beecee

We have observational evidence of length contraction and also time dilation: I pretty sure they both denote and require an invariant "c" Invariant over time?, what reason do we have to presume that "c"changes over time? How about the other physical constants?

We may have at one time many eons ago, needed this "higher force" to explain the earth and Universe around us, now it is simply unscientific and superfluous.

But God is just superfluous and unecessary to explain that which generally has already been explained by simpler means, and that of which we are ignorant of, remain just that, without any "god of the gaps"nonsense.

Particularly when they are facts you are unable to counter. Everything so far that you have raised is mythical bullshit, and not real smart, particularly since the Catholic church by recognising the BB, and the theory of evolution, has essentially demoted the bible as a book of mythical nonsense. Hans Christian Anderson and the Grimm Brothers writings have more logical content then you have claimed from a book that has been dismissed by even the Catholic church.

Of course its made up nonsense! Even the Catholic church has recognised the observational evidence supporting both the BB and the theory of evolution of life. They then though go about installing their "god of the gaps" within that epoch that science thus far are ignorant of...quite convenient of them, while science continues to push back the veil of ignorance and supernatural spaghetti monster nonsense..

The way my Mrs makes "soup" is an entire meal unto itself....Osso Buco, onions, tomatoes, potato, carrot, pumpkin with garlic bread. My motto on tucker in general, is all things in moderation. [even the very occasional Big Mac! ]

That's a strange comment to make...this is after all a science forum based on science, and the scientific methodology. And we all know that calling on the paranormal and supernatural is an unscientific explanation. Getting on your white charger and postponing your evangelistic crusade for a period, are we?

Nothing in realty about the bible is logical. It is an obscure text written in an obscure age, by obscure men: In fact it simply carries on the mythical dreams that ancient men needed to explain the world/Universe around them, in a time before science used reason, logic and the scientific method. In doing so science has pushed the need for any type of magical deity/spaghetti monster into near oblivion. Obviously then the next question would be who created this "concious intelligent" mind? And we all know the answer to that conundrum.

You can say what you like, but if it does not align with the scientific methodology, and has evidence supporting it, you are literally pissing into the wind. Well actually I'm not boasting, as I mention many times about my amateurish non scientific status....With regards to "loaned other minds" a great scientist once said, "I only see as far as I do because I stand on the shoulders of giants" or words to that effect. I know what I know because I read reputable authors and scientists, understand the scientific method and what it entails, and question what I don't understand. I don't pretend that I have magically and suddenly out stripped and out thought the great minds with their access to great technology and instruments.I'm certainly not burdened with delusions of grandeur and/or laden with any God/magical spaghetti monster agenda. I'm here to learn, and over many years I have become rather skilled at sorting the wheat from the chaff, and the crank from the knowledgable science.

Well that didn't last long! Good point.

Nice informative video.

OK, here's my speculative hypothetical.....the maximum speed limit,"c" only applies to massive objects. Perhaps an advanced civilisation may be able to manipulate the Higgs Boson and field which is said to give matter the property of mass, to somehow reflect that matter as having zero mass: Just a thought.

I'm certainly not going to go through your mixed up ramblings as of by now, you really should have learnt to use the "quote" function. You are in speculation for a very good reason: You are speculating and hypothesising without one scrap of evidence. Whether you like it or not, the BB model stands as the overwhelming model for universal evolution and is supported by the three grand observational pillars of cosmology. Even a future QGT should encompass the BB, while extending its known parameters. DM has nothing to do with belief or otherwise, as you unfortunately and unscientifically seem to revel in. DM is evidenced in much observational data...the bullet cluster observation being one....https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/09/the-bullet-cluster-proves-dark-matter-exists-but-not-for-the-reason-most-physicists-think/#30d45ff41738 X-ray: NASA/CXC/CfA/M.Markevitch et al.; Lensing Map: NASA/STScI; ESO WFI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al.; Optical: NASA/STScI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al. The gravitational lensing map (blue), overlayed over the optical and X-ray (pink) data of the Bullet cluster. The mismatch is undeniable. The above image, a composite of optical data, X-ray data, and a reconstructed mass map, is one of the most famous and informative ones in all of astronomy. Known as the Bullet Cluster, it showcases two galaxy clusters that have recently collided. The individual galaxies present within the clusters, like two guns filled with bird shot fired at one another, passed right through one another, as the odds of a collision were exceedingly low. However, the intergalactic gas within each cluster, largely diffuse and making up the majority of the normal matter, collided and heated up, emitting X-rays that we can see today. But when we used our knowledge of General Relativity and the bending of background light to reconstruct where the mass must be, we found it alongside the galaxies, not with the intra-cluster matter. Hence, dark matter must exist. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Other overwhelming evidence for DM, is gravitational lensing of distant light sources by unseen intervening matter....DM. While I most certainly sympathise with the fact that english is not your first language, and consequently expressing your feelings is difficult, I have no sympathy with your rejection of reputable scientific data, and substituting instead unsupported illogical speculative fairy tales. In my experience on science forums, those that come to float alternative ideas, without evidence, or reject incumbent accepted science without good reason, do so invariably because of personal agendas or some personal part of their makeup... "Delusions of grandeur" or a God/ID agenda are two popular observations as to why some find the need to come to a science forum, to push their crusade against accepted science. While science is a discipline in continued progress, if any one in reality, had some hypothetical idea, that was well supported by observational evidence, and that predicted more then the incumbent model, they would inevitably write up a professional paper for proper peer review. While science forums such as this are great avenues for discussion and debate, they are not the vehicle for establishing new or updated ideas and theories. If those ideas and/or hypotheticals have grounds for validity, they invariably and over time will be accepted by the professional peer review system. You may well ask, do I have an agenda? I would probably say yes...My agenda is the scientific methodology.

