Universe and Time

Probably it was meant as a joke. :wink:

There is probably a competition for a prize of the best science joke. :slight_smile:

But if there is such a massive joke in physics, then I don’t want to hear anything about the other science disciplines. They themselves are probably jokes. :laughing:

And of suns!

Immanuel Kant was sure that (1) the sun emerged from a cosmic cloud, that (2) a dust disk with floating particles was formed by the centrifugal force of the still rapidly rotating sun, and that (3) the planets were „glued“ in this dust disk with floating particles. According to Kant suns and solar systems originate in a rotating cloud of gas that has become so much dense that it collapses, and planets originate as „collections of sun dust parts“.

See also here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=188384&p=2557831#p2557819 .


Not so sure myself.

There are two apparent options;

  1. forming from a cloud, as suggested.
  2. stemming from an explosion, perhaps black holes colliding.

There must be a continuous source for such events, but either of those could be eternally occurring and perhaps both are eternally occurring. But at least he didn’t proclaim that the entire universe arose from a Big Bang. :icon-rolleyes:

But black holes could not be known at that said time, thus: were not known at that said time.

Yes. Probably Kant would not have accepted it as we do not accept it. However: No human of the 1750’s was talking about a “big bang” ( :wink: ).

Kant said, for example, said one should overcome dogmatism by using the own intellect.

The hypothesis of the “big bang” has much more to do with dogmatism than with science.

It is not inconceivable to me that what they are now calling “dark-matter/energy” or what I call “a relatively high affectance density region of space” or merely “thick space” can gradually become so dense as to begin spontaneously forming mass particles. Once that process begins, much larger mass objects would begin to grow and coalesce. Eventually that object could grow into a neutron star or burning star with planets, or perhaps a black hole - “coalescing from a cosmic cloud”.

But with black holes colliding, the universe would never be without mass objects anyway. The process of mass coalescing and then colliding into explosions would have to be occurring eternally regardless of anything else going on (even if there were no black holes).

Too much power in the black holes.

These physicists believe that the black holes will bring us the “revolution” that will finish the rule of the time arrow. :wink:

Well, you can’t have a church without magical fantasies. :sunglasses:

James, the following quote is your post that can be found on page 1 of this thread:

Yesterday I found the following opening post of your thread: “Infinite Regression”:

Can you put your statements about the “arrow of time” and the “infinite regression” of those two posts together in one statement?

Emm… no. But…

The arrow of time soars invariably forward, but neither from bow nor to target.

What about the “infinite regression” then?

“Infinite regression” refers to thinking about the cause to effect chain of stages of the universe and imagining that it traces back infinitely, without a beginning; “That arrow of time invariably soars forward, but not from bow…” It doesn’t refer to time going backwards, merely having come from and infinite past.

One orbit around the galactic center of our sun takes about 250 million years. This is called a “galactic year”.

So the following picture shows about 42 miilon years more than 2 galactic years (about 500 Million years):

Frequency distribution of extinction events on Earth in the last 542 million years (1 galactic year = ca. 250 Million years).

“Frequency distribution of extinctions”???

Oh, sorry, I meant “frequency distribution of extinction events”.

Time means change, yes, but times also means return of the same.

Maybe after a googol of years has passed black holes shall no longer exist
All there will be left will be massless particles like photons and gravitons
And so even the most powerful things in the universe shall eventually die

There is no such thing as a physical graviton. And without mass particles, there won’t be any photons either.

But I can’t see any time past or future where there wasn’t or won’t be black holes.

Perhaps mass particles need photons, but photons do not need mass. Whithout photons there won’t be any mass particles.

I discovered that mass particles form naturally from the chaos of random affectance. And that photons (the normal kind) are only formed by the motion of mass particles. Without mass particles, there is nothing to organized the random affectance into the required singularly directed puff of affectance that makes up a light photon. The popular theory is that the electron orbits around atoms collapse to initiate light photons. I haven’t discovered anything to refute that and have found no other means for photons to be produced.

If the universe had actually begun, it could not have begun with light, but rather with mass in the form of extremely randomized EMR, “Affectance” that makes up the mass, which expanded to become low density enough to allow subatomic particles to form which then naturally produced light photons. Photons could not have come before subatomic particles.