# The Second Law of Thermodynamics Precludes an Infinite Acting Universe



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested.  Specifically, was it created or has it always existed.  It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo.  Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever.  Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways.  Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe.  An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the  creation of the universe.  Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.


----------



## fncceo (Aug 2, 2020)

It's way too early to jump to any conclusions.  The Laws of Thermodynamics, classical non-Quantum Newtonian Physics, are based on a closed system and as we keep learning, The Universe is less and less 'closed' as we previously believed.

Until the early part of the 20th Century, it was believed that the entirety of the Universe was contained in the Milky Way.  Hubble's dual discoveries of the actual distance between galaxies and the red-shift of the expanding universe changed that picture completely and caused Einstein to reject his Cosmological Constant.

The idea that The Universe consists mainly of unobservable (dark) matter and energy means that our ability to understand cosmological destiny is severely handicapped until we can learn how to observe and measure them.

The relatively recent discovery that the rate of expansion is increasing due to ever increasing power of Dark Energy means that, fundamentally, we can only begin to speculate on how The Universe will die or prosper.

I'm afraid that any certain proclamation made today, with our infinitesimal knowledge of The Universe, will seem as quaint and silly as Kepler's concept of crystal spheres or Ptolemy's Sun Centered Universe does to us now.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

fncceo said:


> It's way too early to jump to any conclusions.  The Laws of Thermodynamics, classical non-Quantum Newtonian Physics, are based on a closed system and as we keep learning, The Universe is less and less 'closed' as we previously believed.
> 
> Until the early part of the 20th Century, it was believed that the entirety of the Universe was contained in the Milky Way.  Hubble's dual discoveries of the actually distance between galaxies and the red-shift of the expanding universe changed that picture completely and caused Einstein to reject his Cosmological Constant.
> 
> ...


Do you believe that two objects placed next to each other won't equilibrate to the same temperature?


----------



## fncceo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> Do you believe that two objects placed next to each other won't equilibrate to the same temperature?



In a closed system, yes.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

fncceo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe that two objects placed next to each other won't equilibrate to the same temperature?
> ...


Do you believe that there are no 100% efficient processes? Such that usable energy will be lost during each energy to matter or matter to energy transaction?


----------



## fncceo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> Do you believe that there are no 100% efficient processes?



Don't confuse mechanical efficiency with natural reactions.

Matter and Energy, in a closed system, are a balanced equation.  If we say energy is lost in a reaction, it only means that the energy has been redirected in such a way that it is not useful to us.  It doesn't mean the energy is unaccounted for.  There must be an accounting of both energy and matter in a closed system.

Based on what we have observed about the increasing speed of universal expansion ... there would seem to be an ever-increasing amount of energy in The Universe that we can't explain.  We have labeled this energy as 'Dark Energy' simply because we can't observe it or measure it, we can only observe its effects.

Energy can't increase in a closed system so there must be other factors at work here that we currently can't comprehend.


----------



## dblack (Aug 2, 2020)

Therefore, Gawd. Got it.


----------



## fncceo (Aug 2, 2020)

dblack said:


> Therefore, Gawd. Got it.



Where do you get G-d from that?


----------



## dblack (Aug 2, 2020)

fncceo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore, Gawd. Got it.
> ...



It was a ding post. Duh.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

fncceo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe that there are no 100% efficient processes?
> ...


Right, which is why I qualified it as useable energy.  The total energy of the system remains the same but the useable energy decreases.  It's how a universe can become thermally equilibrated and still not violate the FLoT because no energy/mass has been destroyed.  So if the universe were cycled infinitely between a big bang and a big crunch the total energy of the system wouldn't change but the useable energy would.  There is no way to get around this without adding energy. 

And I haven't even gotten into the problems with the big crunch being able to rebound like a universe which was created from nothing. 

The ever increasing energy in the universe (i.e. dark matter/energy) is effectively a fudge factor.  It only exists to make their calculations match "apparent" observations.  No one can say which particles it is made of, how it is created without violating the FLoT or how it can affect the gravity of other objects but not itself be affected by gravity.  But if we want to honor this fudge factor, mind you it exists because the apparent observation has the expansion of the universe accelerating and unable to crunch which means in and of itself the universe was created and has not existed forever which is yet another argument for why the universe has not existed forever.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested.  Specifically, was it created or has it always existed.  It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo.  Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever.  Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.
> 
> But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.
> 
> ...


Before I read the whole thing consider our universe is just one bubble in a vast lava lamp of bubbles. Each bubble is unique. You know the edge of our universe? It’s expanding right? So it’s fluid. It grows. At one time our universe got started. Science thinks a Big Bang happened 13 billion years ago. But what about before that? Is that beyond your comprehension? We don’t know.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

dblack said:


> Therefore, Gawd. Got it.


I haven't gotten within a hundred miles of God.


----------



## fncceo (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> We don’t know.



That's the only thing we do know, for sure.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested.  Specifically, was it created or has it always existed.  It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo.  Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever.  Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.
> ...


And if they exist, they each exist in their own space time and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.  

You have got to love people who elevate science to a religion but  can't be bothered with learning it.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested.  Specifically, was it created or has it always existed.  It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo.  Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever.  Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.
> 
> But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.
> 
> ...


Our universe is a new universe started 13 billion years ago. Before that we had yet to become a universe yet. Like a lava lamp. One bubble once it pops is never the same bubble again. It lives out it’s life and when it pops it mixes back in with the goo and one day will become part of a new bubble


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

fncceo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > We don’t know.
> ...


Ever hear think outside the box? Well I’m not putting our universe in a box. There must be something outside the box.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

fncceo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > We don’t know.
> ...


I disagree.  We know quite a lot about how the universe was created.  Being created from nothing is the only plausible explanation.  People have to step over quite a bit of evidence to make the kind of statement you guys are making.

But if you really believe you don't know for sure, why are you making comments like you do.  If you really don't know then you don't know I am not correct.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I suspect radiation exists outside of the box.  The radiation left over from universes where the amount of anti-matter and matter honored the symmetry seen in collider experiments and was created with exactly the same amount of each.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 2, 2020)

fncceo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > We don’t know.
> ...


That ding is always hopelessly lost, circling around in a little universe of his own creation, indeed.


----------



## fncceo (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



For the entire history of Cosmology, we've just been ever expanding the box.  Our Universe keeps getting bigger and bigger.  It's impossible to say, at this point, where it will end up.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested.  Specifically, was it created or has it always existed.  It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo.  Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever.  Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.
> ...


Again...  if they exist, they each exist in their own space time and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Thanks for that scientific analysis.  

Tell me more about me and how that informs your understanding of the science you don't seem interested in discussing.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested.  Specifically, was it created or has it always existed.  It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo.  Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever.  Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.
> 
> But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.
> 
> ...


Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yea, just a spark.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

fncceo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe that there are no 100% efficient processes?
> ...


Here is another way that usable energy is lost to the system without violating the FLoT...

A hydrogen atom is composed of a proton as nucleus and one electron moving about it; but at temperatures of about five million degrees they are driven apart, and one is dealing with naked protons, hydrogen nuclei. Now four such protons, each of mass 1, begin to fuse to a helium nucleus of about mass 4, but in this process a very small amount of mass is lost -- four protons have a slightly larger mass than a helium nucleus -- and this tiny loss of mass is converted into radiation according to Einstein’s equation, _E=mc2_. Even so small a loss of mass yields a huge amount of radiation, and that flood of radiation pours out in the interior of what had been a collapsing mass of gas and stops its further collapse, stabilizing it, and is also the source of starlight.



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 2, 2020)

Oh, geez, here we go again..


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested.  Specifically, was it created or has it always existed.  It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo.  Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever.  Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.
> ...


There have been zero observations or models that support this.  It sounds like science fiction.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You’re claiming to know stuff you don’t know for sure. In a lava lamp does any bubble stay in one place?


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> Oh, geez, here we go again..


Do you have anything to offer?


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I'm telling you what the science tells us.  

Why does it bother you that the universe was created from nothing and then began to expand and cool?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


We’re just trying to show you your theories aren’t even theories. They’re just hypothesis’s at this point. They don’t prove a creator exists. But one might. I was just now trying to contemplate infinity. I can’t. None of us can. You think you can but you’re thinking way too small. Think bigger. You can’t think big enough it’d blow you mind


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It's a lot more than a spark.  It literally started with 1 billion times more matter particles and 1 billion times more anti-matter particles than exist in the universe today.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Nothing? No such thing.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Ummmm... there are equations that say otherwise.  

It really bothers you that the universe was created from nothing, doesn't it?


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence.  Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Still started with spa spark. What happened after that we still don’t fully understand. I think we are able to see what happened after the Big Bang like 300,000 years. Before that we don’t know. You could be right. We won’t throw out your hypothesis. Could be a creator. We’ll put that on the paper and go back to it later if you come up with any other evidence.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Actually we do.  The matter and anti matter particles mutually annihilated each other releasing tremendous amounts of energy which propelled the remaining matter particles outward.  

You do know you can google this shit, right?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No it doesn5 bother me. What do you think it proves?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ok so that’s what did it. Matter hitting antimatter


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes.  That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis.  This is exactly what science is telling us.  

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That you just lied about not being bothered by the universe being created from nothing.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Which was created from nothing during a quantum tunneling event which did not violate the FLoT.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


The universe being created from nothing totally disturbs you, bro.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

fncceo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


The FLoT stating that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed does not mean matter and energy must have existed forever.  It is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever without equilibrating.  You just cannot get around this without the added complexity of explaining how energy is added.  Which in and of itself leads you to creating energy from somewhere.  But all of this can be avoided by creating matter out of nothing from a quantum tunneling event where the positive energy of the matter is balanced perfectly by the negative energy of gravity. 

It literally is the only explanation that doesn't violate a law of nature.  But for some reason this makes people go bat shit crazy.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Didn’t they say one had slightly more power than the other one?

Do you know what neutrinos are? Mind blowing stuff we don’t know. 

