0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Do you want to go there in this thread? I’ll check back
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 29/05/2018 19:37:42Do you want to go there in this thread? I’ll check back Why not, all sentient ideas welcomed, if a White hole was not the cause of the Big Bang what was, where did that energy come from to allow a BB. The zero energy universe? BH + WH = 0 perhaps.
A speculation might be, maybe a white hole is what happens when you have a black hole singularity with no mass?However, if you allow my suggestion about a first cause, then whether it was a black hole, a white hole, or a spontaneous event out of nothingness that preceded the apparent big bang, you are faced with a choice of possibilities:1) God did it as the first cause …2) Spontaneous generation out of nothingness as the first cause …3) The universe has always existed; black holes and/or white holes are just part of the invariant laws of nature … no first cause/no beginning …Do you have a preference among the three choices?
"maybe a white hole is what happens when you have a black hole singularity with no mass?" Maybe -ve energy(gravity) + +ve energy(dark energy) = zero energy universeOption 1 and 3 are cop outs. Option 2 may be like knowing the mind of god. So Option 2 would be the one to speculate about. … One could go insane.
I still have an interest in WH and BH's big and small with or without matter. IF a WH can exist in an eternal BH.
The outer edges of the solar system are moving away from us at approx 3c.
BBT raises the question first cause. Though BBT doesn’t address the beginning, it is implied that there was a big bang, and that implication begs the question of what caused the big bang.
1) God did it as the first cause …2) Spontaneous generation out of nothingness as the first cause …3) The universe has always existed; black holes and/or white holes are just part of the invariant laws of nature … no first cause/no beginning …
Quote1) God did it as the first cause …2) Spontaneous generation out of nothingness as the first cause …3) The universe has always existed; black holes and/or white holes are just part of the invariant laws of nature … no first cause/no beginning …This might seem like semantics, but I would like to add another option that is really a modification of 3). Following John Gribbin’s terminology (which I have explained elsewhere), my choice would be for:4) The cosmos is infinite/eternal and, as far as we can tell, our Universe “emerged” from that via the BB.
If I rephrase the wording of your choice to be: The cosmos is infinite/eternal, and as far as we can tell, our observable universe emerged from within that via the BB, then I’m on board.
Quote If I rephrase the wording of your choice to be: The cosmos is infinite/eternal, and as far as we can tell, our observable universe emerged from within that via the BB, then I’m on board. That's fine with me, but I raise an eyebrow at "from within". On reflection, I would go for "emerged within".I think Gribbin was trying to find a way round the sometimes confusing shades of meaning attached to the term "universe", so he clarified his position. Cosmos = everything that exists, or can exist.Universe = our (in principle) observable portion of spacetime and its contents.universe = any other universe that may, or may not, exist.I tend to follow that, while accepting that does not do justice to the etymology of "universe".It's probably no worse than the "abuses" visited upon "infinite" or "nothing"
Options 2 and 3 are virtually the same, the universe exists because it can.
Quote from: disinterested on 29/05/2018 20:43:071) God did it as the first cause …2) Spontaneous generation out of nothingness as the first cause …3) The universe has always existed; black holes and/or white holes are just part of the invariant laws of nature … no first cause/no beginning …Options 2 and 3 are virtually the same, the universe exists because it can. 2 differs in that it looks for a reason it can exist unlike options 1 and 3, that just accept the existence as fact without asking why.
You suggest insanity is OK() and like speculation. I prefer to ask what could happen have happened before a Big Bang, but since no one knows what came before a BB, then it is wide open to speculation.
I have to disagree, strongly, with this.2 says the Universe arose from an impossible situation - something from nothing - therefore, the Universe cannot exist. Manifestly, the Universe does exist, within our definition of the term, so 2 is not a realistic option.
Bill S addressed why #2 & #3 are not the same, and I wonder if you have misread them?
Jokingly, insanity is OK, lol. And I do speculate about the “as yet” unknowns in science. However, speculating starts with the “knowns” in science, and is used to fill the gaps where there is not yet a consensus.
The best way to test for consistency and appropriateness is to discuss views on open forums and hope for constructive, educational feed back like we get here.
Space time is something which is expanding,
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 31/05/2018 13:22:19Bill S addressed why #2 & #3 are not the same, and I wonder if you have misread them?I don't think I misread his statement I may be wrong but I think option 3 is not looking deep enough. Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 31/05/2018 13:22:19Jokingly, insanity is OK, lol. And I do speculate about the “as yet” unknowns in science. However, speculating starts with the “knowns” in science, and is used to fill the gaps where there is not yet a consensus.I hope to avoid the insanity, but as you have pointed out on another thread there are many options in cosmology and not always consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_modelQuote from: Bogie_smiles on 31/05/2018 13:22:19The best way to test for consistency and appropriateness is to discuss views on open forums and hope for constructive, educational feed back like we get here.That is what I am hoping for.
Quote from: disinterested on 01/06/2018 09:48:43 Space time is something which is expanding, Is it spacetime or just space?
The point I was making is that while we can see that galaxies are moving away from us, and we can conjecture that space is expanding, can we also assume time is also expanding ie spacetime is expanding.We know that the presence of energy, particularly in the form of mass, causes variations in the rate of time; but does it automatically expand with space?
I think you are wrong Space time is something which is expanding, it is not nothing.
A zero energy universe requires that the sum total of energy is zero.