And if we are in a simulation then we have no clue what the laws of physics are. Harvard theoretical physicist Lisa Randall is even more skeptical. Terrile believes that recognizing that we are probably living in a simulation is as game-changing as Copernicus realizing that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
That we might be in a simulation is, Terrile argues, a simpler explanation for our existence than the idea that we are the first generation to rise up from primordial ooze and evolve into molecules, biology and eventually intelligence and self-awareness. The simulation hypothesis also accounts for peculiarities in quantum mechanics, particularly the measurement problem , whereby things only become defined when they are observed. Scientists have bent over backwards to eliminate the idea that we need a conscious observer.
How can the hypothesis be put to the test? So far, machines have proven to be good at playing chess and Go and putting captions on images. But can a machine achieve consciousness? On the other hand, scientists can look for hallmarks of simulation. First, it provides a scientific basis for some kind of afterlife or larger domain of reality above our world.esportsify.net/the-love-fight-how-achievers.php
Theory of everything
Your reply is much appreciated. I'll do a bit of research on those 'distance' terms you mention. The displacement of the stars, looking at them, is outward in an expanding universe. The work done by the gravitational force is negative. The work done by Dark Energy is in the same direction as the displacement, so must be considered positive. Negative work decreases the energy of a system.
Dark Energy increases the energy of this universe. I am a Pure Layman, and Don't do math. However I noticed that in one spot, You say that the Photon, has no mass. And in another You say that gravity works to attract items that have mass. How can these statements be true? If a Photon has mass, could it redshift, and at some point, have a Phase change, making it energy without mass.? Could this be the source of the "Problem", in the Math? Even I understood it. I read the article about the fate of the Universe. The visible matter and dark matter are pro gravity forces.
But, these are not enough to contract the universe into a Big Crunch. I know for sure, beyond any shaddow of a doubt that the Universe will expand for ever for Trillions of Zillions and Quadrillions of Galactic era, now and for ever because of Dark Energy, the dominant Force in the Infinite Universe. The discovery in of the ever increasing red shift of distant stars and galaxies means that Eternal expansion will happen for ever.
I reject out of hand the Big Crunch scenario as there isn't enough matter to halt the expansion of the Lord's Universe. In Trillion years from now, the least massive stars, red dwarfs will have burned out. Red dwarfs are 10 thousands of times dimmer than our White yellow Sun and have a surface temperature of a mere 5, F instead of 10, F for our white yellow Sun. Of course, shiny brilliant supergiant blue stars shine with a temperature of 22, F up to 44, F at most.
We have new info to share regarding the Dark Energy Source. Recent observations of Blazars, revealed the mechanism for Dark Energy, ie Photons from the Blazers are being absorbed, in the Gama energy range. It indicates that the two photons can form temporarily, a Matter-Anti-matter pair that repel each other, creating the negative pressure that we have been theorizing about. Check out Discovery's comments on this very subject.
I think it is the missing part of the puzzle regards this subject. My personal, layman's notion of what DE is: It's "anti-gravity" or negative gravity, where the further apart matter is, the more it is repelled from other matter - in inverse of what we know as gravity. This would dictate a "critical distance" at which the effects of gravity would flip from attraction to repulsion.
I came upon this idea by comparing gravity to magnetism, which are analogous in various ways. Anyway Schwartzschild proton model consisted of two balck holes and all the math I saw was basic and very agreeable. This theory gave me great relief as it explained the universe. Basically the whole of the universe is made up of the same soup. Here there and everywhere. All connected at once. It explained the "remote viewing" "ancestral memories" and other phenomenon which would have been paranormal psychic rubbish..
I postulate that the whole universe as we observe it is just a filtered impression or narrowband translated interpretation caused by our brains, of the bigger picture. Seems to me that the universe is comprised of a fractal based on planks constant in this realm and crosses over to another realm under that size, which is unobservable, totally. Nothing more than a spiral with nodal interference lines at "quanta" points like corpuscles creating matter , waves etc. The "Goldern Spiral" that we see re-produced in nature and the universe every place, is actually the simplest of equations from which all "things" come.
Its based on the universal gravitation equation. Yet governed by the simplest rule, repeating for a few billion years, gains complexity, just like a fractal. I'm starting to see Tesla's vision now with some clarity and Casmiri effect, Hutchinson Effect. All seem to make more sense now. I think we have all considered that Planks Constant is the "Zero" of the infinitesimally small.
I think that Tesla saw this clearly. Why else would he build rotational machines with resonant coils. You see at 7. Basically a groovy antenna in resonance due to rotation but only works at these VLF frequencies. Not a bad idea! I'm sorry I can't patent that Idea. It's a doozy in the VLF range. By making his coils resonate at this 7. He would flood the cavity with radiant energy and receive it anywhere in the world. Trouble is the polarization changes on skip so the antenna had to be a round toroidal shape. He was kind-of tapping the zero point energy of the solar system but more acrately tapping the solar energy in the shumann cavity, which he gave a little push from the ground to keep it resonating with a higher amplitude.
Brain waves and most biological systems work in this same frequency or very close. SO I'm glad that he did not go ahead with it, or we'd all be nuttier than we already are! I'm sure that the very little energy that is naturally present in the resonance might provide a feeble source of power but pushing it along as he proposed was just messing up nature to the Nth degree.
I think he realized that towards the end. How do you "statistically deplete" a region? Resonance and a little push to break the "bonds". An interesting summary of spatial cosmology, dark Matter, and Dark Energy. Highly skilled scientists look at the hard data, and propose interesting naturalistic theories for the data - singularities, bubble universes, etc.
Those same scientists then brush aside causality with little analysis or apparent concern. The profound fact is that by all known laws of Physics, the universe cannot have been self-creating. Nothing still comes from nothing, and Quantum Physics offers no satisfactory off ramp for answering the fundamental law of causality.
My final comment may go unnoticed, or cause a flood of negative comments, but here goes The hypothesis of causality by infinite, and living mind is just as reasonable as other naturalistic hypotheses given the known laws of physics, and observable data. The universe is simply too complex, with too many uncaused effects to exist without an architect.
Get Ready to Hiss and Boo I quote from a religious book that many reject, yet millions find compelling. And remember the Day when We shall roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books, as We began the first creation, We shall repeat it, it is a promise binding upon Us. Truly, We shall do it. Get Ready to Hiss and Boo…I quote from a religious book that many reject, yet millions find compelling.
It's a very good thing science is governed by data and research instead of blind obedience to a book written by goat herders and rewritten many times since - we would never had advanced anywhere with the book's writings. Yes, dismissing reality for fiction is always a good way to look at the universe.
- Insignificance and Metaethics.
- Albert Einstein.
- Whats Wrong With Grandma?: A Familys Experience With Alzheimers (Young Readers).
- How much should we fear the rise of artificial intelligence? | Tom Chatfield!
- Susano-Os Mess.
- Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it's more likely than not.
- Our Cosmic Insignificance.
Wait, no it isn't. The existence of emptiness between the subatomic particles in the atoms in our bodies, is the same as the existence of space volume between two stars, say our own Sun and Alpha Centaur i, and all else. This undefinable, unseen, immeasurable, constant fabric of all Universes, known and unknown, and all neutrinos, quarks, strings, etc.
Tolle calls it Being, I call it Aha! Once you can grasp its infinity and its purpose, you are one with it, forever. It is the pristine, the purveyor of all possibilities. Be at Peace, knowing that you have a slice of awareness of Presence, let that be your muse as you continue your quest. Dark Energy can be space itself. All attempts to reduce the dark energy down to some kind of energy, lead to nothing.
If dark energy is space time itself. Just read the Biggum Mombo comment I am agree with Rubin Sarmell. Dark energy is nothing but space itself. I am trying publish my paper on it since At present this paper is under consideration of a journal JPAR but available at researchgate or even any one may search on google using its title- "Energy in form of space may solve the dark energy problem", Author- Arijit Bag. I request every on on this discussion board to read this paper and share your comment with me.
I shall be thankful toevery one. Eminent minds have struggled until Einstein gave us General Relativity at which point science thought we've got it cracked. However, for one hundred years science keeps running into challenges that they have not been able to overcome. Science takes the Big Bang theory and works away from that premiss, Is science missing something. The force of gravity holding together all matter would, instead of being a force of attraction, and the best brains still have not come up with an answer for this force, would be one or repulsion.
Let me assume, long before the current universe was formed, that the universe was a dark void, unseen, and timeless containing countless particles and these particles, are which we do not have an understanding for, at this time. These countless particles all repelled each other and sat in equilibrium The invention of time, a human invention, would not matter as a year, a hundred years, a thousand years, a billion years, a hundred billion years could pass in an instant. However, change is always taking place and within the dark void a change taking place as one part of the void takes an increasingly higher electro-magnetic charge over that of another part of the void.
Such a difference on earth we may see as a corrosion effect were two very close elements generate a current of electricity between them and particles are transferred. As billions of years pass, in an instant, the electromagnetic charge eventually overcomes the electrical resistance between the higher charge position and the lower charged position and a electrical release takes place to balance the difference in the high and low points.
The amount of energy released is beyond comprehension, the vibration accompanying the release also beyond comprehension and the heat in the release is far beyond imagination In doing so, this release brings about an effect in the particles making each attractive to every other. Thereafter, matter slowly gathers to form a gas and the gas then draws itself together until the pressure are almost infinite when the gas compresses to a solid but the matter in the centre remains a liquid. This gathering of gas takes place across the dark void which is where we will come to understand our universe is located.
Let us assume that that event happened The human came into existence a mere fraction of that amount but the human race invented time and then estimated how much time had passed since the release. However, before the human race 13 billion years had passed in an instant as there was no intelligence to determine that it was not an instant. So, in , for between These collision are estimated to take place every 70 million years. If the particles of which we are all formed also have a shelf life what could that infer Maybe that the only universal measure of time is the speed at which these particles degrade, loose energy, rotational speed declines etc.
Maybe, at a certain level of one of these attributes, the gravitational attraction gained during the massive electrical release This is not such a bad outcome as may seem as this infers that the universe forms and dissolves at a regular interval. It means that, possibly, the forming and dissolving has been happening in the past and will happen in the future and possibly into infinity.
However, the reformation will not carry the same DNA or may be it will!! The force of gravity holding together all matter would, instead of being a force of attraction, Well gravity would be repulsive rather than attractive, but that isn't the force holding together all matter. Go back to remedial classes. Electrical resistance is the retardation of a charge in a solid, not moving through free space.
And it doesn't make any sense either to say "between the higher charge position and the lower charged position". Indeed all your presupposition has no sense to it. I've put it aside for the moment, but you're supposing this all happens and have absolutely no mechanism for HOW this happens. Try finding an excuse for these phenomena first.
In doing so, this release brings about an effect in the particles making each attractive to every other. Where the hell is the vibration coming from? Vibration requires a restoring force to a nominal mean. You're just wordsalading sciencey words together in a huge text of absolute codswallop, aren't you? Nope, matter generally moves to a solid or metallic form under extreme pressures, not a liquid.
If time wasn't invented for Gravitational attraction doesn't keep the planet whole. It only keeps the planet in its orbit. May I say in summing up that I've seldom seen a more tediously fatuous load of codswallop on a science subject since chelle tried to get the aether accepted by showing fluid flow simulations. The measurement of "Time" is an invention of scholars. Time does not exist. Gravity is not understood. Weak and strong forces are yet to be brought together under physical laws which do not clash. Have you every thought you may not understand?. I have, and my interest can only be diminished by negative people who wish to think of themselves as the authority.
The year lasted on earth as soon as it started in a settled orbit to traverse around the sun. No, those two are brought under one physical law. Also you were wibbling on rubbish about the electric forces, not nuclear forces, so why the hell did you bring this irrelevance up??? There's lots I don't understand. More I understand poorly. However none of that makes your bollocks earlier anything other than nonsensical rubbish. If you really don't care to be on topic and don't care to listen to anyone else, then you need to read this subject and follow the advice therein:.
