- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,717
- 5,558
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Is there a theoretical particle, or force, that fits my description?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is there a theoretical particle, or force, that fits my description?Is it in the opposite? Or does it pull or attract just like everything else?
Is there a theoretical particle, or force, that fits my description?
No, it has an attractive effect, just like regular matter.Is it in the opposite? Or does it pull or attract just like everything else?
Is there a theoretical particle, or force, that fits my description?No, it has an attractive effect, just like regular matter.
What is Dark Matter?
Dark matter is the mysterious stuff that fills the universe but no one has ever seen.www.space.com
Is there a theoretical particle, or force, that fits my description?
I am talking about an energy, or a particle, or a force, that is a constant, and is in direct (opposite) proportion to gravity's laws or rules of attraction though, etc...?A hypothetical 'quintessence' can provide a repulsive (as opposed to attractive) force. I don't think there are a lot of people boosting the idea.
By the descriptions I have heard/read about the BB, while GR can't say much about the singularity, it does say that space-time expanded with whatever occupied it. I was under the impression that space-time was at least governed by what occupied it, and not the other way around. But maybe it was the whole mess expanding together —I don't know. It was said that time began at the BB, and, I believe, I heard that indeed reality/space also did.The singularity is where GR breaks down and no longer works. We don't know what the laws are that govern that situation, so GR has nothing to say about the actual singularity or what may or may not have come before. Our understanding of cosmology only begins a short time after the BB.
Looked it up on Wiki. Interesting idea!A hypothetical 'quintessence' can provide a repulsive (as opposed to attractive) force. I don't think there are a lot of people boosting the idea.
Perhaps I misspoke. According to what I have read/heard/understood: Time and space, matter and energy (in whatever form), ergo 'reality', began their expansion at the BB.There are two things incorrect here.
First of all, no one is saying that there was nothing before the Big Bang. The simple fact is we don't know. It's quite possible that our universe existed before that (in whatever sense the word "before" can be said to apply here), but the Big Bang was some kind of rest switch. This of it like a bronze statue. You can examine it and get an incredibly detailed history of it by looking at the wear patterns, analyzing any gas trapped in microscopic bubbles in the metal, etc., but you can only go back to the moment the metal was poured. That metal might have been sitting around as ingots for a hundred years before that point, but you can never learn anything about that, because the act of melting the bronze and pouring it destroyed any evidence of that time.
Secondly, general relativity doesn't apply to cases where the distortion is as great as it was during the Big Bang. So it's incorrect to say that GR makes any predictions about what was before the BB.
The Wiki article has a good primer on it. Dark matter - WikipediaIs there a theoretical particle, or force, that fits my description?
Both really. The stuff warps the space, and the shape of the space tells the stuff where to go. [And now that the stuff has moved, the shape of the space gets warped to match the new configuration.]I was under the impression that space-time was at least governed by what occupied it, and not the other way around.
If it weren't for that naughty DevilI think as astronauts experience zero gravity it is quite obvious the further we get from the devil, the less we feel him pulling us to the darkness
If it's historical why does it have the flood story.You are right. The Bible is not a scientific compilation. It is a historical one.
Pointing out that "these historical figures walked" speaks to the seeming function of gravity in prelapsarian times.
Reexamining the context of the OP, I will just leave it at that.
Even Jesus affirmed the Flood in Matthew 24:37-39.If it's historical why does it have the flood story.
Even Jesus affirmed the Flood in Matthew 24:37-39.
He was pretty clear & unambiguous. Read the linked verse and see for yourself.Who knows what he really said, or exactly what
was meant if the ambiguous quote is accurate.
I've read it.He was pretty clear & unambiguous. Read the linked verse and see for yourself.
He didn't affirm; he referenced.Even Jesus affirmed the Flood in Matthew 24:37-39.
Get it through your head that " believe jesus"And Moses spoke of Jesus. Those who do not believe Moses, do not believe Jesus either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?