Summations Only

And you are still at a loss to find anything to say in your crypto-creo defence, Inadequate. So you come here to troll the feline with your nose being rubbed by the cat into the vomit of your impossible denial.
Go and contribute to the nonsense being exchanged at the big bunk and cosmogony section. You are missed there.

Read the entire content of MySpace threads on the issue if you still have it instead of just quoting a teaser introduction.
You will see that the cat then had no more time for the nonsensical expansion of space and anti-relativist travesty of big bang cosmogony than he has now.

And why on earth the cat must be humbled by you as you suggest when it is clear that you do not have anything coherent to say on the issue at all? There is no reason. Neither was there any reason to be humbled by anything any of my respondents to those myspace questions came up with.I might feel humbled when I find someone who took trouble to organise what I state in a better and more clear fashion than I do sometimes. I don't feel humbled in front of you incoherent lot. Is that clear?
http://redshift.vif.com/...es/Pre2001/V00NO19PDF/NR19ANT.PDF
You lot want humility of the public so that you can arrogantly spew your ptolemaic ideas for another thousand years? No, my friend. Your time is up. Vomit contradictions as much as you like but to expect that your nose won't be rubbed hard into the vomit by the feline is no sign of humility. Sorry.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Ok, there seems to have been some genuine passion and anger in that last post (168), so I will suspend my judgment that you have been trolling.Here's the thing, AM, when it comes to the question of humility:Several times in this thread (and others) you have stated that the world of physics (with specific reference to Hawking et al) are making basic errors of arithmetic, when it comes to BBT and cutting edge theoretical thinking. (This seems to be with regard to conjecture that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing", (a sentence, I believe, from Hawking's book The Grand Design) and as far as you are concerned, this is a violation of basic arithmetic).Whether or not I'm right about the precise issue you're referring to, the fact remains that you are saying that cutting edge theoretical physicists - each and every one of them (there are thousands of them) - all of whom are highly intelligent and extremely well educated in levels of mathematics which make my own (highly educated) brain dribble out of my ears, are making mathematical errors at a level which we teach to 5 year olds.Seriously ?AM, do you seriously believe that that is likely ?Or is it more likely that at the level of complexity that these guys are dealing, basic arithmetic (as an overriding and governing principle) doesn't apply in the way that it does in our day to day experience ?To put it another way, is it more likely that (a) thousands of highly intelligent, competitive and astonishingly well trained physicists are collectively wrong about something which every 5 year old is taught; or (b) you and I, who are not as well trained, don't properly understand it.(There really is only one sane (and humble) answer to that question).Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

What color is an orange?"Orange", you say? I think not.First of all physics is about objects. An orange is an object, but color is not an object therefore it is non physical, and thus the question of what color something might be is nonsense.Secondly orange is a noun. Color is "a vivid or distinctive quality, as of a literary work: Melville's description of a whaling voyage is full of color." But work is a form of energy which is a length (a non-object). Yet you are attempting to use color as a noun describing some object. Clearly, grammatical nonsense.This inconsistent is rejected by the ultimate arbiter of good sense, namely the Moog Synthesizer. The question makes no sense. Your case is dismissed.This post was brought to you by the letters "L" and "R" and the number 4.

You have not shown that.Furthermore, we observe that the universe is expanding. Period. That you refuse to accept this observation is quite telling.

I tried reply in kind - using Mad's own posts from this thread.But his posts are such excruciating and turgid shit-lumps, that I found it wasn't fun and so abandoned the attempt.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Well, you take your pick among the options presented above by yourself. It is up to you what to believe. It's up to me to present my case.
To do this, I compare an exceptionally bright 5 year old that does not make any of those errors and the collective beliefs of the cosmologists based on such errors. I do this without any prior prejudice. Fame, fortune, authority or opinions of multitudes carry no weight before the feline. Five year old and bearded professors stand equal and naked before the moggy's gaze.
The 5 year old wins hands-down in spite of being ignorant as yet of Lie algebra in relation to the cubed lagrangians and squared hamiltonians.
That is the state of play. Sorry. No trigonometry can overrule arithmetic. Sorry again. If Mr. Krauss, Mr. Stenger, Mr. Susskind and countless others like them imagine this to be otherwise, they will have another think coming.
Now earlier I suggested for the comparison the original intention of Mr. Minkowski in devising a relative map of motion in the world he called space-time to what Mr. Friedmann had later done to the idea.
While Mr. Minkowski is using a complex enough math, he does not seem to indulge in those errors of arithmetic a bright five year old would avoid. No increase of any volume or any other variable stems from nothing at all. Time zero is an arbitrarily chosen point on the map carrying no absolute physical significance. Whereas ascribing it an absolute universal physical meaning is exactly what Mr. Friedmann does in his work bearing a similar title. Everything is stemming from the original time zero given an absolute meaning for the world freshly created from nothing. All relative motion is reified into a single direction of time. All other values like curvature and volume come from that illegitimate source of zilch. That is an elementary arithmetic error. Multiplication of zero. Forbidden by the rules of arithmetic.It is not my fault that the approach of Friedmann rather than relativity of Minkowski was chosen by the thousands of highly trained cosmologists. Or is it? Again it is up to you what to believe.

Please quote where the rules of arithmetic say that multiplication by zero is forbidden.
(I bet you can't.)

I don't think it does, actually. As I understand it, the volume of the singularity was "pretty small", not (necessarily) zero. So there's no contradiction on my part, only lack of understanding on yours.

Sorry, you prevaricate again. To observe means to see. Therefore to observe the Universe to expand would mean to stand outside the Universe and to see it gradually grow in size relative to something else. That is an irrational scenario. All that you actually do is to read the reports of other people who observe the light from distant sources shifted to the red end of the spectrum. You may also observe them to make an irrational inference that the Universe is expanding. That is all. Redshift observed could be nicely explained rationally without involving such absurdities as expanding space, et.
All that which expands is again only your chutzpah that is growing bigger and bigger from one post to the next.

Well, it is stated to be Planck volume exactly right past the singularity which itself is stated to have zero volume by the true blue bigbangist sources. Sorry, you need to check your references again if you don't believe the cat. Google is your friend. Education coming from it might do you good. Ask the friend about the volume and other parameters of the alleged singularity.

Sorry, Pandita. You are right. Not forbidden as such. My bad. It is allowed to multiply zero by zero. The operation is equally allowed to result in another zero. Only any other result is forbidden. Which is the essence of bigbangism. Other results, that is. That's why it is forbidden by the cat. Happy?

Great.
All numbers can be multiplied by zero.
Multiplying by zero is not forbidden at all.Now show where the Big Bang Theory says that something is multiplied by zero.
(I bet you can't.)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

According to Wikipedia, "4.22419 10^-105 m3 is the Planck volume" - which is, as I said, "pretty small" but not zero.