Universe from Nothing.

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by praty, Apr 27, 2011.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    When there is no motion, there is no time?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    I suppose, if this could be, but if stillness is impossible, then time has to happen. Movement seems to be the natural state, not stillness.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    What is the conclusion so far ... do we have a universe that came from nothing? Can we vote? I vote no. I expect someone to chime in with how little the universe cares how I vote ... I should have waited for it, lol.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    What would be the source of the elementals and the definition of their properties?
     
  8. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    The debate has reached the point where we are repeating our best speculations and adamantly refusing to acknowledge them, lol.
     
  9. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Yes, but still try to answer as best can about the source and nature of the elemental. "Forever" doesn't answer for the nature. Or even for the source.
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    That is just my vote. You get a vote too. We will hold the universe responsible to be democratic, lol.
     
  11. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    A forever basis of nothing ever producing elementals versus a basis of elementals themselves having been forever are still very close theories, having many things in common, and so those commonalities must be truths for sure.

    In Common:

    1. Elementals form all there are as composites thereafter, meaning cause and effect on up. Nothing else can go on outside of this.

    2. A forever basis, meaning no creation of the ground-state, thus no Creator.

    3. Something has to be; no option. A total lack of anything is impossible.

    4. The All of infinity and eternity (or else not All) must be so.

    5. Forever systems are their own precursors. No first star or electron; no first anything. It seems that anything needed can be found already as happened. No first matter making light; no first light making matter. Stars requiring some amount of higher elements to achiever stellar ignition, which only they themselves produce, are always available. Etc.

    6. Everything possible or just about everything happens eventually (If infinity and eternity are not exhaustive).

    7. There is no special place or center of history.

    8. There is no history or future kept anywhere but in possibly the entire cosmos itself as events happening time and time again.

    9. Changing or moving appearances in space as a clear and separating background are time, where they were or what they were becoming past, where they will end up or become becoming future, their present condition being now, these ending up in us as memory recorded, present sensation, and anticipation prediction.

    Any more truths that can be derived?


    Not in common:

    One explains the precise nature of the elemental; the other doesn’t.
     
  12. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    No motion relative to what? There is no absolute frame of reference from which to determine an answer to that question. Also I strongly disagree with the speculations on what happened at the beginning of time and space, for one we cannot know if space/time really does have a beginning. All we know for sure is the matter we see came into being at some point in the past, we cannot determine if everything came into being with or without "empty space". We also cannot determine if the elementary sub atomic particles that make up everything we see can be rearranged and recycled into newborn matter. So basically we can only speculate, and I don't like that because a creator is a speculation that has just as much evidence to support it as any other speculation about the birth of the universe... its just a cool brain teaser really we can't actually every answer the question with any real degree of certainty.
     
  13. underdawg Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6
    Perhaps the nothing that we think of as empty space is not really a nothing at all. If for example there was a universe that had only two spacial dimensions of length and width and life could be projected upon a movie screen, would anyone be aware of the screen that they were projected upon? Since we seem to live in a universe with three spacial dimensions, maybe we are unaware of the screen that is called space-time and we are only waves interacting in space-time.
     
  14. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    We are aware of space-time because we see the affects of time dilation and gravity. We really don't have 1 be all and end all metric to describe it as of yet but I bet its coming soon.
     
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I agree with you to this point ...
    But I would disagree here on a technicality. Technically the existence of a Creator is excluded by the scientific method on the basis that it is supernatural and science does not include the supernatural as far as I know. Speculation can go a long ways before it becomes fantasy or fairy dust as some trolls like to call it. Reasonable and responsible speculation is not part of the product of science but it is not precluded by the scientific method, AFAIK.
    This is speculation

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Time dilation could be caused by other effects instead of the geometry of space time.
     
  16. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    No offense, but I see very little if any discussion here substantiated by actual science and scientific experiment. I see vague references and claims about past experiments without any specifics, I see analogies to things we observe in everyday life, and I see a bunch of philosophical speculation based on personal intuition. I might post some critiques on some of the ideas presented here in comparison to established scientific theory and experiment, but I think this topic is almost entirely speculative and would be more appropriate for the Philosophy section.
     
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Let me see ... a discussion about the origin of the universe doesn't belong in the cosmology forum? I guess anything that deviates from the standard theory is speculation then. OK, so move it. Who cares where it takes place.
     
  18. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I believe that there is an absolute zero reference. This is not to be confused with absolute zero temperature. Rather absolute zero reference is a constant 0-reference like the speed of light is a constant C-reference.

    Here is the logic. Say we have two inertial references but at different relative velocities, V1 and V2. Transitions between energy and matter implies one photon will go from C to V1 when absorbed by matter, while the other will go from C to V2. That would mean there would subtle differences in energy transfer.

    For the laws of physics to be the same in all reference, with no subtle energy difference regardless of reference, C needs to go to a constant zero reference when interacting with matter. This needs to be the same in all references.

    Say we have a an absolute zero reference, that is most evident during mass/energy interactions, if two relative references are at V1 and V2, respectively, although the C-0 transitions will be the same, there will be a difference between V1 and V2 relative to mass and zero reference. This difference will create different energy effects for each reference, with the most obvious entropy, uncertainty and relativistic mass.

    Assuming an absolute zero reference provides a way to explain many effects that currently are correlated, by can not be explained in terms of one principle.
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Never mind, we all have some delusion or other.
    Unfortunately yours is contradicted by physics.

    Such as?
     
  20. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    An absolute reference is not contradicted by science. Rather relative reference is a dogma of science, which is similar to Santa Claus has a red suit. It is only that way because we define it that way and expect all the memoriize it that way. I am not impressed by dogma, since I can show how that dogma can create perpetual motion illusions. This should decredit the dogma, but the dogma is not rational and therefore it may not matter.

    If you do an energy balance, reference is not relative. Rather reference has a hierarchy with zero reference a logic part of the absolute scale from 0 to C based on the energy balance.

    For example, we begin with three rockets all at the same reference. Picking three makes it harder for the relative illusion to work but is just as simple using the energy balance. Two of three rockets will burn enough fuel to reach a relative speed V, relative to the single rocket, which burns no fuel, and is left at the original reference.

    This will be a test of blind relative reference, since we know relative speed and the energy balance as well as which rockets got the energy. However, the captains of the three rockets don't know this data, but have to use relative reference.

    The stationary rocket will see two rockets in motion. His energy balance will be correct. Each of the two moving rockets will see one rocket moving and one rocket stationary reference. Each of their energy balances will be low by 50%, if they assume theirs is the best reference.

    Say the stationary reference says I am moving. It will attribute all the energy to itself even though it had no energy. Now it can do magic tricks with invisible energy. Say each of the two moving think they are stationary, again there energy balance is off by 50% each.

    Since the only scenario that gets the energy balance correct is the stationary saying he is stationary, this we know has to be the stationary reference. It is not relative unless we can avoid the energy balance. There is an absolute hierarchy of reference, if the goal is not to create perpetual motion. If we want perpetual motion, it is better to avoid the energy balance by using relative refernence and only space-time.
     
  21. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    What makes you think this perpetual motion business is in any way connected to the beginning of the universe.

    Neither one exists therefore, they are related?
     
  22. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Word salad nonsense.
     
  23. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    I think I know what this guy is trying to put together here... I think he's saying because C is constant that there is a sort of "absolute frame of reference", however its not a frame of reference its simply a constant property of space/time. I think he's wrapping his head around the rate of time dilation at the birth of the universe, The only place you will find any absolute frame of reference is as a piecemeal way to try to describe the early universe from an outside perspective.. its hypothetical in other words.
     

Share This Page