Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But at the same time the Creator is omnipotent omnipresent and infnite in size/scale. His infinite qualities are different qualitatiely, but is not completely alien to it.Matter and energy, ie, Fermions and Bosons, cannot be the CAUSE of time and space (the Firmament) since they only EXIST in time and space. Whatever caused the creation of the universe must therefore lie outside all that, and so, by implication, the real universe must be far more and many other things than the universe we can see.With respect to what created the universe, the question what came before that doesn't have a satisfactory answer as it leads to an infinite regression of what came before that.
So the only solution to the first cause conundrum of what came before that is "no thing" because only a "no thing" can be eternal and unchanging. The reason only a "no thing" can be the solution is because "things" change. Matter and energy equilibrate. There's no stopping it. So matter and energy itself can not be an eternal source of creating matter and energy. It just isn't possible once you wrap your mind around what eternity or infinity actually means. Not to mention that the mere presence of energy and matter literally creates space and time. It's own space own time. Separate from all other space times. There's no getting around this either.
So it is not possible for some "thing" to be an eternal source of creating universes.
Quite right, you must have some background in cosmology. Obviously, there must have been events/regions before and which led up to the point where the universe cooled and became transparent to light / electromagnetic radiation. No one can say how far back this other region goes or what is there.
As to LIGO, perhaps, the only caveat that makes me uneasy is that gravity is not a force carrier as often erroneously considered (the graviton), and there is a fundamental but huge gap in our understanding here as this is exactly where the worlds of the macro Einsteinium universe and the micro quantum universes run smack into a brick wall refusing to unify, so it leaves me a bit restless to end up having to rely upon gravity as my ultimate searchlight of truth when I don't even really understand what it is I'm searching with.
I'll reserve comment on your last part as they are neither provable or disprovable at this point; perhaps, like Newtonian dynamics, they do a very good job describing the universe, UP TO A POINT.
Electrical engineering is a good career! And if you want to be an astrophysicist, you simply get a fellowship at a university, do some teaching, some research, and spend a lot of time petitioning for grants.... what else can folks do with a college degree in Astronomy? ... flip burgers, catch dogs, electrical engineering? ... career options are quite limited for your basic astrophysicist ...
Electrical engineering is a good career! And if you want to be an astrophysicist, you simply get a fellowship at a university, do some teaching, some research, and spend a lot of time petitioning for grants.
I gather you meant = m(dc/dt)^2. Interesting idea, but how would we ever know?I'm betting on dE/dt = m dc/dt ... the speed of light is slowing down
Nice how you got the "a" and "e" stuck together there. I'd forgotten that was possible. Fonts these days..Is æther by any other name NOT alchemy?
In your opinion, obviously. By "the universe" do you just mean our observable universe or including everything possibly beyond as well? Being open to the latter renders your infinite regression argument moot.With respect to what created the universe, the question what came before that doesn't have a satisfactory answer as it leads to an infinite regression of what came before that.
Ze Aether ..(gotta work on that font).. is obviously a thing. You unwillingness to wrap your head around it doesn't make it any less real. Ze Aether necessarily comes first. I picture a field of some default density (probably related somehow to Planck's constant), zero net mass or energy, but infinite potential for expansion and contraction. Simply math, in other words. Platonic Solids Platonic Solids - Why Five?So the only solution to the first cause conundrum of what came before that is "no thing" because only a "no thing" can be eternal and unchanging. The reason only a "no thing" can be the solution is because "things" change. Matter and energy equilibrate. There's no stopping it. So matter and energy itself can not be an eternal source of creating matter and energy. It just isn't possible once you wrap your mind around what eternity or infinity actually means. Not to mention that the mere presence of energy and matter literally creates space and time. It's own space own time. Separate from all other space times. There's no getting around this either.
So it is not possible for some "thing" to be an eternal source of creating universes.
There's both decidedly and observably a tad more to "the universe" than "matter."The universe equals the matter left over after the mutual matter anti-matter annihilation as measured by the cosmic background radiation of the singular event which created the universe from nothing.
George Wald responds...There's both decidedly and observably a tad more to "the universe" than "matter."The universe equals the matter left over after the mutual matter anti-matter annihilation as measured by the cosmic background radiation of the singular event which created the universe from nothing.
Ze Aether ..(gotta work on that font)..
Same here. Many others I know of as well.I like using it because there is a real world thing that we call ether, (C2H5)2O, and context doesn't always allow proper discrimination ... so I use the ash to distinguish between a respectful answer from when I'm calling another poster an idiot ... "By dark matter you mean æther, right?" ... ha ha ha ... who says mythology isn't alive and well here in the 21st Century ...
Your gravity equations are wrong because there's no such thing as gravity ... get over yourselves ... sheesh ...
So much for all that whining about wanting to "converse"!George Wald responds...
The converse was this...So much for all that whining about wanting to "converse"!George Wald responds...
"Copypasta" < thanks to whoever used that description recently.. ?
Which you scoffed at. So I enlisted the help of a Nobel Laureate to rebut your scoffing.The universe equals the matter left over after the mutual matter anti-matter annihilation as measured by the cosmic background radiation of the singular event which created the universe from nothing.
George Wald responds...
"...How is it that we have a universe of matter at all?
Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.
The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.
Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.
It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."
George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe
Simple Appeal to Authority being a logical fallacy commonly utilized by the clueless.Which you scoffed at. So I enlisted the help of a Nobel Laureate to rebut your scoffing.
Not really to the point. "Space" itself is not "nothing."That it might not be energy doesn't matter.
I'm sure you do see it that way. It's not an appeal to authority it is accepting knowledge on authority. Feel free to scoff at that too.Simple Appeal to Authority being a logical fallacy commonly utilized by the clueless.Which you scoffed at. So I enlisted the help of a Nobel Laureate to rebut your scoffing.
Not really to the point. "Space" itself is not "nothing."That it might not be energy doesn't matter.
Yes, I do. Because it's not only textbook appeal to authority fallacy in your case, it's copypasta! That you imagine anyone's going to read that shit after you've pasted the same exact thing at least 25 times in the past month takes a stellar idiot. Make your case in your own words, then perhaps reference "authority" for backup. No one here is conversing with Wald, Einstein. That dog won't hunt.I'm sure you do see it that way. It's not an appeal to authority it is accepting knowledge on authority. Feel free to scoff at that too.
