StuartLeDrew Posted January 30, 2021 Posted January 30, 2021 As soon as we happened our “happened in” time dimension, became our past, and the speed of light became our future. We can never attain our future, and we can never regain our past. We are the present. We are the light. We have a probability of 1. Therefore: We always had to be. / Past We have to be. / Present We always have to be. / Future We exist in a twined / mirrored, dark energy / light energy Universe, on a time plane we call the present: constantly watching our pasts: as we chase our futures. A “photon of light” is in fact a twinned dark energy / light energy couple, hence the wave.
Phi for All Posted January 30, 2021 Posted January 30, 2021 Hi, this is a science discussion forum. What you've written here is really vague in parts, really obvious in others, and really wrong in the rest. Is this an attempt at some kind of philosophical poetry? It's got NOTHING we can actually discuss meaningfully, other than to correct some of your misconceptions. Are you open to that, or are you here to soapbox?
QuantumT Posted January 31, 2021 Posted January 31, 2021 On 1/30/2021 at 11:46 PM, StuartLeDrew said: How did we come from nowhere? Expand There is quantum fluctuation, there is zero energy universe, there is M-theory and there is conformal cyclic cosmology. Take your pick. There are plenty of ways to come from nowhere. The universe is not necessarily limited by our need for logic.
Bufofrog Posted January 31, 2021 Posted January 31, 2021 (edited) On 1/30/2021 at 11:22 PM, StuartLeDrew said: A “photon of light” is in fact a twinned dark energy Expand What is twinned dark energy? Edited January 31, 2021 by Bufofrog
swansont Posted January 31, 2021 Posted January 31, 2021 ! Moderator Note It’s a science forum. I’ve moved it to speculations, since what little science is here is not mainstream
MigL Posted January 31, 2021 Posted January 31, 2021 On 1/30/2021 at 11:46 PM, StuartLeDrew said: Open obviously, Expand I would seriously consider 'opening' a book. Preferably a science book.
J.C.MacSwell Posted January 31, 2021 Posted January 31, 2021 On 1/30/2021 at 11:22 PM, StuartLeDrew said: As soon as we happened our “happened in” time dimension, became our past, and the speed of light became our future. We can never attain our future, and we can never regain our past. We are the present. We are the light. We have a probability of 1. Therefore: We always had to be. / Past We have to be. / Present We always have to be. / Future We exist in a twined / mirrored, dark energy / light energy Universe, on a time plane we call the present: constantly watching our pasts: as we chase our futures. A “photon of light” is in fact a twinned dark energy / light energy couple, hence the wave. Expand +1 for that. We are here. I hope you can stay positive, and learn some science and how to scientifically support what you are trying to say.
Phi for All Posted January 31, 2021 Posted January 31, 2021 On 1/30/2021 at 11:22 PM, StuartLeDrew said: We exist in a twined / mirrored, dark energy / light energy Universe, on a time plane we call the present: constantly watching our pasts: as we chase our futures. Expand If light and dark energies were paired as you suggest, they'd be exactly equal to each other, like a yin/yang situation, or like matter and anti-matter, almost exactly equal, right? Except there's a lot more dark energy than light, so that falls down rather quickly. "Plane" is the wrong word for time. Time is a dimension, a temporal one, and together with the three spatial dimensions, they make up the continuum we call spacetime. Movement in three dimensions of space and one of time can be expressed as a coordinate system we can use to plot the when and where of any event. We don't actually "watch" our pasts, do we? We gain experience, and use that experience to predict what will work best in future situations. We don't "chase" our futures, we do our best to figure them out ahead of time. Prediction is one of science's strongest abilities, since by experiment and observation we learn to expect what happens when we mix A with B and heat that up by a certain amount. It allows us to trust the knowledge we have to the greatest degree possible. 1
beecee Posted January 31, 2021 Posted January 31, 2021 On 1/31/2021 at 12:24 AM, QuantumT said: . The universe is not necessarily limited by our need for logic. Expand On 1/31/2021 at 3:18 PM, Phi for All said: Prediction is one of science's strongest abilities, since by experiment and observation we learn to expect what happens when we mix A with B and heat that up by a certain amount. It allows us to trust the knowledge we have to the greatest degree possible. Expand Two wise statements that deserve highlighting imvho!!
beecee Posted January 31, 2021 Posted January 31, 2021 On 1/31/2021 at 12:24 AM, QuantumT said: There are plenty of ways to come from nowhere. Expand I like Lawrence Krauss' speculative scenario that the universe arose from "nothing"...nothing being redefined as the quantum foam...
Thorham Posted February 3, 2021 Posted February 3, 2021 Not this universe from nothing nonsense again. You can't get something from nothing unless you redefine nothing to be something. -1
beecee Posted February 6, 2021 Posted February 6, 2021 On 2/3/2021 at 1:25 PM, Thorham said: Not this universe from nothing nonsense again. You can't get something from nothing unless you redefine nothing to be something. Expand The thing is that we are here. And obviously ignoring the creationists myths, we, the universe evolved from somewhere. The basic fundamental quantum foam, may be as close to nothing as is possible, and from which when the appropriate fluctuation arose, evolved the universe/space/time that we are familiar with.
Thorham Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 On 2/6/2021 at 8:46 PM, beecee said: The thing is that we are here. And obviously ignoring the creationists myths, we, the universe evolved from somewhere. The basic fundamental quantum foam, may be as close to nothing as is possible, and from which when the appropriate fluctuation arose, evolved the universe/space/time that we are familiar with. Expand Close to nothing is still extremely far away from true nothingness. Ultimately something, what ever it is, must have always existed.
Area54 Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 On 2/20/2021 at 2:36 PM, Thorham said: Close to nothing is still extremely far away from true nothingness. Expand From my POV this cannot be said too often. On 2/20/2021 at 2:36 PM, Thorham said: Ultimately something, what ever it is, must have always existed. Expand Surely that presumes that there is always at least one time dimension in each expression of the universe? Can you demonstrate that is a necessity?
zapatos Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 On 2/20/2021 at 2:36 PM, Thorham said: Ultimately something, what ever it is, must have always existed. Expand Evidence?
beecee Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 On 2/20/2021 at 2:36 PM, Thorham said: Close to nothing is still extremely far away from true nothingness. Ultimately something, what ever it is, must have always existed. Expand What I was trying to say, and what Krauss was saying, is that the quantum foam is nothing.
Thorham Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 On 2/20/2021 at 7:32 PM, beecee said: What I was trying to say, and what Krauss was saying, is that the quantum foam is nothing. Expand It's not nothing. This is just using the word nothing in the casual sense. Example: There's nothing in the closet, except air of course, and air isn't even remotely nothing. A universe from nothing is the equivalent of click bait titles. A universe from something doesn't sound spectacular so you just use the word nothing in the casual sense. On 2/20/2021 at 3:21 PM, zapatos said: Evidence? Expand Here we are.
StringJunky Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 (edited) On 2/20/2021 at 2:36 PM, Thorham said: Close to nothing is still extremely far away from true nothingness. Ultimately something, what ever it is, must have always existed. Expand AFAIK, Any matter, like the quantum foam, which has components less than a quantum of energy has no effect on standard model particles, so energetically it's nothing. It's the lowest level of existence. Edited February 20, 2021 by StringJunky
beecee Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 On 2/20/2021 at 7:59 PM, Thorham said: It's not nothing. This is just using the word nothing in the casual sense. Example: There's nothing in the closet, except air of course, and air isn't even remotely nothing. A universe from nothing is the equivalent of click bait titles. A universe from something doesn't sound spectacular so you just use the word nothing in the casual sense. Expand It just maybe nothing, despite our general understanding of nothing, which simply may need redefining. Afterall we once thought space was nothing. We were wrong. The universe/space/time isn't concerned about what we or anyone else may determine as click bait or spectacular.
MigL Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 On 2/20/2021 at 3:04 PM, Area54 said: On 2/20/2021 at 2:36 PM, Thorham said: Ultimately something, what ever it is, must have always existed. Expand Surely that presumes that there is always at least one time dimension in each expression of the universe? Can you demonstrate that is a necessity? Expand Exactly! What does 'always existed' mean, before time arose in spacetime geometry ?
Thorham Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 On 2/20/2021 at 8:05 PM, beecee said: It just maybe nothing, despite our general understanding of nothing, which simply may need redefining. Afterall we once thought space was nothing. We were wrong. Expand Or perhaps not use the word nothing in science if you mean something? On 2/20/2021 at 8:05 PM, beecee said: The universe/space/time isn't concerned about what we or anyone else may determine as click bait or spectacular. Expand Of course not, but humans most certainly do.
beecee Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 On 2/20/2021 at 8:23 PM, Thorham said: Or perhaps not use the word nothing in science if you mean something? Expand Again, what is proposed is that quantum foam is nothing, despite what our human understanding of the word is. On 2/20/2021 at 8:23 PM, Thorham said: Of course not, but humans most certainly do. Expand And science has continually down through the ages, shown humanity as wrong. Science is a discipline in eternal progress.
zapatos Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 On 2/20/2021 at 7:59 PM, Thorham said: Here we are. Expand That is not evidence. It's not even bad evidence. It's more like "because I said so".
Thorham Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 (edited) On 2/20/2021 at 8:34 PM, beecee said: Again, what is proposed is that quantum foam is nothing, despite what our human understanding of the word is. Expand And that's exactly the problem with this. It's a language usage problem, namely deliberately calling something nothing while it's clearly something. It's ass backwards. If it's something just call it something. It's just like the big bang. It wasn't a bang and it wasn't big, so why is it called big bang? I have no problem with these ideas, it's not as if I have any better ones, but come on, something is nothing and a big bang that wasn't a bang and not big? These people need to take some English lessons! On 2/20/2021 at 9:00 PM, zapatos said: That is not evidence. It's not even bad evidence. It's more like "because I said so". Expand It's a philosophical issue any way and I shouldn't have brought it up. Edited February 20, 2021 by Thorham
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now