Serendipity
Well-Known Member
This is a good summary of the problems scientists are experiencing with measuring the Hubble Constant and what the consequences are... The Hubble constant: a mystery that keeps getting bigger
How does time work if there's nothing but a void.first thing that was created at big bang was the universe and it was a void and then there was the mass that exploded outward to expand and fill that void
The mass from which the big bang came forth exists in whatever form: The first act of the big bang is the infinite void into which everything can then expand. The void may or may not have time as a component; if anything it seems like it may be mostly empty time and as expansion proceeds it is space time.How does time work if there's nothing but a void.
And how, without time, can there then be anything....
We are but mortals chained to a dark wall frantically trying to make sense of the shadows dancing about the wall opposite us.How does time work if there's nothing but a void.
And how, without time, can there then be anything....
That was the basis on which I commented.I think time and mass are interlinked.
I've read a book like that. It seemed literally endless (i.e. the explanation for how it worked as we observe it to work, seemed to be missing).Time could be entirely illusionary. I have a nice book on this that I should read soon.
I think we need to be more careful with the words we use...It only aquired time when
Apologies, I was just thinking aloud and expanding on your comment.That was the basis on which I commented.
I fear this book could be flawed like this. At best I'm hoping it will lay out a very nice hypothetical argument for it's central ideas, but it will probably have sod all evidence that such a scheme really exists. Like a lot of high end cosmlogical 'answers'.I've read a book like that. It seemed literally endless (i.e. the explanation for how it worked as we observe it to work, seemed to be missing).
Well, I suppose it depends on what sort of model of the universe/multiverse you are looking at. And whether such models have something in existence before the start of this universe.So the question seems to be--did time precede the existence of the universe.
Though there still might a question of whether the mass existed.
Interesting. Why? What was the process that 'set everything into motion.'? Could it be withdrawn?I also believe that what the universe banged out of was at complete rest and that as such it wasn't interlocked with time. It only aquired time when everything was set into motion.
This is physics' "it's turtles all the way down" problem... a problem that physics is not going to solve.Logically nothing can come into existence from nothing to parallel