beecee

If we only have two choices for an answer, one scientific, the other unscientific?

Take 7 billion people...We may have 7 billion "personal intuitive thoughts"....Some will be incredibly enlightening and beneficial for mankind...some will be highly imaginative and desirable...some will be immoral and totally evil.....some will be, well absolutely crazy in the extreme.

It is certainly my personal acceptance based on current knowledge that we have. Probably in line with what is known as the strong Anthropic principle. I really cannot see any argument against the "pure chance" position I'm stating, when we look at the fact that if we changed any of the constants, life as we know it, would be impossible....or the other non scientific alternative that is often used to explain that fact. If we accept current scientific observational data re the evolution of the universe, and then some reasonable logical speculation [logical in my opinion anyway] then the speculative scenario of our universe evolving from a quantum foam, would also see other fluctuations in that same quantum foam, that will have different original fundamental properties, much as a surface of soapy lather with some bubbles rising to different heights before bursting. If the outcomes [fundamental constants] were not as they are, we probably would not be here to contemplate it. While certainly you are correct that we don't know why they are the way they are, we really only have two choices for an answer as I see it....chance or luck, and the unscientific answer of some deity we often see trotted out by some. Your example would have Feynman smiling in recognition. well put. Yes you are and have many times. And again for the umpteenth time, Krauss has put forward a hypothetical as an explanation, not claiming any certainty at all, but again a proposal or hypothetical built on current knowledge and data. At least a hypothetical many many rungs ahead of your own "turtles all the way down" which is an unscientific proposal. Your continuing "stuck like a record player needle" question of why was explained in the Feynman link I gave, and again excellently illustrated by Strange's previous post. Can you truly imagine nothing? Space? space is what exists between you and me, so it is real in that sense. Tell me about it. As I said, perhaps this "hypothetical" quantum foam, maybe as close to nothing that can ever be. I like the part where you tell us you have analysed that mystery. Tell me, do you have access to the LHC? the HST? Planck? the RHIC? And secondly I find absolutely no logic in what you are claiming, and simply suggesting turtles all the way down. [1] It isn't logic. [2] It leads to turtles all the way down. [3] It smells of a creator. [4] Science's job does not delve into some underlying truth or reality [if that at all exists, and does not concern itself with your why. [5] At the risk of repeating myself, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 Only at the point of creation??? If you are referring to the scientifically inspired Krauss speculative explanation, the the properties etc were "fixed" at that instant. We [humans] after observing the consistent nature of these properties, declared them as laws. Chance, luck, accidents etc, or if you like cosmic coincidences, can be observed throughout our universe.

It is the height of stupidity to claim there is some intelligence behind the laws, rules and constants of the universe. As you have already been asked, and even if we accept such stupidity, then It is reasonable to ask, what is the intelligence behind the intelligence that sees the universe as it is. The answer is the logically obvious one....The universe is the way it is, because of chance...nothing more, nothing less. The second act of stupidity is claiming that Laurence Krauss is behind the universe from nothing and therefor is God, when every man and his dog [except for you] can see that he is not claiming anything as fact, rather, as a hypothetical speculative scenario, much of which takes in much of what we know today for certain, in the field of quantum physics and weirdness. The third act of stupidity is your interpretation of nothing, The quantum foam, if it exists as generally pictured, maybe the closest to nothing that can ever be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam Quantum foam or spacetime foam is the fluctuation of spacetime on very small scales due to quantum mechanics. The idea was devised by John Wheeler in 1955.... The fourth act of stupidity is simply applying a "god of the gaps" type of logic in areas where science admits it doesn't know.

The Higgs Boson was actually a hypothetical developed along the lines of present knowledge, which of course now has been confirmed. It was not a idea dragged out of someone's rear end, but as a result of other basic fundamental particles that obviously combine and interact to explain the universe we see and experience today. A guess certainly, but an educated guess, not a guess based on ignorance.

Isn't it true to put it simply, that "down" is denoted by the pull of gravity? Therefor up is opposite. Although I'm not sure how this holds up with Lagrange points.

