Virtual Black Holes - Do They Create The Mass of the Universe?

Amazing! Just like Mega-Maid™!

 

That means virtual black holes are like Megamaid.. so, now we're at Spaceball level!

 

So much deduced just by watching a video. Just think what he might discover by studying and practising theoretical physics for many years...

 

Hey, "Spaceballs: The Video" has a lot to offer!

 

That's the power of the Schwartz for you.

 

May the Schwartz be wid' ya'!

 

So much deduced just by watching a video. Just think what he might discover by studying and practicing theoretical physics for many years...

And where exactly can we find your esteemed collection of theoretical practices in physics?

Now, back to the topic.

In order for matter to have existed prior to the Big Bang, there had to have been mass, correct? What created that mass? Because the only mass that physics understands is mass created by atoms, which of course did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such a thing called Cosmic Inflation. We know that Cosmic Inflation is real because it was created by a sudden and outward release of mass called the Big Bang.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...resh-evidence-for-new-physics-in-the-universe

[SIZE=6]Improved Hubble Yardstick Gives Fresh Evidence for New Physics in the Universe[/SIZE]
Astronomers have used NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to make the most precise measurements of the expansion rate of the universe since it was first calculated nearly a century ago. Intriguingly, the results are forcing astronomers to consider that they may be seeing evidence of something unexpected at work in the universe.

That's because the latest Hubble finding confirms a nagging discrepancy showing the universe to be expanding faster now than was expected from its trajectory seen shortly after the big bang. Researchers suggest that there may be new physics to explain the inconsistency.

"The community is really grappling with understanding the meaning of this discrepancy," said lead researcher and Nobel Laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, Maryland.

Perhaps the reason why FTL is not possible at this current time is because of the "glue" of gravity. As the Universe expands, like NASA has suggested, perhaps the mass that limits FTL will be stretched far enough apart to reduce the effects of objects attempting to travel to FTL and faster.

The mass of planets and galaxies will be fine, but the 'film' or the afterbirth of the Universe that the Universe arrived in will be pulled off to reveal what?

A new Universe full of possibilities.

Life has to wait to mature in the womb before growing to explore new possibilities.

 

I have a PhD in physics and published peer-reviewed work - albeit several decades ago before I changed career. I still keep abreast of developments in physics and I feel qualified to judge what is absolute flimflam. The thesis presented here, if one can call it that, reads like the product of a random sentence generator. It certainly isn't science. It wouldn't even win an Ig Nobel Prize.

 

Don't ya go off insultin' perfectly good random sentence generators! Whadda they ever do to ya?

 

My hovercraft is full of eels.

 

Reading too much of it may however lead to a Darwin award.

 

This is attempt #5+ to figure out FTL. Drag from other items, space barnacles, virtual black holes, the impact of raindrops, and now cosmic afterbirth. Next week we can expect some other fanciful (and totally unrelated) idea.

Now, back to the gibberish.

 

We are experiencing technical difficulties. One moment please...

 

From what I've seen to far FTL to him is like a pinata and he's using whatever stick he can find to break it...

 

My son is an astrophysics Ph.D. student, as are several of his friends, and two others are theoretical physicists.

I'd get them to have a look but I feel I don't need the ridicule.

 

It might amuse them. I expect they've heard similar. As a research student, one of the tasks one had to perform was responding to bizarre theories that members of the general public would mail to us. We had to explain patiently why their ideas didn't fit within the bounds of scientific knowledge and provide an alternative viewpoint based on what was accepted. Been there, done that and I'm damned if I'm going through it again.

 

GPT-3 might be able to best Drysonian physics.

 

GPT-3 might actually come up with something both innovative and sensible.

ETA: According to the overfitted brain hypothesis (OBH), it might be a good idea to train the neural network of GPT-3 on theories such as those espoused in this thread. This technique produces domain randomisation - effectively inducing a hallucination or dream state - to avoid overfitting to one data set and to allow the neural network to generalise to new data sets.

The Overfitted Brain: Dreams evolved to assist generalization

However, would an AI experience pleasant dreams or hideous nightmares when fed the hypothesis contained in this thread?

 

Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave? Stop, Dave. I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it.