Customer Discussions > Science forum

# The Big Bang

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 676-700 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 6:06:27 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
charles, you're obviously mathematically illiterate. take some time, read some - come back in a few years.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 6:13:55 PM PDT
Charles says:
Nova137 says:

As the soap bubble leaves the ring holding it it closes and leaves the boundary. You are left with just a continuous surface (curve) without a boundary.

Nova, the boundry is built into the fact that it has a surface. Yes you can travel forever around the bubble but you are still in a confined area. Unless your bubble is mutidimentional and then that's a whole new thing.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 6:20:08 PM PDT
Charles says:
tom kriske says:
charles, you're obviously mathematically illiterate. take some time, read some - come back in a few years. LOLOLOLOL

You sound like a chrisitan now, if you can't prove them wrong start calling them names and try putting them down.

I am quite happy with myself as I am. And you think way to much of yourself, you're not that important to do all that crap for.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 6:21:45 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
numbnutz gives us...a continuous surface (curve) without a boundary...

you don't even know what you're talking about. curves are one dimensional objects, surfaces two - for you to even suggest that they're the same only serves to demonstrate your abject ignorance of the subject.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 6:22:57 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
well, i guess ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 6:29:23 PM PDT
Nova137 says:
You are onto something here. Picture yourself moving on the surface of the sphere, but you are confined to the 2 dimensions of its surface. How do you define the boundary?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 6:40:56 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 22, 2012, 6:51:02 PM PDT
Charles says:
Nova137 says:

"You are onto something here. Picture yourself moving on the surface of the sphere, but you are confined to the 2 dimensions of its surface. How do you define the boundary? "

Lets see about this, in a finite area you can drive all over it and at some time you will run out of new areas, finite.

Maybe I just can't grasp the meaning properly of boundless.

Surface area.
You can drive around in a circle for a million miles but you are still in that circle. And you can drive around that bubble for the rest of your life ,but you are still on the bubble.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 6:45:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 22, 2012, 7:00:20 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
no.

surface area is an integral quantity; a boundary is essentially determined locally, via closed differential forms.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 6:54:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 22, 2012, 6:56:18 PM PDT
Charles says:
tom kriske says:
numbnutz gives us...a continuous surface (curve) without a boundary...

http://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1974-194-00/S0002-9947-1974-0356061-0/

Pseudo-boundaries and pseudo-interiors in Euclidean spaces and topological manifolds

Authors: Ross Geoghegan and R. Richard Summerhill
Journal: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 194 (1974), 141-165
MSC: Primary 57A15
MathSciNet review: 0356061
Full-text PDF Free Access

Abstract | References | Similar Articles | Additional Information

Abstract: The negligibility theorems of infinite-dimensional topology have finite-dimensional analogues. The role of the Hilbert cube is played by euclidean n-space , and for any nonnegative integer , k-dimensional dense -subsets of exist which play the role of the pseudo-boundary of . Their complements are -dimensional dense pseudo-interiors of . Two kinds of k-dimensional pseudo-boundaries are constructed, one from universal compacta, the other from polyhedra. All the constructions extend to topological manifolds.

Tuff guy, go study this and come back when you're a human being

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 7:04:55 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
i've actually done research in k-theory and kac-moody algebras - i'll take a look at it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 7:36:48 PM PDT
Charles says:
tom kriske says:
" i've actually done research in k-theory and kac-moody algebras - i'll take a look at it."

I haven't, but I found it interesting reading.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 7:50:48 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
what is it charles, are you perpetually full of cow manure? there's nothing interesting for the layman in that article...it's pure greek. it's worse than greek, it's proto-indo-european, perhaps even tocharian a.

try a nice undergraduate treatise on geometry - i'd recommend coxeter.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 8:04:48 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
John Donohue says:

[A reasonable summary of the science is that the expansion of the universe that we can observe began from a state where all the matter/energy of the universe was compacted very densely about 13.7 bn years ago.]

Why do they think everything was packed together at the beginning ? What's the science behind believing that and what does it mean ?

I realize the part about how the galaxies are moving away from each other. Or at least I've heard about that part.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 8:07:00 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
charles says:

[Lets state what is, based on what we can't see.]

That sounds like Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Those things are 'dark' because nobody really knows if they even exist.

That's really dark.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 8:09:46 PM PDT
Charles says:
"tom kriske says:
no.
surface area is an integral quantity; a boundary is essentially determined locally, via closed differential forms. "

Closed differential forms ? Used in math, algebra and calc. still related to manifolds. Prey tell how that is applied to the physical world to determine a non boundry. If that is the proper use, you're right in the I never went past agebra, geometry. Went to computers then, to get out of calc.
I have to disagree. A boundry is anything , even imaginary ( maybe to far out for this subject ), that puts a limit , no matter how far or close, on an object or space. Finite implies a boundry by the nature of not being infinite. You can have a finite number of things in an infinite space with no boundries. But if you can show me how you can have a finite area within an infinite area without it being a hypothetical area or having boundries then I would have to bow and scrape.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 8:11:03 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Nova137 says:

[A quantum computer is just one said toy.]

I saw a guy on TV who is working on a quantum computer at some famous university. Maybe it was MIT I don't recall.

In a conventional computer everything is ultimately based on just a bunch of 1s and 0s. The bits are either on or off.

But with his quantum computer the bits can be on or off at the same time.

Anyway what's the implications of this type of computer ?

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 8:19:13 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 23, 2012, 1:47:49 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 8:42:29 PM PDT
Charles says:
Jeff Marzano says:

[Lets state what is, based on what we can't see.]

"That sounds like Dark Matter and Dark Energy."
true that is. what I have said was
"That is not science, that's more like religion. Lets state what is, based on what we can't see. " That is what they do with their god. Sure you can't see him but this is what he is !!!
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 9:08:27 PM PDT
Charles says:
Jeff Marzano says:

Nova137 says:

"[A quantum computer is just one said toy.]"

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 9:39:18 PM PDT
Re charles, 7-22 8:09 PM: " Finite implies a boundry [sic] by the nature of not being infinite." No, it doesn't -- as the balloon example shows perfectly well. The area of the balloon surface is finite, and the bug crawling around on that surface looking for an edge will never find one. If the bug is of non-zero size, it will eventually visit a place that it has been before (because of the topology of the balloon), but that is not necessarily true of space, where you can only go to places that are reachable within the speed of light.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 10:46:53 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 22, 2012, 10:57:45 PM PDT
Nova137 wrote:
"As the soap bubble leaves the ring holding it it closes and leaves the boundary. You are left with just a continuous surface (curve) without a boundary. "
===================
I always assume that people using anonymous screen names must be struggling with some insecurities. Your mathematical skill are definitely mediocre. A sphere, per se, is a boundary because its surface defines the spherical binding to the origin. If the sphere does not exist, one could move in any direction he wishes. The same could be said about any mathematical surface or curve or function. All those are bounded functions depending on independent variables.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 10:53:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 22, 2012, 10:57:17 PM PDT
Nova137 wrote:
"Information theory applied to entanglement removes the spooky action at a distance of physical theory. We know the two entangled particles have to give up either a 0 or a 1 and after measurement, if a 1 is measured for the first, a 0 is certain in the second. No need to have a physical "information" carrier. "
--------------------------------
Nova137,

You might try put your clothes on when you type on the keyboard. You are hallucinating beyond comprehension. The distance in the entanglement of particles could be any thing from zero to billion light years, where measurements are impossible. You are describing methodology of information theory that is empty of physical understanding. Because, you need to define the states 0 and 1 which you claim can be measured. I doubt that you would ever retain insight into your total delusion.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

Posted on Jul 22, 2012, 11:02:30 PM PDT
jpl says:
The Big Bang

It stands to reason that mass, which occupies spacetime, no matter how small and dense, had to have created the big bang, if the theory is correct. Therefore, if the big bang theory is correct, the big bang started from some dense spacetime. Spacetime didn't just come into existence on its own.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012, 11:19:35 PM PDT
jpl wrote:
"It stands to reason that mass, which occupies spacetime, no matter how small and dense, had to have created the big bang, if the theory is correct."
==================================
The question is not whether the theory of the Big Bang was correct or not. The question is what does the theory accomplish?

If current forms of nuclei did not form until the Big Bang occurred, the what form of matter was there a priori?

Or, what cause such matter to give way to the Big Bang?

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2012, 5:11:44 AM PDT
Mine keeps freezing up. Plus I think it has a virus.
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]]
Prompts for sign-in

### Recent discussions in the Science forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
20 19 hours ago
41 1 day ago
19 2 days ago
3077 2 days ago
2 3 days ago
106 4 days ago
1341 6 days ago
5 11 days ago
34 14 days ago
11 15 days ago
9999 Aug 24, 2017
6 Aug 22, 2017

## This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  63
Total posts:  1133
Initial post:  Apr 24, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 21, 2012