Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Bogie_smiles on 19/06/2019 22:22:48
-
By "massive objects" in this context, we are talking about neutron stars and black holes.
- In their last few milliseconds, we have seen orbiting black holes (initially just kilometers apart) convert the mass of the Sun into gravitational waves.
Yes. That would explain what they refer to as “chirping” at the end of the recorded gravitational wave, and would be consistent with the gravitational waves record by LIGO.
- Howevever, even the Earth on it's orbit for billions of years has been continuously radiating about 200W of gravitational waves. The mass is much smaller, and the distance is much greater. But this radiation is too subtle for us to measure using any currently conceivable method.
Yes, that would be consistent with my acknowledgement in the OP that even very tiny events would emit gravitational waves that are unmeasurable.
- It is thought that the Big Bang would have created gravitational waves at very high frequencies, and a team in China is actually searching for these "relic" gravitational waves.
Yes, that is some of the exciting research that is going on.
So if you are looking for gravitational influences, there is nothing special about "massive" objects more than "non-massive" ones like the Earth.
Agreed, it might take a billion apples falling to the ground to make a measurable impact when it comes to the emission of a meaningful detectible gravitational wave.
But my reason for going into the “apple falling” scenario was to work my way to discussing the “cause of gravity”. That is the reason I went on to say, “… but it seems logical that there is a “mechanism” involved, and the ever-changing dynamic of gravitational wave energy in space must be related to it. I would refer to that mechanism as the “cause of gravity” and equate it to the acceleration of objects caused by other objects in space with mass that are in relative motion.
-
I would refer to that mechanism as the “cause of gravity” and equate it to the acceleration of objects caused by other objects in space with mass that are in relative motion.
There is gravity between you and the Earth, even when there is no relative motion between you and the Earth.
- This gravity is sufficient to cause lethal injuries if you fell from a height of just 10 meters.
- However, if you add up all the gravitational wave influences from all the sources, that would probably amount to less than the impact of air molecules on your body - completely imperceptible
I conclude that the chorus of gravitational waves permeating the universe cannot be the cause of gravity - by many orders of magnitude.
Of course, I would not recommend being in close proximity to colliding black holes, as that would be really spoil your day.
-
- In their last few milliseconds, we have seen orbiting black holes (initially just kilometers apart) convert the mass of the Sun into gravitational waves.
Yes. That would explain what they refer to as “chirping” at the end of the recorded gravitational wave, and would be consistent with the gravitational waves record by LIGO.
The chirp is the high frequency of waves being detected as the masses get closer and closer and the orbital period drops to a lower and lower value. A coin put into one of those big funnel collectors does a similar 'chirp' right at the end that ends abruptly as the coin falls through the 'event horizon' at the bottom.
But my reason for going into the “apple falling” scenario was to work my way to discussing the “cause of gravity”. That is the reason I went on to say, “… but it seems logical that there is a “mechanism” involved, and the ever-changing dynamic of gravitational wave energy in space must be related to it. I would refer to that mechanism as the “cause of gravity” and equate it to the acceleration of objects caused by other objects in space with mass that are in relative motion.
I don't think you can get a 'cause of gravity' from the waves. A big object has a powerful gravitational field, yet doesn't emit any gravity waves at all unless accelerated by something. It could have a pair of objects orbiting on opposite sides, thus totally cancelling any acceleration of the big object at all, so if gravity waves are caused by acceleration, the big object should have no effect at all on the orbiting things.
-
There is gravity between you and the Earth, even when there is no relative motion between you and the Earth.
- This gravity is sufficient to cause lethal injuries if you fell from a height of just 10 meters.
- However, if you add up all the gravitational wave influences from all the sources, that would probably amount to less than the impact of air molecules on your body - completely imperceptible
I conclude that the chorus of gravitational waves permeating the universe cannot be the cause of gravity - by many orders of magnitude.
Of course, I would not recommend being in close proximity to colliding black holes, as that would be really spoil your day.
Gravity exists even if there is no place for objects to go because the density of the ground or the tension of the surface they are resting on exceeds the local gravitational force. Never-the-less all mass still produces gravitational waves.
Because the equations for gravity have all been worked out, and because they boil down to the relative proximity and motion of objects with mass in space, gravity follows the mass around in the form of either relative motion, or a potential to cause relative motion.
The force of gravity is in the proximity of the surrounding massive objects, in accord with the equations that have been developed to quantify it. So isn’t it safe to say that the cause of gravity is in the relative mass of objects, their relative motion, and the potential for their masses to cause relative motion?
-
The force of gravity is in the proximity of the surrounding massive objects, in accord with the equations that have been developed to quantify it. So isn’t it safe to say that the cause of gravity is in the relative mass of objects, their relative motion, and the potential for their masses to cause relative motion?
We know that any form of energy bends spacetime and causes the effect we can measure as a gravitational field.
Mass is a very, very concentrated form of energy - there is a lot of energy locked up in it - so it bends spacetime more than any other form of energy. But it is the absolute masses not the relative masses that determines the field.
Yes, the gravitational field at any point is the sum of the effects of all the masses and will change with their motion.
Short version ;)
-
It has to be remembered that acceleration can be a change in speed, a change in direction or both. Both orbital and radial free fall cause acceleration and yet within a falling frame you would detect no gravitational radiation
-
I don't think you can get a 'cause of gravity' from the waves.
What else is there in space occupied by a gravitational field besides the mass of the objects that are generating the field, and the gravitational waves emitted by the object/objects in the space that are within the reach of gravity of the object in question?
A big object has a powerful gravitational field, yet doesn't emit any gravity waves at all unless accelerated by something.
Let’s take that thought further. What constitutes the volume of space that the gravitational field occupies. It is the reach of gravity, from the massive object that is generating the gravitational field, and encompasses the full extent of the reach of the field in space, which evolves and expands at the speed of gravity and light, as the object moves relative to every other object in space. So every object in space is subject to acceleration caused by every other object in space; no matter how insignificant, and no matter how undetectable, no matter how far away, if it is within the reach of gravity it is part of the energy that constitutes the field.
It could have a pair of objects orbiting on opposite sides, thus totally cancelling any acceleration of the big object at all, so if gravity waves are caused by acceleration, the big object should have no effect at all on the orbiting things.
I don’t want to agree to the cancelling of gravity on opposite sides because each to the objects on opposite sides have a different gravitational wave energy profile and by that I mean that the proximity of the all the mass surrounding each of the opposite objects is established by a different configuration of massive objects and so the fields will not be exactly the same.
We can say that they approximately cancel each other, but in science I think they want to be more precise, and they do not precisely cancel each other.
-
It has to be remembered that acceleration can be a change in speed, a change in direction or both. Both orbital and radial free fall cause acceleration and yet within a falling frame you would detect no gravitational radiation
All frames are ultimately within the reach of all surrounding massive objects, given that the reach of gravity is governed by the speed of gravity as it traverses the space between all objects.
-
A big object has a powerful gravitational field, yet doesn't emit any gravity waves at all unless accelerated by something.
Let’s take that thought further. What constitutes the volume of space that the gravitational field occupies.
There is no edge to the field, so there is no meaningful volume to it.
It is the reach of gravity, from the massive object that is generating the gravitational field, and encompasses the full extent of the reach of the field in space, which evolves and expands at the speed of gravity and light, as the object moves relative to every other object in space.
given that the reach of gravity is governed by the speed of gravity as it traverses the space between all objects.
The field does not expand and there is no speed to it, and it doesn't evolve since the object in the example was just a stationary one.
An expanding field suggests that it is meaningful for this object to have suddenly 'switched-on' its gravity. Conservation of mass would be violated by such a thing happening.
if it is within the reach of gravity it is part of the energy that constitutes the field.
A field by itself is not energy. A rock in a field has (negative) potential energy since that sort of energy is a function of mass and depth of the field. But no energy is represented by just the field itself.
It could have a pair of objects orbiting on opposite sides, thus totally cancelling any acceleration of the big object at all, so if gravity waves are caused by acceleration, the big object should have no effect at all on the orbiting things.
I don’t want to agree to the cancelling of gravity on opposite sides[/quote]I said cancelling the acceleration of the central object, not cancelling gravity of anything.
We can say that they approximately cancel each other, but in science I think they want to be more precise, and they do not precisely cancel each other.
They would precisely cancel the acceleration of the middle object. Net force would be zero.
-
Your response shows adequate disagreement between our definitions of various words and phrases to cause the thread to be moved to the Lighter Side, where it might be more appropriate to explore the precise definitions involved?
-
All points in a gravitational field have a gravitational potential associated with them. This is not energy and the units for this potential are J/kg (joules per kilogram). The unit for energy is just the Joule. This is the same as the unit for work.
So the potential represents the amount of work required to get an object to a particular point in the gravitational field. This is why it is stated that an object gains potential energy by being moved to the point in the field. That is raised off the ground for instance.
This is an important distinction to remember .
-
All points in a gravitational field have a gravitational potential associated with them. This is not energy and the units for this potential are J/kg (joules per kilogram). The unit for energy is just the Joule. This is the same as the unit for work.
So the potential represents the amount of work required to get an object to a particular point in the gravitational field. This is why it is stated that an object gains potential energy by being moved to the point in the field. That is raised off the ground for instance.
This is an important distinction to remember .
Perhaps the simplest definition of a gravitational filed would be this definition from a search for the term,
Gravitational field:
1) the field produced by the gravitational force of mass
2) a field of force surrounding a body of finite mass
----------------
The gravitational force of matter surrounds the finite mass that produces it. Matter is a very compact form energy that produces gravitational waves based on the fact that all matter in space is producing a gravitational force.
-
Matter is a very compact form energy that produces gravitational waves based on the fact that all matter in space is producing a gravitational force.
Mass/matter does not always produce gravitational waves, only when it is accelerating.
Not sure what you are trying to do here!
-
Mass/matter does not always produce gravitational waves, only when it is accelerating.
Not sure what you are trying to do here!
It is easy to structure a “what if” like in Halc’s example of two masses on opposite sides of a central mass. He points out that if we had a universe composed only of one central mass and two orbiting masses on opposite sides of that central mass we could postulate that the accelerations of the opposite masses are equal but opposite.
I want to distinguish between “what ifs” and what I view as reality. The acceleration of the opposite masses in that specific “what if” example would mathematically off set and could be said to cancel each other, but that specific “what if” deviates from reality. The greater universe is full of other massive objects, near and far, that all have an influence, to a greater or lesser extent, on all other masses. So the circumstance where mass/matter does not always produce gravitational waves is never true in reality, if we consider reality to involve the entire greater universe.
-
The greater universe is full of other massive objects, near and far, that all have an influence, to a greater or lesser extent, on all other masses. So the circumstance where mass/matter does not always produce gravitational waves is never true in reality, if we consider reality to involve the entire greater universe.
the key words here are “greater or lesser extent“.
The reality is that some masses are not going to contribute much to an effect which is already infinitesimal compared to the gravitational field. Even the effect of 2 accelerating pulsars is extremely hard to detect - not exactly a mover and shaker :)
-
I want to distinguish between “what ifs” and what I view as reality. The acceleration of the opposite masses in that specific “what if” example would mathematically off set and could be said to cancel each other, but that specific “what if” deviates from reality. The greater universe is full of other massive objects, near and far, that all have an influence, to a greater or lesser extent, on all other masses. So the circumstance where mass/matter does not always produce gravitational waves is never true in reality, if we consider reality to involve the entire greater universe.
True. I cannot think of a non-accelerating mass anywhere. Earth for instance continuousluy puts out about 200 watts of energy in the form of gravity waves due to its acceleration. The gravitational field due to Earth's mass on the other hand produces a force on the nearby moon, is 2e20 Newtons. Earth also exerts about 1800 times that force on the sun despite the sun being so much further away. I can't say that's a lot more than 200 watts since there is no comparing numbers in different units. Power can be measured. Gravity waves can be measured (such as is done by LIGO). Gravity cannot be directly measured (there is no gravitometer), but a non-uniform gravitational field can be directly measured.
-
The key words here are “greater or lesser extent“.
The reality is that some masses are not going to contribute much to an effect which is already infinitesimal compared to the gravitational field. Even the effect of 2 accelerating pulsars is extremely hard to detect - not exactly a mover and shaker :)
When being practical, the fact is well taken that not all accelerations qualify as movers and shakers. But I am trying to ask, is all space filled with gravitational wave energy at all times? Aren’t there greater and lesser gravitational waves everywhere, coming and going in all directions, from a perpetual history of the relative motion of massive objects?
I want to say that space is filled with gravitational wave energy, and that would include the meaningful gravitational waves like those produced by in-swirling blackholes, as well as the infinitesimal, insignificant waves produced when an apple falls from the tree.
-
True. I cannot think of a non-accelerating mass anywhere. Earth for instance continuously puts out about 200 watts of energy in the form of gravity waves due to its acceleration. The gravitational field due to Earth's mass on the other hand produces a force on the nearby moon, is 2e20 Newtons. Earth also exerts about 1800 times that force on the sun despite the sun being so much further away. I can't say that's a lot more than 200 watts since there is no comparing numbers in different units. Power can be measured. Gravity waves can be measured (such as is done by LIGO). Gravity cannot be directly measured (there is no gravimeter), but a non-uniform gravitational field can be directly measured.
True, and if we conclude, as I proposed in my last reply, that space is filled with gravitational wave energy, to a greater or lesser extent everywhere, from a perpetual history of the relative motion of massive objects, then that begins to explain why my philosophy supports the possibility of an infinite and eternal universe?
-
Just to put in my two cents
As far as I remember both Newton and Einstein agreed on that anything moving at at tangent (aka in a circle) is 'accelerating' even when having a constant speed. So yes, Earth is constantly accelerating if we define it as orbiting the sun.
-
Just to put in my two cents
As far as I remember both Newton and Einstein agreed on that anything moving at at tangent (aka in a circle) is 'accelerating' even when having a constant speed. So yes, Earth is constantly accelerating if we define it as orbiting the sun.
My impression is that the Earth is falling toward the sun at a constant rate of acceleration, but fortunately the Sun is also in motion, so by the time the Earth gets there, the sun has moved out of the way, lol. The result is that the Earth falls into orbit around the sun until something comes along to mess things up.
-
If we want to confuse the issue even further we might be able to argue that the path Earth takes is the 'straightest possible' for it, in a 'convoluted SpaceTime' :) I think that was the position Einstein had on it.
=
And in that case it can't be a acceleration at all, can it?
I think I'm starting to see his trouble with gravitational waves here ::))
-
If we want to confuse the issue even further we might be able to argue that the path Earth takes is the 'straightest possible' for it, in a 'convoluted SpaceTime' :) I think that was the position Einstein had on it.
=
And in that case it can't be a acceleration at all, can it?
I think I'm starting to see his trouble with gravitational waves here ::) )
Since the threads in the Alternative Theories sub-forum are not consideration as “hard science” I will say that I have seen no objection to the comment that all space is filled with gravitational wave energy, coming and going in all directions.
Is it therefore acceptable science to say that all points in space have a fluctuating level of gravitational wave energy passing through them, emitted from the surrounding mass as a result of the perpetual history of relative motion of massive objects?
If so, the question that comes to my mind from there is, do massive objects also absorb gravitational wave energy, because without that ability it would seem that mass would emit itself completely away?
-
If so, the question that comes to my mind from there is, do massive objects also absorb gravitational wave energy, because without that ability it would seem that mass would emit itself completely away?
Who can/will object? It seems obvious that massive objects emit and absorb gravitational wave energy as relative motion occurs.
-
If so, doesn’t it follow logically that mass is composed of gravitational wave energy with two components: 1) Inflowing gravitational wave energy absorbed from distant mass emissions of gravitational wave energy, and 2) Out flowing gravitational wave energy caused by its motion, relative to those distant masses?
-
If matter is composed of just two fundamental components, inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy fronts, can we conclude that everything that occupies space is either a gravitational wave energy front, or matter composed of the points of intersection between gravitational wave fronts?
-
Since the threads in the Alternative Theories sub-forum are not consideration as “hard science” I will say that I have seen no objection to the comment that all space is filled with gravitational wave energy, coming and going in all directions.
No objection does not mean agreement. In New Theories any ideas other than conspiracy and religious theories are allowed. Generally most of us don’t have the time to follow them all.
-
No objection does not mean agreement. In New Theories any ideas other than conspiracy and religious theories are allowed. Generally most of us don’t have the time to follow them all.
That is true, however, I have found that members generally don’t hesitate to express themselves when it comes to disagreement.
-
If matter is composed of just two fundamental components, inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy fronts, can we conclude that everything that occupies space is either a gravitational wave energy front, or matter composed of the points of intersection between gravitational wave fronts?
I realize the idea that gravitational wave energy plays such a role in the presence of matter, and that matter itself plays such a role in the perpetuation of gravitational wave energy filling all space, is outside the mainstream, but it is just my own speculation that I post about for my own record and subsequent reviewing. Comment if motivated.
One thought I play with is that if gravitational waves, carrying energy, are coming and going in all directions, then space is also filled with convergences of gravitational waves.
The question comes to mind, what is the nature of a gravitational wave convergence, where energy converges from different directions and in different magnitudes? Is it a momentary high density spot relative to the surrounding space? Do the waves pass through each other, leaving a series of temporary high energy density spots forming and fading out in their path? If you run with that idea, can you imagine that a particle or object is made up of a pattern of those on-going temporary convergences in what could be described as a standing wave convergence pattern, whose presence is maintained by the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy?
-
can you imagine that a particle or object is made up of a pattern of those on-going temporary convergences in what could be described as a standing wave convergence pattern,
The thing about standing waves is that they have some constraining boundaries that ensure that the wave stays in one place, and interferes with itself to form the standing wave. This applies to:
- Standing waves on a guitar string: Constrained by the ends of the string
- Standing waves in a flute: Constrained by the change in impedance at the end of the tube
- Standing waves in a laser diode: Constrained by the mirrors at the end of the laser
- Even Bohr's hypothetical standing waves in an electron orbit (since disproven, but still an excellent guess)
The thing about gravitational waves is that as vibrations on the fabric of spacetime, we know of nothing that can constrain them to a specific region of space (and exclude waves that don't form part of the standing-wave pattern). So I don't see how gravitational waves can form standing waves.
At best you would have a cacophony of different frequencies and amplitudes with random phases, producing random peaks in different locations. If these peaks produced particles, then you would have particles popping in and out of existence in random places and times.
But we have good theories that predict the location of:
- Big Objects: Newtons Laws of planetary motion (or Einstein's corrections, if you are near a star or black hole)
- Small objects: Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism for charged particles (or Einstein's corrections, if you are near the speed of light)
- Massless particles: Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism for light
It is possible that random gravitational waves could contribute some small uncertainty to the location of objects:
- But these are phenomenally small impacts - at the peak of large merger events, LIGO is detecting vibrations that are around 1/10,000 the width of a proton.
- With practical measurement methods, the LHC can't locate a proton to this accuracy!
I suspect that a much greater impact will come from:
- the actual cosmic microwave background, which pushes around charged particles like electrons and protons
- the actual neutrinos that are streaming through us from the Sun and cosmic rays and (rarely) interacting with atomic nuclei
- the hypothetical Dark Matter particles that are thought to be streaming through us all the time, and hardly ever interacting with anything (apart from their gravitational fields).
-
can you imagine that a particle or object is made up of a pattern of those on-going temporary convergences in what could be described as a standing wave convergence pattern,
The thing about standing waves is that they have some constraining boundaries that ensure that the wave stays in one place, and interferes with itself to form the standing wave. This applies to:
- Standing waves on a guitar string: Constrained by the ends of the string
- Standing waves in a flute: Constrained by the change in impedance at the end of the tube
- Standing waves in a laser diode: Constrained by the mirrors at the end of the laser
- Even Bohr's hypothetical standing waves in an electron orbit (since disproven, but still an excellent guess)
The thing about gravitational waves is that as vibrations on the fabric of spacetime, we know of nothing that can constrain them to a specific region of space (and exclude waves that don't form part of the standing-wave pattern). So I don't see how gravitational waves can form standing waves.
At best you would have a cacophony of different frequencies and amplitudes with random phases, producing random peaks in different locations. If these peaks produced particles, then you would have particles popping in and out of existence in random places and times.
But we have good theories that predict the location of:
- Big Objects: Newtons Laws of planetary motion (or Einstein's corrections, if you are near a star or black hole)
- Small objects: Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism for charged particles (or Einstein's corrections, if you are near the speed of light)
- Massless particles: Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism for light
It is possible that random gravitational waves could contribute some small uncertainty to the location of objects:
- But these are phenomenally small impacts - at the peak of large merger events, LIGO is detecting vibrations that are around 1/10,000 the width of a proton.
- With practical measurement methods, the LHC can't locate a proton to this accuracy!
I suspect that a much greater impact will come from:
- the actual cosmic microwave background, which pushes around charged particles like electrons and protons
- the actual neutrinos that are streaming through us from the Sun and cosmic rays and (rarely) interacting with atomic nuclei
- the hypothetical Dark Matter particles that are thought to be streaming through us all the time, and hardly ever interacting with anything (apart from their gravitational fields).
Thank you for replying out here in New Theories, because my musings aren’t really fit for those looking to your fine forums for generally accepted science.
Observations indicate that it is the frequencies of the waves themselves that separate out the various gravitational waves because only when the frequencies are the same (or in harmony) do they form peaks that fall in sync in the standing wave patterns. Out of sync or inharmonious waves pass through each other, making only random peaks (noise) while harmonious waves display a stable pattern in the space where the wave intersections occur.
Gravitational waves can form standing waves because they have individual sources that emit them, and though each separate source can emit a specific/different frequency, a steady source sends out a steady frequency that resonates with certain other frequencies. Within a tiny particle’s space, if particles are composed of these inflowing and out flowing gravitational waves, the intersections of “in sync” frequencies would establish a complex but orderly standing wave pattern within the particle’s space (while out of sync waves would be ignored as noise). In that space, the peaks sync up and form the “recurring pattern” within the particle's pattern of peaks that I call a standing wave pattern for lack of a better term.
That same mass that is absorbing those in-sync frequencies carrying energy in the proper configuration, also emits its own out flowing gravitational waves that then become the inflowing waves of surrounding/distant particles and objects. It seems that relative motion of particles and objects absorbing and emitting gravitational waves is the physical process that perpetuates the on-going wave action, and therefore that maintains the presence of the particles and objects that are composed of the synchronized wave convergences.
-
The main premise of my Philosophy, which I call Eternal Intent, is that everything that exists, everything there is in space, everything we can see or touch or detect somehow, is composed of gravitational wave energy that has always existed.
If I were to try to explain Eternal Intent, I would have to start with some postulates or axioms that must be true in order for Eternal Intent to be reality, so let’s start with:
There is no Supernatural; everything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don’t yet understand. This postulate means that Eternal Intent is not the result of Supernatural intervention in the universe, but instead, is a feature of a universe that has always existed.
To support the existence of an infinite and eternal universe, without invoking Creation or a Supernatural beginning of the universe, I acknowledge a set of invariant natural laws that govern the processes of change that we observe around us; those laws govern everything that occurs, and the same set of invariant laws has always been in effect.
It is in accord with those laws, and with an infinite and eternal universe, that everything is composed of a form of energy that has always existed, and that cannot be created or destroyed.
Gravitational wave energy, as described in my view of the cosmology of the universe, is what I propose as that eternal form of energy.
-
Have I posted enough of my thinking to enable interested members to brainstorm for themselves how self-perpetuating gravitational waves can replicate this form of eternal energy, incorporate it into particles and objects, that then replicate matter, life, and self-replicating molecules that can find their ways into living, thinking things … or do you say no, there must be intended intervention at the beginning by a Supreme Being before any of that can occur?
-
Just brainstorming as I go, and I agree with the quote, “Supernatural means above nature. Science works within nature not above it. It can only deal with hypotheses in the observable natural world. It has no way of accounting for testimonies involving the supernatural.” End quote.
My philosophy is that anything that seems to be Supernatural, has natural causes that we don’t yet understand. Case in point, we cannot put the Supernatural claim of a beginning, like the Creation of the universe, beyond the domain of science. If you look at the existence of the universe as the result of Creation, you are invoking the Supernatural, i.e., the “God did it” explanation, and that falls outside the realm of science.
Given that the existence of the universe is an obvious fact, and the creation of the universe is beyond science, the circumstances that would reconcile the two is the conclusion that the universe has always existed; no beginning, no creation, nothing Supernatural. On a grand scale then, my view is that the universe is infinite, eternal, and full of gravitational wave energy. That position deals with the problems of infinite regression that come up when God is invoked, i.e., who created God, and also deals with the questions of what was before or is beyond the universe.
-
My vote is for the conclusion that God, defined to have an infinite and eternal nature, and nature, defined as the invariant natural laws that govern everything about the infinite and eternal universe, are one and the same and have always existed.
-
The Infinite Past The Infinite Future
The ISU model promotes the idea that the universe is infinite and eternal, containing matter and gravitational wave energy emitted and absorbed by matter, in the form of energy-carrying waves that fill all space.
-
I asked a friend for a comment on this thread and got the response, “Its not for me”.
My reply, “Understood, and just checking; don’t give it another thought :) .”
But if you are like me, and you contemplate the nature of the universe, where infinity and the perpetual invariant laws of nature are foundational, the signs around you encourage more and more contemplation. The more you see, the more you want to know.
-
The invariant laws of nature account for the disturbances that moving objects cause among themselves. Those disturbances can be thought of as the gravitational waves that are produced in space by relative motion. Since massive objects continually feel and are affected by gravitational waves, the massive objects must continually absorb and emit gravitational waves. That is why I speak of them as the foundation of all that is.
-
That is in line with the thought that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can be used and replenished through natural processes in accord with the invariant natural laws of the universe.