The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

quote:

---

The maths is a pain primarily becasue of the typesetting. Anyone know of an easy way of getting equations written down here?

---

I would be interested in this, too. If the conversation was going to be solely between mathematics people, the LaTeX would be good enough -- I'm assuming that most people can read raw, untypeset LaTeX (I originally learned it mainly to write email, in fact). However, as Modulous points out, it seems to be problematic getting it into HTML, and untypeset equations would definitely leave out a lot of people.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Well time and distance is just another field and that is unlikely to change so I assume you are referring to the 4-manifold part.Of course the universe mightn't actually be a 4-manifold, that is more a non-speculative way of refering to the fact that we have the "base space" first and then a metric field is added to induce clocks and rulers.
Whether the base space is actually a 4-manifold or not I don't know, but we at least know it is excellently approximated by one which is why I used it.

quote:

---

Well time and distance is just another field and that is unlikely to change

---

If you mean that time and distance are very well modelled as fields and this probably will not change, then I will agree with you. Whether time and space are fields I'm not so sure about -- perhaps Kant is correct and time and space do not even exist except as mental constructions to organize the perceptions that we experience.-

quote:

---

Whether the base space is actually a 4-manifold or not I don't know, but we at least know it is excellently approximated by one which is why I used it.

---

That is what I was trying to say.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

I actually mean something very mundane. In essence time and space aren't there "first" or prior to the universe and that they aren't a part of the universe if you get my meaning.In case I'm being vague some exposition might be in order.
What I mean is at the bottom (at least for this discussion) we have the universe.
Lets approximate this as a 4-manifold. We know observers categorize the universe according to notions of distance and time. However distance and time depend on the observer, i.e. it isn't a universal categorization. We also now that observers can find themselves "at" any part of this 4-manifold.
So distance and time is an observer dependant field sitting atop of spacetime. Atop in the sense that it is added and not fundamental.
(Again not to imply inanimate matter actually categorizes things, but you get my point.)In this sense, in a way, I think Kant is missing the point. Distance and time are real, because the universe is categorized by matter.
(Albeit differently for each piece of matter)In essence:
We have thing and we know dudes look at it and look at it differently, but the looking isn't part of the thing.
(I hope this made even an iota of sense.)This message has been edited by Son Goku, 04-04-2006 10:34 AM

Sounds pretty cool. Why not... and we don't seem to have touched black holes in my time here. Strange, I always used to spend my time swearing at L^ATEXActually, L^ATEX is the bastard son of TEX. The latter is for "purists" much in the way that "purists" would never use C++, only C...HTML has always been a no-go zone for mathematics. I guess we can just suck it and see... I can usually find the equations I want in Wiki or elsewhere and just embed the images. Before we start, have you checked out any of my past maths posts? I'll have a look and see what I can find. Think it was in my early days with RAZD. SG just posted one of his own recently...

Hi Cavediver, another option is to just scan your equations from paper and import as a jpeg. Then use a image host. I guess that is still a pain.

Yeah, I lost interest at the word "scan"

And when people say "OCR"? --Percy

That does not look at all intelligible on my screen.There is a "latex2html" program (perl script), that works by generating graphics for the equations. But I find it a bit of a pain to use. It is easier to use "pdflatex" that generates a pdf file with decent math typesetting.

You used time-based words that attempt to stretch the concept of time beyond where it makes sense.

I think it's time for Mr Logic who talks common sense in plain English to become a bystanding spectator and watch the lubbers of the mysterious things beyond comprehension finish the thread discussing which complicated relative path back to the supposed BB is the least speculative. It seems that the more problems which come up, the greater the need to complicate the math and obscure the language.II Timothy 3:1,7 "But know this, that in the last days men shall be..........ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."Thank God for intelligent design!

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

x 0  - x >   (x >) dx > = 1 + é 1 2xa > + 3w >i 1 + x2 + 2x3 1/2       .

That looks great to me!Although I am using firefox.

x 0  - x >   (x >) dx > = 1 + é 1 2xa > + 3w >i 1 + x2 + 2x3 1/2       .

Means what.....

At least I think it is not. I'm on Firefox myself.I think the integrated element should be (x**r something
but the (X**R is above the dX**r. and other parts look scrambled too

Interesting. The "typeset" equations are still gibberish on my home computer (Mac OSX, Firefox), but different gibberish than on my office computer (LINUX, Firefox).