Dark energy is a special case of vacuum energy. I could propose such analogy: By the way, energy cannot be negative. Energy is only positiv. But, a negative displacement of energy is absolut real thing. When you receive a negative energy in calculations, you have to look out an uncorrectness in psysical sense of your formels. Mathematics will be right.
But, physics will be falsch. I can understand folk trying to explain stuff about the big bang etc But is everyone trying to solve the bare bones of it all. The black vacuum , stars ,black holes energy. What about the fact that its here and now. If you want to quantify everything whats beyond the quantifying. If stuf has limits whats beyond those limits.
What if there isn't a limit? What if there isn't a "beyond" that limit? It's here and now because we can only see the here and now. Yes, that's tautological, but it's a fact that you can't get around by proposing a sentcence, putting a question mark at the end, then wondering why nobody can answer it. Many questions, the best ones, are solved in science with the opposite query. And answering that question answers your first. I awoke from a nap with this question in my mind: Does space permeate matter, or does it displace it?
Would it permeate an atomic structure? For example, in an atom, do the singular elements of said atom displace space? Is there space inside a neutron or a proton or an electron? Or do the protons, neutrons, and electrons displace space? If they do displace space, is this why denser elements like gold have more weight than helium? Because gold's atoms are closer together, and therefore have a more "concentrated" area of space occupied by atoms and so displace more space than helium would? It doesn't permeate matter, nor matter permeate it.
Or any two points in space. Couple things -- I am skeptical about extrapolating a trillion years into the future from our cosmic observations over the last century. I suspect the next years will reveal great developments that will change everything we think we know about the cosmos. Second, is it possible that a form of dark energy has already pushed a much greater universe away from our reach -- in other words a universe that we'll never know because its expanded beyond our ability to see?
It is requested that my error and omission may kindly be regarded as English is not my mother tongue. The research of Mr. The three major Religions verify this beautiful vision. I think that the existing universe is the result of the one time of beg bang.
It can be considered the limited universe. It is possible,that beg bang over the beg bang can be occurred and thus there may be uncountable universes. That is why that logically there is the unending space beyond the present universe. As per set theory, if there are more Universes - it simple expands the same Universe as this is how it is defined - Universes is not defined. Similar to who made the creator for creationists - whoever made the creator is creator. Question on matter - Higgs Boson is everywhere.
Is there a set of equations which can show how matter is achieved from these Bosons? If no, why not. If yes, what are they - is it possible that all matter in universe is simply density of these particles per unit of space. Which means all we have in the universe is 1 Bosons 2 Gravitational Field 3 Nothing else. Those three religions get it completely wrong, except to the level of stone age man's ability to observe. IOW fiction from the stone ages. By the way, you DO know the difference between Sunni and Shia, right?
And you DO know that both are in huge difficulties because each is convinced that the other is a fake religion, right, so you'd need to say four religions, right? Very nice very nice. This is the outstanding research of the noble scholar. He is the praiseworthy as he exposed the facts related to the dark energy. The three major religions verify this outstanding vision. I salute to the honorable researcher. I am sorry that i am airing at the moment. I have read much about this in a book written by the scholar of one religion. But i think this may be beyond of the intellects of the common people.
The common sense verify this that the mystical power was hidden in the dark matter. Much can be said about this very nice theme. But due to the ailing i do stop here. I like the pray for all human being who are exist really offspring of God. It's as if you were interpreting the religion based on what you currently know, rather than what it revealed en nuevo. And I sacrifice a chicken to Satan to ensure that you get nice treatment when you go to hell for apostasy.
Hello gentleman at serial 85 87! I am most thankful to you that you did extend my knowledge by the exposing of the facts. I had already confessed my shortcomings that i had never been among the English speakers. I am absolutely disable person. Thank you very much for the sharing of valuable information's.
