What is the Universe expanding into..

Do you think there was anything before the big bang?

  • I don't think there was anything before the Big Bang

    Votes: 56 12.5%

  • I think something existed before the Big Bang

    Votes: 200 44.7%

  • I don't think the big bang happened

    Votes: 54 12.1%

  • I think the universe is part of a mutiverse

    Votes: 201 45.0%
  • Total voters
    447
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#10,921
If you are striving to be vague, you are certainly succeeding! 😀

Essentially, it is energy density that 'bends' spacetime. This can be the energy concentrated in the mass of planet Earth or the energy carried by a massless photon.

P.S. The word bends is in the "vagueness marker" because spacetime doesn't bend in the same sense as when bending a two dimensional strip of paper. Spacetime consists of a three dimensional space moving through a fourth dimension of time. General Relativity is complicated!
 
#10,922
In this household we obey the proof of Mathematics and Number Theory:

IM000244.JPG


Things get more vague with Physics and Quantum Theory. I can only suggest you study it:

Physics by Carlo Rovelli.jpg


Which leads onto Sidney Coleman. Considered the Physicist's Physicist:


Quantum Mechanics is RIGHT! Classical Mechanics is WRONG!

I rest my case, apart from noticing that 137 and 163 adds up to 300, a major mathematical discovery, IMO. 🙂
 
#10,923
Classical mechanics works just fine for the majority of civil engineering applications.

Einstein did not discard classical Newtonian physics when he described relativity. He modified it. Hashing out them math using Einstein's equations on mundane civil engineering applications (like designing a road) will yield the exact same results.
 
#10,933
Fast Eddie D said:
Unfortunately, our well intentioned but woefully misinformed friend provides us with a look into the mindset of a typical American. Their minds have been poisoned by the Religious Right propaganda. I keep saying they're winning. They're highly organized and well funded. They infest local school boards across the country and push their agenda. They run "alternative" schools which teach the most ridiculous nonsense to impressionable children. They have constructed an elaborate alternative reality.

We need scientists. I live in a bubble where many of my neighbors are university professors or engineers. But most of the country has deep anti-science sentiment.
Click to expand...
It may behoove you to actually read and fathom the posts before making stupid comments. Your "bubble" seems to lend credence to the reality that education definitively does not equate to intelligence.
 
#10,934
Fast Eddie D said:
Einstein did not discard classical Newtonian physics when he described relativity. He modified it.
Click to expand...

Yes, the stress-energy tensor of general relativity is a generalisation of the stress tensor of Newtonian physics.

The Einstein field equations show that the stress-energy tensor provides the basis for describing the structure of spacetime.

The remarkable feature of general relativity is that the equations of motion, as derived by Newton and Euler, do not need to be expressed separately, but follow from the Einstein field equations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton–Euler_equations

1667338175996.png


I have humbly assembled and interpreted the above information from various sources - just don't ask me to explain the mathematics!

P.S. Let me make it clear that general relativity does not explain gravity but just makes predictions of how objects will move in the universe. 😉
 
#10,937
Disco-Pete said:
It may behoove you to actually read and fathom the posts before making stupid comments. Your "bubble" seems to lend credence to the reality that education definitively does not equate to intelligence.
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered my question. Do you agree with my definition of evolution? YES OR NO Your only rationale has been personal credulity.

Dodging and weaving, diversions and evasions, does not equate to intelligence.
 
#10,938
;-)
Perhaps "general relativity" only makes predictions about how two objects will move relative to each other in the solar system. It does not predict the movements of all objects in solar system or galaxies or even in the "universe".
... unless we cheat new conditions/terms into the model.
 
#10,940
system7 said:
In this household we obey the proof of Mathematics and Number Theory:
Click to expand...
I checked out the reviews of these on Amazon, the David Burton one (author's name was hard to read in the photo) looks like a more "standard" textbook - I'm sure it's good, but I think it's similar enough to the Number Theory books I already have (this includes Hardy and Wright, which is rather thick and hard to follow). The Davenport book has "interesting" reviews, one praises it for being different and the author having (by my interpretation) a conversational style rather than going through the usual rigorous proofs, and another review criticizes it for not giving such proofs. I'll go with whichever way helps my understanding.
I just found a used copy of the 8th edition Davenport for around $10 and ordered it.
Quantum Mechanics is RIGHT! Classical Mechanics is WRONG!
Click to expand...
I won't be so quick to dismiss classical mechanics. Thermodynamics pretty much explains how classical dynamics is an emergent phenomenon, and if you treat classical as "what happens in the macro [approximately human-sized] world" it works (almost) perfectly fine [ignore the tenth decimal place in Mercury's orbit].
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom