MJ kihara

Let's not go too far from the topic.... becoming off topic...otherwise we may get ourself in the trash can...😂.

In the spirit of simplifying things...and concerning the topic in this thread my arguments rest on the following conjecture; ∃={} Where ∃ is equals to existence { is equals to consciousness and } is equals to consciousness That's my conjecture... don't throw stones on me. According to my thinking everything comes out of it. I rest my arguments on that. ....and of course {} is empty set.

U His brain could have not developed as ours...however it could have been using mathematical patterns as the gatherer was navigating the environment...math was there as we were evolving to later discover and comprehend it...a zero was a zero... From the article '......Nonetheless, the FLRW model is used as a first approximation for the evolution of the real, lumpy universe because it is simple to calculate, and models which calculate the lumpiness in the universe are added onto the FLRW models as extensions. ....' Its helpful when we are using this theories/models to state their assumptions and approximations and of course their limitations.

Its clear. However,negative pressure analogy doesn't not mean negative energy....if gravitational waves/fields are pure form of energy...then have negative energy you would mean that it's possible to have antigravity machines just as a by the way. I think Dark energy mediated by dark matter particles and dark photons.....''some of 'these models' have started showing they can have predictive powers i.e testable, it just a matter of time before they are proven to be worth being considered'' ....recent research on dark matter www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230425111243.htm I think dark energy and dark matter phenomenon are not gravity but aspects that are linked to to normal matter through gravity.

I would beg to differ with you on these...zero, nothingness,void.. can't be manipulated to have a preferred way of interpretation....it's just nothingness... anything beyond siezes being a zero...for instance if you have 0.000another trillion zeros then1, that doesn't make it a zero. The universe is everything-i concur with that-including zeros in it. If you are describing the universe,there is nothing out of it...that precisely my point. 'It's weird how human language has been coded to introduce contradictory issues...where critical solutions have to be found...anyway this is my thought.'

The issue of gravitational field having negative energy to me it's difficult to comprehend and not being realistic... since gravitational field pervades the whole of the universe and could have annihilated matter...we could not be existing. Am of the opinion that energy should be redefined to take into consideration information,dark energy,dark matter e.t.c so that energy=0 could be comprehendable for people like me. Thanks for the enlightment...sometimes math is scary 🤯. Anyway i think if the universe is enclosed within nothing...the outer of the universe being nothing...then the universe is a closed system then conservation law hold...unless we are in a universe within another universe. Zero,void,nothingness,empty.....empty set are you aware of it?..am lacking words, in other words..is it there?

Hi Time factor is coming from big bang onwards. You mean this ''energy'' is just a mathematical artefact...not real energy? When the terms are positive and negative to add up to zero...do you mean this "energy" can be positive energy or negative energy? Can we classify energy as mechanical energy or quantum energy?

There two total energy...one that is universal and the other which is local. The universal total energy is constant ... that include normal matter-energy and dark matter-energy,talking of universal volume...you need to know about the universal displacement in this case the universe is expanding into 'nothing'.Therefore,it's energy density remain constant...I think at such a situation energy and volume reaches unity. Local Total energy is the one that is changing since it involves local volume-that is,we're not using any known edges of the universe to measure it,using only things within it(within the universe) to determine its volume.in this case energy density keep changing. Introducing universal concepts like energy conservation laws...for them to hold they should be obeyed at the beginning and at the end,that is if there is any beginning or end... failure to do that, there should be well convincing reasons for that...that is what science is.

I think Total energy in this case equals energy density at universal level...but total energy at a local volume within the universe keep changing as zero point energy through quantum fluctuations lead to creation of measurable energy...hubble constant becomes constant at specific time zones during the evolution of the universe.

A complete absence of things...I concur with you...now here is another issue with it, since we have a word about it and we communicate about it, we are aware that..there can be a complete absence of things, isn't it? Energy density of the whole universe remain to be the same ...since it's expanding the energy density per local volume within the universe keep reducing...a higher Hubble constant in the past than today....we are using local volume within the universe to measure hubble constant...in this case local is variable...this make sense so as to maintain energy conservation laws. When the measurements get too much local we get... These energy get too much large ...when nuclear fusion and fission is carried out we don't get out these energy...yet it's there...then.. The definition of energy I think should be modified or adjusted to take into account all mentioned factors. An all encompassing scientific argument should be ready to tackle/answer any questions thrown at it,if not it should acknowledge it's limited to that extend.

