beecee

Well put. Let me add, that while the human race certainly has a great deal of improvement to go, it most certainly has come a loooong way since the middle ages and the utter ignorance and carnage that existed then. We could even go back further to the other notable civilisations that did exist, like the Roam empire, the Egyptian empire etc.....slavery, ignorance, cruelty, racism, religiosity, etc all were far more wide spread and common then we see today. Again while much desired improvement is needed, we have come a long way, and I believe that science and the application of the scientific method is largely responsible for that improvement, and while the improvement continues, albeit deathly slowly, I prefer to see the glass half full rather then half empty

The computer and most of the technical advances, and inventions in the 20th/21st century, would not be possible without the discovery of electricity.

The LHC and other particle accelerators give us a good idea as to what the early universe back to t+10-43 seconds may have been like. That along with mathematical models, and reasonably logical assumptions such as the ffour known forces, all being combined as one, known as the "superforce". The degree of certainty that scientists are correct does diminish though the further back to that t+10-43 seconds period we approach.

The speed of light does not change in a vacuum, but the energy levels may change.

The refraction and/or the reflection of light through a vacuum, does not alter the fact that light always travels at 'c' in a vacuum, irrespective of the motion of the emitter. The verification of length contraction, and time dilation can explain it. Evidence for both are in relation to particle accelerators and colliders, muon observed lifetimes, and allowances made in GPS Satellites. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q2aKjrH3TQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejcaz7wXawY https://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lc.cfm https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/333049/proof-of-length-contraction

Can you? I'm pretty sure that both length contraction and time dilation have been evidenced.....therefor I would suggest that due to these two observed and verified observations, that the consistency of the speed of light at 'c' is likewise totally verified.

My first comment is that while in many cases it is good and beneficial to have a strong and positive ego, one must ask why the hell did you not post this originally in speculations and not have the need of a mod to move it? Scientists/cosmologists far more qualified then you or I have been working on this for many years. It's called a QGT...Quantum Gravity Theory. GR tells us that gravity is simply geometry, the geometry of spacetime in the presence of mass, and as distinct from flat spacetime. While as yet we do not know why warped/curved/twisted spacetime should exhibit the phenomena we call gravity, it is admirably illustrated in the equations of GR. Of course! Does your hypothetical make a prediction not explained by GR? Can your hypothetical adequately explain it. And from what little knowledge that I do have, I am only aware of one spacetime, as predicted by GR, and configured in many ways in the presence of mass/energy, also adequately explained by GR. eg: gravitational lensing, Frame Dragging, Gravitational waves.

Interesting thought experiment, at least because I have at times wondered the same thing. My thoughts are that the fundamental constants of the universe, including the half lives of any particular elements, are "decided" if you will, by the measurable properties of the quantum fluctuation from whence the BB arose. If we look at "Time Dilation" we know that all FoR's are as valid as each other, yet all frames observe time to be still passing at one second per second. Is this because that speed and gravitational wells change all the fundamental constants by the same amount, so that it is impossible to notice any change from within that frame? What I'm saying is that if "c" was changing, as was all the other constants, the only way we could measure any change is from a position outside of the universe...quite difficult to do. Perhaps all the fundamental constants and their values are somehow tied in with the expansion of the universe? I look forward to some comments from those more qualified on this speculative scenario.

Yep, that's the relevant point.

I fail to see how point 2, and the Copernican principle contradicts or is in any opposition to point 1. Basically the Copernican principle rightly tells us that the Earth occupies no privileged position. It also encompasses the assumptions that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous over large scales. It does not say [as you seem to be saying] that the universe today, will be the same as the universe tomorrow, or in a few billion years, or that the same homogeneity and isotropic properties of today, will be the same as it will be in a few billion years. What it does say, is that the isotropic and homogeneous properties over larger scales that we observe today, will also be homogeneous and isotropic in a few billion years, albeit in a different way with the process of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle extract: In cosmology, if one assumes the Copernican principle and observes that the universe appears isotropic or the same in all directions from our vantage point on Earth, then one can infer that the universe is generally homogeneous or the same everywhere (at any given time) and is also isotropic about any given point. These two conditions make up the cosmological principle.[7] In practice, astronomers observe that the universe has heterogeneous or non-uniform structures up to the scale of galactic superclusters, filaments and great voids. It becomes more and more homogeneous and isotropic when observed on larger and larger scales, with little detectable structure on scales of more than about 200 million parsecs. However, on scales comparable to the radius of the observable universe, we see systematic changes with distance from Earth. For instance, galaxies contain more young stars and are less clustered, and quasars appear more numerous. While this might suggest that Earth is at the center of the universe, the Copernican principle requires us to interpret it as evidence for the evolution of the universe with time: this distant light has taken most of the age of the universe to reach us and show us the universe when it was young. The most distant light of all, cosmic microwave background radiation, is isotropic to at least one part in a thousand.

That appears to be the most likely scenario based on current observational knowledge. A Cosmologists many billions of years in the future, will only really have reputable recorded data re anything beyond the Milkdromeda galaxy. He will also occupy another planet on another star system most likely, as Earth will probably be engulfed by the red giant phase of our Sun and the White Dwarf of which it will eventually have become.

Most cosmologists now days do not accept the BH singularity of infinite spacetime curvature and infinite density, and I'm pretty sure that also applies to the BB singularity. The only defined singularity existing, is the singularity resulting from the failure of the application of our known laws of physics and GR. In essence this means a "surface of sorts" with a BH singularity, and a space and time with the BB we are simply not as yet familiar with.

I often describe purposely, that the BB was an evolution of space and time "as we know them"....Plus of course the BB refers only to the observable universe. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

As I have said a few times, perhaps its our definition of "nothing" that needs evaluating...perhaps the hypothetical quantum foam from whence the BB arose maybe the closest to nothing that can ever be possible... https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Are you asking whether two orbiting BH's of equal mass have La-Grange points? If so, I would suggest that it would be an unstable La-Grange point anyway, but in any case the photon would not, nor can it remain still. Perhaps this "thought experiment" is analogous to the Photon sphere of a BH? that is an orbit at 1.5 Schwarzchild radius where light/photons, would orbit. So I would guess that a La-Grange point between tow orbiting equal BH masses would actually be a photon sphere.

Mass/energy causes spacetime to warp; We recognise that as gravity. Yes. Yes. No, refer to the first answer.

Have you heard of the "Anthropic Principal"? Basically it says that the universe is the way it is simply because we are here to observe it. Nothing remarkable, nothing really orchestrated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle As I said, members do sometimes get short with people with obvious agendas and that while asking so called questions, have no intention of accepting any answer that may conflict with that agenda. My apologies for raising Andre Rieu, it is of topic and something they do frown on.

The observable universe has had 13.8 billion years to evolve to the stage it has at this time. The elements that make up you and me are found throughout, the extent of the universe is "near infinite" the content [stars/planets etc] are "near infinite", the stuff of life is everywhere, so that given the right conditions, life will evolve. Anywhere near Masstricht city of where that fantastic entrepeneur/entertainer/violinist called Andre Rieu and the Johann Strauss Orchestra reside and of which I have 20 dvd's of their incredible performances? The problem is that science forums such as this are peppered constantly with individuals trying to install their personal god of the gaps in areas where science does not know the answers, and others that are simply out to troll and deride the science. So members do get rather annoyed at such individuals. The mathematical chances of all this being pure luck? Excellent as we are here to contemplate that...Science/cosmology can reasonably explain how everything came to be as it is, from t+10-43 seconds. Also worth considering that the Catholic church finds no conflict of interests with accepting the BB and the theory of the evolution of life, with that of a deity. Science though continues to ask questions without "short circuiting" the inquiry by claiming some deity done it. Sometimes people with agendas do come to science forums to ask questions but with no intention of accepting any answers.

No matter where we were in the universe, we would be the at the center of our observable expanding universe. The expansion though is only happening over the larger scales of the universe. Over smaller denser regions, such as our local group of galaxies and even beyond, expansion is overcome by gravity.

I would imagine so, but growing/expanding all the time, at least, or until the BH in the mother universe becomes dormant.

Yep, OK, was aware of that actually, albeit not in such fine detail.

Time travel into the future is easy and achieved everyday. A person that takes a trip on a jet plane for a day, will have his time both mechanically and biologically move slower then his stay at home relatives. Which means that when he returns he will have aged less then his relatives. The effect though is very tiny and only becomes noticable as one approaches relativistic velocity. eg: If you and I were twins, and you being the more intrepid of us, took off in a space ship travelling at 99.999% 'c' returning 12 months later as recorded by your ships mechanical clocks, and your own biological clock, you would be returning to an Earth where 223 years had passed and me long since dead and buried. This in actual fact is why time travel into the past is probably impossible, as one would need to travel FTL or exceed "c", which is forbidden. Likewise and as others have mentioned, gravity also slows time, such that if someone approached the EH of a BH, his time relative to someone at some distance from the BH, would be slowed, such that when that person returned, he also would be returning to a frame where time has been passing much faster.

