Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Europa on 19/07/2021 02:00:12
-
There was space which doesn't contain bread before the experiment, but does contain bread afterward.
True; but the space was not empty before the bread arrived. What did the bread displace?
There is no known viable model of a bang happening at a location in otherwise empty space. So the bread expanding into not-bread space analogy just doesn't work. The bread is the space, and it having an edge would violate the cosmological principle on which all the theories rest.
What is the cosmological principle on which all the theories rest?
-
In response to Bill S. ;
There is an argument to be made that the expansion of space is directly and proportionately related to the contraction and compression of most of the universe's mass . This concentration apparently includes a significant amount of the "field" or "substrate" that constitutes space-time itself ; the best analogy being that of a party-balloon being crushed in the middle , and then expanding at the ends .
The above is obviously mass-related and not volume-related , as different epochs of universal evolution have had widely differing rates of material agglomeration and mass-accumulation .
The possibility of significant regional variation definitely exists , and could possibly explain some notable large-scale anomalies , such as "dark-flow" , "great-attractors" , etc .
*Another hidden-balance it is ! .
------------------------------------------
*Read my Post #5 at :
^ quora.com/When-a-photon-is-cosmologically-redshifted-where-does-its-energy-go/
-
Hi @Professor Mega-Mind
Thanks for your time but your reply seems to use words without providing useful understanding. Well that is to say I can't understand it and I'm not ashamed to admit that.
There is an argument to be made that the expansion of space is directly and proportionately related to the contraction and compression of most of the universe's mass
A FRW universe does not have to contain any mass. We can model a universe that is filled with radiation and therefore has no rest mass in it. Expansion (or contraction) is still present in the model.
This concentration apparently includes a significant amount of the "field" or "substrate" that constitutes space-time itself
There are quotation marks around "field" and "substrate" which indicate that they are not used in a conventional sense. I have never seen space-time described as a field. There are fields defined on space-time but space-time itself is not usually considered as a field. Therefore this sentence conveys no useful information to me.
-
You're correct ES. SpaceTime can't be described as a field. But what should we describe it as?
-
Hi Yor_on I hope you are well.
The simplest answer is to describe spacetime as being a mathematical space similar to ℜ4. I'm not sure who is reading this, so I'll explain that this is just a 4-dimensional version of the mathematical representation of space that everyone learned about in school.
Thus, in school a point in space was specified as (1 , 2, 3) if it was 1 unit along the x-axis, 2 units along the y-axis etc. All of space was then the whole collection of points (x,y,z) where x,y,z are any real numbers.
Space-time is just the 4-dimensional version of this. The term "spacetime" was first used with Newtonian Mechanics and it was just a standard Cartesian product of space co-ordinates and the time co-ordinate. It really wasn't anything complicated - just a way of specifying points or "events" in a 4-dimensional mathematical space.
For more elaborate models in Physics, spacetime must have additional mathematical properties. For example, we may require that spacetime is a vector space with a metric defined on it. For Special Relativity that metric should be the Lorentzian metric and it is technically only a "pseudo-metric" (but fine details like this only concern Mathematicians not Physicists and I won't bore anyone with more details).
For General Relativity, a reasonable definition of spacetime is that it is a differentiable manifold. The key point is that the spacetime is the domain (the background) on which we can define fields. To phrase this more simply, it is just a set of points with some mathematical structure and only after we have established this can we sensibly define fields on it.
"Spacetime" has come to take on many different meanings - but for the Cosmology which is being discussed in this thread, it's enough if spacetime is just a set of points { (t,x,y,z) }.
Best wishes and bye for now.
-
Mr. E-S and Yor-On ,
The application of numerical values to specific interrelations within space-time is a matter of quantification .
As an informed layman , I address these subjects primarily from a qualitative perspective , that is... cause-and-effect/structure/interelations/ characteristics/etc .
Now then , Yor-On made an excellent point above ; "we" really do not know exactly what space-time is made of . We can only be sure that it is not nothing , as that would not allow for any continuity/or contiguous traits/or interdependent relations/or consistent values/or even the enforcement of the Laws-Of-Physics !
Space-time obviously embodies an extremely strong form of universal connectedness , something which allows it to function as a consistent and contiguous entity .
If space-time were nothing , then no energy/mass/interrelation would be able to manifest or interact . In otherwords , the Universe absolutely could not exist !
*Measure it any way you want , my fundamental proposal is logical .
-
That should mean that we move SpaceTime as we locally experience it to a mathematical abstraction, doesn't it ES? What I prefer to differ in calling one locality, versus a 'global approach'?.
-
And you're right in that Mega, it has to have a 'global connection' to exist practically. At least I think you're correct in that assumption. We have 'c' as a limiter, locally defined for it. We also have mass relative 'light', bosons and fermions. What defines ones reality is what we experience and can experiment on locally. It's very hard to imagine some 'higher dimension' joining my locality with that global definition. It makes us blind.
rearranging :)
You could express it this way. That the universe behave as it does moves the abstraction to something real.
Although with a caveat. It's not fields, ES is as far as I see perfectly correct in stating that this can't be the case.
-
To yor-on ,
So... spacetime is contiguous AND differential , ergo it varies in both a qualitative and quantitative manner .
That speed-limit 'c' is fascinating , seeing as how powerfully integral space-time must be , in order to enforce such a law !
Also , Einstein himself described gravity-waves as "disturbances in the fabric of the Universe" . This of course , directly implies that space-time is a something , not a nothing .
Incidentally , this also explains how e-m radiation can be generated from nothing.
*There must be a joining element or constituent fundamental here , perhaps involving the quantum-universe ..🙂
-
As far as I know Mega Einstein did not like any geometrical definition of it. He preferred a mathematical approach. What we can deduce from this universe is that it has to have a sort of logic to it. Otherwise, assuming relativity, it wouldn't exist except possibly locally defined. but to get a global definition we have to use mathematics joining it. The geometrical definition will be local, defined by your measurements.
=
that's the one that hurts my head. A local approach to a SpaceTime not needing this global description. It's a contradiction in terms assuming our commonly agreed on universe to exist using only a local definition. Because it differs between observers. So what we define as a global definition must by necessity become mathematical. But it is also so that we all agree on it existing, and experience much the same. Your clock is locally defined invariant, perfectly measuring your invariant lifespan. And so do mine.
And that is why I think you're correct in your assumption of us needing something to connect our local definitions. But it's not fields.
-
I keep hearing the Universe is expanding in comparison to like a balloon inflating, the evidence an apparent red shift observed of matter. We do not observe space red shifting we only observe light/matter interaction red shift, so how from that do you conclude the Universe is expanding when that makes no logical sense or is a any sort of rational thought?
I read this morning that it is now expanding faster than we first thought and soon and the Universe will become cold and the Universe will end, how on Earth doe's any one derive that ?
