Vacuum General Relativity, How smart  God is?
608689
I am not sure I read a question there, but if you want to know 'How smart God is?" I think a good answer would be smarter than you.
943033
Einstein talked about hidden variables. Perhaps he meant they were beyond our universe (in another dimention, beyond our grasp).  I think Einstein was right, but that's just me. Its easy for anyone to say: "I agree with a genius..." \n\nBut think about this: if we could see an immaginary universe in a 2d space 1d time the people in that universe would not know what up and down is, even if these people would live (still in 2d space, 1 d time)  on the surface of a cylender.\n But from our 3d space 1d time, we could see that the  "immaginary characters" living on the surface of the cylender are either on one side or the other(upper section or lower, from our point of view in 3d space, 1d time).\n\nYoung's experiment proved that one particle can move trough two holes at the same time.\nWe also know that when you find the position of a particle the system is disturbed.\n\nEinstein was right when he said that: " G-d does'nt play dice!"
793848
This is serious:\n\n1. It's up to him to prove it is shrinking, not up to you to prove it isn't.  He, after all, is the one who supports the hypothesis he read on the internet.  Just say "Prove it".  \n\n2. You gave the source of his information as "the internet".  That's too vague.  Where on the interent?  What web site?  What "expert(s)" in what fields(s)?  What proof did the internet article(s) present in support of the hypothesis?  How can anyone support or deny those proofs if we don't know what they are?\n\n2. What is meant by "getting smaller"?  As you can see from the other responses, different people have different ideas about which quantity is decreasing.  One person, who understands nothing about Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity, thought the mass was "getting smaller".  Another thought you meant the size, as in the diameter and/or volume.  Another seemed to think the entire universe is involved in the shrinkage.\n\nThe problem here is not so much your friend's outlandish claim as your inability to ask a critical question.
897838
Hi. Space is not a complete vacuum. There are a number of hydrogen atoms throughout. A few per cubic meter. But if you think about it, light can reach us through billions of light years of space, so it is a very good vacuum if not a perfect one. And any material should SLOW the light. 'c' is still the fastest speed.
979009
Interesting question. One thing here, I don't think Allah really exist. Nevertheless, lets assume Allah exist. In my explaination, I'll use the name Peter instead of Allah, to prevent any disjudgement. Here's what I think:\n\nThe ratio between our velocity,v₁ and Peter's velocity,v₂ is 10⁴ years to 1 day. Assume 1 year is equivalent to 365.25 days,\n\nv₁ : v₂ = 10⁴ day : 3652500⁻¹ day\nv₁ ÷ v₂ = 10⁴ × 3652500\nv₂ = v₁ ÷ 10⁴ × 3652500\n\nLets say we're travelling at the velocity of 1ms⁻¹,\nSo Peter will be travelling at:\nv₂ = ( 10⁴ × 3652500 )⁻¹ ms⁻¹\nv₂ = 2.737850787 × 10⁻¹¹ ms⁻¹\n\nGod! That's far more slower than a snail!\nHowever, Peter will not be feeling that he's travelling at that slow speed, Instead, he'll see's us moving 121.8 times than the speed of light!\n\nPS: Time is always the same. In fact, definition for 1 meter is the distance traveled by light in vacuum in 299792458⁻¹ s. However, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, in the presence of a gravitational field, an external observer would see a clock in a strong gravitational field tick more slowly. If you travel into a strong gravitational field and sending out pulses of light every second, an observer watching these signals from a great distance would see the interval between the pulses increase from seconds to minutes and then hours as the field got stronger and stronger. But you are still sending the pulses out once each second! This mean you are travelling into the future!\n\nRelated to your question, this suggest that Peter is in a very strong gravititional field than earth's gravitional field, causing his time to be 'slower' !
481372
nothing. even the vacuum of space has energy flowing through it. So, in theory, a perfect vacuum is nothing.
1130053
As mentioned in other replies, physicists don't yet have all of the "how" questions answered. Einstein, in the General Theory of Relativity, pretty much nailed the underpinnings of the current theoretical understanding of gravity. Here is my attempt at the "nutshell." I'll start with an analogy. Let's say you are driving somewhere in the midwest or plains states--essentially flat ground, with a few rolling hills. Let's say you stop your car at the top of a slight rise. As you look around you, you see flat land in every direction. You're sitting on essentially a two-dimensional plane. Taking your foot off the brake, you notice the car starting to roll forward. Your initial observation about the 2-dimensional "space" you were sitting on isn't quite accurate. The 3rd dimension (altitude) has come into play, and gravity is pulling your car into the swale. What Einstein said (and how he came up with this back in the early 1900's is incredible) was that our THREE dimensions are really a slightly inaccurate description of the world (and universe) we inhabit. A fourth dimension, time, is part of the "fabric" of our surroundings. As in the case of that slight "warp" in the 2-dimensional farmland that led to a noticeable effect on your car, Einstein said that warps in the space-time continuum are experienced as gravity. As you know, Einstein was into the "energy = mass" thing big time, and you know that mass is tied up with gravity as well. If you want to get more cozy with these related concepts, I strongly recommend David Bodanis' book, "E=mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation" -- available as a "BooksOnTape." It's exciting, full of cool anecdotes about the heroes of 20th century physics, and... NO MATH, just concepts. Best of luck!
1018732
hawkings is so smart he can believe whatever he likes
332802
Actually, There is no such thing as a true vacuum...period!\n(exerpt from a previous answer)\nContrary to popular belief, empty space is not empty, and it is certainly not a vacuum. In fact, a true vacuum has never been created, anywhere, where the atomic count and therefore air pressure is zero.\nresearch it, its true.\n"Empty" space actually contains an average of 1 hydrogen atom for every 32 cubic centimeters of space, this data is per NASA.\n\nIn our own Milky Way, space is more dense with 1 hydrogen atom for every 1 cubic centimeter.\n\nOne day the misinformation of space as a vacuum will finally die out.\n\n\nspread the knowledge
653177
******\nRudy Can't Fail\nHawking's theory (and that's ALL it is) did nothing to disprove the existence of God or the Bible and in fact, \nSTILL has NOT shown how to make SOMETHING from NOTHING!\n\nMaking Hawking's cosmology nothing more than fodder for the COSMOpolitan magazine
1058278
A Grand Unified Theory of Everything cannot be explained in such fashion. I would recommend reading "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku.
6613
Quantum physics predicts the existence of an underlying sea of zero-point energy at every point in the universe. This is different from the cosmic microwave background and is also referred to as the electromagnetic quantum vacuum since it is the lowest state of otherwise empty space. This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations. \n\nA minority of physicists accept it as real energy which we cannot directly sense since it is the same everywhere, even inside our bodies and measuring devices. From this perspective, the ordinary world of matter and energy is like a foam atop the quantum vacuum sea. It does not matter to a ship how deep the ocean is below it. If the zero-point energy is real, there is the possibility that it can be tapped as a source of power or be harnassed to generate a propulsive force for space travel. \n\nThe propellor or the jet engine of an aircraft push air backwards to propel the aircraft forward. A ship or boat propellor does the same thing with water. On Earth there is always air or water available to push against. But a rocket in space has nothing to push against, and so it needs to carry propellant to eject in place of air or water. The fundamental problem is that a deep space rocket would have to start out with all the propellant it will ever need. This quickly results in the need to carry more and more propellant just to propel the propellant. The breakthrough one wishes for deep space travel is to overcome the need to carry propellant at all. How can one generate a propulsive force without carrying and ejecting propellant? \n\nThere is a force associated with the electromagnetic quantum vacuum: the Casimir force. This force is an attraction between parallel metallic plates that has now been well measured and can be attributed to a minutely tiny imbalance in the zero-point energy in the cavity between versus the region outside the plates. This is not useful for propulsion since it symmetrically pulls on the plates. However if some asymmetric variation of the Casimir force could be identified one could in effect sail through space as if propelled by a kind of quantum fluctuation wind. This is pure speculation. \n\nThe other requirement for space travel is energy. A thought experiment published by physicist Robert Forward in 1984 demonstrated how the Casimir force could in principle be used to extract energy from the quantum vacuum (Phys. Rev. B, 30, 1700, 1984). Theoretical studies in the early 1990s (Phys. Rev. E, 48, 1562, 1993) verified that this was not contradictory to the laws of thermodynamics (since the zero-point energy is different from a thermal reservoir of heat). Unfortunately the Forward process cannot be cycled to yield a continuous extraction of energy. A Casimir engine would be one whose cylinders could only fire once, after which the engine become useless. \n\nORIGIN OF ZERO-POINT ENERGY \n\nThe basis of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one of the fundamental laws of quantum physics. According to this principle, the more precisely one measures the position of a moving particle, such as an electron, the less exact the best possible measurement of momentum (mass times velocity) will be, and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h. A parallel uncertainty exists between measurements involving time and energy. This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter. \n\nA useful calculational tool in physics is the ideal harmonic oscillator: a hypothetical mass on a perfect spring moving back and forth. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that such an ideal harmonic oscillator -- one small
389972
Your speculations are shared by some professional physicists and astronomers. Of course no one can prove anything at this time in our scientific history because we have no way of knowing what's going on inside the event horizon of black holes. Indeed, the laws of physics as we understand them won't even work there, so viable theories can't be developed.\n\nAs for God -- I'm not a religious fundamentalist fanatic by any means, but it seems to me that at the very least there has to be some sort of Prime Entity or First Cause that "invented" the laws of physics that make such things as big bangs, black holes, multiverses, etc., possible, even if this universe is nothing more than an accident.\n\nGod should be spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com
866589
