[flr]

Some part of ether was converted into matter (ca 14 billion years ago) and the latter is only evolving.

I thought the issue of 'ether' was actually solved by scientists (physics do just well without it).

I would agree with some view that after big bang the energy was converted to matter. Which matter from now on may slowly decompose back to energy (photons).

1) I've read (and share this view) that the principle of conservation of energy does not exist.

Any rationale for that? A link or something that would justify why total energy of a closed system is not conserved?

2) The universe is a closed system and nothing can "evaporte" from it.

Note that your sentences 1) and 2) above may be seen as contradicting each other.

[niebieskieucho]

As soon as matter was formed (which is another story), time automatically started to accompany it.

If your saying time only started when matter formed, then when did your space exist if there was no time?

Space is primordial (it's volume unchanged - according to my speculative calculation R of the universe amounts minimum 6.2*10^117 l.y.). 

Space is the essence of the universe. It existed before matter,

How do you explain the concept of existence without using the concept of time?

Time of what you mean? Imagine such a state of nature that there is just space & ether. Time (of something) means motion (of something) / change (of something). Ether doesn't move (if not disturbed), and doesn't undergo changes (unless one time, accidental occurrence that led to emergence of matter). Tell me then how could you measure time of ...(what?). What would mean in such circumstances 5 minutes, 10 years or 100 billion of years. Time loses its sense. It was just such a state of the universe (you may call it timelessness). If there is no motion of (something) / no change (of something) its time = 0

[niebieskieucho]

Some part of ether was converted into matter (ca 14 billion years ago) and the latter is only evolving.

I thought the issue of 'ether' was actually solved by scientists (physics do just well without it).

I don't agree with such point of view. No ether = no conductivity. Empty space would be a perfect insulator. Physical entities couldn't then feel themselves (interact). 

I would agree with some view that after big bang the energy was converted to matter. Which matter from now on may slowly decompose back to energy (photons).

There was no big bang. Matter was formed in other way. Matter is indestructible. It only changes its form.

1) I've read (and share this view) that the principle of conservation of energy does not exist.

Any rationale for that? A link or something that would justify why total energy of a closed system is not conserved?

Yeah. There is a material about it, but unfortunately in Polish (nasa_ktp.republika.pl/ZZE_nie_istnieje.html). Example in one sentence: In magnets is asymmetry of forces between poles of attraction and repulsion.

2) The universe is a closed system and nothing can "evaporate" from it.

Note that your sentences 1) and 2) above may be seen as contradicting each other.

No, because energy must have its owner. It doesn't roam on its own.

[bizerl]

okay, my two cents. I guess this is all philosophical as I was lead to believe that our current mainstream scientific theories are only relevant for the moments after the big bang, and it's only through extrapolation that we are left with a singularity containing the entire known universe.

I've always seen this moment as more a location on a time axis that can be labelled "zero", a bit like the north pole, so saying there was nothing before the big bang is a bit like saying "but what happens past the north pole?"

I've also had the thought that it seems there is a gradual shift from pure energy into pure matter. If the universe is indeed expanding than eventually all the suns will stop burning and all the energy of the universe will be locked up in cold matter. I wonder if this itself will trigger some new epoch on a quantum level as the journey towards absolute zero competes with the uncertainty principle.

Of course the energy is still there, just located at a different point on the time axis.

Unfortunately I haven't had the pleasure of a physics degree so they are all musings in my head.

[lean bean]

Time of what you mean? Imagine such a state of nature that there is just space & ether. Time (of something) means motion (of something) / change (of something). Ether doesn't move (if not disturbed), and doesn't undergo changes (unless one time, accidental occurrence that led to emergence of matter).

I got no idea what you mean by ether here? What is this ether that it may be disturbed?
I know of the idea of fundamental particle fields, but these particle fields exist in time.

[acecharly]

Some of my thoughts on this as an armchair physisist ....everything was created 13.8 billion years ago apparently but why not 100 billion years ago or any other number in my opinion its always been here its just that it has not allways been ticking, time to me means nothing more than a way to as how a change of state between two points when matter is present. As for is matter still being created then yes it is I'd say scientists have created matter themselves. I think matter/energy are infinite, i fall back to what I said about time why would there be a set amount there's simply as much as there currently is due to whatever happened to make it which I have no ideas for but further to this I can only assume whatever did could easily create another batch at will. Oh and as for this ether stuff sounds a little bit 19th century for me. On this note will leave you all to take aim and shoot me down.

Ace

[dlorde]

What was the question again Ace?

If you're really asking why 13.8 billion years has elapsed since the big bang, the anthropic answer is that it takes roughly that long for suitable conditions to arise to support the development of life, and for life to develop enough to ask the question. You need at least two generations of stars, probably more, so that the heavy elements formed by the early generation(s) of supernovas can seed the planets forming round the later generations. Then you need to wait for the planetary system to quieten down and for a sufficient number of comets to deliver enough water (if that was the mechanism for it). There are probably a number of other requirements, such as development of atmosphere, reduction in the flux of harmful cosmic radiation, and so-on.

If we assume there was something before the big bang, I don't think anyone has the foggiest idea how long 'before the big bang' would have lasted, or if it means anything to ask.

[lean bean]

If we assume there was something before the big bang, I don't think anyone has the foggiest idea how long 'before the big bang' would have lasted, or if it means anything to ask.

I can sort of pretend to understand numerous universes (multiverse) being constantly created in time...the past, now and future. And again, I can pretend to understand how space and time started in the standard big bang model.
But, I'm fuddled about Niebieskieucho's ether existing in no time and having the capacity to be disturbed.

[dlorde]

... I'm fuddled about Niebieskieucho's ether existing in no time and having the capacity to be disturbed.

Yup, me too.

[acecharly]

When we say time didnt exist it probably means this universe had not been born but time was flowing nicely from where ever it came from.

[niebieskieucho]

okay, my two cents. I guess this is all philosophical as I was lead to believe that our current mainstream scientific theories are only relevant for the moments after the big bang, and it's only through extrapolation that we are left with a singularity containing the entire known universe.

Cosmology is based mainly on philosophy, because conditions that led to emergence of matter are not feasible to check or recreate. The mainstream science theory doesn't look well, due to many reasons. Anyway, it's just theory and that is why it can be falsified.

[niebieskieucho]

Time of what you mean? Imagine such a state of nature that there is just space & ether. Time (of something) means motion (of something) / change (of something). Ether doesn't move (if not disturbed), and doesn't undergo changes (unless one time, accidental occurrence that led to emergence of matter).

I got no idea what you mean by ether here? What is this ether that it may be disturbed?

I mean elementary building block of all forms of matter (called also dark matter) in word, pre-matter. I have already mentioned earlier, that the disturbance of ether was caused by its accidental density in some point of the universe (its of course my own inference).

I know of the idea of fundamental particle fields, but these particle fields exist in time.

How do you undersand "exists in time"? It could be understood similarly as "exists in motion". Motion of what?

[niebieskieucho]

Some of my thoughts on this as an armchair physisist ....everything was created 13.8 billion years ago apparently but why not 100 billion years ago or any other number in my opinion its always been here its just that it has not allways been ticking, time to me means nothing more than a way to as how a change of state between two points when matter is present.

In my opinion matter emerged accidentaly and it might have appeard earlier, later or never. Similarly as accidental is equality of surface of the Moon disc to the surface of the Sun disk during the Sun eclipse.

As for is matter still being created then yes it is I'd say scientists have created matter themselves.

It's impossible. Have you got any details? We are "contaminated" with matter and cannot crerate matter.

I think matter/energy are infinite,

Infinities are only in mathematics in nature don't exist.

i fall back to what I said about time why would there be a set amount there's simply as much as there currently is due to whatever happened to make it which I have no ideas for but further to this I can only assume whatever did could easily create another batch at will. Oh and as for this ether stuff sounds a little bit 19th century for me. On this note will leave you all to take aim and shoot me down.

