Indeed but the universe does that too, it continually creates stars, planets, gallaxies from existing matter then recycles them which adds to the conundrum of the universe starting from nothing,..........If in the begining there was nothing,then where does all the matter in the universe, including ourselves, originate.?
Horizon: How Big Is the Universe? (T) Mon 21:00
- Thread starter Trunks
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Indeed but the universe does that too, it continually creates stars, planets, gallaxies from existing matter then recycles them which adds to the conundrum of the universe starting from nothing,..........If in the begining there was nothing,then where does all the matter in the universe, including ourselves, originate.?
How would one describe a colour to a blind person?
The sky is blue like an orange...........................Any surrealists amoung us ?
Who says they come from nothing? Nothing cant exist, If it did it would be defined as such, and would then be something
Just had a read ( im no academic nor scientist nor follower of science) and what it says is that those particles are a temporary change in the amount of energy. Not new energy creation. So if they are a change then they are created by the original source of energy, whatever that may be.
As far as I know energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change form, so it's not really meaningful to talk of 'new energy creation', regardless of how many parents there are. The 'event' here is that particle/anti-particle pairs can be created "from nothing" (or at least in a vacuum) and then collide again to annihilate each other - returning to nothingness. There's no energy creation there - though when this happens on the event horizon of a black hole, one of the pair can disappear in, while the other gets ejected, which *appears* to create energy. That's kind of oversimplifying it, but I don't understand it any deeper than that.
I'd say it existed in a state that doesnt allow us to measure time through light. Something created light. But what.........
Wrong question. Light is just energy. What created energy?
E=mc[SUP]2 [/SUP]. Energy and mass equivalence. Energy can be converted to mass, and vice versa. Combined with the 'T' symmetry, thermodynamics and observations of how entropy changes, we can use it to define which direction time moves in. Simples. Apparently
Oh no that's a depressing thought. How about an abstract thought? or have all the thoughts that could possible be thought already been thought of?
We werent talking about a vacuum though. We were talking about hot and cold
but temperature and pressure are directly proportionate,...
low temperature = low pressure
pressure low enough = vacuum
hence the "vacuum of space" could equally be described as the "cold of space"
the lack of (or miniscule amount) of heat energy available to heat up such a large space results in a low pressure or vacuumous enviroment.
the theories here are great,..
i think some of the best ones have come from the simplistic look, from a relaxed point of view,
overthinking this stuff doesnt seem to help me,...
i do think that the perception approch is good,
especially where times concerned,..
a fly lives a day or two?...it doesnt think (if they indeed do think) " oh no,..i only live a day" ,...
it percieves a full lifetime,...
so, what if the bigbang and all we can see and all we know , our Universe , everything , was just a flying ember in someones fire,.
from out perception its our universe and it flew out of the fire billions of years ago , its all we know,..
but from the viewpoint of the guy whos fire it is, ,...
its a brief flicker, burning out in half a second,
but whos to say he didnt set up camp and light his fire on someone elses flying ember,..
a bushy analogy, ha,....
but still a perception angle,...
i think some of the best ones have come from the simplistic look, from a relaxed point of view,
overthinking this stuff doesnt seem to help me,...
i do think that the perception approch is good,
especially where times concerned,..
a fly lives a day or two?...it doesnt think (if they indeed do think) " oh no,..i only live a day" ,...
it percieves a full lifetime,...
so, what if the bigbang and all we can see and all we know , our Universe , everything , was just a flying ember in someones fire,.
from out perception its our universe and it flew out of the fire billions of years ago , its all we know,..
but from the viewpoint of the guy whos fire it is, ,...
its a brief flicker, burning out in half a second,
but whos to say he didnt set up camp and light his fire on someone elses flying ember,..
a bushy analogy, ha,....
but still a perception angle,...
The Universe in an ember....a very good image and one to ponder the next time you're out in the woods watching the Bushcraft TV.
Except that a vacuum is void of matter not heat.
The "vacuum" of space is devoid of both. Except what's clustered around matter; i.e. solars sysyems and (by extension) galaxies.
Space is never just space. Theres always some mass in it and so it has a temperature, be it a ridiculously small amount.
True enough. But not neccessarily a measureable amount and for the context of my post "none" is accurate enough.
Clusters around matter? Or creating matter?
Creating matter. Being created by matter. Both. But nonetheless, clustered around said matter.
