Competing cosmologies

Study matter and its motion through spacetime...

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Competing cosmologies

#141  Postby newolder » Jan 31, 2020 9:35 am

Destroyer wrote:If the universe is infinite and therefore constant
is a non sequitur
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Competing cosmologies

#142  Postby Destroyer » Jan 31, 2020 9:43 am

newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:If the universe is infinite and therefore constant
is a non sequitur


Is it? Go ahead and explain infinity without constancy.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#143  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 31, 2020 9:52 am

Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:If the universe is infinite and therefore constant
is a non sequitur


Is it? Go ahead and explain infinity without constancy.


Should anyone have to do so? Your felt needs are not significant, here, and you are surely not bringing intellect to the party by making that request.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29549
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#144  Postby Destroyer » Jan 31, 2020 9:59 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:If the universe is infinite and therefore constant
is a non sequitur


Is it? Go ahead and explain infinity without constancy.


Should anyone have to do so? Your felt needs are not significant, here, and you are surely not bringing intellect to the party by making that request.


Anyone who claims it is a non sequitur, yes.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#145  Postby newolder » Jan 31, 2020 10:23 am

Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:If the universe is infinite and therefore constant
is a non sequitur


Is it?

Yes, it is.
Go ahead and explain infinity without constancy.

Why would I do that? It's your claim that the infinite is (therefore) constant. Go ahead, show your work...
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#146  Postby newolder » Jan 31, 2020 10:32 am

Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:Fallible made no mention of PMs and Destroyer made no mention of "the science" until the post above.


Do you really think that your pedantic nonsense contributes anything worthwhile?


Where did Fallible mention PMs in this topic? (Hint: She didn't) Where have you discussed the content of the OP? (Hint: You haven't) Are my pedantic utterances worthwhile? I don't know. Will they cause you to post something relevant to the OP? :ask:


I joined the thread only to support the fact that Scott Mayers was talking science. I am done with the rest of the nonsense.


You have nothing of relevance concerning the OP. :thumbup:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#147  Postby Destroyer » Jan 31, 2020 10:40 am

newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:If the universe is infinite and therefore constant
is a non sequitur


Is it?

Yes, it is.
Go ahead and explain infinity without constancy.

Why would I do that? It's your claim that the infinite is (therefore) constant. Go ahead, show your work...

The infinity of the universal system refers to the constancy at the fundamental lever of energy. That energy clearly cannot be created or destroyed, it is always occurring and conserved. However, mass clearly does have a beginning, and does decay; hence the difficulty to reconcile these different observations. So to claim that constancy is a non sequitur of infinity, is nonsense.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Competing cosmologies

#148  Postby newolder » Jan 31, 2020 10:56 am

Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote: is a non sequitur


Is it?

Yes, it is.
Go ahead and explain infinity without constancy.

Why would I do that? It's your claim that the infinite is (therefore) constant. Go ahead, show your work...

The infinity of the universal system refers to the constancy at the fundamental lever of energy.

Is this going to be a limerick? It's certainly not the start of an explanation. You begin by referring infinity to constancy - which simply assumes the conclusion. :doh: :doh:
That energy clearly cannot be created or destroyed, it is always occurring and conserved. However, mass clearly does have a beginning, and does decay; hence the difficulty to reconcile these different observations.

Now you are just dribbling into you bib. Energy is conserved but mass always decays, eh? You know that this contradicts both General Relativity theory and the observed non-decay of protons, right?
So to claim that constancy is a non sequitur of infinity is nonsense.

:rofl: :rofl:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#149  Postby Destroyer » Jan 31, 2020 11:59 am

newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:

Is it?

Yes, it is.
Go ahead and explain infinity without constancy.

Why would I do that? It's your claim that the infinite is (therefore) constant. Go ahead, show your work...

The infinity of the universal system refers to the constancy at the fundamental lever of energy.

Is this going to be a limerick? It's certainly not the start of an explanation. You begin by referring infinity to constancy - which simply assumes the conclusion. :doh: :doh:
That energy clearly cannot be created or destroyed, it is always occurring and conserved. However, mass clearly does have a beginning, and does decay; hence the difficulty to reconcile these different observations.

Now you are just dribbling into you bib. Energy is conserved but mass always decays, eh? You know that this contradicts both General Relativity theory and the observed non-decay of protons, right?
So to claim that constancy is a non sequitur of infinity is nonsense.

