611–620 of 647 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which God? Vishnu? Ra? Amatarasu?
Assume God exists. Various isolated cultures are going to come up with different names for God. This like saying which Sun? Surya, Ra or Helios? All are different names of sun. But there is only one sun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about just having one God vs many? If there is a single omnipotent being, why do various cultures have multiple gods? And why do different cultures’ gods tell them different things?
Fair question. So my understanding is God is consciousness. It's omnipotent, all knowing and eternal. It's the only thing which is constant in your life and it sees everything you do. Now, you cannot worship consciousness as humans because it's invisible and you can never imagine it. You need a version of consciousness that you can see as well as you can relate to. So cultures invent localized version of God which pe…
I've always thought arguments like these are unnecessarily applying a term loaded with human conceptions and biases in a way that doesn't shed any further light on the thing it's applied to. Like, what do we gain by defining "God" as consciousness? Why can't we just say "consciousness"? And is it worth the added confusion that when we say "God", we now don't mean what most people think "God" is?
The only reason I can come up with to do this is discomfort at saying, "I don't believe in God."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? If you attribute it to an earlier universe, you are just pushing the problem further back. It doesn't seem to be a proof or even a mild indication.
The universe casually didn't follow the laws of physics immediately after the Big Bang, an improbable event directly after an improbable event. No explanation has been found, even according to CERN, why everything that was created was not spontaneously annihilated. Attributing that to a divine intervention is the most probable explanation. CERN attributing this to "Some unknown entity" is humorous. One theory (which…
You lost me here. It seems humans have a predisposition to believe in divine beings, so this just sounds like taking human biases as a basis for truth. What's wrong with saying, "I don't know?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think c is a good candidate, because it's not really a parameter. dont be so sure! there is no way to experimentally know if c is a parameter or not. there are consistent physics formulations which have variable, even anisotropic c. physicists dont usually explore them (e.g. tangherlini relativity) though because the math is considerably harder.
Physicists (and in particular the subset doing physical cosmology) don't usually explore parametrizations of c because they're not clearly physical (and sometimes even clearly unphysical), or alternatively don't help solve astrophysical or cosmological problems. Relativists sometimes like to explore things that make using the Tangherlini transformations rather than the Lorentz transformations look positively benign.…
you get pseudo black holes but depending on the extremeness of the deviation from linear, the difference to black holes might not be observable with current tech.
Suggested hard sci-fi light reading: "Cosm" by Gregory Benford, 1999. A universe the size of a bowling ball created in a laboratory. The scientist responsible for it, keeping it safe and on the run from gvt spooks. They want to protect it for as long as it lasts, and since its time is as relative as its size, they won't have long to wait.
Rick and Morty episode (season 2 episode 6, 'The Ricks Must be Crazy') where it turns out rick has created a whole universe inside his spaceship battery who's whole purpose is to produce energy to run his spaceship. A scientist within this microverse creates a miniverse ....
Suggested hard sci-fi light reading: "Cosm" by Gregory Benford, 1999. A universe the size of a bowling ball created in a laboratory. The scientist responsible for it, keeping it safe and on the run from gvt spooks. They want to protect it for as long as it lasts, and since its time is as relative as its size, they won't have long to wait.
Rick and Morty episode (season 2 episode 6, 'The Ricks Must be Crazy') where it turns out rick has created a whole universe inside his spaceship battery who's whole purpose is to produce energy to run his spaceship. A scientist within this microverse creates a miniverse ....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you assume someone would write the paper at all, if the problem was uninteresting?
That's literally the basis of employment. People write papers, they get paid. Science does not get done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Physicists (and in particular the subset doing physical cosmology) don't usually explore parametrizations of c because they're not clearly physical (and sometimes even clearly unphysical), or alternatively don't help solve astrophysical or cosmological problems. Relativists sometimes like to explore things that make using the Tangherlini transformations rather than the Lorentz transformations look positively benign.…
my understanding is vsl physics can eliminate singularities if you have c approach zero in the presence of mass in a flat spacetime. AIUI this is equivalent to einsteinian curved spacetime except as you approach zero and deviate from linear in your c(m) formula. you get pseudo black holes but depending on the extremeness of the deviation from linear, the difference to black holes might not be observable with current…
There are a variety of types of variable speed of light. If we foliate to 3+1 the usual picture is that c is constant on all spatial slices. Some VSL theories have the same c at all points on a given slice, but introduce a time variation of c. Other VSL theories introduce spatial variation as well (or instead). These families of theories all have significantly different equations of motion or actions from one another (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Hilbert_actio...>). There's no obvious reason why c couldn't relate in a more complicated way to the stress-energy tensor than the Einstein gravitational constant does, but there's also no obvious reason to think such an alternative theory should produce free-fall trajectories similar to those from GR.
In any case, I think you have to choose your function on c, obtain the field equations, decide which energy conditions and constraint equations you want to impose, set appropriate boundary conditions, choose a curve along which to foliate, and run with enough different initial-value surfaces (each of which must satisfy the constraints initially), that eventually an intuition develops. A Will-like parameterized post-Newtonian formalism approach would also be a good idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_f...>).
Unfortunately I'm unable to guess your choice of "c(m) formula".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> The black hole in the parent universe must be much much bigger than >> anything we see in ours >> Yes and no. You're not thinking about contraction. With relativity >> we can fit a 100ft ladder inside a 10ft barn. I believe the OP was talking about mass, not linear dimension. (And if he wasn't, I am.) Unless somehow mass inside a black hole is not constant? (ignoring accretion)
Relativity applies to mass too. Accelerate and you become heavier. Remember, mathematically, a blackhole is mass in an infinitely small point. You are dividing by 0. I don't know the answer, but if someone is saying that from the outside the apparent mass is different than from the inside, that doesn't set off any alarm bells. We literally are talking about Dr Who style "it's bigger on the inside". Even the ladder ex…
Unless the theory also breaks mass and information conservation, the star that gave birth to our black hole must have been as massive as our entire universe.
I doubt we have any theory how a star that size can have formed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bounce is invisible from the outside -- an event horizon means causal decoupling. From outside, the formation of the black hole looks like the good old "frozen star" picture. There will never be observational evidence on what happens on the other side of any event horizon, you'd have to cross over to the other side to see it for yourself (but you won't be able to report back your findings). There's a fun greg ega…
What's the story?