside from the fact energy is positive when measured far from a black hole, there is absolutely nothing to do with the overall shape or development of the universe which related to Hawking radiation.
Have you shown that black holes absorb space-time too? Really shown it or just claimed it?
Aside from the fact energy is positive when measured far from a black hole, there is absolutely nothing to do with the overall shape or development of the universe which related to Hawking radiation.
Have you shown that black holes absorb space-time too? Really shown it or just claimed it?
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 24 2006, 09:07 PM)
Now... for others who might be reading this... stop quoting everything I say and offer counterarguments without parroting everything back. And rather than saying 'go read a book' say 'here read this' and provide the link. Otherwise you're just filling space to make your post look longer.
Well when you seem to be unfamiliar with just so much material you are talking about it's hard to give a specific book or paper or website to link because you don't need a touch up on the specifics, you need to learn the whole field!
I did link you to http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?cat=...ile=hawking.pdf over 2 pages ago and ask you to read it and then refute it where you think it's logic goes wrong in the derivation of Hawking radiation but you ignored me. Read that and then explain it's problems. You'll notice that it doesn't make reference to space-time's overall shape when it comes to the universe, just that it's got positive energy. Your 'disproof' relys on showing there's a problem with a line of logic Hawking never even needed to use!
I did link you to http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?cat=...ile=hawking.pdf over 2 pages ago and ask you to read it and then refute it where you think it's logic goes wrong in the derivation of Hawking radiation but you ignored me. Read that and then explain it's problems. You'll notice that it doesn't make reference to space-time's overall shape when it comes to the universe, just that it's got positive energy. Your 'disproof' relys on showing there's a problem with a line of logic Hawking never even needed to use!
Have you even read that?
He mixes and matches everything from eculidean geometry, classical frames, relativistic frames and static spacetime references to derive Hawking Radiation.
He's not deriving anything. He's playing logic games with you and you can't even read between the lines.
He used this proof in an attempt at winning himself a four year magazine subscription. He ended up forfeiting and buying his opponent a four year subscription to Penthouse, mainly because he failed to provide a concrete foundation for his theory.
It's just math bullshit. Now stop spouting off other people's private jokes as though it was some sort of canonical law. It's not your independent thought. So far, you've demonstrated no independent thought other than parrotting out other people's answers.
The Solid State theory makes no use of classical or relativistic frames, instead relying solely on the analysis of the evolution of a 4D spacetime, which allows for black holes but denies the concept of Big Bang origin and accelerated expansion.
You're as bad as the Scientologists who worship L. Ron Hubbard. He started that as a 10 dollar bet as well.
As for quantum field theory, I've touched upon it in University, but found it lacking in elegance. Right now I'm calling the basis of it into question for you and your immediate response so far has been to scramble for a proof that you cannot find. I've provided no proof. I've merely asked the question. The burden of proof relies on the people putting forth the theory, not the people questioning it.
He mixes and matches everything from eculidean geometry, classical frames, relativistic frames and static spacetime references to derive Hawking Radiation.
He's not deriving anything. He's playing logic games with you and you can't even read between the lines.
He used this proof in an attempt at winning himself a four year magazine subscription. He ended up forfeiting and buying his opponent a four year subscription to Penthouse, mainly because he failed to provide a concrete foundation for his theory.
It's just math bullshit. Now stop spouting off other people's private jokes as though it was some sort of canonical law. It's not your independent thought. So far, you've demonstrated no independent thought other than parrotting out other people's answers.
The Solid State theory makes no use of classical or relativistic frames, instead relying solely on the analysis of the evolution of a 4D spacetime, which allows for black holes but denies the concept of Big Bang origin and accelerated expansion.
You're as bad as the Scientologists who worship L. Ron Hubbard. He started that as a 10 dollar bet as well.
As for quantum field theory, I've touched upon it in University, but found it lacking in elegance. Right now I'm calling the basis of it into question for you and your immediate response so far has been to scramble for a proof that you cannot find. I've provided no proof. I've merely asked the question. The burden of proof relies on the people putting forth the theory, not the people questioning it.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 01:11 AM)
Have you even read that?
Yes, I typed it, given it's the 9th section of the 'black holes' lecture course I attend last spring given by an ex-PhD student of Hawking's at Cambridge university.