:rofl: :rofl:


So, the constancy of energy is just an assumption, not based upon observation, right? If you are just going to obfuscate for the sake of saving face, then I will now gladly bow out. I have said that mass decays, not that it ever completely leaves the system.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#150  Postby newolder » Jan 31, 2020 12:10 pm

To clarify:

...
But many people have just this reaction. It’s clear that cosmologists have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s been well-understood since at least the 1920’s: energy is not conserved in general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.)

The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved, there was a reason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance. A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve, as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not changing with time.” But in general relativity that’s simply no longer true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in particular that they can evolve with time. When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved.

...

More @ Energy Is Not Conserved by Sean Carroll

Finally, if "mass decays" but not "completely leaves the system" then the system (the universe) has changed, i.e. it's not constant. :thumbup:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#151  Postby Destroyer » Jan 31, 2020 12:15 pm

newolder wrote:To clarify:

...
But many people have just this reaction. It’s clear that cosmologists have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s been well-understood since at least the 1920’s: energy is not conserved in general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.)

The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved, there was a reason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance. A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve, as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not changing with time.” But in general relativity that’s simply no longer true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in particular that they can evolve with time. When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved.

...

More @ Energy Is Not Conserved by Sean Carroll

Finally, if "mass decays" but not "completely leaves the system" then the system (the universe) has changed, i.e. it's not constant. :thumbup:


No. The system has indeed changed, but it has its foundations upon energy that remains constant.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#152  Postby newolder » Jan 31, 2020 12:16 pm

Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:To clarify:

...
But many people have just this reaction. It’s clear that cosmologists have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s been well-understood since at least the 1920’s: energy is not conserved in general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.)

The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved, there was a reason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance. A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve, as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not changing with time.” But in general relativity that’s simply no longer true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in particular that they can evolve with time. When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved.

...

More @ Energy Is Not Conserved by Sean Carroll

Finally, if "mass decays" but not "completely leaves the system" then the system (the universe) has changed, i.e. it's not constant. :thumbup:


No. The system has indeed changed, but it has its foundations upon energy that remains constant.


Yet you are shown how the energy does not remain constant in the linked blog post. :???:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#153  Postby Destroyer » Jan 31, 2020 12:23 pm

DP
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#154  Postby Destroyer » Jan 31, 2020 12:30 pm

newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:To clarify:

...
But many people have just this reaction. It’s clear that cosmologists have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s been well-understood since at least the 1920’s: energy is not conserved in general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.)

The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved, there was a reason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance. A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve, as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not changing with time.” But in general relativity that’s simply no longer true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in particular that they can evolve with time. When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved.

...

More @ Energy Is Not Conserved by Sean Carroll

Finally, if "mass decays" but not "completely leaves the system" then the system (the universe) has changed, i.e. it's not constant. :thumbup:


No. The system has indeed changed, but it has its foundations upon energy that remains constant.


Yet you are shown how the energy does not remain constant in the linked blog post. :???:


I am not interested in any obfuscations. NEVER does energy ever stop occurring: that is the constancy of which I speak.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#155  Postby newolder » Jan 31, 2020 12:38 pm

Then your idea of constancy is borked.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Competing cosmologies

#156  Postby Destroyer » Jan 31, 2020 12:41 pm

newolder wrote:Then your idea of constancy is borked.


Only to those who can see no way to ever reconcile such a state with one that is clearly finite.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#157  Postby newolder » Jan 31, 2020 12:50 pm

You appear to have moved from the non sequitur to an outright contradiction.

"If the universe is infinite then its state is clearly finite." - Thus sprake Zarachopra? :rofl:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#158  Postby Destroyer » Jan 31, 2020 1:54 pm

newolder wrote:You appear to have moved from the non sequitur to an outright contradiction.

"If the universe is infinite then its state is clearly finite." - Thus sprake Zarachopra? :rofl:


You can keep on obfuscating, newolder, but it never leads to truth and understanding. The big bang model clearly has the universe beginning at a specific point in time. However, the constancy of energy at the fundamental level does indeed seem to contradict any beginning.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#159  Postby Macdoc » Jan 31, 2020 1:57 pm

wow - two in a thread...first CAPS now truth....multiple chew toys. :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#160  Postby newolder » Jan 31, 2020 1:59 pm

Destroyer, Are you unaware of other cosmological models that include sequences of bangs?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests