On 24/12/2012 10:07 AM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Monday, December 24, 2012 1:24:25 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 18/12/2012 11:21 AM, dlzc wrote:

On Monday, December 17, 2012 6:07:45 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan
wrote:
On 19/11/2012 3:09 PM, dlzc wrote:

OK, but this is not required, is not detectable in the
laboratory, and violates the laws of physics not changing
over time.

I doubt that this law has been absolutely proven.

Nothing is Science can be.

It may hold true within our current era, but that's just a
localized phenomenon.

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.

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?

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

If it was not already matter, no push was required.

The matter would've had to come later, after Inflation ended.
That which is being "pushed", is space itself.

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. Time's direction likely is another end-effect.

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.

Yousuf Khan