Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Thursday, December 27, 2012 2:29:23 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 24/12/2012 10:07 AM, dlzc wrote:
On Monday, December 24, 2012 1:24:25 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 18/12/2012 11:21 AM, dlzc wrote:
....
Fine structure constant does not change as
much as 1 part in 10^8 over the displayed
history of the Universe, and the observations
you have drawn your conclusions on *assume*
no change in physics over that time.

It's hard to tell what the laws of physics
were like during the Inflationary Big Bang
period. We can only see as far back as the
CMBR,

The observation that started this post was
clearly this side of the CMBR. And the
observation *assumed* the laws of physics
did not change over that time, to reach
their conclusions.

Yes, it may have started about post-CMBR
universe, but quite obviously it's quite
clear we're now discussing pre-CMBR too.

Not based on this observation, this finding, this original post.

i.e. 300k years after the BB, which would
already be too late after the Inflationary
period. By the time of the CMBR, the
Universe had already settled into its
current stable state. The Fine Structure
Constant was pretty much already at the
current level, give or take a few parts per
whatever. However, during Inflation that
FSC might have been quite wildly different.

Sure. And the CMBR might be what our container
Universe looks like, and there was no Big Bang.

When you say, "no Big Bang" are you talking
about a constantly Inflationary universe
without Big Bang, or are you talking about good
old Static universe?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html
.... if behind our event horizon is an identical Universe, then "beyond" the CMBR, is the Universe that contains ours. Just another option, still outside the realm of this discussion.


Gravity is often thought of as negative energy.

Incorrectly so, since it is energy-neutral.

No idea where you get that.

Gravity just changes "energy of position" to
"energy of motion", net energy does not change,
until friction kicks in.

Never knew that standing still had any energy
at all.

Water behind a dam has no energy? A pendulum at the top of its swings, has no energy?

As Newton said, "things at rest, remain at rest;
things in motion, remain at that same motion."
No energy needed for those.

Missing the examples above, aren't we?

....
Which arises from matter / energy, and
cannot exist without it. Which is why it
plays such a strong role in the curvature
of spacetime.

Or more likely matter-energy requires
space-time, and cannot exist without it. I
don't even think this is just another classic
chicken/egg problem,

I agree here, however...

I think it's quite plainly obvious that
energy condenses out of spacetime, and that
matter condenses out of energy. I think
spacetime is the basic building block, and
energy and then matter come out of that.

Time evolves from the 2nd law of
thermodynamics, and space evolves from
conservation of momentum and multiple bodies.
So to me it is most likely that they all
cooked out *precisely* together.

The laws of thermodynamics is probably a
macroscopic end-effect of the laws of
quantum mechanics.

Nope. Quantum mechanics does not "predict" either the 2nd law, nor time.

Time's direction likely is another end-effect.

I find no convincing evidence.

As for space being just whatever is between two
objects, is a bit old-fashioned. It's quite
clearly an object in and of itself these days.

I find no convincing evidence.

David A. Smith