We didn't appear from nothing ?

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Spacetime, however, can do what the heck it wants! It has no such limits imposed upon it.

Spacetime can expand and galaxies accelerate without a force being applied? I guess I'm just a little skeptical

Also, I'm not sure what a discordant redshift is... and the fact your link has Arp associated with it is ringing alarm bells.

Dismiss Arp's work because it "rings alarm bells" if you like, you're not the only one. Halton Arp thought that publishing this work important enough to ruin his career over it. I thought it was worth a look.

I linked info to an unbiased paper on the subject anticipating potential disdain for Arp.

For those saying energy cannot be destroyed..

I don't think that's true.

"Natures way is to decay."

I believe the term is called Entropy.

It can describe the end of the universe, with the loss of all heat as being inevitable.

There will eventually be no more energy to expend.

..a gloriously gracious end.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: dfnj2015
We have no evidence nothingness ever existed or can possibly ever exist. So based on the evidence, somethingness has always existed. To assert nothingness is possible you have to prove it is possible. Imaginary thoughts are meaningless.

this would be more of a philosophical question, but WHY and HOW does that "somethingness" exist. Why is there something at all?

I think dfnj2015 is correct. The concept of nothingness is very strange. It cannot be imagined. Because we know somethingness exists we suppose that nothingness could exist. But 'nothingness exists' is an oxymoron. If we try to remove the 'exist' out of it, we get 'nothingness does not exist', which means 'somethingness'. Nothingness is a logical impossibility.

So the answer to, "HOW does that 'somethingness' exist" is "how could it not when 'nothingness existing' is a logical impossibility?"

If the big bang marks the beginning of spacetime, questions of what caused it (i.e. what came before) make no sense - there is no before time began.

originally posted by: Devino

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Spacetime, however, can do what the heck it wants! It has no such limits imposed upon it.

Spacetime can expand and galaxies accelerate without a force being applied? I guess I'm just a little skeptical

There's always a force involved. But spacetime is the stage upon which these things play out. I guess the stagemaster isn't a part of the play.

originally posted by: Pearj
For those saying energy cannot be destroyed..

I don't think that's true.

"Natures way is to decay."

I believe the term is called Entropy.

It can describe the end of the universe, with the loss of all heat as being inevitable.

There will eventually be no more energy to expend.

..a gloriously gracious end.

Entropy isn't the decay of energy. It's just energy moving from an ordered state to an unordered state, where the heat remains the same but the temperature decreases.

"There will eventually be no more energy to expend". Strictly not true, but you might be interested in what Roger Penrose has to say in his book "Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe".

a reply to: Ross 54

If what sustains the quantum vacuum or is responsible for its creation never mind the rest of our universe is beyond our ability to perceive or measure in any meaningful manner aka outside or out with our universe(space-time) then we are going to be rather pressed to detect such.

We simply do not have the tools for the job, and probably never will have this side of the reality we seem to experience.

a reply to: MarsIsRed

I'm aware of what Entropy is (but thanks for the definition).

The Universe started (the subject of this thread) with a finite amount of energy (a presumably countable sum). That energy expends. The Universe will cease when the energy is gone. It's the first law of thermodynamics - which I know fairly well.

I think the poster(s) meant "matter cannot be destroyed". To which there is some truth via physics...

..Say you have a piece of paper with the word "Universe" on it. Then, you ignite the paper and it goes up in smoke. You could (with the right tools) reassemble the ash and smoke back to a state where you could read "Universe".

Energy can't be destroyed in a closed system - but it will dissipate and cease to be - which for the purpose of this thread matches "destroyed". Even if you're talking a closed box with "trapped energy" - that energy will adhere to the walls in the form of radiation and will dissipate (transference) at a known rate based on the surface area of the cube.

If energy never faded, then we would have perpetual energy machines everywhere. I had a few videos lined up for you but I don't think they're necessary. We may just be thinking of the word "destroyed" differently.

originally posted by: EvilAxis

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: dfnj2015
We have no evidence nothingness ever existed or can possibly ever exist. So based on the evidence, somethingness has always existed. To assert nothingness is possible you have to prove it is possible. Imaginary thoughts are meaningless.

this would be more of a philosophical question, but WHY and HOW does that "somethingness" exist. Why is there something at all?

I think dfnj2015 is correct. The concept of nothingness is very strange. It cannot be imagined. Because we know somethingness exists we suppose that nothingness could exist. But 'nothingness exists' is an oxymoron. If we try to remove the 'exist' out of it, we get 'nothingness does not exist', which means 'somethingness'. Nothingness is a logical impossibility.

So the answer to, "HOW does that 'somethingness' exist" is "how could it not when 'nothingness existing' is a logical impossibility?"

If the big bang marks the beginning of spacetime, questions of what caused it (i.e. what came before) make no sense - there is no before time began.

You're saying, in effect, that which doesn't exist, doesn't exist. Correct, of course. One could still reasonably conceive of a case, universally applied, in which something does not exist. This would imply a state of nothingness. Since we observe that the universe is something, we naturally hope to be able to explain why this is so, someday.

originally posted by: Pearj
a reply to: MarsIsRed


If energy never faded, then we would have perpetual energy machines everywhere. I had a few videos lined up for you but I don't think they're necessary. We may just be thinking of the word "destroyed" differently.

You make some valid points Pearj.
What happens to a Star or Stars energy if binary or more star systems when it/they go Supernova? And in turn assist in the potential development of life within the UNIVERSE?

Supernovae play a significant role in enriching the interstellar medium with the heavier atomic mass chemical elements.[5] Furthermore, the expanding shock waves from supernovae can trigger the formation of new stars.[6][7] Supernova remnants are expected to accelerate a large fraction of galactic primary cosmic rays, but direct evidence for cosmic ray production was found only in a few of them so far.[8] They are also potentially strong galactic sources of gravitational waves.[9]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Eventually generating energy to Create sentient life?
Did the star energy fade or reproduce as it ascended into A NU form?

It seems then following my outta box theorizing then if Stars can Ascend & eternally exist in or as things created from their material and energies. Then why cannot those created from them exist in the same eternal manner as they Ascend also? 🤔

what gets me are individual stars, the light analysis reveals are way older than the Galaxy they are surrounded in...

so the Big Bang is not the singular event creating the whole observed Universe...

instead there were several or several hundred , scattered BIG BANG Events strewn all over the 14 Billion Light-Year sphere 'we' are in the middle of....
the Quantum universe gave rise to the energy fluctuations necessary to create a time-space fabric looking like a Leopards' spots skin with all the various Big Bangs happening maybe 1 billion LY apart & all going off in a short time span, let's say about 6 billions of years in our time line

all these hundreds of Big Bangs that created physical matter eventually joined/crashed headlong into one-another...


that would explain a 15 billion year old Star in a Galaxy Nursery only 4 billion years old....One Big Bang event collided with the expanding neighbor Big Bang event... that's my theory

a reply to: St Udio


Or maybe...

(1) Our estimates are off for the ages of stars that we think are almost 15 billion years old.

For example, science estimated the age of a star named HD 140283, aka the "Methuselah Star", to be 14.5 Billion years old, while the universe is thought to be only about 14 Billion years old. However, science also thinks that their estimated age of the star could be wrong, because estimating a star's age is not an exact process.

(2) The stars that are older than the galaxies/clusters in which they reside may have originated elsewhere, and only currently reside in the younger galaxy/cluster.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: Devino

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Spacetime, however, can do what the heck it wants! It has no such limits imposed upon it.

Spacetime can expand and galaxies accelerate without a force being applied? I guess I'm just a little skeptical

There's always a force involved. But spacetime is the stage upon which these things play out. I guess the stagemaster isn't a part of the play.

Yes, I agree, there is always a force. Not sure about the "stagemaster" part, is that the "unmoved mover" philosophy? I guess "God did it" is the best explanation I have found so far.

Energy that accelerates mass by applying a force is limited to sub light speed as this energy is turned into inertial mass which resists further acceleration. This limit restricts mass from achieving the speed of light let alone faster than light (FTL) travel.

I assume FTL expansion requires space to be both rigid, affixing galaxies to their respective locations as if they were on a conveyor belt, and fluid, the space in between which pours out causing expansion. I still do not understand how this is not an acceleration of mass and therefore a violation of 'C'. If you could explain this without using raisins in dough or dots on a balloon I would like to read it or otherwise concede that I just don't get it.

As for Halton Arp's suspect reputation, I understand. The problem is that he has done a substantial amount of work on discordant redshifts. If one studies this then there is no way of avoiding Arp's work.

I found another source which better explains discordant redshifts and the controversy if you care to read it.
Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy
It explains both some of Arp's observations of anomalistic redshifts of QSO's and galaxies with active nuclei (AGN) and criticisms like gravitational lensing and chance alignments.

The criticisms, so far, appear to have not been able to fully account for Arp's observations so the discordant redshift controversy continues. More data is needed in the hopes of settling this controversy, yet as Arp was not allowed to use telescope time to further his research we are limited and I don't think anyone else is attempting to continue his work. Why irritate a controversy while many consider this problem solved? It's not like we might learn something, right?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: St Udio


Or maybe...

(1) Our estimates are off for the ages of stars that we think are almost 15 billion years old.

For example, science estimated the age of a star named HD 140283, aka the "Methuselah Star", to be 14.5 Billion years old, while the universe is thought to be only about 14 Billion years old. However, science also thinks that their estimated age of the star could be wrong, because estimating a star's age is not an exact process.

Or maybe...

... the Hubble is not a constant and there is a non-cosmological redshift that we do not yet understand.

This could mean the Universe is expanding in quite a different way then is currently described and explanations for FLT expansion are not needed.

The thing is more aware You are the Universe grows bigger and bigger. Aliens or advanced civilizations see the Universe much bigger propably "out" of their home Universe and can connect and travel to other as well. Who is above them is a question.

originally posted by: St Udio
what gets me are individual stars, the light analysis reveals are way older than the Galaxy they are surrounded in...

Galaxies aren't static things, they merge and form new galaxies. The merging creates new stars and new galaxy structures (like spiral arms).

a reply to: St Udio

If there was more than one big bang(singularity) or a serious of big bangs that occurred would evidence of such not be detectable or measurable in the cosmic background radiation?

If multiverse theory holds any weight our universe may interact with other universe in ways we have as of yet to fully understand or can even comprehend, given our very limited perspective.

Possibly these stars that suggest an age older than our current guesstimation of the age of our universe came from another and/or traveled or were somehow deposited into our space-time?

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: St Udio
what gets me are individual stars, the light analysis reveals are way older than the Galaxy they are surrounded in...

Galaxies aren't static things, they merge and form new galaxies. The merging creates new stars and new galaxy structures (like spiral arms).

Just like the merging of our Milky Way with Sagittarius.
Star-Crossed: Milky Way's Spiral Shape May Result from a Smaller Galaxy's Impact

The plane of Sagittarius is in a polar alignment to that of the Milky Way's and, in a similar way, so is that of our solar plane of the ecliptic. The planes are almost perpendicular to the Milky Way's. I am not sure what Sagittarius is but I believe ours is 60° (or 120° depending on you perspective).

I wonder if any neighboring stars are from another galaxy.

Plato concluded that something cannot come from nothing, so therefore something must have always existed. This always-existent being is what Judeo-Christians call the Alpha-Omega.

i.e. the First law of thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

originally posted by: skywatcher44
Of course the universe did not start from a flash/Bang how could it have ?

The only thing that was ever "created" is "theories."

Everything else in the universe was always here.