I am plagued by questions of the universe - page 11
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
You don't even have to be a genius to understand simple things. 14 billion years is a blink of an eye for the universe.
The universe is eternal and infinite.
Certainly there are local processes such as BW at different points in space, but no more.
They start talking about balls from three-dimensional to two-dimensional space. Where is the end of the universe anyone can tell?
>Not a lot of conspiracy theories. We should add some more.
>
Not a lot of conspiracy theories. We should add some more.
Nonsense . Let's move the point of assembly to the author of the thread ))))
>Nonsense . Let's move the point of assembly to the author of the topic ))))
Well, just shifting isn't exactly... The goal is not to destroy, but to harmonize as much as possible.
The diagnosis is too many words. Too much. It's time to stimulate the non-verbal...
...it's too early to get excited, so something thoughtful... ...like:
>I guess so. Actually, the lust for fame is probably stronger than the lust for money.
Here is another example: Salter here considers himself the discoverer of the exact elementary formula for calculating the perimeter of the ellipse. To all objections to the fact that the exact formula in the elementary functions does not exist (because elliptic functions are non-elementary), he continues to say the same thing. And it seems that his education is not the worst. But no, he wants fame and recognition...
Nice topic! I've reviewed everything I could gather on the subject: I don't know why, but it's very interesting!)
Even scientific articles, I remember trying to read about black holes. But I am not a technician - it is difficult to understand formulas and even in English))).
They have written eleven pages, but have missed the key element: mass.
Mass determines the attraction, that's why the ruler and galaxies don't stretch. And at the scale where gravity begins to give way, dark energy (the missing component of the model) acts. By the way behind this model the weight of material objects in our universe is only about 5%, the rest: dark matter and dark energy.
No need to disrespect the models. Even the Higgs Boson was once just a theoretical particle of the standard model. Or maybe someone thinks investing tens of billions in projects like the hadron collider is ridiculous?
By the way our universe is held together by a black hole (a point with enormous mass). Black holes, considered a rarity for another decade, are in every galaxy. And we won't see ourselves in the past because the black hole won't let the light out.
Time is not a constant. In interstellar space time flows slower. The Russian cosmonaut (I do not remember his name) who was in orbit the longest: about 800 days became 2 seconds younger than he would have been if he had lived on Earth.
Regarding the big bang, two things. The assumption is that if the universe is expanding, it was a point in the beginning, and an explosion. And there is no need to smirk because explosions are regularly observed in the far corners of the universe nowadays as well. So why wouldn't our universe explode then too?
A singularity and explosions from nothing. I'll start from afar and just one assumption. The problem here is that macro and micro laws operating in the universe collide here, not fully understood by scientists. On the quantum (micro) level, the laws allow two material objects to be in two different places at the same time. And we live in the macro - Newtonian and other laws of the construction of the universe, defined by mass. These completely different and even opposite laws are united in the object we know, the black hole. A black hole is such a small object commensurate with its mass that there macro laws can act as laws of quantum mechanics. So much for the possibility of a singularity and the resulting consequences of the seeming absurdity...
And also about the spontaneous emergence of something...
I was once struck by a discovery: haven't you ever noticed that everything in nature is symmetrical? And why is that? It's because nature itself benefits from forming such symmetrical structures - they simply couldn't help appearing differently.
Here's an example. Why do bees make honeycombs in the form of perfect hexagons? Yes, because it is the only shape with maximum strength and space conservation.
And an even more striking example. The same hexagons, but stone ones, were discovered, I believe, on Easter Island as ledges out of the rock. At first it was assumed that this stone creation had been built by someone. And then they discovered that the rising columnar torrents of molten rock through the narrow cracks in the rock from the island floor were the only possible way to keep space and strength when breaking through the surface.
So in nature, too, it is likely that much can arise spontaneously. In addition, more and more evidence is now emerging that has never even been thought of. For example, that space is simply saturated with simple organic compounds, like the amino acid Lysine, the most elementary building block of all life. Probably all that is needed is a favourable combination of all the necessary components....
And also about the spontaneous emergence of something...
I was once struck by a discovery: haven't you ever noticed that everything in nature is symmetrical? And why is that? It's because nature itself benefits from forming such symmetrical structures - they simply couldn't help appearing differently.
Here's an example. Why do bees make honeycombs in the form of perfect hexagons? Yes, because it is the only shape with maximum strength and space conservation.
And an even more striking example. The same hexagons, but stone ones, were discovered, I believe, on Easter Island as ledges out of the rock. At first it was assumed that this stone creation had been built by someone. And then they discovered that the rising columnar torrents of molten rock through the narrow cracks in the rock from the island floor were the only possible way to keep space and strength when breaking through the surface.
So in nature, too, it is likely that much can arise spontaneously. In addition, more and more evidence is now emerging that has never even been thought of. For example, that space is simply saturated with simple organic compounds, like the amino acid Lysine, the most elementary building block of all life. Probably all that is needed is a favourable combination of all the necessary components....
Gee, interesting, and bees are a separate civilisation, and nature does not create the right geometric shapes, neither do ants, you know, they even grow and take care of aphids, and then after drinking its juices, they fall asleep in their anthills))))))
Mass determines attraction, which is why the ruler and galaxies don't stretch. And at the scale where gravity begins to give way, dark energy (the missing component of the model) acts. By the way behind this model the weight of material objects in our universe is only about 5%, the rest: dark matter and dark energy.
No need to disrespect the models. Even the Higgs Boson was once just a theoretical particle of the standard model. Or maybe someone thinks investing tens of billions in projects like the hadron collider is ridiculous?
By the way our universe is held together by a black hole (a point with enormous mass). Black holes, considered a rarity for another decade, are in every galaxy. And we won't see ourselves in the past because the black hole won't let the light out.
Time is not a constant. In interstellar space time flows slower. The Russian cosmonaut (I do not remember his name) who was in orbit the longest: about 800 days became 2 seconds younger than he would have been if he had lived on Earth.
Regarding the big bang, two things. The assumption is that if the universe is expanding, it was a point in the beginning, and an explosion. And there is no need to smirk because explosions are regularly observed in the far corners of the universe nowadays as well. So why wouldn't our universe explode then too?
A singularity and explosions from nothing. I'll start from afar and just one assumption. The problem here is that macro and micro laws operating in the universe collide here, not fully understood by scientists. On the quantum (micro) level, the laws allow two material objects to be in two different places at the same time. And we live in the macro - Newtonian and other laws of the construction of the universe, defined by mass. These completely different and even opposite laws are united in the object we know, the black hole. A black hole is such a small object commensurate with its mass that there macro laws can act as laws of quantum mechanics. Here you have the possibility of a singularity and the resulting consequences of the seeming absurdity...
1 Dark matter is something like Ptolemy's epicycles. Or give clear definitions. Otherwise it is clear that if the model suddenly does not work, the missing variables can be simply invented and called dark matter, to sleep better.
2) The Large Collider is a project to blow taxpayers' money down the tube.
3. By the way how did you come to such conclusions, black holes are holding us back. Or everything is flying away. We have to decide.
4. Two seconds younger? Cool. How'd he measure it? A hell of a time traveler.
5 . Why wouldn't it really explode? If in addition the point was ... Where was the point? Where ?
6. .... what was before the singularity not even Stephen Hawking knows I think. Scientists constantly something is not clear and all their cosmogonic beliefs and physical concepts, in about 100 years, with a probability of 99.9% people will perceive as a model of three elephants on a turtle.