Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cyclic universe could explain cosmic balancing act
Nature Magazine ^ | 04 May 2006 | Philip Ball

Posted on 05/04/2006 12:02:17 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-115 next last
To: Red Badger

Ah, doesn't rule out _moldy_ Swiss cheese now, does it?


21 posted on 05/04/2006 12:30:48 PM PDT by green pastures
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Chiapet
I don't suppose that any of you could recommend a good layman's guide to physics.I'd be interested, too, though what I probably need is a "Physics for Profoundly Mathematically-Challenged Dummies"
22 posted on 05/04/2006 12:32:00 PM PDT by ToryHeartland ("The universe shares in God’s own creativity." - Rev. G.V.Coyne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
They have seized on an idea first proposed by physicist Larry Abbott in 1985: that maybe the vacuum energy was once big but has declined to ever smaller values.

Maybe I shouldn't have invested in this.

23 posted on 05/04/2006 12:32:53 PM PDT by OSHA (Liberal Utopia: When they shoot people going over the wall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chiapet

Don't let me forget. I will take a look thru my library tonight.


24 posted on 05/04/2006 12:34:18 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Chiapet

Hawkings' "A Brief History of Time" ain't too confusing.
most of this cosmology stuff makes my brain hurt, honestly.


25 posted on 05/04/2006 12:35:48 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
Hawkings' "A Brief History of Time" ain't too confusing. most of this cosmology stuff makes my brain hurt, honestly.

Microsoft Excel sometimes makes my brain hurt, so I may be at a slight disadvantage....

26 posted on 05/04/2006 12:37:12 PM PDT by Chiapet (I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Chiapet

'physics for dummies' is most likely as accurate for the lay person as anything else you could read.........Spanish for dummies was pretty darn good - we need one ASAP called English for dummies........


27 posted on 05/04/2006 12:38:27 PM PDT by yoe (Aim low boys, they're riding Burros.........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek; PatrickHenry
I like this theory. Donno why, but I like it.

--and--

I lack the Ph.D level mathematics skill needed to understand modern theories about cosmology in any real way. Any language short of high-level mathematics is going to have trouble expressing the basis for these concepts.

Well, I have an advanced degree in math (not Phd yet), but I think understanding and accepting these concepts has more to do with intuition than anything.

28 posted on 05/04/2006 12:38:55 PM PDT by phantomworker ("Many a friendship is lost for lack of speaking." -Aristotle (DD, PB we miss ya.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chiapet

MicroSquish products OFTEN make my brain hurt - not that they are particularly difficult to use -when they work- but that they are particularly annoying when they fail to work (and fail to let you know why the f[beep!] they have failed)


29 posted on 05/04/2006 12:39:05 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: green pastures

The term "Green" cheese is not in reference to the color green, but to "unripened" cheese which is pale white and has not taken on it final colors.........


30 posted on 05/04/2006 12:41:21 PM PDT by Red Badger (In warfare there are no constant conditions. --- The Art of War by SunTzu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Over time, the Universe would spend far longer in states with a vacuum energy close to zero than with a high vacuum energy.

Nature abhors a vacuum?

31 posted on 05/04/2006 12:45:31 PM PDT by phantomworker ("Many a friendship is lost for lack of speaking." -Aristotle (DD, PB we miss ya.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Preaching to the choir :)


32 posted on 05/04/2006 12:47:20 PM PDT by Chiapet (I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Any theory of cosmology that doesn't predict the the magic number Nv = 72, (where Nv = number of Allah's virgins), is incomplete.


33 posted on 05/04/2006 12:48:14 PM PDT by hang 'em (Fine and jail the employers and illegals will self- deport.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Basically, this question comes down to whether or not there is enough mass in the universe for gravity to reverse the expansion ofg the big bang.


34 posted on 05/04/2006 12:48:30 PM PDT by gondramB (He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
But the irony is that Einstein insisted that the Theory of Relativity not only made sense, but it was the only possible explanation that did make sense.

And decades of experiments and observations have vindicated his convictions to a very high degree of certainty.

The 'devil is in the details', so they say. This particular cosmological variant requires much more investigation before one can say there's truth to it or not - but theories have to start somewhere.

35 posted on 05/04/2006 12:48:55 PM PDT by Quark2005 (Confidence follows from consilience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Trying to figure out the origins of the universe is like sweeping a dirt floor.


36 posted on 05/04/2006 12:56:17 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

So how does this theory relate to or refute Membrane theory where our big bang was caused by the collision of 2 rippling universes/membranes? Or is that theory just super old and cast away now. I really like that theory, it's elegant and with string theory one can imagine that our reality is a beautiful song or word spoken/sung by GOD


37 posted on 05/04/2006 1:00:56 PM PDT by TheKidster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
>>Modern physicists especially enjoy coming up with explanations for things that don't make any sense, and then saying something like, "It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to describe reality. Reality doesn't necessarily make sense."

I think Einstein got that started when he came up with the Special Theory of Relativity, which seemed to contradict our common understandings. But the irony is that Einstein insisted that the Theory of Relativity not only made sense, but it was the only possible explanation that did make sense.<<


Its important that the equations describe reality rather than "making sense" to at a macroscopic level.

For example after Einstein finished his field equations, he followed them to their conclusion and concluded the universe was stable. This made sense to him. Then another physicist Alexander Friedmann realized that Einstein had divided by zero - the correction didn't make as much sense but it did describe reality and Einstein accepted it.
38 posted on 05/04/2006 1:05:28 PM PDT by gondramB (He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Just trying to be a little humorous. A little cheesey, even, perhaps.

Not gouda, I guess.


39 posted on 05/04/2006 1:14:07 PM PDT by green pastures
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

There used to be the Strong Anthropic Principle and the Weak Anthropic Principle.

The Strong Anthropic Principle said that the universe appeared to be designed for life because it was designed.

The Weak Anthropic Principle said that the universe appeared appeared to be designed for life because it was the only way that life could have appeared.

There used to be a reason that the one was named 'Strong' and the other 'Weak'.

Now however, the revisionists have dropped the 'Strong' principle and only the 'Weak' principle remains, without the 'weak', of course.

That's so you won't think outside the box you are given so quickly (The Weak Anthropic Principle).


40 posted on 05/04/2006 1:14:48 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-115 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson