No physical mechanisms predefines future events (or is there one ?).
So, I could state that the future does not exist yet and the past as ceased to exist.
in that statement I have a problem with the definition of existence. Does the definition of existence exist itself ? This is (is it ?) more a problem of terminology than philosophy or physics.
Thanks for your time and attention.
We have never observed anything in the universe just popping into existence from nothing (…)
if we did, that would be a major shift in physics. in this regards I heard of (or read of) two candidates :
.1 if universe’s expansion continues to accelerate, (it would mean) dark energy is increassing.
.2 an excess of hydrogen (clouds) outside of galaxies was observed that is difficult to explain with current cosmology.
I know these are not direct observation of something popping up, …but still.
I think there must be a mechanism behind the (stated) laws. This is what interest my reflection.
On a side note :
is there something in nature that prescribes the conservation of energy ?
(please, if you answer this, do so under my other comment (big bang…) …I don’t want to lose track of the main topic).
I am trying to find a loophole for the origin of the big Bang or whatever created the universe.
P.S. What I’m saying could be something like : “if a system is empty it doesn’t contain the first law”.
My misquotation was on purpose.
in the same thread of thoughts : if there was a system without the first law, anything could appear as if by magic !
…that is, until the 1st law appears.
i made this post (one month ago) :
How to browse ipfs:// ?
Bottom line : it went nowhere.
Humanity is so stupid when it comes to “territory” and we are not the only species that acts like beasts about it.
At sea level air is about 1.25 kg/m³, so for one cubic kilometer cloud that is :
1 250 000 tons.
I put your result into table to show a problem at 51 km and above… since density decreases monotically with altitude.
| mass (tons) | altitude (km) |
|---|---|
| 1 250 000 | 0 |
| 364 000 | 11 |
| 88 000 | 20 |
| 860 | 51 |
| 64 | 71 |
Clouds can be easily 10 cubic km.
I did make I have made many mistakes, much worse than this one and on many occasions. I would say : don’t be so hard on yourself since it’s important to forgive ourselves.
I do believe the following correction should be made again to your text though :
Gravity is an [edit: inverse squared] function, so it gets weaker at
an exponentiala squared rate as you move away from the source.
I believe in this community you have to write the word “rule” in the title, like so :
Banana? Banana rules !
(you can edit the title even after posting, that is, if you want so)
You can start where ever you want :
(Please excuse this joke : I could not resist)
Hey @Jeredin@lemm.ee
This one, @FlowVoid@midwest.social, has the correct answer…
So, don’t believe in the crackpot idea that it would be exponential
This was a popular theory at one point: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
There was no expansion in the steady state model while, in this new model, it’s easier to explain the perfect black body curve of the CMB.
In addition to CMB being tough to explain, the distant universe is different — for example, quasars are far away/old. You would expect them to be more evenly distributed in a steady-state theory.
The universe I propose is very old, so, it is not uniform.
Please join me here :
https://lemmy.ca/post/3553583
for a continuation.
Please follow developments here :
https://lemmy.ca/post/3539374
https://lemmy.ca/post/3553583
I had to rebuild completely my post (questions and answer) from other users also, because some moderator, at “ShowerThoughts”, deleted the post while it was in progress.
if we find a mechanism that continually creates matter in the universe we don’t need a big bang. Creation of matter and gravity fields, (net zero) could somehow increase the expansion of the universe. 3d interference pattern of gravitational waves would create rogue waves at specific points in SpaceTime that would create matter and the CMB.
Oops ! I just defined a new cosmological model 😄 !
Yes we had a nice exchange five or six days ago in your post :
Beyond the Darkness - Dark Matter: A Baseless Hypothesis?
I am not a physicist and I don’t work in this field. I just read since many years and I made my mind about what was going to be successful and what was not.
My best prediction so far was that JWST was going to see the same type of galaxies very far away as those in the local universe. (at least partially verified) I made that same prediction when Hubble telescope was put into orbit. Back then physicist started doubting their theories.
…that all energy in ordinary matter is equal to the negative potential gravitational energy of that matter. Because of this I am scanning all I read for clues for a mechanism where matter could be created from gravitational field …something like Hawking radiation. For the same reason I am also looking for evidence that the universe could stand for a much longer time since the CMB. This would be the case for a universe that would be exponentially expanding. Suppose the accelerating rate of expansion double each 10 billion years or so. Then, if you go in the past every 10 billion years the rate of expansion is smaller and smaller exponentially decreasing and the universe is extremely old.
I have so many more ideas but I don’t want to make a wall of text.
You are talking about Penrose now and it is a nice coincidence that I wrote about him yesterday here :
https://lemmy.ca/post/3363583
Anthropologically speaking this is the best answer. Our brain needs a certain span of time to establish perceived reality.