# Can You Show the Universe and Earth Was Created by the Big Bang by Showing the Energy?



## james bond (Oct 21, 2020)

If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?

I learned in high school that energy can’t be created.  It can only be converted from one form to another.


----------



## Muhammed (Oct 21, 2020)

james bond said:


> If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?


YES!

I can prove that the big bang hypothesis is true by showing you that the cosmic microwave background is totally homogenous

See....









Well,....maybe not so homogenous, but instead of admitting that my stupid hypothesis was wrong, I can find an infinite number of excuses for why it isn't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 21, 2020)

james bond said:


> If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?
> 
> I learned in high school that energy can’t be created.  It can only be converted from one form to another.



*If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created? *

Yes. Look around. It's everywhere!!!


----------



## Blackrook (Oct 21, 2020)

The Big Bang Theory is the scientific equivalent to God saying: "Let there be light!"


----------



## james bond (Oct 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?
> ...



Sure, it can be created by a supernatural God, but not by natural means because energy can't be created.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 21, 2020)

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Who said the energy was created? What if it was already there?


----------



## JoeMoma (Oct 21, 2020)

I created this universe with my Commodore 64 computer by writing a universe simulation program in BASIC.


----------



## james bond (Oct 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The atheist scientists did like Stephen Hawking, but energy had to start somewhere and with God he started with light.  Anything that gets created needs energy and will leave evidence of it.

The atheist scientists couldn't explain rationally how time and space started using quantum mechanics, so they just assumed it was always there.  

However, a tremendous amount of energy had to exist for the big bang to happen.  It's too hard to believe that kind of power could just be assumed to exist.  Also, to use it and harness it would require some kind of intelligence behind it.  Thus, you're stuck with no explanation nor evidence.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 22, 2020)

The theory was create years ago and there are new theories as better observation of the universe has improved and will continue to improve and be revised. Technology creates new ways of tacking the origins of the universe.  Still I find it silly as it is unknown. The unknown can only be speculated.  We can only put forth the best argument on what we can observe without really knowing about what we cannot see or even know. A theory about the origins of the universe or god is probably beyond man. But that won't stop him from coming up with theories that evolve over time.  Theories abound and are the latest fad until someone comes up with a better on.  The question is was there a beginning or has it always been this way?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 22, 2020)

Kilroy2 said:


> The question is was there a beginning or has it always been this way?


In the beginning it was this way.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 22, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > The question is was there a beginning or has it always been this way?
> ...



Definitely a difficult concept for humans who are born by a specific process and eventually die and disappear on the planet Earth.   Acceptance vs the  curiosity to know.  Knowing comes in handy for the advancement of the species.  Yet to know to much can be dangerous for the species. Cause and effect. Some causes will never be known but some are pretty obvious.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Sure, *it can be created by a supernatural God*, but not by natural means because energy can't be created.


You admitted energy cannot be created. You can't prove that energy was created by a "supernatural" God, or even that a God or the "supernatural even exist.
You must prove their existence FIRST before you can claim they created something that has been proven NOT to be creatable!!!!.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> The atheist scientists did like Stephen Hawking, but *energy had to start somewhere* and with God he started with light. Anything that gets created needs energy and will leave evidence of it.
> 
> The atheist scientists couldn't explain rationally how time and space started using quantum mechanics, so *they just assumed it was always there.*
> 
> However, a tremendous amount of energy had to exist for the big bang to happen. It's too hard to believe that kind of power could* just be assumed to exist*. Also, to use it and harness it would require some kind of intelligence behind it. Thus, you're stuck with no explanation nor evidence.


None of that is true!!!!


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



What exception, other than “... because I say so”, do the gods get for supernatural creation?


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 22, 2020)

Energy can condense ... and considering our corporal bodies, it must certainly did ... here in Einstein-land, we use the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy ... E=mc^2 ... energy alone_ isn't_ conserved at cosmological scales ...

The OP fails to take into consideration that the Big Bang Theory is currently under review ... many changes have been made these past twenty years ... not the least of which is attempts to explain on-going inflation ... that's why scientists call it a "theory", and not a "fact" ... the theory is specifically written to allow experimentation and changes when the results come in ... we should certainly expect our great-grandchildren to understand the universe a bit differently than we do today ...

I'd like James Bond to address the Doppler Effect ... do you not hear a jet with a higher pitch as it approaches, and then drop down a half dozen intervals as the jet recedes? ... the same is true for external galaxies, and all but a few have this lower "pitch", or red-shifted ... would you please explain why we observe this, if not for some big bang in the distance past ...

*I learned in high school that energy can’t be created*

Yeah, well that was before the neutron was discovered ... we've learn a lot in the 80 years since you left high school ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



*The atheist scientists did like Stephen Hawking, but energy had to start somewhere and with God he started with light. Anything that gets created needs energy and will leave evidence of it. *

Is your proof from the probes we've sent all across the galaxy?


----------



## james bond (Oct 22, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is your proof from the probes we've sent all across the galaxy?



That's my question to you.  Where is the evidence for your created energy?

You can send probes out or figure it out.  You've created things in your life and it required energy.  You can measure it to some extent, but you may not be able to measure it all.

For example, the sun requires great energy as it puts out great energy.  Where did all that energy come from in a natural universe?

Look at all the stars and the energy they radiate.  One needs a lot of energy.  E=mc2 gives us GR.  It means any matter requires energy to produce it.

Friedmann was explain how the expanding universe came to be from a beginning with his equations using GR, but he didn't explain where the energy came from.

The best explanation is a supernatural God.  He is the dark energy.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Oct 22, 2020)

Big bounce makes way more sense than big bang.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Is your proof from the probes we've sent all across the galaxy?
> ...



*Where is the evidence for your created energy? *

Where did I say it was created?

*You can send probes out or figure it out.*

What about the probes you thought we already sent to the far reaches of the universe?
Did you forget already?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Is your proof from the probes we've sent all across the galaxy?
> ...


Supernatural gods are not an explanation for anything.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 22, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Where is the evidence for your created energy? *
> Where did I say it was created?



This is the pretext for his logic ... at one time the universe had no energy ... then at a later time there was ...

He doesn't even have Creationism right ... God created Heaven and Earth first ... light and energy came later ...

... not even wrong ...


----------



## G.T. (Oct 22, 2020)

When your question implies a fundamental misunderstanding of what the big bang theory even is...what's the point? You need to read & understand the theory before asking non-sensical questions about it...wtf? Who does that? 

"teach me, im too lazy to look!"


----------



## Quasar44 (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?
> 
> I learned in high school that energy can’t be created.  It can only be converted from one form to another.


That is where the multiverse, string theory and Q physics comes into play 
 Unfortunately that is beyond me


----------



## Quasar44 (Oct 22, 2020)

It appears our massive universe is not even alone


----------



## james bond (Oct 22, 2020)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



One God.  One Bible.  One universe, Earth, and everything in it.  

Big bang cannot explain the amount of energy created.  The atheist scientists already made up a lie with singularity as there can't be anything of infinite density and infinite temperature.  The atheist scientists made up a lie about quantum mechanics starting space and time, too.  Even if we assume those things, including cosmic expansion which violates the laws of physics, happened, QM cannot create the extraordinary energy required.

I'm going to assume God and the Bible has won this argument forever and the atheist and their scientists have nothing to hang their hats upon anymore.  Even the Friedmann cosmology does not do right anymore.


----------



## james bond (Oct 22, 2020)

Quasar44 said:


> That is where the multiverse, string theory and Q physics comes into play
> Unfortunately that is beyond me



We can assume there are no multiverses as one would require even more energy to create a second universe.  We already know quantum physics cannot create that kind of energy.  It's transferred energy.  String theory falls by the wayside, too.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Big bang cannot explain the amount of energy created.



Where did you get the idea that the Big Bang was trying to explain "energy creation"?


----------



## james bond (Oct 22, 2020)

G.T. said:


> When your question implies a fundamental misunderstanding of what the big bang theory even is...what's the point? You need to read & understand the theory before asking non-sensical questions about it...wtf? Who does that?



You lost, too.  The big bang with the Friedmann cosmology only explains the expansion.  It doesn't explain where that kind of e=mc2 came from.  God is the only answer.


----------



## james bond (Oct 22, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Big bang cannot explain the amount of energy created.
> ...



I'm asking where did the big bang get its energy from.  All BB explains is the expansion which Friedmann did.  Now use the e=mc2 or GR to explain the near infinite energy required.


----------



## Quasar44 (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > That is where the multiverse, string theory and Q physics comes into play
> ...


The math and physics is very strong to give heavy weight to this MV


----------



## G.T. (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > When your question implies a fundamental misunderstanding of what the big bang theory even is...what's the point? You need to read & understand the theory before asking non-sensical questions about it...wtf? Who does that?
> ...


Your question asks "can you show the big bang created the universe"

the big bang theory isnt about creating the universe. 

the end


----------



## Quasar44 (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


We don’t really know !!!
It’s behind anyone


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 22, 2020)

Blackrook said:


> The Big Bang Theory is the scientific equivalent to God saying: "Let there be light!"



No it's not.  When they discovered that the universe is expanding in all directions they came up with that theory.  The expansion is accelerating so I believe the Big bang is still exploding at the center of the Universe.

Men without science came up with the God(s) and everything he/she/they have said.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 22, 2020)

Muhammed said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?
> ...




Yes...yes, but that clumpiness can be explained by the slight imbalance between the initial amounts of matter and antimatter!


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?
> 
> I learned in high school that energy can’t be created.  It can only be converted from one form to another.




What ever makes you think the Big Bang was a release of energy?


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 22, 2020)

BlindBoo said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > The Big Bang Theory is the scientific equivalent to God saying: "Let there be light!"
> ...



The only difference between religion and science is that the former is theory based on observation that cannot be tested, while the latter *limits* itself only to theories based on observation that can be tested.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



*All BB explains is the expansion  *

Yup. So why are you asking it to explain something it never intended to explain?


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> ... the near infinite energy required.



You're contradicting yourself ... finite energy gives finite density and temperature ... even in a singularity ... which do you wish us to address? ...


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> We can assume there are no multiverses as one would require even more energy to create a second universe.


Multiple universes are virtuaslly DEMANDED.  Your problem is this crazy assumption about the Big Bang depending on energy.



> We already know quantum physics cannot create that kind of energy.


So now we must shape our universe to fit current theory rather than fitting theory to match the universe?


----------



## Muhammed (Oct 22, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Good excuse. I'll use that one. But I don't need it.

The fact that all of the other galaxies are red shifted proves my big bang theory.

Well, except for some of them, like Andromeda.

But instead of abandoning my pet theory, I'll make up an excuse for that too.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 22, 2020)




----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 22, 2020)

Two naked ladies sharing one cup of coffee ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 22, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> What ever makes you think the Big Bang was a release of energy?



