Re: Beginning ?
- From: "TomGee" <lvlus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Apr 2005 16:02:08 -0700
Dr *** wrote:
> "TomGee" <lvlus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1114354951.418469.199280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Dr *** wrote:
> > The problem with postulating a beginning from my pov is this leaves
> the
> > question of 'what was before the beginning ad infinitum.
> >
> >
> tg
> In my POV, that is not necessary. What was before the beginning of
our
> universe was absolute space in the area where our universe appeared.
> The same for any other universes if they exist. The most general of
> all existences must be absolute space, defined simply as space devoid
> of anything in it. It is from there back that your "ad infinitum"
must
> begin and not before.
> dr
> Do you mean 'back' from 'space deviod of anything'?
>
>
Yes, because we have not been able to think of the origin of absolute
space as yet. I have thought of the origin of the space of our
universe, as I explained in my first post, but before that there is
only my proposition that before our universe began, the space in which
it was created and expanded into was a relatively small part of the
absolute space which exists extended beyond the current edges of our
universe, or else the other sci-fi proposition that there was a Great
Void into which the BB spewed space and the other elements which are
our universe. That means there was no space, absolute or otherwise,
before the BB, and it means that somehow, as yet unexplained, space was
part of the singularity of the BB and was emptied out into a Great Void
which is beyond the human brain's capacity to imagine.
The Great Void had to be created so as to accommodate physicist's need
for space to be expandable such as is claimed in the Inflationary
Period and to explain the observed symmetry as bodies move away from
us. My model does not need that simply because it contends that space
is not what is expanding but only the Dark Matter in it. It is
critical that the POV be well understood here to mean that matter is
not growing larger in the process of expansion but that Dark Matter is
moving "outwardly" so that we can say that the universe is expanding
due apparently to the momentum given to Dark Matter by the BB.
>
>
> Is not space unless it is dimensionless, existence and if so how long
had it
> been there devoid of anything?
> So same problem with 'space deviod of anything'.
>
>
Well, I am not entirely sure what you are asking above, but I can tell
that you ask about how long absolute space has existed. We cannot even
guess at that answer since we haven't a clue about it. I would guess
that other universes exist in the same absolute space but at different
locations of it than ours, which of course makes those areas no longer
absolute space.
>
>
> tg
> >From there forward, our universe was emptied into absolute space,
> dr
> From where was our universe emptied from?
>
>
I am inclined to think it came out of something similar to the BB, but
only because it has somewhat better overall success at explaining the
observed than the old steady state theories. The SS theories, however,
do explain some things better except that they cannot seem to overcome
the increasing rate of the expansion process.
>
>
> tg
> which
> the corruption of it defined the edges of our universe then from the
> beginning and defines it still today. Space was not emptied out in
the
> contents of the BB, if that is what caused our universe to be
created,
> but Dark Matter was what first polluted absolute space regardless of
> its origin,
> dr
> Are you suggesting that Dark Matter had no beginning?
>
>
No no, not at all. Dark Matter is distinct from space. It came out of
the BB into absolute space and the boundaries between the current
absolute space and the space of our universe define the size of our
universe.
>
>
> tg
> and Dark Matter fills our space as the medium for all
> visible matter.
> dr
> Interesting idea that Dark Matter is promoted to visible matter.
> tg
> Visible matter, then, is the product of Dark Matter interactions
> between the matter which formed shortly after the BB, or else visible
> matter may have formed as the result of the energy of the creation of
> the universe.
> dr
> Thanks for your pov Tom, it seems a personal and arbitrary one as far
as
> beginnings go which is fine as I would tend to see all beginnings as
that,
> which I think was my point :-)
> Dr ***
>
>
I would ask you to note that nothing in my POV is arbitrary wrt to
observed effects. There is much ambiguity in science, so much so that
there can always be fashioned alternative explanations to those which
seem too close to fantasy and which are too easily overthrown with
straight thinking. And there are, unfortunately, too many of those as
well.
TomGee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Beginning ?
- From: Dr ***
- Re: Beginning ?
- References:
- Beginning ?
- From: Dr ***
- Re: Beginning ?
- From: TomGee
- Re: Beginning ?
- From: Dr ***
- Beginning ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Paradigmatic Change.
- Next by Date: Are some or all Comets made of antimatter?
- Previous by thread: Re: Beginning ?
- Next by thread: Re: Beginning ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
