11 hours ago, Strange said:

There is no evidence that matter is created

Isn't it hydrogen, a sun like star starts it's life with? Heavier elements are created from lighter elements... 

Without dying stars there would not be life as we know it in Nature...

There were none and there are some now. It is created.

9 hours ago, Strange said:

This threshold is about 100th the Earth mass. And the lifetime at that size would be about 10⁴⁴ years.

For a black hole to evaporate in less than a second, its mass would have to be about 200 tons.

I love this kind of data.+1.

How big would be space itself if it would evolve with (c2=300.000*300.000km/s since minimum 13.8 billion years)?

Could a super computer handle such an information?

What would be the difference in size(volume), between the observable universe (c), and the fundamental space-time (c2)?

Edited April 20, 20187 yr by Lasse

53 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Isn't it hydrogen, a sun like star starts it's life with? Heavier elements are created from lighter elements... 

Stars nucleosynthesis heavier elements. I'm pretty sure that the denial of creation was more in line with some form of divine creation.

Quote

What would be the difference in size(volume), between the observable universe (c), and the fundamental space-time (c2)?

The observable universe is around 96 billion L/years in diameter.....the whole of the universe/spacetime, is unknown, but probably "near infinite" in extent, if not infinite.

I'm not sure what the c2 means.

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

 How big would be space itself if it would evolve with (c2=300.000*300.000km/s since minimum 13.8 billion years)?

What does that mean?

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Stars nucleosynthesis heavier elements. I'm pretty sure that the denial of creation was more in line with some form of divine creation

No wonder we have misunderstandings

There were no heavier elements previously and through nucleosynthesis they got created/presented (by time)

By far the only supernatural I can see is the state of physical zero (if that could have existed) everything else is part of Nature. Anything in proportion to this state would be divine. Like any energy in a symmetrically evolving information based but empty space (time)

I think the only questions here really is:

What is the velocity of spacetimes evolution (i.e under a second how many km is it evolving)? Can spacetime have impact on mass? Could spacetime itself be responsible for the presented overall applied speed/movement/velocity of everything?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

What does that mean?

Try to present the approximate size(volume) of space (time)...

10 hours ago, swansont said:

What does that mean?

Try to present the approximate size(volume) of space (time)...

Edited April 21, 20187 yr by Lasse

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

 Try to present the approximate size(volume) of space (time)...

c^2 does not have the proper units 

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

c^2 does not have the proper units 

Interesting.

It would be km/s - not?

Can untis be squared?

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

What is the velocity of spacetimes evolution (i.e under a second how many km is it evolving)? 

It is proportional to the distance you measure it over. 

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

Could spacetime itself be responsible for the presented overall applied speed/movement/velocity of everything?

No. Expansion only happens on very large scales. Galaxies and galaxy clusters are not affected by expansion. 

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

Interesting.

It would be km/s - not?

Can untis be squared?

Why would spacetime volume have units of speed?

Yes, units can be squared.

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why would spacetime volume have units of speed?

Yes, units can be squared.

Because it is expending. A certain amount of km(2D) volume (3D) under a certain time(4D)...

What would be its unit? Km3/s? Km3*s? Km/s? Kms?

 

Edited April 21, 20187 yr by Lasse

12 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Because it is expending. A certain amount of km under a certain time. I.e km/s. Not?

Not.

Expansion is a scaling effect. Simple arithmetic shows that the means that the speed of separation is proportional to distance.

Consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them).

At time 0, they are 1 unit apart:
A.B.C.D.E.F

After some time they are 2 units apart:
A..B..C..D..E..F

After the same time again, they are 3 units apart:
A...B...C...D...E...F

And so on:
A....B....C....D....E....F

Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great.

Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light. 

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light. 

This would be possible, if the expenditure of space would be allowed to be higher than c (something has to ground the physical process). C2, one could recognize as Einstein said. 

Edited April 21, 20187 yr by Lasse

3 minutes ago, Lasse said:

This would be possible 

It is possible. It is what happens.

Quote

, if the expenditure of space would be allowed to be higher than c (something has to ground the physical process). C2, one could recognize as Einstein said.

The rest of that sentence makes no sense. I have no idea what you are trying to say. What has "C2" got do with anything.

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is possible. It is what happens.

The rest of that sentence makes no sense. I have no idea what you are trying to say. What has "C2" got do with anything.

I have some misunderstanding here seems to be. I try to clear it up. Just wrote about it. 2 post up. 

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

Because it is expending. A certain amount of km(2D) volume (3D) under a certain time(4D)...

What would be its unit? Km3/s? Km3*s? Km/s? Kms?

 

You tell me. Make your case.

48 minutes ago, swansont said:

You tell me. Make your case.

I would pick km3*s. But I guess it depends where from we look at it i.e. how we would like to count it...

9 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I would pick km3*s. But I guess it depends where from we look at it i.e. how we would like to count it...

OK, that's something that one can defend. Definitely not c^2