What is beyond the boundaries of our visible universe?

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by Dragon Star

Oh boy...what have you done. That is one big can of worms...

FTR Dennis, that was not directed to you, but to pranab.

I just noticed that you probably took it as I was talking to you.

[pranab]

Look at the Following references for Scalar feild
Physics Review letter 13(16); 508 oct 1964
Physics Review 124(3);925;1961
link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field

Dr. Pranab Kr. Bhattacharya
www.unipathos.com

[pranab]

Please look at following references
1) Physical Review D70 063582,2004
2) Physics Review letter 48;1220;198
3) link http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/DeSitteruniverse
4)A. Linde (1986). "Eternal chaotic inflation". Mod. Phys. Lett. A1. A. Linde (1986). "Eternally existing self-reproducing chaotic inflationary universe". Phys. Lett. B175.
5)A. Borde, A. Guth and A. Vilenkin (2003). "Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions". Phys. Rev. Lett. 90. A. Borde (1994). "Open and closed universes, initial singularities and inflation". Phys. Rev. D50. A. Borde and A. Vilenkin (1994). "Eternal inflation and the initial singularity". Phys. Rev. Lett. 72.
6) Andrei Linde, "Inflation and String Cosmology," eConf C040802 (2004) L024; J.Phys.Conf.Ser. 24 (2005) 151-160 (available from arXiv:hep-th/0503195 v1 24 Mar 2005). Anthony Aguirre, Steven Gratton, Inflation without a beginning: A null boundary proposal, Phys.Rev. D67 (2003) 083515, [1]
7)Anthony Aguirre, Steven Gratton, Steady-State Eternal Inflation, Phys.Rev. D65 (2002) 083507,
Dr. Pranab Kr Bhattacharya
www. unipathos.com

[Dragon Star]

Please stop quoting stuff from the 1980's and early 90's, because it's more then likely to be incorrect or misleading. You need to stop just posting links and quotes and put things into your own words so we can actually understand what you are getting at. Thanks.

[dmill1220]

Hey Guys just one quick question!
isn't Wilkipedia a resource that can be edited by anyone?
Or am I mistaken here?
I usually rely on current Findings in the Universities the .EDU's
or NASA and JPL.
I have been finding alot more up to date info on those sites.
Dennis

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by dmill1220

Hey Guys just one quick question!
isn't Wilkipedia a resource that can be edited by anyone?
Or am I mistaken here?
I usually rely on current Findings in the Universities the .EDU's
or NASA and JPL.
I have been finding alot more up to date info on those sites.
Dennis

Wiki indeed can be edited by anyone, but almost all of the scientific stuff is totally correct. It's the trivial stuff that just about no one knows that is often incorrect. Wiki is just as reliable scientifically as papers written by individual scientists on almost all basis, and if the subject is proven to possibly not be correct, they open debate pages to sort out the most correct answer, which is a really good system.

[Blue Fire]

I have to agree that Wiki is usually on the mark and has a good turn-around time from new info/findings to seeing print in Wiki. Wiki appears to have a very large resource community willing to put their time into keeping wiki up to date and accurate. I have on occasion found errors and particular slants that seemed less than fair, but on the whole I find it is a great reference. On the other hand, I can't say that I'd accept wiki over the orginal research papers or journal publishing or NASA releases - it's just more convenient for me. To be sure, there are various topics still under "construction" so to speak, as folks contribute, discuss, and argue about content and the references/sources cited to back up the article points. Can't say I'd depend on wiki for my life, but I feel pretty free to cite it in the majority of casual conversations and in many other more technical discussions. There appear to be many folks who are constantly scanning sources like NASA, JPL, EDU's, etc. and who put their collective knowlege from all these sources into wiki articles. And a lot of wiki articles do refer back to orginal sources in a responsible fashion.

Generally, I think Wiki is a worthwhile effort that is constantly "evolving", but not an infallible one. And that's my take.

[Dragon Star]

Well, the reason I prefer it over individual papers is that it is indeed updated ASAP, which is great.

[dmill1220]

Before I joined this Forum I never even knew of its existence!
It seems to me that there is a possibility of certain Astronomical Subjects that can be either outdated or biased, How do we know the right Astronomer or group Scientists are actually Monitoring these Areas?
Has Anyone seen a Actual Scientific Debate by current leaders in their field of Astronomical subjects on this site?
Im just curious on how they keep it accurate.
Dennis

[Blue Fire]

Originally Posted by dmill1220

[snip] How do we know the right Astronomer or group Scientists are actually Monitoring these Areas?
Has Anyone seen a Actual Scientific Debate by current leaders in their field of Astronomical subjects on this site?
Im just curious on how they keep it accurate.
Dennis

A reasonable question! I have seen some of the exchanges between parties doing the editing, but I have no idea Who they are/were. On the other hand, I've come to trust Wiki fairly well only because I've compared some of their entries to original releases from NASA, a few books by experts, magazine articles, etc. - not extensively though. And I might wonder if "certified" astronomers or scientists are really required to do any monitoring - there seems to be enough "amateurs" to keep each other honest such that any innacuracy would be immediately pounced on and corrected with glee replete with references, citations, verifiable sources, etc. Heh, this seems to be the nature of the human beast where the Internet is concerned - open critiquing and critical exchanges often carry far less social restrictions than real-world, in-person situations - if an amateur finds that an expert is wrong on the Internet, I think that amateur feels less compunction to defer or "hold back" than in real life. But that's just the impression I've gotten so far.