Gravity vs Mass

[Thief]

could time be measured?

as long as you can COUNT a series of MOTIONS
accurately

the ticking of your watch
the tapping of your finger on a table
the rhythm of a beat

the count can be used for measure

but......no movement?

no time

you can have all the space you want

it won't matter
if nothing moves

and someone will need a yard stick and a watch

 

[Thief]

No, you only believe that God exists. And nothing is proven in the sciences. The sciences are respected because unlike religion it works, female dogs that have had puppies

I believe in God because of science

I care not your *****

 

[Valjean]

but no one seems to note.....
allow me to point it out


he used an illusion …..a man made measure
distance divided by another measure
increments of measure we call time

seconds don't exist......except in your head
miles are just increments we created for our feet

light doesn't care
neither do I

describing reality using an illusion....?

ooooops

Huh?

 

[Polymath257]

No where if you are standing exactly on the north pole.

Precisely. And at the Big bang, there is no 'before' in *exactly* the same way.

 

[Polymath257]

I didn't ask what was before.

Current models suggest at one point time nor the universe existed then after the big bang they both were in existance.

At no 'point' was there non-existence. it only makes sense to talk about 'after the Big Bang' in standard BB cosmology.

Did the change(the big bang) bring forth time or did time bring forth the change(the big bang)
(Or did they happen simultaneously)?

No change without time.

 

[viole]

I believe in God because of science

I care not your *****

May ask which God? Or is it Gods?

In other words: do you believe in a God with tenet X because science provides evidence for X, like peer articles about airborne Jesus, or violations of the constancy of mass in case of creation of much food from three fishes, or do you get the tenets from another source?

In case of the latter, why do you need science?

ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

What is the definition of *nothing* as you are using it here?

Non-existence. Just like there is nothing 'north of the north pole', there is nothing (in standard BB cosmology, at least) 'before the Big Bang'. The two are precisely analogous: both are aspects of the geometry of the situations.

 

[Polymath257]

I had a feeling that might be the case.

Thanks for the recommendation. I found it online and will have a deeper look (although it might be slightly above my pay grade from a first look).

If you let me know what your background is, I might be able to suggest an intermediate level book. The main difficulty is mathematical. I'm guessing you have had some standard differential equations. So a book like Ward's on Gravity might be a good first start. I'd avoid Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's book on Gravitation at first (I had one professor describe it as a good doorstop).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Einstein won the Nobel Prize in physics showing that you are wrong:

Photoelectric effect - Wikipedia

Einstein was wrong about a lot of stuff including entanglement.

 

[Native]

LOL --No, I think that was his cosmological constant which, interestingly, later proved pretty accurate.
It is a good example of bad science, though, since it was added to make his theory fit a preconceived static universe. In good science facts follow from evidence, so it does qualify as a blunder.

General relativity - Wikipedia
Cosmological constant - Wikipedia

OK, I googled. It was his cosmological constant: Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right | Space

I still think Einstein was correct in his first conclusion but he let the cosmological society overrule his intuitive perception.

Quote from - Cosmological constant - Wikipedia

“Einstein originally introduced the concept in 1917 to counterbalance the effects of gravity and achieve a static universe, a notion which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept in 1931 after Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe. From the 1930s until the late 1990s, most physicists assumed the cosmological constant to be equal to zero. That changed with the surprising discovery in 1998 that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, implying the possibility of a positive nonzero value for the cosmological constant”.

That is: "Once upon a time" the Universe was thought to be static and the cosmological constant to be zero. Along came the Hubble telescope observations and the idea of measuring "redshift distances" via luminosity of stars and via the frequensies of specific elements.

The very idea that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating is in itself an unexplainable and speculative issue and of course this lead to another dark cosmological idea of "dark energy".

Furthermore is the "redshift measurement" strongly criticized by astronomer Halton Arp who discovered that a certain galaxy and a significant star in this galaxy are measured to have very different redshift properties as described here - https://www.haltonarp.com/articles/intrinsic_redshifts_in_quasars_and_galaxies.pdf - hence the redshift method cannot be taken as a valid method to measure astronomical distances and expansions, which again discards the very idea of an accelerating expanding Universe.

Once upon a time the cosmological constant was thought to be zero but all kinds of theoretical ideas are speculatively invented and taken into account for the very strange idea of Big Bang and an accelerating expansion of the Universe.

IMO Einsteins biggest blunder was to accept a Big Bang creation from nothing and its "accelerating universe" and discard the "static" perception of the Universe. And this universal blunder mostly STILL rules the standing cosmological perception.

 

[Darkforbid]

I still think Einstein was correct in his first conclusion but he let the cosmological society overrule his intuitive perception.

Quote from - Cosmological constant - Wikipedia

“Einstein originally introduced the concept in 1917 to counterbalance the effects of gravity and achieve a static universe, a notion which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept in 1931 after Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe. From the 1930s until the late 1990s, most physicists assumed the cosmological constant to be equal to zero. That changed with the surprising discovery in 1998 that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, implying the possibility of a positive nonzero value for the cosmological constant”.

That is: "Once upon a time" the Universe was thought to be static and the cosmological constant to be zero. Along came the Hubble telescope observations and the idea of measuring "redshift distances" via luminosity of stars and via the frequensies of specific elements.

The very idea that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating is in itself an unexplainable and speculative issue and of course this lead to another dark cosmological idea of "dark energy".

Furthermore is the "redshift measurement" strongly criticized by astronomer Halton Arp who discovered that a certain galaxy and a significant star in this galaxy are measured to have very different redshift properties as described here - https://www.haltonarp.com/articles/intrinsic_redshifts_in_quasars_and_galaxies.pdf - hence the redshift method cannot be taken as a valid method to measure astronomical distances and expansions, which again discards the very idea of an accelerating expanding Universe.

Once upon a time the cosmological constant was thought to be zero but all kinds of theoretical ideas are speculatively invented and taken into account for the very strange idea of Big Bang and an accelerating expansion of the Universe.

IMO Einsteins biggest blunder was to accept a Big Bang creation from nothing and its "accelerating universe" and discard the "static" perception of the Universe. And this universal blunder mostly STILL rules the standing cosmological perception.

How is Einstein in anyway blundering a big bang creation. Its not even his theory

 

[Subduction Zone]

Einstein was wrong about a lot of stuff including entanglement.

Being wrong about some things does not mean being wrong at everything.

 

[Native]

How is Einstein in anyway blundering a big bang creation. Its not even his theory

I know, he initially believed in a "static universe" and a zero cosmological constant which he thought was his blundering - which it was not IMO.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Being wrong about some things does not mean being wrong at everything.

What is does mean is that there is something missing in the understanding of quantum entanglement/ mechanics, or in the understanding of Eisenstein's general theory or relativity, or both, as they describe two different worlds. At some point someone will find the link between them.
At the moment both are usable in practice, but not together.

 

[Thief]

May ask which God? Or is it Gods?

In other words: do you believe in a God with tenet X because science provides evidence for X, like peer articles about airborne Jesus, or violations of the constancy of mass in case of creation of much food from three fishes, or do you get the tenets from another source?

In case of the latter, why do you need science?

ciao

- viole

cause and effect

Someone had to be First

in that instant of SELF...….the proclamation....I AM!

synonymous to.....Let there be light

God the Almighty
THAT God

 

[Thief]

digressing slightly.....

with extreme acceleration……..mass increases

I heard somewhere.....as the numbers play out
mass runs to infinity as the speed of light is obtained

I don't buy that

any support?......one way OR the other

and let's not forget.....
gravity and mass are related

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

digressing slightly.....

with extreme acceleration……..mass increases

I heard somewhere.....as the numbers play out
mass runs to infinity as the speed of light is obtained

I don't buy that

any support?......one way OR the other

and let's not forget.....
gravity and mass are related

was proved by the existence of black holes the mass gravity is so extreme even light can not escape.

 

[Darkforbid]

was proved by the existence of black holes the mass gravity is so extreme even light can not escape.

He's talking about mass increase due to acceleration. Not gravitational massive objects

 

[viole]

cause and effect

Someone had to be First

in that instant of SELF...….the proclamation....I AM!

synonymous to.....Let there be light

God the Almighty
THAT God

if your theology is based on cause and effect, I would look for another theology. In modern science, cause and effect is dead.

ciao

- viole

 

[Darkforbid]

if your theology is based on cause and effect, I would look for another theology. In modern science, cause and effect is dead.

ciao

- viole

You so right science doesn't for causality. It just assumes everything happens magical