Any Mathematicians In Pattaya?

[Starbooks]

http://xkcd.com/681_large/

here's a very good illustration on the energy required to escape each planets gravity...... good one

I will publish the finished poster this week......

[tombkk]

http://xkcd.com/681_large/

here's a very good illustration on the energy required to escape each planets gravity...... good one

I will publish the finished poster this week......

Nice one thanks.

We are (at least I am) looking forward to the URL where we can download your poster. In the meantime, have a happy Songkran!

[Starbooks]

95% there now.....

Edited April 14, 2012 by Starbooks

[MrPlumbs]

Cool poster, when will it be ready?

[Starbooks]

FINAL POSTER

In readable resolution

Please let me know if you see any mistakes...... They will be available from starbooks in A1 size, not sure on price yet but probably a couple of hundred baht or so.....

bigger res available

Just spotted the mistakes in Venus detail box......

Edited April 18, 2012 by Rimmer
Both links removed as they are reporting a virus infected site

[Starbooks]

Not sure why your getting virus warnings from my site, Rimmer. I am having it checked out...

Anyway if you wanna risk it the hi-res poster is at apaganza-art.com

[tombkk]

Nice one, I want to buy a printed version. Please send me your shop address by PM.

[Starbooks]

Poster now available from Starbooks

A1 - 320B

A2 - 240B

[Spalpeen]

isn't that when pasta and anti-pasta come together you get a huge explosion?

...this thread reminds me more and more of a thread we had years ago when someone confused watt and volt (I think it was) and we ended up discussing Goedel's theorem...

I thought it was called anti-pesto! Surprising how long this thread lasted.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Spalpeen

[Starbooks]

isn't that when pasta and anti-pasta come together you get a huge explosion?

...this thread reminds me more and more of a thread we had years ago when someone confused watt and volt (I think it was) and we ended up discussing Goedel's theorem...

I thought it was called anti-pesto! Surprising how long this thread lasted.

You keep coming back......

[MrPlumbs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s-wfpsmtyU

Feynman's lecture on gravity..... you'll have to find part 2 and 3 yourself

[FarangBuddha]

Sorry to ask an unrelated question (but I'm sure most of the mathematically gifted members of the Pattaya T-V community are already following this thread) so here goes: Can anyone settle this question related to astrophysics/cosmology that has been swirling around in my head lately. It concerns the shape and size of the universe; specifically if it is infinite or not.

I maintain that the universe is finite, as our current understanding is that it had a beginning, the so called "Big Bang," and has been expanding ever since. My argument being that something that started out as finite, i.e., the singularity that was the Big Bang, cannot then expand to an infinite size. Something that is infinite, must always have been infinite by definition.

Would my reasoning be a good argument that the universe is likely therefore finite or am I missing something? I suppose the first argument some smart physicist would try to explain to me is that the singularity itself was infinite (in what sense...density?)

Edited May 21, 2012 by FarangBuddha

[MrPlumbs]

Sorry to ask an unrelated question (but I'm sure most of the mathematically gifted members of the Pattaya T-V community are already following this thread) so here goes: Can anyone settle this question related to astrophysics/cosmology that has been swirling around in my head lately. It concerns the shape and size of the universe; specifically if it is infinite or not.

I maintain that the universe is finite, as our current understanding is that it had a beginning, the so called "Big Bang," and has been expanding ever since. My argument being that something that started out as finite, i.e., the singularity that was the Big Bang, cannot then expand to an infinite size. Something that is infinite, must always have been infinite by definition.

Would my reasoning be a good argument that the universe is likely therefore finite or am I missing something? I suppose the first argument some smart physicist would try to explain to me is that the singularity itself was infinite (in what sense...density?)

Most of the science history books that I have read mention that when any equation ends in infinity that it is disregarded as wrong. The science community doesn't like infinity, I don't get it... isn't Pi infinite?

Back to your question.... the universe is expanding into an infinite void is my belief.... BUT we will never know, we have a horizon where the outer matter of the universe is expanding at the speed of light and anything we send beyond that point will NEVER be able to send information back to us. That is our horizon of knowledge about our universe... at the moment.... hope it helps...

Edited May 21, 2012 by MrPlumbs

[FarangBuddha]

Sorry to ask an unrelated question (but I'm sure most of the mathematically gifted members of the Pattaya T-V community are already following this thread) so here goes: Can anyone settle this question related to astrophysics/cosmology that has been swirling around in my head lately. It concerns the shape and size of the universe; specifically if it is infinite or not.

I maintain that the universe is finite, as our current understanding is that it had a beginning, the so called "Big Bang," and has been expanding ever since. My argument being that something that started out as finite, i.e., the singularity that was the Big Bang, cannot then expand to an infinite size. Something that is infinite, must always have been infinite by definition.