It it is not possible to expand into nothing
No human knows what the universe is expanding into, if anything.
The universe might actually be contracting not expanding
-
To yor-on ,
I am full agreement with your view ; w/o a global "reality" , no common frame-of-reference is possible . Also , no two things would be able to relate to each other .
-----------------------
To Europa ,
Consider that as things gain velocity , they contract . Now suppose that the universe as a whole has gained a very high velocity , in a 4-dimensional sense , being drawn or pushed into the future ever faster . This could cause a type of Lorentz-Contraction , making everything inside of this universe get smaller , relative to the universe itself . If Lorentz-Contraction and Time-Dilation became more pronounced as "velocity" increased ,then time would pass ever slower for the affected contents , leading to the perception that the Universe's expansion was happening ever faster .
*.Badda-boom-badda-bang !
In a wild & crazy yuniverse , it could happen ! .🤯
-
To yor-on ,
I am full agreement with your view ; w/o a global "reality" , no common frame-of-reference is possible . Also , no two things would be able to relate to each other .
-----------------------
To Europa ,
Consider that as things gain velocity , they contract . Now suppose that the universe as a whole has gained a very high velocity , in a 4-dimensional sense , being drawn or pushed into the future ever faster . This could cause a type of Lorentz-Contraction , making everything inside of this universe get smaller , relative to the universe itself . If Lorentz-Contraction and Time-Dilation became more pronounced as "velocity" increased ,then time would pass ever slower for the affected contents , leading to the perception that the Universe's expansion was happening ever faster .
*.Badda-boom-badda-bang !
In a wild & crazy yuniverse , it could happen ! .🤯
No one knows that, in fact the universe might actually be contracting back to where it began. Nothing is known so one theory is as good as the next which is why physicist are now speculating that the universe if fake, nothing more than a simulation
-
Yes , but...
By "fake" they mean that there is no real "matter" , only energy in various forms .
In this paradigm , apparently solid objects , from particles to mountains , are composed of "looped" waves of energy . These can become locked together through interactions with various natural forces , thus giving the illusion of solid matter . .
*.To examine this more closely , search up "Photon Pair-Production"
--------------------------------------
Now then , Second-Moon...
IF the Universe is , in a sense , plummeting through higher dimensions at ever-increasing speed , does that not engender the possibility that it might eventually hit bottom ?
In otherwords , is it not possible that the Universe smashes into a giant pile of dead universes , and explodes like an M-80 dropped into an outhouse pit ?
*.Every dynamic system/body in existence produces waste , so doesn't it follow that whoever or whatever made the Universe , did so as a natural function ? .
-
Yes , but...
By "fake" they mean that there is no real "matter" , only energy in various forms .
In this paradigm , apparently solid objects , from particles to mountains , are composed of "looped" waves of energy . These can become locked together through interactions with various natural forces , thus giving the illusion of solid matter . .
*.To examine this more closely , search up "Photon Pair-Production"
--------------------------------------
Now then , Second-Moon...
IF the Universe is , in a sense , plummeting through higher dimensions at ever-increasing speed , does that not engender the possibility that it might eventually hit bottom ?
In otherwords , is it not possible that the Universe smashes into a giant pile of dead universes , and explodes like an M-80 dropped into an outhouse pit ?
*.Every dynamic system/body in existence produces waste , so doesn't it follow that whoever or whatever made the Universe , did so as a natural function ? .
Wrong, by fake they literally mean that everything is a simulation and that we and the universe exist on a hard drive
Not my idea but watch if you want a laugh
-
Second-Ice-Cube ,
I meant the serious version .
Even Mr.Neil there is laughing up his sleeve ! .😂
-
Saying the universe is expanding into nothing is misleading. The problem is the statement implies nothing is something, because you are saying the universe is expanding into...something.
A more accurate statement is 'the universe is expanding'.
-
Hi.
Now then , Yor-On made an excellent point above ; "we" really do not know exactly what space-time is made of .
Yes, although that is "spacetime" in the wider sense. Spacetime does not have to be any sort of substance or thing. It can be just a co-ordinate system. There may be real stuff in spacetime but spacetime does not need to be made up from real stuff.
You can define and imagine "spacetime" in other ways, much as you (Yor_on and Prof. Mega) have done, if you wish.
- - - - - - -
Europa said the following about expansion and the universe:
No one knows that, in fact the universe might actually be contracting back to where it began. Nothing is known so one theory is as good as the next which is why physicist are now speculating that the universe if fake, nothing more than a simulation
It might be contracting but the current evidence and observations suggest that expansion is continuing and actually accelerating.
"Nothing is known" - maybe - but that does not imply "one theory is as good as the next". There are various ways of measuring a theories usefulness. For example, it has usefulness if we (human beings) can understand it and use it to make predictions. It does not need to be the absolute truth. Even if we were in the position of having the absolute truth written down and put in front of us, it won't be useful if we can't understand it and use it to make predictions. It may be the truth but it will be a poor and useless piece of science.
"Which is why physicist's are now speculating that the universe is just a simulation": I don't think that's why they are doing this, or that they (Physicist's) are actually doing this. The simulation idea has been around for several years now. It was not started by Neil deGrasse Tyson or any other well-known physicist. Nick Bostrom, a philosopher from Oxford University, is generally recognised as having started this version of the idea. If any one group of experts is speculating that the universe is a simulation then it is the Philosophers. None the less, there is some relevance for Physics and Physicists don't just draw arbitrary lines between their field of study and some other field of study. There may be some interesting Physics within the idea and Nick Bostrom's original paper did utilize mathematics so it is naturally of some interest to Mathematicians and Physicists.
To be quite honest, I'm surprised that Neil dGT is still making youtube videos about this. It's getting to be quite an old idea now and the videos you keep linking to are really only of "popular" or "surface interest" - but in defence of Neil dGT this is probably what his audience and the producers of the show are asking for.
Best wishes to everyone.
-
Well, I look at it as a logic. And that logic leads us to Lorentz transformations when we want to define a 'global universe'. What that means is that we locally defined all have a different definition of it, it's geometry etc. But that we also find things joining it, as laws, symmetries, properties. We expect those to exist everywhere and at all times. If we didn't this universe would become 'magical' to me.
=
Once upon a time I got hooked. On the definition of 'frames of reference' and how it could join us in a same description of the universe geometry etc. I'm still hooked on that one.
-
Well ES, you write that the coordinate system used is the 'background' if I get you right. Also that there exist several 'backgrounds' wherefrom we can choose. How about turning it around, the background being a result of your local definition?
=
It's kind of crazy but it connects to this question I have of how we can define a commonly agreed on universe while still defining it as 'observer dependent'. As far as I get it really is observer dependent, the geometry or if you like the manifold change, although maybe not mathematically? I'm not sure about that one. If you are close to light speed measuring on the stars is the manifold mathematically observer dependent? Locally defined.
-
The only nothing is what humanity actually knows about the universe.
I take it you are generalising from personal experience.
-
The only nothing is what humanity actually knows about the universe.
I take it you are generalising from personal experience.
The only thing that humanity knows about the universe outside of this solar system is nothing.
Better?
-
The only thing that humanity knows about the universe outside of this solar system is nothing.
Better?
Speak for yourself.
-
The only thing that humanity knows about the universe outside of this solar system is nothing.
Better?
Please do not post incorrect information in the main sections of this forum. You will be considered to be trolling and will be banned.
-
The only nothing is what humanity actually knows about the universe.
I take it you are generalising from personal experience.
The only thing that humanity knows about the universe outside of this solar system is nothing.
Better?
Rewriting something which is wrong does not mate it right unless you actually change the meaning.
So why would it be "better"?
-
The only nothing is what humanity actually knows about the universe.
I take it you are generalising from personal experience.
The only thing that humanity knows about the universe outside of this solar system is nothing.
Better?
Rewriting something which is wrong does not mate it right unless you actually change the meaning.
So why would it be "better"?
Have you forgotten when Adolph decided what was right and wrong and my Father had to go over there and save the day? Do you really want to burn and ban ideas that you do not agree with? Because Adolph did exactly this
-
It's kind of crazy but it connects to this question I have of how we can define a commonly agreed on universe while still defining it as 'observer dependent'. As far as I get it really is observer dependent, the geometry or if you like the manifold change, although maybe not mathematically? I'm not sure about that one. If you are close to light speed measuring on the stars is the manifold mathematically observer dependent? Locally defined.
Hi Yor_on.
I had a reply for this which had taken an hour but my computer crashed and I lost the thing. This is a much shorter version.
1. You asked about manifolds. These are abstract mathematical objects, they are not observer dependant. Actually, it's often difficult to know how a manifold and an associated co-ordinate system which appears as a solution to the Einstein Field Equations should be connected to anything that an observer can measure and might naturally tend to use as a co-ordinate system.
2. I'm not sure how to respond to the other point. There doesn't have to be a commonly agreed upon universe. It could be observer dependant.
One conventional view in Physics is as follows:
The universe exists and it is reasonably consistent and fixed. It has some properties but observers don't have to experience all those properties in the same way. Change the motion of the observer and the way the observer will experience some of these properties will change.
An alternative view might be as follows:
The only thing an observer can be certain exists is the universe as they observe it. This does not seem to be constant. Certain interactions between observer and the environment (e.g. changes in the motion of the observer) do change the universe.
You are free to imagine either explanation. Fortunately, the changes we observe seem to follow some rules. Special relativity and General relativity seem to work. The Physics and calculations required to determine how the universe will be experienced (or alternatively or how the universe will be) are the same regardless of the philosophy you adopt to explain those changes.
If you want to imagine that the universe does not have properties all of its own but instead most (or all) of it's properties are observer dependant then that seems to work just as well.
Originally I had added some discussion of Tensors, which are mathematical objects that can describe quantities in a way which is independent of co-ordinate choices. The universe can have properties or quantities that are Tensors. These tensorial quantities will be agreed upon by every observer, regardless of the co-ordinate system they are using. This allows us to build a philosophical view of what the universe is or how it behaves that is somewhere in the middle of the two views presented earlier. There are some tensorial quantities that exist and an observer can measure. These will be agreed upon by every observer. There are also some non-tensorial quantities that an observer can measure - these may be "properties" as far as the observer is concerned but they are not properties just of the universe, they are properties of the universe and the observer.
Best wishes.
-
Do you really want to burn and ban ideas that you do not agree with? Because Adolph did exactly this
The statement “The only thing that humanity knows about the universe outside of this solar system is nothing.” is not in the same category, it is clearly incorrect.
Stop trolling.
-
Have you forgotten when Adolph decided what was right and wrong
No.
Father had to go over there and save the day?
I hadn't realised your father was Russian, but ... thanks anyway.
My mother taught one of the Spice Girls, but I don't see it as something I can take any credit for.
Do you really want to burn and ban ideas that you do not agree with?
No
I think it's much more effective to point out that those ideas are just utterly stupid.
Because Adolph did exactly this
As Word would say "Fragment ; consider revising".
-
Have you forgotten when Adolph decided what was right and wrong
No.
Father had to go over there and save the day?
I hadn't realised your father was Russian, but ... thanks anyway.
My mother taught one of the Spice Girls, but I don't see it as something I can take any credit for.
Do you really want to burn and ban ideas that you do not agree with?
No
I think it's much more effective to point out that those ideas are just utterly stupid.
Because Adolph did exactly this
As Word would say "Fragment ; consider revising".
My Father was an American of Hungarian descent in the United States Marines 5th division, without him and others like him you would be eating sauerkraut 3 times a day.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that CMB is background radiation theorized to be from the big bang. Theorized is the key word as Steven Hawking theorized that nothing could escape from a black hole before he apologized for being dumb as did Einstein apologize for claiming that the universe was not expanding
So they did not know then and you do not know now
-
Do you really want to burn and ban ideas that you do not agree with? Because Adolph did exactly this
The statement “The only thing that humanity knows about the universe outside of this solar system is nothing.” is not in the same category, it is clearly incorrect.
Stop trolling.
Have you considered that some reputable physicist are saying that the entire universe is simulated? meaning that the universe is actually some sort of computer code on a hard drive, which in retrospect means that all other descriptions of galaxies, speeds and black holes are null and void. The reason that both situations can coexist is because nothing is known for certain.
Mein Kampf, does everyone have to read the books that you read and believe as you do?
-
Mein Kampf, does everyone have to read the books that you read and believe as you do?
No, not at all.
However, you have joined this forum and the way we do things here is that these sections eg Physics, Astronomy, cosmology, are for currently accepted theories. Any alternative or new explanations are to be put in New Theories. Please read https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0
If you abide by this and our acceptable usage policy you are welcome to stay.
Please note that moderators have the right to remove any irrelevant or incorrect posts, if the poster reinstates those posts it can lead to a ban.
Note that science deals with observations of the universe around us, so even if the universe is a simulation those observations and conclusions are still valid.
If you wish to continue your arguments we can set up a section in New Theories where you will be confined until you prove to our satisfaction that “The only thing that humanity knows about the universe outside of this solar system is nothing.”
On the other hand you might decide to confine your speculations to new theories.
-
Mein Kampf, does everyone have to read the books that you read and believe as you do?
No, not at all.
However, you have joined this forum and the way we do things here is that these sections eg Physics, Astronomy, cosmology, are for currently accepted theories. Any alternative or new explanations are to be put in New Theories. Please read https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0
If you abide by this and our acceptable usage policy you are welcome to stay.
Please note that moderators have the right to remove any irrelevant or incorrect posts, if the poster reinstates those posts it can lead to a ban.
Note that science deals with observations of the universe around us, so even if the universe is a simulation those observations and conclusions are still valid.
If you wish to continue your arguments we can set up a section in New Theories where you will be confined until you prove to our satisfaction that “The only thing that humanity knows about the universe outside of this solar system is nothing.”
On the other hand you might decide to confine your speculations to new theories.
Seriously from a purely mathematical and SCIENCE based perspective since there are literally multiple billions more people that believe that God created the universe, noting that God has multiple names than there are physicist on the planet who can have a different theory, then from a science and mathematical based perspective then God is the prevailing currently accepted theory. Now when you take into account the big bang theory there is no mathematics that backs it up, the cosmological constant is a constant failure no matter who tries to make it balance, so physicist MADE UP dark matter (yes dark matter is numbers not matter and energy that has ever been seen or measured). You might even not agree with this but the absence of dark matter is what ruins the physical theory of the universe as the universe can not mathematically be doing anything like it is without 85 percent more matter and energy. So whew suddenly supposedly respectable people now claim that dark matter is not needed because there is nothing really there in a simulation. So in Tyson's world he and you are computer simulations coded on a hard drive that has just become aware that he is not real but computer generated and if you do not agree it is only because you are not as bright of a computer simulation than he is.
So seriously at some point the average person comes to the conclusion that none of these supposedly bright people have a clue.
If it is your choice to burn ideas different than yours and ban the free expression of thoughts to keep everything in line with your science that can not be mathematically verified, I am sure that Adolph would approve of your silencing those who see reality in a different light
Is it possible that this type of attitude is the cause of Prince Harry now living in the USA with his wife who he does not want banned and chopped?
Now believe as you are told to believe, no thinking needed.
-
Now when you take into account the big bang theory there is no mathematics that backs it up
Please stop lying and trolling.
-
Adolph would approve of
You do know that he was an antiscience mystic, don't you...?
-
If it is your choice to burn ideas different than yours and ban the free expression of thoughts to keep everything in line with your science that can not be mathematically verified, ......
......Now believe as you are told to believe, no thinking needed.
You have chosen to misrepresent what I wrote.
Most physics forums choose to separate current theories from speculative ideas, here we do it via our new theories section. That is not burning any ideas nor banning free expression of thought.
If you don’t like that arrangement then Quora or Researchgate will be more to your liking..
It would help if you came here with some basic understanding of physics rather than posting incorrect information eg
Now when you take into account the big bang theory there is no mathematics that backs it up,
So seriously at some point the average person comes to the conclusion that you don’t have a clue.
-
Hi.
Seriously from a purely mathematical and SCIENCE based perspective since there are literally multiple billions more people that believe that God created the universe, noting that God has multiple names than there are physicist on the planet who can have a different theory, then from a science and mathematical based perspective then God is the prevailing currently accepted theory.
Yes. This has been mentioned in several places (science books, philosophy books etc.) However, the two possibilities are not exclusive. People don't have to believe in Science OR religion, they can believe in both.
Many people place high value on "free will" as one of the most important gifts from god. To have free will and for it to be useful, we human beings should believe that our actions have consequences and that we should be able to understand at least some of those consequences. Otherwise, what's the point of free will and why is it a gift? A human being can choose to perform some action but has no way of knowing what the consequences might be. If there are no rules or logical connections that we can understand then we could do the same actions again and observe completely different consequences.
"Science" can be considered as the study of that set of rules that connects actions and consequences and we need it to make good use of free will.
There are many books written about the various ways in which a person can believe in their religious text (e.g. the Bible) and science. For example, the phrase "made the world in 7 days" requires some interpretation of what a "day" is supposed to be before the world was created. If you add in everything we think would apply from Relativity then 7 days could have been 14 billion years for a co-moving observer in our universe.
These are not new ideas and we are drifting off topic. Further discussion might be better placed in the the Just Chat section.
-
Adolph would approve of
You do know that he was an antiscience mystic, don't you...?
Was it mysticism that created the first guided missiles and jets, that resulted in the UK begging the American colonist for help?
-
Adolph would approve of
You do know that he was an antiscience mystic, don't you...?
Was it mysticism that created the first guided missiles and jets, that resulted in the UK begging the American colonist for help?
Was it the colonists' love of Adolph's ideas that meant that they had to be begged?
Was it mysticism that created the first guided missiles and jets
No, it was an Irishman and an Englishman- Louis Brennan and Frank Whittle respectively.
-
Hi.
Seriously from a purely mathematical and SCIENCE based perspective since there are literally multiple billions more people that believe that God created the universe, noting that God has multiple names than there are physicist on the planet who can have a different theory, then from a science and mathematical based perspective then God is the prevailing currently accepted theory.
Yes. This has been mentioned in several places (science books, philosophy books etc.) However, the two possibilities are not exclusive. People don't have to believe in Science OR religion, they can believe in both.
Many people place high value on "free will" as one of the most important gifts from god. To have free will and for it to be useful, we human beings should believe that our actions have consequences and that we should be able to understand at least some of those consequences. Otherwise, what's the point of free will and why is it a gift? A human being can choose to perform some action but has no way of knowing what the consequences might be. If there are no rules or logical connections that we can understand then we could do the same actions again and observe completely different consequences.
"Science" can be considered as the study of that set of rules that connects actions and consequences and we need it to make good use of free will.
There are many books written about the various ways in which a person can believe in their religious text (e.g. the Bible) and science. For example, the phrase "made the world in 7 days" requires some interpretation of what a "day" is supposed to be before the world was created. If you add in everything we think would apply from Relativity then 7 days could have been 14 billion years for a co-moving observer in our universe.
These are not new ideas and we are drifting off topic. Further discussion might be better placed in the the Just Chat section.
Tyson says in the below video that a creator with unlimited power that existed in our past created the entire universe as some sort of computer simulation, he believes that the simulation is code based and that we are self aware inside of a hard drive of sorts.
Ok now the people who believe in God see that the simulation creator simulated them then they walked away and after a time scratched their heads and ask where did I come from. So the two sides here are really not that far apart, what Tyson misses or refuses to accept is that life as we know it is a living computer system that improves itself with every generation so evolution may be Gods greatest work.
Which has no bearing that the big bang would have created a huge 14 billion year old cosmic void where the mass began traveling from, the absence of this along with the fact that the math can not be worked out means that there is no scientific rational to accept the big bang. Which does not stop it's believers from using a religious fervor to ban people who call them out on the fact that the math fails COMPLETELY.
-
Adolph would approve of
You do know that he was an antiscience mystic, don't you...?
Was it mysticism that created the first guided missiles and jets, that resulted in the UK begging the American colonist for help?
Was it the colonists' love of Adolph's ideas that meant that they had to be begged?
Was it mysticism that created the first guided missiles and jets
No, it was an Irishman and an Englishman- Louis Brennan and Frank Whittle respectively.
Actually Robert Goddard an American invented the rocket, and Werner Von Braun a German turned it into guided missiles, and also went to the moon courtesy of operation paperclip
Von Braun and JFK
(https://www.christies.com/img/LotImages/2020/CKS/2020_CKS_20142_0058_005(president_kennedy_and_wernher_von_braun_apollo-saturn_test-flights_ken051658).jpg?mode=max&width=1025)
-
the big bang would have created a huge 14 billion year old cosmic void where the mass began traveling from
That's actually not what the Big Bang theory says. The Big Bang didn't happen at one particular place in the Universe: it happened everywhere in the Universe at the same time. There was no central point from which everything came.
-
Which does not stop it's believers from using a religious fervor to ban people who call them out on the fact that the math fails COMPLETEL
Can you back up that conspiracy theory?
-
Actually Robert Goddard an American invented the rocket,
Two things.
One
A rocket is different from what you asked about and an Irishman invented the guided missile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brennan
Two
The ancient Chinese had rockets.
here are the details of the rocket ship used bu the UK navy about 150 years before Goddard was born.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Erebus_(1807)
-
Werner Von Braun a German
And one of Adolph's greatest assistants.
-
Tyson says in the below video that a creator with unlimited power that existed in our past created the entire universe
Actually he says a kid in his bedroom did it.
And he also says it does not make any difference.
On the other hand, proof of the existence of a God would make a difference.
So you are plainly wrong.
-
the big bang would have created a huge 14 billion year old cosmic void where the mass began traveling from
That's actually not what the Big Bang theory says. The Big Bang didn't happen at one particular place in the Universe: it happened everywhere in the Universe at the same time. There was no central point from which everything came.
Then why is everything expanding outward? Seriously I have heard your rational for the lack of the void before, the initial proponents of the big bang actually said that everything including time began with the big bang and that matter actually created itself somehow in the explosion. So do you believe that the entire universe just exploded at one time? What would link the galaxies? was there a long fuse?
All I am asking you to do is think on your own instead of just believing what the guy before you conjured up. If you do that you will accept that physics prevents the galactic speeds that are observed, so they invented dark matter. You do know that dark matter has never been observed before and that it exist to fix a math inconsistency? I find it sad that people actually think that dark matter has been found and explained as it has as many observations as Santa coming down the chimney, but at least most kids grow up
-
Tyson says in the below video that a creator with unlimited power that existed in our past created the entire universe
Actually he says a kid in his bedroom did it.
And he also says it does not make any difference.
On the other hand, proof of the existence of a God would make a difference.
So you are plainly wrong.
Tyson literally used the exact same words consisting of awesome power that creationist do, so Tyson literally believes that God is a computer programmer. Since DNA is clearly a molecular base 4 computer code that uses Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine in place of 0/1, Tyson may well be right, but a creator is still needed.
https://www.math.unl.edu/~bdeng1/Papers/DengDNAreplication.pdf
-
So do you believe that the entire universe just exploded at one time? What would link the galaxies?
The fact that they were all in the same place.
That's the point.
-
So do you believe that the entire universe just exploded at one time? What would link the galaxies?
The fact that they were all in the same place.
That's the point.
And if they were all in the same place then the bang launched them outward which after 14 billion years would leave a void. Since there is no void it's nonsensical. I wish that you people could collectively make up your minds.
-
Since there is no void it's nonsensical.
Your flawed understanding is, indeed, nonsensical.
That's not our problem.
Feel free to learn some science.
-
Since there is no void it's nonsensical.
Your flawed understanding is, indeed, nonsensical.
That's not our problem.
Feel free to learn some science.
Again if the big bang did not set all matter in motion, what did?
You know naturally
Why is there no void?
You know naturally
What set off the big bang?
Science says it just happened
Yea that's scientific alright.
-
the big bang would have created a huge 14 billion year old cosmic void where the mass began traveling from
That's actually not what the Big Bang theory says. The Big Bang didn't happen at one particular place in the Universe: it happened everywhere in the Universe at the same time. There was no central point from which everything came.
According to CERN you are completely wrong
According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.
The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.
https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html
So where is the void?
The law of conservation of mass must have not existed yet
LOL is everything just created itself really science or even a remotely scientific concept?
-
According to CERN you are completely wrong
What he says is exactly the same as what CERN says.
The problem is that you don't understand either explanation.
So where is the void?
There isn't one. And nobody who understands the idea expects one.
The law of conservation of mass must have not existed yet
That's correct.
The proof of conservation of mass (strictly of energy/ mass- since they can be interconverted) comes from this theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
Which, in effect says that , because time is symmetrical, energy is conserved.
But, at the moment of the big bang, time is not symmetrical; there is a future, but no past.
So yes, the conservation law does not apply.
Did you somehow think that was a problem?
-
Science says it just happened
The current idea is something along these lines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
Which is a distinct improvement on the theological equivalent. If you ask theists you get
Religion says "God just happened" but can't provide any reason.
-
Again if the big bang did not set all matter in motion, what did?
Nobody said it didn't, did they?
Again, this is you not understanding the model rather than a problem with the model itself.
-
That's actually not what the Big Bang theory says. The Big Bang didn't happen at one particular place in the Universe: it happened everywhere in the Universe at the same time. There was no central point from which everything came.
According to CERN you are completely wrong
What he says is exactly the same as what CERN says.
The problem is that you don't understand either explanation.
So where is the void?
There isn't one. And nobody who understands the idea expects one.
The law of conservation of mass must have not existed yet
That's correct.
The proof of conservation of mass (strictly of energy/ mass- since they can be interconverted) comes from this theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
Which, in effect says that , because time is symmetrical, energy is conserved.
But, at the moment of the big bang, time is not symmetrical; there is a future, but no past.
So yes, the conservation law does not apply.
Did you somehow think that was a problem?
Actually the quote from kryptid was "That's actually not what the Big Bang theory says. The Big Bang didn't happen at one particular place in the Universe: it happened everywhere in the Universe at the same time. There was no central point from which everything came."
And as I said CERN says something totally different.
The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.
So it seems that absolutely none of you agree on anything and that you can not comprehend what CERN says. That said you know better than CERN anyway
https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html
-
The Big Bang didn't happen at one particular place in the Universe: it happened everywhere in the Universe at the same time.
is the same as
every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe.
It's just that you don't understand it.
-
The Big Bang didn't happen at one particular place in the Universe: it happened everywhere in the Universe at the same time.
is the same as
every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe.
It's just that you don't understand it.
Actually everywhere in the universe is not the same thing as one tiny point, unless the one tiny point was the zero point from where the universe banged out from, but this dictates a void that is just not there. You might want to give yourself a time out before you get upset more than you are.
-
unless the one tiny point was the zero point from where the universe banged out from,
You are getting there.
Just keep on trying to think it through, and you might realise why you have been loudly wrong all this time.but this dictates a void that is just not there
What would your second guess be?
-
unless the one tiny point was the zero point from where the universe banged out from,
You are getting there.
Just keep on trying to think it through, and you might realise why you have been loudly wrong all this time.but this dictates a void that is just not there
What would your second guess be?
Actually I would rather have you tell us how the big bang happened, because my understanding of the theory is exactly the same as CERN's. So tell us how everything just appeared from nothing with a bang. And do try to sound scientific.
If I offered you a million dollars for every theory that turned out to be scientific malarkey I bet you could find hundreds.
You do understand that you are defending the big bang with a purely religious fervor.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/19/science-religion-not-be-questioned
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201710/is-science-religion
Well, as we all know, science doesn't work like that. Scientific research gets trapped in more box canyons than the Lone Ranger; does more U-turns than the average government; falls to certain death more often than Wile E Coyote; has more women in it than you might at first imagine (though probably not nearly enough); and generally gets the wrong answer.
-
Then why is everything expanding outward?
Outward relative to what? No matter where you were to go in the Universe, you'd see everything moving away from you. There is no center to the expansion (that we know of).
Seriously I have heard your rational for the lack of the void before, the initial proponents of the big bang actually said that everything including time began with the big bang and that matter actually created itself somehow in the explosion.
The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. It was the rapid expansion of space everywhere.
So do you believe that the entire universe just exploded at one time?
No, because there was no explosion.
What would link the galaxies?
I'm not sure what you mean by that unless you are taking about gravity.
All I am asking you to do is think on your own instead of just believing what the guy before you conjured up.
A fine piece of advice. The thing is, I've done research on the Big Bang and the evidence seems to largely support it. Those who speak out against it often have misconceptions about it (such as thinking it happened at a single point in space or that it was an explosion).
The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.
That's the common explanation given to the public, although it makes an unfortunate use of language that gives rise to misconceptions like the ones you've brought up. It's more accurate to say the Universe simply became substantially less dense as it expanded instead of leaving a void behind. Although it's roughly accurate to say that all of the matter in our visible Universe started at a single point, that's not what the Big Bang theory says about the Universe as a whole.
The law of conservation of mass must have not existed yet
Why not? The Big Bang doesn't claim, "the Universe once contained no mass but now it does". The Universe, so far as we know, contained mass all the way back to the first moment of time.
LOL is everything just created itself really science or even a remotely scientific concept?
The Big Bang theory doesn't make any claims about how mass or energy came to be. What it describes is how space rapidly expanded during the first moments of the Universe's existence.
-
According to CERN you are completely wrong
According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.
The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.
https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html
Interesting site. Almost every sentence in it is totally wrong, and yet it seems to be approved by CERN. It seems really dumbed down to the level of the man on the street, but that's no excuse for the misinformation there.
The theory does not say any of the things expressed on that exploratorium page. It is a pop article, not a peer reviewed paper, and I don't think there is any one paper that encapsulates the entire standard model that is the current form of the big bang theory.
-
If I offered you a million dollars for every theory that turned out to be scientific malarkey I bet you could find hundreds.
I doubt it.
Not many ideas make ot to the status of being a theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
You do understand that you are defending the big bang with a purely religious fervor.
No.
I'm pointing out that you don't understand it.
It actually fits the facts.
The facts defend it; I don't need to.
Scientific research blah blah blah and generally gets the wrong answer.
No
Science research is why you are able to be wrong across the whole wold,via the internet.
It's why we are halting a pandemic (at least in countries with competent governments).
You seem to have muddled it up with religion which always gets the same answer- which is usually wrong.
-
Then why is everything expanding outward?
Outward relative to what? No matter where you were to go in the Universe, you'd see everything moving away from you. There is no center to the expansion (that we know of).
Seriously I have heard your rational for the lack of the void before, the initial proponents of the big bang actually said that everything including time began with the big bang and that matter actually created itself somehow in the explosion.
The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. It was the rapid expansion of space everywhere.
So do you believe that the entire universe just exploded at one time?
No, because there was no explosion.
What would link the galaxies?
I'm not sure what you mean by that unless you are taking about gravity.
All I am asking you to do is think on your own instead of just believing what the guy before you conjured up.
A fine piece of advice. The thing is, I've done research on the Big Bang and the evidence seems to largely support it. Those who speak out against it often have misconceptions about it (such as thinking it happened at a single point in space or that it was an explosion).
The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.
That's the common explanation given to the public, although it makes an unfortunate use of language that gives rise to misconceptions like the ones you've brought up. It's more accurate to say the Universe simply became substantially less dense as it expanded instead of leaving a void behind. Although it's roughly accurate to say that all of the matter in our visible Universe started at a single point, that's not what the Big Bang theory says about the Universe as a whole.
The law of conservation of mass must have not existed yet
Why not? The Big Bang doesn't claim, "the Universe once contained no mass but now it does". The Universe, so far as we know, contained mass all the way back to the first moment of time.
LOL is everything just created itself really science or even a remotely scientific concept?
The Big Bang theory doesn't make any claims about how mass or energy came to be. What it describes is how space rapidly expanded during the first moments of the Universe's existence.
To your first point about expansion where you said. "Outward relative to what? No matter where you were to go in the Universe, you'd see everything moving away from you. There is no center to the expansion (that we know of)."
Now I could drop in my opinion but since you are arguing with CERN which represents science, I will let you take up with them why they are wrong.
See I am not arguing with anyone here per say, I am just putting you and others up against your own complete lack of consistency. See the big bang theory according to CERN says that the farthest away galaxies are the oldest and as such have been traveling for longer away from the central point. PLEASE DO NOT DIRECT YOUR RESPONSE TO ME, SEND CERN AN EMAIL INFORMING THEM THAT THEY ARE WRONG AND THAT YOU KNOW BETTER.
CERN
https://home.cern/resources/video/physics/big-bang-animation-2
How to contact CERN
https://home.cern/contact
visits.service@cern.ch
-
According to CERN you are completely wrong
According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.
The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.
https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html
Interesting site. Almost every sentence in it is totally wrong, and yet it seems to be approved by CERN. It seems really dumbed down to the level of the man on the street, but that's no excuse for the misinformation there.
The theory does not say any of the things expressed on that exploratorium page. It is a pop article, not a peer reviewed paper, and I don't think there is any one paper that encapsulates the entire standard model that is the current form of the big bang theory.
The page represents what CERN scientist have agreed that the big bang theory represents. When I put forth that there is no void some here merely amend the theory to dispel the need for a void, since there are over 7 billion people on Earth there are over 7 billion possible scenarios. The interesting thing is that you, or a kid with downs syndrome has just as good a chance at getting this right as a developer at CERN as no one knows.
So are you seriously going to argue that you know, and or that CERN is wrong?
Think you will win something?
