Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Questions / Explanations / Re: The creation of the natural world
« Last post by chasman on Today at 09:28:04 PM »
enjoying all of your comments.
thanks for starting the thread jbseth.

good observation LarryH, regarding the expansion.
I like this article.   
I mixed it up with the other one I linked to.
at the end this astrophysicist says that at 1 millisecond, we could see 1 light year in all directions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/02/26/how-did-the-universe-expand-to-46-billion-light-years-in-just-13-8-billion-years/#6845409e5c04

I like a lot of this guy's articles.

2
Questions / Explanations / Re: The creation of the natural world
« Last post by jbseth on Today at 05:48:59 PM »
Quote from: LarryH
It still doesn't compute. You cannot have "duration", no matter how short, before there is such a thing as time. The Big Bang, being the alleged first event, would be the beginning of both space and time, the beginning of spacetime.


Hi LarryH, Hi All,

Nice discussion here.

Yes. I hear what you are saying, but to be honest, there’s not a lot about quantum physics that makes much sense. It’s not at all like classical or Newtonian Physics.

All I can tell you is that up until perhaps 5 years or so, it’s always been my understanding that time started at the precise moment, the precise instant, that the Big Bang occurred.

Then, sometime, maybe 5 years ago or so, I came across a book, an article or something (this was not a Seth thing; it was something relating to quantum physics) that made me think that I wasn’t correct about this.

In the wikipedia below, there are several places where they indicate that during the initial phase after the Big Bang (the Planck epoch) the laws of physics, the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics do not apply and that space and time "lose their meaning". I suspect that this is what I came across.

If space and time both lose their meaning during this Planck Epoch, then I take this to mean that "time" has no meaning during this epoch. Does a time that has no meaning exist? Maybe, but I have no idea what kind of time that would be.




Extrapolating this cosmic expansion backwards in time using the known laws of physics, the theory describes a high density state preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning.[


However, the physical theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics as currently realized are not applicable before the Planck epoch, and correcting this will require the development of a correct treatment of quantum gravity.[17] Certain quantum gravity treatments, such as the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, imply that time itself could be an emergent property.[125] As such, physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang.[




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang




-jbseth
 
3
Comic Relief & Entertainment / Re: Laughter is the best medicine!
« Last post by Deb on Today at 05:40:21 PM »
And then there's this:

4
Questions / Explanations / Re: The creation of the natural world
« Last post by LarryH on Today at 03:47:20 PM »
Quote from: jbseth
Now this time period between the Big Bang and Time starting, may have been incredibly short in duration
It still doesn't compute. You cannot have "duration", no matter how short, before there is such a thing as time. The Big Bang, being the alleged first event, would be the beginning of both space and time, the beginning of spacetime.
5
Questions / Explanations / Re: The creation of the natural world
« Last post by jbseth on Today at 12:52:13 PM »
Hi LarryH, Hi All,

LarryH, I can't say that I disagree with you, because what you say here that makes sense to me.

However, what I seem to recall, and I'll openly admit that I could be wrong here, is that time didn't begin until some time after the Big Bang.

Now this time period between the Big Bang and Time starting, may have been incredibly short in duration, something like Chasmans comment that, after 10^-43 seconds, when the observable universe began, and that may have been the issue here.

-jbseth
6
Hi Sena, Hi All,

One of the doubts that I have about Astrology, actually comes from Astronomy.


My birthdate is somewhat interesting because I was born on October 23. For some books on astrology, this is a cusp date.  In some, this makes me a Libra, in others this makes me a Scorpio. In some of these astrology books, Scorpico is said to range from Oct 23 to Nov 22.

Along with this, some other astrologers actually use a slightly different system, it is said that a Libra ranges from Oct 16 to Nov 16. This then, would make me a Libra.


However, from an Astromony standpoint, on Oct 23, the sun is in the constellation Virgo (see wikipedia website below). The sun is in constellation Virgo from Sept 16 to Oct 30. Then it moves into Libra, and stays there from Oct 31 to Nov, 22. Then, on Nov 23, it moves into Scorpio and stays there until Nov 29.

As a result of this, during the astrological timeframe that is given for Scorpio, in some astrology books (Oct 23 – Nov 22) at no time during this time period is the sun actually in the constellation of Scorpio. This seems rather odd to me.

Here is another issue I have with astrology. Given that the sun is actually in Virgo on Oct 23, shouldn’t I actually be a Virgo and not either a Libra or a Scorpio?

Shouldn’t my astrological reading be based upon the actual location of the sun and planets on the day I was born?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac


-jbseth
 
7
Questions / Explanations / Re: The creation of the natural world
« Last post by LarryH on Today at 11:19:49 AM »
Quote from: jbseth
time didn't exist until some time after the big ban occurred.
My understanding is that time was supposed to begin at the moment of the big bang. You can't have time not exist until "some time after", as that requires time to pass before time exists.
8
Quote from: jbseth
Another issue for me has been my awareness that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were discovered in relatively recent times (1781, 1846, and 1930).  If these planets (and maybe Pluto isn’t a planet) have always been there in the past, then their effects weren’t accounted for, for example, in any astrological predictions made during the middle ages. Wouldn’t these planets have had some kind of effect on those predictions?
jbseth, that is a good question. It did occur to me that Pluto was discovered only recently. The statements about Melville and Moby Dick are being made retrospectively. There is no evidence that any contemporaries of Melville stated that he was under the influence of Saturn/Plute. I assume that modern astronomers/astrologers are able to calculate the positions of Saturn and Pluto in the early 19th century. I am not certain of this, so I'll try to look into it further.

Pluto was discovered in 1930. It is no longer considered to be a planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

"Since the invention of the telescope, Western astrology has incorporated Uranus, Neptune, Ceres, Pluto, and other bodies into its methodology. The Indian and Chinese astrologies have tended to retain the ancient seven-planet system."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_in_astrology
9
Questions / Explanations / Re: The creation of the natural world
« Last post by jbseth on Today at 10:03:46 AM »
Hi All,

What I've always thought was interesting is that according to scientific theory, you can't go back and ask what happened 1 second before the big bang because time didn't exist until some time after the big ban occurred.

Now there's an idea that'll warp your mind.  :)

-jblair
10
Questions / Explanations / Re: The creation of the natural world
« Last post by Sena on Today at 09:59:43 AM »
Quote from: LarryH
Quote from: chasman
when the Universe was 1 second old, the OU was a sphere of 2 light years in diameter.
This suggests that elements of the Universe traveled a distance of 1 light year in 1 second. This must be another example of the laws of science not applying at that time.
Larry, the laws of science are biased. In certain circumstance they decide not to act.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10