Our universe works by GR.  Anything that anyone creates takes energy.  Even evolution happening would require energy.

Anyway, I think what we agreed today is that time and space always existed and that falls into the realm of God, too.  He's the one who lives in the 4th dimension.  IOW, time and space is infinite.  Something infinite is just an idea in our x, y, and z axis.  We can't exactly reach it as one has to divide by zero.  However, the idea can be proposed in math with the infinity sign.  It's a concept we can understand.  Whether one reaches it isn't the point, but as a concept such as living forever.

What we can't have is near infinite energy in our universe, but it had to come into existence from time and space.  Also, it had to be created by an intelligence as it was directed to form things that can be explained by math.  Math is something that somehow explains most of this universe we live in and would be another evidence for this infinite intelligence.

With energy, I think Einstein was one of the early founders if not the first one.  His e=mc2 means energy is converted, not created.  His c refers to the speed of light, so that squared is some huge number.  IOW, one can't just create light in this universe.  It had to have been created outside of it.  Einstein also believed that there will be a big crunch eventually as the energy would run out and everything would collapse into a gigantic black hole.

The atheist scientists have predicted the big crunch will happen some time between ten and twenty billion years and we are living in that span now.  It could happen tomorrow or in the near future when we are still alive.


----------



## james bond (Oct 22, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > We can assume there are no multiverses as one would require even more energy to create a second universe.
> ...



What you don't understand is the c in e=mc2.  How often have we seen this equation?  It's speed of light squared.  It means we have to have this kind of energy created and God did that.  I don't know of anything that can create that kind of light energy.  One can't just create light from time and space.

Science supposedly explains what happened from the evidence or facts that we find.  Our universe accelerating means that some incredible energy was created and is still affecting the universe.  I think it also means that one day the universe will collapse.  We are in that period now.  It means the CMB will be destroyed.  Even the atheist scientists believe that.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > What ever makes you think the Big Bang was a release of energy?
> ...



HAw ha whaw ha wha wha hwa ... even Einstein knew GR didn't explain the universe, spent his end years searching for Universal Field Theory ... something we've not yet conjured up ...

Only creating things that are more ordered than before takes energy ... creating things that are less ordered would release energy ... Physics 101 ...

What lab experiment can we perform to demonstrate your claims? ... why can't we have near infinite energy in the universe? ... how much energy do you think is in the universe? ... Why can't energy be bounded up in a singularity? ...

*The atheist scientists have predicted the big crunch will happen some time between ten and twenty billion years and we are living in that span now.  It could happen tomorrow or in the near future when we are still alive.*

No they don't ... what kind of horseshit is this? ... the expansion of the universe is still accelerating ... possibly for another few trillion years ... you should probably stick to "loving your brother as you love yourself" ... especially that last part ... your own self-loathing is clouding your judgement ...


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Anything that anyone creates takes energy.


We're talking about the Big Bang here.  The BB created nothing.  No work was done.



> Anyway, I think what we agreed today is that time and space always existed


No!  That is exactly what we DON'T agree!  Time and space always DIDN'T exist!



> and that falls into the realm of God, too.  He's the one who lives in the 4th dimension.


No he DOESN'T exist in the 4th dimension.  The 4th dimension is TIME.  The BB nor God cannot be a function of something contained or created BY and WITHIN the BB or God.  Both must exist wholly OUTSIDE time and space to effect them otherwise they would be CONTROLLED by them.



> IOW, time and space is infinite.


They certainly CANNOT be infinite.  Nothing created can be infinite.  The very act and process of "creation" precludes infinity.  Anything infinite must by definition be the causal plane of the supreme-- -- God.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 22, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > The atheist scientists have predicted the big crunch will happen some time between ten and twenty billion years
> ...



GUT remains an unresolvable dilemma because macro GR and micro QT are fundamentally INCOMPATIBLE.  Both do a superb job of predicting things at their own level, but not the OTHER level.  At the heart of the problem is that messy stuff gravity.  So weak that an ant can overcome the Earth's entire field to move a leaf, yet so strong that it can shape and control whole clusters of galaxies, indeed, the very curvature of space itself.

Einstein was both right and wrong-- -- the universe is both determined by and shaped by probability, yet God himself does not play dice with the universe.  Everything that will happen already has happened, yet nothing happens.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Your gods and your bibles are just partisan examples of gods and alleged holy texts competing with similar claims to gods and holy texts by others. Your gods are really just hand-me-down versions of gods derived from earlier tales and fables.

I've noted before that your lack of a science vocabulary causes you to state terms and definitions you don't understand. There was no big bang. There was the expansion of the universe by causes science doesn't fully understand.

The hyper-religious zealots parrot slogans such as ''a singularity'' that they don't understand. "Singularity'' is a term that defines solving a mathematical solution (of sorts) to Einstein’s theory of relativity. It’s really solving the equation until a null solution is reached.

The “singularity” is actually misconception typically pressed by religioners in an attempt to denigrate science. This allows them to maintain their super-magical gods without any evidence.

Of course, you will ''assume'' your gods and your retreat to fear and ignorance won the argument because that calms an emotional requirement to avoid any discussion that pulls you out of your safe zone of ''the gods did it''. Never having made any case for your versions of gods makes your claim that ''the gods did it'' just so much pleading to ignorance.


----------



## ding (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?
> 
> I learned in high school that energy can’t be created.  It can only be converted from one form to another.


The evidence is in the cosmic background radiation which is the remnant of the creation of energy from nothing. 

Let me know if you need for me to explain it.


----------



## ding (Oct 22, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It was literally created from nothing according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.  It is not possible for matter/energy to exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.  So the only way a universe like ours which has not reached thermal equilibrium can exist... is for it to be created out of nothing.  There is literally no way around this.  So the question then becomes how can a universe be created from nothing without violating the law of conservation and the answer to that question is that the net energy of the universe is zero.  The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of gravity.  So there is no law that prevents the creation of a universe out of nothing.


----------



## ding (Oct 22, 2020)

Natural Citizen said:


> Big bounce makes way more sense than big bang.


No chance, man.  That theory is dead.  The SLoT precludes that.  Energy would have to be added to the system (which presents a new and bigger problem) and one would have to explain how there was no beginning and would have to explain why cosmic background radiation exists.


----------



## ding (Oct 22, 2020)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Not your perception anyway.  But a realistic perception? Yes.  It makes perfect sense.  The current science has the universe popping into existence being created from no thing.  God is no thing.


----------



## ding (Oct 22, 2020)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You need to put down the bible and look at the science.  The science denier is you.


----------



## ding (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Technically.... the energy came from a mistake.

"...How is it that we have a universe of matter at all?

Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## ding (Oct 22, 2020)

G.T. said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


What is it about?


----------



## ding (Oct 22, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That is not technically correct.  Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equation predict the expansion of the universe from the point in time where the equations no longer yield infinite values which is the so called singularity that most people don't understand.  The singularity is just a mathematical thing.  It has no real physical representation of any particular noteworthy thing.


----------



## ding (Oct 22, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > We can assume there are no multiverses as one would require even more energy to create a second universe.
> ...


I don't know if I will go that far.  I will only go as far as they are possible if they too began with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter as our universe did.  Which as near as we can tell was a mistake.


----------



## ding (Oct 22, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Two naked ladies sharing one cup of coffee ...


I see two naked jenny's fighting over a very attractive and intelligent male donkey with thick rimmed glasses.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Oct 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> I learned in high school that energy can’t be created.  It can only be converted from one form to another.



You learned science in high school.   Creation is far beyond the realm of science, Friend.  Nature's God can create matter, obviously, and so energy in various forms, is simply an elegant and necessary addition to matter.  Now please imagine humans without  eyesight.  We would be little more than local earthworms.  But the elegance of seeing things near and far.... that is something for you to contemplate every day of your life, and be thankful for.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 22, 2020)

Natural Citizen said:


> Big bounce makes way more sense than big bang.


Adding elasticity is the smarter move


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 22, 2020)

ding said:


> I see two naked jenny's fighting over a very attractive and intelligent male donkey with thick rimmed glasses.



That solves the argument as to who back-washed in the coffee ...


----------



## Kilroy2 (Oct 22, 2020)

If there was a single entity ( say light or darkness as the entity) and apply the ability of reproduction ( which can be mating or self reproduction( immaculate conception) then add in how magnets work.  Magnets can attract other magnets or repel other magnets. Depending on how you place them together. 

So the single entity (darkness) is able to reproduce itself and is compatible in the sense that reproducing creates attract  with each other (more darkness).  Everything is homogenous and get along well.  Universe in harmony. What would happen if in the reproduction cycle that something got mixed up and in effect repelled the qualities of the single entity.  The way magnets can repel each other. Then in a sense you have an opposite that repels the original.  The differences is enough to repel each other. Then it becomes a race between light and darkness. Light finds its niche and darkness finds its niche. They can't be homogenous. Over time they will each develop and grow.  Darkness can absorb light depending on ideal circumstances. So light can thrive in certain circumstances.  It provides heat whereas darkness is considered cold. Heat is considered energy. A gift given by light. 

Opposites like man and woman, even though similar do have some differences. Perfect way to reproduce being the main benefit. Yet we know that some men or woman prefer the same sex for whatever reason and reproduction is a problem. Yet it can still be overcome.   

So in a sense by observing what happens on earth we can provide a window on what happens on a bigger scale. Evolution can explain the growth process. (probably will alienate some) but it provides change. 

Then their is the sticky matter of understanding that observation as someone will perceived it differently.  

Well it may not explain the galaxy but certainly explains people.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I learned in high school that energy can’t be created.  It can only be converted from one form to another.
> ...



"Creation is far beyond the realm of science... because I say so".

"Nature's God can create matter... because I say so".
It’s comical that creationers spend such time and energy rewriting their Bibles. They gladly compromise on major factual matters, rejecting the flat earth and solid firmament that a plain literal reading of the Bibles indicates.

All the details of the origin of life are not understood. But even so, contrast the attitude of people working in the disciplines of science to the supernaturalists. Supernatural Design / hyper-religious types are utterly uninterested in testing any ideas about who the supernatural designers are or how, in detail, they designed and built life. People working in abiogenesis develop and test models all the time. Of course, they are incomplete. But if someone says, "Maybe it was complex reactions of RNA first and catalytic and structural proteins came later," then that leads to examine if true, RNA would have to be able to catalyze reactions and then it is off to the lab to find out whether that is possible (it is). It's still an incomplete puzzle, but people make hypotheses about the details and test them to see if they are plausible. The study of the origin of life is at an early stage, it acts like science, it asks questions, makes models, tests them, rejects one's that don't work. Nobody can do that with the "supernatural gods designer."

What the creationers won’t address is the very basic question; “what does ID’iot creationism explain? If we have something that at one time, we cannot explain is a result of "natural" processes, then how can it be explained by ID’iot creationers? Then, when at a later time we _can_ explain that process using the methods of science and the process of biological evolution, then the ID’iot creationer explanation becomes superfluous, unnecessary. So it is less preferred than a natural explanation because it simply dead-ends at an appeal to supernatural gods.


----------



## harmonica (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?
> 
> I learned in high school that energy can’t be created.  It can only be converted from one form to another.


where is there evidence of god?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 23, 2020)

Hollie said:


> It's still an incomplete puzzle, but people make hypotheses about the details and test them to see if they are plausible. The study of the origin of life is at an early stage, it acts like science, it asks questions, makes models, tests them, rejects one's that don't work


, puts the lotion in the basket,..


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



Not my self-loathing, God's loathing of our sinful universe and Earth.  I don't think what he said is clouded.  It's happening now.

However, that wasn't my original thought.  Most of the time we are arguing of how the universe started and we get the explanation of the big bang.  If we agree and go by this, then the energy had to have been created.  I think time and space had to be created by the BB, too, but some think time and space always existed because quantum mechanics need space and time to work in.  Unless all the laws of physics were violated with the BB.

You notice I had to add Christianity to this because that is the only logical and scientific explanation I have of the beginning and end of the universe.  The explanation of a singularity and some kind of cosmic inflation that violates our laws of physics isn't out of the realm of the Bible and we find science backs up the Bible.  Some immense and glorious kind of light energy had to come into existence.  However, we learn in science that energy cannot be created.

It's strange that we end up discussing the end.

The end is written as follows:
"When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place."  Revelation 6:12-14

The scenario that best fits the above is the Big Crunch.

Einstein thought the universe was static and didn't want to include his c.  He said coming up with the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life, but yet here we are.  What do you think he meant?  Many think it has to do with eventually the energy will run down and the universe will collapse onto itself.  Einstein thought so himself with his accelerating c.  

What can you add with his Universal Field theory?

The universe continues to expand at an accelerated speed.  It's overcoming the gravitational force of the galaxies as it causes galaxies to collide onto each other.  To me, stuff like dark energy shouldn't exist, but the atheist scientists have no other explanation for the acceleration.  It's another word for God as this is what he has said to show us his glory.  

So what is the ultimate fate of the universe?  Here are the possibilities.


When will it happen?  We can see the universe is 46 billion light years away from us now.  In reality, it could be even further away, but any kind of collapse or increase in density of our universal density could cause the acceleration to decrease and rapidly reverse itself.  Some of the atheist scientists calculate it to be around 20 billion years.  That's still a lot of time in the overall scheme of things, but light, space, and time can change if the accelerating energy changes.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2020)

Here's another article to state around 20 billion years before the Big Crunch.

"If, instead of expanding forever, matter in the Universe reaches a point where it starts to decrease over time, it could cause gravity to become the dominant force. This would ultimately cause the Universe to shrink and cause stars, planets and entire galaxies to collide into each other and the Universe would, for all intents and purposes, collapse in on itself.

Put simply, if the expansion of the Universe slows to a crawl and the Big Bang happens in reverse, everything will implode back into a singularity.

Researchers in Denmark recently claimed to have proved that this process, known as a ‘phase transition’ could already be occurring in our Universe; effectively ‘eating away’ at the cosmos.

A ‘phase transition’ is said to be similar to what happens when water turns to steam, for example. According to the Higgs theory, a phase transition occurred one tenth of a billionth of a second after the Big Bang, causing a shift in the fabric of spacetime.

During this transition, empty space became filled with an invisible substance now known as the Higgs field. If a dense Higgs field exists, the researchers from the University of Southern Denmark, believe a 'bubble' of this state could appear anywhere in the Universe, at any time.

The researchers' equations suggest that this bubble could then expand at the speed of light, entering all space, and turning the Higgs field from the state it is in now into a new one.

The rules of quantum mechanics also suggest random particles can momentarily pop out of a vacuum – something seen regularly in particle physics experiments.

Some argue dark energy could cause such 'quantum fluctuations' which in turn could cause 'a new Big Bang' to end our timeline and start a new one. This is the least likely of the scenarios, based on what we currently know about physics, but has been speculated."









						A Big Freeze, Rip or Crunch: how will the Universe end?
					

The Universe and our solar system started with a Big Bang - now WIRED looks at the theories that could reveal how the Universe ends




					www.wired.co.uk


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> Not my self-loathing, God's loathing of our sinful universe and Earth.  I don't think what he said is clouded.  It's happening now.
> 
> However, that wasn't my original thought.  Most of the time we are arguing of how the universe started and we get the explanation of the big bang.  If we agree and go by this, then the energy had to have been created.



I absolutely do not agree with your understanding of the BB Theory ... re-read toobfreak's post #47 ... that fact alone renders all your ideas wrong ... 

I ask again ... how do you explain red-shift if not for the Doppler Effect? ...

Er ... my Bible says God loves his creation, all of it unconditionally ... not sure why you think the universe and Earth partook of the fruit of the tree of good and evil knowledge ... only Man and Woman can sin, everything else gets a pass in that department ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Not my self-loathing, God's loathing of our sinful universe and Earth.  I don't think what he said is clouded.  It's happening now.
> ...



I rather not.  You keep changing things and can't explain what you mean in your posts.  You don't answer my questions while I took the time to answer yours, so you're not knowledgeable.  It's better to ignore.

My Bible states God left the universe and Earth because of sin.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Anything that anyone creates takes energy.
> ...



First, if you believe time is the 4th dimension, then it also includes space.  Spacetime are inseparable if we have x, y, and z-axes.  Next, we have the BB caused by a singularity.  You're just arguing semantics to state the BB created nothing.  This is where  everything resided and caused the big bang.  Anyway, you sound like you're just arguing semantics and not explaining how the energy was created.  Are you saying it was God?


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


When does your Bible state He came back?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


If your gods left the universe and earth, where did they go?

It seems odd to me that the gods would get up and leave due the sins of man when those same omni-everything gods allegedly poofed man into existence.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


There is no such entity as a ''singularity''. As usual, you don't understand the terms and definitions you get from your creation ministries.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2020)

ding said:


> When does your Bible state He came back?



I don't understand your question.  Do you mean in Revelation?


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > When does your Bible state He came back?
> ...


You said...



james bond said:


> My Bible states God left the universe and Earth because of sin



I am asking you when did God come back?


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2020)

Hollie said:


> There is no such entity as a ''singularity''.



It's you who does not understand.  We are talking about the big bang singularity or what caused the big bang.  A singularity is  an event that by its nature assumed to only happened once and that has no _natural_ explanation. Of course, the atheist scientists make up whatever they want, but won't accept God as the cause or singularity.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



God didn't come back and won't come back until the sixth seal is opened.  We have Satan as "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Did anyone tell Moses that?


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2020)

Or Noah or Abraham or Isaac or Israel or David etc.?


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2020)

*David Wants to Build a Temple*
7 King David was living in his palace, and the Lord had given him peace from all his enemies around him. 2 Then David said to Nathan the prophet, “Look, I am living in a palace made of cedar wood, but the Ark of God is in a tent!”

3 Nathan said to the king, “Go and do what you really want to do, because the Lord is with you.”

4 But that night the Lord spoke his word to Nathan, 5 “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: Will you build a house for me to live in? 6 From the time I brought the Israelites out of Egypt until now I have not lived in a house. I have been moving around all this time with a tent as my home. 7 As I have moved with the Israelites, I have never said to the tribes, whom I commanded to take care of my people Israel, “Why haven’t you built me a house of cedar?”’

8 “You must tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord All-Powerful says: I took you from the pasture and from tending the sheep and made you leader of my people Israel. 9 I have been with you everywhere you have gone and have defeated your enemies for you. I will make you as famous as any of the great people on the earth. 10 Also I will choose a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them so they can live in their own homes. They will not be bothered anymore. Wicked people will no longer bother them as they have in the past 11 when I chose judges for my people Israel. But I will give you peace from all your enemies. I also tell you that I will make your descendants kings of Israel after you.

12 “‘When you die and join your ancestors, I will make one of your sons the next king, and I will set up his kingdom. 13 He will build a house for me, and I will let his kingdom rule always. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he sins, I will use other people to punish him. They will be my whips. 15 I took away my love from Saul, whom I removed before you, but I will never stop loving your son. 16 But your family and your kingdom will continue always before me. Your throne will last forever.’”

17 Nathan told David everything God had said in this vision.

Who was that impostor impersonating God?


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2020)




----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2020)

Now... 

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. 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. 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. The problem with 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.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that 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.*


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> First, if you believe time is the 4th dimension, then it also includes space.  Spacetime are inseparable if we have x, y, and z-axes.  Next, we have the BB caused by a singularity.  You're just arguing semantics to state the BB created nothing.  This is where  everything resided and caused the big bang.  Anyway, you sound like you're just arguing semantics and not explaining how the energy was created.  Are you saying it was God?



Wow.  No.  Restrain your leaps of illogic.

If time isn't a forth dimension, then what is it?  Time is the immutable property of space, the first three dimensions, necessary because c does not equal infinity, it takes "time" for a probability wave to traverse a dimension in space, and one could say a factor in differentiating between the two states of Fermions:  matter and energy.  Solid substance, composite matter, Hadrons-- -- as soon as you remove any one of the four dimensions, they cease to exist, yet both states can be described in terms of a probability wave, the essential quality to a probability event is-- -- time, because probability itself is the description of an event which has a beginning and an end-- -- a "before" and an "after."  This is the essential quality of the transitory state of matter.
The BB caused by a singularity?  A singularity is a specific class of object.  I think it safer to say that the BB describes an event that happened/started/began in a very small region, perhaps a point of NO space at all (infinitely small space) or a lack of dimension, though that too is incorrect because the BB happened everywhere and nowhere at the same time because the BB couldn't have happened "somewhere" (a vectoral coordinate in space) since space itself is a function of it.  You cannot be controlled by or a function of something which you yourself determine.  It seems almost necessary then that for an event to occur in essentially infinitely small space for it to then also have essentially infinitely large energy contained within it, but not necessarily CREATED by it.  "Released" might be a better term.
I make no attempt to explain how energy is created or if it is created or to what limit energy is available or possible.  That cannot be known without assigning definite limits and boundaries to the physical universe!  Merely pointing out that the BB did not need/take energy as we know it to get work "done" because I think it is wrong to think of the BB as being "work," it wasn't an "explosion" in the conventional sense, a release of energy as much as it was more an EXPANSION of space itself with energy in it.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such entity as a ''singularity''.
> ...