The only way to win is not to play
https://www.google.com/search?q=googl&newwindow=1&sxsrf=ALeKk03m9kXUKb3Zadm9MzkQq1TJAVBUdw%3A1627214793627&source=hp&ei=yVP9YIXgI66dwbkPl66VYA&iflsig=AINFCbYAAAAAYP1h2b6ZvN3Pb9egSh5GSAC0GK5UI_X5&oq=goo&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIMCCMQJxCdAhBGEPoBMgQIIxAnMgQIIxAnMgoIABCxAxCDARBDMgQIABBDMgUIABCRAjIHCAAQsQMQQzIFCAAQsQMyBwgAELEDEEMyBAgAEEM6CgguEMcBEK8BECc6BQguEJECOgQILhBDUKUIWKIOYK0YaABwAHgAgAHSA4gB4wmSAQUzLTEuMpgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=gws-wiz
-
It's a tricky one Europe, I know, with a 'a' :)
But you shouldn't think of the universe as inside something. The universe is 'everything existing'. And using 'dimensions' you can turn it into some sort of membrane we exist on. But it is seriously weird to both consider a 'hot start' without a specific location for it time wise. But it/that belongs in some way to the way we expect it classically. You increase a compression and it gets hot, f.ex pumping a bicycle deck. In this case a question of the 'energy' existing in that 'spot' we imagine a Big Bang to have started from. And there we seem to use dimensions to describe this compression. It's seems more of a question of how to define those dimensions to me than a question of our classical models.
we don't have anything else than this universe, and we define it 'dimensionally', or as I think ES express it, as a 'manifold' equivalent to a Euclidean universe. It can be infinite several ways, it can also be described as open or closed depending on its 'shape. But there is still nothing 'outside' it in where it exist.
spelling
&syntax
Better add, no 'outside' that we can prove. And if you think of relativity it's about SpaceTime in where mass define the shape of our 'space' https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/
It's also observer dependent. meaning that mass. relative motion, acceleration all have a influence on how you will describe the 'space' you exist in, and all of them connected to the idea of a 'energy' added, the 'coin of exchange' as JP used to call it, with one difference. In a relative motion you can't prove that 'potential energy' existing, in a acceleration you can, and there it becomes a equivalence to you experiencing a 'gravity'.
Or as John Archibald Wheeler expressed it
“Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.”
-
It's a tricky one Europe, I know, with a 'a' :)
But you shouldn't think of the universe as inside something. The universe is 'everything existing'. And using 'dimensions' you can turn it into some sort of membrane we exist on. But it is seriously weird to both consider a 'hot start' without a specific location for it time wise. But it/that belongs in some way to the way we expect it classically. You increase a compression and it gets hot, f.ex pumping a bicycle deck. In this case a question of the 'energy' existing in that 'spot' we imagine a Big Bang to have started from. And there we seem to use dimensions to describe this compression. It's seems more of a question of how to define those dimensions to me than a question of our classical models.
we don't have anything else than this universe, and we define it 'dimensionally', or as I think ES express it, as a 'manifold' equivalent to a Euclidean universe. It can be infinite several ways, it can also be described as open or closed depending on its 'shape. But there is still nothing 'outside' it in where it exist.
spelling
&syntax
Better add, no 'outside' that we can prove. And if you think of relativity it's about SpaceTime in where mass define the shape of our 'space' https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/
It's also observer dependent. meaning that mass. relative motion, acceleration all have a influence on how you will describe the 'space' you exist in, and all of them connected to the idea of a 'energy' added, the 'coin of exchange' as JP used to call it, with one difference. In a relative motion you can't prove that 'potential energy' existing, in a acceleration you can, and there it becomes a equivalence to you experiencing a 'gravity'.
Or as John Archibald Wheeler expressed it
“Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.”
Every word you can write about the universe adds up to nothing but speculation as nothing is known. You could say that we are here and that would be fact not speculation, but the moment you try to describe where here is you need to speculate
-
There are two ways Europe. Either you accept the physics we know and have or you don't. No middle, you can't accept some of it because it all hangs together. So if you want to change it you will have to look at a lot more than how we define a Big Bang. Here's one nice explanation.
"Current cosmological theorists suppose that the universe is exactly identical, no matter where it is viewed from, so long as it is viewed at the same time. At the time of the big bang, the distances between any two given points seems to shrink to zero (or some nonzero value that we supposedly will derive from quantum mechanics). The conclusion is that the Big Bang happened everywhere, all at once.
This is also how you get out of the 'was the big bang a black hole?'-type questions: even though you had large concentrations of matter at times close to the big bang, they were spread out over all space, which is different than just having a clump of matter with finite extent (the second thing would collapse to a black hole). " By Jerry Schirmer
And isotropy and homogeneity is central to the astronomical definitions we use today.
-
Every word you can write about the universe adds up to nothing but speculation as nothing is known.
Congratulations, you have nearly caught up with philosophy as it stood in the 17th Century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum
The rest of us have got a bit further since then.
-
" You could say that we are here and that would be fact not speculation, but the moment you try to describe where here is you need to speculate "
No, we define it relative other objects, and in that way you can get a positional system, it's 'relative' but it works. When it comes to dimensions we have definitions for that too, and those are not relative. It's a four dimensional coordinate system using relativity, involving length, width, height, time. The origin of a Big Bang doesn't have a simple answer and using the definition above " the distances between any two given points seems to shrink to zero (or some nonzero value that we supposedly will derive from quantum mechanics). The conclusion is that the Big Bang happened everywhere, all at once. " it becomes quite meaningless trying to define it.
The only way it would be meaningful seems to me to be if this universe was 'inside' another coordinate system, of a greater 'infinity' / magnitude.That way we might be able to define some origin for 'our bubble'. But even so our own 'bubble' also would be 'infinite', as far as we know. You can go anywhere in this universe and see the same things, the universe looking no different and with the same laws, properties etc. And finding the same cosmological time line evolving. With one difference, our sun would to you now represent something much younger, depending on how far from it you went 'teleporting'. 13. 8 billion years, that how far 'back' we can see today, that's the time line we know of.
=
Can you see how it fits? Not only the physics being the same, but the universe too. To assume otherwise would either be something belonging to times long past. Or you would need to introduce a mosaic of physics and definitions depending on where you was measuring. That's one of the reasons I find ideas of different bubbles with different physics hard to accept. And we are constantly testing if our definitions of this universe is correct by earths and our 'relative motion' through this universe.
-
There are two ways Europe. Either you accept the physics we know and have or you don't. No middle, you can't accept some of it because it all hangs together. So if you want to change it you will have to look at a lot more than how we define a Big Bang. Here's one nice explanation.
"Current cosmological theorists suppose that the universe is exactly identical, no matter where it is viewed from, so long as it is viewed at the same time. At the time of the big bang, the distances between any two given points seems to shrink to zero (or some nonzero value that we supposedly will derive from quantum mechanics). The conclusion is that the Big Bang happened everywhere, all at once.
