I am plagued by questions of the universe - page 12
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Well, just shifting isn't exactly... The aim is not to destroy, but to harmonise as much as possible.
The diagnosis is too many words. Too much. It's time for some non-verbal stimulation...
...it's too early to get excited, so something thoughtful... ...like:
Here's the 3rd misunderstanding.
Scientists claim that the universe was created by the Big Bang. This conclusion is based on the observed red shift and an expanding Universe. If something is expanding, it must have been very small in the past. Although if everything in the Universe is increasing in size (galaxies, stars, planets, atoms, electrons ... and the distance between them), extrapolating this expansion into the past makes no sense to the inner observer, as by its measurements with an expanding ruler, all dimensions remain unchanged. Well let's assume that the scientists are right and the Universe exploded, and this explosion gave rise to space and time. And the way they describe it is this: The universe was in a singular state where there was no time or space, and then boom! This "then" confuses me. If there was no time, there would be no "then". That is, we have a singularity, nowhere and never, in which nothing changes, there are no processes, life, etc. that would lead to an explosion. And if these changes would exist, then there would also be time (changes are only possible if there is time). Then we cannot talk about the singularity, its explosion and the creation of time and space at all. If the singularity existed, it would always be an explosion. That is, there was an explosion, but there was no singularity preceding it - nothing was exploded. But how was so much energy born out of that nothing? Collect all the stars (10^24) and how much energy they generate by their nuclear reactions over billions of years, you get so much from nothing.
1. space-time did not exist before the big bang. The Big Bang gave rise to space-time. There was nothing before the Big Bang.
2. Yes, out of nothing matter and antimatter was formed. And initially there was much more matter and antimatter and they annihilated almost immediately. But for some reason, there was a little more matter than antimatter and the material world that we see now is that "little".
3. In everyday life, something appears out of nothing all the time - at the subatomic level. So there is nothing surprising in this, but it is already quantum mechanics
>> The universe is not expanding, space-time is "stretching ".
And how do we, the inhabitants of this stretched space-time, know about this? That was the point of my question in the first post. If everything around us is increasing (or decreasing) in size, we cannot measure it with our standards of length (rulers) because the standards themselves are changing. Nor can we prove the stretching of time, because we have no clocks that have not been subject to such stretching. The stretching of space and time can only be judged by an observer outside our universe, i.e. in the 4th dimension. The redshift of light used as proof of an expanding Universe can be explained by other phenomena, e.g. light increases its frequency over time, so light from distant galaxies is "older", redder light. Although my theory is silly, it is as clever as the scattering galaxy theory, which suggests that light does not change over time (galaxies near us presumably have the same spectrum of light as galaxies 10 billion years ago).
>> For space, which is stretched by something external, the notion of closure makes no sense at all.
What then would happen to a hypothetical traveller departing from the sun in some direction at a speed far in excess of the speed of light? Either he finds the "end of the universe" or he returns to the original point. Which answer is correct, or is there a third answer?
1. The ruler does not change. The reason is the presence of strong nuclear interaction, nucleon bonds, etc. For now, at least. If the acceleration of the expansion of the universe only increases, then dark energy will break the nuclear bonds as well. Light just can't change its frequency.
2. There is theoretically an edge to the universe. According to one theory, all of us and the entire material world is but a three dimensional (or n-dimensional) hologram of a two dimensional image on the surface of that edge of the universe. What would happen if we reached that edge of the universe is not known.
Most likely our entire universe is a molecule in some entity. The scale of our significance in this light is very ridiculous, as are our theories.
Deciphering that
1. The universe is infinite
2. God is everywhere and in everything, including us.
There are some molecules sitting in my stomach right now, and somewhere out there on the back edges of those same molecules, in their own milky way, there are some smart dudes sitting and gossiping about infinity.
And some will be unlucky enough to go to a parallel world, to the depths of the toilet bowl...
Deciphering that
1. The universe is infinite
2. God is everywhere and in everything, including us.
There are some molecules sitting in my stomach, and somewhere out there on the fringes of those molecules, in their own milky way, some smart guys are talking about the infinite.
And some are unlucky enough to go to a parallel world, to the depths of the toilet bowl...
The mystics call it transmutation and raising spiritual consciousness. To go through the whole digestive system so to speak. And to reach a qualitatively new level of consciousness.
I can't remember when, and I don't remember what sci-fi series I watched, but every episode started with an unforgettable splash screen:
Our real life has more unreality than unreality itself.
Second:
The woes of science and its theories, in my view, lie in the unprovable nature of the very basis on which they are based - materialism. It is as unprovable as idealism. (Which is primary? Spirit or Matter?)
It is likely that this is what leads/leads science into a maze of unresolvable questions and problems.
I can't remember when, and I don't remember what sci-fi series I watched, but every episode started with an unforgettable splash page:
Our real life has more unreality than unreality itself.
Second:
The woes of science and its theories, in my view, lie in the unprovable nature of the very basis on which they are based - materialism. It is as unprovable as idealism.
This is likely to be what leads/leads science into a maze of unresolvable questions and problems.
Idealism is not a term that applies to the technical sciences.
Materialism is 100% provable - you toss a brick and put your head under it