I decided to split our conversation from the thread regarding Death.

If this is a waste of time, I apologize. But it seemed like our exchanges, were not settled.

This can also serve as a place for others to weigh in the thought of an eternal universe, whether new discovery has supported this concept, and the basis of that claim.

I will start....

HB,

Do you really think that Shadowmaster, who is more qualified than any of us, is not a true physicist simply because he does not agree with you?

AFAIK, he out qualifies all of us with regards to the field.

Also, I will repost this from the other thread.


Originally posted by HELLBOY
Good grief!

Come on - you guys are not in the sixth grade -

What?!?!

You are the one that suggested that I read these to get "informed."

Then when I point out that these sources are magazines and not peer reviewed journals, suddenly I am the one with the problem? Make up your mind.

Originally posted by HELLBOY
They do have value and most articles are based on journaled research. Do I really have to explain this?

Apparently I have to explain it to you.

The articles are from one point of view that has no accountability as far as the science goes. They can say and assume whatever they want.


Originally posted by HELLBOY
We refer to those magazines, jokingly, as "lures" - that's why I added them in a separate post as a supplement to provide "simple science".

Who is we?

Simple science that educates someone in one point of view with many assumptions that really dumb down the science and the problems that it poses or solves.


Originally posted by HELLBOY
Couldn't you imagine that I knew that? You guys have to find anything (even if it means making stuff up) - to make some kind of refutation at all!

Also, it is not a refutation. But if that is where you are getting your science from, then I find that a highly dubious source. Again, these are meant to be entertainment first and 100% scientifically accurate second.

Originally posted by element771

I decided to split our conversation from the thread regarding Death.

If this is a waste of time, I apologize. But it seemed like our exchanges, were not settled.

This can also serve as a place for others to weigh in the thought of an eternal universe, whether new discovery has supported this concept, and the basis of that claim.

I will start....

HB,

Do you really think that Shadowmaster, who is more qualified than any of us, is not a true physicist simply because he does not agree with you?

I do not consider shadowmaster more qualified than the rest of us until he presents his qualifications and peer reviewed publications in his field, whether he agrees or not with me. Also the view of one physicist or cosmologist does not represent the field.

I will stick with arguing the case of the dominant views of the major cosmologists, physicists, and mathematicians of the major institutions that deal with research into cosmology. There is a general consensus among cosmologist concerning the nature of the greater cosmos despite differences in the theories and views on describing the nature of our existence.

AFAIK, he out qualifies all of us with regards to the field.

I have no reason to believe this.

Dragon has a good point.

I mean, I have never seen his qualifications (Granted, I am fairly new around here) so even if they've been posted before posting them against would be what is needed to convince us of his journalistic (or yours, who still won't even PM an article you have published with your name taken off)

To clear things. The reason SM remains anonymous might be because wackos like to stalk people over little topics like what is being discussed here. That's why I do.

Let his knowledge speak for itself.

It seems a bit odd to start a post over someone's qualifications.

I do not think that because someone does not agree with me, that they are automatically discredited.

If I were a botanist, and someone else, claiming to be a botanist insisted that there was no such thing as a "blue flower", and gave a stunningly fantastic argument about chlorophyll production and it's range of "pigment reactions", via plant cell membranes...

And everyone else on the botanist forum was agreeing - saying, in addition, that they have never seen a blue flower either, with one, in particular, saying things like: "Little boy, are you going to refute my claim yet, or just keep whining, Waaaaah! that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?"

Of course, since the room I am in is separated only by a breezeway into a solarium - wherein, are planted three hydrangeas (two of whose flowers are blue, and one which has pink flowers, because of the addition of lime to the soil - I know better.

Now, I can not only deduce that many of my fellow debaters probably live in the South Western U.S. as blue flowers are scarce there, but I can deduce with an almost certainty, that the original claimant is indeed, not a botanist at all, but, at best, is a botany student, who also lives in the South West.

There is no question in my mind that a true physicist would NOT say that it was a fact that the Universe is finite. Those kinds of statements would never pass the lips of myself, or any of my colleagues, or anyone associated with research in physics.

Now, I have heard students make such claims, and rather adamantly. I have no problem with this, really, because they are in an environment where (usually) they are wielding a toothpick in an arena of swords, and soon, they will be humbled.

Quite simply, everything I have said about physics theory is true and quite easily confirmed. It is rather surprising that so much debate has revolved around this eternal/finite Universe (most of which has been due to a misunderstanding of terms.)

Originally posted by Sea of red

To clear things. The reason SM remains anonymous might be because wackos like to stalk people over little topics like what is being discussed here. That's why I do.

Let his knowledge speak for itself.

A wise post, indeed.

Originally posted by Sea of red

To clear things. The reason SM remains anonymous might be because wackos like to stalk people over little topics like what is being discussed here. That's why I do.

This is one of the reasons I reference sources that chose not to remain anonymous for whatever reason.

Let his knowledge speak for itself.

OK

Originally posted by Jaecp

(or yours, who still won't even PM an article you have published with your name taken off)

Question

If I would like to remain anonymous, how hard would it be for you to google the article that I PM you with my name taken off of it?

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Also the view of one physicist or cosmologist does not represent the field.

I agree but someone in the field who absolutely have a better feel as to where the field is going, current research, credibility of publications, etc.

