Universe Race

its a math of probabilities.if i do the math for you, and say there's a 1 in 25 (enter indefinite zeros here) that the universe could have evolved from a timeless singular state with zero environment and zero outside influence, which is what the singularity is;you'll scream bullshit. so do your math, and compare to science of probabilities.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

im saying : YOU do it. so YOULL know. will you trust my math?the laws of chance and chaos theory is your chosen work, have you done the math?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi Tesla,Your ideas appear unintelligible to everyone else here. If you continue participating in this manner in this thread, or in similar manner in any other thread, I'll be forced to suspend you again.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Ok.To understand lets say, the area of a spacetime, you measure the scalar. In n dimensional spacetime if you find the area of spacetime necessary to encompass the observable universe.But then also, do you need to orientation of the scalar? Say; orthogonal.So you also must measure the energy level, and the outside variables of the scalar for specific alignment that the observable universe will "appear" saddle shaped, but never can be ideal saddle shaped, unless the observable universe was not in fact orthogonal, because they never are.So the math is to relative.The observable universe being not saddle shaped can cause buckling of the scalar field, and an infinite value if not corrected, so then you run the math of probabilities to understand at what level of buckling is acceptable for the observable universe you are modelling.The math of the singularity for it to be understood, is the math of probabilities.I give it to you in my analogy for the simple reason that all who do the math come up with different variables, but all workable within the confines of the truth.For example: Cosmologist A Say's; the proper scaling of the metric to work with universe A, is an eighth of an inch for the matter of appearance, and the scalar field being 3/4 of an inch is acceptable to a saddle shaped universe, and would be acceptable to the observer because the non zero value of the Higgs field is 2 eighths higher than the necessary value needed for a saddleshaped universe.Cosmologist B Say's; nay, but I say, unless within a sixteenth of an inch , the non zero value of the Higgs fields spontaneously drops of exceeding the necessary parameters for a saddle shaped universe within 7 years, and although it would be accepted now, observable universe is a saddle shaped one and a sixteenth would extend the time frame thrice with the given variables of the foundation on its current platform, which is the scalar field (obviously).The variables of the saddle shaped universe by the age of the observable universe and the scalar fields current settling from what would have been necessary for the condesation of the Higgs field support the observation.The math was done by two different cosmolgist, and both would have found a scalar field, metric and saddle shape of the universe, which means A=B, regardless, but one considered a missing variable, while the other ignored it.So when running the probabilities of the singularity I can say:Well, if you don't get my point now you never will.I don't think either of us will put cavediver out of a job.Edited by Larni, : Changed title.

Hi, Larni, if you would, please let moderators attempt to discourage Tesla from contributing unintelligible posts.For those attempting to follow along, Larni has taken Tesla's nonsensical Message 268 and plugged in cosmological terminology for floor installing. It didn't even make sense when it was just about installing floors. I doubt Tesla could provide the equation for something as simple as distance as a function of constant velocity and time. I don't believe he belongs in the cosmology threads promoting his own brand of cosmology, I am attempting to discourage his participating in this way in this particular forum. If he'd like to ask questions that would be fine.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

as you can understand these things within the given observable universe, then look for the math of T=0 universe, in which the observable universe does not exist, then only when returned to its initial state which is found at T=0 can you discover the body that evolved, and apply to it math.but all math breaks down because there is nothing but a singular existence of the universe at T=0.your fabric is applicable to the current form, but not to the before this form was, which all evolution in reverse shows the shape diminish and "apparently" disappear. but it did not leave existence, it just goes to its initial state.the probabilities math I'm wanting observed is what can be said of our universe when it was in that form, not its current. because the current shape can be understood, when put in the perspective of the body it was birthed in/from.you larni, show me math for a current state, but have ignored the singularity. because with no two points, we can define no shape, and the current shape may not reflect the shape of the body it evolved from.furthermore, we cannot see enough of space to determine if the current shape as we understand it is an effect of massive black holes or other forces that direct the current movements to its shape (such as a revolution of a planets and stars around the center of a galaxy can rubber-band and stretch an orbit to be quite different than a (what i consider) standard oval orbit of continual falling.you will not understand the fabric until you understand what it is a fabric of, which can only be determined if you examine the origin, which leads inevitably to T=0.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi Tesla,First, this isn't the right thread for exploring the nature of the fabric of the universe. More appropriate would be What is "the fabric" of space-time?.Second, I'm suspending you for three days for continuing to contribute unintelligible posts. My suggestion remains that you learn some cosmology before attempting to discuss it.Please, no replies.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

