The Sciences of Time - Does Time Have A Beginning?

I am not sure that I understand your question. There is a relationship between gravity and distance from an object. You weigh more at the poles than you do at the equator because the poles are nearer to the center of the earth.

Last time I checked there were more stars dying than being born. However the momentum of the expansion is increasing which has resulted in the concept of dark matter/energy being developed as a possible explanation for this UNKNOWN cause.

Part of the problem is that what we observe is not static. The further away a star is from us the less we know about it's current state. For example a star that is a billion light years away might be dead now but we won't know that for another billion years. Conversely there could be new stars being born a billion light years away from us but we won't know about them for another billion years.

Essentially we are working with a dataset that is both incomplete and in constant flux. Given those constraints it is difficult to give definitive absolute answers to these questions. We can base our assumptions on what we have already learned to date with the caveat that they can, and probably will, change with the acquisition of new knowledge in the future.

 

I don't understand my question so no worry...I think what I was wondering was if as distance increases, forced by dark matter or whatever, does the centripetal force on those distant objects stay the same or weaken? For example, if the dark matter force remained the same, but the centripetal force weakens with distance, then this might help cause expansion?? Or contraction if vice-versa?

The Universe, vast distances, billions of light years, a scale that is nearly unfathomable, then dirty this up with theories about multi-verses, and this sort of implies the chances of answering the current unanswerable questions might be between slim and none...truly amazing...

 

Technically speaking with a sufficiently high enough velocity it would be possible to escape the universe entirely. However we do not have the requisite technology to achieve that escape velocity.

When astronauts go the ISS they feel "weightless" but they are still under the influence of the Earth's centripetal gravitational force. It is merely that they have achieved a velocity that enables them to fall in an arc around the planet that keeps them at a constant distance above the surface. In essence everyone/everything is "weightless" while in the motion of falling but that does not alter the forces themselves. They continue to exert their pull even if we cannot feel it or measure it in the same way we can while on the surface because our instruments for measuring are not designed to work in a "weightless" state.

Agreed, there are a great many current unanswerable questions that we probably won't live long enough to find the answers however that never stopped the great minds in the past from asking them. Knowledge is a noble quest in and of itself and our ability to pass on our communal growing body of knowledge from generation to generation is probably mankind's greatest achievement IMO.

 

If we can technically escape the Universe, this implies there is 'somewhere' to escape? If we're all dots on a balloon, can there be an escape?

Does 'weightlessness' that we know about with humans also apply to planets, stars, galaxies all of which have some 'arc' in the Universe?

 

If there is an infinite amount of space then it should be technically feasible to achieve an escape velocity from our observable universe. However if the universe is curved , as in the balloon concept, then it would not be possible.

All objects have mass. Weight is just a measurement of the gravitational centripetal force of one mass acting on another. Your own body mass is a constant even though your weight on earth is 6 times greater than it is on the moon. The planets, stars and galaxies all have mass and exert gravitational centripetal forces on each other in relation to their distance and velocity.

 

M = F^2 , a 1 kg object is only 0.5 kg , we are well being ripped off on Bananas .

 

Yes thats right , all your gold is only worth half the weight , sell shares fast, there is going to be a stock market crash .

 

Thinking about multi-verses...either they occupy the same space/time or they occupy their own unique and impenetrable space (balloons). If they are balloon-like, then what lies between universes? If it's just more and more space/time, then why would there be balloon-like universes? If there is only our Universe, then what lies beyond it since it is expanding...we can't expand into nothing? No need to comment on my silly and rhetorical comments.

Regarding our weight, you explain why my doctors are always located in the penthouses of the highest buildings...

 

The best way to imagine a multiverse is consider what it might be like to live in a two dimensional universe yourself. You see a dot appear that grows into a line that keeps on expanding until it starts to shrink back into a dot and then vanish. That was a 3 dimensional "balloon" universe just passing through your own 2 dimensional universe. Your observation of it was limited by your own ability to not know how to measure the 3rd dimension. If there are multiverses then they could be occupying dimensions that we cannot measure and observe. For example what we call a Nova could be an N dimensional multiverse interacting with our 3 dimensional universe.

Your doctors can AFFORD penthouses because your insurance is paying them enough to afford that rental.

 

My brain won't let me rationalize a 2 dimensional universe...If we don't have 3 dimensions then we have nothing...we can't have a dot or line without having the 3rd dimension of height added to length and width...

 

Here's more:

 

I am not sure what time is but it seems to be an airplane of some sort because it flies by

Understanding conscious existence is difficult requires neural networks of people thinking

Computers won't become conscious until they put 45s brain into a box in a machine