There is no big bang singularity. I suspect you, as usual, are cribbing your science terms from the ICR charlatans. Why should anyone accept your gods as a cause or singularity when you a) don't understand those terms, and b) offer nothing more than "... because I say so" slogans to support your version of the gods?


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 23, 2020)

Hollie said:


> There is no such entity as a ''singularity''. As usual, you don't understand the terms and definitions you get from your creation ministries.



We understand a "singularity" as a point where the physical laws of the universe as we know them to stop operating.  Essentially a point where so much matter is compressed into so small a region of space that matter makes its final collapse and the nuclear separation of neutrons fail and Bose-Einstein space is taken to its ultimate state where gravity reaches infinity and spacetime curves completely in upon itself.  Did I express that well?


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > First, if you believe time is the 4th dimension, then it also includes space.  Spacetime are inseparable if we have x, y, and z-axes.  Next, we have the BB caused by a singularity.  You're just arguing semantics to state the BB created nothing.  This is where  everything resided and caused the big bang.  Anyway, you sound like you're just arguing semantics and not explaining how the energy was created.  Are you saying it was God?
> ...



Sorry, that does not compute for me.  First, I said the 4th dimension is spacetime.  It isn't just the concept of time as we're talking about the universe and its origin.

Anyway, your last paragraph explains your view.  It doesn't explain how light was created nor the energy it had to have.  It also doesn't explain how space and time were created.  That took energy, too.  It just assumes all of it was there before the big bang.

Creation scientists use the word singularity, too, to describe the origin and how laws of physics could be violated and still happen.  I think it was God who did it.  The creation scientists think so, too.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> Sorry, that does not compute for me.


It should.



> First, I said the 4th dimension is spacetime.  It isn't just the concept of time as we're talking about the universe and its origin.


If spacetime is all one dimension, the 4th, you have just precluded the need for the first three!  So then spacetime would be the FIRST dimension.  



> Anyway, your last paragraph explains your view.


How did an explanation become "my view?"



> It doesn't explain how light was created nor the energy it had to have.


Light is a function of all matter and energy, it is the vectoral boson which is the force carrier for all 1st generation Fermions.



> It also doesn't explain how space and time were created.  That took energy, too.  It just assumes all of it was there before the big bang.


Maybe it was?  I don't know why you keep circling back on this rigid assumption that it "took" energy to create spacetime which IS energy.  Or that it had to be created.  Not all things are knowable.  The fish in the pond cannot know the eagle's sky high on the mountain.  We are limited by our vantage point of the very tiny trying to look at the very very large.  We cannot even see the other side of the room.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such entity as a ''singularity''. As usual, you don't understand the terms and definitions you get from your creation ministries.
> ...


That, as I understand it, is largely true excepting that there is no “point” or location. Like all the laws of physics which we understand, those laws  operate only inside the known universe. As the origin of the universe is necessarily outside the known universe, we can’t immediately assume that the beginning of the universe should be constrained by any known laws of physics. Second, the idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Yes, God _told_ Moses the Ten Commandments. Then the _finger of God_ wrote them down on the stone tablets.  It wasn't God's finger _physically_ there to do it.  It's supposedly an anthromorphism.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...





james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Are you sure about that?
New International Version

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
_John 1:18_

Were you confusing the tale of shrubbery spontaneously bursting into flames?


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


So how is it possible that God was with the Jews all that time if He left?

*David Wants to Build a Temple*
7 King David was living in his palace, and the Lord had given him peace from all his enemies around him. 2 Then David said to Nathan the prophet, “Look, I am living in a palace made of cedar wood, but the Ark of God is in a tent!”

3 Nathan said to the king, “Go and do what you really want to do, because the Lord is with you.”

4 But that night the Lord spoke his word to Nathan, 5 “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: Will you build a house for me to live in? 6 From the time I brought the Israelites out of Egypt until now I have not lived in a house. I have been moving around all this time with a tent as my home. 7 As I have moved with the Israelites, I have never said to the tribes, whom I commanded to take care of my people Israel, “Why haven’t you built me a house of cedar?”’

8 “You must tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord All-Powerful says: I took you from the pasture and from tending the sheep and made you leader of my people Israel. 9 I have been with you everywhere you have gone and have defeated your enemies for you. I will make you as famous as any of the great people on the earth. 10 Also I will choose a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them so they can live in their own homes. They will not be bothered anymore. Wicked people will no longer bother them as they have in the past 11 when I chose judges for my people Israel. But I will give you peace from all your enemies. I also tell you that I will make your descendants kings of Israel after you.

12 “‘When you die and join your ancestors, I will make one of your sons the next king, and I will set up his kingdom. 13 He will build a house for me, and I will let his kingdom rule always. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he sins, I will use other people to punish him. They will be my whips. 15 I took away my love from Saul, whom I removed before you, but I will never stop loving your son. 16 But your family and your kingdom will continue always before me. Your throne will last forever.’”

17 Nathan told David everything God had said in this vision.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 23, 2020)

Hollie said:


> That, as I understand it, is largely true excepting that there is no “point” or location.


True.  The location of a singularity can only be described by the presence of the event hoizon around it.  That is the place where for all intents, our space and laws end.  Thou dare not tread beyond that point.



> Like all the laws of physics which we understand, those laws operate only inside the known universe. As the origin of the universe is necessarily outside the known universe, we can’t immediately assume that the beginning of the universe should be constrained by any known law of physics.


How true.  By implication then, these "singularities" are not so much "objects" or things in the known sense as they are places outside our universe, or maybe places where something outside our universe connects to ours.

And a great point that whatever caused the BB or the start/creation/beginning of our known universe by definition CANNOT be constrained by the same physical laws that operate within it!  Pretty hard then to write equations describing an event whose processes operated by laws we cannot know or observe.



> Second, the idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description.


Yes.  One cannot point at a direction in the sky and say it all started over there.  There is no center to the universe.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> *I learned in high school that energy can’t be created*
> 
> Yeah, well that was before the neutron was discovered ... we've learn a lot in the 80 years since you left high school ...


The neutron was discovered in 1932.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> Where is the evidence for your created energy?


There is NO evidence of "created" energy, as you well know, in fact it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> The best explanation is a supernatural God. *He* is the dark energy.


And there it is, give energy a human personality, and suddenly you have a supernatural God.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> I think what we agreed today is that time and space always existed


Actually space/time began at the big bang, not energy, it is energy that always existed and will always exist in the same total quantity. You have nothing right!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> God didn't come back and won't come back until the sixth seal is opened. We have *Satan as "god* of the world and prince of the power of the air."


So you believe in TWO Gods!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 23, 2020)

ding said:


> The problem with 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.


Here you go again with this disproven crap again! 
Usable energy is KINETIC energy, AKA, the energy of MOTION, As the 3rd Law states there is no temperature at which ALL motion stops therefor thermal equilibrium is impossible. As you admitted entropy can "stay the same" IOW, equal zero.
The universe is a perpetual motion machine with an entropy of ZERO.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> If spacetime is all one dimension, the 4th, you have just precluded the need for the first three! So then spacetime would be the FIRST dimension.



You don't know do you?  No they're, in and of itself, all different dimensions.  However, what exists in the first exists in the second.  What exists in the second exists in the third.  Thus what exists in the third exists in the fourth haha.  Like duh .



toobfreak said:


> How did an explanation become "my view?"



That's the way I interpreted it.  Much of what you said doesn't make sense and you're the one trying to insult me.  All I asked was a difficult question to answer.



toobfreak said:


> Light is a function of all matter and energy, it is the vectoral boson which is the force carrier for all 1st generation Fermions.



The Bible states God created light.  With science, there isn't an explanation except energy can't be created.  Just transferred.  Also, one would need some kind of intelligence to guide the energy it to create what we find in the universe.  The BB singularity only has infinite temperature and infinite density.  No infinite intelligence to create what we find that exists in the universe.  Even our best minds are surprised.



toobfreak said:


> Light is a function of all matter and energy, it is the vectoral boson which is the force carrier for all 1st generation Fermions.



Yes, but one has to have the property of light first.  Also, it travels at an incredible speed such that nothing else can travel faster.  Then we can have energy.  After that, we can have matter.  Remember how things progress.  You're putting the cart before the horse.

What does the vectoral boson and first generation Fermions mean?



toobfreak said:


> Maybe it was? I don't know why you keep circling back on this rigid assumption that it "took" energy to create spacetime which IS energy. Or that it had to be created. Not all things are knowable. The fish in the pond cannot know the eagle's sky high on the mountain. We are limited by our vantage point of the very tiny trying to look at the very very large. We cannot even see the other side of the room.



It is knowable through the Bible as God, the only witness there, describes what he did.  What the scientific atheism can't explain is how it happened without God.  One can only use singularity so much even if we allow infinite temperature and infinite density.  Again, it take an intelligence to create what we find in our universe.



toobfreak said:


> Yes. One cannot point at a direction in the sky and say it all started over there. There is no center to the universe.



I want to interject here.  The creation scientists think our universe is flat like a scroll (science backs this up) and that it has borders and that the center is our Milky Way.  What they haven't found is evidence that the universe has borders or maybe I don't understand their explanation -- [astro-ph/0508367] Finite bounded expanding white hole universe without dark matter.  

What the creation scientists know is that our universe is running out of energy.  Eventually, the universe will slow its accelerated expansion.  Many think it will be within 20 billion years, but it depends on our Creator.  Only he knows, but Isaac Newton guessed it would be around 2060.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2020)

ding said:


> So how is it possible that God was with the Jews all that time if He left?



In spirit.  Just like his spirit and finger of God wrote the Ten Commandments tablets.  

Do you not have any intuition of God?  Faith should have led you to the Holy Spirit.  After that, you realize that Jesus is in your heart because of the great sacrifice he made for humankind.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2020)

ding said:


> We know from science that space and time had a beginning.



And before that there was no space and no time.  Thus, we had to have an entity without those limits.  Something that is timeless or eternal.  Kalam's Cosmological Argument states that it had to be God.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> There is NO evidence of "created" energy, as you well know, in fact it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed



That's what I have been arguing, so where did the energy come from if the universe had a beginning.

I don't like to assume that it always existed like spacetime always existed.  In fact, people here don't like that.

I can accept that because then the other dimensions would have had to exist before that.

Thus, this singularity had to have all of that beforehand.  The only thing powerful enough to do that with intelligence is God.  We have to have mind over matter, i.e. mind came first.  Matter and energy, e=mc2, can't just pop into existence first even with singularity.


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > God didn't come back and won't come back until the sixth seal is opened. We have *Satan as "god* of the world and prince of the power of the air."
> ...



No, only one God.  Lucifer became Satan who became god of the world and prince of the power of the air only because of Adam's sin.  That's why most people die if there is a plane crash.  Or if you get hit by lightening.

However, we were saved when Jesus came the first time.  That's why most people die if there is a plane crash.  Or you get hit by lightening.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 24, 2020)

james bond said:


> That's what I have been arguing, so where did the energy come from if the universe had a beginning.


Energy didn't come from (can't be created) or go away from (destroyed) anything.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 24, 2020)

james bond said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


So actually you have 4 Gods, a father God, a Son God, a spirit God and an evil God.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 24, 2020)

james bond said:


> You don't know do you?


I hope to know something of the topic after having a degree in physics and studying the subject field for nearly 50 years.



> Much of what you said doesn't make sense


Then you need to go back and study what people working in the field say.



> The Bible states God created light.


I probably have 6 Bibles in the house, some not for sale to the public, one over 100 years old.  As I recall, the Bible says:  "And then there was light."  Not sure about the part saying God created it.  If a cloud moves aside and the Sun comes out, we don't conclude that the cloud created it.



> With science, there isn't an explanation except energy can't be created.  Just transferred.


We have no physical law to describe any process which would do so.  But as Hollie said, the process which created the universe would necessarily include laws/means OUTSIDE the laws which govern its mere operation.



> Also, one would need some kind of intelligence to guide the energy it to create what we find in the universe.


Look, I'm a very religious person and you won't find anyone more convinced of an intelligent force or cause behind existence, but I'm also a scientist and I outright reject your attempt to rationalize physical laws and processes at the very edge of our ken as Christian creationism complete with an angry bearded god throwing thunderbolts down at his irascible and misbehaving mankind.

No one knows where the book Genesis came from, it is an interesting effort to describe the whereabouts of how things started, but the Earth is NOT the center of the universe, the universe is far older than 2,000 years or 10,000 years, and undoubtedly, given the right conditions, IT MUST BE POSSIBLE for life similar to us to arise elsewhere in the universe.

So if we are going to talk science, at least practical street science the layman can understand, let's actually stick to science, even if some of it is very theoretical.


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2020)

toobfreak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You don't know do you?
> ...



Well, you didn't know about the properties of dimensions, but you know about physics.

Okay, then where did the energy come from to create the universe and everything in it?  Usually, physicists start their explanation with the BB singularity.  This is assumed to have happened once and probably not a natural cause as the laws of physics didn't apply and space and time started.

You claimed matter was there, and energy is matter.  How much matter was there?  An approximation is fine.

Also, we had to have the four dimensions created to have spacetime.  Where did the energy come from for it?  Even quantum mechanics cannot explain it.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 24, 2020)

james bond said:


> Well, you didn't know about the properties of dimensions



You know JB, you should just stop while you're ahead.  A specious thread has now fallen to being a damn stupid one.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the evidence for your created energy?
> ...


CMB says otherwise.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So how is it possible that God was with the Jews all that time if He left?
> ...


Same difference.  You said God left.  God didn't leave. 

Can you show me the verse where it says God left?


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with 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.
> ...


If you want believe atoms vibrating means no thermal equilibrium, be my guest.  That's just plain stupid.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the evidence for your created energy?
> ...


You mean other than the CMB?


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > We know from science that space and time had a beginning.
> ...


I don't disagree.  I have never disagreed.  God created existence.  God is the solution to the first cause conundrum.  There are no other viable options that explains it.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > That's what I have been arguing, so where did the energy come from if the universe had a beginning.
> ...


Sure energy can have a beginning.  Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that 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 (Oct 24, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


No it doesn't!


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 24, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Electrons don't "vibrate," they orbit, you know in perpetual motion.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 24, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


We've gone through this before, EQUAL amounts of positive and negative energy does not mean there is ZERO energy! Zero energy would mean a zero amount of positive energy and a zero amount of negative energy.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 24, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


There is no such thing as nothing!!!
So your video falls apart before it even starts.
Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is another SOMETHING, two somethings in equal amounts do NOT make a nothing!!!!!


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


What do you believe the CMB is, Einstein?  

What created the CMB?


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You can obfuscate all you want, but just because atomic motion does not stop does not mean thermal equilibrium has not been practically reached.  There is literally no way around this.  There are no perfectly efficient processes.  Perpetual motion in terms of doing real work does not exist.  It is a figment of your imagination.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


It means zero NET energy.  So 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.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I think I'm going to go with Alexander Vilenkin on this one over some anonymous internet troll who has no grasp of science.









						Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2020)

ding said:


> Can you show me the verse where it says God left?



This is S&T, but I'll try and answer this important question.  

"But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear." Isaiah 59:2

We know God is holy, holy, holy by his nature and hates sin.  We live in a fallen world due to Adam's sin and that's why he left.  We were separated from God and Satan was able to gain dominion over the Earth.  Adam was able to sin because of free will.

Other verses you may find helpful to understand God being holy and what sin did to separate us from him




__





						What Does the Bible Say About Original Sin?
					

Bible verses about Original Sin




					www.openbible.info
				




I think he lives in the fourth dimension.  From there, he can see everything that happens in the third dimension as well as the past and future.  He also can influence things as a fourth dimensional being in the third dimension without actually being there.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Can you show me the verse where it says God left?
> ...


That's it?  Nothing in Genesis?


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2020)

ding said:


> That's it? Nothing in Genesis?



You don't accept Genesis  .  Why waste my time haha.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > That's it? Nothing in Genesis?
> ...


No.  I don't read Genesis literally. I also don't make up things like God left us when almost every verse in the Bible tells us otherwise.

Your errors compound because you start from a faulty starting position.  So you have to make up ridiculous things to rationalize your errors.  It's obvious to everyone but you.  You are the militant atheists favorite Christian.  It's why they flock to you, JB.


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I don't think I'm the one they flock to, but more you.  Why do you think God is still here then?  What do you have?

I didn't make it up that God left us.  It's clear from God's nature of being holy and hating sin.  It is explained in the Bible.

If you don't read Genesis literally, then you don't believe God made light on the first day and that was enough to provide all the energy in the universe?  He separated the light and dark space and called them day and night.  He didn't need the sun to do it.  All the power of the universe is in the EMS.  It's more evidence for God as the singularity.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Hollie doesn't come near me with a ten foot pole.  She flocks to you and has her way with you. 

It would be illogical for me to discuss theology with someone who believes the Bible states that God left us or that the earth is 6,000 years old.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 24, 2020)

"Where two or more are gathered, and touch upon the things I've touched upon, *I will be there*"

[Emphasis mine]


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



This is S&T, so I'll just say you're making stuff up about God in your head again.  I am curious while we're here.  What about the finger of God?  The movie showed it well.  That's all over the Bible, but you don't believe that either, do you?

Someone in the fourth dimension can still exert his influence by introducing stuff from spacetime can't he?  Such as this dark energy that people like to call it.  Isn't that what's causing the accelerated expansion of our universe?  

What about when this energy starts winding down?  You enjoy talking about that.

In between, we get the benefits about thermodynamics.  That's where the energy in the universe gets converted and we have hot flowing to cold.  Nothing happens without this flow.  No work can get done.

So, do you believe in the infinite temperature and infinite density singularity?  What's wrong with that?  You're the one who knows about thermodynamics.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 25, 2020)

james bond said:


> This is S&T, so I'll just say you're making stuff up about God in your head again.



Yes, this is S&T ... you do have to describe the experiment we can perform to verify your claims ... I'm sad you've turned your face from God, and you feel He has deserted you for your sin ... sounds like your excuse to just keep sinning ...



james bond said:


> So, do you believe in the infinite temperature and infinite density singularity?  What's wrong with that?  You're the one who knows about thermodynamics.



The conditions you've given us is "near infinite energy" ... thus we'd have "near infinite" temperature and "near infinite" density in our "near infinitely small" singularity ... that's what the math says, can you review Wassermann's derivation and tell me where it's wrong ... please ... and explain it, my topology is weak ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2020)

ding said:


> It means zero NET energy.  So 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.



Isn't Vilenkin the guy Dr. William Lane Craig thrashed for his beliefs in infinite multiverses and that universe had a beginning but no cause?


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Yes, this is S&T ... you do have to describe the experiment we can perform to verify your claims ... I'm sad you've turned your face from God, and you feel He has deserted you for your sin ... sounds like your excuse to just keep sinning ...





ReinyDays said:


> The conditions you've given us is "near infinite energy" ... thus we'd have "near infinite" temperature and "near infinite" density in our "near infinitely small" singularity ... that's what the math says, can you review Wassermann's derivation and tell me where it's wrong ... please ... and explain it, my topology is weak ...



I said God left the universe, not desert his creation.  What kind of masochistic liar are you?

Why don't you reply to Hollie?  She'll explain your science is run by ID creationists, that God doesn't have a face, and beat you with a 10' tent pole like you would enjoy.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 25, 2020)

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, this is S&T ... you do have to describe the experiment we can perform to verify your claims ... I'm sad you've turned your face from God, and you feel He has deserted you for your sin ... sounds like your excuse to just keep sinning ...
> ...


Science is not run by ID’iot creationers. There’s no reason to bring me into your religious war. 


“you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 25, 2020)

james bond said:


> I said God left the universe, not desert his creation.  What kind of masochistic liar are you?



My, that's a mighty Christian thing to say ... do you normally call folks who disagree with you "liars"? ... 

To desert means to leave ... if God left the universe, then God didn't create the universe ... sounds like a paradox ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 25, 2020)

Hollie said:


> There’s no reason to bring me into your religious war.



If you change your mind, pick my side, I'll see your water turned to wine ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > There’s no reason to bring me into your religious war.
> ...



Heh.  Your side is the Frannie side.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2020)

I think what happens when we discuss the _origins_ of the Big Bang, then people over the world start falling apart.  They can't readily answer where the energy came from where I can provide evidence for my claim.  

Usually, we have to accept their _singularity_ that laws of physics were violated because there were no laws of physics.  I think I can accept that, but we don't completely understand quantum mechanics and the quantum world.  People think all the energy is there when light or electromagnetic spectrum explains it as best theory. 

I can also tell you that God left the universe after Adam's sin.  The point is it was such a grave sin of free will that God was forced to leave the universe.  Adam also lost dominion of the world.  Still, God remains with us in spirit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2020)

james bond said:


> I think what happens when we discuss the _origins_ of the Big Bang, then people over the world start falling apart.  They can't readily answer where the energy came from where I can provide evidence for my claim.
> 
> Usually, we have to accept their _singularity_ that laws of physics were violated because there were no laws of physics.  I think I can accept that, but we don't completely understand quantum mechanics and the quantum world.  People think all the energy is there when light or electromagnetic spectrum explains it as best theory.
> 
> I can also tell you that God left the universe after Adam's sin.  The point is it was such a grave sin of free will that God was forced to leave the universe.  Adam also lost dominion of the world.  Still, God remains with us in spirit.