It must be cool to be a teacher. Did they buy/trust it? I know a lot of people don't like notions from Cantorian set theory. I remember telling my younger brother about Cardinality using bus seats. Basically if you get on bus with seats labelled by the natural numbers all the real numbers can't sit down on them.To the thread in general:
New cosmological data has just been obtained from the WMAP's fifth year. You will probably hear about it in the next coming days.

Heh. They didn't actively resist like classes have in the past, so I'm not sure. It's usually the Cantor diagonal proof that the real numbers have a greater cardinality than the natural numbers that they can't quite get themselves to trust.Basically, for the exam on this portion I mostly just ask them to be able to state the cardinality of some sets, and match sets that have the same cardinality (including some finite sets). (This, by the way, is a class for liberal arts majors who don't require mathematics computations in their fields of study.)It was jolly fun watching their expressions of horror as I begin to giggle uncontrollably.

---

...Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can't sell fiscal responsibility, they can't sell "values," they can't sell competence, they can't sell small government, they can't even sell the economy. -- Matt Taibbi

Hi Chroptera, But today we know it did not solve the problems. Cosmological Principle
Cosmological Principle states on large spatial scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic. on Wikipedia. But the MBR says it has to be homogeneous and isotropic.Forbidden Then why is the universe so clumpy with such large voids?Solution dark matter.Page not found – Physics World Page not found – Physics World Everybody can stick their head in the sand if they want to but there are problems with the BBT that need to be addressed.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This coming from someone who has consistently failed to understand even the most rudimentary points that people have been making.You haven't even been able to understand what people have been trying to explain to you. You certainly don't have the expertise to judge whether these "problems" are important enough to cast doubt on the general Big Bang theory. Hell, I don't even have the expertise to do this, and I'm a hell of a lot smarter than you are.There was a study once where it was determined that incompetent people tend to not understand that they are incompetent. They are so incompetent that they don't even have the skill base to judge their own competency. This is where you fit. You are so incompetent at this type of field that you can't even understand that you don't know a goddam thing. At least I'm smart enough to understand that there are people who know about this a lot more than I do, and I respect their expertise. In particular, when people who study this fucking thing say that the evidence for it is quite good, and can explain why in terms that I can understand, and even explains the problems at length, then I'm smart enough to realize that they know what they are talking about.The sad thing is that this stuff can be understood on a basic enough level if one is willing to make the effort. Unfortunately, you seem to want to keep your head buried in the sand to save your own primitive creation myths.

---

...Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can't sell fiscal responsibility, they can't sell "values," they can't sell competence, they can't sell small government, they can't even sell the economy. -- Matt Taibbi

Chiroptera writes

quote:

---

There was a study once where it was determined that incompetent people tend to not understand that they are incompetent. They are so incompetent that they don't even have the skill base to judge their own competency.

---

Link to NYTimes article

quote:

---

There are many incompetent people in the world. Dr. David A. Dunning is haunted by the fear he might be one of them.

​

Dr. Dunning, a professor of psychology at Cornell, worries about this because, according to his research, most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent.

​

On the contrary. People who do things badly, Dr. Dunning has found in studies conducted with a graduate student, Justin Kruger, are usually supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well.

​

"I began to think that there were probably lots of things that I was bad at and I didn't know it," Dr. Dunning said.

