Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Retiring Infinity from science

physics laws require something physical.



there may not be any physics laws that would apply past
the point of 10^-35s !

"Let There Be Light"

maybe thats how long it took God to say it.

perhaps up to that point ( 10^-35s ) there was the Word of God being spoken by God.

and then once there was Light , Physics laws would apply.

Strangely Paul I completely agree with that, at least there is a justification for violating all the physics laws that where in existence something many many cosmologist fail at

However what I was also highlighting was the level of science one needs to be called a cosmologist because in most countries there is no legal protection over the term and very few if any countries have a formal association. It is almost identical to ‘Nutritionist’ and ‘Dietitian’ situation in most countries anyone who has done anything with food is probably able to call themselves a ‘Nutritionist’.

Orac, you were the one who said: “"If there was nothing at the big bang, there would be nothing now.”
You also said: “It says what it says there there was something at the big bang”

When I pointed out that the first of these statements was tautologous, and asked you to be specific about what you were saying; your response was: “Sorry I don't have to specify anything science doesn't work like that”

You said of the Big Bang: “…that theory starts with something at the big bang. If you want to argue there is something or nothing that predates our universe then it is cosmogony as we have no data”.

Now you say: “Big Bang is hardly an exact definition”

What are you saying; that Big Bang is fine when you use it, but inexact when I use it? Are you “being anal” when you use it, or is that just a insult you reserve for people who are not fobbed off by indeterminate circumlocution.

The point is Bill S when I use Big Bang IT IS NEVER EXACT .. HOW CAN IT BE THERE IS NO DATA. Look at my statements and tell me where you think there is any exactness in any of those statements ... BIG BANG is a garbage loose term and generally horribly abused. I gave you my complete logic and you even worked out I imposed a boundary and would not speculate beyond that point because my logic works on justification and I have none for going any further, now you want to play word games by pulling quotes without context .. really?

Sorry I don't do word games ..... you win by default

You may use big bang however and whatever you like to be honest Bill S I really wouldn't care it's a pile of cosmology garbage do with it as you please

From my janitor perspective there are hundreds of different version of what people call "big bang" and all are about as valid as each other and may their big bangs rock their world

Anyhow I think this thread has reached it's inevitable end don't you lets all have a group hug and find something else to argue about.

The possibilities are infinite

In what has to be one of the funniest blogs of watching someone solve a problem with infinity this is classic by Buzz Skyline

It's the good old 1+2+3+4+5... = -1/12

He starts arguing it is wrong but the maths peeps quickly show him his argument fails

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2014/01/redux-does-1234-112-absolutely-not.html

So then he actually does a very smart thing and graphs it and can suddenly see the problem and what the maths is showing and the penny drops.

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2014/02/so-what-does-1234-equal-we-give-you_11.html

And he worked it out by graphing it





Suddenly he sees it a large postive infinity, a large negative infinity and the bit in the middle of the curve.

Then a broken and dejected infinitarian he heads off



Perfectly clear now isn't it you just subtract away from infinity

Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutely_convergent#Rearrangements_and_unconditional_convergence

Interesting links, that’s a painful quantity of maths just to establish something that is patently obvious to a non mathematician. Having said that, I do appreciate the necessity to prove things that might otherwise be wrongly accepted because they seem so obvious.

You seem to have a very poor opinion of cosmology/cosmologists. Many of them have their PhD, but then one can get a PhD in philosophy or theology/divinity, so I suppose there is plenty of scope for “class distinction” among the elite. Could it be that cosmologists are scientists with imagination?



I agree. If we have discussed this for so long, and you still think I believe there was nothing before the BB, then the chances of any real progress are “infinitely” small.

I’m a little reticent about the group hug – there are some funny people on SAGG.

Hold it, Bill S, have you not noticed that dull preachers with doctors of theology/divinity are the ones who are turning so many churches into vacuums?

Hold that thought, Rev. If they are creating vacuums, perhaps they could settle all the wrangling about the nature of nothing.

Interesting that you think it is an obvious answer. Perhaps research what it means to add or subtract a number from infinity.

Can I suggest that while I research what it means to add or subtract a number from infinity you might research the difference between saying something "is obvious" as opposed to "seems obvious".

That doesn't translate different to me am I missing something in the English?

In translation I get

Something that is obvious seems obvious to me
Something that seems obvious is obvious to me

What am I missing?

The sun is the source of our daylight; that’s obvious.

The sun moves across the sky; that seems obvious, but is not.