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.
Bonne fête Camus !
(si toutefois vous êtes grand-père. Sinon, bonne fête à un grand-père de votre choix 😋)
Votre imagination est juste car je n’étais pas au courant.
Humanity is so stupid when it comes to “territory” and we are not the only species that acts like beasts about it.
I read through these and try to understand them but mostly I don’t like those theories, because (in part) more and more there are disparities between them and observations.
So I came up with some ideas myself, one of which I wrote in here :
“New physical cosmological model : is it coherent ?”
But it may take a few years or a few thousand before we have a good cosmology.
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.
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
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
Wanted to see this since a long time ! Do you have a source ? Please ?
Unless maybe you are talking about this :
Zero-point energy
I do believe there is a strong link to be understood between what is observed in this post and what was posted :
X-Ray echo suggests our galaxy was “active” (quasar-like) just 200 years ago - Nature
by @CanadaPlus one month ago.
Thanks for this (X-Ray echo) post and for the last comment you made here in the other thread, about Penroses’ current work.
So I will read through some of this and try to come back with something worthwhile to say.
Update : I read some more and most of that is just out of my reach. The only paragraph I kind of understand somewhat is this :
(…) conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) theory.[67] In this theory, Penrose postulates that at the end of the universe all matter is eventually contained within black holes which subsequently evaporate via Hawking radiation. At this point, everything contained within the universe consists of photons which “experience” neither time nor space. There is essentially no difference between an infinitely large universe consisting only of photons and an infinitely small universe consisting only of photons. Therefore, a singularity for a Big Bang and an infinitely expanded universe are equivalent. [68]
…and now I need some rest.
Anthropologically speaking this is the best answer. Our brain needs a certain span of time to establish perceived reality.