Albert Einstein - Wikiquote
I HAD thought you were holy and listened to god, but now you don't, I will not let you profit from my giving you a job! At serial 90 I studied thoroughly your impressions. May be you are mathematician having the outstanding intellect. To recognize you a God is seem wonderful. Suppose i recognized you a God then what will be said about those who recognize every thing is godhead. And it will said about the maximum population of the world who have the different creed and way of life. I have also told about my permanent disability. To great extent i am blind of one eye and also dump.
Furthermore i am not the English speaker. Furthermore i am on the extreme of superannuation. Furthermore i do not fall in discussion. This is the work of intellectual people. I like to stop the discussion. I have a question hypothetically could dark energy be used as a way to have propulsion for a craft in space.
The only reason it is so large in total is that, unlike any other form, it's everywhere at that low density, rather than concentrated in discrete lumps. Thought you meant dark matter. Which really buggers on Dumb Blokes like you that fail to see it. Geeez try and keep up. And what the fuck does that gobshite have to do with 94? You thought it would be a vehicle to fuck about, didn't you. Why do half-integer spin particles exhibit Pauli exclusion - that is, why do they refuse to the be in the same state, including the same location in space, at the same time?
Since neither you, nor anyone involved in that farcical play are any of those, none of you understand it either. So how do you know what it says? It's only understandable by fictional characters like Jesus or Gandalf or Mohammad, etc. If space is expanding, which would include the space my molecules are taking up, in essence our bodies are expanding relative to the expansion of the universe, could we study the expansion of the universe just by monitoring the expansion of two atoms or subatomic particles no matter how miniscule the changing distance?
Is the universe expanding uniformly, meaning are my atoms expanding uniformly? Any distortions in the expansion could give us clues to which universe expansion model is more accurate, correct? Instead of looking to the furthest edges of space should we look inwards? If all interactions create energy or rather transfers energy, then dark matter must be interacting to transfer energy, similar to the water exclusion phenomenon.
How is the universe's energy, density, and mass determined? I'm more curious on how the boundaries of the universe, which would be the interactive layer of the universe, fixed. If the universe is fixed as compared to an expanding balloon or a closed system then I'm satisfied with the models.
This would assume there are no byproduct and all energy in the universe feeds back into itself. Is the universe considered a closed system7. If dark energy is possibly the energy required to expand the universe, is dark energy the energy source, a byproduct, a catalyst, or decay of another form of energy? Is it interfered by other forms of energy similar to a deconstruction wave cancelling out another wave? Are certain areas of space expanding faster or slower?
Would traveling energy over long distance be affected by this expansion force? What if dark energy merely allows the transfer of energy instead of being the energy missing from the universe expansion? What if a very small energy source was what was expanding the entire universe? Dark energy as a catalyst or medium to exchange energy would explain it's presence across the entire universe.
White fat is fluffy and is a less efficient way of storing energy. Brown fat is very dense and converts the inefficient white fat to a more efficient energy. Could dark energy just be doing the same thing?
CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER OF OCATA THERAPEUTICS (formerly Advanced Cell Technology)
If there is a hidden transfer of energy still unknown to us the question is if the energy transfer is passive or active, meaning is the universe expansion an uphill or downhill slope? If the deceleration model is accurate could the deceleration actually be the inverse reaction to another accelerating reaction elsewhere? The binding of the atoms is making them contract far faster than the expansion of the universe is making them grow apart. Things aren't "stuck" in space. They can move around. So space may expand, but the motion anything has still occurs ON that expanded space.
We can only measure differences between phenomena: We simply cannot observe everything that is involved with these differences so our concept of reality — formed by empiric science — is incomplete. Nevertheless, the most successful theory about reality is the quantum field theory. Quantum fields cannot expand and these fields cannot be compressed into a singularity. Moreover, rest mass is a local interaction between 2 kinds of quantum fields scalar field and vector field.
Therefore, when space expands by magic, everything will expand too. What else would you be able to use? If you can't sense it, how would you know if it's right? The number of things that can not be sensed include the entire gamut of infinite possibilities that are utterly and completely wrong. In the strictest sense, yes, incomplete, but not in the way you think it. For we have inductive reasoning to work with too. And verification of the induction is done by a few axioms that state, variously, the simpler explanation with the greatest coverage that can be verified as correct through observation is the correct model.
