Jump to content

Strange

Moderators
  • Posts

    25528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    133

Everything posted by Strange

  1. And the evidence shows that 1 is more accurate.
  2. That's not true. There is potential energy in an electromagnetic field, for example. They would have kinetic energy if they fall towards one another (which is more likely to be because they have opposite charge than gravity). The energy did not "arrive from space". Making up stuff like this isn't funny.
  3. No, it gains energy by being accelerated. What is "energy of space expansion"? Because it is wrong. Because there is no such thing as "cosmological force". Because if there were such a force, it would be opposed to gravity (expansion causes things to move apart, gravity causes them to move together) Because if there were such a force, the effects would be tiny and barely be noticeable on Earth. Because you would have to explain why mass doesn't cause gravity despite all the evidence.
  4. A "gravity well" (curvature of space-time) is caused by the presence of energy. Usually this means mass. But energy also contributes to gravity. So a photon, for example, will cause a gravitational well. Which means it will have lower energy and will therefore cause less space-time curvature / gravity.
  5. Why not? Do you have any reason to think that photons decay into massive particles?
  6. You are just making random statements with no connection between them.
  7. I think this is a misrepresentation / misunderstanding of the result. (Not that I understand the contents of the paper, but I can't see anything that implies this. There seems to be a representation of the evolution of the universe in "shape space" (this is not "space" as in the three dimensional space we are familiar with) and that the Big Bang singularity is represented by a slice through this shape space. I think ... You and the few remaining supporters of the quasi-steady-state model. The observation of accelerating expansion makes alternatives (like the "Big Crunch") seem unlikely. Can you give any physical reason why that shouldn't be the case? (Rather than just incredulity.)
  8. Why? What about a photon with a wavelength of 0.9 Planck lengths? Or 0.5 or ...
  9. The value of h (not H) is normally defined in terms of m2 kg / s, or J s. So the result will be joules.
  10. Planck's constant comes from Planck's attempt to explain the black-body spectrum; he assumed that the energy levels were multiples of a small value in order to solve the problem. It has nothing to do mass. Planck units are just a set of units that use Planck's constant in their definition. It says nothing about mass being quantised. In fact, the Planck mass is pretty big (relative to atoms, etc.): "One Planck mass is roughly the mass of a flea egg[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass
  11. What was the proof? And for what? As gravity is caused the the geometry of spacetime, the paths of all particles are affected whether they have mass or not.
  12. Why would it? (Photons never stop.)
  13. It is just an analogy to aid understanding It is four dimensional.
  14. Because big floods have a lot in common. And human stories have a lot in common.
  15. Well, I guess that’s OK, as GR doesn’t use that model of time. (I still don’t understand your objection, but it doesn't matter.)
  16. I’m afraid that just makes zero sense.
  17. Apparently not. We are here now, and the universe could be infinitely old. And ... 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20
  18. One could argue that there is an object with less mass than any other (the electron neutrino(*), as mathematic says). But the mass of all other objects is not constrained to be a multiple of that. After all, neutrinos are not constituents of matter. Nor is mass constrained to be a multiple of electron or quark mass, even though they are the building blocks pf matter. For example, the mass of proton is not just the sum of the masses of the quarks that make it up. (*) But I'm not sure it is that simple. The mass of neutrinos does not seem to be simply assigned to each type, because of oscillation.
  19. And yet ... I can count from 10 to 20.
  20. There is no reason to think that mass is quantised.
  21. I don't really have any preferences. But, I suppose, a universe that has always existed seems more intuitive. There are a few speculative ideas along these lines. And others that do not assume a universe from nothing. You can take your pick. (But note that the "nothing" in Krauss's and Hawking's speculations are not "absolutely nothing". From what I have read these ideas depend on some preexisting vacuum state.) These ideas are based on scientific theories (eg. false vacuum, quantum fluctuations) unlike the paper in the OP, which is philosophical musing with a dressing of math salad.
  22. I would agree, if that source is "floods happen". It is almost certain that the Biblical version was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Others may have been too. Others could easily arise independently. After all, the majority of civilisations have been either on the coast or on major rivers. So both the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilisations were both dependent on floods (for irrigating and fertilising the land) but also at danger from them. This is probably the reason that they both developed fairly advanced astronomy and, hence, mathematics. So they would both have had stories and legends associated with floods. There was also cultural exchange between them, so it wouldn't be surprising if there was some overlap between their stories. Some parts of any flood story will be common: "humans saved"? Well, duh, humans are here. "boat built"? Well, what would you expect. In other parts of the world, floods could be caused by different things and so some details of the story would be different. For example, it is possible that the legend of Atlantis is based on the destruction of the Mycenean civilisation by a tidal wave. You don't give a source for your diagram (naughty) but, from the content, I would assume it is not objective and biased towards confirming the Judeo-Christian myth.
  23. Are you familiar with the phrase "not even wrong"? He starts with the false assumption that "the only explanation is that the universe is created from nothing" and then uses some pseudo-mathematical mumbo-jumbo to try to justify this. I'm not sure why you are so fascinated by some nonsense written by a random guy on the internet when there are plenty of scientists who have written about the subject.
  24. We don’t know. There is no evidence and no theories that apply at that time. The idea that there was no time or space comes from a naive extrapolation of general relativity. But we are fairly sure that is not valid because it does not take quantum effects into account. It is possible the universe is infinitely old.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.