[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I'm not saying that we are under observation by distant life forms; I do say that things happen in the present, and the present is happening where the happenings are happening in real time. However, whenever there is recorded history of happenings, and those records are accessible to future observers, then they constitute a vague glimpse of the past to observers from the future.

The act of observing the distant cosmos brings about the observation of events that have happened in the past. If the sun sent out a solar flair now, it would take eight and a half minutes for it to be seen from Earth. If we focus a telescope on an object a light year away, what we observe here and now, actually took place a year ago. If a distant observer is light years away, what they observe of us actually happened years ago. So I say that time is always passing everywhere, and if there is relative motion between the two places, it skews the rate at which the distant observer would see time passing at the other location.


238581,238683,239048,239142,239359,

[Zer0]

Copyrights/Credits/Source -
David Strassman/^KEVIN^/YouTube

*Note - Explicit Adult Content, contains Flashy Lights & Profanity.
(sorry if it's inappropriate, please delete my post asap)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Is gravity the warping of spacetime, or is it the net result of inflowing and outflowing gravitational waves?  Discuss.


240042,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Lol, I know discussion of this topic isn't exactly likely. Gravity waves have been detected but they seem to be associated with major cosmic events, and are pretty hard to detect and measure. But still, speculation can fill the gap until someone brings me up to date with the facts and evidence.

I like to go on from there and refer to relative motion as the imbalance between inflowing and outflowing gravitational wave energy.


240061,240122,240302,

[Zer0]

@Bogie

You know, i was just tinkin...

In terms of Newtonian physics..

Your Gravitational sphere of influence might be almost 80 light years.

ps - My oh myy!
U r a BigBoi.
: )

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Your personal light cone extends about that far, but your gravitational sphere of influence goes much further since your mass existed indefinitely before you existed. That mass suddenly becoming 'you' had no additional effect on anything gravitationally since the mass was always already there.

Its almost too much to comprehend, but since we each have our own finite mass, and to my way of thinking there is no new mass coming into existence, our individual masses just get endlessly buffeted around and across the infinite universe eternally. Unfortunately, our tiny mass is "me" all too briefly, and for the rest of infinite time it is someone/something else; endlessly changing.


241262,

[Zer0]

Your Gravitational sphere of influence might be almost 80 light years.

Your personal light cone extends about that far, but your gravitational sphere of influence goes much further since your mass existed indefinitely before you existed. That mass suddenly becoming 'you' had no additional effect on anything gravitationally since the mass was always already there.

I am Neither mass,
Nor a Lump of rock.

I am a Human who moves around...
     right
left
up
down
Roundabouts!

My Gravitational influence is Mine!

ps - changing locations in space-time matters.
(Gravitational Potential Energy)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I am Neither mass,
Nor a Lump of rock.

I am a Human who moves around...
     right
left
up
down
Roundabouts!

My Gravitational influence is Mine!

...

It may be yours, but only ever-so-briefly. What can represent a lifetime to the aged human is but an instant in the grander scheme of things. So yes, during that lifetime, your gravitational influence is marked by your Human presence, but in the bigger picture, that instant we call a lifetime isn't much to get excited about when looked at as its share of the passing of infinite time.


But still ... 


241865,242021,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I'm wondering if I was too hasty to declare that there was no new mass coming into existence. Does it count as new mass when sunlight is converted to plant life by photosynthesis?


242113,

[Halc]

I'm wondering if I was too hasty to declare that there was no new mass coming into existence. Does it count as new mass when sunlight is converted to plant life by photosynthesis?

That's just a rearrangement of existing atoms into different molecules, not new atoms.

Yes, the sun does transfer energy to Earth (and loses mass in doing so), but Earth loses that sort of energy as fast as it gets it, so it all gets radiated permanently away into space.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I guess if the amount of mass in an infinite universe is infinite, then the average density of mass in the universe is fixed, but the distribution of mass varies.


242324,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I guess if the amount of mass in an infinite universe is infinite, then the average density of mass in the universe is fixed

In an expanding universe (infinite or finite), the density (of energy, mass, pretty much any conserved thing) must go down as it expands.

I consider there to be only one universe; I see it as an infinite universe that occupies all space, and being infinite, there is no excess space for it to expand (into). However, that is the grand scale view. On a local view, which allows us to see only a finite part of the whole infinite universe, our view reveals expansion, even accelerating expansion. I try to justify the observed expansion visible from our local view by thinking of it as the aftermath of our own local big bang, some billions of years ago. In that scenario, our big bang would be one of a potentially infinite number of BBs across infinite space and time. No big deal; Just don't get too close when a Big Crunch is ready collapse/bang, lol.


243100,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I see it as an infinite universe that occupies all space

What would the space be (or have) if there wasn't a universe occupying it?

I see it as an infinite universe occupies all space, so the space without a universe in it, would be empty space. It would pose a problem though, if like me, you consider the universe to include infinite space, all matter, and all energy. To call empty space a universe, you would have to exclude all matter and energy.


243239,243705,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

In matters of cosmology, my view is that talk of the universe should acknowledge that we are talking about THE universe. By my definition, there is only one universe. I'm not tempted by those alternative views that talk about multiple universes or parallel universes; I maintain that there is only one universe, and that universe is all there is; all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal reality.


A big bang, yes, but not just one. Couldn't big bangs just be a common natural result of infinite space, infinite matter, infinite energy, and infinite time? If so, then wouldn't there be a scenario about big bangs that says they happen here and there, now and then, since they encompass/require only a finite amount of matter, energy, and time to occur and play out, within a greater, infinite, eternal universe?



Nevertheless, with something as big and permanent as the infinite and eternal universe, I don't want to be presumptuous by implying that I comprehend anything about its full dimensions, all of its characteristics, or its forever history. I contemplate it because everything about time, space, life, and our place in it all, naturally occupies Human thoughts. But even my most grandiose imaginings probably don't come close to doing justice to reality. I think that the pastime of thinking about it is part of the fun; the imponderables, the unfathomable. If people could live forever, they would never run out of material to feed their unlimited imaginings, I bet, .


244067,244219,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

... the imponderables, the unfathomable. If people could live forever, they would never run out of material to feed their unlimited imaginings ... .

... and according to me , intelligent life has always existed, and is probably spread out across the entire universe, and has been for all of time.

I hate to admit it, but even our most intelligent and imaginative thoughts have probably been entertained by contemplative individuals for all of time here and there across the entire universe, or at least for 5 billion years, which seems to be the amount of time that Science acknowledges ... since what ... origination, creation, the beginning? Or more likely, has there really been an infinite past, and an infinite future to come, across an infinite three dimensional space, filled everywhere with smatterings of life and an interesting history, that has been slipping bye at all places, throughout all eternity?


244351,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

That puts things near the origination/creation/beginning of our solar system, before the sun actually had yet formed.

Still, considering my premise that there was no beginning, but instead, there is an infinite past, as well as an infinite future, stars would have been lighting up and burning out forever, and our sun will be no exception.



244847,245129,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

... Still, considering my premise that there was no beginning, but instead, there is an infinite past, as well as an infinite future, stars would have been lighting up and burning out forever, and our sun will be no exception.
244847,245129,

I do think that my premise of "no beginning" is like the proverbial dog that they are referring to when they say, "every dog has a few fleas". There are a few problems with the concept of an infinite past.

If the universe is infinite and has always existed, it raises the question, why haven't we come across good evidence of living beings from outer space. Why haven't life forms been able to survive the hazards of planetary living by escaping to ways of life that are compatible with intergalactic existence? Or has that happened but the nature of distance and time serve to cloak such things?


Also, I guess that the generation of life and the evolution of life to our level might be so rare that even when talking in terms of the extremes of time, distance, and evolution, those signs are too far separated to be detected within the typical span of existence of such life forms.

245383




... If so, Humans may search forever in the spaces we can get to, and never find a living thing ... while life seems to spring from almost nowhere everywhere we look here on Earth.


245446,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...

Also, I guess that the generation of life and the evolution of life to our level might be so rare that even when talking in terms of the extremes of time, distance, and evolution, those signs are too far separated to be detected within the typical span of existence of such life forms.

OK, you realize essentially the same thing that I do

We can speculate and hypothesize, and I speculate that this issue has always been a conundrum to thinkers.

If we can put the existence of life in the same category as the existence of the universe, then just as I speculate that the universe is eternal and has always existed, I would speculate that life also has always existed here and there across all time and space.


245607,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

We can never be sure of the future in regard to humanity and the planet Earth. A planet killing asteroid, a deadly worldwide pandemic, world war, mass extinctions ... there are many ways that life could end on Earth. Nevertheless, I am consoled by the fact that Earth hosts bountiful life, and it seems likely that across infinite space there are infinite similar havens where life flourishes. Therefore, the odds would seem to greatly lean toward the premise that life, like the universe itself, has and will always exist.

If that is true of the big picture, it doesn't mean that our Earthly home will last indefinitely; eventually life here may succumb to some final calamity. Or maybe humanity will escape Earth before those final days, and set out into a wider expanse within our galaxy, keeping a human presence alive in some other habitable place, somewhere else; we can only speculate. 




246115,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

We can never be sure of the future in regard to humanity and the planet Earth. A planet killing asteroid, a deadly worldwide pandemic, world war, mass extinctions ... there are many ways that life could end on Earth. Nevertheless, I am consoled by the fact that Earth hosts bountiful life, and it seems likely that across infinite space there are infinite similar havens where life flourishes. Therefore, the odds would seem to greatly lean toward the premise that life, like the universe itself, has and will always exist.

If that is true of the big picture, it doesn't mean that our Earthly home will last indefinitely; eventually life here may succumb to some final calamity. Or maybe humanity will escape Earth before those final days, and set out into a wider expanse within our galaxy, keeping a human presence alive in some other habitable place, somewhere else; we can only speculate. 




246115,

None of that stuff would end life, but I suppose the 'planet killing' one might remove the Earth from what the remaining life is on. But I don't think Earth life would be eliminated by that.

The imaginary scenarios that I tend to come up with, being quite speculative, are probably far from the scientific consensus. Nevertheless, I find it hard to think that the island of life represented by our planet will have any meaningful impact on the future of all life that may come to exist across the universe. When we contemplate the three infinites; space, time and energy, the possible scenarios for the future are potentially infinite.


247129,247763,