I have two beefs with your claims, [1] You claim some logic and intelligence behind the universe, yet "supposedly" dismiss any magical deity, and [2] Have absolutely no evidence to support your claims or disputes with accepted mainstream cosmology, other then incredulity.

The only one without any clue is yourself. And even if you are not opposing it for opposition sake, you still have nothing more then unsupported, unevidenced, nonsense, that I would not even call a hypothetical. Being obtuse again? Correct, there was no space and time before the BB, as we know them, or if you like, as far as we know and in line with current knowledge and theory. As I said, go back and start at the beginning, including what constitutes a scientific theory as guided by the scientific method. The BB gives us a reasonable picture of how the universe evolved from a hotter, denser state, from t+10-43 seconds, not how it began. It is a scientific theory, based on current knowledge and observation, the highest accolade other then perhaps a law, that can be called science.

Mass/energy warp/curve spacetime, that we recognise as gravity. Gravity does not cause time.

The universe is as is, because it is...pure chance and luck. The laws of the universe just are...Why the hell is that so hard to accept? We did not impose the laws of nature as Officials did in Australia to drive on the left side, while in the USA, they decide to drive on the wrong side. I also have studied the facts and theories, and observed how they have changed over the eons, as new evidence and improved observations are made, and observe that they align with the current knowledge and observational data we have at this time, and see no reason to stupidly oppose that accepted scenario, just for the sake of opposing. In essence, I seriously doubt your claim about studying the available facts and theories...more to the point at this time, it appears you are simply being obstinate. Case in point....You have repeated that nonsense to me twice now, and twice I have said that space and time, as we know them, evolved from t+10-43 seconds.

From my previous post...know not no!!!! Off goes my head, on goes a pumpkin!

Even though it is observationally verified and continues to make successful predictions? In that case I say you are wrong. Minkowski space and GR do not contradict, other then we don't feel gravity in flat spacetime. Wrong. Mass/energy affect flat spacetime, causing it to curve/warp, the effect that we recognise as gravity. I have no such degrees but I still say you are wrong. Discuss physics as you will, but this is the mainstream section, not speculation. I agree with studiot. Temperature is simply a measure of heat or energy.. Yes, I didn't say it wasn't. Gravity is spacetime geometry. mass/energy causing spacetime curvature or warping resulting in gravity. Time in a great gravity potential will simply appeared to be slowed as we have longer [curved spacetime] paths to travel.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Again, all we have for anything before t+10-43 seconds is speculation, but at least all that I have speculated/linked to on this thread, has been reasonably logic speculation that in no way defies any known laws. What we can be pretty sure of is that we have absolutely no reason to believe the universe was anything more then an accident and chance. The onus of course is on you to show any reason or any observational evidence to show otherwise. That so far you have failed to do. I've seen many trolls and others pushing alternative propositions with no evidence, raise that issue amongst other poor excuses and expressions of incredulity. The fact remains that the BB is overwhelmingly supported by observational evidence, and fits hand in glove with GR. My advice, first no fully and thoroughly what you are attempting to debunk.

Not really...If you go back through my contributions, I will mostly say [as a respected astronomer pointed out to me] that time and space "as we know them" evolved from t+10-43 seconds. in other words whatever existed before, [if anything] existed in a time and space we are ignorant of. Plus again the finality of the link I did give again is, "If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours"

Of course it is guess work. You have no evidence whatsoever to support any concept of logic behind the BB, other then incredulity. Science is honest...they freely admit they do not know why or how the BB arose, although they do have some reasonable speculative scenario, supported by current knowledge. The quantum foam probably has given rise to many BB's, some which have dramatically recollapsed immediately, others expanding at too fast a rate and so burst, others till just not conducive to life as we know it. How long did it exist for? There was no time or space, as we know them before the BB, but If it is correct according to reasonable speculation, then it may have existed for eternity, and simply be as close to 'nothing" that we can ever envisage. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Please note, the article concludes thus..... "If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours". """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" In essence to even be able to contemplate such is extraordinary to say the least, while all being in line with present knowledge. The "Unknown" tinged of course with a reasonable knowledge of current theories, laws and knowledge.