Whats inside a black hole? Another universe? Science doesn’t fully understand and neither do we


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No.  They are symmetrical.  

Yes.

Matter and energy from this universe.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


But they only know for sure right now from 300,000 years till now. They only assume what you are saying. What happened 7 days before the Big Bang?


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Red shift, CMB, FLoT, SLoT, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and inflation theory say otherwise.  

The laws of nature existed before the universe was created from nothing.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Dark matter vs dark energy. I always get them confused. Anyways, you know about these things right? We don’t know shit. I don’t care what we know about the laws of thermomumbojumbo


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ok


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...







__





						Dark Matter; Real? Or Imagined?
					

What type of matter is dark matter?  Of which particles consist dark matter?  How does dark matter arise?  What are the evidences of dark matter?



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


What is it that you think is my hypothesis?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 2, 2020)

fncceo said:


> It's way too early to jump to any conclusions.  The Laws of Thermodynamics, classical non-Quantum Newtonian Physics, are based on a closed system and as we keep learning, The Universe is less and less 'closed' as we previously believed.
> 
> Until the early part of the 20th Century, it was believed that the entirety of the Universe was contained in the Milky Way.  Hubble's dual discoveries of the actual distance between galaxies and the red-shift of the expanding universe changed that picture completely and caused Einstein to reject his Cosmological Constant.
> 
> ...


*red-shift of the expanding universe*
It's a theory, not fact.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



 I don’t know. It’s why I asked.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > It's way too early to jump to any conclusions.  The Laws of Thermodynamics, classical non-Quantum Newtonian Physics, are based on a closed system and as we keep learning, The Universe is less and less 'closed' as we previously believed.
> ...



Sure.. But communication of Temperature in space is by Radiative Physics, not conduction or convection..  It's as you said, more about energy/matter in NUMEROUS forms... Some of which we still don't have great explanations for... 

The second law of thermo DOES apply to radiative transfers.. But it ACTS differently and is transmitted differently than it is for "heat transfers"...


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You said it was my wild hypothesis.  It's not my hypothesis.  This is what is believed. This isn't something I made up on my own.  The universe has not existed forever.  It was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


Hypothetically speaking, what do you believe would happen given an infinite number of big bang / big crunch cycles?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



But we agree -- it was NOT "created from nothing" ...  The hard part to wrap a human brain around is the theory that all this matter/energy was IGNITED from a space not much larger than a pinhead..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Maybe not..  There was no "periodic table" in existence as we know it.. The timing and energy of the Big Bang DETERMINED the presence and the rarity or abundance of every element that we know today...  Also might not have been "light" as we know it prior to the Big Bang..


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It will probably carry more weight hearing it from him.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 2, 2020)

fncceo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe that there are no 100% efficient processes?
> ...


Dark Energy
It's called Choe-Shek; that Torah doesn't miss anything.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, geez, here we go again..
> ...


What do you expect the Mentally Ill to offer?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 2, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Ding is merely stating scientific consensus, which seems to bug the hell out of you.


----------



## ding (Aug 2, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I believe the laws of nature which predestined the evolution of space and time and everything that unfolded since it was created was built into the fabric of energy and matter and had to exist before energy and matter because the creation of space and time was according to those laws.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 2, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Do you study Talmud?


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 2, 2020)

ding said:


> Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo.


Ergo man was created without certain body parts or enough good common sense to make his own decisions by the all-knowing God of the judicial-medical Establishment.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 3, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You’re coming to a conclusion that may not be 100% accurate. Sorry. You’re spitballing


----------



## ding (Aug 3, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Which conclusion would that be exactly?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 3, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yea but what is nothing? Science still debates this. So what he is concluding(that it must be god) isn’t the obvious answer


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 3, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That it had to be a god.


----------



## ding (Aug 3, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Where did I make that claim?

I haven't come within a hundred miles of God.  It seems that YOU are the one who has reached that conclusion.

The only point of this thread is to discuss the two possibilities; an eternal universe or a universe created from nothing.

The only conclusion I have reached is that an eternal universe is scientifically impossible and that the universe began when it was created from nothing.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 3, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Those aren’t the only two options.

Put it this way. You don’t understand what nothing means. And neither do scientists completely


----------



## ding (Aug 3, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Sure they are.  What other options are there?

In the context of a vacuum where quantum fluctuations pop into and out of existence versus a universe filled with massive amounts of energy and matter, I believe they do understand the difference.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 3, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What does it mean a flat universe?


----------



## ding (Aug 3, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That it had a beginning and when through an inflation phase.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 3, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Some of the things you are asking or inferring we just don’t know. Don’t act like we do.

Science says we came from nothing? And that doesn’t blow your mind? Or you think it suggests something?


----------



## ding (Aug 3, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


What we do know you don't like because it does blow your mind.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 3, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I don’t mind it. I just don’t think you understand what nothing is because it’s beyond comprehension. Nothing you conclude is 100% conclusive. Even if we did come from “nothing” I’m sure if scientists were around back then it could be scientifically explained and it wouldn’t prove a god must exist which we all know is what you’re getting at.


----------



## ding (Aug 3, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Why do you keep bringing up God?

I'm discussing whether or not the universe has always existed or was created from nothing.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 3, 2020)

ding said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



OK -- That's unique and weird..  Can't even weigh in without psychedelics..  So -- what existed was a egg shell with a hard boundary..  Either from gravity so dense that no radiation can penetrate it or built from anti-matter or whatever..  And a "spark of life" caused this distributed LATENT matter/energy to coalesce inward to a tiny point at the center and IGNITED something like the Big Bang..

Maybe Genesis is not that far fetched..  OR we're living in some kind of faulty garbage compactor where the "closed system" simply COMPACTS when a certain shape/distribution of matter/energy equilibrium is reached within it's closed borders -- and causes the garbage to be spewed as far away as possible..

First and only observation would be that would seem to a PERIODIC occurrence in most KNOWN closed systems and by it's nature means the chances for oscillation are pretty high on SOME "universe time scale".,..


----------



## ding (Aug 3, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


It's not that weird or unique if you accept that matter and energy must have a beginning.  Which I cannot see any other way around.  Which means that there has to be an explanation for how it was created without violating the FLoT which he has done (i.e. the net energy of the universe is zero, much like the sum of forces is zero for a statics problem).

Another problem with a periodic or cyclical universe would be in replicating the cosmic background radiation which required equal amounts of anti-matter and matter to create.  That's the next thread I'm creating.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 3, 2020)

ding said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




When you look out at the vastness of the Universe, at the planets, stars, galaxies, and all there is out there, one obvious question screams for an explanation: why is there something instead of nothing? The problem gets even worse when you consider the laws of physics governing our Universe, which appear to be completely symmetric between matter and antimatter. Yet as we look at what's out there, we find that all the stars and galaxies we see are made 100% of matter, with scarcely any antimatter at all. Clearly, we exist, as do the stars and galaxies we see, so something must have created more matter than antimatter, making the Universe we know possible. But how did it happen? It's one of the Universe's greatest mysteries, but one that we're closer than ever to solving.






Consider these two facts about the Universe, and how contradictory they are: 



Every interaction between particles that we’ve ever observed, at all energies, has never created or destroyed a single particle of matter without also creating or destroying an equal number of antimatter particles.


When we look out at the Universe, at all the stars, galaxies, gas clouds, clusters, superclusters and largest-scale structures everywhere, everything appears to be made of matter and not antimatter.
It seems like an impossibility. On one hand, there is no known way, given the particles and their interactions in the Universe, to make more matter than antimatter. On the other hand, everything we see is definitely made of matter and not antimatter. Here's how we know.









						How Did The Matter In Our Universe Arise From Nothing?
					

If the laws of physics are completely symmetric between matter and antimatter, how did our Universe come to be?




					www.forbes.com
				




In our own galaxy’s interstellar medium, the mean lifetime would be on the order of about 300 years, which is tiny compared to the age of our galaxy! This constraint tells us that, at least within the Milky Way, the amount of antimatter that’s allowed to be mixed in with the matter we observe is at most 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000! On larger scales — of galaxies and galaxy clusters, for example — the constraints are less stringent but still very strong. With observations spanning from just a few million light-years away to over three billion light-years distant, we’ve observed a dearth of the X-rays and gamma rays we’d expect from matter-antimatter annihilation. What we’ve seen is that even on large, cosmological scales, 99.999%+ of what exists in our Universe is definitely matter (like us) and not antimatter.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 3, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



In the late 1960s, physicist Andrei Sakharov identified three conditions necessary for baryogenesis, or the creation of more baryons (protons and neutrons) than anti-baryons. They are as follows:


The Universe must be an out-of-equilibrium system.
It must exhibit _C_- and _CP_-violation.
There must be baryon-number-violating interactions.

In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe.

The fact that we exist and are made of matter is indisputable; the question of why our Universe contains something (matter) instead of nothing (from an equal mix of matter and antimatter) is one that must have an answer. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. And when it does, one of the greatest mysteries in all of existence will finally have a solution.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 3, 2020)

ding said:


> Another problem with a periodic or cyclical universe would be in replicating the cosmic background radiation which required equal amounts of anti-matter and matter to create. That's the next thread I'm creating.



You can knock yourself out there, but on the TIME SCALE of any period/cyclical activity, the TRACE of cosmic background for previous cycles would be LONG gone or you'd have to get much better in finding the remains...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 3, 2020)

fncceo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > We don’t know.
> ...


There are a great many things we do not know via Science, but do know via other disciplines no less certainly.
And how can you prove that our Universe is a closed system?


----------



## ding (Aug 3, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Another problem with a periodic or cyclical universe would be in replicating the cosmic background radiation which required equal amounts of anti-matter and matter to create. That's the next thread I'm creating.
> ...


If that is the case isn't that one more reason to believe the universe began ~14 billion years ago.  It's still there.  We can see it using a TV set. 

But my point is there wouldn't be any cosmic background radiation in a cyclical universe because there was no anti-matter to create it. It's just a universe of matter contracting and expanding.