​

One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.

​

The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, they suggested in a paper appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

​

"Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it," wrote Dr. Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, and Dr. Dunning.

​

This deficiency in "self-monitoring skills," the researchers said, helps explain the tendency of the humor-impaired to persist in telling jokes that are not funny, of day traders to repeatedly jump into the market -- and repeatedly lose out -- and of the politically clueless to continue holding forth at dinner parties on the fine points of campaign strategy.

​

Some college students, Dr. Dunning said, evince a similar blindness: after doing badly on a test, they spend hours in his office, explaining why the answers he suggests for the test questions are wrong.

​

In a series of studies, Dr. Kruger and Dr. Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor were also the most likely to "grossly overestimate" how well they had performed.

​

In all three tests, subjects' ratings of their ability were positively linked to their actual scores. But the lowest-ranked participants showed much greater distortions in their self-estimates. Asked to evaluate their performance on the test of logical reasoning, for example, subjects who scored only in the 12th percentile guessed that they had scored in the 62nd percentile, and deemed their overall skill at logical reasoning to be at the 68th percentile.

​

Similarly, subjects who scored at the 10th percentile on the grammar test ranked themselves at the 67th percentile in the ability to "identify grammatically correct standard English," and estimated their test scores to be at the 61st percentile.

​

On the humor test, in which participants were asked to rate jokes according to their funniness (subjects' ratings were matched against those of an "expert" panel of professional comedians), low-scoring subjects were also more apt to have an inflated perception of their skill. But because humor is idiosyncratically defined, the researchers said, the results were less conclusive.

​

Unlike their unskilled counterparts, the most able subjects in the study, Dr. Kruger and Dr. Dunning found, were likely to underestimate their own competence. The researchers attributed this to the fact that, in the absence of information about how others were doing, highly competent subjects assumed that others were performing as well as they were -- a phenomenon psychologists term the "false consensus effect."

​

When high scoring subjects were asked to "grade" the grammar tests of their peers, however, they quickly revised their evaluations of their own performance. In contrast, the self-assessments of those who scored badly themselves were unaffected by the experience of grading others; some subjects even further inflated their estimates of their own abilities.

​

"Incompetent individuals were less able to recognize competence in others," the researchers concluded.

​

In a final experiment, Dr. Dunning and Dr. Kruger set out to discover if training would help modify the exaggerated self-perceptions of incapable subjects. In fact, a short training session in logical reasoning did improve the ability of low-scoring subjects to assess their performance realistically, they found.

​

The findings, the psychologists said, support Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "he who knows best knows how little he knows."

​

And the research meshes neatly with other work indicating that overconfidence is a common; studies have found, for example, that the vast majority of people rate themselves as "above average" on a wide array of abilities -- though such an abundance of talent would be impossible in statistical terms. And this overestimation, studies indicate, is more likely for tasks that are difficult than for those that are easy.

​

Such studies are not without critics. Dr. David C. Funder, a psychology professor at the University of California at Riverside, for example, said he suspected that most lay people had only a vague idea of the meaning of "average" in statistical terms.

​

"I'm not sure the average person thinks of 'average' or 'percentile' in quite that literal a sense," Dr. Funder said, "so 'above average' might mean to them 'pretty good,' or 'O.K.,' or 'doing all right.' And if, in fact, people mean something subjective when they use the word, then it's really hard to evaluate whether they're right or wrong using the statistical criterion."

​

But Dr. Dunning said his current research and past studies indicated that there were many reasons why people would tend to overestimate their competency, and not be aware of it.

​

In some cases, Dr. Dunning pointed out, an awareness of one's own inability is inevitable: "In a golf game, when your ball is heading into the woods, you know you're incompetent," he said.

​

But in other situations, feedback is absent, or at least more ambiguous; even a humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite laughter. And faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting out "You stink!" -- truthful though this assessment may be.