*They can't readily answer where the energy came from where I can provide evidence for my claim. *

You can provide evidence for where all energy in the Universe came from? Sweet!!!

Post your evidence.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I think what happens when we discuss the _origins_ of the Big Bang, then people over the world start falling apart.  They can't readily answer where the energy came from where I can provide evidence for my claim.
> ...









"In the beginning," means there was nothing.  No three dimensions.  Thus, God created the three dimensions of which there was only darkness and gave it the qualities of the fourth dimension to it so it had spacetime.  Nothing is dark, so God created the expanding and accelerating universe such as we explain by the big bang or expansion.  He created the "light" or the electromagnetic spectrum.  He separated the light and dark parts into two and called the light parts day and the dark parts night.  The three dimensions had to be separated.  We have day and night from the dimension of time, so time passes into day 1, day 2, day 3, etc.

The EMS can be shown graphically as:





The energy is heat which the radiation from the different parts of light emit and we can see the different temperatures associated with it.  Light exists as particle and wave, so everything in the universe can be created from it.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 25, 2020)

james bond said:


> Usually, we have to accept their _singularity_ that laws of physics were violated because there were no laws of physics.  I think I can accept that, but we don't completely understand quantum mechanics and the quantum world.  People think all the energy is there when light or electromagnetic spectrum explains it as best theory.



I'm not sure it's usual ... we don't have a preacher giving his sermon on this ... any honest physicist will tell you honestly that we honestly don't know ... no one understands QM or GR completely ... much of it is profoundly non-intuitive ... the laws of physics have never been carved in stone ... we can't say they're being violated until we know what they are in the first place ...

The early universe was opaque ... there are no photons from this time ... no light to examine ... there's a wall out there past which is completely dark, absolutely no information comes from this time as light ... that doesn't mean we're guessing, we can apply the laws of physics as we understand them and make some shrewd speculations and at least for now these speculations seem to be holding water ... but "seems", "maybe", "could be" are all weasel words, we continue to study these matters and we should expect changes in our reasoning ... 

Light and electromagnetic radiation doesn't explain anything about our early universe ... absolutely nothing from before the CMB Epoch, when the universe became transparent and photons could travel freely throughout ... 

We just don't know as much about this as you think we do ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 25, 2020)

james bond said:


> "In the beginning," means there was nothing.  No three dimensions.  Thus, God created the three dimensions of which there was only darkness and gave it the qualities of the fourth dimension to it so it had spacetime.  Nothing is dark, so God created the expanding and accelerating universe such as we explain by the big bang or expansion.  He created the "light" or the electromagnetic spectrum.  He separated the light and dark parts into two and called the light parts day and the dark parts night.  The three dimensions had to be separated.  We have day and night from the dimension of time, so time passes into day 1, day 2, day 3, etc.
> 
> The EMS can be shown graphically as:
> 
> ...



The Bible says "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ... you're just adding things that the Bible does NOT say ... somewhere you need to explain the problems with pair production ... which again the Bible is completely silent about ... heat and light are two different things, add in motion and latency ... there comes a time to say "it just is", and not worry so much about it ...


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Post your evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2020)

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Thanks.....are you going to post your evidence now?


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Thanks.....are you going to post your evidence now?



I know you don't want to get it as it means death of your spiritually perfect self and eternal misery.

I think ding got closest to an explanation with Alexander Vilenkin, but he gets shot down because he thinks the beginning of the universe didn't have a cause to disavow Kalam's Cosmological Argument, and then illogically makes up rules for quantum mechanics that existed in order to start his universe.  That's being soft in the head.

Before I forget, the error with infinite temperature of the singularity is that temperature is not energy.  It's the result of heat energy as my graph showed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2020)

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks.....are you going to post your evidence now?
> ...



So you're not going to post your evidence?


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 25, 2020)

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks.....are you going to post your evidence now?
> ...



Post your evidence and we'll see ...



james bond said:


> Before I forget, the error with infinite temperature of the singularity is that temperature is not energy.  It's the result of heat energy as my graph showed.



Temperature is the measure of energy content ... near infinite energy measures as near infinite temperature, even in a singularity ... your graph only shows electromagnetic energy emitted, which reduces temperature ... conservation of energy ...


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > This is S&T, so I'll just say you're making stuff up about God in your head again.
> ...


james bond 

What he said.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It means zero NET energy.  So 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.
> ...


Probably.  I reach a different conclusion than Vilenkin on what it means that the laws of nature were in place before space and time.  

Did Vilenkin state there was no cause?  Or did he say 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?

How is that not a cause?


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I don't believe so.  I sense a great humility coming from this one.  Frannie?  Not so much.


----------



## james bond (Oct 26, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Usually, we have to accept their _singularity_ that laws of physics were violated because there were no laws of physics.  I think I can accept that, but we don't completely understand quantum mechanics and the quantum world.  People think all the energy is there when light or electromagnetic spectrum explains it as best theory.
> ...



Let's not confuse religion with science.  I'm trying to stay on topic, but it's funny how religion comes into S&T and science comes into R&E forums.  It goes to show that they are related and two sides of the same coin.  For example, I answered ding's question, but he doesn't answer mine so I wonder about his intuition of God.  He doesn't believe that God has physically left our universe.

In S&T, it's atheists who believe in their scientific atheism myths about the origins of the universe and life on Earth.  They can't explain infinite temperature and infinite density.  It's supposed to be a singularity, i.e. only happen once, but the violation of the laws of physics happened happened milliseconds later by cosmic inflation.  Next, we have the incredulous claims of infinite multiverses, i.e. the singularity is no singularity.  

Moreover, there is no evidence for multiverses, let alone it violates the laws of physics once the laws of physics were established after the first universe.  Even the time after the second and consequent big bangs with its cosmic inflation violates the law of physics.  I can accept the impossible infinite temperature and infinite density singularity, but not the cosmic inflation's violations.  With multiverses, I have to accept it happened more than once and the singularity wasn't really a singularity.  That really is a fairy tale.

I think I thought of this topic when temperature is the result of changes in heat energy.  It's heat that provides the energy.  The atheist scientists like Hawking don't even mention the energy required.  Thus, we have some kind of INFINITE singularity condition and yet we have a near cataclysmic expansion and all this stuff ends up falling into place after billions of years.  It does sound incredulous to believe as there is no evidence for it except that the universe had a beginning.

As for you comments on light and radiation, you don't even explain how this energy just expanded with big bang.  It's just more incredulity.

That's why when it comes to origins science, it is the creation scientists who have the best theory.  People end up falling apart trying to explain _their_ scientific atheism origin.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The CMB is the remnant of the Big Bang, Discovered by scientists here in NJ.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Perpetual motion exists in nature, otherwise no matter could exist. Do you agree mater actually does exist?
Perpetual motion machines made by man do not exist because of friction. nature is another story entirely.
This was all explained to you in other threads, so you can't claim ignorance for your dishonesty..


----------



## james bond (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



First, let's close our God is not in our universe discussion.  Do you have any intuition of the Holy Spirit?

I think Vilenkin said the first premise of KCA is wrong and that there isn't a cause --  "Everything that begins to exist has a cause to its existence."

He applies that to the universe that there was no cause before it and then starts making up his rules of quantum mechanics as to the cause.

I think it's all to avoid the third statement --  Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

That is best explained by God.  Not quantum mechanics as it does not have a source of near infinite energy such as EMS.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No it means total energy has a neutral CHARGE, not that there is zero "NET" energy which would mean NO energy of any kind, when you have already admitted there were equal amounts of 2 different charged energies.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You would back a loser in the face of the truth you can't handle. All you and he are doing is playing perverted word games with the meaning of "nothing."


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Right.  But that doesn't answer the question I am asking.  What atomic interaction was responsible for creating the background radiation?


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


If you use the standard definition for "perpetual motion machines of the first kind", which can indefinitely produce work. Entropy increases monotonically over the entire universe, and eventually all free energy will be gone.  This cannot be avoided.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


No.  Let's not.  You are so far afield of most everything that it serves no logical purpose to discuss these things with you.  There's no value in it for me.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


No.  That's not what the cosmologists are saying at all.  There is positive energy of the matter/energy  and there is the negative energy of the gravity which is a consequence that space and time are warped and they perfectly balance such that they sum to zero.  And since they sum to zero, the creation of space and time from nothing does not violate the law of conservation.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


That doesn't convince me to believe you over a renowned cosmologist.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The big bang went boom and then cooled leaving the CMB.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Truth will never convince you! 
Is positive energy something or is it nothing?
Is negative energy something or is it nothing?
Do two somethings make nothing or do two nothings make nothing?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> There is positive energy of the matter/energy and there is the negative energy of the gravity which is a consequence that space and time are warped and *they perfectly balance* such that they sum to zero.


What sums to zero? If they BALANCE they must both be somethings, they can't be two nothings. Balance does NOT mean nothingness!!!!!


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


So you have no idea.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I'm sorry... I am still laughing at your ignorance of how the CMB came about.    I need a moment.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > There is positive energy of the matter/energy and there is the negative energy of the gravity which is a consequence that space and time are warped and *they perfectly balance* such that they sum to zero.
> ...


I need more time.  

I am still rolling on the floor laughing.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> The big bang went boom and then cooled leaving the CMB.


And that Virginia... is how you prove that edthecynic is a troll who is faking it.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


As I pointed out the CMB came about AFTER the big bang when the universe cooled. Obviously that went over your pointy little head.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Sure, or you are not honest to admit just how STUPID your argument is!!!


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


And still doesn't answer the question, dummy.  

It's ok that you don't know, Mr. Fake Science Guy.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Wait.... still...


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 26, 2020)

Energy is constant in the early universe ... as it expanded, it cooled ... first we had energy condensing into matter, but things were still too hot for individual electrons and protons to associate into discreet atoms, a plasma state-of-matter, which is _OPAQUE_ to light ... more expansion, more cooling and now Hydrogen atoms form in it's gaseous state-of-matter, which is _transparent_ to light (most light, not all) ... any light we're receiving today (including CMB radiation) must have been emitted after Hydrogen entered it's gaseous state ... we still have all the energy from the beginning, just some of it exists as matter ... and we use the conservation of mass/energy law ... 

At least that's what the egg-heads say ... 

Perpetual motion is a reality? ... oh, right, it just can't be demonstrated ... perhaps if you explained in every little detail why this doesn't violate the 3rd Law, we could understand your logic better ...


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Obviously it is YOU who know nothing about the CMB since your question has been answered accurately!!!! If you can't see that it is only because you are completely IGNORANT of the CMB or any other physics. All you can do is copy and past stuff you have no understanding of.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Energy is constant in the early universe ... as it expanded, it cooled ... first we had energy condensing into matter, but things were still too hot for individual electrons and protons to associate into discreet atoms, a plasma state-of-matter, which is _OPAQUE_ to light ... more expansion, more cooling and now Hydrogen atoms form in it's gaseous state-of-matter, which is _transparent_ to light (most light, not all) ... any light we're receiving today (including CMB radiation) must have been emitted after Hydrogen entered it's gaseous state ... we still have all the energy from the beginning, just some of it exists as matter ... and we use the conservation of mass/energy law ...
> 
> At least that's what the egg-heads say ...
> 
> Perpetual motion is a reality? ... oh, right, it just can't be demonstrated ... perhaps if you explained in every little detail why this doesn't violate the 3rd Law, we could understand your logic better ...


Ed and I go way back.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I understand what the source of CMB is, Ed.  You don't.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


But it makes just soooooo much more sense that some omnipresent being just went 'abracadbra' right? Fucking religion loons...


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


It absolutely does, but I don't think it was 'abracadbra.'  I think it was more like mind willed existence into being.  After all... everything is just information.  

Why else do you think a universe created from nothing that was hardwired to produce intelligence would pop into existence?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Perpetual motion is a reality? ... oh, right, it just can't be demonstrated ... perhaps if you explained in every little detail why this doesn't violate the 3rd Law, we could understand your logic better ...


The third Law says there is no temperature where all motion stops. 

An example of perpetual motion in nature is the electron. If the entropy of the atom was not zero and friction existed in the atom, the electron would lose energy and couldn't maintain its orbit and would be drawn into the nucleus, splitting it, and no matter could exist.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)




----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You understand "nothing" and there is no such thing as nothing.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 26, 2020)

The third Law says there is no temperature where all motion stops.

An example of perpetual motion in nature is the electron. If the entropy of the atom was not zero and friction existed in the atom, the electron would lose energy and couldn't maintain its orbit and would be drawn into the nucleus, splitting it, and no matter could exist.
[/QUOTE]

Yes ... temperature is the measure of motion ... of course if motion is zero, temperature will be zero ... like saying an empty pool has zero cubic furlongs of water in it ...

"If ... friction existed in the atom" ... there's no friction in an atom that I know of ... unless æther has a viscosity ... QM predicts an electron in it's ground state can only slow down, it can never orbit any closer to the nucleus ... I believe there's a form of beta decay where this happens, but it doesn't split the atom, just transmutes it ...


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I can think of several more reasons than some super being. Where you guys ALWAYS lose me is that you find it hard to believe the science (even with its flaws) and that something can't come from nothing (according to you - however if you actually read a lot of science many things have come from something), yet this super being has always just 'been'. I ask where did it come from? "Oh, it's always been there". Yeah, right. 

You do realise that your particular religion (Christianity??), is just a recycled rehash of other religions that existed before it. There is ample evidence that such things as the virgin birth and the ressurection are just rehashes of previous events mentioned in pre-Christian religions.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Trying to change the subject, Ed?


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 26, 2020)

Dr Grump said:


> You do realise that your particular religion (Christianity??), is just a recycled rehash of other religions that existed before it. There is ample evidence that such things as the virgin birth and the ressurection are just rehashes of previous events mentioned in pre-Christian religions.



Are you seriously suggesting that Christianity "evolved" from more primitive forms? ... [smile] ... Allow me to be the first to flame you:

*BLASPHEMER* ...

I believe ancient Egypt has a fairly well documented course of religious understanding ... switching back and forth between monotheism and polytheism ... depending on which set of clerics the Pharaoh favored ... for a Biblical certainty Christianity evolved from Judaism ... religions from before that are very poorly documented, although clearly they existed, some speculate we inherited religion from our Neanderthal ancestors based on what appears to be funeral practices ...

Just tell me where to find the original marinara and I'll wear a damn colander on my head ...


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


So many different subjects, let's focus on your claim that you can think of several more reasons for why  a universe created from nothing that was hardwired to produce intelligence would pop into existence, Ok?  What are they?


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> The third Law says there is no temperature where all motion stops.





edthecynic said:


> An example of perpetual motion in nature is the electron. If the entropy of the atom was not zero and friction existed in the atom, the electron would lose energy and couldn't maintain its orbit and would be drawn into the nucleus, splitting it, and no matter could exist.





ReinyDays said:


> Yes ... temperature is the measure of motion ... of course if motion is zero, temperature will be zero ... like saying an empty pool has zero cubic furlongs of water in it ...
> 
> "If ... friction existed in the atom" ... there's no friction in an atom that I know of ... unless æther has a viscosity ... QM predicts an electron in it's ground state can only slow down, it can never orbit any closer to the nucleus ... I believe there's a form of beta decay where this happens, but it doesn't split the atom, just transmutes it ...


Does this seem to you like a good argument for the universe being a perpetual motion machine?

It seems pretty nebulous to make the argument of electrons vibrating or oscillating or whatever it is that they do to the universe exists forever expanding and contracting.  Maybe it's just me.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> So many different subjects, let's focus on your claim that you can think of several more reasons for why  a universe created from nothing that was hardwired to produce intelligence would pop into existence, Ok?  What are they?



Who knows? I don't know all the answers, however science has explained a lot of unexplained things over the years - what gases we breath in and omit, how gravity works, what causes thunder. All of these things were the purview of gods centuries ago. Time after time science gives explanations. Time after time religion gives us nothing but dogma. Thing is your explanation is the least believable of anything out there. By a long shot.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So many different subjects, let's focus on your claim that you can think of several more reasons for why  a universe created from nothing that was hardwired to produce intelligence would pop into existence, Ok?  What are they?
> ...


You just wrote that you did.  See?



Dr Grump said:


> I can think of several more reasons than some super being.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So many different subjects, let's focus on your claim that you can think of several more reasons for why  a universe created from nothing that was hardwired to produce intelligence would pop into existence, Ok?  What are they?
> ...


I am telling you what science tells us.  Science tells us that the universe popped into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence.  Crazy huh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> the electron would lose energy and couldn't maintain its orbit and would be drawn into the nucleus, splitting it, and no matter could exist.



Ummm......an electron can't split a nucleus. When an electron is absorbed by a proton in the nucleus (electron capture), the proton becomes a neutron.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> I am telling you what science tells us.  Science tells us that the universe popped into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence.  Crazy huh?



Over millions of years. Certainly sounds more believable than your option.
Tell me, where did your superbeing come from. And no, "always been there" is not an answer. If that is your answer, then you are being hypocritical with regard to what I believe - ie, you can't believe a whole universe popped out of nowhere, but somehow it is easy to believe that some being did - even though, no doubt, you'll say (via something totally unprovable), that this being has always been there. Phooey. Clap trap and belongs in the same annuls where superstitious folk used to scare their kids about the bogeyman.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I am telling you what science tells us.  Science tells us that the universe popped into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence.  Crazy huh?
> ...


Try billions of years.  

You are the one who needs to ask what came before that.  I don't.  Because I believe that mind has always existed as the source or matrix of the material world.  The only possible solution is something which is eternal and unchanging.  To be more correct, no thing, as things are not eternal and things are not unchanging.  So the only "thing" that could have existed before space and time is consciousness without form.  

So I have an answer.  You are the one who does not have an answer or a even a clue.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



That's not an answer. That's a pie in the sky story. Nothing more.
Science takes time to prove things, and prove things it does. All the time. Religion has proven nothing. What you believe, is not fact. It is faith and belief. Nothing more. I can prove gravity. I can prove oxygen exists. I can prove many such things. You have nothing.

Who says consciousness without form is the only thing that could have existed before space and time? You? ha!


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Untrue.  At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that 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.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Can't wait to hear your articulate response.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Yes ... temperature is the measure of motion ... of course if motion is zero, temperature will be zero


Temperature is the measure of heat. There is no temperature where the motion is zero.

I never said 


ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You are projecting.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Yes ... temperature is the measure of motion ... of course if motion is zero, temperature will be zero
> ...


Again... I actually understand what the CMB is, Ed.  I understand how it came to pass.  I understand that an infinite acting cyclical universe has no explanation for it.  And I understand your argument against thermal equilibrium is stupid.  So, no.  I am not projecting.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible


NOT impossible, but DIFFERENT!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


You still understand NOTHING, you only pretend to.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible
> ...


Wrong.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Well... I'm getting ready to school you on something else.  You are the gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > the electron would lose energy and couldn't maintain its orbit and would be drawn into the nucleus, splitting it, and no matter could exist.
> ...


That is something different. If the entropy of an atom was not zero, ALL the electrons would be captured by the nucleus, not just one in the K shell..


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Prove it wrong, mr know-it-all!
What rule says life has to be the same as we know it?????


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> Well... I'm getting ready to school you on something else. You are the gift that keeps on giving.


And you are the fool who thinks he knows everything when you know nothing.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


If the universe were created with exactly the same amount of matter and anti-matter particles, there would have been no matter left over and the universe would have only been filled with radiation.   As it turns out the universe was created with 1 billion and 1 matter particles for every 1 billion anti-matter particles.  Good thing for us because otherwise there would have been no planets, no stars, no galaxies and no life.

How is it that the proton is exactly as plus-charged as the electron is minus-charged? If the charges of protons and electrons were not exactly the same the electric charge would be enough to overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together; and we would have no planets, no stars, no galaxies and no life.

If the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron, all matter would be fluid and there would be no planets, no stars, no galaxies and no life.

All workable universes.  All devoid of life and intelligence.  And there are more.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. *These laws are no thing.*


Not quite1


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Well... I'm getting ready to school you on something else. You are the gift that keeps on giving.
> ...


I never claimed to know everything.  Just more than you on this subject.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. *These laws are no thing.*
> ...


And what does he say?

Because I am almost certain he does not believe as you do that the universe has existed forever.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> If the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron, all matter would be fluid and there would be no planets, no stars, no galaxies and no life.


How do you know that life is not possible in a fluid state?

*1.1 Fluid Mechanics*
Fluid mechanics is the branch of science concerned with moving and stationary fluids. Given that the vast majority of the observable mass in the universe exists in a fluid state, that life as we know it is not possible without fluids, and that the atmosphere and oceans covering this planet are fluids, fluid mechanics has unquestioned scientific and practical importance.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


If you had listened he contradicted your know-it-all claim that the laws of physics and nature are no thing.
Here is another well known scientist saying the same thing in a more jocular manner.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > If the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron, all matter would be fluid and there would be no planets, no stars, no galaxies and no life.
> ...


Because in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


And they all agree with me that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago being created from nothing and being hardwired to create intelligence.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


now you are just making shit up as you PONTIFICATE!
There ARE fluid molecules and therefore it is possible those molecules could form a kind of fluid life in another universe with different natural laws. Nothing is "impossible" in the multiverse, except maybe you admitting the truth.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 26, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


They admitted no such thing, they both are arguing that there is no such thing as nothing.
Can't you be honest about anything????


