| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Brian" |
| Date: |
22 Apr 2004 03:12:02 PM |
| Object: |
Question about the beginning of the Universe |
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the beginning of
the universe and the existence of God (not Christian, etc.). I
personally believe that God at one point had to set the universe into
motion. His rebuttal involved his belief that the universe runs in
cycles from expansion to contractions. Is there any Physics law that
would allow energy to begin in motion without any external force? Or
is energy "born" into motionlessness?
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
28 Apr 2004 11:09:56 PM |
|
|
"Brian" <fortyfivers@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e3b8752.0404221212.34679042@posting.google.com...
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the beginning of
the universe and the existence of God (not Christian, etc.). I
personally believe that God at one point had to set the universe into
motion.
Who cares what you belive, and why post them to a physics ng?
His rebuttal involved his belief that the universe runs in
cycles from expansion to contractions.
You are both in good company, idiot. Science is not about belief. Go away.
Is there any Physics law that
would allow energy to begin in motion without any external force? Or
is energy "born" into motionlessness?
Stupid question.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
23 Apr 2004 09:26:49 PM |
|
|
"Brian" <fortyfivers@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e3b8752.0404221212.34679042@posting.google.com...
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the beginning of
the universe and the existence of God (not Christian, etc.). I
personally believe that God at one point had to set the universe into
motion. His rebuttal involved his belief that the universe runs in
cycles from expansion to contractions. Is there any Physics law that
would allow energy to begin in motion without any external force? Or
is energy "born" into motionlessness?
If you can't measure it, it isn't physics. Observed locally, energy
is conserved. Globally, the energy of the observable Universe
isn't guarantied to be conserved. According to Big-Bang theory,
the energy density of dark energy (that of a positive cosmological
constant) is supposed constant with time. In a Universe that
expands with time, where does that (globally observed) energy
come from? [Old Man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "mitch perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
25 Apr 2004 04:17:06 AM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message news:<dJ-dnZqcrrTwTRTdRVn-gw@prairiewave.com>...
If you can't measure it, it isn't physics. Observed locally, energy
is conserved. Globally, the energy of the observable Universe
isn't guarantied to be conserved. According to Big-Bang theory,
the energy density of dark energy (that of a positive cosmological
constant) is supposed constant with time. In a Universe that
expands with time, where does that (globally observed) energy
come from? [Old Man]
An educated answer would give some of us a shot at a proper
understanding of this question.
Meanwhile a talking donkey, if one were around, might say something
like,
balloons expand because air is being swirled into them. they
displace air around them as they expand. there might be friction
between the balloon molecules and the air molecules on either side of
the "rubber". (friction or whatever i'm just a donkey be amazed i can
talk). the balloon-rubber is not the air. so call the balloon-rubber
"something" and the air "nothing". something expands into nothing and
there is friction. so now can i have a balloon?
More likely he'd just stand there, not even looking at you. What an
*****.
Mitch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
25 Apr 2004 10:30:30 PM |
|
|
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.0404250117.6ce35b59@posting.google.com...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<dJ-dnZqcrrTwTRTdRVn-gw@prairiewave.com>...
If you can't measure it, it isn't physics. Observed locally, energy
is conserved. Globally, the energy of the observable Universe
isn't guarantied to be conserved. According to Big-Bang theory,
the energy density of dark energy (that of a positive cosmological
constant) is supposed constant with time. In a Universe that
expands with time, where does that (globally observed) energy
come from? [Old Man]
An educated answer would give some of us a shot at a proper
understanding of this question.
Meanwhile a talking donkey, if one were around, might say something
like,
balloons expand because air is being swirled into them. they
displace air around them as they expand. there might be friction
between the balloon molecules and the air molecules on either side of
the "rubber". (friction or whatever i'm just a donkey be amazed i can
talk). the balloon-rubber is not the air. so call the balloon-rubber
"something" and the air "nothing". something expands into nothing and
there is friction. so now can i have a balloon?
More likely he'd just stand there, not even looking at you. What an
*****.
Mitch
Uneducable fools are often self elevated by odorous hot-air
balloons. Old Man is content to leave Mitch's transparent
babble bubble unpricked. Ignorance and infamy are akin to
object and image. [Old Man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "mitch perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
26 Apr 2004 05:40:07 AM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message news:<P92dnclgOPjDHxHdRVn-vw@prairiewave.com>...
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.0404250117.6ce35b59@posting.google.com...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<dJ-dnZqcrrTwTRTdRVn-gw@prairiewave.com>...
If you can't measure it, it isn't physics. Observed locally, energy
is conserved. Globally, the energy of the observable Universe
isn't guarantied to be conserved. According to Big-Bang theory,
the energy density of dark energy (that of a positive cosmological
constant) is supposed constant with time. In a Universe that
expands with time, where does that (globally observed) energy
come from? [Old Man]
An educated answer would give some of us a shot at a proper
understanding of this question.