The beginning of the passage is not clear to me. As refers to ether, it's indispensable to make conductivity of space.

[Bill S]

Infinities are only in mathematics in nature don't exist.

I have to take issue with that!  I agree that mathematical infinities apply only to mathematics, but how do you defend the statement that in nature infinity does dot exist; or do you mean that multiple infinities do not exist in nature?

[niebieskieucho]

Infinities are only in mathematics in nature don't exist.

I have to take issue with that!  I agree that mathematical infinities apply only to mathematics, but how do you defend the statement that in nature infinity does dot exist; or do you mean that multiple infinities do not exist in nature?

It's simple. The universe belongs to reality. All real things are imaginable. Infinite universe is unimaginable and that automatically implies infinite universe cannot exist.

[acecharly]

The

Infinities are only in mathematics in nature don't exist.

I have to take issue with that!  I agree that mathematical infinities apply only to mathematics, but how do you defend the statement that in nature infinity does dot exist; or do you mean that multiple infinities do not exist in nature?

It's simple. The universe belongs to reality. All real things are imaginable. Infinite universe is unimaginable and that automatically implies infinite universe cannot exist.

Would it make sense that this could be because you too are part of the universe to which that reality belongs and so find it difficult to comprehend anything outside of what we already know from here within. If a man was raised  inside a room with no windows and locked doors he too would probably think like this.

[lean bean]

how do you understand "exists in time"? It could be understood similarly as "exists in motion". Motion of what?

You make the point of time being movement, yes, I think most know of this idea.
It’s your idea of an ether that doesn’t move which is not so clear to me.

You don’t explain how can you have a ‘accidental occurrence’ or density change when there is no motion to ‘cause’ them in the first place?

Ether doesn't move (if not disturbed),

So you have movment in your ether that causes accidental occurrences or density changes?

[dlorde]

All real things are imaginable. Infinite universe is unimaginable and that automatically implies infinite universe cannot exist.

That seems like a very particular definition of 'imaginable'. Black holes, supernovae, the big bang, and galaxies weren't imaginable until the relevant fields of knowledge provided a framework for their imagination, but they were still real. People have imagined an infinite universe since ancient times; it may or may not be real.

[niebieskieucho]

acecharly:
Would it make sense that this could be because you too are part of the universe to which that reality belongs and so find it difficult to comprehend anything outside of what we already know from here within. If a man was raised  inside a room with no windows and locked doors he too would probably think like this.

dlorde:
That seems like a very particular definition of 'imaginable'. Black holes, supernovae, the big bang, and galaxies weren't imaginable until the relevant fields of knowledge provided a framework for their imagination, but they were still real. People have imagined an infinite universe since ancient times; it may or may not be real.

Really?  Any real thing you can conceive, consequently sketch ignoring the scale and accuracy (close in a solid). If you claim you can imagine infinite universe, could you then outline it? If so, I will admit you're right.

[acecharly]

acecharly:
Would it make sense that this could be because you too are part of the universe to which that reality belongs and so find it difficult to comprehend anything outside of what we already know from here within. If a man was raised  inside a room with no windows and locked doors he too would probably think like this.

dlorde:
That seems like a very particular definition of 'imaginable'. Black holes, supernovae, the big bang, and galaxies weren't imaginable until the relevant fields of knowledge provided a framework for their imagination, but they were still real. People have imagined an infinite universe since ancient times; it may or may not be real.

Really?  Any real thing you can conceive, consequently sketch ignoring the scale and accuracy (close in a solid). If you claim you can imagine infinite universe, could you then outline it? If so, I will admit you're right.

All thoughts surrounding an infinite universe are currently conceptual and without questioning we would never know that this will hold true. This conversation actully reminds me of an old Chinese proverb about a frog that lived in a well and who believed that the only sky above was what he could see as he looked up.