I would point out that relativity also doesn't suspend things like inertial dissipation, Nor does it negate the 3rd law, does it? Should relativity in fact become self sustaining, you'll let us know, right?
Of course we would all like to know the answer to this and many other questions for which mankind doesn't have answers. Human beings of today are not omniscient. So, deciding that if we don't have the answer, then God must have done it is seriously ridiculous logic. I do not see any value in lining up these questions against some wall and firing "god did it" at them in hopes they die.
Unlike math, natural sciences don't have proof of truth. Science works by being efficient at falsification. So far, Relativity has been a unbelievably stupendous success at predicting how this universe works. Plus, it has been seriously tested every day by many different groups for more than 100 years. That's pretty darn hard to beat.
The expansion of the universe is measured by a number of different techniques. If you want to try to falsify that finding, you will be pitting yourself against pretty much all of physics throughout the world. Not only that, but it has been shown that the rate of expansion of space is accelerating. There is nothing circular about that. It is a phenomenon that has been measured in various ways, confirming this result.
None of that makes any sense. You are talking gibberish. No Relativity doesn't negate the third law. It modifies it. It modifies all of Newton's laws. I can't even guess at what you mean by self sustaining. It has been tested for 100 years and it's never been wrong.
My assumption has always been that the idea of "time", which is a purely human construct, interferes with our ability to conceptualize the universe because we (and science) are too locked into regression analysis as "truth" of some sort.
I have gotten the impression that Energy from Quantum Vacuum, or some sort of fundamental energy would exist for infinite time before the most recent major Big Bang Event of thirteen point seven two billion or so years ago Near death experiencer Mellen Benedict has me rather biased on this topic though I must admit. https://near-death.com/mellen-thomas-benedict/
IMO everything is just an eternal rearrangement of what already exists. The universe is the ultimate recycling machine. The only thing it can't recycle is the ego. I am happy with that.
You started off with something you believe you found in science, showing some interest in science! However, then you skipped over to some guy whose claim to fame is that he had a brain tumor and claims to have "shown no vital signs for a period of 90 minutes" - whatever that might mean. How many years of education and experience multiplied by how many physicists are you really willing to write off in favor of some guy claiming to having been "dead" for a while? Doesn't that seem like a poor tradeoff?
Declassified Pentagon documents discuss UFOs causing “unaccounted-for pregnancies:” The reports reveal details from an array of alleged UFO encounters, with varying degrees of plausibility. Unaccounted for pregnancy? That's an eye grabber. I'd like to know more about what the pregnancies produced and how their genetics matched with known human genetics.
Was there a "before the big bang"? how could time exist, if there was nothing? Aren't space and time linked at the hip? If there is no space, how could there be time? I'm just wondering. I have no idea, really, lol.
The Big Bang seems to be falling out of favor. Some are calling it the big expansion, but that's more of a difference than it seems. Sabine is a smart cookie, I like many of her videos.
NO. Science uses the methods of science. There is always an answer - it just might be "I don't know". That doesn't validate any religious answer. You can use the methods of YOUR religion, just like the thousands of other religions (and denominations) use their own methods. Science not having an answer to some question does not validate the answer one of the thousands of religions might give. Most physicists do not believe the universe is expanding "into" anything - roughly speaking, the universe is everything - until other dimensions get proposed.
This is not the first time I note this question around. It's common among non physicists. Now, in this universe time started with the Big Bang [and the following inflation]. To wonder what existed "before" is a nonsense, since without time there was no "before". You can wonder what was there "out" of this universe, in a multiverse perspective, but not what was there "before".
The subject is beyond human comprehension. If you can't destroy matter and energy, then the big bang contained energy. Then the big bang before that contained matter, and the big bang before that contained energy.....and so on. But it's all irrelevant because it doesn't help anyone knowing.
Or 8s it that time is eternal and didn't start at the BB? THE BB was just a moment in time's time. IYSWIM. I have always understood time to be change. Something changed to create the BB so time must have been in existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg This is probably obvious, but I would add that the big bang covers a period of expansion that started after the singularity that is believed to be the initial event. As mentioned above, there really isn't any way at present to test theories concerning how the singularity came about. But, the big bang theory doesn't include that, and there is evidence of this expansion. It's a little like biological evolution, as evolution doesn't describe how life started - it describes how it progresses after having started.
T = On - On-kn This simple math formalism can describe what "time" is from a quantum perspective. This means that On = T + On-kn [this is not irrelevant about time travels]. So ... what's time [T]? The measurement of a change [On - On-kn]. Where "k" is the temporal unit. So ... T = On - (On-kn) The final result is not so difficult to understand ... T=-kn What does this mean? That "time" is simply "managed" by the temporal unit we use.
Is this not merely a mathematical way of saying that time is any value we choose to use to mark its existence? It doesn't really answer the question of whether it existed before the BB other than saying that it did but it had another identity?
Time doesn't exist in a Black Hole. So, if there was a Big Bang or something like it, that is when what we call time started. My feeling is that there is something big we're missing, and it's likely to be hiding in what we call time. But that's just a guess.
I am not aware that pre BB there were black holes. They might instead be a product of the BB. I continue to know time as being defined by change. That is IMO the only way we can measure time, no matter how we use language to divide it up for our own use. It is also, I think, that if the natural state of change is towards entropy, then time itself is slowing down until we will arrive at the understood state of the universe in which ALMOST nothing changed. A kind of perfectly balanced set of scales hanging perfectly still. Until one grain of something caused a change, the chain reaction then causing more and more changes (over time) until the whole thing blew up.
