beecee

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    3275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

beecee last won the day on June 3

beecee had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

488 Beacon of Hope

2 Followers

About beecee

  • Rank
    Scientist
  • Birthday 07/18/1944

Profile Information

  • Location
    Maroubra Sydney
  • Interests
    cosmology, Astronomy, general science
  • Favorite Area of Science
    cosmology
  • Occupation
    retired maintenance Fitter and Machinist

Recent Profile Visitors

10209 profile views
  1. beecee

    Spacetime is doomed.

    The two highlighted words should not be there. Look, I am the first to agree that at best the defining of time is controversial and there are plenty of opinions on that. And obviously as swansont has also said, it is more a philosophical question then anything else. But in support of the Odenwald quote, we are reasonably confident that matter/energy did first arise from the evolution of space and time and the "Superforce" in that first 10-43 second. As that superforce started to decouple, and phase transitions created, excesses of energy and fundamental particles evolved. So as Odenwald claims, and confidently, without the time and space, we have no matter or energy and subsequently no universe. Hint: Read Odenwald's answer again. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superforce Disclaimer: The further back in time we go and the closer to the BB, the less certainty applies to what we believed happened. But they are the best answers we have at this time, according to experimental and observational data.
  2. beecee

    Spacetime is doomed.

    I'm reasonably sure that space and time [as we know them] evolved from t+10-43 seconds. So a tentative yes to your question. An important question that needs to be asked is that can space and time [or spacetime] exist without the matter/energy within it. An answer to that is from Sten Odenwald... https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Now obviously that sounds contradictory as the two words I have highlighted. So I E-Mailed Sten Odenwald about this and he apologised and did say it was an error and the highlighted part should not be there..... Does that answer the question in the OP?
  3. beecee

    Spacetime is doomed.

    I actually think we know as much about time as we do space. That which came into existence in there current form at t+10-43 seconds...or perhaps both are just simple mundane requirements of the universe and its existence. One separates everything, the other stops everything from happening in an instant and both can be interchanged. and are the same thing as per Minkowski.
  4. beecee

    Relativistic Mass:

    Agreed.... Yeah the Matilda's done well! Being a Rugby League man though, I'm waiting anxiously for the greatest RL contest to take place tonight...State of Origin between NSW and Q,Land!!
  5. beecee

    Relativistic Mass:

    Hmmm, OK, I see...I may have to change my ways. Don't get me wrong...I have always viewed it as energy being added to the system so to speak. And obviously the following supports both your views.... Thanks for the answers and your efforts in trying to shift an old fart from his rather entrenched position!
  6. beecee

    Relativistic Mass:

    In my travels I have heard it said that "relativistic mass" is an outdated concept. It always had me wondering about its validity but I was never really sure how to conduct an argument against what I saw as wrong. Why did I see it as wrong? Probably two reasons that I know of...[1] As a body gains speed, the harder it gets to get it to continue to accelerate, illustrated by the fact that the energy would need to be infinite to push it beyond "c"...the second being that light/photons have zero rest mass, but yet is able to exert a force due to its momentum. Am I wrong? or do the points I made mean that relativistic mass is certainly a concept still useful and valid?
  7. beecee

    Chernobyl and the After effects:

    Heroic to put it mildly, agreed.
  8. beecee

    Chernobyl and the After effects:

    Yep, agreed. No arguments from me.
  9. beecee

    Discussable Topics

    I did give a link to possible evidences of multi verses and such. OK, you raise some seemingly interesting points. But isn't implementing any ID or deity simply taking a short cut? Isn't it simply on most occasions a "god of the gaps" argument applied to areas of multi verses, the quantum foam etc where science admits to no hard theory level evaluation as yet? as opposed to the soap box preaching of hell and brimstone torment if we don't believe? Let me say that my Mrs is highly religious, originally from Fiji where religion is a staple part of the culture [and previously they were head hunters!!] Also I have never really started giving any religious person the science club, unless and until they use their religion and/or deity to deride science. Then I get out my club!! The thread re Tyson that has been closed had simply developed into a science derision crusade by our friend.
  10. beecee

    Chernobyl and the After effects:

    Something worth noting from the article I linked to...https://phys.org/news/2019-06-ten-chernobyl-television-series-artistic.html 6. The divers "The three heroic men who worked to drain the tanks of water below the primary containment chamber to prevent nuclear fuel coming into contact with water which was believed would cause an explosion did so in vain. Subsequent analysis found that the tanks were already mostly empty, and the interaction of the melting fuel with the water might even have helped cool it". From the highlighted parts, it seems that this supposed "inaccuracy" in the movie was not really inaccurate at all. It was believed at that time! and the error was not found until later as hinted with "the subsequent analysis". So the movie portrayal adhering to the actions and beliefs of the day were correct! Whether or not it was subsequently declared as "in vain" Any other comments on the relative points?
  11. https://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html 5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse: The thing is, multiverses and such are put as speculation and accepted as speculation at this time. When the question of some deity is raised, it is raised and fanatically in most cases argued for as a 100% certainty.
  12. I'm neither thin skinned or religious despite being an ex Catholic Altar Boy! But while parallel universes and simulations etc may be unfalsifiable at this time, they are still scientific speculations...and as far as my knowledge goes, falls into the same category as Hawking Radiation. It has been speculated that various anomalies in spacetime, are evidence for other universes.https://www.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html Whereas any concept of god or other divine deity, falls under the banner of the supernatural and/or paranormal which is unscientific. But hey, my thinking on the matter could be wrong, so I'm open for correction/s. And of course as is the case mostly observed, when these types come here, they invariably hop on their soap boxes and start conducting anti science crusades. And afterall, it is a science forum and the scientific methodology must prevail.
  13. Any creator or magical spaghetti monster or ID of any description, while certainly also speculative, is not a scientific answer. Or is this the hidden agenda that is driving you on this crusade?
  14. Are you going to have enough intestinal fortitude to answer my question? I dont accept any hypothetical about the universe being a simulation. And while you continue ranting, and failing to recognise that Tyson was also speculating on the nature of reality, you'll simply continue ranting. My speculative scenario is that the BB arose from the quantum foam which can be defined as nothing. What's your speculative scenario? C'mon, I'm really interested to hear!
  15. I dont accept any hypothetical about the universe being a simulation. And while you continue ranting, and failing to recognise that Tyson was also speculating on the nature of reality, you'll simply continue ranting. My speculative scenario is that the BB arose from the quantum foam which can be defined as nothing. What's your speculative scenario? C'mon, I'm really interested to hear!