This is also how you get out of the 'was the big bang a black hole?'-type questions: even though you had large concentrations of matter at times close to the big bang, they were spread out over all space, which is different than just having a clump of matter with finite extent (the second thing would collapse to a black hole). " By Jerry Schirmer
And isotropy and homogeneity is central to the astronomical definitions we use today.
The people who accepted Steven Hawking's physics that said that nothing could escape from a black hole are now considered suckers who wasted their money on at least one of Hawking's comic books
Then there was Einstein who was ordered by Hubble to look thru Hubble's telescope and see the expanding universe that Einstein said was static.
Everyone who accepted the status quo was a fool. Hubble did not accept and he forced the hairball to change all of his work which is now a dead end because there is not enough mass to make the universe expand.
You accept what the guy ahead of you said, because he said, not because you know. This is idiocy
-
The people who accepted Steven Hawking's physics that said that nothing could escape from a black hole are now considered suckers who wasted their money on at least one of Hawking's comic books
Why?
What escapes from a BH?
Have you failed to understand that Hawking radiation escapes from just outside one?
-
This is idiocy
You said it.
-
This is idiocy
You said it.
So did you believe the physics that claimed that nothing could escape a black hole?
Yea you did because it was said.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaa
-
The people who accepted Steven Hawking's physics that said that nothing could escape from a black hole are now considered suckers who wasted their money on at least one of Hawking's comic books
Why?
What escapes from a BH?
Have you failed to understand that Hawking radiation escapes from just outside one?
Radiation escapes a black hole or so the new theory says.
LOL how does radiation escape from outside a black hole?
Really the radiation escapes the black hole and this creates the information paradox. So much radiation escapes in fact that the black hole will eventually evaporate, if you believe everything on TV at least
-
So did you believe the physics that claimed that nothing could escape a black hole?
I still do.
Radiation escapes a black hole or so the new theory says.
No
As I already pointed out.
Have you failed to understand that Hawking radiation escapes from just outside one?
Really the radiation escapes the black hole
Says who?
-
You accept what the guy ahead of you said, because he said, not because you know. This is idiocy
sorry about that one Europe, it wasn't connected to anyone. It was just a try to explain it from a main stream position. It's a interesting and quite difficult subject, a 'hot start' of a Big Bang.
Heh, rereading myself there, read it right now, we don't want it off track.
spelling
&syntax
-
" So much radiation escapes in fact that the black hole will eventually evaporate, if you believe everything on TV at least "
And no, you have to include relativity and time dilation in a possible Hawking radiation escaping. All of it shouldn't be able to 'evaporate' for the far away observer, at least not before that 'heat death' coming.
=
It gives us a sort of paradox, doesn't it. We look at something 'time dilated' to us, and the closer one get / look, the more 'time dilated' it becomes, versus a far away observer. Not locally though, it's just one of the effects of having different frames of reference involved.
So what should happen to our observer, locally defined, when he close in to a event horizon that existed at a certain scale, as long as he was far away from it?
And gravitational time dilation's are experimentally proved, where NIST has done some pretty cool experiments about it.
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-clock-experiment-demonstrates-your-head-older-your-feet
And Hawking. https://www.livescience.com/bizarre-stephen-hawking-theories.html
==
actually, it's about reality isn't it? Both situations, being far away versus close. Different realities versus a universe. And able to be experimentally confirmed in both cases.
-
If you look at a Big Bang from that perspective it should be isotropic and homogeneous at a start. That should mean that the clocks are synchronized. It's one frame of reference. But as you get stars it breaks up into different frames of reference and different clocks.
All of it defined through local definitions, comparing those to other frames of reference.
=
When it comes to heat there exist no definition of how 'hot' something can be, as far as I know. Well, with a exception. You might be able to connect it to Planck scale. Or string theory, or the LHC :)
I think I'll try Planck scale for it myself. If one can set a limit to it?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/absolute-hot/
but it suits my ideas to connect it to this.
-
Radiation escapes a black hole or so the new theory says.
I think you're pretending to be stupid and you are just trolling.
-
Now I could drop in my opinion but since you are arguing with CERN which represents science, I will let you take up with them why they are wrong.
It's not that CERN is wrong so much as it is that they are simplifying it to make it easier for non-scientists to understand. We are indeed at the center of our own visible Universe, but then again, everything else is at the center of its own visible Universe as well. Remember, we are defining the visible Universe as the distance from which light has had time to travel from the most distant sources to the viewer. Anything beyond that isn't going to be visible, of course.
This video helps explain the Big Bang theory (in particular how the Universe can be spatially infinite, and therefore have no center, yet still have a singularity of sorts in the past):
-
Radiation escapes a black hole or so the new theory says.
I think you're pretending to be stupid and you are just trolling.
Radiation does escape a black hole, this is common knowledge in the USA. Perhaps you ought to get out more?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/11/03/ask-ethan-how-do-black-holes-actually-evaporate/?sh=6fcd8d2e24a1
Hawking radiation
Main article: Hawking radiation
The Penrose diagram of a black hole which forms, and then completely evaporates away. Time shown on vertical axis from bottom to top; space shown on horizontal axis from left (radius zero) to right (growing radius).
In 1973–75, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein showed that black holes should slowly radiate away energy, which poses a problem. From the no-hair theorem, one would expect the Hawking radiation to be completely independent of the material entering the black hole. Nevertheless, if the material entering the black hole were a pure quantum state, the transformation of that state into the mixed state of Hawking radiation would destroy information about the original quantum state, information being defined as the difference between coarse grained (thermal) entropy and fine grained (quantum, von Neumann) entropy. This violates the law of conservation of information which corresponds to Liouville's theorem in classical physics and thus presents a physical paradox (see e.g. [8]).
Hawking remained convinced that the equations of black-hole thermodynamics, together with the no-hair theorem, led to the conclusion that quantum information may be destroyed. This annoyed many physicists, notably John Preskill, who in 1997 bet Hawking and Kip Thorne that information was not lost in black holes. The implications that Hawking had opened led to a "battle" where Leonard Susskind and Gerard 't Hooft publicly 'declared war' on Hawking's solution, with Susskind publishing a popular book, The Black Hole War, about the debate in 2008. (The book carefully notes that the 'war' was purely a scientific one, and that at a personal level, the participants remained friends.[9]) The solution to the problem that concluded the battle is the holographic principle, which was first proposed by 't Hooft but was given a precise string theory interpretation by Susskind. With this, "Susskind quashes Hawking in quarrel over quantum quandary".[10]
-
Radiation does escape a black hole, this is common knowledge in the USA.
Have you failed to understand that Hawking radiation escapes from just outside one?
Radiation escapes a black hole or so the new theory says.
I think you're pretending to be stupid and you are just trolling.
I suspect you are right.
Is there a good reason for not banning the useless troll?