I have asked this severally...why nothing?...its fundamental when we are discussing about creation... Can somebody talk about 'nothing'...even if its a philosophical talk about it.

Is it correct to say that assumption have already been made the fields have always been there at starting point of big bag? Excitations and fields which came first, were there excitations that decayed to become fields or fields were miraculously excited to become excitation? Assuming that everywhere in the field the value is zero...is it possible to have zero valued field?.... If yes does it mean there things that can't be explained using geometry and that initially preceeding big bang there was just nothing...if no is it then correct to say that saying that having a zero valued on the field is contradictory. How can work be quantized...once quantized,then it will be influenced by principles of uncertainty...how then will somebody be sure there is any work done?

At the centre of the black hole. Escaping,'my thinking' is that there are particles that escape at more than the speed of light,given that,the are not electromagnetically detectable,but show their effects at rotation velocity graph at the edges of the galaxy-sorry for these it requires another thread. Then we need to deal with the next step,blackholes and dark matter..they are part of creation.

It make sense because we have blackholes as the evidence. I think quantum fluctuations are spacetime properties that are more localised than the extend of relativity... sometimes i wonder how local can special relativity get,then at such a point quantum mechanics and relativity merge.

Everytime there is a discussions about creation ...word 'nothing' appears can someone pliz clarify that.

It's complicated,how do someone think about creation? At this rate everything is questionable even existence itself including reality like for instance we are communicating in this forum.

Am not getting it...any achievement in mathematics is not trivial.

🤔 mmmm..I mean math is always there only that human keep discovering aspects of it...like the π, it was always there as we were elvoving to become the modern human who can discover and comprehend it. Which is better staring or probing? it might be containing alot of information that our brain is unable to handle and process all of it.

I mean math...did it have a past? does it have a future? My understanding is that math is math..only that it can be correct or wrong. Humans, development in mathematics have been gradual as new discoveries are made...I think the same will continue into the future.

It doesn't dispute big bang...it may question the model in a manner that perhaps needs readjustments or modifications of the model. It evolves from where to where? or it has always been like that only that our understanding of it evolves. What about from pure reasoning it might be that we are mathematical objects such that by reasoning we are doing math without even being aware of it.

Why are you using the word 'nothing'? From that word what idea/concept do you want us to have/communicate to us?

The vacuum wall has to be very thin maybe made up of something like graphene sheets...if the experiment is repeatedly done and there is accumulation of particles that can't escape the vacuum chamber to the detector,then it has to be destroyed to tear it so that they can escape to the detector.

The intention is to get detectable results of quantum fluctuations from the vacuum itself without external influences caused by the detector...since gravity permeate everything we can then claim any result is solely because of gravity. It's funny...but not really funny?...how at fundamental level there is alot of similarities...maybe it's looking for similar objectives using different methods.

I think if we have an experiment arranged in manner that we make a vacuum chamber with very thin walls,as thin as possible,that is as perfect as possible to the best of how technological know how...sorrounded by particle detector then have it in a Rocket(spaceship) we take the ship to space and have it undergo the following scenarios; 1) To move away from any source of strong gravitational field then move at a constant acceleration in a straight trajectory afterward flip at 90 degrees...making a sudden L shaped trajectory,at such a point particle detector to make measurements. 2)The spaceship carrying the instruments to dive in and out of a region of strong gravitational field as particle detector makes a measurement. 3)The spaceship to move in a region of constant gravitational fields then have a sequence of sudden accelerations and deceleration while the particle detector is making measurement. I think if it's a perfectly produced vacuum we should expect to detect particles such as low energy photons being created/produced from the boundary of the vacuum.

..More of formal requisite than an observable....the foundation of science rest on observable regardless of arguments...observation is the arbiter. ...a temperature appear... when does that temperature become measurable...is there a threshold for measurement....( ..mmm..Don't fight me for this, some sort of primordial quanta...) We know that alot of temperature can lead to particles creation due to E=MC^2