OK some research and I found this Q+A site.... https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2009&t=light-and-magnets...-and-gravity :Q:"How far can a magnetic field bend light? Could it be bent enough so that it goes around a three dimensional object and comes out (after going 180 degrees, I guess) the other side, being bent by the magnet, therefore making it seem as though the object had the light bass through it completely, and it does not appear to the human eye? Here is the best example I can give: -->=light, O=Object, *=mag. field, / or \=light bent. ___ |***| If this can be done, please tell --->/*O*\---> me how, and what would be needed to perform such a thing. Thank you. (PS - This would need to be done in a round sense, as in all around the 3-d object, not in just one line, so please keep that in consideration. Also, if you know any other way to get the desired effect please inform me.)" :A: "Nice try. Unfortunately, the path light takes is not affected by the presence of a magnetic field. Light itself is composed of an oscillating electric and magnetic field, and one very important property of electric and magnetic fields is what we call "linearity." That is, if you have two sources of electric and/or magnetic fields, you can predict what the combined field is just by adding the two source fields together. The two fields don’t change each other at all. So if you add the field of a light ray to any other field we can imagine, the light ray will continue as before and the extra field will just stay the same, adding to it in places where the extra field is strong, but having no effect beyond the reach of the extra field. So there is no way that a magnetic field can bend light. Although magnetic fields might not do the trick for you, there is quite a bit more about light that can be taken advantage of. For instance, if the object is very small (small compared to the wavelength of the light), the light will simply diffract around the object and be invisible or nearly so anyway. Please see our . Also, even though a magnetic field won’t do anything for the light, a gravitational field, sufficiently strong, will in fact bend light. This was observed early in the 20th century confirming Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity in which light from the planet Mercury was bent by a very tiny amount by the enormous gravitational field of the sun. Unfortunately they needed a total solar eclipse to block out the bright sun’s rays so they could see the feeble light from Mercury on the other side of the sun passing close by where the effect was big enough to be measured. One of the more spectacular demonstrations of bending light by a gravitational field is "gravitational lensing" of light from very faraway bright objects whose light passes close by another distant object with plenty of mass. Here is a description, along with some *very* nice pictures: . The problem with making an object invisible in this way is that the light cannot be bent any way desired -- what you get is just lensing, and you get multiple images of the object in back of the object doing the light-bending. An object like this will attract quite a lot of attention! These galaxies sure attracted our attention. And you need a galaxy-sized gravitational field to do the trick. To make a gravitational "invisibility cloak" requires quite a strong gravitational field. Maybe the best way to do it is to have such a strong field that the light just gets sucked into the object and cannot come out. Then you have a black hole. Not invisible because you can tell that your light is gone, but interesting nonetheless. Here’s a tutorial on black holes: Now the disclaimers back on your original question: If your magnetic field is strong enough over a large enough distance, you can have enough energy stored in it to do gravitational lensing, and then refer to the above answer on gravitational lensing. This however is a very difficult way of getting a strong gravitational field. It is much easier just to collect a galaxy’s worth of matter than to collect the equivalent energy in a magnetic field (neither is particularly easy, I admit!) The second disclaimer is that there is a small expected deviation from linearity of electric and magnetic fields due to quantum mechanics and the ability of electrons to pop out and go away on microscopic time scales. This only becomes noticeable for very very high frequency light colliding with other very very high-frequency light (it wouldn’t be noticeable and may even have exactly zero effect for a static magnetic field and visible light -- I haven’t done any calculations). There are plans to make such a light-light collider, but it requires a many-mile electron accelerator to get the energy of the light high enough. If you are really interested in getting light to go around a solid object so that it looks like it went through, the low-tech solution might be the easiest. Magicians use mirrors for this purpose all the time!" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Feynman was an accoplished scientist...he was also adapt at safe cracking, as well as playing the bongos I have read. Was he a lady's man? I'm sure he had an eye for the appreciation of the female form and associated beauty. But he was first and foremost an accomplished scientist. No I havn't been following this thread, just thought I would now add my 2 cents worth.

The universe we inhabit certainly as far as we know, and according to current knowledge, was most likely by chance, while being also consistent. The laws and constants that we recognise were imparted when our BB arose, evolved and expanded from a fluctuation in the quantum foam, is our best educated guess. That sounds like that old adage we often hear, "change for change's sake" or in your case, "opposition to generally accepted mainstream astronomy, for opposition's sake" certainly not in anyway due to any preponderance of evidence or observations supporting your cause. When and if any modification, change, or addition is needed, it will proceed according to the scientific method.

As others have said, we really do not have any theory of the moment of, or more correctly, the incident of any BB. The BB is actually a theory about the evolution and expansion of space and time [as we know them] from t+10-43 seconds. From that point, and with the current knowledge that we have observed with particle accelerators etc, we can reasonably logically deduce how the observable universe evolved to what we see today.

And a happy new year to you also. Photons/light due to there momentum curve/warp the spacetime they are traversing, albeit ever so very slightly. So, yes magnetic fields would also curve/warp spacetime. I would doubt though that any path of light would be directly affected by the magnetic field/s, but I'm fairly sure there are others here that can answer that more positively.

No, chance in reality is the scientific answer based on our current knowledge and observational data. Any design and/or supposed purpose suggests a designer. But you are correct in stating that it simply just is and that's exactly what I am saying. Anything else is entirely hypothetical and at this time totally unevidenced. Einstein was simply suggesting that Imagination has its place and is and must be on an equal footing with knowledge. And of course any imagination can be either supported or debunked by following the scientific methodology. Current data I believe supports the concept that the universe was purely by chance. It certainly is not science. Here is that quote in its entirety..... “At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason. When the [solar] eclipse of 1919 confirmed my intuition, I was not in the least surprised. In fact I would have been astonished had it turned out otherwise. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.” [From A. Einstein, Cosmic Religion: With Other Opinions and Aphorisms, p. 97 (1931).]

Gravitational time dilation is caused by gravity and curved spacetime: it is not a form of energy.

No philosophy has no answer either. The obvious answer/facts you ignore is the one I gave in that the laws that we are familiar with, are simply man made structures that describe what we observe, and make successful predictions time and time again. eg: Newton's law of gravity dictates that if you jump up in the air, you will come back down to Earth: we are pretty certain of that. And of course the constants are what they are, simply by chance. No logic at all involved, just chance. To claim there is any logic behind it, is to claim intelligence and some magical deity, despite your denial of that.

He is enforcing nothing and you failed to comprehend that he is/was speculating. Even so, what laws of physics that do exist, are simply properties of our universe. Now you are being obtuse. Again as you have been informed, that is a philosophical/religious question, not a scientific one. Watch the video I linked to previously.I And yet you still insist on asking questions that science is unable to answer and are simply philosophical and religious in nature. My advice, watch the video again. Why the world/universe is the way it is, is a philosophical and/or religious question....nothing more, nothing less. No one is playing any games, more to the point, is the fact that you are unable to comprehend why your question is perhaps unanswerable, not only by science, but also philosophically. The laws that we are familiar with, are simply man made structures that describe what we observe, and make successful predictions time and time again. eg: Newton's law of gravity dictates that if you jump up in the air, you will come back down to Earth: we are pretty certain of that. On the other hand if you referring to the Universal constants, things like the speed of light in a vacuum, at "c" or the gravitational constant, or the fine structure constant, then these are just part and parcel of the nature of the universe/spacetime at the most basic fundamental level. They are what they are, although finely tuned to the extent that any variation in them would see a vastly different universe to the one we currently inhabit, possibly making it totally unfit for life as we know it and as such you would not be here to ask such questions.

And yet this same spacetime can be warped, curved, twisted in the presence of mass and as dictated by the equations of GR. I find that a good reason to accept that spacetime is real, at least just as real as a magnetic field is. Nonsense. Lawrence Krauss is simply logically hypothesising, based on current knowledge, coupled with some reasonably guesses. He avoids the myth, brainwashing and unsupported actions of any deity of any kind. I'm at a total loss how you can see it any other way. His views on philosophy have in my opinion some grounding in fact, although no one including him, deny that philosophy, the scientific method, underpin and act as foundations to practical science. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. You want to know why. Let me invite you to watch a short 7.5 minute video explaining why your why question is questionable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 Or as the member in front of me just said......