A credit to you both for actually deciphering what he was asking.

The first sign of a crank is when they asign meanings to words and phrases that are not generally universally recognised. Every man and his dog understands what eternal means. Please learn to accept deserved criticism and stop being and sounding so precious. I have not yet seen any different interpretation from you on any accepted evidence for the BB. With regard to arising out of nothing, perhaps the first thing you need to do is reveal your own definition of nothing. Plus I did give you a link.....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ The evidence for the expansion of the universe was cosmological redshift. The evidence for the acceleration in that expansion rate was obtained by the Supernova Cosmology Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_Cosmology_Project Yes it is true some as yet "unconfirmed" data on type 1a S/N was also found in recent times....This though as far as I know, is still to be verified. But all this would do is cast perhaps some doubt on the acceleration, certainly not on the expansion itself. Further studies and future data, will certainly add to that body of knowledge one way or the other. You can believe in damn well what you like, but it is not science and has absolutely zero evidence to support such an interpretation. You obviously are confused. I'm as sure about the BB, as is the general consensus of cosmologists around the world, due to the overwhelming evidence supporting it and as much as anyone can be sure about any scientific theory. My only doubt is whether the universe is finite or infinite...That has not yet been determined. So then again I say, why not listen to those that are physicists or cosmologists? Why not review the evidence supporting certain incumbent views like the BB? Then ask questions on anything you believe to be a problem...Leave the Hansel and Gretel type fairy tales to the likes of the Grimm Brothers and Walt. The BB is a model of the evolution of the universe/spacetime. It is overwhelmingly supported by many lines of evidence. If you determine in your own mind that this model is "sugared with science" then I would suggest that you have some underlying agenda. And one could then ask, with a nonsensical approach to science that you have, why you are here. I have not undertaken any verdict. I have given the generally accepted view of the evolution of the universe/spacetime as supported by many lines of evidence. Again, you certainly need to learn to accept criticism, and the obvious fact that you can't and apparently won't, seems to me at least, that you have an agenda of sorts. Stop being obtuse. You have been told why your thread was moved to speculation. Again because that is all you have. Let me again say that you should go back to square one, understand what the scientific method is all about, understand what a scientific theory or model is, understand the data, research, observations and reasons for why models/theories are formulated, and then ask any pertinent questions on any part you are having trouble understanding.

The same unscientific nonsense also aligns with the writers of fairy tales.

Not in the least, perhaps you didn't read my post in its entirety; I said, "The overwhelming evidence so far tells us that spacetime/universe [as we know it] did have a beginning at what we call the BB". Sometimes this evidence is called the pillars supporting the BB. They are, [1] The observed expansion, [2] The CMBR or relic heat from the BB, [3] The abundance of the lighter elements. Other evidence supporting a BB model are galactic distribution and Olber's paradox. This does not invalidate the BB. See....http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html but essentially we do not really know if the universe is infinite or not. I don't believe anyone has said that spacetime is a material thing, but something does not need to be a physical material thing to be real. Is a magnetic field real? Spacetime can be bent, warped, curved twisted in the presence of mass, which is then reflected in what we call gravity...In other words gravity is spacetime....is gravity real? So then, why not listen to those that are physicists or cosmologists? Why not review the evidence supporting certain incumbent views like the BB? Then ask questions on anything you believe to be a problem...Leave the Hansel and Gretel type fairy tales to the likes of the Grimm Brothers and Walt. Your thread was moved to speculation because that's all it is...Again, as I said earlier, It would be very beneficial for yourself to familairise yourself fully with the BB model and why it is held in such high regard.