Meanwhile a talking donkey, if one were around, might say something
like,
hi, my name is mitch.
--------------------------
Uneducable fools are often self elevated by odorous hot-air
balloons. Old Man is content to leave Mitch's transparent
babble bubble unpricked. Ignorance and infamy are akin to
object and image. [Old Man]
I am now on the wrong side of Old Man. This is locally observed to
be not good.
I was hoping someone who knows more than me (not hard) would answer
your question. An answer might have helped me understand it better.
Meanwhile I (the talking donkey) was wondering if the expansion
itself of the universe into we know not what could create energy. And
would this conserve the energy needed for the expansion. I suppose if
we *know not what* the universe is expanding into...I am a talking
donkey. I will take the hint called "babble bubble" and wonder about
something else.
No disrespect toward Old Man intended here. Seriously.
Mitch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
26 Apr 2004 04:41:46 PM |
|
|
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.0404260240.4d8478e5@posting.google.com...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<P92dnclgOPjDHxHdRVn-vw@prairiewave.com>...
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.0404250117.6ce35b59@posting.google.com...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<dJ-dnZqcrrTwTRTdRVn-gw@prairiewave.com>...
If you can't measure it, it isn't physics. Observed locally, energy
is conserved. Globally, the energy of the observable Universe
isn't guarantied to be conserved. According to Big-Bang theory,
the energy density of dark energy (that of a positive cosmological
constant) is supposed constant with time. In a Universe that
expands with time, where does that (globally observed) energy
come from? [Old Man]
An educated answer would give some of us a shot at a proper
understanding of this question.
Meanwhile a talking donkey, if one were around, might say something
like,
hi, my name is mitch.
--------------------------
Uneducable fools are often self elevated by odorous hot-air
balloons. Old Man is content to leave Mitch's transparent
babble bubble unpricked. Ignorance and infamy are akin to
object and image. [Old Man]
I am now on the wrong side of Old Man. This is locally observed to
be not good.
I was hoping someone who knows more than me (not hard) would answer
your question. An answer might have helped me understand it better.
Meanwhile I (the talking donkey) was wondering if the expansion
itself of the universe into we know not what could create energy. And
would this conserve the energy needed for the expansion. I suppose if
we *know not what* the universe is expanding into...I am a talking
donkey. I will take the hint called "babble bubble" and wonder about
something else.
No disrespect toward Old Man intended here. Seriously.
Mitch
Energy is not a relativistic invariant. Its observed value
depends upon the location, time, velocity, and acceleration
of the observation platform. Locally, that is, self-referentially,
without reference to "the fixed stars", the laws of physics are
the same in all inertial reference frames Globally, an observer
in gravitational free-fall is not equivalent to an observer in free
space. Aim a laser beam at them, and they'll report different
wavelengths.
On the largest of scales, the observable Universe (there is no
"outside") is homogeneous and isotropic. No preferred
locations or directions, no center, no absolute rest frame.
Any model the Universe , such as that of Big-Bang theory,
must be consistent with these constraints.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mitch perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
27 Apr 2004 12:37:54 PM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message news:<2e6dneG6iry8HxDdRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com>...
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.0404260240.4d8478e5@posting.google.com...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<P92dnclgOPjDHxHdRVn-vw@prairiewave.com>...
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.0404250117.6ce35b59@posting.google.com...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<dJ-dnZqcrrTwTRTdRVn-gw@prairiewave.com>...
If you can't measure it, it isn't physics. Observed locally, energy
is conserved. Globally, the energy of the observable Universe
isn't guarantied to be conserved. According to Big-Bang theory,
the energy density of dark energy (that of a positive cosmological
constant) is supposed constant with time. In a Universe that
expands with time, where does that (globally observed) energy
come from? [Old Man]
Energy is not a relativistic invariant. Its observed value
depends upon the location, time, velocity, and acceleration
of the observation platform. Locally, that is, self-referentially,
without reference to "the fixed stars", the laws of physics are
the same in all inertial reference frames Globally, an observer
in gravitational free-fall is not equivalent to an observer in free
space. Aim a laser beam at them, and they'll report different
wavelengths.
Is CMBR perceived as a constant because our velocity wrt it is
constant? Are you saying CMBR should be diminishing because there is
only so much of it to "fill" an expanding universe? (If not CMBR then
detected [predicted?] density of dark energy?). If yes, could this
energy be perceived to be constant (while it actually diminishes)
because our velocity wrt it is increasing?
This is as far as I could get. Sorry if it's a bunch of suet; today
I visit the library in search of vol. 1 of Feynman's lectures as
recommended by Dirk Vdm.
