Philosophy: First Cause is. Everything else is becoming.

[Hans Blaster]

Gravity structures the mass/energy.

More the other way around, but there is interaction.

"A black hole is a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light can not get out. The gravity is so strong because matter has been squeezed into a tiny space." The toy ship would stop, definitely.

I'm not sure what the toy ship is for, but if it enters a BH, it will be shredded and then compressed. Not sure how "stopping" is relevant.

Also, whether this universe melts down and re-creates another is highly speculative. It may be a variation of a perpetual motion machine Right now, the universe is finite.

So speculative, I've never heard of it. We have 0 evidence for a finite universe. There is nothing in our own Universe that indicates that a boundary is anywhere near.

(this is wandering off topic into a discussion of physics rather than hypothetical trains and chains. That is fine, I like physics but as a topic for another thread. What say you?)

The thread is something about "first cause" to which physics is definitely relevant, but I'm not sure how trains or chains are.

 

[Moral Orel]

All possible Universes are finite since there is only a finite age and, therefore, a limiting horizon.

Those horizons (boundaries) are (again) arbitrarily defined human constructs. The observable universe is just what we can see, that says nothing about the universe's actual size.

the universe is finite.

Physicists disagree. No one knows for sure one way or the other, but there's nothing that precludes it.

 

[Moral Orel]

The thread is something about "first cause" to which physics is definitely relevant, but I'm not sure how trains or chains are.

I offered an analogy of an infinitely long train, on an infinitely long set of tracks, placed on a slope to show an infinite regress of events. An infinite regress of events is impossible for first-cause-folks. Q here claims that infinites are impossible.

 

[QvQ]

I said that infinite regress was not possible because gravity is inherent in the train analogy. It is because of the properties of gravity that the train cannot be infinite.
However, if you have another analogy to infinite regress, then I am willing to consider it.

Genuine Physic, Finite Universe.
Einstein's General Relativity requires a finite spherical universe (it cannot be infinite because of Mach's Principle, with which Einstein strongly agreed, that the mass of a body is finite, is determined by all other matter in the universe, thus all other matter in universe must be finite).

 

[Moral Orel]

Genuine Physic, Finite Universe.
Einstein's General Relativity requires a finite spherical universe (it cannot be infinite because of Mach's Principle, with which Einstein strongly agreed, that the mass of a body is finite, is determined by all other matter in the universe, thus all other matter in universe must be finite).

Mach's principle predicts that gravitational waves are impossible. Gravitational waves have been detected. Mach's principle is false.

 

[QvQ]

Q here claims that infinites are impossible.

Here is infinite regress.
The mere existence of an infinite regress is not proof of anything. Peano's axiom are an infinite regress but it is theoretical as it doesn't posit that there are actual infinite 'things' for each number to represent, ad infinitum.

The five Peano axioms are:

1. Zero is a natural number.
2. Every natural number has a successor in the natural numbers.
3. Zero is not the successor of any natural number.
4. If the successor of two natural numbers is the same, then the two original numbers are the same.
5. If a set contains zero and the successor of every number is in the set, then the set contains the natural numbers

 

[QvQ]

Mach's principle predicts that gravitational waves are impossible. Gravitational waves have been detected. Mach's principle is false.

However, Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves in 1916 in his general theory of relativity

Mach's principle, the part Einstein agreed with: Mach's Principle, that the mass of a body is finite, is determined by all other matter in the universe, thus all other matter in universe must be finite.
Einstein's universe is finite.

 

[Moral Orel]

However, Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves in 1916 in his general theory of relativity

Right, because Relativity doesn't work with Mach's principle. Einstein liked the idea. He even coined the term "Mach's Principle" but it's false and we know it's false.

Mach's principle, the part Einstein agreed with: Mach's Principle, that the mass of a body is finite, is determined by all other matter in the universe, thus all other matter in universe must be finite.
Einstein's universe is finite.

That part of your quote that I bolded, that's what says gravitational waves are impossible. Gravitational waves are real; Mach's Principle is false. It was an old philosophy and real physicists today don't take it seriously.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Genuine Physic, Finite Universe.
Einstein's General Relativity requires a finite spherical universe (it cannot be infinite because of Mach's Principle, with which Einstein strongly agreed, that the mass of a body is finite, is determined by all other matter in the universe, thus all other matter in universe must be finite).

Einstein's static universe was wrong. The standard cosmologies are all built on FLRW metrics and have no such restrictions. Rather, given their isotropy and homogeneity assumptions they are implicitly infinite.

(What was it about my first post on this thread you thought was "funny"?)

 

[QvQ]

Observer (BBO), are promising concerning determination of the curvature parameter or possible detection of deviation from the FLRW metric..A particularly successful application of the FLRW metric is that it underlies the present standard cosmological model, which is very successful in fitting the current observational data sets and explaining the observed cosmic acceleration. .

So, if the universe is already infinite, and filled to the brim, it cannot be expanding. A currently infinite universe is static. If you said, "the universe is expanding into infinity, that is a different proposition. I agree it is expanding but then all good things must end. I agree with Friedmann Model.

