Philisophcal musings. Age of the universe.

[SphinxnihpS]

Cyclic universes has come back into favor lately due to some new research.

You are as high as a kite. It has been know for a very long time that there is not enough matter in the universe for it to ever come back together. Everything is accellerating away from everything else.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Get up to date with current studies in astrophysics. I'm not making this stuff up.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[Fritzo]

Bwhahahahahahahahahahaha!

Bahahahahah I r so smart!!!!

OK, here's the breakdown. The cyclic universe model is gaining support due to a fairly new idea called quintom bounce, which came from a paper from Cornell U. a few years back:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0502136

This idea was expanded upon and the idea of viewing the universe a type of signal oscilation rather than a physical explosion. This views the universe as a flat "line", and when other branes or maybe some other unknown phenomenon influences this line, it causes an oscilation and creates a universe (picture plucking a guitar string). One of the better papers on this scenario is available here:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.0822v1.pdf

 

[SphinxnihpS]

We have a insignificant amount of information, many of the formulas are based on assumptions we can't prove, and we have no way of testing the theory. To make assumptions on data and then claim to accurately predict a lifespan of millions of years is... arrogant at best. We simply don't know or understand enough to say we can accurately predict something like this. Even the ranges that people predict are huge.

It is not unusual to see an article about some scientists discovering that something they always believed was actually wrong, or hearing a scientist even say, "This shouldn't happen." We don't need to make a definition of everything right away, it's okay to say that we don't know something.

99.9999999% of the science of cosmology is as rock solid as the science that makes your TV and microwave oven work. Just because I said some things are not very accurate doesn't mean they aren't relatively accurate.

I do not see too many of these article you claim. Cosmologist frequently find their ideas needed some adjustment, not that they are flat out wrong. Please illustrate where a scientist is saying "This shouldn't happen" in cosmology.

The areas of cosmology where we are in the dark are llimited to areas releated to dark matter and dark energy, which are still being worked out in physicists brains, but none of that has any bearing on the current age of the universe, or how long it will last, or how it will end. We know all of those things to a great degree of accuracy.

You seem to want to cast doubt on cosmology as a whole by pointing out there are things we do not know, when in fact we know a great deal, and of the major things we are uncertain about, we sill know a great deal, and are working on ways to put those assumptions to the test.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Bahahahahah I r so smart!!!!

OK, here's the breakdown. The cyclic universe model is gaining support due to a fairly new idea called quintom bounce, which came from a paper from Cornell U. a few years back:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0502136

This idea was expanded upon and the idea of viewing the universe a type of signal oscilation rather than a physical explosion. This views the universe as a flat "line", and when other branes or maybe some other unknown phenomenon influences this line, it causes an oscilation and creates a universe (picture plucking a guitar string). One of the better papers on this scenario is available here:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.0822v1.pdf

Two research papers, one of which states that it is based on a matter-dominated universe, in which we do not live, do not begin to mean that these theories have come back into favor.

 

[Fritzo]

Two research papers, one of which states that it is based on a matter-dominated universe, in which we do not live, do not begin to mean that these theories have come back into favor.

I think I'm done with this thread.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Two research papers, one of which states that it is based on a matter-dominated universe, in which we do not live, do not begin to mean that these theories have come back into favor.

I think it does. I think you just don't want to concede his point. Shame on you.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I think it does. I think you just don't want to concede his point. Shame on you.

Are you fucking kidding me? Two papers out of millions of similar papers, and that's equivalent "back in favor", no!

More points.

One of the papers has to do with a fantasy land where ordinary matter is the dominant form of stuff in the universe. That is not here. The paper is speculative and uses a fantasyland universe to prove another point, not that the universe is undergoing cycles.

The other paper concedes our experience in the visible brane would be our current big bang understanding of things, and still does not make any point about the "cycle" reuniting all the matter in the universe, where it would then start over. The next cycle may be something entirely different.

Both papers are postulates on Brane Theory, a subset of Super String Theory, and using 5-dimensional universes, vastly OUT of vogue.

 

[preslove]

I think it does. I think you just don't want to concede his point. Shame on you.

If you think two research papers make something "favor" within an academic discipline, then you know fuck all about science.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Are you fucking kidding me?

Nope. Not in the slightest.

Two papers out of millions of similar papers, and that's equivalent "back in favor", no!

Please supply "millions of similar papers."

More points.

Oh, goodie.

One of the papers has to do with a fantasy land where ordinary matter is the dominant form of stuff in the universe. That is not here.

It is not here, yet. The paper describes phenomena in a matter dominated contracting universe, demonstrating that it is still meaningful to talk about the consequences of a cyclical cosmology. I think you mistook the significance of Fritzo citing these sources.

The paper is speculative and uses a fantasyland universe to prove another point, not that the universe is undergoing cycles.

From what I can gather, you read merely the first sentence of the abstract and are deriving your judgements from it alone.

The other paper concedes our experience in the visible brane would be our current big bang understanding of things, and still does not make any point about the "cycle" reuniting all the matter in the universe, where it would then start over. The next cycle may be something entirely different.

I don't think it was a necessary element of Fritzo's claim that each subsequent cycle be identical.

Both papers are postulates on Brane Theory, a subset of Super String Theory, and using 5-dimensional universes, vastly OUT of vogue.

[Citation needed]

If you'd like another example, please consider a very contemproary model submitted by Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610213

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If you think two research papers make something "favor" within an academic discipline, then you know fuck all about science.

I think you mistook my meaning. Fritzo stated some pertinent facts in support of his earlier claim, and cited research papers which substantiate those facts. SphinxNips has not done anything more than bloviate in response. I think that Fritzo's point remains notwithstanding SphinxTits disingenuous incredulity.

How many papers does it take, incidentally? What's the magic number, oh great purveyor of all that is scientifically favorable?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

It's fairly clear that some here have a hard time identifying the argument that the other side is making and prefers to focus on the emotional connotations that they derived from said argument.

How many papers does it take, incidentally? What's the magic number, oh great purveyor of all that is scientifically favorable?

The paper should either be cited a few times without being contradicted or in an A journal before it is given credence.

That's my rule of thumb; but I'm a make-believe scientist.

 

[Malak]

I do not see too many of these article you claim. Cosmologist frequently find their ideas needed some adjustment, not that they are flat out wrong. Please illustrate where a scientist is saying "This shouldn't happen" in cosmology.

If I'm not mistaken, Stephen Hawking was flat wrong about black holes a while back.