beecee

An empty claim at best. In actual fact they have given both evidence and persuasive arguments, despite you ignoring same, and you nor anyone else will invalidate that on a science forum open to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Interesting...I actually interpreted it as per matter arising from the false vacuums and phase transitions resulting from the decoupling of the superforce which as I understand it was inherent to spacetime. In other words, no spacetime, no superforce, no matter. With the mass question you raised, I would have replied it is a measure of the amount of matter in a particular volume, and gravity simply as a property of the geometry of spacetime.

OK, good point...Perhaps I may have misinterpreted slightly then? Can you elaborate on what you see as the differences between the existing "apart from" and "can't exist without" ? And do you have a problem with it either way? Time is obviously linked to space. Most cosmologists believe what I already said....ie the first matter [first fundamental particles] arose when phase transitions and false vaccums during the decoupling of the superforce.

Both theories of gravity match our observations and make successful predictions, each within there sphere or zone of applicability. And that's where I stopped, other then a quick glance though your pseudoscientific nonsense.

Do you see the answer that spacetime cannot exist without the matter/energy within it as valid? I can't see a problem.

The same "force" that resulted in the formation of stars, our galaxies, planets etc, rather due to the geometry of spacetime, but certainly not fictitious despite your poor attempt at facetiousness...or was that sarcasm? Perhaps its what you claim as "my logic" that needs to be examined: Remembering we have a wide variety of weird people that also claim it is "logical in there opinion" that man did not walk on the Moon, or any other number of crazy assorted conspiracies that these same weird people claim to be true.

A while ago I came across a Q+A list compiled by Sten Odenwald for the "GP-B: Testing Einstein's Universe" site. The Q+A was as follows..... https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html The highlighted part I found confusing to say the least and so I E-Mailed Sten Odenwald. He replied soon after by apologising and saying it should be "do not" without the "can and". OK, since we now have that cleared up, I will comment on the answer. Simply put, it seems to make a lot of sense to me, particularly with the generally accepted notion that our first fundamentals originated after the Superforce started to decouple a short time after the BB as pressures and temperatures started to drop. Yes I realize that we have no real empirical observational evidence for this, but on the other hand it does seem rather logical to extrapolate to that epoch as to what supposedly happened, given the current knowledge we have on physics and cosmology. Also I am inclined to accept that many Q+A sites are more inclined towards the general lay populace and can be regarded as "pop science". Again though the answer noting the correction seems OK to me. Do others agree?

The basic wage where I come from, is basic minimum any person must be paid for a job, to stop unscrupulous employers from taking advantage of someone. This is around $690 for a 38hrs week. If a person is hired as a casual, there is a loading on top of that. The unemployment benefit is around $450/weekly but recent programs such as working for the dole for young people who have been out of work for an extended period, plus other initiatives such as stringent requirements to actively look for a job, and even more recent times, certain individuals are payed by coupon, where they are only allowed to by essentials such as food, rent etc, so as to avoid any waste on drugs and alcohol. We also have a universal health care system paid for by a 1.5% levy or 2% levy for high income earners. Retired folk are automatically covered of course and receive a pension amounting to around $850/fortnightly but also assets tested. The family home and car is exempt from such assets testing.

I'm also only a lay person, and a retired one at that. But I do pride myself with having read plenty of reputable books on cosmology, and asked plenty of pertinent questions off professional experts that I respect, particularly on a now defunct forum run by the ABC, (Australian Broadcasting Service) one being an astronomer named Geraint Lewis. But let me also say that in my time I have experienced plenty of other lay and non lay people that actually have no intention of accepting any answer, if that answer conflicts with any existing agenda they may have. The "pop science media" as many call it, do do a job: It was the "pop science media" a long time ago that got me interested in astronomy and cosmology and the associated awe and mystery. The BB was of course the evolution of the universe/space/time (as we know them) from a hotter, denser state, is the way I like to put it...Emphasis on the bracketed "as we know them" In essence, the "pop science media" is totally necessary particularly in creating interest in the awesome subjects of cosmology and astronomy. If a person is particularly interested, or has queries about what he has heard from the media, he will I believe do what I did a long time ago.( I only wish it was even earlier, ) Read, (My first book that spiked my interest was Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and I am going now to reread Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps", listen to reputable professional people such as the late great Carl Sagan, and his recent protege Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Even concepts from these experts that I have listened to, I will nearly always take further and check out any relevant scientific papers. Anyway I'm off topic and could go on forever about the numbers of reputable books I have read and even the excellent pop science presenters.

I'm not sure if that is correct. from http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/04/20/how-gravitational-lensing-show/ I don't believe so: quantum fluctuations is explained via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and is a property of spacetime itself. It may even be connected with DE which we believe accounts for the observed acceleration of the expansion rate, acting in opposition to gravity which is trying to attract and DM acts gravitationally as we know. At least that's the way I see it. Perhaps this is an example of taking the analogy too far? We could also ask where does the spacetime come from with the universal expansion....perhaps "stretching" of spacetime is a better concept and when it (spacetime) flows into the BH, that stretching contracts again? Or even more speculatively, perhaps as the mass and spacetime fall towards the center where the singularity (as in where our models fail) lies, an ERB and wormhole is formed and the spacetime exits into another "baby universe"?

No it's not bye bye Newton. Tests are at this time being carried out by a unit of NASA and the jury is still out. Most likely it is resulting from some as yet to be discovered, undefined mechanism. Plans are I think also afoot to test it in space. https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/emdrive-news-rumors/

Futurist and inventor Elon Musk unveiled ambitious plans Friday to send cargo ships to Mars in five years and use rockets to carry people between Earth's major cities in under half-an-hour. The founder of SpaceX said a planned interplanetary transport system, codenamed BFR (Big Fucking Rocket), would be downsized so it could carry out a range of tasks that would then pay for future Mars missions. "The most important thing... is that I think we have figured out how to pay for (BFR)," Musk told a packed auditorium at a global gathering of space experts in Adelaide. "Which is to have a smaller vehicle, it's still pretty big, but one that can... do everything that's needed in the greater Earth orbit activity."Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-spacex-musk-unveils-mars.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: While admiring the ambitious, and optimism of Elon, just as I do with the same ambitious nature of the founders of "MARS ONE", Tau Zero and the likes of the 100 Year Star Ship company, I must ask why the hell cannot they all get together, exchange ideas, technology etc along with the undoubted expertise of NASA and Roscosmos, and facilitate the many grand ideas in taking us out of Earth orbit. The ideas and ambition abounds with such innovative scenarios such as https://phys.org/news/2017-09-lockheed-martin-unveils-reusable-water-powered.html and https://phys.org/news/2017-09-moon-village-mars-esa.html I must admit that I do have an agenda...As a rather mature or in more descriptive language, as an old bastard, I would love a manned Mars mission to be undertaken before I kick the bucket.

I actually like that scenario: Let me say rightly or wrongly, I have a problem accepting "infinity" could be just a mental block or just my stubborness.

Ignoring the non scientific myths re creation and deities, is there really any other conclusion re a universe from basically nothing? Other then some infinite model that has always existed? I see the question as analogous to asking about how life came to be...Abiogenisis even without evidence, seems the only scientific answer. Well, at least we have no evidence to support any particular concept. I prefer the question "what is nothing" which may actually support what your expression conveys.

We also often here about the fabric of spacetime: These are simply analogies, and like all analogies are mostly limited in their description and should not be taken too far. Just as an aside, I like the river/waterfall analogy of spacetime with regards to BHs and as proposed by Professor Hamilton...here....http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.htmland his paper on this....https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060.pdf I'm not sure about any models re the absence of DM, other then MOND, but even that appears limited in its application when applying to all galaxies. And again, as I said previously, DM is now strongly evidenced as per the bullet cluster and other examples of gravitational lensing.

I was going to say that this is just one of the mysteries of science, and we really do not know the why or how re the duel nature of light. But I checked WIKI and like the following description. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality Here's another that actually explains the goal of science in general..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 and finally recent experiments claim to have observed at the same time, both the particle and wave nature.....here https://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

So our definition of "nothing" needs reappraisal? I absolutely agree. Is the quantum foam from which the BB arose nothing? Are virtual particles nothing? Besides liking Lawrence Krauss and his universe from nothing thoughts, I have posted a few times before the following........https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ As one who also adheres to the Krauss view on philosophy and as one who has been in a recent debate with a couple of other "philosophy supporters" who were in disagreement with his views, [and mine] I did actually mention re the scientific methodology being a common sense logical structure, which we all in some way [even lay people such as myself] follow everyday. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/109509-philosophy-split-from-sam-harris-thread/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-1015087

Nice post. As an outsider, I see an attitude that we in Australia call, the "F%$# you, I'm alright Jack" attitude.

In actual fact, we do not see the Earth getting larger, you or I expanding, or the Milky Way expanding, or M31 receding from us because gravity, the EMF and strong and weak nuclear forces, have overcome the expansion of spacetime that we observe over much larger scales.

Primordial Planck size BHs have been hypothetically suggested to have formed at near the BB epoch by Stephen Hawking. Other then that, and as far as I know, more recent BHs need be by definition stellar size, Intermediate size and of course the SMBHs at the cores of galaxies. This is probably because BHs are formed when massive objects such as stars, undergo gravitational collapse after exhausting their available fuel. Even then the star needs to be of very large size, much larger then the Sun to eventually go supernova and produce a BH. SMBHs get to be that size by accreting matter and merging with other BHs. BHs form when a given mass is squeezed to within its Schwarzchild radius, which creates a situation that further collapse is compulsory according to GR, at least up to the quantum/Planck level, where GR itself fails. Most cosmologists today believe that the singularity and the infinite quantities associated with it does not really form. When approaching a BH, depending on its size, a body/mass will undergo what is called spaghettification caused by tidal gravity effects, and sees the body/mass stripped down to its most basic constituents as gravity eventually overcomes the other three forces, including the strong nuclear force. This means that the mass that makes up the BH, is of a nature that has not existed since the early seconds after the BB. The larger a BH, say a SMBH, the less are these tidal gravity effects, so much so that one could effectively cross the EH, without feeling any ill effects, until and when one approaches and gets closer to the "singularity".

Copy and pastes from reputable scientific professional sources actually get you everywhere. It is the way to go to obtain correct solutions/answers to unsupported claims. What actually gets you nowhere are the claims made by any Tom, Dick or Harry on public science forums. Changes SFA and is eventually lost in cyber space.

I admit I wasn't party to early conversation, but what I said was the BB says nothing about the origin or beginning, or words to that effect. Sorry going off half cocked. None of us is perfect, including your's truly.

Totally agree and what I have been trying to tell our friend. Nothing can be said about the beginning, other then its certainly likely that space and time, (spacetime) came into existence at that epoch Those singularities are pesky little blighters!!

Perhaps you also have a reading problem? or are once again trying to get out from under? I suppose in your favour your childish insults have ceased somewhat... Let me again try in simpler terms. The universe had a beginning. I have never denied that. But we know nothing of that beginning, not until t+10-43 seconds. But hey, I'm open to intelligent speculation, you just havn't given any as yet.

You can put me wherever you like...I won't lose too much sleep over it. Again, I am not denying any origin or beginning, I'm saying we know nothing about it [you know the singularity] something you now seem to be running from. Unless of course you have some validated QGT? The BB is the current model of the evolution of spacetime/universe from 10-43 seconds after the initial event. Anything else is speculative, subject to a valid QGT which I'm anxiously waiting for you to reveal to all of us.

Stop trying to get out from under, not a real good look. Let me spell it out again. The BB mode; is a description of the evolution of spacetime/universe from a hot, dense state at t+10-43 seconds. We know nothing except speculative scenarios (as I have listed for you) of the beginning or origin. Again remember that singularity?