|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 27, 2010 13:54:11 GMT 1
I NEVER said this at all, I never said that was no spacetime, just that spacetime originated at the big bang, which was also the origin of matter, and at infinite density IF you take the classical result seriously. Well you did that at time t=0 there was only the 'infinite density matter' with nothing outside it. I take from that that there was no space-time external to the singularity and ther was certainly no space-time within the 'infinite density matter' No, I don't know why I should bother trying to defend myself against a pack of idiots who obviously don't understand even the simplest concepts in physics, and will come up with their own little just-so story, no matter what the actual science says. No need to defend yourself my dear, just your statements. I am afraid that you have, like many professionals (if that is what you are) difficulty explaining yourself - in fact, as far as I can see there are no idiots here, simply people asking hard questions that irritate you. And I'm not a he either................But you are all idiots (yes, you know who you are). A very scientific stance - if a scientist is incapable of explaining his/her ideas then the audience are idiots. You know my dear I could just pretend that I agree with you and this aura of idiocy would magically disappear! Anyone can recite mantras - it is when the difficult questions occur that the mantra-sayer is tested. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 27, 2010 14:25:42 GMT 1
Doesn't it get a little tedious being wrong all the time............................
Penrose is talking about possible new physics, as are many other possible models (such as loop quantum gravity), but that doesn't change the facts as regards the predictions of standard cosmology.
And the point being, you can't have any hope of understanding the speculative edges of cosmology, until you can understand the standard cosmology as taught to undergraduates.............
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 27, 2010 14:35:16 GMT 1
........until you can understand the standard cosmology as taught to undergraduates............. By you? |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 27, 2010 15:36:55 GMT 1
Just shows that you are wrong again!
Where is the matter apart from within spacetime? THe singularity isn't a point , asyou keep misunderstanding. SO, spacetime could still have been infinite, with an infinite density of matter within it. There is no hanging about, no sudden explosion of expansion, because there was nothing before the expansion -- so, we have the origin of spacetime and matter at t=0, at infinite density, which starts expanding right from the start.
SO, rather than being some singular point in space (of infinite density), the big bang singularity is a singular state of the whole of spacetime, at a singular point in time t=0.
The questions aren't hard, and the answers are pretty simple as well, once you have rasped the basics. The only problem (and the reason you irritate me), is that you can't grasp even the basics (despite being given various sources that explain it all in various ways), and rather than admitting that it is just beyond you, you keep asking, whilst at the same time claiming that cosmologists are idiots.....................
Which of course leads me to suspicion that you actually know what the answers are, but don't care, you're just on here to try and wind people up. Saying that Penrose says I'm talking bollocks is hardly a true representation of what Penrose said.
Except these aren't even the HARD questions, just the almost totally trivial questions you get from someone who hasn't grasped the basics. And interesting to see your continued response -- blame the teacher, because you obviously see learning as something that requires little effort or input (or aptitude) from yourself. Which is probably why you don't learn.
And why you probably never will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 27, 2010 16:32:51 GMT 1
Just shows that you are wrong again! Where is the matter apart from within spacetime? THe singularity isn't a point , asyou keep misunderstanding. SO, spacetime could still have been infinite, with an infinite density of matter within it. There is no hanging about, no sudden explosion of expansion, because there was nothing before the expansion -- so, we have the origin of spacetime and matter at t=0, at infinite density, which starts expanding right from the start. You do not know this. You are simply exprssing a scientific speculation. Penrose expreses another that contradicts you SO, rather than being some singular point in space (of infinite density), the big bang singularity is a singular state of the whole of spacetime, at a singular point in time t=0. Penrose disagrees The questions aren't hard, and the answers are pretty simple as well, once you have rasped the basics. The only problem (and the reason you irritate me), is that you can't grasp even the basics (despite being given various sources that explain it all in various ways), and rather than admitting that it is just beyond you, you keep asking, whilst at the same time claiming that cosmologists are idiots..................... I do not think that cosmologists are idiots. I do not understand dogmatic cosmologists (not that I have met any - you are not a cosmologist) Which of course leads me to suspicion that you actually know what the answers are, but don't care, you're just on here to try and wind people up. No, I believe in livelu discussion. If you get wound up then tough - there is no need. Just do not pretend that you know things you vcannot such as teh universe at time t=0 Saying that Penrose says I'm talking bollocks is hardly a true representation of what Penrose said. Poetic licence! Except these aren't even the HARD questions, just the almost totally trivial questions you get from someone who hasn't grasped the basics. And interesting to see your continued response -- blame the teacher, because you obviously see learning as something that requires little effort or input (or aptitude) from yourself. Which is probably why you don't learn. And why you probably never will Hmm it is not a hard question to answer what is going on at time t=0? Wonder why Penrose then contradicts your version? Someone is wrong that's for sure Easy? Hmmm |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 27, 2010 16:42:18 GMT 1
Perhaps if you didn't tend to see things so much in black and white you might gain rather more success at imparting knowledge to us STA. A student should be coaxed in the right direction, not condemned as stupid and unable to grasp the material.