Have heard of the great debate...From my somewhat at times faulty memory, [only excuse is I'm an old bastard now] Hubble and others were trying to discertain the makeup of numerous "cloudy nebulae" M31 being one of those. Working with the Mnt Wilson 'scope, the largest at that time, he was finally able to discertain individual stars in the M31/Andromeda nebula. From that, and after examining other of these nebulae, it was found that the stars that make them up, were many times further away than any star within the Milky Way galaxy.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-particle-rotating-spacetime.html How a particle may stand still in rotating spacetime When a massive astrophysical object, such as a boson star or black hole, rotates, it can cause the surrounding spacetime to rotate along with it due to the effect of frame dragging. In a new paper, physicists have shown that a particle with just the right properties may stand perfectly still in a rotating spacetime if it occupies a "static orbit"—a ring of points located a critical distance from the center of the rotating spacetime. The physicists, Lucas G. Collodel, Burkhard Kleihaus, and Jutta Kunz, at the University of Oldenburg in Germany, have published a paper in which they propose the existence of static orbits in rotating spacetimes in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. "Our work presents with extreme simplicity a long-ignored feature of certain spacetimes that is quite counterintuitive," Collodel told Phys.org. "General relativity has been around for a bit more than a hundred years now and it never ceases to amaze, and exploring the ways that different distributions of energy can warp the geometry of spacetime in a non-trivial way is key to a deeper understanding." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-particle-rotating-spacetime.html#jCp :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.201103 Static Orbits in Rotating Spacetimes: ABSTRACT: We show that under certain conditions an axisymmetric rotating spacetime contains a ring of points in the equatorial plane, where a particle at rest with respect to an asymptotic static observer remains at rest in a static orbit. We illustrate the emergence of such orbits for boson stars. Further examples are wormholes, hairy black holes, and Kerr-Newman solutions.

Vinaka vakalevu fellas!

Massless particles, [photons] follow geodesics in spacetime, but also ever so slightly curve/warp spacetime due to their momentum, thereby creating a tiny infinitesamal amount of gravity. Gravity is spacetime albeit curved or warped.

Do I fully understand the BB? or the Casimir Effect? What I do understand is that with regards to the universe/spacetime, we have two choices...either it is infinite or it came from nothing The overwhelming evidence so far tells us that spacetime/universe [as we know it] did have a beginning at what we call the BB. All our laws of physics, GR and observational data are able to let us reasonably describe and detail the evolution of the universe/spacetime, at least up to 10-43 seconds after the event, up to the present time, and even make reasonable predictions many hundreds of millions of years into the future... On evolving from nothing, I will give you this link.....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Further, to my understanding, or its actual limitation, is that science, cosmology, and the scientific methodology, is certainly for me far easier to understand than any unscientific explanation, tinged with unsupported mythical dogma, with regards to some all powerful, omnipotent deity or any other form of spaghetti monster that ancient man needed to explain the wonders that surround him. Science, particularly cosmology, does that far easier, even if I do not understand it fully.

It's not an attraction though.Simply the act of photons following geodesics in spacetime. Worth noting also that photons, due to their momentum, also warp/curve spacetime albeit ever so slightly. MACHO's = BH's Brown Dwarfs etc...or any object of baryonic mass that emits little or no EMR. MACHO's have been eliminated as being able to explain ALL the "missing mass" we call DM. WIMPS = Bullet Cluster observation. I to as an interested amateur at this game, have seen the need to sometimes question mainstream findings. But in the end, and after further reputable readings, I inevitably agree that I'm probably wrong, and that the mainstream explanation/model seems the most likely. Part of that reasoning is that obviously science, particularly cosmology is a cut throat game, and just as obviously any up and coming young physicist would dearly love to be able to "overthrow" or improve on GR and/or the accepted standard model. Well discounting the obvious in that science is not about "proof" the best explanation/definition I have seen for mass was by another just ahead of this post, and that being that mass is simply a resistance against inertia, or words to that effect.

Did just that....slightly clearer now, obviously this "bacterial flagellar motor' [of which I had no idea of prior] appears to be a rotary biological "engine" inside bacteria. How am I going? This aids in the production and distribution of protein, although as yet the exact mechanism is unknown. I was probably more surprised and unaware that this knowledge existed. Pretty snazzy.

Total rubbish. We have plenty of evidence for SR, and really, the actual merits of science and particularly cosmology, is that it is able to change based on new observational data, and as our technologies improve and advance. We are able to make some outstanding observations and formulate models on the universe, up to at least 10-43 seconds after the BB event. Science has educated humanity and pushed into near oblivion the need for any magical spaghetti monster. The few stragglers and gullible left that still align to the book of myths are brainwashed beyond redemption, and no amount of science and logical answers will ever turn them. Thank Christ though that they are a dying breed.