----------



## ding (Aug 3, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You do realize his process is based upon a universe that is spontaneously created, right?

"In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and* that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter *only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. "


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 3, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Yea like bubbles in a lava lamp spontaneously form. Or when a lightening strikes. It’s spontaneous.


----------



## ding (Aug 3, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Except in this case it's a quantum tunneling event with equal or nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter particles.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 3, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Since the universe is dominated by DARK matter.. Or that's the view today.. And its all moving relatively the same directions as the matter we can see easily, where is the "tunneling leak" that allows this "closed system egg" to charge with "equal parts of matter/anti-matter as the fuel for the ignition? When you consider the mass and joules involved in the ignition, SOMETHING compressed the "tunneling" into ONE minute location?

Quantum tunneling is a QUANTUM LEVEL process.. It's not a bulk mass delivery system...


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 3, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


There is a popular saying among Jews that *God created Something From Nothing*.
Those who study Kabbalah, which is not at all spooky stuff, but an actual explanation of the Torah's words, as opposed to the Septuagint, translated by the Rabbis for Greek edification, state the reality that God, being the sole *Something*, created *Nothing*, otherwise known as the universe, From *Something*, otherwise referred to as God.
Thus, *God created Nothing From Something*.

A primer...
*Something* is a pristine essence that can only be tolerated by a created being that can completely negate it's ego....become *Nothing*.
*Something* is inherently absolute perfection that cannot be manipulated into negativity.
*Nothing* allows itself to be subsumed into *Something *and is absolute perfection because it cannot be manipulated into negativity.

As long as a created being has desires that veer from *Something's *plan, that created being will deny the omniscient *Something* to some degree, or entirely.
When I allow my desires to "rebel" my path from that which has been defined by *Something*, I'm just as guilty*.*

Does this mean I'm anti science?
If I was anti science, I wouldn't have all the latest gadgets.

I can imagine this post will drive atheists insane.


----------



## ding (Aug 3, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I'm not convinced of dark matter and even if I were I don't see how it has anything to do with the creation of space and time.  At least not with my understanding of how they say dark matter is "created."  

The "tunneling leak" was that ONE minute location.  Matter and anti matter particles weren't compressed.  They came into existence all at once or practically all at once.  Whereby the mutual annihilation which was two billion times larger in mass than the remaining matter particles set those particles in motion.  At which time they quickly formed hydrogen and helium.  That's my understanding.  

But back to my point, I have not heard anyone claim that the cosmic background radiation wasn't  the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe.  Do you know something about CMB that I don't?  

Because logically if the CMB was the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe and if the time scale of any period/cyclical activity erased all traces of it, doesn't the presence of CMB mean the universe had a beginning because if you are correct all traces of CMB should be erased, right?  What am I missing here?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 3, 2020)

ding said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Dark Matter (Choe-Shek) was the default and ultimate destiny of the Big Bang.
God intervened and uttered Light (Ohr) into existence.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 3, 2020)

ding said:


> But back to my point, I have not heard anyone claim that the cosmic background radiation wasn't the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe. Do you know something about CMB that I don't?
> 
> Because logically if the CMB was the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe and if the time scale of any period/cyclical activity erased all traces of it, doesn't the presence of CMB mean the universe had a beginning because if you are correct all traces of CMB should be erased, right? What am I missing here?



Not denying any of it..  Just pointing out the chances of finding and SEPARATING CMB from PREVIOUS events to show cyclic operation of this (proposed) closed system is limited in TIME. Because there's no reason to believe that radiation would have any permanence on that type of time scale.. 20 Billion years is fairly young for an expansion STILL HAPPENING.. 

But I would still suspect if the closed system did this ONCE -- it wouldn't be the 1st time.. It's kinda like the expectation for major energy forcings in a closed system. And if it HAS happened before, eventually the energy/mass in the closed system WOULD increase or we need new physics for a truly closed systems..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 3, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I KNEW I should have kept reading the Talmud instead of Carl Sagan...


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 4, 2020)

fncceo said:


> It's way too early to jump to any conclusions.  The Laws of Thermodynamics, classical non-Quantum Newtonian Physics, are based on a closed system and as we keep learning, The Universe is less and less 'closed' as we previously believed.



Sorry: But if it is not a closed sytem where's the outside? The universe expands from all points: This means everyone and everything what travels thougzh the universe is always in the middle of the universe and never able to reach an end or to leave it,  because the universe expands into all directions. And "to expand" means the space itselve expands.



> Until the early part of the 20th Century, it was believed that the entirety of the Universe was contained in the Milky Way.  Hubble's dual discoveries of the actual distance between galaxies and the red-shift of the expanding universe changed that picture completely and caused Einstein to reject his Cosmological Constant.
> 
> The idea that The Universe consists mainly of unobservable (dark) matter and energy



"Dark energy" is perhaps only an idea without reality



> means that our ability to understand cosmological destiny is severely handicapped until we can learn how to observe and measure them.



We do so in case of dark matter - but not in case of dark energy- what are two totally different things.



> The relatively recent discovery that the rate of expansion is increasing due to ever increasing power of Dark Energy means that, fundamentally, we can only begin to speculate on how The Universe will die or prosper.



Or we make a mistake in the interpretation of so called "standard candles" as far as I heard. So perhaso teh univrse is indeed not accelerated expanding.



> I'm afraid that any certain proclamation made today, with our infinitesimal knowledge of The Universe,



With our what? Infinitesimal calculations are only a part of the universe.



> will seem as quaint and silly as Kepler's concept of crystal spheres or Ptolemy's Sun Centered Universe does to us now.



Kepler's system was anything else than silly, if you take a look at the three laws of Kepler. No one had believed only one word from the obscure theory of Newton, if his theory had not explained the laws of Kepler. Einstein was the giant on the shoulders of Newton in a similar way as Newton was the giant on the shoulders of Kepler (and Tycho Brahe). And the theory of relativity says very clear that the natural laws, energy and the spacetime were suddenly existing - without any possibility to say what was "before" it was so, because "before" the universe existed existed no time, so there was no "before" 'before'.


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 4, 2020)

fncceo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > We don’t know.
> ...



What a nonsense. I'm sure you know for example whether you have a knee or not.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 4, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Where do you think the Jewish scientist got his education from?
By the way, his speech about how large the universe is was lifted directly from mesechta Brachot (Blessings).


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 4, 2020)

fncceo said:


> ...
> For the entire history of Cosmology, we've just been ever expanding the box.  Our Universe keeps getting bigger and bigger.  It's impossible to say, at this point, where it will end up.



More concrete: The spacetime of the universe is flat. This means it is not closed but also not open. "Flat" means it expands and it will never stop to expand (nearly the same as in an open model) but: the expansion will become slower and slower if so (and will nevertheless never stop).

As far as I know the most scientists in physics accept today the spacetime of the universe is flat (=follows the euclidian geometry) and think the same time it expands accelerated. Both facts seem to be proven - but as far as I heard the idea "dark energy" (=the universe expands accelerated) is perhaps wrong, because of a wrong interpretation of the constant time marks, which are used for this theory (so called "standard candles").

So in the moment it looks like we do not only not know what the acceleration of the expansion of the universe could cause - we are also not totally sure that this accelerated expansion really exists.

And why the English speaking world seems to think natural science ("materialism") and spirituality ("belief in god") exclude each other is in general not understandable. This seems not to be a materialistic or spiritual problem - this seems to be a problem of human societies and political opinions, which have not really basically  to do with knowledge in physics or natural science and/or a spiritual belief or spiritual ways to live.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 4, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Idiot


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



If they have a spacetime at all - or energy - or any form of logic or ... .



> and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.



The question is wherein such universes could be embedded physically. And perhaps this is indeed "only" a nothing.  But there is no way to find this out. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. We do not know. We never will know. Except someone finds a totally new way of and for physics. In the moment we are only connected to such ideas or possible realities with the power of logic and/or mathematics. But what could be for example the mathematics of a universe without any form of logic? A mathematical hell?


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 4, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...



Interesting "argument". You don't know, whether you have a knee or not?

I heard Socrates said once something like _"The people accept my authority, because I am able to say valid, what I do not know on what exact reasons"_.  Later this became the stupid anti-philosophical short cut sentence "I know 'I know [only] nothing'" - what's just simple nonsense. We know something - but not everything, what we know, is true. If it is true, what we know, then we do not know this, because we are not able to prove this wrong. But we are able to find out what's wrong. And true is everything what's not wrong.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 4, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


I know I have a knee. What does that prove?


----------



## Flash (Aug 4, 2020)

If there is a finite universe then there will be unique things in it.  Life may be an unique thing only found on earth.


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 4, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



That you know something. And if it is true, what you know, then nihilism or whateverism is an obsolete way of philosophy.


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


If they have energy then they have space time.  Otherwise, they would only have radiation... if they exist.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2020)

dblack said:


> Therefore, Gawd. Got it.



I didn't see God in that either..  What part of his assertions were "super"Natural???


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

I've been trying to keep God out of it.


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Why?



> Otherwise, they would only have radiation... if they exist.



Radiation? But they have srqtqlqs so they don't need radiation. And here in our own universe I don't see any sense to say without spacetime energy is radiation.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Probably because you haven't thought about universes created withe equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You mean almost equal amounts.


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



True. I never think about real universes in this context. I don't know what kind of natural laws are possible and what of this spectrum a human mind could be able to understand. What do you do for example if you come in a universe without natural klaws or with a total chaos so never two things happen there in a comparable way? What about a universe where never two atoms are the same? The only thing I tried to find out was how big a chance could be to meet an intelligent life form in another universe.

I heard that our natural constants are so in harmony (=anthropic principle) that a change in the 16th position of a natural constant makes impossible life as we know it (with a body made of water) in our universe. Then I imagined a kind of book with all thinkable universes with this natural constant and imagined I would need a second to find out whether life is possible at any page in this universe or not. The problem: I could browse through this book longer than our universe exists and find not any form of life.