Friedmann Model: He hypothesized a Big Bang followed by expansion, then contraction and an eventual Big Crunch. This model supposes a closed universe, but he also proposed similar solutions involving an open universe (which expands infinitely) or a flat universe (in which expansion continues infinitely but gradually approaches a rate of zero).

I believe some part of Friedmann model has been proven recently. There are no multiple universes based on fractals. Don't know if it means the end of string theories or the notion of reheating universe. Hawking also mentioned it in his last paper as no multiple universes. Haven't studied it closely yet.

What I thought was funny in your post:

The thread is something about "first cause" to which physics is definitely relevant, but I'm not sure how trains or chains are.

That struck me as a funny remark and definitely relevant.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Observer (BBO), are promising concerning determination of the curvature parameter or possible detection of deviation from the FLRW metric..A particularly successful application of the FLRW metric is that it underlies the present standard cosmological model, which is very successful in fitting the current observational data sets and explaining the observed cosmic acceleration. .

Not sure what random quotes from cosmology papers tells us.

So, if the universe is already infinite, and filled to the brim, it cannot be expanding. A currently infinite universe is static. If you said, "the universe is expanding into infinity, that is a different proposition. I agree it is expanding but then all good things must end. I agree with Friedmann Model.

Why would I say "expanding into infinity"? No one with a clue would have the Universe expanding into anything.

There are many kinds of infinity. An infinite universe could still be expanding. (The scale factor is increasing.)

Friedmann Model: He hypothesized a Big Bang followed by expansion, then contraction and an eventual Big Crunch. This model supposes a closed universe, but he also proposed similar solutions involving an open universe (which expands infinitely) or a flat universe (in which expansion continues infinitely but gradually approaches a rate of zero).

Proposed solutions are just that -- proposed solutions.

I believe some part of Friedmann model has been proven recently. There are no multiple universes based on fractals. Don't know if it means the end of string theories or the notion of reheating universe. Hawking also mentioned it in his last paper as no multiple universes. Haven't studied it closely yet.

Proven/not proven -- there's no observational evidence of either.

 

[QvQ]

Proven/not proven -- there's no observational evidence of either.

I saw an article that I seem to remember stated there is new evidentiary proof of no multi universes. Hawking also said multi universe was not so before he died. It had to do with fractals which are "none in the universe based on the distribution of matter.
If I find the article again I will post a link.

 

[Moral Orel]

So, if the universe is already infinite, and filled to the brim, it cannot be expanding. A currently infinite universe is static.

The universe probably is infinite, and it is definitely expanding. Some infinities are bigger than other infinities. I know that's a weird proposition for us to wrap our little human minds around, but it's true, and it's something we've known for a while. Thanks, Set Theory.

The number of elements in the set of whole numbers is less than the number of elements in the set of real numbers. Both sets have an infinite number of elements, but one has more elements than the other.

The size of the universe a million years ago is smaller than the size of the universe now, and both sizes are infinite. And that's okay.

If you said, "the universe is expanding into infinity, that is a different proposition. I agree it is expanding but then all good things must end. I agree with Friedmann Model.

The universe is expanding. It is also expanding at an increasing rate. Every bit of evidence we have says there will be no crunch.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I watch the middle part of the OP video that corresponds to the current discussion. Just some random preacher with the same-old-same-old weak arguments about the universe needing a cause.

 

[QvQ]

It is a particularly traditional view that the universe is eternal and infinite. It started in one act.
Hawking was the first to propose the big nothing beyond. That was a radical idea, still is and I subscribe to it. The universe in any model has shape and boundary. And as it has a theoretical beginning, it has a theoretical end. ,
I used to study physics but I am only interested in chaos theory now. That is why I noticed that article, it's reference to fractals. It may be that it proved something about Einstein's theory, even distribution of matter on a large scale or something similiar.

 

[QvQ]

I watch the middle part of the OP video that corresponds to the current discussion. Just some random preacher with the same-old-same-old weak arguments about the universe needing a cause.

The alternative is to believe in spontaneous generation and perpetual motion machines.
Anyway, chaos is an entirely different way of modeling the universe.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The alternative is to believe in spontaneous generation and perpetual motion machines.

No.

Anyway, chaos is an entirely different way of modeling the universe.

In what way? (This ought to be good.)

 

[QvQ]

In what way? (This ought to be good.)

Get out the popcorn? I think I will pass. But chaos introduces some interesting variations of traditional views of space/time and the universe.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Get out the popcorn? I think I will pass. But chaos introduces some interesting variations of traditional views of space/time and the universe.

Chaos isn't some special force. It's just away to discuss certain non-linear systems.

 

[QvQ]

Chaos is a description of non-linear systems, yes.
In a deterministic system, we should be able to predict the future. We predict the past by assuming that the laws determined the past and it followed along in an orderly sequence. It is that edge between past and future that interests me.
I have certainly enjoyed our conversation. "The time has come the walrus said to talk of many things, of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings"
Now I am off to bed. I bid you good night.