I actually recall something similar to that many years ago....A BH eventually leads via a ERB [Einstein Rosen Bridge] or wormhole, to an outpouring of space, time, matter energy in what can be described as a WH and the creation of another universe. Taking the speculation even further, it was then conjectured as to whether the BB could be described as a previous BH in another universe, and via a ERB an outpouring or WH, and creation/evolution of our universe. At the time, I was quite attracted to the idea.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-luca-universal-common-ancestor.html Looking for LUCA, the last universal common ancestor December 18, 2018 by Keith Cooper, NASA Around 4 billion years ago there lived a microbe called LUCA: the Last Universal Common Ancestor. There is evidence that it could have lived a somewhat 'alien' lifestyle, hidden away deep underground in iron-sulfur rich hydrothermal vents. Anaerobic and autotrophic, it didn't breathe air and made its own food from the dark, metal-rich environment around it. Its metabolism depended upon hydrogen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, turning them into organic compounds such as ammonia. Most remarkable of all, this little microbe was the beginning of a long lineage that encapsulates all life on Earth. If we trace the tree of life far enough back in time, we come to find that we're all related to LUCA. If the war cry for our exploration of Mars is 'follow the water', then in the search for LUCA it's 'follow the genes'. The study of the genetic tree of life, which reveals the genetic relationships and evolutionary history of organisms, is called phylogenetics. Over the last 20 years our technological ability to fully sequence genomes and build up vast genetic libraries has enabled phylogenetics to truly come of age and has taught us some profound lessons about life's early history. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-luca-universal-common-ancestor.html#jCp the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol2016116 The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestor: Abstract: The concept of a last universal common ancestor of all cells (LUCA, or the progenote) is central to the study of early evolution and life's origin, yet information about how and where LUCA lived is lacking. We investigated all clusters and phylogenetic trees for 6.1 million protein coding genes from sequenced prokaryotic genomes in order to reconstruct the microbial ecology of LUCA. Among 286,514 protein clusters, we identified 355 protein families (∼0.1%) that trace to LUCA by phylogenetic criteria. Because these proteins are not universally distributed, they can shed light on LUCA's physiology. Their functions, properties and prosthetic groups depict LUCA as anaerobic, CO2-fixing, H2-dependent with a Wood–Ljungdahl pathway, N2-fixing and thermophilic. LUCA's biochemistry was replete with FeS clusters and radical reaction mechanisms. Its cofactors reveal dependence upon transition metals, flavins, S-adenosyl methionine, coenzyme A, ferredoxin, molybdopterin, corrins and selenium. Its genetic code required nucleoside modifications and S-adenosyl methionine-dependent methylations. The 355 phylogenies identify clostridia and methanogens, whose modern lifestyles resemble that of LUCA, as basal among their respective domains. LUCA inhabited a geochemically active environment rich in H2, CO2 and iron. The data support the theory of an autotrophic origin of life involving the Wood–Ljungdahl pathway in a hydrothermal setting.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-nasa-1st-flight-moon-apollo.html NASA's 1st flight to moon, Apollo 8, marks 50th anniversary: December 18, 2018 by Marcia Dunn This Dec. 24, 1968, file photo made available by NASA shows the Earth behind the surface of the moon during the Apollo 8 mission. (William Anders/NASA via AP, File) Fifty years ago on Christmas Eve, a tumultuous year of assassinations, riots and war drew to a close in heroic and hopeful fashion with the three Apollo 8 astronauts reading from the Book of Genesis on live TV as they orbited the moon. To this day, that 1968 mission is considered to be NASA's boldest and perhaps most dangerous undertaking. That first voyage by humans to another world set the stage for the still grander Apollo 11 moon landing seven months later. There was unprecedented and unfathomable risk to putting three men atop a monstrous new rocket for the first time and sending them all the way to the moon. The mission was whipped together in just four months in order to reach the moon by year's end, before the Soviet Union. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-nasa-1st-flight-moon-apollo.html#jCp