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 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-115 next last
To: Red Badger
Ah, doesn't rule out _moldy_ Swiss cheese now, does it?
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)
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.)
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)
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)
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)
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.........................)
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.))
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)
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)
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.))
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)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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
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.)
To: Red Badger
Just trying to be a little humorous. A little cheesey, even, perhaps.
Not gouda, I guess.
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).
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson