Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1) Is the Pioneer Anomaly resolved?Yes, it was. Turns out that residual heat from the plutonium power source radiated heat preferentially in the direction it is moving, related to the way they spin. The lack of spin explains why most other craft (Voyager) don't exhibit this.
2) Infinity has no end point, but does it have a starting point?Mathemtically, a line is infinite in length in both directions, but a ray is only in one direction and is bounded on the other. So it works either way.
I have a pacemaker and the manufacturer sent a representative to observe the procedure just in case (in case of what I don't know), and apparently they didn't see any tumors or peculiarities. Maybe they thought my dental work would heat up too much or something.The dental work doesn't heat up, but the magnets pull the fillings and make your mouth vocalize stuff that you'd rather keep secret (account numbers and such). The pacemaker representative was there to record what your dental work made you say.
I did get to experience an MRIStands for 'Minimal Room Inside"
To propose a beginning tends to make me think it also requires the Supernatural.A supernatural cause is not a beginning, so to propose a beginning tends to preclude a supernatural cause, unless that supernatural thing itself has a beginning. There seem to be contradictions to the usual assumptions no matter how this is phrased.
this is really one of life's imponderables.You seem to be pondering an awful lot for it being an imponderable.
a recurring sequence of events that might be playing out over and over, here and there, across infinite and eternal space and time.I think Olber's paradox is relevant here
Olbers's paradox, also known as the dark night sky paradox, is an argument in astrophysics and physical cosmology that says that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe.
I had read, in the Beginning, there were Equal amounts of Matter-Antimatter.Kind of an unsolved problem There seems to be no conservation law since black holes violate the conservation of baryon number, so an imbalance isn't any kind of violation, but that's not an explanation.
Any Assumptions available as to Why/How that Symmetry broke?
the Universe isn't just Expanding, rather going thru a phase of Accelerated expansion.The acceleration commenced about 6 billion years ago when matter density (and associated gravity) dropped below the constant dark energy density (the cosmological constant). It will now forever accelerate, eventually settling on an exponential expansion of about 57 km/sec/mpc.
It must have always been expandingIt was, but it doesn't have to. Had matter density been enough, it would never have dropped below the dark energy threshold and expansion would have stopped, with an eventual big crunch to follow. That isn't our fate.
Last but not the least, Inflation!Science doesn't answer how/why questions like that. But it started when the universe was about 10-36 seconds old and lasted until the universe was about 3000 times older than that, which is still a really short time. Or at least the inflation here stopped then. In some models, it is still going on elsewhere.
Any Imaginations...
Why/How did it Start all of a sudden?
& then Why/How all of a sudden, it Stopped?
If the BB is an After EffectWhat is an after-effect as opposed to an effect? I mean, are there 'before effects'?QuoteIf the BB is an After Effect, is the existence of a Primordial Cause mandatory?If it's an effect, it needs a cause by definition. That doesn't mandate a 'first cause', or 'initial state' or however you might want to word it.
If the BB is an After EffectWhat is an after-effect as opposed to an effect? I mean, are there 'before effects'?
If the BB is an After Effect, is the existence of a Primordial Cause mandatory?If it's an effect, it needs a cause by definition. That doesn't mandate a 'first cause', or 'initial state' or however you might want to word it.
the popular version of Big Bang Theory, i.e. a Single big bang, ignores the preconditions that would have to exist scientifically in order for a single big bang to occur.That's kind of like saying that theory of plate tectonics ignores tornado seasons. It's just not something covered by the theory. It's not that scientists ignore what you call these 'preconditions', but such speculation wouldn't be part of the BBT.
Also, the premise of there being only a single Big Bang event. . . depends on one's definition of 'there being'. What is included in the set of 'what is' as opposed to what is not?
And along with contemplating the idea of multiple big bangs, how can we not consider multiple infinities; infinities of space, time and energy?Agree. I have no trouble with multiples of these things.
Immortality doesn't exist in this reality sort of like infinities.If a human found immortality how would you escape the planet or solar system when it ends.It makes no sense in this reality and goes directly against nature.I wouldn't want to be immortal in this reality.
It would be like the old star trek show were every square inch of the planet was covered with immortal beings looking for a way to die.
Apologies for ruining the mood of the poetry, and Zero's poetic response.How much of a Difference could mere Mortals make towards the Immortal?What is 'the immortal'?
Let's discuss something "having no significance"; perhaps something as insignificant as a single grain of sand on an infinite beach. Could we say that one such single grain of sand would have no significance?
Under what circumstances would a single human life have no significance? A tough question ...
187948,
I can't think of a feature of the universe that would be meaningful if there was no intelligent life in the universe. It takes intelligence to glean some meaning to anything and everything.Perhaps you define 'meaning' or 'intelligent' differently, but colorful flowers has always meant nutrition to the bees and such. They find non-human purpose in the flowers, all without human intelligence. Sure, only humans find human meaning in things, whether or not they're a particularly intelligent individual.
Even without life existing in the universe, the mere existence of the physical universe would still be infinite and eternal, and a lifeless infinite and eternal universe would certainly eventually generate life and intelligenceThis universe has life, so a lifeless universe would be a different universe (say a different level 2 or level 4 universe), and the vast majority of those different universes are entirely lifeless even if they're infinite and eternal. That means the vast majority of universes cannot support something sufficiently aware to glean the nature of the universe it inhabits. It takes a complex structure to do that, and most universes don't support the necessary complexity and tunings to even form something like an atom.
Let's discuss something "having no significance"; perhaps something as insignificant as a single grain of sand on an infinite beach. Could we say that one such single grain of sand would have no significance?The beach would be no less a beach without that one grain, but without all of them, there'd be no beach.
Under what circumstances would a single human life have no significance?The one life has significance to that one life. All of humanity has negligible (arguably zero?) significance to the universe as a whole, but per the beach analogy, without humanity and other life forms that pop up here and there, the universe would not be a structure that contains elements that can understand the nature of the structure of which they are a part. That's a non-trivial significance for the beach even if humanity itself (the one grain) isn't necessary for it.