0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Before the big bang

That is as well defined as "North of the North pole.".The rest of your post is word salad.

Space-time can not be proved in the absence of mass or motion space-time does not exist

some of the energy in the singularity point transformed into rest mass

energy can be concentrated in a singularity point but rest mass needs a non-zero volume.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/04/2023 16:07:02That is as well defined as "North of the North pole.".The rest of your post is word salad.Because you do not agree that does not mean this is not true

Space-time can not be proved in the absence of mass or motion space-time does not exist, it is just vacuum or emptiness which can be defined as non-mass , it has dimensions but this is only geometry and there is not anything whatsoever to be curved, there is actually nothing to be curved there is not evidence of the existence of the space-time in the absence of mass and motion, so it is an imaginary concept to prove gravity and motion in the universe.

Gravity is a unity force, all masses in the universe tends to unite and fill this non-mass or emptiness in vacuum.

Before the big bang everything in the universe whatsoever was a unity, a singularity,

Why energy-mass transformation caused the explosion?

Why energy-mass transformation caused the explosion? because energy can be concentrated in a singularity point but rest mass needs a non-zero volume. There is not a zero-volume mass. So a non-zero mass volume will break the singularity and cause the explosion.

Mass and energy are interchangeable but the original form is energy not rest mass which was concentrated in the singularity and we know energy can be concentrated in smaller volumes infinitely.

The universe was a unity, a singularity, when it exploded it still has this unity characteristics in form of gravity.

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 06/04/2023 13:54:00Gravity is a unity force, all masses in the universe tends to unite and fill this non-mass or emptiness in vacuum.I don't get why you are calling gravity a unity force. What do you mean?

it has dimensions but this is only geometry

and there is not anything whatsoever to be curved

When all mass is converted

it forms a black hole

it is not rest mass

Now if the whole black hole converted to mass and exploded with a bang it will form the sun again.

I know science can be difficult but it is also very rewarding if you actually learn about it.You should try.This is a good place to start.https://www.khanacademy.org/

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 06/04/2023 20:34:27When all mass is converted This will not happen.

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 06/04/2023 20:34:27 it forms a black holeHow could that happen with all the mass gone?

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 06/04/2023 20:34:27 Now if the whole black hole converted to mass and exploded with a bang it will form the sun again.That breaks the conservation laws.

The sun in its nuclear fusion converts its mass to energy.

When all mass is converted and the sun dies, it forms a black hole

Which is also a singularity, now this singularity is intense energy in a single point it is not rest mass

What will stop the nuclear fusion?

E=mc² does not break the law of conservation of energy.

That's not possible. Much of the Sun's mass and energy have been radiated away into space. The black hole isn't getting that back.

Stop replying to people you think they do not know physics.

Gravity as a unity force

Quote from: OPGravity as a unity forceI don't recognise "unity" as a scientific term, apart from the mathematical concept of "1"- Although you could say (in common language) that gravity is the unifying force that holds the Solar System together...- Did you mean the mathematical concept of a unitary matrix which is also used in physics?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_matrix

Have you started a thread just to say that masses fall towards each other?

"Curvature" is just a technical term that has a precise meaning. We just want to know about the distance between an event ( 1,2,3,4 ) and some other event like (0,1,2,3). If that distance follows conventional Euclidean geometry then we say the spacetime is flat. Euclid was an ancient Greek who developed most of the ideas of geometry, you may not have been told that the geometry you studied at school was "Euclidean" but it was. So to paraphrase the whole thing: If the geometry we learnt at school works, then that spacetime is said to be "flat". (Actually, some people would prefer to say that 4-dimensional spacetime follows Minkowski geometry but we don't really need to worry too much about the fine details). On the other hand, if the distance between two events did not follow the behaviour of Euclidean geometry then we say that the spacetime was curved. That is all that "curvature" means - it just tells you if distances between two events behave exactly as in Euclidean geometry, or not. Now, if we examine the history then we can see why the term "curvature" was used. The first mathematician to study some useful geometry (usefull for developing General Relativity) was Riemann. I'm going to take some liberties here and greatly distort what he really did - but hopefully it will be easier to understand this way. This is what he did: He imagined you had some small creatures, perhaps ants, and all they can do is crawl over the surface of some solid object. So the critical assumption is that the ants only know about 2-dimensions, they are completely unaware that their world actually exists in 3-dimensions. They cannot go straight up or straight down so as to go through or come off the surface. The only directions they can travel in are directions they may refer to as the the x-axis and the y-axis, there is no z-axis direction they can move in or are aware of. Now, let's say that the object they are crawling over was a large and completely flat sheet of paper. Provided the paper is flat, they will have distances that make sense and follow Euclidean geometry perfectly. However if someone comes along and bends the paper so as to make a rounded hill in one place which is quite steep on average, then some things start to go wrong. The ants realise that the shortest distance between two points that are on opposite sides of that hill do not seem to be a straight line. If they tried to go straight from point A to point B that may take them over the hill. If the hill is steep, then they have travelled a long way up in the z-axis direction and also a long way down on the other side BUT they are completely unaware that such a z-axis direction exists. All they know is that going straight from point A to point B is a long distance they have to move. However, if they take a curved path, then the distance does not need to be so large. Out here in the 3-D world, we can see why - the ants have gone around the hill instead of going over the top of it. However, all the ants know is that going in this curved path does seem to be a shorter distance between points A and points B instead of trying to go in a straight line. Euclid was wrong - the shortest distance is not a straight line. Now, we have enough to see why this sort of weird or strange geometry has been referred to as "curvature". Riemann was studying situations where Eucldiean geometry went wrong because a surface was literally curved. However, the term "curvature" is now just a technical term which means that distances don't follow a Euclidean form and that is all. I hope that helps a bit.Best Wishes

I'd like to reformulate that question:@Yahya A.Sharif , what would you like to hear? Seriously, what kind of reply do you want? Do you not want any reply but just a chance to write your ideas down? Best Wishes.