On the largest of scales, the observable Universe (there is no
"outside") is homogeneous and isotropic. No preferred
locations or directions, no center, no absolute rest frame.
Any model the Universe , such as that of Big-Bang theory,
must be consistent with these constraints.
These are tough constraints for creatures of a "fixed point"
mentality who feel the need to know where they are so they can get
where they're going. Maybe that old farmer was right when he said,
"You can't get there from here". Thinking must be jolted out of
familiar patterns.
Meantime we have Victoria's Secrets models, and for the ladies,
Fireman calendars.
Mitch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
27 Apr 2004 10:00:27 PM |
|
|
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.0404270937.238b8f6d@posting.google.com...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<2e6dneG6iry8HxDdRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com>...
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.0404260240.4d8478e5@posting.google.com...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<P92dnclgOPjDHxHdRVn-vw@prairiewave.com>...
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.0404250117.6ce35b59@posting.google.com...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<dJ-dnZqcrrTwTRTdRVn-gw@prairiewave.com>...
If you can't measure it, it isn't physics. Observed locally,
energy
is conserved. Globally, the energy of the observable Universe
isn't guarantied to be conserved. According to Big-Bang theory,
the energy density of dark energy (that of a positive
cosmological
constant) is supposed constant with time. In a Universe that
expands with time, where does that (globally observed) energy
come from? [Old Man]
Energy is not a relativistic invariant. Its observed value
depends upon the location, time, velocity, and acceleration
of the observation platform. Locally, that is, self-referentially,
without reference to "the fixed stars", the laws of physics are
the same in all inertial reference frames Globally, an observer
in gravitational free-fall is not equivalent to an observer in free
space. Aim a laser beam at them, and they'll report different
wavelengths.
Is CMBR perceived as a constant because our velocity wrt it is
constant? Are you saying CMBR should be diminishing because there is
only so much of it to "fill" an expanding universe? (If not CMBR then
detected [predicted?] density of dark energy?). If yes, could this
energy be perceived to be constant (while it actually diminishes)
because our velocity wrt it is increasing?
The total global energy of CMBR is assumed constant. Thus,
because the volume of the observable Universe is expanding,
the local energy density, and therefore local temperature, of the
CMBR decreases with time.
Our locally observed velocity (Doppler shift) WRT the CMBR
is not cosmological in nature. The CMBR expands along with
the rest of the matter in the Universe, The CMBR is a local, but
not a global, rest frame.
Via the cosmological constant, the local energy density of "dark
energy" is constant with time. Thus in an expanding Universe,
wherein matter energy density decreases with time, the ratio of
dark energy density to total energy density increases with time.
This is as far as I could get. Sorry if it's a bunch of suet; today
I visit the library in search of vol. 1 of Feynman's lectures as
recommended by Dirk Vdm.
On the largest of scales, the observable Universe (there is no
"outside") is homogeneous and isotropic. No preferred
locations or directions, no center, no absolute rest frame.
Any model the Universe , such as that of Big-Bang theory,
must be consistent with these constraints.
These are tough constraints for creatures of a "fixed point"
mentality who feel the need to know where they are so they can get
where they're going. Maybe that old farmer was right when he said,
"You can't get there from here". Thinking must be jolted out of
familiar patterns.
Meantime we have Victoria's Secrets models, and for the ladies,
Fireman calendars.
The only absolute reference on Earth is the rotation axis which
intersects the surface at the geographic north and south poles.
Longitude isn't absolute. [Old Man]
Mitch
.
|
|
|
| User: "mitch perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
29 Apr 2004 04:47:42 AM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message news:<J7OdnXfhuKDPgxLdRVn-tA@prairiewave.com>...
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.0404270937.238b8f6d@posting.google.com...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<2e6dneG6iry8HxDdRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com>...
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.0404260240.4d8478e5@posting.google.com...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<P92dnclgOPjDHxHdRVn-vw@prairiewave.com>...
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.0404250117.6ce35b59@posting.google.com...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<dJ-dnZqcrrTwTRTdRVn-gw@prairiewave.com>...
Am finding this very challenging; please stand by...
And thank you.
Mitch
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mitch perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
27 Apr 2004 01:37:24 PM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message news:<P92dnclgOPjDHxHdRVn-vw@prairiewave.com>...