Would my reasoning be a good argument that the universe is likely therefore finite or am I missing something? I suppose the first argument some smart physicist would try to explain to me is that the singularity itself was infinite (in what sense...density?)

Most of the science history books that I have read mention that when any equation ends in infinity that it is disregarded as wrong. The science community doesn't like infinity, I don't get it... isn't Pi infinite?

Back to your question.... the universe is expanding into an infinite void is my belief.... BUT we will never know, we have a horizon where the outer matter of the universe is expanding at the speed of light and anything we send beyond that point will NEVER be able to send information back to us. That is our horizon of knowledge about our universe... at the moment.... hope it helps...

I'm no mathamatecian but my layman's understanding is that the work of Gregor Cantor on infinity, over a century ago, laid the groundwork for it's use today in all areas of modern mathematics. (Even though his work was rejected by his contemporaries and may have been a factor is his going mad.)

In any case, back to my inquiry, I don't think the language that the universe is expanding into an infinite "void" or nothingness so to speak, is accurate. Even though the terms imply, lets say, emptiness, the universe isn't expanding into anything. What is happening is that the universe is creating its own "new" space in all directions, which we call the expanding universe, but it is not expanding into any [pre-existing] thing [or void] as you put it. There is no edge/boundary to the universe and therefore the expansion is not happening at this non-existent edge; rather, it is happening in all places at all times and in all directions (except for objects and object clusters held together by their own magnetic, nuclear, and/or gravitational forces). This too is an interesting topic to discuss but it doesn't get us any closer to the question of: Can something start as finite and become infinite?

Edited May 21, 2012 by FarangBuddha

[Spalpeen]

Sorry to ask an unrelated question (but I'm sure most of the mathematically gifted members of the Pattaya T-V community are already following this thread) so here goes: Can anyone settle this question related to astrophysics/cosmology that has been swirling around in my head lately. It concerns the shape and size of the universe; specifically if it is infinite or not.

I maintain that the universe is finite, as our current understanding is that it had a beginning, the so called "Big Bang," and has been expanding ever since. My argument being that something that started out as finite, i.e., the singularity that was the Big Bang, cannot then expand to an infinite size. Something that is infinite, must always have been infinite by definition.

Would my reasoning be a good argument that the universe is likely therefore finite or am I missing something? I suppose the first argument some smart physicist would try to explain to me is that the singularity itself was infinite (in what sense...density?)

Most of the science history books that I have read mention that when any equation ends in infinity that it is disregarded as wrong. The science community doesn't like infinity, I don't get it... isn't Pi infinite?

Back to your question.... the universe is expanding into an infinite void is my belief.... BUT we will never know, we have a horizon where the outer matter of the universe is expanding at the speed of light and anything we send beyond that point will NEVER be able to send information back to us. That is our horizon of knowledge about our universe... at the moment.... hope it helps...

I'm no mathamatecian but my layman's understanding is that the work of Gregor Cantor on infinity, over a century ago, laid the groundwork for it's use today in all areas of modern mathematics. (Even though his work was rejected by his contemporaries and may have been a factor is his going mad.)

In any case, back to my inquiry, I don't think the language that the universe is expanding into an infinite "void" or nothingness so to speak, is accurate. Even though the terms imply, lets say, emptiness, the universe isn't expanding into anything. What is happening is that the universe is creating its own "new" space in all directions, which we call the expanding universe, but it is not expanding into any [pre-existing] thing [or void] as you put it. There is no edge/boundary to the universe and therefore the expansion is not happening at this non-existent edge; rather, it is happening in all places at all times and in all directions (except for objects and object clusters held together by their own magnetic, nuclear, and/or gravitational forces). This too is an interesting topic to discuss but it doesn't get us any closer to the question of: Can something start as finite and become infinite?

This thread started out as finite and is rapidly becoming infinite.

[MrPlumbs]

de'finite'ly.....

If you suggest the is no void to fill, what was there before the BIG BANG then? Don't say nothing as the rules of physics must have existed beforehand for the event to happen....

Edited May 22, 2012 by MrPlumbs

[raro]

de'finite'ly.....

If you suggest the is no void to fill, what was there before the BIG BANG then? Don't say nothing as the rules of physics must have existed beforehand for the event to happen....

Well then there were the rules of physics there, better than nothing...does that count?

[MrPlumbs]

That's my point

[canman]

de'finite'ly.....

If you suggest the is no void to fill, what was there before the BIG BANG then? Don't say nothing as the rules of physics must have existed beforehand for the event to happen....

