General Relativity.

quote:

---

First off no one knows what energy is.

---

Interesting. No one knows what gravity really is, it seems, and no one really knows what energy is.

So now we do know what energy is? Where does nature end, if some energy originated from a spiritual universe, how would we know where it came from? Was no energy required to produce the universe to begin with? If it all comes from inside the universe from various changes occurring, does this actually explain what it is? Or does this just attempt to describe more how it works?
Nevertheless, you admit it is an abstract thing here. That seems to indicate the first guy was right, and we really don't understand it?
Taking this to an extreme, a side note to this thought may be e=mc2. If mass could move at light speed, the speed limit for the phyical universe, it would become energy. If it moved any faster, it would then, I suppose cease to be physical matter, or physical universe energy, and enter into the universe of the spiritual? (If you don't believe in this then, I guess you'd have to go with unknown)Theoretical, of course. Now if the spiritual, on the other hand came this way, (since we, the physical universe really, can't go that way), and joined the physical universe, what effect would this have on matter? Someone indicated, I think, it isn't 'solid' now? Imagine if it was merged! There still would be real and solid things, but things like being able to pass through a wall would perhaps be possible as well. Just as energy can pass through things, no? If the spiritual was coming this way, we wouldn't have to do anything wild like speed up, etc.This message has been edited by simple, 10-10-2005 11:43 PM

No one says you should. But, of course billions do now, and have since time began. They feel they have reasons, ranging fom miracles, to healings, ghosts, experiences of some kind, etc. Various evidences, not of the physical kind, but real nevertheless enough that the majority of men have always, and always will acknowledge there is something more.
I mention this universe, because I believe that it both exists, and that it bears on all facets of what we see around us, even though what we see is physical now. It bears, because I see it as once being merged together, and again one day, will be merged.
At present, I see it as it is, a physical only universe. I could not prove to you that it was merged, and you could not prove to me it was not using things science now has the ability to work with. (or anything else)
This leaves only belief. Your belief,(if you held one) for example, that there was no spiritual, therefore no merged past or future. Not a belief you could prove.
Rather than explore the spiritual universe here, which isn't appropriate, all we can do is leave it as something that may exist, and that cannot be disproved.
It is in the times when the limits of our knowledge are reached on this physical universe, and we say, "I don't know" that the spiritual must enter in as a contender. So I find it interesting when people say they really just do not really know on key issues, like energy, time, gravity, Is the universe finite, or infinite? Straight, or curved, etc.

I already said somewhere today that we can't bring the spiritual into the discussion here. I, of course have lots of evidences for this type of thing, the world is full of them, in fact, always has been. But, realizing that on this forum, physical only evidence is required, I don't intend on going there, to the beyond. Just as far toward there as men can go with what they know, exploring the limits of our knowledge.

Why? -because there it is you leave evidence, and must resort to speculation, and assumptions, etc. which are not provable.

quote:

---

I find it interesting when people would rather say..."here be dragons." when the limits of they're knowlege is reached.
And to answer your questions. The universe is infinite according to recent obervations made by NASA.

---

Guess it depends how you fefine what is the dragons there, since whatever it is exists somewhere other than a place you could offer evidnece. Now, thanks for the tidbit they think the universe is infinite. What tipped the balance there, and made it an official guess?This message has been edited by simple, 10-11-2005 05:39 PM

So, again, it ain't neccesarily so! Amazing. At least it is admitted. Should they tack 'philosophy' onto that field? Something like theoretical philosophical physics!?

That link was broken, but at the site I found this.
"Is the Universe Infinite?The shape of the universe is determined by a struggle between the momentum of expansion and the pull of gravity. The rate of expansion is expressed by the Hubble Constant, Ho, while the strength of gravity depends on the density and pressure of the matter in the universe. If the pressure of the matter is low, as is the case with most forms of matter we know of, then the fate of the universe is governed by the density. If the density of the universe is less than the "critical density" which is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant, then the universe will expand forever. If the density of the universe is greater than the "critical density", then gravity will eventually win and the universe will collapse back on itself, the so called "Big Crunch". However, the results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as the "dark energy". If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever."
WMAP Cosmology 101: Shape of the UniverseNow an acceleration to some may suggest or imply dark matter, because they need something to fit the bill here, and physical unseen matter was all they could come up with. Also, as the article nted, ominously called, 'dark energy'. I'm not allowed to speculate on this forum at something else one might call light energy, so I won't. Funny how some reserve the unknown for themselves, and their beliefs, and own suggestions!Beyond this, they can't seem to say whether it will go on forever, or collapse! Either way, the exercise there in supposition, and guessing at the unknown is a closed church!I'll have to satisfy myself here, not with easily overcoming opposing thoughts to my own with better reason, but with listening to the tall tales of our unknown fate, which I find amusing enough for now.

Thanks for that. Link is broken, though.

Thanks for the link,
"It is important to realize that in Physics today, we have no
knowledge of what energy is."
I think that is important, to realize we don't know everything.

Hardly clueless is a comparitive concept. If there was a whole lot more than the physical universe, and we hardly have a grip on what's going on here, that would be comparitively clueless. If not, and the unknowns that abound are really just around the corner, if we follow the carrot on the stick, then, it is true, we have some good clues now, after all. But which of these best applies, we really don't know, and indeed, in that respect are clueless indeed.

quote:

---

"Our knowledge is imperfect; thus, the things I make believe are true."
Does that sound like an airtight argument to anyone? Not me.

---

Well, if make believe erronous arguements are to be shunned, then we need to look at some of the cosmological whoppers! Not the things we do know, but those other things, like how we came from nothing. Or where we are heading, hey, they don't know! Are we in an infinite universe? 'gee we kinda think so, but maybe not'. Those with imperfect knowledge should stick to what they know, and not get to preaching alternate creation.

Alternate to something appearing for no apparent reason, or creator involved, yes.(though some might suppose God meant eden as a fable and the singularity magic act was really where it's at).

quote:

---

Why do you always reference to something other than the physical universe as though that had any meaning? What does you mean by not physical my friend?
.... Science operates in the region between known and unknown and has found physical explanations for all the questions

---

Not all. Not what was before the big bang, or what caused the somethin from nothin. Not where life from nonlife appeared. Not for sure whether this physical universe is infinite or finite. Not whether there are ghosts or not. I would expect there would be 'physical explanations' for things in a physical universe, but not beyond. Beyond doesn't just mean far away, but long ago, or in the future.

quote:

---

That we have different possible scenarios for further study of leading edge physics is not as result of being clueless but because of the difficulty of producing the conditions necessary to test the modles we do have.

---

This is important, in other words we have definite limits.

quote:

---

However, without the different models we cannot have any idea about which direction to put effort to best secure further study.

---

I understand, make the best with what you do have, and the limits under which you must do this.

quote:

---

First off before the big bang is a wrong question since "before" is a temporal term and has no meaning when there is no spacetime in which a before can have logical placement.

---

Same can be said of the merge idea, and who knows what else. Space time as we know it only applies to this universe after it came into being, whether created, of from the tiny universe you suggest.

quote:

---

That something came from nothing is not the likely case either.

---

Well, since you really don't know, we could say that, or something else for that matter!

quote:

---

The universe most likely has existence at a level that is not consistent with the universe we experience since we are constituents of the universe as it is in spacetime.

---

This is what people who propose another non physical dimension would say also, but there, you would likely sceam for evidence?

quote:

---

The background vacuum energy which is a consequence of the principle of uncertainty allows for the "existence" of particles that constantly fluctuate with energy as long as they vanish within a brief enough time period that they do not violate conservation of energy in the universe.

---

So there may be a part of the universe we don't really see, or are uncertain about, but when it comes to vanishing and appearing things, like ghosts, your theorries as to the real explanation are only as good as your imagination.

quote:

---

I am not sure you do. The limits are a consequence of the structure that we study not a limit on what we can discover.

---

Speculation. You don't know the limits we can discover.

quote:

---

It is true that there are things we can also never know about the universe ..

---

These unknowns also may affect the knowns, and there is no way we can say, then, that there may this other dimension beyond these admitted limits.

quote:

---

That does not mean that we fill the gap with anything that takes our fancy since if we do not know about those regions we cannot say anything at all about them for any idea is just as valid as another.

---

This is a good description of what is being attempted with having things like a microscopic universe just appear on the scene, or life from non life.