" the universe made itself " but--- (page 11)

looter

Unforunately, this subject will be uncertain for centuries to come. I can see unto thy fEWTra!

prologos

WMF the posts on the questions raised were very good. the links will profit everybody. BSW, the "--made itself " question arose from the posts of a respected contributor, not me. .

not every questioner out there or on here has a JW background, so how these queries are answered by those that are wt- touched would be of interest to all exjws.

When somebody here asks a question, or makes a comment even more basic or uninformed than me, so much the better, since everybody is reaching up, except the wt.

Can there be a more ulterior motive than that to the ultimate question?

looter: because the answer, barring a "big question breakthrough" is overlapping generations away, shall we not ponder the question, leave it to posterity only?

and what is fe WT ra? thank you.

prologos

frankiespeaking. : thank you for the astrosociety link. "universe as a free lunch" which adresses my question "did the universe create its own energy?" but

can you answer this arising question for us,

if the Energy balance of the universe was, and is zero,-- that is --gravity/mass forces = Energy--, would

the sum of the two sides in this equation not be 2x energy OR 2x mass ?

and since neither mass nor energy can be destroyed, is the same since the making of the universe, was the energy that started the universe not zero, but

2x the present energy? Quite a gift to self-make yourself?

like a self-made man that is an autodidact. with rich parents.

Humans have and will always contemplate the providence of the void of metagalaxies above. That will never end. However, they will not reach the bulk or even close to an impeccability of the universe's origin for millions of years. But that is looter's viewpoint. Oh and that was looter being funny with the whole fEWTra, future, thing.

frankiespeakin

I don't claim to know the answer to your question but I think your answers lies in a quantum fluctuation of the void of nothingness but still remaining Zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

prologos

Frankie, my point was, lets say you have 2000 $ a little money, enough to get 1 tooth fixed tomorrow.

It takes time to earn it. now you divide into 2 piles, of equal value. 100 tens = 200 fives.

just because the two piles balance in value does not negate the fact that you had to come up with 2 grand to pay the dentist.

The universe requires a tremendious amount of energy to make itself, and energy and gravity are in a way the same currency, gravity being the result of mass and mass another form of energy.

just finding two equal aount of it that balance does not alter the fact that this "free" lunch money had to come from somewhere

if it was in fluctuation, it needed time, pre-big-bang time, time to the second power (fluctuation is an acceleration). and the above.

cheers prologos.

rmt1

Caltech cosmologist Sean Carroll says that energy is not conserved in universal relativistic acceleration, because energy is already not conserved in General Relativity:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

Sean Carroll prescribes sticking with the first Friedman equation which runs off total energy density:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/16/why-does-dark-energy-make-the-universe-accelerate/

Drexel cosmologist Dave Goldberg allows the anthropic principle to answer why our dark energy is so much smaller than the analogous/comparable vacuum energy:
http://io9.com/5607692/are-physicists-just-making-up-dark-energy

Dave Goldberg applies photon loss of energy by redshift to conservation:
http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com/?p=3124

An io9 contributor, Alasdair Wilkins, explores consequences of different dark energy ratios:
http://io9.com/5817957/what-does-dark-energy-mean-for-the-end-of-the-universe

U Florida cosmologist Ethan Siegel's rushed effort to explain conservation of energy:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/02/dark-energy-accelerated-expans/

Some random physics prof asserts conservation of energy since Big Bang, because QM:
http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120221015143

UC mathematician John Baez provides a hack equation for conservation of energy in GR, but does not say it is universal:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

Young Czech string theorist's attempt to explain why energy is not conserved in a cosmology with GR:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-and-how-energy-is-not-conserved-in.html

Keep in mind that photons redshift and lose energy coming up out of a gravity well, and photons lose energy crossing the (accelerating) expanding dimension of space. Your counsel is your own.

" the universe made itself " but---

Share this