Brokenhearted

Oh yeah, it's a closed system, elastic impact sum of everything before collision = sum of everything after collision (l had to Google so forgive me if l don't understand elastic properly) I thought it would have to be elastic wouldn't it? There's nothing else at play here. I'll try to describe it better, then maybe you can decide for me whether it's elasitc or inelastic: Fist or maybe it's another ball - better if it's another ball because fist has to be connected to something etc etc etc whereas colliding ball is self complete. Let's call it a Fist anyways. Fist collides with Object. Object swivels around in an arc whereas Fist continues moving along its own vector, disappearing off the edge of the paper. What is the Object's momentum after 90 degrees of anticlockwise ("acw") motion? A formula would do as l don't have any actual data. I would have thought sine waves would come into play, hence l came here to ask because that gets a bit complicated for me. I say "sine wave" because l thought Object would lose energy as it departs further and further from Fist's vector, while it travels in the arc which it is constrained to travel in (it would have prefered to move alone that same vector that Fist is moving in).

I have already countered all of these things you are saying (and let me, sigh, restate: BBT does go back to math singularity, hence the talk of quantum fluctuations, so you ought to stop pretending you can't comment while presenting that stance of non-comment as science - that is pseudo-science by strict definition - pretending you cannot investigate further when actually you can, others have done, even in the mainstream, plus it's even up on Wikipedia - not an appeal to authority but rather it shows that you are dishonestly saying that we don't go as far back as math singularity, when actually it's so mainstream it's even up on Wikipedia, so you are therefore misrepresenting). I love new ideas, new challenges. Old ones, l've either accepted or dismissed via reasoning. I am leaving because there's nothing new coming out of this debate and what there is, l have dismissed, without logical fallacies. Goodbye - and thank you for your effort.

Hi there, basically you are curtailing the theory of the origin of the universe at both ends, to wit: - Furball at small end, prior to which: ask no questions, tell no lies. - Edge of candle light at the distal end, beyond which: ask no questions, tell no lies. In itself, it is honest, l'll admit, but it omits three things: (1)- What can be surmised by logic, which is probably the missing physics needed to complete the theory (= logic, l mean - that is the missing know-how) (2)- This is not a complete theory of the universe, this is a theory of the incompleteness of the universe's knowability to mankind, this is an admission to not knowing. Which is fine, but it's dressed up as a theory of matter-of-fact more-or-less surefire knowing. (3)- BBT does in some opinions go back to mathematical singularity. I would say it originally did, but to cover up the scariness of nothingness, it was decided to leave it at the aforementioned two arbitrary demarkations. You say that Hoyle was smoking a pipe and he was silly and he looked silly and he was smelly and stuff, but l really don't see what impact this has on the following: - BBT does in some opinions go back to mathematical singularity. So no, what l originally said still stands, that BBT is either: OPTION A - Infinite universe appears complete, in an instant, ex nihilo (this by definition will include unicorns, dragons, wizards - hey presto, anything every thing possible, appears all at once, as a fact, it's all real) OPTION B - Finite universe appears ex nihilo, growing, growing all the while until now, and it's still finite now - These two options are both disgusting, but l don't give myself the luxury of ignoring them & l won't lower myself to gesture at a bookshelf and tell you to go read, no l will stand and deliver. I will not be leather elbow-patch-shamed into dropping these two options - and l hate to say it, but: Wikipedia is with me. l'll admit that either way, the OP is doomed because a finite BBT universe is vindicated by the age of the oldest stars, in opposition to his infinite universe. Goodnight

Hello, l have created a diagram to illustrate what l'm asking. The pivoted "object" = Object A, but anyway, whatever you call it, l'd be grateful to get a formula for the momentum of the object, as it turns 90 degrees of revolution, having been punched really hard as per the diagram.