Well then there were the rules of physics there, better than nothing...does that count?

From what I have read the big bang theory relies on the assumption that the rules of physics did not exist during the start of the big bang. A singularity appeared and then proceded to expand at a speed far in excess of light until it 'cooled' enough at which time the fundamental particles, forces and laws appeared. An over simplification to be sure but basicly that is the theory. Another thing to keep in mind is that infinities do appear in many fundamental quantum equations dealing with wave functions, physicits deal with this through a process called normalisation which basicly means removing the infinity.

Edited May 23, 2012 by canman

[MrPlumbs]

Bit of a 'cop out' isn't it

[canman]

Bit of a 'cop out' isn't it

I think so

[Naam]

From what I have read the big bang theory relies on the assumption that the rules of physics did not exist during the start of the big bang. A singularity appeared and then proceded to expand at a speed far in excess of light until it 'cooled' enough at which time the fundamental particles, forces and laws appeared. An over simplification to be sure but basicly that is the theory. Another thing to keep in mind is that infinities do appear in many fundamental quantum equations dealing with wave functions, physicits deal with this through a process called normalisation which basicly means removing the infinity.

we Klingons believe that the big bang was caused by a conspiracy of the Romulans (who have no honour!).

[timekeeper]

From what I have read the big bang theory relies on the assumption that the rules of physics did not exist during the start of the big bang. A singularity appeared and then proceded to expand at a speed far in excess of light until it 'cooled' enough at which time the fundamental particles, forces and laws appeared. An over simplification to be sure but basicly that is the theory. Another thing to keep in mind is that infinities do appear in many fundamental quantum equations dealing with wave functions, physicits deal with this through a process called normalisation which basicly means removing the infinity.

we Klingons believe that the big bang was caused by a conspiracy of the Romulans (who have no honour!).

tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh'a'?

[BugJackBaron]

From what I have read the big bang theory relies on the assumption that the rules of physics did not exist during the start of the big bang. A singularity appeared and then proceded to expand at a speed far in excess of light until it 'cooled' enough at which time the fundamental particles, forces and laws appeared. An over simplification to be sure but basicly that is the theory. Another thing to keep in mind is that infinities do appear in many fundamental quantum equations dealing with wave functions, physicits deal with this through a process called normalisation which basicly means removing the infinity.

we Klingons believe that the big bang was caused by a conspiracy of the Romulans (who have no honour!).

tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh'a'?

You wrote "Klingon Language?"

Edited May 25, 2012 by BugJackBaron

[BugJackBaron]

Bit of a 'cop out' isn't it

Not sure why you would feel that way. Why should the same rules apply in a condition of nothingness?

As an analogy, social laws would not apply if there were only one person left in the world as there would be no society.

You may also want to read about "Mach's principle".

Finally, don't forget that the Big Bang is not just a mathematical creation but has some solid

physical evidence for it with the cosmic background radiation.

[MrPlumbs]

Bit of a 'cop out' isn't it

Not sure why you would feel that way. Why should the same rules apply in a condition of nothingness?

As an analogy, social laws would not apply if there were only one person left in the world as there would be no society.

You may also want to read about "Mach's principle".

Finally, don't forget that the Big Bang is not just a mathematical creation but has some solid

physical evidence for it with the cosmic background radiation.

I don't question the big bang theory there is bags of evidence... my problem is with theoritical physicists not accepting infinity... when there are infinities all around us... (decimal points in PI etc.). as for your asimile to the rules of society with just one person. Well if all of a sudden from nobody there were millions of people, would you expect social laws to be in place instantly? of course not.

inertia, gravity, etc. all came to being in an instance? I'm not so sure........

[poanoi]

Universe is infinite regardless, you see even if it was some kind of bubble,

you still couldn't escape it since space itself is curved.

Physics under singularity is supposedly fundamentally different from what we see today,

supposedly the force then split up during big bang into the forces we see today.

Edited May 25, 2012 by poanoi

[Spalpeen]

There once was a scientist called McGinnity,

Who studied the square root of infinity,

But counting the digits,

Did give him the fidgets,

And he never did lose his virginity

[MrPlumbs]

There once was a scientist called McGinnity,

Who studied the square root of infinity,

But counting the digits,

Did give him the fidgets,

And he never did lose his virginity

Very good

[canman]

Bit of a 'cop out' isn't it

Not sure why you would feel that way. Why should the same rules apply in a condition of nothingness?

As an analogy, social laws would not apply if there were only one person left in the world as there would be no society.

You may also want to read about "Mach's principle".

Finally, don't forget that the Big Bang is not just a mathematical creation but has some solid

physical evidence for it with the cosmic background radiation.

Entropy is not what it used to be