Perhaps I will do so after my life - but for sure not during my current life. I'm satisfied with the Winnetou universe from Karl May and the millions of universes of other professional writers. I would be astonished if I would come to heaven at all after my death - but why not? - God's ways are wonderful. But I would for sure not be astonished to meet Winnetou there. Better to say: I would be disappointed not to meet Winnetou there. The German heaven - the German universe - needs the worlds of Winnetous.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Assuming that nearly equal amounts don't have a preference for leaving matter which some are arguing there is a preference, the a universe being created with equal amounts would not create space and time because all it would be filled with was radiation from the annihilation of anti matter and matter.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox (Oct 31, 2021)

ding said:


> Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested.  Specifically, was it created or has it always existed.  It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo.  Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever.  Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.
> 
> But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.
> 
> ...


Thermodynamics sounds impressive. That did not exist before death. All things will change when God makes all things new.​


----------



## abu afak (Oct 31, 2021)

Iamartiewhitefox said:


> Jamies 1:26 - 27 is not a religious belief system. It is how a person should be. Jesus did what is described. Jesus had religon that is not vain.


Religion section Pilgrim
**** off.
You bumped up a 15 month OLD thread in the SCIENCE section to preach.
**** off.
`


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> That's the only thing we do know, for sure.


Professor:  we cannot be certain about anything!

Student:  are you sure about that?

Professor:  oh yes. Of that I am certain.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Professor:  we cannot be certain about anything!
> 
> Student:  are you sure about that?
> 
> Professor:  oh yes. Of that I am certain.



There are certain things about which we can be certain.  For example, we can be reasonably certain that our predictions made about the effects of force and gravity can be extremely accurate, even at vast astronomical distance.

What we can't be certain of, in fact what we do not actually understand is, how those forces actually work.

We live in a mulitdimensional universe, as many as 10 some theorize, but we are only capable of perceiving and experiencing three of those.  Which means our ability to observe the universe is strictly curtailed. We can observe and accurately measure electromagnetic radiation, but we cannot perceive or measure what we refer to as "dark energy".  We can only theorize its existence based on how it perturbs what we can perceive.

While it may seem paradoxical, the only thing we can truly know, is that we don't know everything.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> There are certain things about which we can be certain.  For example, we can be reasonably certain that our predictions made about the effects of force and gravity can be extremely accurate, even at vast astronomical distance.
> 
> What we can't be certain of, in fact what we do not actually understand is, how those forces actually work.
> 
> ...


I may be wise!  Because I am absolutely certain that I don’t know what the answers to most of these mysteries might be.

I don’t even pretend to. I have scratched the surface of “The Cosmological Argument” and even comprehended some of it. (I do recognize that it’s not one argument: it’s a complicated set of competing arguments.)  And here’s the thing. It still boils down to stuff we don’t really know.

I’ll say it. Our pal “ding” is pretty ducking smart and informed.   I believe that you are, too. I think Bertrand Russell was too. I think Aquinas was, too.  I know that people a hell of a lot smarter than I am have debated these matters and they don’t agree. So, I realize I’m not going to solve any of it.

But, the chicken/egg question still doesn’t get resolved by mere declaration.

If the universe and everything in it came into existence out of absolutely nothing, then where the hell did all the stuff come from?  If the stuff was already there, where did IT come from?  If we say nothing led to something, then I guess were saying fuck the laws of science. (With a caveat about such laws not applying in the quantum realm of physics — maybe). But if we say something led to something, then where did the initial something come from?


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> But, the chicken/egg question still doesn’t get resolved by mere declaration.



That one is simple... amniotic eggs existed for millions of years before the humble chicken.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 9, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> I may be wise!  Because I am absolutely certain that I don’t know what the answers to most of these mysteries might be.
> 
> I don’t even pretend to. I have scratched the surface of “The Cosmological Argument” and even comprehended some of it. (I do recognize that it’s not one argument: it’s a complicated set of competing arguments.)  And here’s the thing. It still boils down to stuff we don’t really know.
> 
> ...


Look over your shoulder!
Too late...


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 9, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> Look over your shoulder!
> Too late...


I pride myself on “getting” lots of stuff said in that fashion. But now I’m feeling all stupid again because, I’m not tracking what you just said. 

🤔😞


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 9, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> I pride myself on “getting” lots of stuff said in that fashion. But now I’m feeling all stupid again because, I’m not tracking what you just said.
> 
> 🤔😞


The sarcasm failed?
The "answer" is always behind everyone's back until we look and it's still not there.
I love YouTube because all the physicists are admitting they know dip.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> The sarcasm failed?
> The "answer" is always behind everyone's back until we look and it's still not there.
> I love YouTube because all the physicists are admitting they know dip.



Physics has kind of hit a stone wall lately.  Super-string Theory, Quantum Chromodynamics, while interesting theories, ultimately can't be proved with our current level of technology.

While the Large Hadron Collider has discovered the elusive Higs-Boson Particle (and 58 other previously unknown particles) it still isn't any closer to understanding how these particles create our universe.

It's going to make it much more difficult to obtain the massive amounts of funding required to make any practical breakthroughs in modern physics.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> That one is simple... amniotic eggs existed for millions of years before the humble chicken.


Where did the egg come from?


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 9, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> The sarcasm failed?
> The "answer" is always behind everyone's back until we look and it's still not there.
> I love YouTube because all the physicists are admitting they know dip.


Oh. I should have seen that. But I’m sluggish lately. And I love it when the real bright guys (including theoretical physicists) acknowledge that they don’t know.

It is not ironic to recognize that wisdom comes form recognizing first the things we don’t know. Because then we can at least start looking for answers.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Where did the egg come from?



It doesn't really matter ... it simply established it's order in the chicken v egg debate.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> It doesn't really matter ... it simply established it's order in the chicken v egg debate.


In some ways it doesn’t matter. But the question still illuminates something. You say the egg came first. My immediate question is where did that egg come from?  Someone else says “the egg came from a damn chicken!”  My immediate question then is, where the hell did the chicken come from?  

Maybe the egg came from the first protochicken?  I’m still gonna ask where the first protochicken came from?  Imma gonna go ahead and guess it came from an egg.  And back we go.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> Someone else says “the egg came from a damn chicken!



We've already established that didn't happen. It's an undeniable fact that the egg came first.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> It doesn't really matter ... it simply established it's order in the chicken v egg debate.


According to the Torah, you are incorrect.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> According to the Torah, you are incorrect.



According to Torah, see creatures, created on day five, (many of which reproduce using amniotic eggs) came before land critters (day six), especially the domestic chicken.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> We've already established that didn't happen. It's an undeniable fact that the egg came first.


I don’t see how that’s “established.”

I say a chicken laid that egg which you claim came first.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> According to Torah, see creatures, created on day five, (many of which reproduce using amniotic eggs) came before land critters (day six), especially the domestic chicken.


Why does the Torah make specific mention of the ground bound animals if they were merely products of evolution?


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> I don’t see how that’s “established.”
> 
> I say a chicken laid that egg which you claim came first.



You'd be wrong.  Even if you don't believe in natural evolution, which has firmly established that birds evolved from earlier egg-laying animals.  You must believe in animal breeding, where the current domestic chicken must have been bred from a different bird, domesticated by man to become the chicken.

Either way, it's pretty clear that the egg came first.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> Why does the Torah make specific mention of the ground bound animals if they were merely products of evolution?



They had to develop in some order... either a literal six-day order or the more protracted 4 Billion Year order.

It's pretty clear that sea creatures coming up on land to become us is a pretty significant landmark in either narrative.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> They had to develop in some order... either a literal six-day order or the more protracted 4 Billion Year order.
> 
> It's pretty clear that sea creatures coming up on land to become us is a pretty significant landmark in either narrative.


How long was a day?
In fact, most people do not even know what the word "Yome" means.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> In fact, most people do not even know what the word "Yome" means.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> View attachment 573869


I bet you don't.
I also bet you don't know the meanings of Erev or Boker.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> You'd be wrong.  Even if you don't believe in natural evolution, which has firmly established that birds evolved from earlier egg-laying animals.  You must believe in animal breeding, where the current domestic chicken must have been bred from a different bird, domesticated by man to become the chicken.
> 
> Either way, it's pretty clear that the egg came first.


Nope:  I assume you’re saying that amniotic eggs preceded chickens. But the question isn’t about eggs in general. The question is really about chicken eggs. Accordingly, despite your self assurance, it may well be that YOU are the one who is wrong here.

“At the end of the day, the question is something of a false dichotomy. Eggs certainly came before chickens, but _chicken_ eggs did not—you can’t have one without the other.”









						Which came first: the chicken or the egg?
					

Science can help us find the answer.




					www.science.org.au
				




That site also says they’d come down on your side … but they don’t state it as though it’s settled. Because it’s not.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> You'd be wrong.  Even if you don't believe in natural evolution, which has firmly established that birds evolved from earlier egg-laying animals.  You must believe in animal breeding, where the current domestic chicken must have been bred from a different bird, domesticated by man to become the chicken.
> 
> Either way, it's pretty clear that the egg came first.


The egg wouldn’t be fertilized if the rooster hadn’t come.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> I bet you don't.
> I also bet you don't know the meanings of Erev or Boker.



One of the root meaning of Yom is "warm" referring to the portion of the day when the sun is up -- to become synonymous with the day itself. Which is why we measure the start of our days from sunset to sunset.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> One of the root meaning of Yom is "warm" referring to the portion of the day when the sun is up -- to become synonymous with the day itself. Which is why we measure the start of our days from sunset to sunset.


Guess what...How can there be an Erev, Boker or Yom on the first 3 days when there was no sun or planets in existence.
I'll tell you tomorrow.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 9, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> Guess what...How can there be an Erev, Boker or Yom on the first 3 days when there was no sun or planets in existence.
> I'll tell you tomorrow.


At sunrise?


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 9, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> At sunrise?


Later...


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> The egg wouldn’t be fertilized if the rooster hadn’t come.