The formula expanded a bit is: E (joules or kg*m²/s²) = m (kilograms) multiplied by (299,792,458 m/s)2\n\nE is Energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.  \n\nCheck out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%C2%B2\n\nOff the subject, but an important reply to Fresh Prince and those of the same mind:\n\nYou seem pretty mad.  It is unfortunate that "[we] people disgust [you]."  It does not diminish Einstein’s discovery to say God created the highly balanced universe which is made up of this mathematic formula as well as all formulas - discovered and undiscovered.  Einstein was doing wonderful work in unlocking the mysteries of Creation - he was a genius among geniuses\n\nEinstein himself believed in a "god / creator" - not the God of the Bible, but a Creator nonetheless.  He was not closed - he acknowledged that the universe is so finely balanced on finite mathematical principals, there is a higher intelligence governing things that we cannot comprehend.  He spent his life exploring the wonder of what has been created and set before mankind.  Please cast aside your disgust.  No one is taking credit away from Einstein - or you.  \n\nRegarding religion, Einstein said: "The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavor in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there."\n\nWhen asked: "[Do] You accept the historical Jesus?" \n\nHe replied: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."\n\nNo, Einstein did not believe in God as Christians believe.  But he recognized the order of the universe as a signpost to a higher being.  The point is, there is no cause to be "disgusted" by ideas outside your paradigm.  I am not disgusted with you.\n\nTake a hint from Einstein - the consummate scientist who believed in a Creator: "...science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."  I will not be blind, so please do not be the former.  Take a look from another perspective; you may learn something of value.\n\nRemember, you may be angry with God, deny God, ignore God, and not care to inquire with an open mind, but God loves you anyway.\n\nHave a blessed day, my friend (that is a positive statement, please take it as such).
57542
Scientists think that, at some point in the very distant future, all of the mass in the universe will be dominated by four or five supermassive black holes.  At first glance, this doesn't square with the second law of thermodynamics (since that's a rather low entropy state), so someone postulated that there would be such a thing as a lighthole which would re-emit everything that fell into a black hole.\n\nThat was utter nonsense.\n\nStephen Hawking put his brain to work on this problem, and solved it in a day.  He realized that, as predicted by Einstein's famous equation, gravitational fields can spontaneously create pairs of particles (one being normal matter, and the other being anti-matter).  Under normal circumstances, the matter-anti-matter pair would annihilate, but if the pair forms on the event horizon of a black hole, one of the particles would be drawn into the black hole, while the other would be emitted into space.  By doing this, the black hole has expended some of its gravity, and therefore its mass.\n\nThe answer to the conundrum is that Black Holes are slowly evaporating through this process, and we've named it the Hawking radiation, accordingly.  If the Universe is ever dominated by a handful of supermassive black holes, that won't violate the Second Law of thermodynamics since they're slowly falling apart anyhow.\n\nThere is no need for a white hole to exist, nor is there any observational evidence even suggesting that they might.
346451
There is a very basic problem here. If you do a computation of the energy associated with the virtual particles, you get way, way, WAY more than enough to produce a closed universe. By one estimate, the answer is *at least* 63 orders of magnitude off. This is one of the worst predictions ever made! Clearly something is going on and nobody seems to have a good idea about how to get plausible results from this type of calculation. A *lot* of cancellation has to occur.
19596
i read your blog and nothing anyone can tell you here could be more satisfying than your theory.  you're going to get people either just saying one or the other, or explaining to you what the big bang is or why god is important.  the way you integrated everything in your head is good, and you should be happier with that than any answer from either side anyone may give you.  i agree, except my opinions lean more toward the science side because of my classes in biology and such.  i like where you said god got bored, that's a good way of looking at it.  i think even after the big bang, he played less of a role as people think, like maybe he guided along evolution or something, created that first spark of life and plays with mutations here and there, little experiments.  You'd probably have to take more bio courses to realize how much evidence there actually is for evolution and how smoothly it goes and stuff, but for now, your idea will work better than anyone from either side.\n\noh, as far as your latest blog thing, you would get stuck in the center of the earth, not go all the way through and pop out the other side, because gravity is measured from the center of an object..  Gravity would decrease as you went down, until you got to the center, where you would be weightless, but you wouldn't be able to 'fall' back up, because you would be pulled to the center again.  Everyone on all parts of the earth experience gravity to the same degree.