You know, like the solid object of a brick is a continuous volume of a solid, not the result of the 2D surface structure alone that we can see and touch. Nobody has EVER seen the inside of a brick. Only ever the surface. When you break a brick, all you know is you have two new surfaces that you can now touch and see. Because the 3D explanation is simpler and covers more of the observations. Yeah, but it's not by magic, any more than magic makes the sun shine or the brick weigh in your hand. Proclaiming it is magic doesn't make nuclear fusion or the atomic theory of solids "a nice bunch of hypotheses but don't take it too serious".
Explain how every action, inflation, has an equal and opposite reaction. The basics we need to revert to before coming up with theories. So if it's expanding somewhere it going back onto itself. Putting patches on infinity so we get a finite answer is completely incorrect. As science is find out for yourself. Normalistion has worked astoundingly well before in many different fields. Hell, it led to the discovery of antiparticles specifically the positron.
Are you trying to be a "just add water", "intellectual" skeptic? I thought every physicist accepted the constant applied to achieve a finite answer working with infinity. You read that part where it is "conveniently ignored"? Infinity under the rug? Set yourself up for failure is what it did! A skewed formula gives skewed results. Re-normalization skewed the results as what was observed was change to meet mans finite ideology.
It's a standard mathematical technique when it come to integrals. It's no more hidden under the rug than the existence of infinity itself. When you, use, conjecture to prove something and even assume, "as it doesn't mean what it plainly says". I don't think any proof will satisfy you even for this basic. Quite lame by, out of context or in, it doesn't matter. Were you related to those from the inquisition keeping the geocentric concept? Don't think I'm attacking you, it's all in the argument of debate. Extremely hypocritical from your end. You don't know it all, no one does, as you are all over this post.
Like it or not, physics doesn't accept infinity, it has to be finite, which is incorrect in any math avoiding what is observed. You demand proof, yet offer none for your argument? You are all over this post. Don't bother to answer. I can't learn anything from you as you use fallacy saying I took it out of context. I just posted the quote saying did you read that part and watched you make stuff up, as you knew "it doesn't mean what it plainly says".
Some people amaze me. You need to get your politics out of your science. Once you have calmed down and have a science demeanor, there is new science for today's times which explains infinity. It's not fully fleshed out, but infinity hasn't changed much over the years, so it's pretty complete. Because you don't want to learn, just like you didn't want to learn sentence structure at primary?
That's not a fallacy. Taking things out of context is a fallacy if it fails on the "quote mining" logical fallacy , but saying someone took it out of context isn't a fallacy. I'm more interested in the metaphysical claim that there is more energy in 1 cubic centimeter of empty space than there is in all the matter in the universe.
David Bohm touched on this as did Krishnamurti. It's believed that if you can rid your mind of thought trash, you can see this clearly. Now, go ahead and get your kicks laughing at me and criticizing my comment! Oh, a little pointer for you, proclaiming "If you were smart enough, you'd get it" isn't a good way to promote your ideas, especially when there's no actual substance to understand in the rest of it.
I didn't mean to offend you by not believing your moronic 5 IQ BS. But it looks like you are raging nonetheless. Opps, caps were on. Re-normalization and limit was made for one reason and one reason only. To achieve a finite answer. Once you can admit to this fact, prove it otherwise, then we can get ahead in the debate of how to make this a better place without drama. Basically, we all grow up! I don't see that happening so I am preparing for the worst, economically, socially and I have no clue any more where we are headed as people cant even communicate any more with out Capt.
Kirk dreamed up analogies instead of the subject at hand. And what is calling you a name proving? Your parents call you Jeff. And I never called you any name. So what the hell did this come from other than your persecution complex? Which isn't, ironically, that complex.
Stop drinking piss and getting annoyed at the world not treating you the way you treat yourself and get over it. WOW, you remind me of a really intelligent kid I went to school with. Unfortunately, he was also really mean spirited, making fun of everyone that didn't have his intellect. No one liked him and he didn't care that they didn't. Is that your attitude? Slim, you remind me of a christian kid who thought that just because they said a nice thing that meant they could make up any old shit disrespecting and denigrating them and still be a nice person.
Do you have anything positive to add, or are you even less of a useful and nice person than you think me to be? I'm not calling myself Jeff. Looks like you have more than one cynical pen pal. By the way I kind of like Jeff as opposed to you. And also, I think we should all start calling you Sheldon Cooper. That's who you remind ME of. Then why are you treating comments to Jeff about what Jeff said as if you were the one who said them???? Oh, and do what you can to ignore the stalking psycho I seem to have picked up.
They're only pretending to care for you as a vehicle to attack me and spam this site with their crap. Okay Peak Oil, maybe he's not a real intellect but you gotta admit, he reminds us of Sheldon Cooper only meaner. And to Sheldon WOW: And back to the real issue that I commented on a long time ago: Since there is way more space than matter, isn't it possible that that empty space is responsible for ALL consciousness? I've heard Buddhist monks- sorry to be a name dropper- and other spiritual people imply that.
I don't need a response from Sheldon. And, hey, I admit I don't have the smarts of all you Sheldons and Leonards but I DO meditate quite a bit and when I focus on the nothingness of the universe, a great peace happens and I truly believe that consciousness creates matter. So, I apologise to WOW if you think my ego is out of control. I say, Slim; just be bloody careful with your creations!
Hmmm, something wrong there. How could you create something out of nothing? How would you know, Jeffslim? After all, you didn't actually explain how the confusion between yourselves appears despite you insisting that you're different people though I note that you haven't said you're different people either, just that you haven't said you're the same Odd that you should think that I'm not a great intellect.
It's not like you've displayed anything even average in content. This doesn't mean anything, though. All it means is you've decided to "investigate" imagination rather than try support in any external verifiable reality. If there is no external proof to point to, how the hell can you indicate your conclusions if any, though you haven't really managed any conclusions to date are valid? So hen you berate me for swearing and insulting, you're really pissed off that you're not being given the sole right.
Yes, you're right PJ. There are only so many finite words and formulas that humans can spit out. The universe and the nothingness dark matter as you call it , is so much more vast.
The scholars of ancient times were persecuted for suggesting the world was round and orbited a star. Imagine trying to teach a flea to count to 5. Why, only 60 years ago there were canals on Mars and years ago bloodletting was a legitimate practice. I'm not a Christian or Buddhist, or any other religious nut but don't you believe we're not the end result of all that is? I worked for a physicist once and he told me that we were just chemicals that happened to accidentally come together and when we're gone, there is nothing.
It's hard to believe when you think about it but I wish it were true.
And to The Peak Oil Poet: Thanks for taking care of WOW for me. I'd like to visit your country some day. The fjords are really cool. Seems a waste after a lifetime collecting same. In the absolute vacuum the atoms strips the became a cosmic powder ready to reform again to anything according to the heat presure charge and more Gus. Slim, there is the soul and the body.
The body is chemical the Soul is information all about "You". Keep the two in perspective. So why not call it dark matter, if it's the exact same thing?
You need to know how to communicate, and that needs a common language. If you do not wish to use the same language as those you wish to converse with, you need to stop pretending you're trying to talk to anyone to let them learn, but are bloviating to hear yourself talk. Well, there's zero reason for us to be the last evolved species in the world, never mind the universe, so "Duh. If the soul is formed by what happens to the body, then how does this immaterial thing get changed and imprinted by a material thing? If the soul is not formed by it, why does it inhabit it?
Why does it stay there if it is immaterial, why not leave at will? If your soul is running the body, how does it make it do things, given one is material and one immaterial? If it doesn't make your body do things, what is? But I can't agree with you more WOW. There is a consciousness -soul as you call it- and there is form, stuff, including the body and all material stuff that will eventually go away when the universe contracts and another big bang can happen but consciousness, mine, yours, everybody's, is one, not several, and it will survive infinitely to form more STUFF.
And your consciousness -soul- doesn't control your body. If your consciousness can get control of your mind and make it quit thinking so incessantly you would see that. And why do you say "no you didn't" referring to my comment about working for a physicist? What the fuck do you know about who I worked for.
That's like me saying you worked for a transvestite letting him stick you with a dildo for 6 months non stop, which is probably more true than me not working for a scientist and that's why you're such a shit. You're really a hard person to be nice to WOW. I'd like to see you way in the future on the other side so you can eat your words. If you can't state the system and process in a concrete way so that others can understand, it's not able to be something other than BS.
However, if someone bothers to say you are ignorant when you're not the one saying it, you will go apeshit stalker on them Geez, POP, you trying to prove empty space has more energy than everything in the universe, combined? You're doing a fine job of it! I must first confess that my ignorance is only exceeded by my years However I find the proposal that "empty" space contains energy quite palatable. In fact, I believe "space" itself, forces, matter and everything else to be forms of energy.
For an example, before the big bang there was no distance or volume to be measured, no time, no matter or forces to act on it. Therefore this things must have come from the energy itself and all created through entropy. The Dark Matter The dark matters forms hallos around galaxies and do not collapsing to form stars and black hols. So, perhaps it is just space energy with simply weights as mass is equal to energy. Empty space may be more and less energetic. So, more energetic space congregate with galaxies as the dark matter and less energetic forming gigantic bubbles between them.
If time flows quicker in empty space, these bubbles accelerate in grow, so one do not need any dark energy for explanation of the acceleration of cosmic expansion. Secrets of the Universe In the beginning was infinite geometric space. This space became filled with Static Time at absolute rest and absolute cold.
Static time is strictly quantitative, and does not differentiate between past, present and future. Being quantifiable and measurable, static time is a scientific concept. Static time of 0. Stars move through static time, which does not disrupt their motion.
Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe
Static time exists but is imperceptible. Static time is the deepest secret of the universe. Static time fills all infinite space, eliminating the possibility of a vacuum. Aetzbar in amazon The Newtonian universe is based on matter and force. The Einsteinian universe is based on matter and energy.
The Aetzbarian universe is based on static time and energy. There is no gravity, and there is no gravity waves. Static Time is real and measured. Everyone knows the Dynamic Time. It is time to recognize the Static Time. I have changed my decision o my dears. I may continue the discussion as it may be. Due to non English speakings my errors and omissions may kindly be regarded. The topic is outstanding. To great extent the knowledge will be shared. I'm a simple guy: It would have to be fairly weak, and was overcome by deceleration around the Big Bang.
Now it is getting stronger. Stars at the edges of galaxies, repulsed by surrounding empty space, stay with the galaxy when conventional physics says they should be flung off. We don't call "Centrifugal force" "Whirling things like to run away". The former we can assign a predictive formula to, the latter we can't.
Hence no, we can't, and you can't and remain being thought of as in any way involved in intelligent discourse on the subject. Perhaps with the coming realization, backed by the hard evidence of lab induced quantum entanglement, the concept of an 'absolute' vacuum' may become a player on the physical stage. For brevity and to avoid it being confused with 'not-so-empty', we refer to it as 'subspace'. Briefly, we see subspace a an overlay on the Universe; it has no mass, energy, temperature or time. Under specific circumstances it imposes a gravitational induction upon space.
Anyone who may be interested can join the discussions here: A vivid scenario that would be a direct result of subspace, can be seen here: The expression at serial number "Perhaps with the coming realization,backed by the hard deviance of lab induced quantum entanglement.
As we know that time is flexible, measured in nuclear decay. In order to be relative, so space must be, in the cosmos and in the micro-cosmos. Mass isn't constant, it doesn't let us. I think that mass doesn't exists and that they are bubbles that appear at EM fields crossings where the space that the EM field occupied chance to infinity. Time wil correct this by creating a bubble at the EM crossing of infinite time. Because it is a different time tempo, we detect it as mass. So, for me, dark energy is space itself and dark matter is time-energy that functions as a lens thru we see the universe.
Related Truth is Higher Than Any and Every Thing in the Universe
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved