Re: Infinite number of people toss a coin infinite times
From: Stephen Harris (cyberguard1048-usenet_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/28/04
- Next message: David Longley: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- Previous message: Stephen Harris: "Re: Infinite number of people toss a coin infinite times"
- In reply to: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: Infinite number of people toss a coin infinite times"
- Next in thread: Mike Oliver: "Re: Infinite number of people toss a coin infinite times"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:37:32 GMT
<tchow@lsa.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:41aa2539$0$566$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> In article <8Piqd.25943$zx1.25668@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> Stephen Harris <cyberguard1048-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>It is not current, but I think part of the inconsistent steady-state
>>theory.
>
> Steady-state was abandoned because of the cosmic microwave background
> radiation and the lack of any evidence that matter/energy was being
> created
> ex nihilo, not because of any mathematical inconsistency.
There is no argument against these being valid reasons. There is also
a hydrogen argument which supports abandonment of SSt.
> --
Does steady-state use the idea of a universe infinitely old and large?
Does Big Bang use the idea of the universe which has a finite beginning
in time and probably an infinite continuation?
I said those ideas of infinity (meanigs) are not consistent. Einstein fudged
his results in order to obtain a static universe. Hubbel found evidence
for expansion of the universe. I said this undermined SST. Because:
Obler asked why there wasn't more starlight if the universe was
infinitely old and large. Expansion provides an explanation which
challenges the SSt assumption of an infinitely old and large universe.
That does not assert that expansion shifts the static infinity of SSt
to the dynamic infinity of Big Band. That is done by the interprettion SSt
uses of time as having no beginning (infinitely old) vs. having a beginning,
BB.
That does not seem like a mathematical inconsistency so much as a by choice
theoretical lack of agreement. Are you saying those are equivalent?
Regards,
Stephen
- Next message: David Longley: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- Previous message: Stephen Harris: "Re: Infinite number of people toss a coin infinite times"
- In reply to: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: Infinite number of people toss a coin infinite times"
- Next in thread: Mike Oliver: "Re: Infinite number of people toss a coin infinite times"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|