That's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is, what do you believe the universe came into existence to? Something must of existed prior to it because you need something to exist within.
That's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is, what do you believe the universe came into existence to? Something must of existed prior to it because you need something to exist within.
The space expands, like the surface of a balloon as it fills with air. Galaxies are like dots on the skin of the balloon, they get further apart as the balloon gets bigger.
But of course it's not really like the surface of an expanding sphere because it's happening in 4 dimensions.
And it's just a loose analogy. In reality the galaxies themselves don't get bigger, their gravity means they stay the same size as the space between them stretches. The universe doesn't occupy space because it is space.
Something like that, I believe?
Last edited:
Then you get a black hole where space and time vanish forever, but the memory of the information they contained is preserved on the event horizon. Its weird stuff.
It's a singularity where all the mathematics comes up with infinity, so it becomes meaningless.
It's a singularity where all the mathematics comes up with infinity, so it becomes meaningless.
Last edited:
You said it..
Which is it .. infinity or three?
I say infinity .. it can't be both .. now that is meaningless, imo.
Time belongs to God .. as does space. 'Doctor who' is only fiction!
What part of "science" am I rejecting?
Well it sounds as if you don't like the big bang being 13.8 billion years ago? What part of science do you accept?
You are talking about the trinity here?
Ditto?
So does Mount Everest. Does that mean we shouldn't climb it? So does Mars. Does that mean we shouldn't check it out?
I have no idea what you are saying here?
Last edited:
Black holes do have properties with mathematical descriptions: mass, charge, rotation, their position and trajectory through space...
No, the paradox is asking "what happens when there is nowhere and no time for anything to happen, and nothing for anything to happen to?". It's similar to asking whether god can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.
Not to say there is no use for such questions. Works like "Scarborough Fair" utilize contradiction as a poetic device, to great effect.
Ok Cino. I stand corrected. But the singularity does not? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
It is a paradox to someone who does not admit even the remotest possibility of a spiritual dimension beyond nature. That 'weaves' nature. But that does not mean the question is invalid.
That's like saying: I don't know, so please dont ask?
The answer of course is that perhaps there is a dimension that surrounds and contains and permeates the time/space dimension of nature.
Last edited:
Well, the thing about black hole singularity is that it is, in a sense "veiled" behind the event horizon. Light can pass in, but not out, beyond the event horizon. There is no "naked" black hole singularity without an event horizon. To get really picky about it, the Schwarzschild-radius-style event horizon is only one possible solution, there are more complicated ones, but they all have in common that the singularity cannot be observed directly but is "hidden" inside the horizon. To get even more picky about it, a black hole rotating quickly enough would not have an event horizon and would be directly observable - but there is no physical process (that we have any indication of existing) which would enable a black hole to rotate at such a rate.
In any case, an observer crossing the event horizon would not "see" or "reach" the singularity either: it would always be in the future, to use a very loose manner of speaking.
To sum it up, you are right that contemporary physics has no way of describing the conditions at infinite density, which would prevail at the location of a singularity. Quantum Mechanics for example can't be applied if there is no "room" to "stow" the wavelength of a particle - and a singularity is point-like.
All that said, my days in natural science academia are long past. Please take all I wrote with a grain of salt.
Well, that is exactly what I am here for. I am very much interested in this "event horizon" between the physical and the subjective or spiritual or whatever you want to call it. (Only the horizon is two-way in this case, it seems: physical phenomena appear in our subjective experience, and our subjective processes are able to exert some influence on the physical). I just don't happen to think one is enclosing the other. There's something far more strange and interesting going on, but that's just a hunch of mine.
Last edited:
What is 13.8 billion years? Does it even mean anything?
Can you make a measurement "on a ruler" of 13.8 billion km and expect it to be "correct"?
It is about quantity. We expect "correct" answers to calculations, as we have discovered
rules .. equations and so on. We assume that they are correct regardless of magnitude?
I certainly don't .. that is far too simplistic.
..so summing up, 13.8 billion years of time measurement is purely theoretical.
It deos not prove scripture right or wrong. It does not even have any real meaning, imo
It is all relative. Perhaps you'd like to inform me of the definition of a year?
Who mentioned scripture in the context?
You accept your phone, which is an internet device containing more than a billion transistors. Sixty years ago a city block could scarcely contain the computing capacity you now keep in your back pocket.
You accept your dvd player. If each of the little 'pits' that store information on the dvd disc were expanded to the size of a pinhead, the disc wouid be 300km in diameter, covered with pinhead size 'pits'.
The instruments and telescopes and colliders etc, used to explore the physics of the cosmos and the big bang/age of the universe make cellphones and dvds look absolutely trivial by comparison, but you do not accept them?
Yes it means what it says, give or take a few hundreds of thousands of years.
Within a reasonable degree of accuracy. It's only a little more than one thousandth of one light year. Tiny by cosmic standards. The LIGO gravity wave interferometer can measure with at least as great accuracy as comparable to being able to detect the disturbance caused by a feather landing on an oil tanker.
A certain number of seconds, probably?
@muhammad_isa
... sorry about all the edits.
Please do not think I'm being personal or argumentative, my friend. It's a discussion?
Last edited:
Thanks Cino.
Ok, 'enclosing' is not a word that can be used where space doesn't apply.
But you or I could be hit by a bus, then I will never know your hunch. C'mon bro: out with it. Please?
I said:
Ha!
Were these seconds measured during the last few years?
..or maybe they were measured billions of years ago
I don't have any problem with the theoretical calculation.
..but I do have a problem with conclusions drawn from them.
You seem not to understand my point.
You assume that time is linear. THAT IS AN ASSUMPTION which is part of the scientific definition.
Without assumptions, you cannot calculate very much at all
@muhammad_isa
Please do not think I'm being personal or argumentative, my friend. It's a discussion?
Yes, and I enjoy discussing this subject .. thankyou
Can you explain what you mean? Time is relative to the speed and position of the observer, etc. But cosmologists obviously have no problem with that relativity stuff. So I'm battling to understand what you mean?
There are points of debate:
Is the brightness of a certain class of supernovae certain enough to use it to determine galaxy red-shift that is used to measure the acceleration rate of the expansion of the universe?
Is the universe open or closed? Do parallel lines stay parallel forever, or do they diverge or converge?
Is inflation the correct explanation for the expansion of the early universe just after the big bang?
Is string theory/M-theory still seriously in the running, in spite of super-symmetry not appearing at LHC energies?
Etc, etc. 21st Century questions. In my layman understanding. Surely very many other debates too.
But simply to say: "These scientists don't know what they're talking about when it comes to time," does not seem to be a valid point of debate, imo?
Is the brightness of a certain class of supernovae certain enough to use it to determine galaxy red-shift that is used to measure the acceleration rate of the expansion of the universe?
Is the universe open or closed? Do parallel lines stay parallel forever, or do they diverge or converge?
Is inflation the correct explanation for the expansion of the early universe just after the big bang?
Is string theory/M-theory still seriously in the running, in spite of super-symmetry not appearing at LHC energies?
Etc, etc. 21st Century questions. In my layman understanding. Surely very many other debates too.
But simply to say: "These scientists don't know what they're talking about when it comes to time," does not seem to be a valid point of debate, imo?
Agreed. Thank you, too.
Last edited:
I've been here for over a year, all those posts... and still not coming across? I don't believe in hierarchies, especially not when it comes to placing idealism and materialism one above the other. We give meaning to the world, and to ourselves, as we discover our place in the universe. This self-referential loop is very weird and interesting to me.
I'm not saying that.
It is about perception. What does it mean? What does it represent?
Now, you may say "it means what it says", but that doesn't help, does it?
Perhaps you know something that I don't.
Perhaps you can envisage something happening in "0 seconds" ..
..or a trillion, billion, billion seconds. It means what you want it to mean.
i.e. to prove a point?
My wife, who studied astrophysics, carefully curated some youtube videos to explain it to me.. I still don't get it.
It seems like nothing means two things here, first is the proper definition, that which has no properties but then this "nothing" seems to have at least one property.. things can expand into it. Which means it's not really nothing.
The videos confused me in regards to the singularity too. The big bang requires motion, motion requires time and space. If the big bang is the creation of time and space how was there motion prior to it in order for it to happen.