 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / November 2008quest
Let's suppose we have infinite space and infinite amount of time. Space is initially filled with randomly distributed matter and antimatter. Average density of matter might be similar to what we observe in galactic arms. My question is: What will happen? How this setup will evolve in time? I'm seeking answer only based on well established theories. No dark matter, dark energy, no unknown particles, and let's assume space does not inflate in time. > Let's suppose we have infinite space and infinite amount of time. > Space is initially filled with randomly distributed matter and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > matter, dark energy, no unknown particles, and let's assume space does > not inflate in time. Whatever you want to happen, you are the one making up all the rules and assumptions, dork. > Whatever you want to happen, you are the one making up all the > rules and assumptions, dork. I don't think I understand you? Are some of my assumptions nonsensical? Do they contradict? >> Whatever you want to happen, you are the one making up all the >> rules and assumptions, dork. > I don't think I understand you? Are some of my assumptions > nonsensical? Do they contradict? > Let's suppose we have infinite space and infinite amount of time. Ok. > Space is initially Infinite time has no beginning. What do you mean by "initially"? In the beginning... forever and ever, amen. A length of rope with one end in your hand and there is no other end. Where the middle? Yes, that's both nonsensical and a contradiction. You only want to argue based on your own assumptions anyway, hoping for a pat on the back for how right you think you are. > <Kamil.S...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Infinite time has no beginning. What do you mean by "initially"? Infinite does not mean "with no beginning". Half-line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(geometry)#Ray has beginning and is infinite at the same time. That's what I had in mind when I wrote "infinite time", and then described initial state. > In the beginning... forever and ever, amen. > > A length of rope with one end in your hand and there is no other end. > Where the middle? Am I referring anywhere to any "middle" ? > Yes, that's both nonsensical and a contradiction. I'm still failing to see it. > You only want to argue based on your own assumptions anyway, > hoping for a pat on the back for how right you think you are. I just asked a question, because I wanted to know, how do you think, this setup will evolve. >> <Kamil.S...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Infinite time has no beginning. What do you mean by "initially"? > Infinite does not mean "with no beginning". There you go... Infinite does not mean I had cornflakes for breakfast, I had bacon and eggs instead. Infinite does not mean a dog has five legs. Infinite does not mean an elephant has two tails. Infinite does not mean my cat wants to go out, even if he does. [Infinitely long list of what infinite doesn't mean] Tell us what infinite does mean rather than what it doesn't mean. It's your definitions and your assumptions, you'll change them as you choose, the outcome will be whatever you want it to be. > <Kamil.S...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > It's your definitions and your assumptions, you'll change them as > you choose, the outcome will be whatever you want it to be. You claimed: "infinite" implies "without beginning" I just showed you counter example showing that this implication is not true. >> <Kamil.S...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > You claimed: "infinite" implies "without beginning" Ok, yes I did, and I can prove it. There are as many negative numbers as there are positive numbers, by definition of a vector space. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html "Axiom 4. Existence of additive inverse: For any X, there exists a -X such that X + (-X) = 0" So we can construct a number line: -oo,...,-3,-2,-1, 0, 1,2,3,...,oo Where on the number line is the beginning? > I just showed you counter example showing that this implication is not > true. What happened before the beginning when these "initial conditions" were set up? I just showed you one where it is true. By your rules and your assumptions what will happen will be whatever you want it to be. Since it is impossible to prove except by exhaustion and I'll be long dead before it does (so will you), your entire argument is pointless. Wackypedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof lists: 1 Direct proof 2 Proof by induction 3 Proof by transposition 4 Proof by contradiction 5 Proof by construction 6 Proof by exhaustion 7 Probabilistic proof 8 Combinatorial proof 9 Nonconstructive proof 10 Elementary proof Not included: 11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion). 12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion). 13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority). Since you have no proof, merely your opinions and assumptions, whatever happens will be whatever you want it to be. You just want someone to argue with or have them agree with you. I'm doing neither. >>> <Kamil.S...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > >Where on the number line is the beginning? The natural numbers form an infinite set. They begin a 1 (or 0, if you so desire). Therefore, an infinity can have a beginning. QED. -- Dave > ><Kamil.S...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:518af27e-f801-419a-8bc2-5223a2614784@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > you so desire). Therefore, an infinity can have a beginning. > QED. Thank you. On 21 Lis, 16:45, Dave Typinski <nos...@nospam.net> wrote: > "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > you so desire). Therefore, an infinity can have a beginning. > QED. Thank you. Prove it for time ... err... you pair of cretins. >On 21 Lis, 16:45, Dave Typinski <nos...@nospam.net> wrote: >> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > >Prove it for time ... err... you pair of cretins. Big bang at t=0, omega=1, flat spacetime, universe expands forever at a decreasing rate. In the same way that it's meaningless to ask which natural numbers are less than 0, it's meaningless to ask what happened before t=0. There's an example of infinite time with a beginning. -- Dave > Let's suppose we have infinite space and infinite amount of time. > Space is initially filled with randomly distributed matter and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > matter, dark energy, no unknown particles, and let's assume space does > not inflate in time. There exist a similar situation... for example the actual observable universe could be embedded in infinite space. The matter has an average density of 2.5 yoctograms per cubic meter and is clumped in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. As we look out in space, we look back in time.. so the history of the observable universe is there for us to study. You ask what will happen. No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > > My question is: What will happen? How this setup will evolve in time? > > I'm seeking answer only based on well established theories. No dark [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > average density of 2.5 yoctograms per cubic meter and is clumped > in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Similar with some exceptions. We believe that there is no antimatter in our universe. I wanted to consider setup where there is matter and antimatter in roughly (or exactly) equal proportions.. We also believe that all observable universe started from zero size and that space itself is expanding since then. I wanted nonexpanding space, just bent by gravitation. And I wanted to consider much longer times than age of our universe. > As we look out in space, we look back in time.. so the history of > the observable universe is there for us to study. You ask what will > happen. Yes. I think evolution of my setup will be very similar to what we can observe in our universe at large scales. Gravity affects matter and antimatter same way. You just have to take correction for presence of antimatter, for nonexpanding space, and extrapolate it for longer periods of time. > No Center > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html Thank you for this great resources. I have not read them yet but I will surely do. > Let's suppose we have infinite space and infinite amount of time. > Space is initially filled with randomly distributed matter and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > matter, dark energy, no unknown particles, and let's assume space does > not inflate in time. You get a universe filled with photons as everything else cancels.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > "Kamil.S...@gmail.com" wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You get a universe filled with photons as everything else cancels. Don't you think that some parts of matter and antimatter will survive, because they will be pushed aside by energy of annihilation? Photons don't exist forever they might turn into pairs of particles and antiparticles while interacting. On Nov 20, 1:24 pm, "Kamil.S...@gmail.com" <Kamil.S...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "Kamil.S...@gmail.com" wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Don't you think that some parts of matter and antimatter will survive, > because they will be pushed aside by energy of annihilation? They will still attract each other. Given "infinite time" they will find each other. > Photons don't exist forever Many are already as old as the universe. Google "Cosmic Microwave Background". > they might turn into pairs of particles > and antiparticles while interacting. They would need a nearby event horizon to do that. Where are they going to find one? Tom Davidson Richmond, VA > On Nov 20, 1:24 pm, "Kamil.S...@gmail.com" <Kamil.S...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > They will still attract each other. Given "infinite time" they will > find each other. Before they find each other they might have enough time to compress under gravity and form stars, and in some cases blackholes. > > Photons don't exist forever > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They would need a nearby event horizon to do that. Where are they > going to find one? I don't think that event horizon is necessary for that. Probably any thin that they can interact will do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Pair_production). They probably could even interact with other photons producing matter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin_limit) Maybe most of the photons being produced through annihilation could be absorbed by unannihilated remains heating them up and pushing away. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.