25
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
25 points (96.3% liked)
Ask Science
8473 readers
112 users here now
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Observably and experimentally, it's so hard to test powerful gravity fields. But theoretically, if we could confine and increase a portion of matter into a far more dense state, we should be able to create increased gravity - I think that's possible, but it would take insane energy and you'd have to control it to a point that it doesn't turn into a giant explosion; seems very probable and should be conducted in space...just to be safe.
But, is your thinking that if we have a net zero energy universe, it should not have a big bang, or just that a net zero may have originated differently from a big bang? I'm just curious.
if we find a mechanism that continually creates matter in the universe we don't need a big bang. Creation of matter and gravity fields, (net zero) could somehow increase the expansion of the universe. 3d interference pattern of gravitational waves would create
rogue wavesat specific points in SpaceTime that would create matter and the CMB.Oops ! I just defined a new cosmological model ๐ !
I might be missing something, but how would this new model reproduce the CMB? The cosmic microwave background is a black body spectrum with an extremely uniform temperature in all directions. The localized fluctuations in temperature are only a very small shift to the average.
Interesting idea. And the so-called "Dark Energy" also results from the rogue waves or perhaps another process?
Please join me here :
https://lemmy.ca/post/3553583 for a continuation.
Please follow developments here :
~~
https://lemmy.ca/post/3539374~~https://lemmy.ca/post/3553583
I had to rebuild completely my post (questions and answer) from other users also, because some moderator, at "ShowerThoughts", deleted the post while it was in progress.
shower thoughts at lemmy.world, so :
https://lemmy.world/post/3425772You might be interested in Dirac large numbers hypothesis, where the mass of the universe depends on the age of the universe. That kind of would be a hint for matter being continually created.