Thank you for elaborating on your figure being based on Planck dimensions. That is a tradesman's definition, much like a carpenter saying that wood comes from the logging industry, when actually, wood had its origin in the BB (ok not much of an analogy then, it leads to the same actual subject). That small furball is not an answer to the origin of the universe, the universe being everything. The BBT was conceived as a theory of the origin of the universe. It is therefore not in keeping with the theory to just leave it at a furball, because it still leaves a period of infinite spatial expansion before that. Therefore it is actually no answer. If nothingness is not to your liking, then consider what surrounds the furball ...so you see either way, you have to confront this thing, if you are committed to BBT. I have explained what l feel the BBT should rightly cover. Unrefuted as that logic is, let me as an asides, let me drop you a link that supports what l'm saying, that BBT should go back, way back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity "This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[20] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[21][notes 1] of the universe." It can go back to primordial singularity, but the tradesmen like to stop at the limit of their trade: the Planck level furball. Which is no singularity, it is infinitely larger than a singularity. As for your - and what you say is also mainstream physicists' view - that the BBT doesn't even go beyond Planck Furball - l would say this is classic goalpost moving. Whatever you call it, it is an indellible, essential part of the mystery, without it, infinite things are left unexplained. You refer me back to the UCLA article, but the article as you presented it talks about observable universe, and rest of universe, and thus confirms that it is all universe, as it should be, because universe = everything that universe interacts with. Here is another quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe[1] from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[2][3][4] The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state" So, the Big Bang theory relates to the universe, and you yourself admit that universe is universe. So therefore the Big Bang theory relates to universe, observable or not. In any case, if you must move the goalposts (no matter how many physicists are with you), it then remains that there remains to be a theory of how the entire universe started, going right back to the first thing. If you now say l am not allowed to call it the Big Bang Theory, because the Big Bang Theory is arbitarily now: - Not about the whole universe - Nothing before infinitely large (compared to zero) Planck furball ... I would say that's dodging the issue, issue being redefined as the Bang Big Theory (BBT). So please, out of interest, could you comment on that theory? Maybe also explain why Wikipedia defines Big Bang Theory (the sister theory of the Bang Big Theory that emerged around the Hair Splitting Goal Shifting Epoch) as the entire universe, and either going back to singularity or planck furball, stress on singularity (which you excommunicated because you dislike zero, even though furball is surrounded by zero any which way)

Hi there, Thanks for taking the time to write this reasoned response, l really do appreciate it, and l take no umbrage at being corrected. Now, as for what the UCLA article is describing, let me state that the Big Bang theory can go back to primordial singularity, not just the specific time post-singularity you have offered. As far as l am aware, and as you yourself seem to be confirming, the universe is everything that the universe interacts with. So, the Big Bang theory does indeed trace the universe back to a point. As for the dimensions of a singularity, l believe its spatial dimensions to be zero. Fair point that it also has infinite gravity, so it is a thing, not nothing. However, l feel that the implication of quantum fluctations leading to primordial singularity = that fluctuations arose ex nihilo, otherwise they wouldn't be purely random, and so they would be qualified with some word, not just "quantum fluctuations". Therefore l believe if the singularity itself isn't nothingness, then what gave birth to it is, and l can therefore be justified in arguing that as the starting point of the BBT. As for evidence that the universe is finite vs. infinite, it is impossible for it to be infinite in the BBT as l conceive of the BBT, (you are free to undermine my concept of it in your reply, in fact l think it'd be necessary to do so) - evidence or no, but can you counterargue what l wrote on how it has to be finite not infinite? Also, l never said a universe popping out of nothing is magic, although actually l do see it as that. I said: an infinite universe popping up out of nothing is greater than magic. That is not the same as magic, in fact, it is greater than magic could ever be. That is because all forms fit within infinity. For infinity to appear in an instant out of nothing, would be greater than magic because all permutations of magic would be contained therein, so it's the Hat Trick of all hat tricks. Like l said, l specifically said this in reference to an infinite universe appearing ex nihilo / out of nothing. By the way, please could you explain vacuum energy in your own words. The bibliography (in this case, the link) comes after the argument. It is not the argument itself.

As l said in my edited post just above: An infinite BBT universe is impossible. That is, spatially infinite, or temporally infinite. Unless an infinite universe appeared right away, ex nihilo (also consider we are observing expansion, not an infinite universe that just appeared complete as-is, instantly), then we have only this option for an infinite universe in BBT: today an infinite universe (infinitely large), whereas at t=00 there was nothing. Between now and then, expansion must have exceeded infinite speed and infinite anything-else. Logically absurd. Infinite iterations of an oscillating BB universe do not make each iteration infinite in any way, let alone temporally (you really don't get the essential thing about BBT if you think that). The only viable option for an infinite universe is an infinitely old universe with no big bang, a universe that always was. In that universe, there should be stars older than the BB universe. There aren't, so that is a major nod to BBT, and a giant frown at OP. Dishonest of the OP to ignore this objection and instead chase arguments he can derail by "I'll do this soon, watch" type remarks.