​

All of which inspired in Dr. Dunning and his co-author, in presenting their research to the public, a certain degree of nervousness.

​

"This article may contain faulty logic, methodological errors or poor communication," they cautioned in their journal report. "Let us assure our readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly."

---

Now, the question is can ICANT actually understand what this article said or will he simply dismiss this as just another long and boring article on something he doesn't really understand or care for?

Hi t4c I understand the article very well thank you.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Cosmology is a very fast moving discpline so quoting articles from June 2006 concerning Dark Matter are unimportant considering our first major piece of empirical evidence for Dark Matter was obtained in August 2006. Until the observation of the bullet cluster, physicists who objected to dark matter had a fairly decent case. Now however they have a much weaker case.The second link to open-site.org is utter nonsense. The people who wrote that article have a very odd coneption of what dark matter is supposed to resolve. In fact this is an issue I encounter over and over again on this forum and on the internet in general, people who seemingly can't stand dark matter for some reason and are convinced it's presence as a hypothesis is due to dogma in the academic community. Pointing out the bullet cluster observations causes no response from these people, as if it were irrelevant. I would appreciate if some posters would tell me how dark matter is described in pop-science books, so that I can understand this.ICANT, the universe is supposed to be homogeneous on the largest scales, not on galatic scales. The clumpiness of the galactic scale comes from perturbations. (Described by a cut down version of General Relativity called linearized GR.) This has nothing to do with dark matter.By the way the recent WMAP 5-year study has revealed some interesting information about our universe for those interested. This is very recent stuff, the results have only been released on monday.1. Everything is consistent with the GR+Dark Matter+Dark Energy hypothesis, even more so than people expected.
2. Recombination (the point at which the universe started looking like black void instead of a totally opaque fluid) occured roughly 375,900 (+- 3,100) years after the big bang period.
3. You can find energy density comparisons at different times here:
http://space.newscientist.com/...s/dn13414/dn13414-2_340.jpg

Hi ICANT,If you're saying that all the kinks in the theories explaining the Big Bang haven't been ironed out yet, I think cosmologists everywhere would agree with you. That's why it's an incredibly active area of research.Discussion in this thread has recently shifted from the topic to your approach to discussion, and I'm finding it very difficult to avoid doing the same thing. The common theme running throughout this thread isn't any cosmological issue, but your inability to put into proper context anything that you read about cosmological issues, and your resistance to having your misconceptions corrected.Let me provide an example. In your last post you confused the scale at which the universe should appear "homogeneous and isotropic", which is very large, with the much tinier scale of clumps of galaxies and the dark matter which influences their structure. Dark matter wasn't proposed to explain the large scale structure of the universe, but to explain why on a much, much smaller scale that spinning galaxies don't fly apart. Where dark matter fits into the large scale structure of the universe isn't something that we understand much about at this time. But no one's sticking their heads in the sand. The shortcomings of current theory are written about all the time. Popularization after cosmological popularization appear in the bookstores because laypeople are fascinated by the issues and problems. A number of them sit next to me on my bookshelf.It may be that your unfamiliarity with science combined with discovering that science doesn't know everything and that there are significant unanswered scientific questions is causing you conclude that something's rotten in Denmark. Well, good luck finding the rotten core of an effort that is only asking the question, "How do we explain what we find in the cosmos?"You're taking a shotgun approach where you raise a few questions, then you ignore the answers and raise a few different questions, and you never stay focused long enough on any one issue to understand it. I suggest you slow down and attempt to understand each issue before moving on. For example, you could spend more time on the "homogeneous/isotropic at large scales" issue and learn why it isn't directly related to dark matter.To everyone: If I could slip briefly into admin mode, it raises the concerns of moderators when threads turn from discussing a topic to discussing the participants. If people could, please articulately express any complaints you might have in the Windsor castle thread and leave the discussion threads for discussing their topics. This advice goes to me, too, which I was unfortunately unable to follow in much of this post.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.