Ignorance and infamy are akin to
object and image. [Old Man]
*Very* shortly after reading this, and whilst trying to decipher
your meaning, I and my sweetie came across the following:
"Ibn al-Haytham proved that the perception of an image occurs not in
the eyes but in the brain and that the location of an image is largely
determined by psychological factors. Like Newton, Ibn al-Haytham
considered the problem of why a visual image produced within the brain
is perceived as if it were located at some distance from the viewer,
is the actual position of the object which produced it. Even today,
most people do not find this surprising, although it is quite
remarkable that images of the objects we see do not appear to be
inside the head, where they actually exist, since they are simply
electro-chemical versions of the scene inside the brain."
http://www.middleeastnews.com/arabintro2.html
(We think "is the actual position" should read "i.e. the actual
position")
Regardless, to quote one of the detectives in David Lynch's "Lost
Highway",
"You know what I think? I think there's no such thing as a bad
coincidence."
Mitch
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shrikantha S. Shastry" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
30 Apr 2004 05:57:19 AM |
|
|
(Brian) wrote in message news:<e3b8752.0404221212.34679042@posting.google.com>...
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the beginning of
the universe and the existence of God (not Christian, etc.). I
personally believe that God at one point had to set the universe into
motion. His rebuttal involved his belief that the universe runs in
cycles from expansion to contractions. Is there any Physics law that
would allow energy to begin in motion without any external force? Or
is energy "born" into motionlessness?
The universe never 'exists' even now, then where is the question of
its beginning and end? What 'exists' is its singularity on which
universe is merely 'observed' always.
S S Shastry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "eddie jw" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
22 Apr 2004 06:48:33 PM |
|
|
A cycle of the universe sounds like everything else in nature and space.
If there is an intelligence around us I could beleive it runs in a time
perspective that we can't really see. Two galaxies coliding could be the
similarity of a synopse connecting in the brain. Something that happens over
zillions of years could be the heartbeat of the universe or should we call
it God. In this way the universe could have a counsciousness.
Isn't it interesting when something passes zero? When it is absolutely
nothing for an infinitely short period of time. That point of zero is
magical. Then it passes zero and goes to the opposite on the other side.
eddie
"Brian" <fortyfivers@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e3b8752.0404221212.34679042@posting.google.com...
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the beginning of
the universe and the existence of God (not Christian, etc.). I
personally believe that God at one point had to set the universe into
motion. His rebuttal involved his belief that the universe runs in
cycles from expansion to contractions. Is there any Physics law that
would allow energy to begin in motion without any external force? Or
is energy "born" into motionlessness?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
22 Apr 2004 11:49:07 PM |
|
|
Befor the universe could exsist it wasthought of.
befor the big bang a ball of matter formed from the passervation of
energy.
we are inside the blast still and the universe of energy under presure
expanding still.
The soul is all you know on evry carbon atom that will fall into the
black hole and change ststes.
so who knows ?
Gods active force.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
22 Apr 2004 03:59:14 PM |
|
|
Brian wrote:
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the beginning of
the universe and the existence of God (not Christian, etc.). I
personally believe that God at one point had to set the universe into
motion. His rebuttal involved his belief that the universe runs in
cycles from expansion to contractions. Is there any Physics law that
would allow energy to begin in motion without any external force? Or
is energy "born" into motionlessness?
1) Zero point fluctuations of the vacuum. The universe - matter,
fields, potential and kinetic energies - as near as anybody can figure
neatly sums to exactly zero.
http://www.calphysics.org/research.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
2) Who created god?
3) Where was he when there was no place to be?
4) Mystics are baffled by the obvious yet possess a complete
understanding of the nonexistent.
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
5) There is no crunch. One accelerating expansion is all we get.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
23 Apr 2004 04:37:12 AM |
|
|
Brian wrote:
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the beginning of
the universe and the existence of God (not Christian, etc.). I
personally believe that God at one point had to set the universe into
motion. His rebuttal involved his belief that the universe runs in
cycles from expansion to contractions. Is there any Physics law that
would allow energy to begin in motion without any external force?
Or is energy "born" into motionlessness?
It's not *energy* that is moving - what is moving are *particles* which
*carry* energy (they have energy *because* they are moving).
And yes, there are possibilities in physics for things to begin moving
without any external force. It's called "conservation of momentum" and
is used e.g. in rockets, if you didn't notice. But what has all of that
to do with the questions if the universe runs in cycles or not?
BTW, you might want to read up on the ekpyrotic universe model:
<http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/>
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the beginning of the Universe |
23 Apr 2004 01:18:00 AM |
|
|
Brian wrote:
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the beginning of
the universe and the existence of God (not Christian, etc.). I
personally believe that God at one point had to set the universe into
motion. His rebuttal involved his belief that the universe runs in
cycles from expansion to contractions. Is there any Physics law that
would allow energy to begin in motion without any external force? Or
is energy "born" into motionlessness?
There is no god - everything is god
We are god - god is dog backwards
We do not know, all is interpretation or projection
cogito ergo sum
In the beginning there was "logos"
all is a dream, an eternal dance leela
waiting for godot
choose whatever you like
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