That is the intangible thing that you get when it is your job and not your hobby. Unless you earn a PhD and are involved in the field, it is very hard to know where the field is headed, who postulates what, their credibility, the popularity of their research, etc..... from reading Discover, Scientific American, Nature, etc.

SoR and SM can back me up on this. Unless you go through the training and are deeply immersed in the field, you probably won't understand how complex or time consuming it is to stay up to date on current research. And it is not done by reading magazines or books. At least in biochemistry it isn't.

This is why I place more confidence in SM than others when it comes to the direction / feeling in the field.

Originally posted by element771

I agree but someone in the field who absolutely have a better feel as to where the field is going, current research, credibility of publications, etc.

That is the intangible thing that you get when it is your job and not your hobby. Unless you earn a PhD and are involved in the field, it is very hard to know where the field is headed, who postulates what, their credibility, the popularity of their research, etc..... from reading Discover, Scientific American, Nature, etc.

SoR and SM can back me up on this. Unless you go through the training and are deeply immersed in the field, you probably won't understand how complex or time consuming it is to stay up to date on current research. And it is not done by reading magazines or books. At least in biochemistry it isn't.

This is why I place more confidence in SM than others when it comes to the direction / feeling in the field.

And you are wise to do so - to a point.

But remember, nearly every journal is published online, and most complex theories have layman's explanations. It is your responsibility to participate in something that you know something about.

Scientific American does the same thing highschool texts book do. Remove the complex mathematics and heavy data, so the layman can understand it. Sky and Telescope, Astronomy mag, and even Physics world have done such, which is why I no longer buy them.

As for current Physics the buzz is still on quantum gravity. Yup still searching.

I'm going to give string theory another go, and start reading up on brane cosmology.

Originally posted by Sea of red

Scientific American does the same thing highschool texts book do. Remove the complex mathematics and heavy data, so the layman can understand it. Sky and Telescope, Astronomy mag, and even Physics world have done such, which is why I no longer buy them.

As for current Physics the buzz is still on quantum gravity. Yup still searching.

I'm going to give string theory another go, and start reading up on brane cosmology.

I'm telling you, "entanglement" is the way to go.

I cannot imagine a better starting point. After that, Einstein's Theory of Gravity as it relates to the Big Bang, and electrodymanics.

String Theory is good, as well, but there are so many variations that you could literally lose your mind!

Planck's Constant (or, better put, "The inverse of the Fine Structure Constant), i.e., Why, oh why, oh why, does Alpha = 1/137.036...? <- Careful with this one... There are physicists locked up in mental hospitals because of it. - A good primer for this (to me) - utterly fascinating problem is Leon Lederman's, The God Particle. He lived down the street, at 137 Eola Road!

Originally posted by HELLBOY

I'm telling you, "entanglement" is the way to go.

I cannot imagine a better starting point. After that, Einstein's Theory of Gravity as it relates to the Big Bang, and electrodymanics.

String Theory is good, as well, but there are so many variations that you could literally lose your mind!

Planck's Constant (or, better put, "The inverse of the Fine Structure Constant), i.e., Why, oh why, oh why, does Alpha = 1/137.036...? <- Careful with this one... There are physicists locked up in mental hospitals because of it. - A good primer for this (to me) - utterly fascinating problem is Leon Lederman's, The God Particle. He lived down the street, at 137 Eola Road!

Where are you getting your information on Planck's constant being the inverse of the fine structure constant? The fine structure constant is composed of three constants, not one. The electric and magnetic being the other two. Plancks constant is related to the fine structure constant, but there are two others like I said, plus other factors.

It being 1/137 is not something that bothers me because like I said the fine structure constant is composed of other factors.

String theory does indeed have many versions. Many of them rolled up into one like M-Theory.

Originally posted by HELLBOY

I'm telling you, "entanglement" is the way to go.

I cannot imagine a better starting point. After that, Einstein's Theory of Gravity as it relates to the Big Bang, and electrodymanics.

String Theory is good, as well, but there are so many variations that you could literally lose your mind!

Planck's Constant (or, better put, "The inverse of the Fine Structure Constant), i.e., Why, oh why, oh why, does Alpha = 1/137.036...? <- Careful with this one... There are physicists locked up in mental hospitals because of it. - A good primer for this (to me) - utterly fascinating problem is Leon Lederman's, The God Particle. He lived down the street, at 137 Eola Road!

hey ask Shadowmaster about entanglement. I believe that was his area of research.

Originally posted by Sea of red

Where are you getting your information on Planck's constant being the inverse of the fine structure constant? The fine structure constant is composed of three constants, not one. The electric and magnetic being the other two. Plancks constant is related to the fine structure constant, but there are two others like I said, plus other factors.

It being 1/137 is not something that bothers me because like I said the fine structure constant is composed of other factors.

String theory does indeed have many versions. Many of them rolled up into one like M-Theory.

Because 137 is the inverse of the fine structure constant.

It is so, because it is related to the probability that an electron will emit or absorb a photon.

You take the square of the charge of the electron, then divide it by the speed of light by the Planck’s constant and you get what? The crux of electromagnetism, relativity and quantum theory (Planck’s constant).

You combine the quantities that make up Alpha and see what happens! If you know anything about QM, you’ll be left scratching your head.