The original chicken was the offspring of two non-chicken birds in the wild.  Bred, by humans, to create what we now know as the domestic chicken.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> Guess what...How can there be an Erev, Boker or Yom on the first 3 days when there was no sun or planets in existence.
> I'll tell you tomorrow.



Well, time increments are totally arbitrary.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> The original chicken was the offspring of two non-chicken birds in the wild.  Bred, by humans, to create what we now know as the domestic chicken.


The male proto-chicken still had to get laid in order to come to fertilize that egg.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Well, time increments are totally arbitrary.


True...depending on an almost infinite number of variables.
But what we are currently discussing is the actual meanings of three words terribly mistranslated in the KJV.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 9, 2021)

ding said:


> *the universe was filled with energy* during the quantum tunneling event which is how *the universe was created from nothing.*


Since when is ENERGY "nothing," when, in fact, energy is EVERYTHING????


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> True...depending on an almost infinite number of variables.
> But what we are currently discussing is the actual meanings of three words terribly mistranslated in the KJV.



Never read it.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Never read it.


And yet you still think Erev means Evening, Boker means Morning and Yome means Day...none of these Hebrew words means any of these.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

BackAgain said:


> The male proto-chicken still had to get laid in order to come to fertilize that egg.



Perhaps it was a fowl messiah ... virgin chicken birth...


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 9, 2021)

ding said:


> *entropy can* only increase or *stay the same*. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called *thermal equilibrium* and then it will stay in that state.


Thermal equilibrium violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics!!!


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Perhaps it was a fowl messiah ... virgin chicken birth...
> 
> View attachment 573875


Some yolks just crack me up. Some are eggcellent.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> And yet you still think Erev means Evening, Boker means Morning and Yome means Day...none of these Hebrew words means any of these.



Erev means "the day before" -- the other meaning of _eve. _There is also a school of thought that a homonym of erev, meaning mix, is how it came to mean the time between this day and the next.

One meaning of boker is "to inspect" which is only possible where there is light (apparently ancient Hebrews didn't have LED flashlights).  We get our first light in the morning.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 9, 2021)

ding said:


> Do you believe that there are no 100% efficient processes?


There better be or no matter could exist. 
What do you think the "or stay the same" means in the SLoT if not 100% efficiency?
Do you believe matter exists???


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 9, 2021)

ding said:


> they too were *created from nothing.*


Except there is no such thing as nothing.
From nothing, nothing comes.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 9, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> Except there is no such thing as nothing.
> From nothing, nothing comes.



Yes, but it's perfectly acceptable to fill an totally empty space from somewhere else.  There are at least 10 dimensions in our universe.  We can only perceive three of them.

It could be that what appears to be empty to us is, in fact, quite full.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 9, 2021)

ding said:


> all of this can be avoided by *creating matter out of nothing* from a quantum tunneling event where the *positive energy* of the matter is balanced perfectly by the *negative energy* of gravity.


Again, how can positive and negative energy be nothing when energy is definitely something???


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> Since when is ENERGY "nothing," when, in fact, energy is EVERYTHING????


[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2021)

That was easy.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 9, 2021)

ding said:


> universes created withe *equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.*


Equal amounts of two THINGS not equal amounts of two nothings!!!


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> There are certain things about which we can be certain.  For example, we can be reasonably certain that our predictions made about the effects of force and gravity can be extremely accurate, even at vast astronomical distance.
> 
> What we can't be certain of, in fact what we do not actually understand is, how those forces actually work.
> 
> ...


You are so busy looking for ways we can't know things that you are ignoring the obvious; there are only two choices - the universe began or the universe has always existed - and one of them (the universe always existing) makes no sense.  That the universe began is self evident because of that.  Not to mention it matches every observation we make.


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> Equal amounts of two THINGS not equal amounts of two nothings!!!


Read the paper, dummy.  Or do you have a paper that says otherwise that you'd like to share? 



			[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 9, 2021)

ding said:


> [1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing


You cite an ABSTRACT that proves nothing, that you don't understand!!
Thank you.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 9, 2021)

ding said:


> Read the paper, dummy.  Or do you have a paper that says otherwise that you'd like to share?
> 
> 
> 
> [1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing


It's an ABSTRACT not a "paper"


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> You cite an ABSTRACT that proves nothing, that you don't understand!!
> Thank you.


You can get the pdf of the paper from the link, dummy.

I did.  See?



			https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2021)




----------



## edthecynic (Dec 9, 2021)

ding said:


> You can get the pdf of the paper from the link, dummy.
> 
> I did.  See?
> 
> ...


Which you obviously didn't read it as nowhere does it establish the "nothingness" of energy!!!
From the link you don't understand a word of:
With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where *“nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time* 
Notice energy is not listed as a "nothing!"


----------



## ding (Dec 10, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> Which you obviously didn't read it as nowhere does it establish the "nothingness" of energy!!!
> From the link you don't understand a word of:
> With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where *“nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time*
> Notice energy is not listed as a "nothing!"


Just that the universe was spontaneously created from nothing.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 10, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Erev means "the day before" -- the other meaning of _eve. _There is also a school of thought that a homonym of erev, meaning mix, is how it came to mean the time between this day and the next.
> 
> One meaning of boker is "to inspect" which is only possible where there is light (apparently ancient Hebrews didn't have LED flashlights).  We get our first light in the morning.


Erev is lack of clarity.
Boker is clarity.
Yome is a constructive period of time.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 10, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> Erev is lack of clarity.
> Boker is clarity.
> Yome is a constructive period of time.



Not what I learned in Hebrew School but ... since Hebrew wasn't a colloquial spoken language, even in the Jewish Community, for several thousand years a lot of the etymology is speculative.

By the way, the Hebrew word most commonly translated as "day" is Yom. יוֹם


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 10, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Not what I learned in Hebrew School but ... since Hebrew wasn't a colloquial spoken language, even in the Jewish Community, for several thousand years a lot of the etymology is speculative.
> 
> By the way, the Hebrew word most commonly translated as "day" is Yom. יוֹם


Yes…However incorrect.
You can be 80 solar years but only “live” 20 years depending on how you live your life.
Biblical Hebrew is not colloquial Hebrew.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 10, 2021)

ding said:


> Just that the universe was spontaneously created from nothing.


Pure BULLSHIT!


----------



## ding (Dec 10, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> Pure BULLSHIT!


An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing...  In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p=-2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.



			[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 10, 2021)

ding said:


> An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing...  In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p=-2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> [1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing


So you finally broke down and read at least part of it, but somehow you missed this, nowhere does it establish the "nothingness" of energy!!!
From the link you don't understand a word of:
With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where *“nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time*
Notice energy is not listed as a "nothing!"


----------



## ding (Dec 10, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> So you finally broke down and read at least part of it, but somehow you missed this, nowhere does it establish the "nothingness" of energy!!!
> From the link you don't understand a word of:
> With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where *“nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time*
> Notice energy is not listed as a "nothing!"


You should write a scientific paper like these guys did.  



			[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 10, 2021)

ding said:


> You should write a scientific paper like these guys did.
> 
> 
> 
> [1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing


Why? You wouldn't understand it any more than the paper you linked which proved energy is NOT a nothing, debunking their own unscientific paper.

From the link you don't understand a word of:
With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where *“nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time*

Notice energy is not listed as a "nothing!"


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> Why? You wouldn't understand it any more than the paper you linked which proved energy is NOT a nothing, debunking their own unscientific paper.
> 
> From the link you don't understand a word of:
> With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where *“nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time*
> ...


When you get your paper published let me know.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> When you get your paper published let me know.


You first proving energy is a nothing!


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> You first!





			[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
		


Now it's your turn.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)




----------



## edthecynic (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> [1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
> 
> 
> 
> Now it's your turn.


So now you are claiming YOU published the paper I thoroughly debunked!
PLAGIARIST!

From the link you don't understand a word of:
With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where *“nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time*

Notice energy is not listed as a "nothing!"


----------



## ding (Dec 12, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> So now you are claiming YOU published the paper I thoroughly debunked!
> PLAGIARIST!
> 
> From the link you don't understand a word of:
> ...


I know it's upsetting to you that the universe began and was created from nothing, but that's just the way it is, Eddie.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 12, 2021)

ding said:


> I know it's upsetting to you that the universe began and was created from nothing, but that's just the way it is, Eddie.


I know it's upsetting to you that energy is NOT nothing, but until you publish your paper proving energy IS nothing you will have to learn how to live with the unassailable fact from nothing comes.


----------



## ding (Dec 12, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> I know it's upsetting to you that energy is NOT nothing, but until you publish your paper proving energy IS nothing you will have to learn how to live with the unassailable fact from nothing comes.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


>


You have shown this same BULLSHIT video at least 100 times and every time I debunked it and you just run away to post it in another thread, and you still have the same problem to solve when you publish your paper.

His "nothing" consists of 2 somethings in equal amounts, positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY!!! So until you can prove that ENERGY is a nothing, and your own link admits ENERGY is NOT a nothing, you are up shits creek without a paddle!!!!!


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> You have shown this same BULLSHIT video at least 100 times and every time I debunked it and you just run away to post it in another thread, and you still have the same problem to solve when you publish your paper.
> 
> His "nothing" consists of 2 somethings in equal amounts, positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY!!! So until you can prove that ENERGY is a nothing, and your own link admits ENERGY is NOT a nothing, you are up shits creek without a paddle!!!!!


You are right. Ding is confused and thinks that total energy zero means no energy at all.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> You have shown this same BULLSHIT video at least 100 times and every time I debunked it and you just run away to post it in another thread, and you still have the same problem to solve when you publish your paper.
> 
> His "nothing" consists of 2 somethings in equal amounts, positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY!!! So until you can prove that ENERGY is a nothing, and your own link admits ENERGY is NOT a nothing, you are up shits creek without a paddle!!!!!


Actually it depends upon paired production, dummy.  And no, you have not refuted anything.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> You are right. Ding is confused and thinks that total energy zero means no energy at all.


The net energy is zero.  It's like in statics where the sum of the forces equals zero.  The sum of the forces equaling zero does not mean there are no forces or the forces are zero. There absolutely is positive energy in the universe.  It is exactly compensated by the negative energy of gravity.  

You do realize you aren't arguing with me, right?  You are arguing with Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin.






						Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
					






					creationwiki.org
				






> The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem (or BGV theorem) was developed in 2003 by three leading cosmologists; Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin. Subsequently in recent years since, the BGV theorem has become widely respected and accepted within the physics community.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Alex Vilenkin, _Many Worlds In One: The Search for Other Universes_ (Hill and Wang 2006), pg. 176


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> The net energy is zero. It's like in statics where the sum of the forces equals zero. The sum of the forces equaling zero does not mean there are no forces or the forces are zero. There absolutely is positive energy in the universe. It is exactly compensated by the negative energy of gravity.


For god's sake everyone knows what net means.
That false condescending attitude will get you nowhere.


ding said:


> You do realize you aren't arguing with me, right? You are arguing with Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin.


No I am arguing with you. 
You cited a creationist site which makes your eyes light up. It stresses the importance of the theorem to creationism. The theorem only has transient value and any validity would be compromised with the quantization of gravity. Besides that, there are other theories that are equally viable. Your favorite cosmology theorem applies the weak energy condition to dark matter, and somewhat brushes over the fact that dark energy is 70% of the universe energy and it's dynamic properties can only be guessed, (which they do.) 

Yes, there may have been nothing before the big bang, but it is not known yet. 
You are not thinking outside the box.
.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."


There is no such thing as "proof" in physics. It is a mathematical term and depends on premises. Premises in math are fine. Premises in physics are often transient and change with new observations or experiments.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> For god's sake everyone knows what net means.
> That false condescending attitude will get you nowhere.


There was no condescension, false or otherwise in my statement, _"The net energy is zero. It's like in statics where the sum of the forces equals zero. The sum of the forces equaling zero does not mean there are no forces or the forces are zero. There absolutely is positive energy in the universe. It is exactly compensated by the negative energy of gravity." _

That was me correcting you.  Aren't I entitled to correct someone who misstates my beliefs?

Your statement that _"Ding is confused and thinks that total energy zero means no energy at all"_ implied you didn't understand the net energy of the universe is zero because you could not have gotten that from anything I have written.

This is what I have always written in these forums about the creation of the universe from nothing...

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.​
So... where did you get the idea that I was confused _that total energy zero means no energy at all?_

Can you link to a post of mine that said that?  Because I can link to multiple posts where I explain it very clearly that the positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> You cited a creationist site which makes your eyes light up.


Can you link to that post where I cited a creationist site?  Because I believe you are confusing me for JamesBond, bro.  

You should apologize for that.  But I'm not going to hold my breath.  You seem to have your feathers ruffled.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> No I am arguing with you.


Incorrect.  I got my beliefs about the universe not being eternal into the past from the work of Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin.  So you are arguing with them.  I didn't discover it.  They did.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Besides that, there are other theories that are equally viable. Your favorite cosmology theorem applies the weak energy condition to dark matter, and somewhat brushes over the fact that dark energy is 70% of the universe energy and it's dynamic properties can only be guessed, (which they do.)


Equally viable, huh?  Why don't you pick the one you believe is most viable and tell me what it says about the origin of the universe.  Specifically, did it begin?  And was it created from pre-existing matter and how it created the CMB.  

Fair enough?


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Yes, there may have been nothing before the big bang, but it is not known yet.
> You are not thinking outside the box.


Considering all the evidence we have I don't see how it can be any other way than the universe began and was created from nothing.  The criticizing of my thinking ability by an anonymous poster on the internet isn't going to make the overwhelming evidence for the universe being created from nothing go away.  And this is especially true when said poster has never presented a competing proposal and explained how it satisfies all of the evidence.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> There is no such thing as "proof" in physics. It is a mathematical term and depends on premises. Premises in math are fine. Premises in physics are often transient and change with new observations or experiments.


You are literally arguing with Alexander Vilenkin.  It was his statement that I posted.

But I suspect the proof he is talking about is the mathematical proof that the universe began being created from nothing.



			https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf
		




> An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p = −2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Can you link to that post where I cited a creationist site?  Because I believe you are confusing me for JamesBond, bro.
> 
> You should apologize for that.  But I'm not going to hold my breath.  You seem to have your feathers ruffled.


You said it here. It is from creationwiki.org


ding said:


> Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  I got my beliefs about the universe not being eternal into the past from the work of Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin.  So you are arguing with them.  I didn't discover it.  They did.


Two of the authors disagree with you. This is from Wikipedia, not the creationist site you cited. (My bold face)

_However, Vilenkin and co-author Delia Perlov have also stated that, in their view, the theorem tells us only that inflation had a beginning and *not that the universe had a beginning*._​


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> You said it here. It is from creationwiki.org


Ah... I didn't catch that.  I was looking for a link to their work WHICH IS NOT CREATION SCIENCE.

Or do you believe that Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem is a creationist theorem.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Two of the authors disagree with you. This is from Wikipedia, not the creationist site you cited. (My bold face)
> 
> _However, Vilenkin and co-author Delia Perlov have also stated that, in their view, the theorem tells us only that inflation had a beginning and *not that the universe had a beginning*._​


That's not what Vilinken says here.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> You said it here. It is from creationwiki.org


Better?






						Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Considering all the evidence we have I don't see how it can be any other way than the universe began and was created from nothing.  The criticizing of my thinking ability by an anonymous poster on the internet isn't going to make the overwhelming evidence for the universe being created from nothing go away.  And this is especially true when said poster has never presented a competing proposal and explained how it satisfies all of the evidence.


I am not saying there is no such thing as a whatever before the big bang, I'm just saying that you are posting things that you don't understand.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Two of the authors disagree with you. This is from Wikipedia, not the creationist site you cited. (My bold face)
> 
> _However, Vilenkin and co-author Delia Perlov have also stated that, in their view, the theorem tells us only that inflation had a beginning and *not that the universe had a beginning*._​


This is getting pretty silly.  You didn't even post the link.  Do you understand what not eternal into the past means or is that me being condescending?


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> I am not saying there is no such thing as a whatever before the big bang, I'm just saying that you are posting things that you don't understand.


Like what?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> You are literally arguing with Alexander Vilenkin.  It was his statement that I posted.
> 
> But I suspect the proof he is talking about is the mathematical proof that the universe began being created from nothing.
> 
> ...


If you posted it, it becomes your argument.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


>


Your own source says you are full of shit!!!
“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, *No*.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> If you posted it, it becomes your argument.


And I defended it, no?  Or would my pointing out that he was describing a mathematical proof and then sharing the paper with the mathematical proof condescending to you?



			https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf
		
​


> An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p = −2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.​


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Better?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think so. I already covered it. And so did edthecynic


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> Your own source says you are full of shit!!!
> “Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, *No*.


Not in that video he didn't.  Care to site the time mark?


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> I don't think so. I already covered it. And so did edthecynic


Covered what exactly?


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> I don't think so. I already covered it. And so did edthecynic


Ed's a massive troll.  Good luck hitching your wagon to him.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Covered what exactly?


Just follow the conversation trail back.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei did you watch the video?  Is it a habit of yours to post the "love" reaction without confirming what was alleged.  Because you just "loved" a post that was an outright lie.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Just follow the conversation trail back.


The fact that you can't state it and then try to fake it says a lot.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Just follow the conversation trail back.


Your tactics arguing against the science of the universe beginning and being created from nothing remind me of JamesBond's tactics arguing against evolution.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Actually it depends upon paired production, dummy.  And no, you have not refuted anything.


I have debunked everything you've posted using your own sources, you are just too dishonest to admit the truth that ENERGY, which can be measured, is not a nothing! Can you measure nothing? Can there be more nothing here and less nothing there, DUMMY?

From your infallible God Vilenkin:
“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, *No*.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero.


But NEVER nothing!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Why don't you pick the one you believe is most viable and tell me what it says about the origin of the universe. Specifically, *did it begin*?


Again your own source says you are full of shit!

“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, *Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning*? Vilenkin replied, *No*.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Incorrect. I got my beliefs about the universe not being eternal into the past from the work of Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin. So you are arguing with them. I didn't discover it. They did.


No, you misrepresented what they found as proof the universe had a beginning, which even they say is PURE BULLSHIT!

“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that *the universe must have had a beginning*? Vilenkin replied, *No*.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> I have debunked everything you've posted using your own sources, you are just too dishonest to admit the truth that ENERGY, which can be measured, is not a nothing! Can you measure nothing? Can there be more nothing here and less nothing there, DUMMY?
> 
> From your infallible God Vilenkin:
> “Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, *No*.


What was that time mark again, Ed?

Wuwei may not care to check it but I have.  You are lying.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> But NEVER nothing!!!!


Paired particles popping into and out of existence is effectively nothing.  Whereas a run away paired production tunneling event of 2 billion times the mass of the universe would be considered something being created from nothing.  But it's cool that you and wuwei want to argue against the widely accepted theory of how the universe was created.  What's next?  You and wuwei going to argue against evolution too?


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> Again your own source says you are full of shit!
> 
> “Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, *Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning*? Vilenkin replied, *No*.


Nope.  That's you lying again, Ed.

Post the time mark.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> No, you misrepresented what they found as proof the universe had a beginning, which even they say is PURE BULLSHIT!
> 
> “Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that *the universe must have had a beginning*? Vilenkin replied, *No*.


It's a mathematical proof, dummy.  

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p = −2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory. 



			https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Two of the authors disagree with you. This is from Wikipedia, not the creationist site you cited. (My bold face)
> 
> _However, Vilenkin and co-author Delia Perlov have also stated that, in their view, the theorem tells us only that inflation had a beginning and *not that the universe had a beginning*._​


It doesn't matter to ding-dong what his own sources actually say, ding needs only to pontificate what they mean and it suddenly becomes gospel.

“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, *Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning*? Vilenkin replied, *No*.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Nope.  That's you lying again, Ed.
> 
> Post the time mark.


I never said the quote was from your video, that is a straw man YOU created because you know you are wrong, it clearly is an interview he gave to  Stenger. Here is another Vilenkin quote you won't like:

I say “nothing” in quotations because *the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time*. That is as *close to nothing* as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

Again energy is not listed among the "nothings."


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Ed's a massive troll.


Pure projection!


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> You are lying


Pure projection!


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> I never said the quote was from your video, that is a straw man YOU created because you know you are wrong, it clearly is an interview he gave to  Stenger. Here is another Vilenkin quote you won't like:
> 
> I say “nothing” in quotations because *the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time*. That is as *close to nothing* as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.
> 
> Again energy is not listed among the "nothings."


You actually did imply it was from the video.  You said it was from a source I provided.  Which source was it?   I notice you don't provide any links.  Why is that?  Given Vilenkin's positions you are absolutely taking quotes out of context.  Are you calling Vilenkin a liar?


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> It doesn't matter to ding-dong what his own sources actually say, ding needs only to pontificate what they mean and it suddenly becomes gospel.
> 
> “Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, *Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning*? Vilenkin replied, *No*.


Where are those links again?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> I never said the quote was from your video, that is a straw man YOU created because you know you are wrong, it clearly is an interview he gave to  Stenger. Here is another Vilenkin quote you won't like:
> 
> I say “nothing” in quotations because *the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time*. That is as *close to nothing* as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.
> 
> Again energy is not listed among the "nothings."


ding and edthecynic who is right to be cynical.

When Vilenkin says "laws of physics" that is an implication that he is referring to the vacuum fluctuation which says 
_In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are tiny random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, _​Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia

All the vacuum in our universe is thriving with activity. These fluctuations have been experimentally observed. It is not just constrained to a vacuum; it is also among the atoms of matter.

From Wikipedia:
*3D visualization of quantum fluctuations of the QCD vacuum **[1]*






.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> You actually did imply it was from the video. You said it was from a source I provided. Which source was it?


No I didn't, you worthless LYING POS, The source was Vilenkin HIMSELF


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Where are those links again?


Look them up yourself, you lazy fuck, google is your friend! I could post them, but you will just ignore them.
If I do post the source of the Vilenkin quote, will you finally admit you are full of shit? Anyone who has been on this board knows I ALWAYS have the links!!!!


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> ding and edthecynic who is right to be cynical.
> 
> When Vilenkin says "laws of physics" that is an implication that he is referring to the vacuum fluctuation which says
> _In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are tiny random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, _​Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia
> ...


Right.  Pairs pop into and out of existence leaving radiation behind.  The key wording in your quote is "tiny random fluctuations."  Tiny random fluctuations  are a far cry from a runaway quantum event creating a universe where 2 billion times the mass of the universe annihilates itself leaving behind radiation - which is the cosmic MICROWAVE background radiation that we observe - and the remaining matter particles that were not annihilated.  It is the CMB that is the evidence for the universe being created from nothing.  And by nothing I mean nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which literally popped into existence.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 14, 2021)

ding said:


> It is the CMB that is the evidence for the universe being created from nothing. And by nothing I mean nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which literally popped into existence.


BULLSHIT!
EVEN VILENKIN DOESN'T BUY YOUR BULLSHIT!

I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. *That is as close to nothing as you can get*, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> BULLSHIT!
> EVEN VILENKIN DOESN'T BUY YOUR BULLSHIT!
> 
> I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. *That is as close to nothing as you can get*, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.


How do you believe the CMB was created then, Ed, if not through paired production annihilation?


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.


Ummmm.... Ed.... The laws of nature were in place before space and time.  I've been saying that all along.  But the laws of nature are not "things."  They don't exist in material form.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

It might be helpful for me to post this again....

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe *which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.*


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 14, 2021)

ding said:


> paired production annihilation


You don't even know what those words mean!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 14, 2021)

ding said:


> Ummmm.... Ed.... The laws of nature were in place before space and time.  I've been saying that all along.  But the laws of nature are not "things."  They don't exist in material form.


The Laws of nature say there is no such thing as nothing, and so does Vilenkin, he says only "close to nothing."


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> You don't even know what those words mean!!!!



The early universe was radiation dominated
density of radiation exceeded density of matter

After about 50,000 years, the density of matter exceeded the density of radiation for the first time, eventually dominating the universe.
*In the early universe, matter and anti-matter were being created equally out of the radiation*
pair production
pair production is the production of matter and anti-matter in pairs
two photons can produce a pair
particle-antiparticle annihilation (the reverse process) is also possible


Anti-Matter
What is anti-matter (anti-particles)?
A type of matter which has the same mass as normal matter, but opposite charge


particlecharge of particleanti-particlecharge of anti-particleprotonpositiveanti-protonnegativeneutronneutralanti-neutronneutralelectronnegativeanti-electron or positronpositive


Matter and anti-matter can be created in pairs from energy *(or electromagnetic radiation)*
E = m c2
E = energy
m = mass
c2 = speed of light squared (here just a constant of proportionality)

For example
energy -------->proton + anti-proton
energy --------> electron + positron

OR matter can annihilate in pairs
proton + anti-proton ----------> energy
electron + positron (anti-electron) ---------> energy



Very early universe (when temperature was 10 billion K)
Due to high temperature *photons* had enough energy to create electron-positron pairs
*Great numbers of electrons and positrons exist in thermal equilibrium with the radiation*

As universe expanded, it cooled
Universe when temperature was 1 billion K
*Photons now have too little energy to create pairs, so electrons and positrons are no longer in thermal equilibrium*

Evolution of Matter

Radiation Era
*(The radiation era lasted for about 50,000 years)*
Planck Epoch
First 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang
No current theory of physics (quantum gravity) exists

GUT (Grand Unified Theory) Epoch
After 10-43 seconds, temperature fell to 1032 K

Quark Epoch
Creation of protons and neutrons continued for about 10-4 seconds
*Temperature drops below 1013 K, and protons and neutrons are no longer produced in pairs*

Lepton Epoch
Ends when the universe is *about 100 seconds old*
*During this epoch, the leptons (electrons, neutrinos, and other light particles) are still produced in pairs, because they are light*
Ends when temperature drops below 1 billion K

Nuclear Epoch (*first few minutes*)
Protons and neutrons fuse into nuclei
By the time the universe is about 15 minutes old, much of the helium had been formed

*Crossover from radiation to matter dominance begins at 50,000 years at a temperature of 16,000 K*


Matter Era
Atomic Epoch
Begins about 50,000 years after the Big Bang
Atoms form and remain intact (electrons attached to nuclei)
Electromagnetic radiation *decouples*
Cosmic Microwave Background appears

Ends 200,000,000 years after Big Bang

Galactic Epoch
Large scale structure and bulk of most galaxies form
Lasts from 200,000,000 years to 3,000,000,000 after Big Bang

Stellar Epoch
Stars continue to form up to today
Extends into the Dark Energy Era


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> The Laws of nature say there is no such thing as nothing, and so does Vilenkin, he says only "close to nothing."





edthecynic said:


> So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.




Ummmm.... Ed....  I've been saying that all along that the laws of nature were in place before space and time.  But the laws of nature are not "things." They don't exist in material form.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

That was pretty funny when you got Wuwei to be on your side, Ed.  It was priceless.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> The early universe was radiation dominated
> density of radiation exceeded density of matter
> 
> After about 50,000 years, the density of matter exceeded the density of radiation for the first time, eventually dominating the universe.
> ...


Just because you can copy and paste does not mean you understand what you posted, you don't!


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> Just because you can copy and paste does not mean you understand what you posted, you don't!


Cool story, bro.  

You can't copy and paste because your beliefs are unsupported.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Ummmm.... Ed.... I've been saying that all along that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. But the laws of nature are not "things." They don't exist in material form.


According to the latest theories, the preexistence of the laws of nature means that there was a vacuum energy. The energy manifests as particles of all sorts. Particles and antiparticles continually popped up and annihilated. Locally the vacuum was swarming with radiation, and particles.  So before the big bang the laws of nature dictated there were things that existed in material form.

_ "...the vacuum energy of free space has been estimated to be 10−9 joules (10−2 ergs), or ~5 GeV per cubic meter..." _​




__





						Vacuum energy - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> According to the latest theories, the preexistence of the laws of nature means that there was a vacuum energy. The energy manifests as particles of all sorts. Particles and antiparticles continually popped up and annihilated. Locally the vacuum was swarming with radiation, and particles.  So before the big bang the laws of nature dictated there were things that existed in material form.
> 
> _ "...the vacuum energy of free space has been estimated to be 10−9 joules (10−2 ergs), or ~5 GeV per cubic meter..." _​
> 
> ...


Seems to me that particles popping into and out of existence isn't quite the same thing as what happened here.  So saying that before the big bang the laws of nature dictated there were things that existed in material form doesn't mean that all of the matter in the universe existed in material form  before the big bang but rather was created from nothing during the big bang.  There's a reason cosmologists say the universe was created from nothing.  

But I agree - and I think so do the cosmologists - that the laws of nature existed before the universe was created.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Seems to me that particles popping into and out of existence isn't quite the same thing as what happened here.  So saying that before the big bang the laws of nature dictated there were things that existed in material form doesn't mean that all of the matter in the universe existed in material form  before the big bang but rather was created from nothing during the big bang.  There's a reason cosmologists say the universe was created from nothing.
> 
> But I agree - and I think so do the cosmologists - that the laws of nature existed before the universe was created.


The vacuum energy isn't nothing. It can be experimentally detected through the Casmir effect in a pure vacuum. The Heisenberg energy-time uncertainty principle says that during an extremely short time interval a huge number of particles can be created. Some think that if the rare local event of a space time bubble with a number of particles large enough to create the universe happened, and was above a certain density threshold it would exponentially expand and not collapse back into the sea of vacuum energy. Otherwise the bubble would collapse if it didn't reach that threshold.
.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The vacuum energy isn't nothing. It can be experimentally detected through the Casmir effect in a pure vacuum. The Heisenberg energy-time uncertainty principle says that during an extremely short time interval *a huge number of particles can be created. *Some think that if the rare local event of a space time bubble with a number of particles large enough to create the universe happened, and was above a certain density threshold it would exponentially expand and not collapse back into the sea of vacuum energy. Otherwise the bubble would collapse if it didn't reach that threshold.
> .