Hi there Phi & studiot - thanks for your kind words, and my sincere apologies for being so unscientific in my response. Talk about foot in mouth! As for the board member peppering the thread with links to support his view of an infinite universe's compatibility with BBT, a quick perousal of the trashcan subforum suggests that what l call "Link splurging" / "Book stacking" (where people reference links and books as the core of their argument, or even just as a significant part, when really the Bibliography section should be a minor detail right at the end of a trenchant argument - not the argument itself) is rightly not allowed. There should be stars older than the BBT age of the universe, if the universe is infinitely old (unless we have star theory wrong - which is possible, but then where are all the white dwarf stars, if stars actually have a shorter shelf life?). Yes l know there didn't have to be stars, and yes l know the universe could be elastic. What l don't know is why these things are being mentioned? Once again: there should be stars older than the BBT age of the universe if the universe is infinite. An infinite universe would mean an infinitely old universe by the way, unless there were some mechanism for an infinite universe just popping up ex nihilo - which would be beyond magic, by definition it would be beyond even magic, any magic you could think of would be a mere subset of { infinity popping up ex nihilo }. A finitely-old universe that is spatially infinite would mean expansion at greater than infinity, at least for an itsy while. Which is logically impossible - absurd. And remember: space is expanding. It has been observed - not infallibly of course. But you have to counter that in your objections. Please don't linksplurge, bookstack, or tell me random stuff disconnected from the post of mine you're replying to. {I'm talking to the linksplurger / bookstacker when l say this}

If you ignore questions that seriously undermine your theory, you are merely blogging / monologuing. You are making repeated assertions without integrating feedback (maybe replying to the choicest objections that you can dodge, but definitely ignoring this serious objection of mine) EDIT: And now a moderator (guess who? Phi) has blocked me from replying to anything on this forum. That attitude will leave you forever under the trowel of team leaders, line managers, middle management, etc. You take knowledge (objective) too personally (subjective). You are built not to understand, but to learn by rote. Better to just accept when you are wrong, maybe even apologise? Arrogance has no place in science, in fact Einstein said that arrogance is the inverse of wisdom. And Strange? This is where we break off communication anyways. You do not understand BBT yet you are pushing your viewpoint beyond its natural death. I'm frightened of zombiies . Turaloo!

Why would there be? I suspect you are both missing the point entirely & reading what you want to read, following from that schoolboy error, the classical mixup between asking and telling (l was asking, not telling). but Strange at least is making amends by seeking clarification. So, l'll explain: As l asked the OP (so l was speaking with regard to his theory, not BBT): "Infinite universe? Show me stars older than the age of the Big Bang universe ... there should be many. " Obviously in BBT there will not be stars older than BBT universe (who actually would think l'm expecting this? Oh, l know, both of you.). In case you missed it (which you shouldn't have done seeing as you've replied copiously to the OP), OP said: "... the universe (the space) is and has always been infinite" Therefore l ask: why are there no stars older than the age of the Big Bang universe, if the universe were infinite, and if it had always existed ("always been")? Sorry for sounding like l take umbrage lightly. I don't. It is impossible for two people in a row to mistake my question for a statement, and to think the evidence in support of BBT is actually my evidence to attack BBT, when the evidence itself speaks for itself - that there are no stars known to be older than the BBT universe. It is impossible to make this comprehension error. It is not possible.

Hi there, please can you consider my reply? I asked why there are no stars older than the age of the Big Bang universe ... ?

Infinite universe? Show me stars older than the age of the Big Bang universe ... there should be many.

Hi there, my physics is a bit rusty but here goes: Object A is attached to an axis of rotation, such that if you apply force to it (e.g. a punch), it spins around the pivout / axis that it is attached to. Example: imagine it is a roundabout in a kids' play area. Give it a push, and it turns about its axis. Ok, so imagine Object B strikes Object A at 90 degrees to the radius connecting Object A to the axis. What is the momentum and the velocity of Object A by the time it travels 90 degrees of arc around its pivotal axis? Has Object A done work by the time it travels 90 degrees of arc? A mathematical expression would be fine, as we don't have any actual values to input. Imagine it's a frictionless system. I would have thought that Object A would be doing work even if it's a frictionless system, because it wants to fly off the pivot along the direction Object B is headed, whereas its attachment to the pivotal axis is keeping it equidistant to the pivotal axis the entire time. In otherwords, Person A is sat on a roundabout in a kids play area. Person B collides into Person A at 90 degrees to the radius connecting Person A to the axis of rotation. Person A wants to therefore move in the same direction as Perseon B, but because the roundabout is of solid construction, Person A instead maintains a constant radius and merely turns in an arc. Therefore there's going to be some work done, energy lost, by Person A?