Re: Cosmology Theory Question
- From: "platopes" <platopes@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Apr 2006 10:25:09 -0700
Uno Lapideus wrote:
Mati Meron> The laws of physics are in effect for the universe, at the
time it exists.
This is an untestable assertion; an assumption not based on anything
solid.
A brick wall is pretty solid. Try walking through one. Congrats,
you've done your first test! By definition, laws of physics are in
effect for the universe at the time it exists, as opposed to before it
existed, if there was a "before".
You BB guys can make anything happen with that sad escape from
reality ("At the time of the BB, no physical laws had yet formed, so
FTL inflation was possible"-hard to decide whether to LOL or crying
in despair...)
I'm pretty sure inflation was governed by physical laws. Certainly,
inflation is a concept designed to explain what has been observed,
since that's the sole purpose of physical concepts....I think that the
time in which no physical laws are known to have existed is *before*
the BB.
Mati Meron> Your assumption [...] is just this, an assumption, and one
not based on anything solid.
So some people are allowed to make untestable assumptions, but I am
not?
Everyone is allowed to make un-testable assumptions.
Mati Meron> The Big Bang constitutes a singularity.
Oh please: A singularity is a mathematical construct, an abstraction,
not something real.
How do you know that?
And since this "singularity" (another
untestable assertion; an assumption not based on anything solid)
BB singularity is based on CMBR, left over from what is thought to be
the BB.
supposedly had infinite mass, density, and temperature, how come it
does not still have infinite mass, density, and temperature (after all,
infinity / x = infinity)?
How do you know the universe doesn't have infinite quantities of the
above?
You also seem to imply that the [assumed!] "singularity" suddenly
jolted itself into being...
Well, this is what is not known, hence "The laws of physics are in
effect for the universe, at the time it exists", not before.
Out of what? How did it work itself around
the SLoT? Or is this where certain Judeo/Christian base "creation"
[untestable!] assumptions come into play?
Yes, but it's not called physics.
Mati Meron> We can, meaningfully, talk about the laws of physics
governing the evolution of the universe *since* the Big Bang.
Can you give an example of a physical law that has been shown to
"evolve over time"?
"Evolution" referred to the universe, not to the laws.
Mati Meron> No physical law has been confirmed with absolute certainty
Mea culpa... make that "tested to the accuracy required to confirm
[the SLoT]"
Mati Meron> [...] indicates the presence of a crank or an ignoramus
Neither crank nor ignoramus, thank you. And I wish I could understand
the mindset shown by so many "experts" in this forum,
I wish you could understand plain English, because then I wouldn't
have taken it upon myself to try to address your problems, thereby
risking making misleading mistakes in my own interpretation.
p
.
- References:
- Cosmology Theory Question
- From: Uno Lapideus
- Re: Cosmology Theory Question
- From: Old Man
- Re: Cosmology Theory Question
- From: Uno Lapideus
- Re: Cosmology Theory Question
- From: mmeron
- Re: Cosmology Theory Question
- From: Uno Lapideus
- Cosmology Theory Question
- Prev by Date: Re: Work - impulse
- Next by Date: Re: Work - impulse
- Previous by thread: Re: Cosmology Theory Question
- Next by thread: Everything has a half-life.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|