The Big Bang time paradox

[Aeson]

Physics aside, you schooled yourself KH. Making a pictoral allusion to Jermaine O'neal as representative of your debate skills? Sure he's a decent player in general, but he can almost always be counted on to make the game-losing or cringeworthy play when the chips are down. (Eerily fitting given your later non-physics related posts.)

[KrazyHorse]

I didn't even know the name of the player. Google image search found it for me.

And Diadem's the only one who's schooled himself. Go look in any other science thread. When I'm wrong, I admit it readily. That's something I've taught myself to do over the years. I also admit when I don't know what I'm talking about, or when I'm not really qualified to offer an opinion.

It's called intellectual honesty, and I have no patience for those who don't practice it.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I had also though that the definition of a singularity was esentialy a Eucledian "point" aka zero volume and thus infinite density regardless of mass.

KH's pre-inflation universe is tiny on the plank scale but not quite a singularity and he seems unwilling to speculate on its nature and how it came into being yet the "cause" of inflation lies their and were left with left with the classic first-cause paradox.

Also can I get some clarification on the obzervable universe vs the universe (in whole). I understand that the observable universe is bounded by a "wall of darkness" some 13 billion lightyears away at which distance/time what your observing becomes opacue due to the nature of the early universe. Yet this implies that the observable universe is constantly growing as that wall retreates. So the observable universe is an arbitrary (defined by our arbitrary location) finite but ever growing portion of the whole universe. The whole universe might be spatialy infinite or finite and that would agree with all our theories. The Big-Bang theory is not suprizingly based observation of the observable universe and it is infered that it holds for the whole universe on the principle of non-favored-observer aka our place in the universe is assumed to be typical and ordinary. Is that correct?

P.S. I hope he dose infact come back as I and I would suspect most readers on the this thread have been quite put off by KH's rather arogent demener and would like to see him get Pwned

[Zkribbler]

That does it...I'm joining the School of Idealism:

We believe the universe exists only because we perceive it. Reality is an illusion. I think, therefore I am. I didn't do it; no one saw me; you can't prove a thing!

[Aeson]

Regardless of how you found the picture, the reference is still the same. Whether you intended the implication or not, you posted it.

As I said, the allusion is eerily fitting given the way the thread progressed. You acted rather like a spoiled primadonna to start out, and then once you had bothered to make your points, follow up with completely irrellevent trash that would qualify as "cringeworthy". (My actual physical reaction to reading the words "my house" in a thread of this nature was to cringe.)

If, as you say, you truely have no patience for those who seemingly won't admit they are wrong, you would be better served being more amiable in making your points. Being too aggressive or insulting will lead to defensiveness or retaliation, and thus increase the potential to expose yourself unnecessarily to things which you have expressed a dislike for.

Intellectual honesty is a good thing of course. Intellectual dishonesty refers to arguing a position that is known to be false by the one making the argument. It is not simply someone making an argument you or even conventional wisdom sees as false. Jumping to the conclusion that it is intellectually dishonest for a person to hold their views is itself displaying ignorance about the possibility that perhaps that person is not yet aware of their lack of understanding.

If this inappropriate application of "intellectually dishonest" is applied, it thus applies to it's own application in the same inappropriate manner. Rather ironic. Not to mention that we all would have to be considered intellectually dishonest up until the point where every point we ever made was perfectly correct.

I think you must mean something else other than "intellectual (dis)honesty" when refering to those making points you differ from in this thread. To assume that anyone is actually intellectually dishonest in this thread, you are implying that they understand Cosmology well enough to know that their points are incorrect. Your own arguments against their level of understanding would suggest that is not the case.

[KrazyHorse]

KH's pre-inflation universe is tiny on the plank scale but not quite a singularity and he seems unwilling to speculate on its nature and how it came into being yet the "cause" of inflation lies their and were left with left with the classic first-cause paradox.

It's not necessarily a paradox. It could be turtles all the way down. Or it could be a number of other, more ridiculous "theories" I could come up with. Or it could be God. I'm an atheist, but what the ****. If we want to speculate about something that far past our understanding then God is as good a guess as anything else.

My point is that to have a "philosophical" discussion about the "beginning of time" assumes an awful lot. It seems to me a lot like sophistry.

Then again, I'm not sure any philosophy is too far separated from sophistry as is, so feel free.

[KrazyHorse]

P.S. I hope he dose infact come back as I and I would suspect most readers on the this thread have been quite put off by KH's rather arogent demener and would like to see him get Pwned

Not today, son. Not today.

I get pwn3d here occasionally, but it has yet to happen in any area of physics.

Once in a blue moon it happens to me in a math thread.

[Impaler[WrG]]

It's not necessarily a paradox. It could be turtles all the way down. Or it could be a number of other, more ridiculous "theories" I could come up with. Or it could be God. I'm an atheist, but what the ****. If we want to speculate about something that far past our understanding then God is as good a guess as anything else.

So you basicly admit to riding into a Philisopical thread on a Pysics horse, laying much scorn on others for not having horses as nice as yours. Refused to get off your horse when it was pointed out that wasn't realy the topic and then had a joust with another guy on a horse which you seem to have won. How dose that in any way constitute constructive input.

Try this I'll lay out some pitifull lay speculation and you can tell by the varying degree of scorn you lay upon them which is more or less likly in your personal met-pysical speculation in no-way informed by rigorous scientific theory.

PIU = Pre-Inflation Universe

1 - The PIU simply came into being at the moment Inflation began or very shortly before
2 - The PIU had existed forever prior to inflation in a steady state.
3 - The PIU ha existed forever prior to inflation in a cyclical expantion and contraction the current universe being one such cycle
4 - The PIU had existed forever prior to inflation and had been collapsing forever, our present universe will coresponding expand forever

Also can you think of any other senarios? If Diadem is still around I'd like to hear his opinions and anyone elses as well.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

P.S. I hope he dose infact come back as I and I would suspect most readers on the this thread have been quite put off by KH's rather arogent demener and would like to see him get Pwned

Not today, son. Not today.

I get pwn3d here occasionally, but it has yet to happen in any area of physics.

Once in a blue moon it happens to me in a math thread.

By Kuci even...










BTW, I do agree that KH could be a little bit more hum, diplomatic sometimes.
I like explaining math. to people who I feel are genuinely interested (I've actually taught unversity classes and all, but I'm talking coffetable explanations) and I would never get very far with his attitude.
Now he may argue that he doesn't care about you guys, but then why does he even post here? The truth is, he secretly loves all of you and this is his way of expressing it, so you should all give him some slack!!

[KrazyHorse]

So you basicly admit to riding into a Philisopical thread on a Pysics horse

No. It started out a physics thread because the opening post was predicated on a misunderstanding of a physical theory. Now that I've dispelled that misunderstanding despite the best efforts of some others, the thread can have two possible directions:

a) People can talk about actual cosmology (interesting), or

b) People can masturbate themselves into a frenzy about what time is and what it would mean if there was a beginning of time etc (boring)

I'm not going to force people to go one way or the other. But if they choose b I'll be looking in from time to time to make sure they aren't involving physics in any of their crackpot theories. If they do I'll be there to pwn them.

[Jon Miller]

The fallacy of baseless speculation being science is one I see far too often.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Exactly. And physics gets more than its fair share of that ****.

So you'll pardon me if I get pissed when I see it in action.

[KrazyHorse]

I like explaining math. to people who I feel are genuinely interested

I'm honestly much nicer than I let on a lot of the time. But it's the OT. I don't come here to be nice to you guys. I come here to engage in battle. Anybody who gets hurt at something they read here needs to take a step back. It's a free-for-all, and that's what I like about it. Sauve qui peut.

I would never get very far with his attitude.

Check out what happens when you ask a question nicely instead of assuming that you understand something and trying to point out a problem with it. Hell, half of cohomology theory doesn't make any sense to me but I don't start threads arguing that there are philosophical problems with it. I just assume that I don't understand it well enough.

Now he may argue that he doesn't care about you guys, but then why does he even post here? The truth is, he secretly loves all of you and this is his way of expressing it, so you should all give him some slack!!

I'm a pussycat. I admit it.

And you have to admit that the basketball picture was funny.

[Diadem]

Why are you claiming a win in this discussion KrazyHorse? Last time I checked "Insulting the other until he gives up" was not a valid victory condition in internet debates.

Just as stating that you are right ad nauseam does not, in fact, make you right.


You are still missing the basic points of the argument anyway. The first one was that the topic starter's question was of a philosophical rather than a physical nature, and perfectly legitimate, and the answer giving by impaler was a perfectly good one. You completely walked over that point, but that was the main point, and you were wrong there.

The argument then went on about 'what was there before inflation'. We both agree that you can not say much about that, using physics. We both agree that our physics can not describe the pre-inflation universe. So I fear that repeating this point will not make you win this argument, since we agree on it.



The point we seem to disagree on is wether the early universe started as a singularity. Let's refrase that: wether the visible part of the universe was once compressed into a singularity.

I do not clearly understand why you are arguiing against this. If you run time backwards you'll see all matter in the visible universe collapsed into a single point. Inflation does not modify that basic picture, it just changes the rate at which it happened. Do you disagree with this?

If such a point were not a singularity, then general relativity would be able to describe it accurately. However, as you have pointed out yourself over and over, we are not able to describe this moment accurately. Hmm, why would that be?

[KrazyHorse]

Honey, if you're going to storm out of an argument and claim that it's useless to continue the discussion then it's probably a good idea to stay gone.

Coming back means that you continued to read the thread. Which means that you give a **** what other people think. It's not smart to show that kind of weakness.