|
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Sept 27, 2010 16:55:43 GMT 1
No, he does not. I dunno, are you just not trying or just not paying attention? As STA said back in #13, she is talking about "IF you take the classical result seriously". There is the classical result, that you really should try to grasp if you want to understand anything else, and then there are various hypotheses that modify the result (such as Hawking's and Penrose's). The classical result is almost certain to be inaccurate in some respect or other because there is no quantum theory of gravity yet. This really isn't hard - you appear to be being very lazy or are just arguing for the sake of it. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 27, 2010 17:58:53 GMT 1
The point about the classical result is that it is the logical consequence of known physics (i.e. general relativity) which has been TESTED as a theory of gravity. To date, it is the best theory of gravity we have, even though we know that it is actually WRONG.
I'll say that again -- we know general relativity is wrong because it and quantum theories for other interactions are fundamentally incompatible -- it's not just a matter of taste or style, we know we cannot fit them together.
But we don't know exactly where the differences will come in between GR and quantum gravity. Will spacetime actually be discrete at small scales, or will we instead get some quantum superposition of spacetimes at the relevant scale. We don't know (yet).
Penrose is just speculating about one possible sort of new physics. Hence he isn't in disagreement with me (or anyone else) about singularities in classicial GR -- indeed with Hawking he developed the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems. Why? Because early on, it was not understood whether the singularities that occurred in perfectly spherical collapses of matter to black holes would no longer apply once we had a real, messy, nonsymmetric collapse of a real star.
But as I keep saying, you have to understand the classical result of a big bang singularity before you can ever start thinking about how new physics may modify this result. And talking about such speculative new physics isn't disagreeing with the fact that the classical prediction is of a singularity, even if the new physics prediction isn't.
And they aren't comparable speculations in the least, in that Gr is tested physics, whereas what Penrose is doing is really speculative (ie what may be different in the new physics, and not as yet a new theory of physics, just suggestions as to what the general shape of the new theory might be).
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 27, 2010 18:38:23 GMT 1
So when Penrose makes speculations he's being speculative but when I or others do it we're just plain dumb! Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 27, 2010 20:23:24 GMT 1
So when Penrose makes speculations he's being speculative but when I or others do it we're just plain dumb! Hmmm... Ah but! Hawking is a high priest with full access to the forbidden script, the undecipherable scribblings. Penrose is a renegade priest, who mocks the written word! STA and Olmy are devout worshippers, who curse the unbelievers! They will tell us we are sinners, indeed they will, indeed they do! Are they dogmatic plonkers, not physicists at all, but lab-tech with attitude? The bovver-boys of science looking for a punch-up? We must know! Well , no we mustn't. Just keep asking the unanswerable |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 27, 2010 20:46:45 GMT 1
Priceless! I especially like the bit about Olmy and STA being devout worshippers. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Sept 28, 2010 8:23:11 GMT 1
Ho hum, I guess nay's petulant outburst was somewhat predictable after he was exposed as not paying the slightest attention to what was being said....
Jealousy of knowledge and understanding (of the particularity nasty "if I can't have it, then neither can anyone else" kind), leads to almost as much distortion of reality as blind faith.
Here we have messages saying why someone's understanding of a theory is wrong, being translated, in the mind of the sufferer, into some sort of dogmatic statement of certainty about how the universe works.
Now, presumably, we are being accused of dogmatically declaring that nobody is entirely sure.
We also have the bizarre fantasy that nay et al are 'asking the unanswerable'. The irony being that 'the unanswerable' isn't too hard to find in this subject, but that the questions (such as there have been, in amongst the bile) have never risen above trivial misunderstandings.
And yes, plod, oops, I mean abacus, anybody can speculate but you have to know something about what you are talking about, if you want it to make sense. There is no point in trying to write a critique of Shakespeare, if you are still struggling with your first reading book.
Seriously guys, spend a fraction of the effort you put into your envy and criticism on actually trying to understand and you may get somewhere...
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 28, 2010 9:10:35 GMT 1
Here are some questions and answers with STA that contain apparent contradictions.
The words are as written by STA
Personally I think that the so-called ‘classical theory' of the origin of the universe is full of contradictions – it is bound to be as we do not really know that of which we speak
However I cite these contradictions from STA not to 'get at' STA but to illustrate that there are no ‘easy’ answers and that to regard the answers as easy is not really scientific.
Q You say that the big bang singularity density was infinite -OK
Some force must have been compressing that matter together to make the density infinite?
STA Answers
No, just as no force is needed to maintain the density when the whole universe was very very dense (just not infinite). There can be no force, because no outside, and no force needed, because everywhere was equally dense.
------------
Note this ‘there was no force necessary' to hold the matter together’. A little odd as there were probably enormous forces (resulting in the Big Bang) to force the matter apart
Q there was certainly no space-time within the 'infinite density matter'?
STA answers
Where is the matter apart from within spacetime?….. spacetime ..... with an infinite density of matter within it.
-------------
Now note this- Space-Time did exist according to STA around the dense matter. (In fact this contradicts an earlier STA statement that nothing exists outside the dense matter 'no force, because no outside' - but that perhaps is simply terminological inaxctitude (NOT a fib!))
We all know that matter distorts S-T and the ‘infinite density’ (sic) of this matter will grossly distort ST. The distortion of S-T is also known as gravity, so it seems that there were enormous forces holding the matter together, contradicting the ’no force necessary’ that STA firmly stated earlier.
Now lets consider the contradiction of ‘infinite density’
Density is mass per volume
STA’s ‘classical ‘ theory tells us that although the volume occupied by matter at t=0 is NOT zero , the density is infinite, which must mean that the mass is infinite. (Note that when we start talking infinities we are definitely on sinking sand).
If the mass is infinite then the distortion of the S-T the mass occupies will be infinite – we will have an infinite gravitational force
The next obvious question is how can any other force possibly compete with this infinite gravitational force?
These are the unanswerables; indeed invoking infinity invariably indicates that we do not really have any answers
It was noticeable in the radio interview that Penrose shied away from infinity. He said he likes to avoid it where possible and that the universe may, or may not, be infinite in extent
Easy answers indeed!
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 28, 2010 9:52:18 GMT 1
STA has been doing this for as long as I remember, naymissus. She seems to have a compelling need to contradict anything anyone says regardless of whether it is correct or not. It's a pity because someone with her knowledge could be a real asset on a science MB but, alas, she seems to be more concerned with pushing some kind of agenda rather than holding a real desire to pass on information in as clear a way as possible. There have been a number of occasions when I have been in agreement with her over some point or other only to find that she perversely changes her mind! Could it be she is conducting some sort of feminist agenda by trying to make men look stupid? Olmy should not always unconditionally support her either, but should, now and then, challenge her when she appears to be stating confusing or contradictory statements.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 28, 2010 13:01:17 GMT 1
Here are some questions and answers with STA that contain apparent contradictions. Wrong. The matter didn't get forced apart, spacetime expanded. ANd the no force needed to hold the matter at high density still stands, because when everywhere is at the same density, no force needed because what holds every bit of matter at that density? Every other bit of matter at that same density. It's NOT like high-pressure gas in a cylinder, because there is no boundary. Hence not a contradiction, just someone who keep basing their answers on everyday situations that are not analogous, hence keeps misunderstanding. The dense matter existing IN spacetime is not the same as saying there is spacetime OUTSIDE the dense matter (ie spacetime outside without dense matter in it). Everywhere dense, and everywhere there is spacetime. And no outside, that is nothing outside the dense matter, and no spacetime that isn't full of dense matter. Simple words, but some still pretend to misunderstand. The statement about matter distorting spacetime is also wrong, because a spacetime uniformly full of dense matter can also be flat. This is blatantly obvious. Take a spacetime uniformly full of dense matter. Since we have said uniform, then by definition, all directions are equivalent. Hence at any one point, since every direction looks the same, there can only be ZERO gravitational force, since else that distinguishes a direction as special. In even simpler words, if mass everywhere, and it all pulls on you, then uniformity means pulls cancel out, and no net force, no matter how dense the matter, as long as it is uniform. Don't confuse the volume of the entire universe (which may be infinite if the universe is), with statements about the density. In short, you don't take volume of entire universe, and mass of enture universe, to try to determine average density. Distortion of spacetime being infinite is also wrong, see above. And no one is saying that infinite limit is sensible, hence why it has a special name, a singularity................... Nope, just the misunderstood yet again-ables. Claiming we do not really have any answers is just utter tosh! Because if we take out the very earliest instants, and say -- okay, where it becomes infinite, we'll leave that out as unphysical, then we are still left with times from: from one hundredth of a second to 15 billion years, standard cosmology, tested. From 10^{-11} seconds onwards (electroweak phase transition), slightly more speculative, but within realm of tested particle physics. Before this, we have grand unification, and Planck epoch, we are in the realm of new particle physics, and then new gravitational physics, so down into the very speculative. But saying we do not really have any answers is just laughable. I don't have to try at all when it comes to certain posters, they can do that all by themselves, whatever their gender. But I suspect males, given the ludicrous attempt at playing the scary man-hating feminist card. When you get it wrong (as you mostly do) I will keep saying so, not because I think that you will listen and ever learn, but because others might be mistaken into thinking your statements are correct when they are not. And spreading ignorance is a truly despicable thing...................... |
|
