• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JEROME - Life and Linear Time

sol invictus said:
You think it's infinite and eternal?

Nice trap, arth.
Click to expand...
It was not intended as a trap. I just wanted to get more into Jerome's head, to understand where he's coming from.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
My presumption based upon our current evidence? The universe is infinite both large and small.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "infinte both large and small"?
 
No I wasn't unaware of that. Why do you ask? Still awaiting your answer as to why they aren't all dead.
 
sol invictus said:
Yes, I was talking about a vacuum. I specified that the only force acting is gravity. Speed is proportional to distance in an explosion when there are no forces acting. The universe does not expand into an atmosphere - there is nothing outside it to push back on it.
Click to expand...


Gas Expansion-Proportional to distance only if particles in expansion are infinitely small and they are not.

The universe does not expand into an atmosphere - there is nothing outside it to push back on it.

A vacuum cannot be remotely similar to the nothing outside the universe.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You have failed.

They did not know in 1823 that stars died!

You are interested in primary games? Do you really want to play?
Click to expand...

Stars dying does not solve the paradox, Jerome.

If stars die and aren't reborn, after infinite time (i.e. today, according to you) there wouldn't be any left. So you lose to Sol (the sun, that is - which is still shining last time I checked).

If stars die and are reborn, you're screwed by Olber.

:boxedin:
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Gas Expansion-Proportional to distance only if particles in expansion are infinitely small and they are not.
Click to expand...

Take a deep breath and think about this slowly. An explosion produces a large cloud of particles, all moving radially away from the center at different speeds (remember, we are ignoring all interactions other than gravity, and gravity is weak). Those particles fly out, and after time t, each particle is at radius r = v t, where v is the velocity for that particle. So if at time t you look around, you see a distribution of particles with a speed proportional to their distance.

]A vacuum cannot be remotely similar to the nothing outside the universe.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. The Friedmann equation (which describes the evolution of the universe in general relativity) is precisely equivalent to a particle radially under the influence only of a spherically symmetric gravitational field.
 
Last edited:
Something I've always meant to ask: Is it feasible that at each black hole's singularity, a new big bang is happening in some other,touching set of dimensions?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
My presumption based upon our current evidence? The universe is infinite both large and small.
Click to expand...



I assume that you have a list of evidence for your claim that the universe is "infinite both large and small". This evidence will have to count for the evidence that the observable universe has a finite size and age, e.g.
  • The cosmic microwave background is a relic of the Big Bang.
  • The Hubble constant means that about 13.73 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was gathered at one point (Big Bang).
  • The age of white dwarf stars provides a minimum age for the universe (12.1 +/- 0.9 Gyr) and the lack of evidence for older stars (e.g. black dwarf stars or cool white dwarf stars) suggests for a finite age of the universe.
  • The half-life of protons is greater than 1.9*1029 years so they are considered as stable. But some Grand Unified Theories allow a finite half-life and so given an infinite amount of time they will all decay.
I assume that the small bit of the claim refers to small distances. In that case you need to know about the Planck length.
 
Reality Check said:
I assume that you have a list of evidence for your claim that the universe is "infinite both large and small". This evidence will have to count for the evidence that the observable universe has a finite size and age, e.g.
  • The cosmic microwave background is a relic of the Big Bang.
  • The Hubble constant means that about 13.73 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was gathered at one point (Big Bang).
  • The age of white dwarf stars provides a minimum age for the universe (12.1 +/- 0.9 Gyr) and the lack of evidence for older stars (e.g. black dwarf stars or cool white dwarf stars) suggests for a finite age of the universe.
  • The half-life of protons is greater than 1.9*1029 years so they are considered as stable. But some Grand Unified Theories allow a finite half-life and so given an infinite amount of time they will all decay.
I assume that the small bit of the claim refers to small distances. In that case you need to know about the Planck length.
Click to expand...


BGR is assumed a relic of the Big Bang. If an infiante numbers of stars have been born and have died an infinate number of times in an infinate number of places than we would also expect to see BGR.

You are assming that the oldest stars we see are the oldest stars that have ever existed.
 
chulbert said:
While such a universe might be eternal, the individual stars within it are not. All the stars in such a universe would have long since burned out and left the night sky dark unless there was a process that produced new stars. If so, it is reasonable to assume that at any given time there would exist some new stars far enough away that their light has not yet reached Earth.

Whether or not we would see more stars in such a universe, I can't say - it depends on the birth and death rates.

(No, I don't believe we live in such a universe.)
Click to expand...

OK, technically, the universe would have to be infinite in age AND in size. If that were true, then an infinite number of stars, even those an infinite distance away, would be continually bombarding the Earth with light.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
BGR is assumed a relic of the Big Bang. If an infiante numbers of stars have been born and have died an infinate number of times in an infinate number of places than we would also expect to see BGR.

You are assming that the oldest stars we see are the oldest stars that have ever existed.
Click to expand...

So where do the new stars come from? Most stars are made primarily of hydrogen. If the new stars were made from an infinite progression of old stars, then there would be no hydrogen left; all stars would be made of heavier elements.

Actually, since the elements can only be fused so much within the reactor of a star, there would be no elements left, either. All would have long since condensed into neutron stars, then gravity would have condensed them together into black holes.

If you are suggesting that new hydrogen is continually being created, then you have the same problem that the steady-state theory had: There is no known mechanism by which hydrogen can be spontaneously created, much less in the huge quantities that would be necessary to explain the amount of hydrogen we see.

Believe me: Many different models of the universe have been imagined and debated by the brightest minds in cosmology and physics. The Big Bang theory is the one that best fits the evidence, period.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
BGR is assumed a relic of the Big Bang. If an infiante numbers of stars have been born and have died an infinate number of times in an infinate number of places than we would also expect to see BGR.
Click to expand...

Yes, Jerome - we'd see an infinitely bright background radiation which would burn us to a crisp instantaneously. One doesn't need to know any physics at all to see that. Have you already forgotten about Olbers?

You might also learn how to spell, or at least how to use a spellchecker.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
BGR is assumed a relic of the Big Bang. If an infiante numbers of stars have been born and have died an infinate number of times in an infinate number of places than we would also expect to see BGR.
Click to expand...
How quickly you forget. We discussed this already. Galaxies are not evenly distributed throughout space. We would not expect to see evenly distributed background radiation in your scenario.

Why do you continue to fall back on this already debunked "alternative explanation" for cosmic background radiation?

JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are assming that the oldest stars we see are the oldest stars that have ever existed.
Click to expand...
The problem is that there are no older stars than the oldest stars we see. If your model were true, we would expect to see older versions of stars. We don't. Why is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom