The True Origin of The Universe?

kx000 said:
What do you believe to be the universe? The cosmos, our galaxy, and all the galaxies?
Click to expand...

Objectively, the Universe is all that evolved from the BB, space, time, spacetime, matter, energy and all that is contained and governed by the laws of physics and GR.
Although according to original definition, it actually means all that is...which would entail other regions of whatever existed [if anything] before the BB, parallel Universes and such.


kx000 said:
Te atoms and other things that make it up? What if there's more. Obviously consisting of time and space, but not necisarly the body that our universe seems to be. What's out there is what fills us somewhere Love exist and the cosmos are the body of the spirit he was born in to and a man in his body. Love needs to be palpable. I believe in a conciousness that transcends the human mind and the cosmos we know.
Click to expand...



The "body" of the Universe IS time and space.....That is what evolved from the BB.

I'm not into any transcendental meditation.
My dreams consist entirely of having a good time with my family and friends, and looking forward to continued scientific advancement, space endeavours, including permanent Moon bases, and stellar travel, and all that is allowed by the laws of physics and GR.
Of course I wont be here for all of it. :)
 
river said:
Pad
How so , since neither , has any independent substance associated to either
Click to expand...

If you deny the BB, that's your own problem.
But what model do you have that describes the Universe/spacetime better?

That long ago defunct Electric/Plasma Universe nonsense?
But I won't get into another debate with you about that, as past debates have shown the intransigent stance you hold with regards to that.
And space and time may not have individual substance as is commonly known, but the fact that Einstein showed us how flexible they are under conditions where mass is present, reveal their non absolute nature.
And has been pointed out to you a dozen times, that effect has been verified many times most recently and notabily, in the GP-B experiment.
 
Just in case you have more Q+A re spacetime...
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/qanda.html

Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.

If space exists, what is it?
This is the single most important question in modern physics. Einstein himself said that so far as his general relativity is concerned, space ( actually space-time) and the gravitational field are the SAME THINGS. We see it as something that is empty because, in modern language, we cannot see the quantum particles called gravitons out of which it is 'manufactured'. We exist much like the raisins in a bread, surrounded by the invisible but almost palpable 'dough' of the gravitational field. In many respects there is no difference between the field that we are embedded in and the apparently solid matter out of which we are made. Even at the level of quarks, over 95 percent of the 'matter' that makes up a 100 kg person is simply locked up in the energy of the gluonic fields out of which protons are fashioned. The rest is a gift from the way quarks and electrons interact with a field called the Higgs field which permeates space. We are, really and truly, simply another form of the gravitational field of the universe, twisted by the Big Bang into a small family of unique particle states


What is the relationship between space and time?
Mathematically, and in accordance with relativity, they are in some sense interchangeable, but we do know that they form co-equal parts of a larger 'thing' called space-time, and it is only within space-time that the most complete understanding of the motion and properties of natural objects and phenomena can be rigorously understood by physicists. Space and time are to space-time what arms and legs are to humans. In some sense they are interchangeable, but you cannot understand 10,000 years of human history without including both arms and legs as part of the basic human condition."
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

There are 205 in that excellent link which may help you.
 
paddoboy said:
If you deny the BB, that's your own problem.
But what model do you have that describes the Universe/spacetime better?

That long ago defunct Electric/Plasma Universe nonsense?
But I won't get into another debate with you about that, as past debates have shown the intransigent stance you hold with regards to that.
And space and time may not have individual substance as is commonly known, but the fact that Einstein showed us how flexible they are under conditions where mass is present, reveal their non absolute nature.
And has been pointed out to you a dozen times, that effect has been verified many times most recently and notabily, in the GP-B experiment.
Click to expand...

So neither space and time have substance , good we are getting somewhere

So what then did Einstein actually show then ?
 
river said:
So neither space and time have substance , good we are getting somewhere

So what then did Einstein actually show then ?
Click to expand...

Go see GP-B
space and time are real, and no amount of twisting and squirming will change that

Again.....
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.


https://einstein.stanford.edu/conten...ity/qanda.html
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


Now try and be more honest with your next inference.
 
Space and time are only real to mathematics

Space and time have no real physical properties as we have agreed in your post #243
 
river said:
Space and time are only real to mathematics

Space and time have no real physical properties as we have agreed in your post #243
Click to expand...

Yes, they do, as has been shown, and as you constantly ignore.
Again, try and be more honest in your summations.
As English appears to be your second language, let me say again....
" And space and time may not have individual substance as is commonly known"
In other words, just because we cannot see, taste, feel spacetime, does not make it less real.
Plenty of evidence to support that.
But rivers, "AS USUAL", your tactics are obvious.
So you will need to play your game with someone else.



Spacetime can be warped, twisted, and even travel in waves.
 
Other aspects of space, at least phenomenally speaking, include the properties of extention, of size scale, of discreteness vs. continuity, and symmetry. One even wonders to what extent form isn't a property of space. Look at a vase. The form of it is as defined as where the matter ends as much as where the space begins. Spatiality goes much deeper than merely emptiness. It is the premise of all order.
 
Magical Realist said:
Other aspects of space, at least phenomenally speaking, include the properties of extention, of size scale, of discreteness vs. continuity, and symmetry. One even wonders to what extent form isn't a property of space. Look at a vase. The form of it is as defined as where the matter ends as much as where the space begins. Spatiality goes much deeper than merely emptiness. It is the premise of all order.
Click to expand...

Yes, space must have extension but little else. It must have some dimensional size to it to accommodate its extension. Depending upon its definition space can have discreteness but maybe not continuity or infinite extension. Symmetry would not seem like one of its characteristics. It may have substances within it but may not be substantive itself.
 
paddoboy said:
Yep, high standar absolutely. Look where we are today.
Medieval Inquisition? ... :) I actually see that every time we have some alternative hypothesis pusher, or conspiracy adherent asking mainstream to "proove it" :)
Quite laughable actually, especially in light of their own completely unsupported, unreviewed dreams.
Click to expand...

How else do you expect a new theory can come about other than by someone who comes up with something new and then tries to prove it? You are a priory refusing a possibility of some better theory to replace your current theory even though that's exactly what has been happening throughout the whole history of science.


Insecurity?? :) Considering where science is today and the methodology and peer review system that keeps it afloat, coupled with the fact that the delusional self indulgent, unqualified alternative hypothesis pushers are a dime a dozen, I see that Insecurity claim rather hypocritical.
Click to expand...

How are you different than people who refused to look through Galileo's telescope, or people who laughed at brothers Wright and called them liars?
 
How else do you expect a new theory can come about other than by someone who comes up with something new and then tries to prove it?
Click to expand...
Comes up with something new based on observation, experiment and results, not based on whether their shit floated that morning or not.
 
AlexG said:
Comes up with something new based on observation, experiment and results, not based on whether their shit floated that morning or not.
Click to expand...

Of course. But paddoboy is too overconfident in some super-objective peer review god-scientists who always know the best. He has a prejudice, too quick to judge, and it's not even his own opinion, but rather a faith in someone else.
 
humbleteleskop said:
How are you different than people who refused to look through Galileo's telescope, or people who laughed at brothers Wright and called them liars?
Click to expand...
That's the wrong question: the question is how are you the same as Galileo or the wright bros?

Indeed, Galileo is an odd choice for your champion, since he is generally regarded as the inventor of the thing that you are saying you hate!
 
humbleteleskop said:
Of course. But paddoboy is too overconfident in some super-objective peer review god-scientists who always know the best. He has a prejudice, too quick to judge, and it's not even his own opinion, but rather a faith in someone else.
Click to expand...
Better to have faith in a system that has been fabulously successful than in people of a sort who have failed spectacularly.
 
humbleteleskop said:
Of course. But paddoboy is too overconfident in some super-objective peer review god-scientists who always know the best. He has a prejudice, too quick to judge, and it's not even his own opinion, but rather a faith in someone else.
Click to expand...



Is that so?
Well, it's not so. The definition of a scientific theory itself, invalidates your rather silly derisive comment, "God scientist".
My main judgment actually falls on the audacity and delusions of grandeur exhibited by our Alternative hypothesis friends. Or are you claiming one of them is correct? Which one would that be?
We have four ToE's that I am aware of so far. And all except one lamblast the scientific method and peer review unendingly.
Which of our Alternative hypothesis pushers are you supporting?
Or is this more a "tall poppy syndrome" thingy with regards to yourself?

I support mainstream science and the scientists working at the coal face, making new discoveries, pushing the boundaries of knowledge, experiment and research.
I support the scientific methodology and peer review.
I also support Innovative Imaginative speculative Ideas, and have been known to quote Einstein's rather famous little ditty, "Imagination is more Important then Knowledge"
But what you fail to accept is that most of these Imaginative, Innovative ideas are in the main from mainstream science, not some backwood hicksville type of delusional crap.
As you have been already informed, Galileo was a scientist, in a period when the church dominated all aspects of life.
And I have myself again, often used the sometimes staid nature of the otherwise great scientist, Lord Kelvin and his claim that man-powered flight was impossible only a decade or so before the Wright Brothers.

So, as you can see, I have never claimed "God scientists"always know best.
the Lord Kelvin/Wright Brothers example is but one.
But maybe you can point me towards those that laughed at the Wright brothers experiments, before they obtained success?

Do you doubt my over confidence in Evolution? Why? What other path do you suggest?
Do you doubt my over confidence in Abiogenesis? If so what other scientific means do you suggest for life arising in the Universe
Do you doubt my over confidence in the BB theory of Universal evolution? If so, what model do you present as an alternative?
Do you doubt the reality of SR? ...GR? If so, do you have another model that can falsify either.....or explain anything that SR/GR does not?
Maybe you also have a ToE?
And finally, do you see it as logical that someone that truly had some hypothesis, that could rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology, would come to a forum such as this to discuss such obviously ground breaking revelations?

So, no, I am not prejudice against any alternative hypothesis pusher or their hypothesis, I am though sensibly aware that if they had anything at all, they would be pursuing a different path.

You should also read post 1+3 in the "For the alternative theorists:" thread.
 
So, no, I am not prejudice against any alternative hypothesis pusher or their hypothesis, I am though sensibly aware that if they had anything at all, they would be pursuing a different path.
Click to expand...

What path would that be ?

You are aware that all progress in science are by those who chose a " different path "
 
river said:
Space and time are only real to mathematics

Space and time have no real physical properties as we have agreed in your post #243
Click to expand...
ahh i see, you are one of those who add your own flawed interpretations into other individuals words.
now i understand why you obviously contradicted your self in that other post.
not only that, but you are clueless.
typical :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top