28 Oct 14
"The yet unasked-unanswered question is where the observable universe is expanding. If the expanding universe has a mass and volume, whatever its shape is, it must be expanding into another medium," says Kilkis.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-universe-older.html#jCp
I am fairly sure that is not even close to being correct.
28 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis Kilkis obviously doesn't understand the simple concept of space expanding."The yet unasked-unanswered question is where the observable universe is expanding. If the expanding universe has a mass and volume, whatever its shape is, it must be expanding into another medium," says Kilkis.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-universe-older.html#jCp
I am fairly sure that is not even close to being correct.
28 Oct 14
Originally posted by humyBut if the multiverse concept is true, that would imply other dimensions and that would imply our universe is expanding with reference to itself but also in reference to other dimensions in which our universe exists. That may be what he means by expanding into another medium.
This Kilkis obviously doesn't understand the simple concept of space expanding.
28 Oct 14
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseBut his quoted inference didn't state as part of its premise that there is multiverse or that there are other dimensions but rather his inference was:
But if the multiverse concept is true, that would imply other dimensions and that would imply our universe is expanding with reference to itself but also in reference to other dimensions in which our universe exists. That may be what he means by expanding into another medium.
"If the expanding universe has a mass and volume, whatever its shape is, it must be expanding into another medium,"
which is a false inference: it doesn't logically follow from the premise "If the expanding universe has a mass and volume" the conclusion "it must be expanding into another medium". You would need to add more premises before you can get to that conclusion.
Perhaps I am being pedantic, but I always prefer statements to be logically exactly correct.
28 Oct 14
Originally posted by humyI guess he was thinking of a balloon analogy, the balloon blows up when you pump air into it and it is expanding into something else, air or in outer space, just space itself.
But his quoted inference didn't state as part of its premise that there is multiverse or that there are other dimensions but rather his inference was:
"If the expanding universe has a mass and volume, whatever its shape is, it must be expanding into another medium,"
which is a false inference: it doesn't logically follow from the premise "If the expandi ...[text shortened]...
Perhaps I am being pedantic, but I always prefer statements to be logically exactly correct.
I guess he is implying something about non space, It would seem there should be SOMETHING outside our universe, which seems to be a multidimensional bubble floating in something/
28 Oct 14
Originally posted by humyIf a statement follows logically from the premises it's a deduction, not an inference. Inferences don't require a complete set of premises. The statement doesn't follow because the "expansion" is in the distance rule on the manifold and it doesn't have to have any repercussions outside it. I got the impression from the article that he's using finite temperature field theory, where time is replaced by temperature. So the stuff about the universe expanding into a colder region is another way of saying that the universe expands as time increases. That leaves me thinking that he's trying to explain the expansion of the universe in terms of the expansion of a hot thing surrounded by a cold region that it can expand into. Since he's got time as inverse temperature that seems to be begging the question. I think the article's suffering from the problem that his theory's been garbled in the translation out of physics jargon.
But his quoted inference didn't state as part of its premise that there is multiverse or that there are other dimensions but rather his inference was:
"If the expanding universe has a mass and volume, whatever its shape is, it must be expanding into another medium,"
which is a false inference: it doesn't logically follow from the premise "If the expandi ...[text shortened]...
Perhaps I am being pedantic, but I always prefer statements to be logically exactly correct.
28 Oct 14
3 edits
Originally posted by DeepThought
If a statement follows logically from the premises it's a deduction, not an inference. Inferences don't require a complete set of premises. The statement doesn't follow because the "expansion" is in the distance rule on the manifold and it doesn't have to have any repercussions outside it. I got the impression from the article that he's using finite t ...[text shortened]... fering from the problem that his theory's been garbled in the translation out of physics jargon.
If a statement follows logically from the premises it's a deduction, not an inference.
I think that depends on your definition of inference and which type you are referring to. I got this from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference
“...In this definition of inference, there are two types of inference: inductive inference and deductive inference. ..”
I was implicitly referring to deductive inference. Somehow, I doubt that the quote I criticized was meant to be an inductive inference, but, not sure. If it was inductive, I am not sure how that works.
28 Oct 14
Originally posted by humyAccording to utherpendragon, from the Debates Forum, Wikipedia is not considered a valid source for debates. He cites the following from Wikipedia itself:If a statement follows logically from the premises it's a deduction, not an inference.
I think that depends on your definition of inference and which type you are referring to. I got this from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference
“...In this definition of inference, there are two types of inference: inductive inference and deductive i ...[text shortened]... to be an inductive inference, but, not sure. If it was inductive, I am not sure how that works.
Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything.
However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use
29 Oct 14
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
According to utherpendragon, from the Debates Forum, Wikipedia is not considered a valid source for debates. He cites the following from Wikipedia itself:[b]Wikipedia is not considered a credible source.Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary so ...[text shortened]... formation given at any time[/b].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use[/b]compared to you, Wikipedia is a valid source of info. But that says absolutely nothing about its absolute validity. That is because you are a total moron.
In this case, what Wikipedia said is correct; there is "deductive inference". See for example http://penta.ufrgs.br/edu/telelab/3/deductiv.htm and https://www.academia.edu/1649586/On_Deductive_Inference etc which are NOT from Wikipedia. That means what I said was quite correct as it is just standard logic. As usual, you don't add anything intelligent to the debate.