my thoughts on these theories...

[Aristarchus in Exile]

"Well-tested theories become Laws of Science..." and therein lies the problem, because being well-tested does not make the law unbreakable, but it may be observed as being unbreakable by the minds of many who believe strongly in that law despite new evidence that the law is not unbreakable at all. Two time Nobel winner Linus Pauling called Daniel Schechtman a quasi-scientist after Schechtman announced his discovery of quasi-crystals. Pauling went so far as to mount a campaign against Schechtman.

 

In a seperate vein, the Big Bang is said to have exploded from an infinite singularity. It it was infinite, the explosion would be infinite as well, and that would eliminate the possibility that the universe will collapse upon itself. Or am I wrong in thinking I read that the singularity was infinite?

Edited October 7, 2011 by Aristarchus in Exile

[IM Egdall]

 

 

In a seperate vein, the Big Bang is said to have exploded from an infinite singularity. It it was infinite, the explosion would be infinite as well, and that would eliminate the possibility that the universe will collapse upon itself. Or am I wrong in thinking I read that the singularity was infinite?

 

Do you have a link for this infinite singularity? I think whether the universe is finite or infinite is still an open question in cosmology.

[Airbrush]

"...the Big Bang is said to have exploded from an infinite singularity. [if] it was infinite, the explosion would be infinite as well, and that would eliminate the possibility that the universe will collapse upon itself. Or am I wrong in thinking I read that the singularity was infinite?"

 

I'd like to hear more about an "infinite singularity". I don't know what an infinite sized singularity has to do with whether the universe could collapse upon itself. It wouldn't matter if the universe was infinite. It would simply be such a rarified infinity that it could not recollapse, since expansion is observed to be accelerating. Or that would apply to only our local region of infinity, whereas other regions would be recollapsing.

 

"Do you have a link for this infinite singularity? I think whether the universe is finite or infinite is still an open question in cosmology."

 

I would also like to see a link to the infinite singularity.

 

An "infinite singularity" is an interesting and novel concept. Maybe so. All they can say is the entire observable universe originated from a region smaller than a proton. But probably the universe is MUCH bigger than the observable universe and maybe infinite as well. (There is a huge difference between a HUGE universe and an infinite one. In fact the difference is infinite.) So with an infinite universe, the region of origin may also be infinite in size.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Airbrush

[Ophiolite]

If my innocuous comment is all it takes to drive you to sarcastic snark, how would you handle an actual review process?

That's a great question. Here's one for you. How do you handle humour? Ah, we already have the answer to that, don't we. You take some gentle admonition for nitpicking as a 'sarcastic snark'. How would you handle an actual real world situation?

[DrRocket]

Does anyone else agree with Janus?

 

 

Absolutely.

 

Janus is correct, no matter what "vote" you may have in mind, or what Wiki might say.

Edited October 10, 2011 by DrRocket

[Klaynos]

Absolutely.

 

Janus is correct, no matter what "vote" you may have in mind, or what Wiki might say.

 

I would agree with this.

[baric]

That's a great question. Here's one for you. How do you handle humour? Ah, we already have the answer to that, don't we. You take some gentle admonition for nitpicking as a 'sarcastic snark'. How would you handle an actual real world situation?

 

Again, more ad hominems without any discussion of the actual subject matter.

 

You forum real good.

[Ophiolite]

Again, more ad hominems without any discussion of the actual subject matter.

 

You forum real good.

Thank you for your kind remarks.

There was no ad hominem in my post. (That would be unnecessary as your posting style addresses your character far more effectivley than I ever could.)

My post was in response to one of yours that paid no attention to actual subject matter yet seemed to merit a response.

[baric]

Thank you for your kind remarks.

There was no ad hominem in my post. (That would be unnecessary as your posting style addresses your character far more effectivley than I ever could.)

 

I'm not going to play word games with you. This train of ad hominems all started because I made an ON-TOPIC comment about someone else's post, and they apparently misread some sort of malice in my tone.

 

Why you have decided to jump in on this relatively harmless exchange, I have no idea. Maybe you should get a hobby.

[Phi for All]

I'm not going to play word games with you. This train of ad hominems all started because I made an ON-TOPIC comment about someone else's post, and they apparently misread some sort of malice in my tone.

 

Why you have decided to jump in on this relatively harmless exchange, I have no idea. Maybe you should get a hobby.

Hey, I didn't read any malice. I thought it was a good example of scientific scrutiny, and I responded playfully. Let's move on.

[Airbrush]

I would agree with this.

 

I stand corrected, overwhelmingly. Funny thing that Theories and Laws of Science are roughly equivalent.

[Ophiolite]

Maybe you should get a hobby.

This is my hobby.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

It has never been considered an 'explosion'... EVER. Your instructor was incorrect.

 

It was called the "Big Bang" theory by a detractor who was mocking it. However, the name caught on and that's what everyone uses now.

 

In most forum discussions I've been engaged in the Big Bang was always presented as an explosion until recently when new evidence suggested it was not an explosion, and then those who had been content calling it Big Bang for so long began to call it something else which seems to be a different word with the same meaning as explosion.

[Ophiolite]

In most forum discussions I've been engaged in the Big Bang was always presented as an explosion until recently when new evidence suggested it was not an explosion, and then those who had been content calling it Big Bang for so long began to call it something else which seems to be a different word with the same meaning as explosion.

It has never been considered an explosion by anyone who had more than a cereal packet understanding of the process. The explosion metaphor was used to simplify the concept for the lay public. If by recent evidence you are referring to the detection of an accelerating expansion rate this had no effect on our perception of the process as an explosion, because it wasn't an explosion. We don't think of it as an explosion. We have never thought of it as an explosion, except in seriously dumbed donw explanations. On reflection the metaphor has probably done more harm than good.

[Mystery111]

We see organic matter forming chemically from inorganic matter all of the time.

 

For example, it's happening right now on the moon Titan without any interference from humans whatsoever.

 

The transition from inorganic to organic is well understood and documented. The transition to cellular structures is understood, but not replicated in a laboratory. The transition from celluar structures to single-cellular life is not well understood yet. The transition from single-cellular life to multi-cellular is understood in principle.

 

 

 

Not really a good example. No one, even someone with a perfectly healthy and accident-free life, will live forever.

 

To live "forever" would require an infinite source of energy!

 

 

Even if you had an infinite amount of energy, the body is still a machine, and certain parts when they break down are harder to replace! Eventually bodies cannot sustain themselves.

[IM Egdall]

As I understand it, the big bang was the expansion of space. And the universe at time zero may have been finite or infinite.

 

Inflation theory says a tiny moment after the big bang, the universe expanded exponentially. So couldn't we say this was an explosion of space.

Edited October 14, 2011 by IM Egdall

[Mystery111]

As I understand it, the big bang was the expansion of space. And the universe at time zero may have been finite or infinite.

 

Inflation theory says a tiny moment after the big bang, the universe expanded exponentially. So couldn't we say this was an explosion of space.

 

Yes. I have heard it being described like this.

[baric]

Even if you had an infinite amount of energy, the body is still a machine, and certain parts when they break down are harder to replace! Eventually bodies cannot sustain themselves.

 

This is true but we already see a complete regeneration of parts on a cellular level and even some larger systems (skin, etc). Who is to say that the body cannot be designed in such a way that all components are ultimately regenerative?

 

Since most people do not want to die and are willing to invest great sums to avoid it, there is a real incentive to accomplish this regenerative ability via genetic engineering. We may perhaps be members of the final generations of humans that have to face death as an inevitability!

[Ophiolite]

And once we have overcome personal death we would then be faced with the ultimate death of the universe. In addressing that problem our descendants might come full circle around to ...... the Big Bang, thus uniting science and at least some religions.

[Phi for All]

As I understand it, the big bang was the expansion of space. And the universe at time zero may have been finite or infinite.

 

Inflation theory says a tiny moment after the big bang, the universe expanded exponentially. So couldn't we say this was an explosion of space.

I think expansion is used because explosion implies there was something there to explode into.