# Testing Creation

## Recommended Posts

The problem is when one thinks of 'the universe' as an object, it means that you intuitively have to put it in something... a metaphorical container.

Edited by StringJunky

• Replies 100
• Created

#### Posted Images

No, of course it is not wrong. Every place in the universe you pick, was inside that hot dense stuff that was the universe content at the time of Big Bang.

What about my question  then?If we are looking for something  kind of a "boundary" for the universe  can we define it as any point of time and space that is evolving?

ie me here typing this post and/or  DT shitting on his gold  toilet  bowl  or whatever his up-till-then final action happens to be.

Could that be called a boundary (that is everywhere)?

##### Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, geordief said:

If we are looking for something  kind of a "boundary" for the universe

Are we?

32 minutes ago, geordief said:

can we define it as any point of time and space that is evolving?

For what purpose? In what sense? Boundary between what and what? Between past and future, perhaps. But this is a temporal, not a spatial boundary.

Every spatial point in the universe was a 'center' of expansion then, as it is now.

PS. Remember, that we are talking here about an ideal homogeneous and isotropic universe. "Brooklyn is not expanding."

##### Share on other sites

Are we?

In the sense that the question has often been asked or implied..in this thread actually if I am not mistaken

No,in my own mind I was thinking about an "edge" rather than any demarcation  btw the "inside" and the "outside".

The universe is expanding  (even if it was spatially contracting it would be expanding in time wouldn't  it?)

So I just had the thought that each moment was  the end product of a line  of preceding  events and could be seen as the "tip"of the universe's expansion  at that point in time and space.

If we join all the dots we get a "surface "( not synchronistic) representing the leading "edge" of the universe as a whole.

Totally impractical  to join those dots ....

except as a thought.

##### Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, geordief said:

The universe is expanding  (even if it was spatially contracting it would be expanding in time wouldn't  it?)

The expansion / contraction of space is clearly expressed in the Robertson-Walker metric. I am not familiar with a concept of expansion of/in time.

##### Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It's a mistake thinking this way. The universe is everything. It can't be "enclosed". There is no point where the universe ends and "nothing" begins.

If you're describing the universe, there's nothing outside of it. If you were describing a nightclub you visited, there's no part of the nightclub that is outside the nightclub, by its very definition.

7 hours ago, joigus said:

You should avoid identifying common notions like "emptiness" with mathematical ones ("zero") too glibly.

You would think, eg, that "nothing" or "emptiness" (the vacuum perhaps?) corresponds to the zero state vector in quantum mechanics, when what the theory tells you is that the zero vector is non-physical. All physical states have measure one.

I  would beg to differ with you on these...zero, nothingness,void.. can't  be manipulated to have a preferred way of interpretation....it's just nothingness... anything beyond siezes being a zero...for instance if you have 0.000another trillion zeros then1, that doesn't make it a zero.

The universe is everything-i concur with that-including zeros in it.

If you are describing the universe,there is nothing out of it...that precisely my point.

'It's weird how human language has been coded to introduce contradictory issues...where critical solutions have to be found...anyway this is my thought.'

##### Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MigL said:

Now, for the negative pressure example, the best I can come up with is a stretched spring, under tension, but it's not gravity  that's pulling it apart ( no such thing as repulsive gravity ) rather, it is the universe itself through the gravity field, or Cosmological Constant, aka Dark Energy, that is doing the stretching.

Its clear.
However,negative pressure analogy doesn't not mean negative energy....if gravitational waves/fields are pure form of energy...then have negative energy you would mean that it's possible to have antigravity machines just as a by the way.

8 hours ago, MigL said:

This CC or Dark Energy is a scalar term that does not vary with distance, whereas the rest of the gravitational terms do, and so we have gravity dominating at close distances.

But when gravity decreases with the square of the distance, it is a given that at a certain distance the gravitational terms will be less than the CC or Dark Energy term, resulting in expansion.

I think Dark energy mediated by dark matter particles and dark photons.....''some of 'these models' have started showing they can have predictive powers i.e testable, it just a matter of time before they are proven to be worth being considered'' ....recent research on dark matter

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230425111243.htm

I think dark energy and dark matter phenomenon are not gravity but aspects that are linked to to normal matter through gravity.

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

'It's weird how human language has been coded to introduce contradictory issues...where critical solutions have to be found...anyway this is my thought.'

I don't think it's that weird. Human language has developed mainly out of inter-human interactions and immediate relations with the natural world. Why would Nature's 'deepest' rules be amenable to description by a code developed in order to talk about concepts such as food, warm and cold, mother in law, etc?

What good is 'zero' to a hunter-gatherer?

##### Share on other sites

The expansion / contraction of space is clearly expressed in the Robertson-Walker metric. I am not familiar with a concept of expansion of/in time.

I just meant that more time had passed/was passing  and that the total amount of time "accrued" had  increased and was still increasing.

As I  suggested ,even if the universe was contracting spatially there is a  sense that time  would be  increasing -or can one not separate the spatial from the temporal even under those hypothetical  conditions(the boomerang universe)?

I don't know what the Robinson-Walker metric is.

##### Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, geordief said:

a  sense that time  would be  increasing

Yes, I just don't see increasing as similar to expanding. But it is perhaps no more than unimportant semantics.

9 minutes ago, geordief said:

can one not separate the spatial from the temporal even under those hypothetical  conditions

One can, no problem.

10 minutes ago, geordief said:

I don't know what the Robinson-Walker metric is.

Quote

The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric (FLRW; /ˈfrdmən ləˈmɛtrə .../) is a metric based on the exact solution of the Einstein field equations of general relativity. The metric describes a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding (or otherwise, contracting) universe ...

The generic metric which meets these conditions is

where  ranges over a 3-dimensional space of uniform curvature, that is, elliptical space, Euclidean space, or hyperbolic space. It is normally written as a function of three spatial coordinates ...  does not depend on t – all of the time dependence is in the function a(t), known as the "scale factor".
##### Share on other sites

U

4 hours ago, joigus said:

What good is 'zero' to a hunter-gatherer?

His brain could have not developed as ours...however it could have been using mathematical patterns as the gatherer was  navigating the environment...math was there as we were evolving to later discover and comprehend it...a zero was a zero...

The expansion / contraction of space is clearly expressed in the Robertson-Walker metric. I am not familiar with a concept of expansion of/in time.

From the article '......Nonetheless, the FLRW model is used as a first approximation for the evolution of the real, lumpy universe because it is simple to calculate, and models which calculate the lumpiness in the universe are added onto the FLRW models as extensions. ....'

Its helpful when we are using this theories/models to state their assumptions and approximations and of course their limitations.

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Its helpful when we are using this theories/models to state their assumptions and approximations and of course their limitations.

Not only helpful, but absolutely necessary. It is always done in science. This is impressed in scientists' mind endlessly in scientific education.

It is rarely done in pop-sci media or youtube videos.

E.g., I also stated here:

PS. Remember, that we are talking here about an ideal homogeneous and isotropic universe. "Brooklyn is not expanding."

##### Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

U

His brain could have not developed as ours...however it could have been using mathematical patterns as the gatherer was  navigating the environment...math was there as we were evolving to later discover and comprehend it...a zero was a zero...

From the article '......Nonetheless, the FLRW model is used as a first approximation for the evolution of the real, lumpy universe because it is simple to calculate, and models which calculate the lumpiness in the universe are added onto the FLRW models as extensions. ....'

Its helpful when we are using this theories/models to state their assumptions and approximations and of course their limitations.

That's not quite correct the FLRW metric isn't used for the lumpiness. It is used to model the evolution history of the entire observable universe in accordance to GR and the thermodynamic ideal gas laws. The metric itself doesn't work well for non uniform distribution it is however well suited for a homogeneous and isotropic energy/mass distribution (uniform).

The primary purpose of the FLRW metric is to describe how the universe expands or contracts in accordance with the above. Though it also can be used for a few other details such as the blackbody temperature history . This is the inverse of the scale factor "a" of that metric.

The math I posted earlier is mostly the FLRW metric with a bit of GR and the Euler Langrangian. That demonstrates that the three methodologies are compatible with each other.

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

In the spirit of simplifying things...and concerning the topic in this thread my  arguments rest on the following conjecture;

∃={}

Where

∃ is equals to existence

{ is equals to consciousness

and

} is equals to consciousness

That's my conjecture... don't throw stones on me.

According to my thinking everything comes out of it.

I rest my arguments on that.

....and of course {} is empty set.

##### Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

That's my conjecture... don't throw stones on me.

Being incomprehensible to others isn't something to stone someone over. All one can really do is encourage more study, so the ideas you have can enjoy some basis in the natural universe we're all observing.

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

His brain could have not developed as ours...however it could have been using mathematical patterns as the gatherer was  navigating the environment...math was there as we were evolving to later discover and comprehend it...a zero was a zero...

Zero is not a concept that hunter-gatherers would have been familiar with. Primitive languages didn't have a word for zero. It took many centuries to be introduced by Indian mathematicians.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

a zero was a zero

Was it? Let's see...

0oC = 32oF, right?

Then, 0oC+0oC = 64oF, right?

##### Share on other sites

Was it? Let's see...

0oC = 32oF, right?

Then, 0oC+0oC = 64oF, right?

13 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

I  would beg to differ with you on these...zero, nothingness,void.. can't  be manipulated to have a preferred way of interpretation....it's just nothingness... anything beyond siezes being a zero.

Let's not go too far from the topic.... becoming off topic...otherwise we may get ourself in the trash can...😂.

##### Share on other sites

On 5/6/2023 at 11:56 PM, MJ kihara said:

An all encompassing scientific argument should be ready to tackle/answer any questions thrown at it,if not it should acknowledge it's limited to that extend.

There are issues that are already acknowledged as being outside of science. One shouldn’t have to reiterate those boundaries with each new argument

##### Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Let's not go too far from the topic.... becoming off topic...otherwise we may get ourself in the trash can...😂.

The OP is about creating something out of nothing, and you equate zero with nothing, so discussing zero is not off topic. Aren't you looking for an excuse?

##### Share on other sites

I've always wondered what holds the universe if the big bang is real. Such a mind screw just thinking about it.

Perhaps the universe is self-recycling? Black holes are vacuums that vacuum up and then big bang when they're full or when there's nothing else to vacuum?

To prove creation. We'd need to prove that a biological system has intention of creation by a (supposed) creator.

Edited by genio
##### Share on other sites

7 hours ago, genio said:

Black holes are vacuums that vacuum up

Black holes are no more vacuums than the Sun, the Earth, any gravitating body. Their gravity is not different from other bodies. They are just more compact.

##### Share on other sites

Black holes are no more vacuums than the Sun, the Earth, any gravitating body. Their gravity is not different from other bodies. They are just more compact.

Nobody actually knows.

I'm speculating. You're cherry picking part of my sentence as if I believe it is fact.

##### Share on other sites

Just now, genio said:

Nobody actually knows.

This is untrue. It is well known. Your speculation in this case is simply wrong.

##### Share on other sites

Black holes are no more vacuums than the Sun, the Earth, any gravitating body. Their gravity is not different from other bodies. They are just more compact.

This is untrue. It is well known. Your speculation in this case is simply wrong.

Vacuum or chew celestial bodies apart. What's the difference?

You're saying that the gravity of black holes is no different than that of other bodies. Why are all the bodies going around the black hole and galaxy in unity? Looks like an indication of a higher power at play.

Edited by genio

## Create an account

Register a new account