Yes, I typed it, given it's the 9th section of the 'black holes' lecture course I attend last spring given by an ex-PhD student of Hawking's at Cambridge university.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 01:11 AM)
He mixes and matches everything from eculidean geometry, classical frames, relativistic frames and static spacetime references to derive Hawking Radiation.
The "I don't understand the terms, therefore they are wrong" defense.
If you know the maths of Hawking radiation, all that file should be understandable to you. Obviously not.
If you know the maths of Hawking radiation, all that file should be understandable to you. Obviously not.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 01:11 AM)
He used this proof in an attempt at winning himself a four year magazine subscription. He ended up forfeiting and buying his opponent a four year subscription to Penthouse, mainly because he failed to provide a concrete foundation for his theory.
It's a cut down version pitched at grad students about to embark on research in theoretical physics. The full blown version (in a style similar to Wald's General Relativity textbook) is vastly more complicated but concrete (and very novice unfriendly).
I think you'll find the bet was about the nature of the Cygnus X-1 system. Hawking thought it wasn't a black hole, so lost the bet.
The new bet is about the information paradox which Hawking has conceeded, saying information does escape, possibly by entanglement.
If you're going to attempt to use well known things as evidence, at least spend 30 seconds using Google to check you're talking about the right thing.
I think you'll find the bet was about the nature of the Cygnus X-1 system. Hawking thought it wasn't a black hole, so lost the bet.
The new bet is about the information paradox which Hawking has conceeded, saying information does escape, possibly by entanglement.
If you're going to attempt to use well known things as evidence, at least spend 30 seconds using Google to check you're talking about the right thing.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 01:11 AM)
It's just math bullshit. Now stop spouting off other people's private jokes as though it was some sort of canonical law. It's not your independent thought. So far, you've demonstrated no independent thought other than parrotting out other people's answers.
I'm only just embarking on my own research and it's not in the area of relativity. That doesn't mean that other people's results are not valid logic. So far you've presented nothing about Hawking radiation other than "Therefore it doesn't exist" without logic to back it up. You make errors about both relativity and maths. You claim black holes suck in space-time, but offer no evidence or derivation (and ignore the results of relativity that they don't). You ignore evidence in quantum mechanics.
I might not be telling you my own ideas but I'm telling you the well developed ideas (thousands of people have read, thought about and developed these things) which often have a lot of experimental evidence and you're just palming them off.
You aren't interested in science, you're interested only in saying "Look at me, I'm so clever, I have made my own theory of physics". You just want a pat on the back and "Wow, you're so clever" said to you. Cults of personality aren't science.
I might not be telling you my own ideas but I'm telling you the well developed ideas (thousands of people have read, thought about and developed these things) which often have a lot of experimental evidence and you're just palming them off.
You aren't interested in science, you're interested only in saying "Look at me, I'm so clever, I have made my own theory of physics". You just want a pat on the back and "Wow, you're so clever" said to you. Cults of personality aren't science.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 01:11 AM)
You're as bad as the Scientologists who worship L. Ron Hubbard. He started that as a 10 dollar bet as well.
Yes, decades of experimental evidence and logical derivation for quantum theory and relativity is as bad as Xenu You aren't interested in an unbiased discussion, you've already made up your mind and stuff actual science.
You aren't interested in an unbiased discussion, you've already made up your mind and stuff actual science.QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 01:11 AM)
The burden of proof relies on the people putting forth the theory, not the people questioning it.
You mean you've adamently refused to bother looking for evidence, which is widely available online, universities and libraries so find theories lack evidence? Wow, there's an unexpected suprise.
Just jamming your fingers in your ears and pretending something doesn't exist doesn't make it so. If you've actually done quantum field theory in university (somehow I doubt that personally), you'd have seen evidence.
Just jamming your fingers in your ears and pretending something doesn't exist doesn't make it so. If you've actually done quantum field theory in university (somehow I doubt that personally), you'd have seen evidence.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 01:11 AM)
. I've provided no proof. I've merely asked the question.
I asked questions of you and you refuse to give logic. You can't refute properly that PDF I posted, just say "Oh it's obviously rubbish". Relativity's results as well established, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Simply saying "I don't understand relativity, therefore I demand the burden of proof is on you to teach it to me or else you must conceed it's flawed!" doesn't fly I'm afraid. The information is out there, you just can't be bothered to try to find it.
Look Alpha..
You're an idiot who thinks the world runs on Math.
I don't care if you think you're allowed to mix and match reference frames to get your answer. You're not. I just looks good to a math student, and makes them think they're smart if they can wrap their minds around it.
It's still bullshit.
And if you typed that out, you typed it out poorly.
Einstein made assumptions when deriving Special Relativity. Hawking made assumptions himself. Sometimes the thinker doesn't even realize the assumption is being made and is therefore implicit in his maths, but it's still there.
But you sir, are still a *** idiot for arguing without understanding those assumptions. Go read a philosophy book before coming back to argue and stop assuming that math contains some sort of a priori knowledge of the perfection of itself.
And for reference, here is a much better analysis of Hawking Radiation than that poorly typed and unreferenced piece of garbage.
Hawking Radiation
The first paragraph goes into detail on Hawking's assumption of an unknown quantum tunneling method based around vacuum energy. The only real benefit that Hawking Radiation gave was a better picture of the eventual heat death of the Universe. Nothing else. That's how Hawking's Universe ends in 70 billion years... nothing but evaporating black holes and dead mass and heat. Unless, of course, you want to build a huge particle accelerator to test a theory that could prove false. But that's just maniacal and suicidal.
You're an idiot who thinks the world runs on Math.
I don't care if you think you're allowed to mix and match reference frames to get your answer. You're not. I just looks good to a math student, and makes them think they're smart if they can wrap their minds around it.
It's still bullshit.
And if you typed that out, you typed it out poorly.
Einstein made assumptions when deriving Special Relativity. Hawking made assumptions himself. Sometimes the thinker doesn't even realize the assumption is being made and is therefore implicit in his maths, but it's still there.
But you sir, are still a *** idiot for arguing without understanding those assumptions. Go read a philosophy book before coming back to argue and stop assuming that math contains some sort of a priori knowledge of the perfection of itself.
And for reference, here is a much better analysis of Hawking Radiation than that poorly typed and unreferenced piece of garbage.
Hawking Radiation
The first paragraph goes into detail on Hawking's assumption of an unknown quantum tunneling method based around vacuum energy. The only real benefit that Hawking Radiation gave was a better picture of the eventual heat death of the Universe. Nothing else. That's how Hawking's Universe ends in 70 billion years... nothing but evaporating black holes and dead mass and heat. Unless, of course, you want to build a huge particle accelerator to test a theory that could prove false. But that's just maniacal and suicidal.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 04:22 PM)
You're an idiot who thinks the world runs on Math.
You're still doing it, falling smack inline with typical crank thinking. Someone does some maths and suddenly they are praising maths as all powerful or blind to physics. I got the information I've posted from physics books, physics experiments, an 'applied maths and theoretical physics' department, from people who'd consider themselves physicists.
You yourself were claiming to not be talking about experiment but the maths behind such theories and now you're dismissing it? Can't seem to make your mind up.
You're still doing it, falling smack inline with typical crank thinking. Someone does some maths and suddenly they are praising maths as all powerful or blind to physics. I got the information I've posted from physics books, physics experiments, an 'applied maths and theoretical physics' department, from people who'd consider themselves physicists.
You yourself were claiming to not be talking about experiment but the maths behind such theories and now you're dismissing it? Can't seem to make your mind up.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 04:22 PM)
I don't care if you think you're allowed to mix and match reference frames to get your answer. You're not. I just looks good to a math student, and makes them think they're smart if they can wrap their minds around it.
Yeah, people like Einstein, Hawking, Penrose, Kerr, Witten, Perry, Gibbons, Schwarzchild, they were/are all people who didn't know any physics and just did the maths
These aren't my results, they are the results of people way cleverer than you or me, results which have given many many extremely accurate predictions about the universe around us.
These aren't my results, they are the results of people way cleverer than you or me, results which have given many many extremely accurate predictions about the universe around us.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 04:22 PM)
Einstein made assumptions when deriving Special Relativity.
Of course he did, just as you have. That's how any logical system works. You start with basic postulates/assumptions/axioms and develop their logical end results, giving you predictions.
Special relativity has not just been tested by jet planes, satellites and atomic clocks but by every single particle accelerator experiment for the last 80 years. There's millions of experiments, ignoring well established technologies which build on those results (GPS satellites) used daily.
Are you saying your claims don't have ANY initial starting postulates? I doubt it. At least Einstein has huge quantities of evidence backing up his claims.
Special relativity has not just been tested by jet planes, satellites and atomic clocks but by every single particle accelerator experiment for the last 80 years. There's millions of experiments, ignoring well established technologies which build on those results (GPS satellites) used daily.
Are you saying your claims don't have ANY initial starting postulates? I doubt it. At least Einstein has huge quantities of evidence backing up his claims.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 04:22 PM)
But you sir, are still a *** idiot for arguing without understanding those assumptions.
I was thinking the same thing when you made claims about maths and physics when making it obvious you've never studied either in any kind of decent way. You don't even know about physics experiments they teach 16 year old physics students about!
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 04:22 PM)
stop assuming that math contains some sort of a priori knowledge of the perfection of itself.
I think you really would benefit from an introductory course into maths. The course I attended was given by a Fields Medalist and gave excellent discussions about the nature of irrational numbers and mathematical philosophy. His webpage is here. I suggest you spend some time reading his 'discussions' section.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 04:22 PM)
And for reference, here is a much better analysis of Hawking Radiation than that poorly typed and unreferenced piece of garbage.
My PDF was chapter 9 of the lecture course 'Black Holes' lectured by Prof. Malcolm Perry of DAMTP, Cambridge as part of the CASM 4th year of mathematics at Cambridge university. He based his lecture notes on the notes of Prof Townsend (original notes here) who based his notes on the work of Hawking himself (they all work on the same floor of the CMS at Cambridge ).
It wasn't meant as a publishable paper and was just a section of notes. It was in the format to be accessible to people who are learning this material. Published papers are of a different format, as your link demonstrates. Even in that 'user friendly' format, you seem to be utterly unable to understand the material so I don't think you're in much of a position to evaluate the work of several Cambridge lecturers.
).It wasn't meant as a publishable paper and was just a section of notes. It was in the format to be accessible to people who are learning this material. Published papers are of a different format, as your link demonstrates. Even in that 'user friendly' format, you seem to be utterly unable to understand the material so I don't think you're in much of a position to evaluate the work of several Cambridge lecturers.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 04:22 PM)
That's how Hawking's Universe ends in 70 billion years... nothing but evaporating black holes and dead mass and heat.
You again display a lack of understanding about what Hawking's results say about the universe. If the universe was static, you'd end up with nothing but radiation and diffuse particles amid black holes. However, if the universe were to recollapse, you'd not get to that situation because time wouldn't allow before the end of the universe. That wouldn't preclude Hawking radiation from occuring for the black holes which do exist.
You accuse me of being 'an idiot who thinks the world runs on Math' yet you attempt to make mathematicial claims, ignoring experiment (by your own admition!) then are unable to give any maths?! You would seem to be an idiot who thinks maths suffices over experimental fact but don't even do the maths!
Teach yourself (or enrol somewhere to learn) some relativity and quantum theory and find out about the decades of experimental verification of so many of the notions you just seem to think are crap. Perhaps then you'll realise that even if you don't agree with the mainstream models, there is logic and reason behind them. At present you just project your own ignorant onto mainstream physics and do nothing more than look like a very angry bitter ignorant fool I'm afraid.
You accuse me of being 'an idiot who thinks the world runs on Math' yet you attempt to make mathematicial claims, ignoring experiment (by your own admition!) then are unable to give any maths?! You would seem to be an idiot who thinks maths suffices over experimental fact but don't even do the maths!
Teach yourself (or enrol somewhere to learn) some relativity and quantum theory and find out about the decades of experimental verification of so many of the notions you just seem to think are crap. Perhaps then you'll realise that even if you don't agree with the mainstream models, there is logic and reason behind them. At present you just project your own ignorant onto mainstream physics and do nothing more than look like a very angry bitter ignorant fool I'm afraid.
Because, I'm planning on squishing your poor little hopes without ever using a piece of math, just so you can never you that same argument against another living human being.
You sir, are what's wrong with the entire field of science. You believe you've been granted some sort of divine insight into the underlying mechanics of the Universe, but you live in a world of complete symbology. Just because those symbols can sometime seem to approximate the real world does not mean they are real.
You're embracing conventionalism, pure and simple. Your line of think is sloppy and you end up arguing your own circle. Your belief in your own rightness does not justify your beliefs.
In the real universe, sometimes 1 + 1 = 3.
Now shutup and stop filling up a cosmology post with random garbage about how smart you think you are.
You sir, are what's wrong with the entire field of science. You believe you've been granted some sort of divine insight into the underlying mechanics of the Universe, but you live in a world of complete symbology. Just because those symbols can sometime seem to approximate the real world does not mean they are real.
You're embracing conventionalism, pure and simple. Your line of think is sloppy and you end up arguing your own circle. Your belief in your own rightness does not justify your beliefs.
In the real universe, sometimes 1 + 1 = 3.
Now shutup and stop filling up a cosmology post with random garbage about how smart you think you are.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 05:20 PM)
Because, I'm planning on squishing your poor little hopes without ever using a piece of math, just so you can never you that same argument against another living human being.
You have said you aren't interested in experiment, just the maths to model it. Now you're going to not even use maths.
Given your seeming total ignorance of experiment, I'm left wondering how you're going to manage to turn over all of relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics.
You have said you aren't interested in experiment, just the maths to model it. Now you're going to not even use maths.
Given your seeming total ignorance of experiment, I'm left wondering how you're going to manage to turn over all of relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 05:20 PM)
You believe you've been granted some sort of divine insight into the underlying mechanics of the Universe, but you live in a world of complete symbology
No, I just go about things somewhat methodically and logically and believe that is the best way of investigating the universe. Without repeatable evidence and logical derivations and conclusions how do you think science should advance itself?
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 05:20 PM)
Just because those symbols can sometime seem to approximate the real world does not mean they are real.
I never said the maths is real or always relates to real things. Infact, I hold the solid view that maths is not bound by nor does it bind reality. Instead, we create formal structures in our logical abstractions within maths. We do experiments and observations of reality and if we find reality seems to behave in a system akin to a structure we have in maths we try to aline the two and hope that the maths struture points us to more results. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Physics is about turning observations into formal links to structured notions. Reality is reality, maths is just a good language to put it in sometimes. Unfortunately it's the translating which is the hard part.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 05:20 PM)
You're embracing conventionalism, pure and simple. Your line of think is sloppy and you end up arguing your own circle. Your belief in your own rightness does not justify your beliefs.
I don't think I'm righteous, I just think experiment and verification is an essential part of physics. You seem to think otherwise with your utter refusal to look at any experiments or consider their results.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 05:20 PM)
In the real universe, sometimes 1 + 1 = 3.
Are you implying reality is illogical? A somewhat defeatist attitude, since it would then be impossible to understand. Instead, you more refer to the fact reality is sometimes quite a bit different from what we expect. This doesn't mean it's illogical, but rather we've not described/understood it properly.
Does 5*7 = 7*5? Yes, but some mathematical structures have a*b+b*a = 0. These are ideal for describing fermions we've realised. So initially it might have seemed like 1+1=3, but instead we weren't supposed to think of numbers but something more abstract and rich in structure. Hence why group theory plays such a part in particle physics now. Sometimes reality throws you a curveball but it'd be terribly defeatist to think you can never hit it.
Does 5*7 = 7*5? Yes, but some mathematical structures have a*b+b*a = 0. These are ideal for describing fermions we've realised. So initially it might have seemed like 1+1=3, but instead we weren't supposed to think of numbers but something more abstract and rich in structure. Hence why group theory plays such a part in particle physics now. Sometimes reality throws you a curveball but it'd be terribly defeatist to think you can never hit it.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 25 2006, 05:20 PM)
Now shutup and stop filling up a cosmology post with random garbage about how smart you think you are.
Well we did start on topic about Hawking radiation but your lack of understanding about physics and maths kind of pulled us off course
Because, the results of being wrong could mean end game for mankind once you get past a certain energy level. The Universe is probably full of races that ended up with lots of people like you that thought you could model the Universe by using math approximations. Races that decided to test theories, without realizing the penalty for being wrong. Races that no longer exist.
No... we starting discussing hyperspheres and how a singularity in a 4D space does not deteriorate but instead serves as a reference point for reunification on the hypersphere.
It's a completely different basis for cosmology that bears no resemblance to anything Hawking has put forward, instead moving back towards Einstein's Universe.
And stop filling pages with quote. It's really ***
No... we starting discussing hyperspheres and how a singularity in a 4D space does not deteriorate but instead serves as a reference point for reunification on the hypersphere.
It's a completely different basis for cosmology that bears no resemblance to anything Hawking has put forward, instead moving back towards Einstein's Universe.
And stop filling pages with quote. It's really ***