Is the vacuum energy equivalent to the energy in the universe?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Is the vacuum energy equivalent to the energy in the universe?


If you discount vacuum energy the total energy of the universe is said to be zero. 
Some theories say the vacuum energy of the universe is the cause of dark energy that results in an accelerated expansion.
You have to remember that there are many theories of the origin of the universe. Some of them are more convincing than others. There are still many unknowns of the effect of vacuum energy at large scales. Vacuum energy is one of the things that makes it difficult to unite quantum mechanics with general relativity.
.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> If you discount vacuum energy the total energy of the universe is said to be zero.
> Some theories say the vacuum energy of the universe is the cause of dark energy that results in an accelerated expansion.
> You have to remember that there are many theories of the origin of the universe. Some of them are more convincing than others. There are still many unknowns of the effect of vacuum energy at large scales. Vacuum energy is one of the things that makes it difficult to unite quantum mechanics with general relativity.
> .


Ok.  Is the vacuum energy equivalent to the energy in the universe?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Ok. Is the vacuum energy equivalent to the energy in the universe?


That is not known. Vacuum energy at the scale of the universe is not well understood. Different universe theories about the meaning of vacuum energy and it's magnitude abound. There is also a question of dark matter matter playing a part in the vacuum energy? 
.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> That is not known. Vacuum energy at the scale of the universe is not well understood. Different universe theories about the meaning of vacuum energy and it's magnitude abound. There is also a question of dark matter matter playing a part in the vacuum energy?
> .


Ok, are you arguing the universe could have been created from pre-existing matter that was always there?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Ok, are you arguing the universe could have been created from pre-existing matter that was always there?


It's not my argument. Many physicists argue that the laws of physics had to be operable before the big bang, and the physics dictates vacuum energy. Simply calling it pre-existing matter misses the essence of the point.


----------



## ding (Dec 22, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> It's not my argument. Many physicists argue that the laws of physics had to be operable before the big bang, and the physics dictates vacuum energy. Simply calling it pre-existing matter misses the essence of the point.


But that's effectively what they are claiming, right?  That that energy always existed, right? I'm just trying to understand the claim.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2021)

ding said:


> But that's effectively what they are claiming, right? That that energy always existed, right? I'm just trying to understand the claim.


That's right the claim is the vacuum energy always existed. Calling it "matter" is misleading. That term is sort of reserved for stuff like hubcaps and electrons through a wire.
.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> That's right the claim is the vacuum energy always existed. Calling it "matter" is misleading. That term is sort of reserved for stuff like hubcaps and electrons through a wire.
> .


So everything that was "supposedly" created from nothing - all the particles that mutually annihilated themselves creating the CMB and all of the remaining particles that formed the matter in the universe - existed always as vacuum energy?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 23, 2021)

ding said:


> Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested.  Specifically, was it created or has it always existed.  It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo.  Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever.  Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.
> 
> But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.
> 
> ...



Time is man's fiction.  I don't think it exists for the rest of the Universe


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2021)

ding said:


> So everything that was "supposedly" created from nothing - all the particles that mutually annihilated themselves creating the CMB and all of the remaining particles that formed the matter in the universe - existed always as vacuum energy?


Of course not. 
I told you what scientist think happened in post #252.
.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Of course not.
> I told you what scientist think happened in post #252.
> .


I know what you said in post #252. You are trying very hard to say the universe wasn't created from nothing but that is exactly what you are describing.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2021)

From the paper, "Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing"

"...Although the picture of the universe created spontaneously from nothing has emerged for a long time, a rigorous mathematical foundation for such a picture is still missing. According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, a small empty space, also called a small true vacuum bubble, can be created probabilistically by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum. But if the small bubble cannot expand rapidly, it will disappear soon due to quantum fluctuations. In this case, the early universe would disappear before it grows up. On the other side, if the small bubble expands rapidly to a large enough size, the universe can then be created irreversibly. In this paper, we obtain analytic solutions of the WDWE of the true vacuum bubble. With the de BroglieBohm quantum trajectory theory, we prove that once a small true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially when it is very small, i.e. , a ≪ 1. The exponential expansion will end when the true vacuum bubble becomes very large, i.e., a ≫ 1. It is the quantum potential of the small true vacuum bubble that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for its exponential expansion. This explicitly shows that the universe can be created spontaneously by virtue of a quantum mechanism..."

"...In summary, we have presented a mathematical proof that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing. When a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially if the ordering factor takes the value p = −2 (or 4). In this way, the early universe appears irreversibly. We have shown that it is the quantum potential that provides the power for the exponential expansion of the bubble. Thus, we can conclude that the birth of the early universe is completely determined by quantum mechanism. One may ask the question when and how space, time and matter appear in the early universe from nothing. With the exponential expansion of the bubble, it is doubtless that space and time will emerge. Due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, there should be virtual particle pairs created by quantum fluctuations. Generally speaking, a virtual particle pair will annihilate soon after its birth. But, two virtual particles from a pair can be separated immediately before annihilation due to the exponential expansion of the bubble. Therefore, there would be a large amount of real particles created as vacuum bubble expands exponentially. A rigorous mathematical calculation for the rate of particle creation with the exponential expansion of the bubble will be studied in our future work..."


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2021)

ding said:


> I know what you said in post #252. You are trying very hard to say the universe wasn't created from nothing but that is exactly what you are describing.


I agree with the article totally. And yes I like to avoid the term "nothing".
The word "nothing" in this context is a layman's term for the more exact term "vacuum energy". In science writing the "nothing" is more to attract the attention of the reader than clarity.

It would have been better if the title of the article you cited was not, 
"Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing" but was replaced by the title,
"Spontaneous creation of the universe from vacuum energy" or
"Spontaneous creation of the universe from vacuum fluctuation".

I avoid the word "nothing" in that context because people who don't know some of the features of quantum electrodynamics confuse the word nothing with nonexistence -- as in more colloquial contexts such as "I have nothing in my bank account" or "There is nothing in my sock drawer." In those contexts nothing means zilch, nada. 

There you have it. Are we done now?
.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> I agree with the article totally. And yes I like to avoid the term "nothing".
> The word "nothing" in this context is a layman's term for the more exact term "vacuum energy". In science writing the "nothing" is more to attract the attention of the reader than clarity.
> 
> It would have been better if the title of the article you cited was not,
> ...


The author is no laymen and his paper wasn't written for laymen.    The process does create energy from nothing; energy was never in existence until it was created through a quantum fluctuation.  Prior to being created energy only existed as quantum potential. 

I wasn't the one who had the problem.  So only you can answer if we are done.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2021)

ding said:


> The author is no laymen and his paper wasn't written for laymen. The process does create energy from nothing; energy was never in existence until it was created through a quantum fluctuation. Prior to being created energy only existed as quantum potential.


That's right, except as long as the laws of physics exist quantum fluctuations happen continuously and aren't exactly nothing, nada, zilch. As I (and the authors) said before, the universe as we know it only happened when a fluctuation reaches a critical size.


----------



## ding (Dec 23, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> That's right, except as long as the laws of physics exist quantum fluctuations happen continuously and aren't exactly nothing, nada, zilch. As I (and the authors) said before, the universe as we know it only happened when a fluctuation reaches a critical size.


If quantum fluctuations are natural, the universe is unnautural.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2021)

ding said:


> If quantum fluctuations are natural, the universe is unnautural.


It was observed in three quite different types of experiments. 
Yes, quantum mechanics and particle physics are very weird. Even Einstein thought so. It evades our intuition. We can't blame QM for that. It's our minds that have to adjust to QM.
.


----------



## ding (Dec 25, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> It was observed in three quite different types of experiments.
> Yes, quantum mechanics and particle physics are very weird. Even Einstein thought so. It evades our intuition. We can't blame QM for that. It's our minds that have to adjust to QM.
> .


Would you say it's unnatural for our universe to exist?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 25, 2021)

ding said:


> Would you say it's unnatural for our universe to exist?


I don't think that way. To twist your question around, I would say nature is not unnatural. 

To me one great mystery is why the universe follows mathematics to the most minute detail. Mathematics is natural. Set theory, group theory, number theory, multidimensional group algebras, all can't be anything other than exactly what they are. So far, the universe is completely in lock step with that math.

I am truly astounded by the universe - the delicate balance of the elementary forces, particles and constants; the hugeness; the age; the 17 elementary particles that give rise to a wide variety of galaxies, stellar structures, down to the atoms, elements, molecules, life; and finally to consciousness and intelligence in man so he can begin to grasp all this.

The agreement between basic particle physics experiments with mathematical models is in the range of one part per billions which is at the level of experimental accuracy. 

Some people say, with all that, there must be an intelligent designer that we should praise with some sort of liturgy. That is unknowable so I ignore the designer or God or whatever. But I think, if there were a designer, forget the praise and prayer. The finest "liturgy" is to investigate the "design" in all it's evidential and mathematical glory.  

Have a Merry Christmas
.


----------



## Batcat (Dec 25, 2021)

ding said:


> Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested.  Specifically, was it created or has it always existed.  It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo.  Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever.  Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.
> 
> But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.
> 
> ...


Obviously we don’t understand as much as we think we do.

A hundred years from now people will laugh at many of our currently accepted theories.

A thousand years from now today will be looked at as we look at the Iron Age.

Of course that assumes we are still around and have avoided killing ourselves off or suffered a civilization ending event such as an asteroid strike or super volcano eruption.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2021)

Of course, many cyclic theories of the universe can produce an infinite, cycling universe without violating the second law.  This is still all theory, but it is a fact that we do not know for certain the second law precludes such infinitely acting universes.


----------