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> Temperature is the measure of heat. There is no temperature where the motion is zero.



Is this some 12th Century book you getting this from? ... I don't think I've used the word "heat" since Middle School ... 

The macroscopic definition of temperature is total kinetic energy ... electrons orbiting, vibration states, motion through space ... everything has a temperature, even if it's 0 K ...

You forgot to tell us about the friction within an atom ... I'm extremely curious ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> There ARE fluid molecules and therefore it is possible those molecules could form a kind of fluid life in another universe with different natural laws. Nothing is "impossible" in the multiverse, except maybe you admitting the truth.



Nothing is the unique additive identity ... a very important "something" ...

You seem desparately confused about what a "fluid state" is ... this comes from Continuum Theory and it's just a way to deal with very large numbers of molecules without having to analyze each one ... there's no such thing as a "fluid" molecule, only that molecules can be treated as a fluid ... and in every circumstance, they can be treated as particles with satisfactory results ... both ways work ...

In the multiverse, there exists a level 5 fighter/level 3 magic-user who has a pseudo-dragon as a companion animal ... kicks ass on hobgoblins for sure ... the scars are because we have an asshole cleric ... and an asshole DM who won't let me kill the bastard ... "just because you're chaotic doesn't mean you can't be good" ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> An example of perpetual motion in nature is the electron. If the entropy of the atom was not zero and friction existed in the atom, the electron would lose energy and couldn't maintain its orbit and would be drawn into the nucleus, splitting it, and no matter could exist.


Bingo.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> Temperature is the measure of heat. There is no temperature where the motion is zero.


Where all motion stops is as likely a source for Big Bangs as any. But nowhere does that ever occurring within any universe make a lick of sense.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> You forgot to tell us about the friction within an atom ... I'm extremely curious ...


What friction?
You need to learn the meaning of IF!
Here i what I actually posted, "*If *the entropy of the atom was not zero and friction existed in the atom,"


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Temperature is the measure of heat. There is no temperature where the motion is zero.
> ...


If all motion in the universe stopped, it would be a very unstable state, like tossing a ball straight up in the air. For one moment it is neither rising or falling, but it cannot maintain that state and in the same moment it starts to fall.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


If "all motion in the universe" could actually stop and did, as you noted previously: there would be no temperature. No heat. Nothing. It can't happen.. Unless.. There's no matter to begin with. There can be no "Space" since space itself is presumed to contain "dark matter." But there can be "dark energy." Just call it "The Medium" or "The Aether" as just about everyone including Einstein did prior to him declaring it superfluous in a moment of idiocy that he soon retracted. Too late.. The damage was done. Nein! Nicht! No more Aether for you! Or you!  Or you!!


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Take it up with Nobel Laureate George Wald.



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe
		



"...I should like now to raise two problems to do with protons and electrons, one involving their masses, the other their electric charge.

Every atom has a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons, except the smallest one, hydrogen, which has only one proton as its nucleus. Electrons orbit these nuclei at distances relatively greater than separate our sun from its planets. Both protons and neutrons have masses almost two thousand times the mass of an electron -- 1840 times when I last looked -- so virtually the whole mass of an atom is in its nucleus. Hence the atom is hardly disturbed at all by the motions of its electrons, and an atom can hold its position in a molecule, and molecules their positions in larger structures. Only that circumstance permits molecules to hold their shapes, and solids to exist.

If on the contrary the protons and neutrons were closer in mass to the electrons, whether light or heavy, then the motions of the electrons would be reflected in reciprocal motions by the others. All structures composed of such atoms would be fluid; in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms.

And now, electric charge: How does it come about that elementary particles so altogether different otherwise as the proton and electron possess the same numerical charge? How is it that the proton is exactly as plus-charged as the electron is minus-charged?

It may help to accept this as a legitimate scientific question to know that in 1959 two of our most distinguished astrophysicists, Lyttleton and Bondi, proposed that in fact the proton and electron differ in charge by the almost infinitesimal amount, 2 x 10 -18_e_ -- two billion billionths _e_, in which _e_ is the already tiny charge on either the proton or electron. The reason they made that proposal is that, given that nearly infinitesimal difference in charge, all the matter in the universe would be charged, and in the same sense, plus or minus. Since like charges repel one another, all the matter in the universe would repel all the other matter, and so the universe would expand, just as it is believed to do. The trouble with that idea is that yes, the universe would expand, but -- short of extraordinary special dispensations - it would not do anything else. Even so small a difference in electric charge would be enough to overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together; and so we should have no planets, no stars, no galaxies -- and, worst of all, no physicists.

No need to worry, however. Shortly after Lyttleton and Bondi’s proposal, John King and his group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began to test experimentally whether the proton and electron differ in charge, and found that the charges appear to be wholly identical. That is an extraordinary fact, and not made easier to understand by the present belief that, though the electron is a single, apparently indivisible particle, the proton is made up of three quarks, to of them with charges of +2/3 _e_, and one with a charge of -1/3 _e_.

To summarize, if the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron, all matter would be fluid; and if the proton and electron did not possess exactly the same electric charge, no matter would aggregate. These are primary conditions for the existence of life in the universe..."


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Maybe you should watch the videos, ed.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 27, 2020)

Ooop, folks.. Looks like it's.. Copypasta time again!.. Quick, more sauce!.. More cheese!..


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

I want whine with my dine ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 27, 2020)

Ha, I can still read and respond to ding's donkey crap upon occasion w/o unignoring him.


> No need to worry, however. Shortly after Lyttleton and Bondi’s proposal, John King and his group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began to test experimentally whether the proton and electron differ in charge, and found that the charges appear to be wholly identical. That is an extraordinary fact, and not made easier to understand by the present belief that, though the electron is a single, apparently indivisible particle, the proton is made up of three quarks, to of them with charges of +2/3 _e_, and one with a charge of -1/3 _e_.


"to of them"? Gee, what could possibly make it more obvious that "electrons" are not really "particles" in any sense, just complementary fields rather (_Schrödinger fields_), induced by the very existence of protons. There really are no "electrons" nor "positive and negative." Only zones of charge, zones that lack charge, and zones that split the difference (including 1/3 multiples of _e_ obviously).


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He is entitled to his OPINION, and that is all it is, OPINION.
Life can exist in forms we can't even imagine and probably not even recognize if conditions were different.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Obviously you didn't!


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


In 2012 Krauss wrote a book titled, A Universe from Nothing.


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



So you admit you and your boy Vilenkin lost.  Do you believe in multiverses, too?  Where did _that_ infinite energy come from ?

And I thought you said it was a singularity, i.e. one time occurrence?  What kind of liar is Vilenkin anyway?

The LIE of the atheist scientists' big bang singularity (only one big bang) is infinite temperature.  They didn't want to say to say infinite heat, which is the energy that causes rise in temperature, because that would mean they would have to explain how the heat was created.  And it would have to be infinite heat which we know cannot exist unless it was supernatural.  Later, they explain this as dark energy.  Dark energy may as well be God.  That's evidence for God to the weak minded.

It's just like you who makes up stuff about God in your head.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


" In the beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago, all the space and all the matter and all the energy of the known universe was contained in a volume less than one trillionth the size of the point of a pin. Conditions were so hot, the basic forces of nature that collectively describe the universe were unified. For reasons unknown, this sub-pinpoint-sized cosmos began to expand...."

"...Yes, the universe had a beginning. Yes, the universe continues to evolve. And yes, every one of our body's atoms is traceable to the Big Bang and to thermonuclear furnace within high-mass stars.

We are not simply in the universe, we are part of it. We are born from it. One might even say we've been empowered by the universe to figure itself out. And we've only just begun. I'm Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and the Frederick P. Rose Director of New York City's Hayden Planetarium. Keep looking up."


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You skip so many steps it's impossible to actually have an honest discussion with you.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> So you admit you and your boy Vilenkin lost.  Do you believe in multiverses, too?  Where did _that_ infinite energy come from ?
> 
> And I thought you said it was a singularity, i.e. one time occurrence?  What kind of liar is Vilenkin anyway?
> 
> ...



Why did you change your rhetoric from "near infinite" energy to now you are saying "infinite" energy? ...

Ah ... you admit your logic completely fails with the former ... and you're hoping no one remembers what you said ... sorry ... we do remember ... 

Infinite energy in the beginning would remain infinite today ... the entire universe would be a solid energy ... no matter a'tall ... God gifted you with a brain, try using it sometime ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 27, 2020)

No question as to whether or not all the universe we know of started with a bang. What occurred prior to the bang and shortly thereafter remains unknown (open to speculation). Multiverses cannot be ruled out, but we have no evidence to support any's existence either. We know a lot of heat was involved in the first 300,000 years before things cooled enough for matter to begin coagulating (producing the CMB).


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Where he admits nothing is something that actually has weight!!!!
You should read the book!


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> " In the beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago, all the space and *all the matter and all the energy of the known universe was contained in a volume less than one trillionth the size of the point of a pin*. Conditions were so hot, the basic forces of nature that collectively describe the universe were unified. For reasons unknown, this sub-pinpoint-sized cosmos began to expand...."


Sure sounds like something a bit more than nothing!!!!


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ... coagulating ...



Ewww ... you make the universe sound like a rendering vat ...


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > " In the beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago, all the space and *all the matter and all the energy of the known universe was contained in a volume less than one trillionth the size of the point of a pin*. Conditions were so hot, the basic forces of nature that collectively describe the universe were unified. For reasons unknown, this sub-pinpoint-sized cosmos began to expand...."
> ...


Which was created from nothing. You don’t believe the matter was lying around somewhere else do you?


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> There is positive energy of the matter/energy and there is the negative energy of the gravity which is a consequence that space and time are warped and they perfectly balance such that they sum to zero. And since they sum to zero, the creation of space and time from nothing does not violate the law of conservation.



How do you know that spacetime is warped?  It's a good model to explan gravity, but it could be an attractive force between two masses.  I've read of experiments to show gravity could be different due to the surface at various points on Earth.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


How do you know I didn’t?


----------



## Likkmee (Oct 27, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?
> ...


I was created by a Big Bang. OK Small bang. 10 minutes in the back of a 49 Plymouth.....


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Temperature is the measure of heat. There is no temperature where the motion is zero.
> ...



No, you're wrong.  Temperature is the just the measurement of heat energy.  It doesn't comprise of energy, but measures the changes of the energy.  We know water flows from a higher location to a lower location and that is what ed is referring to with fluid mechanics.

You're just conceptual, Frannie.



ReinyDays said:


> I want whine with my dine ...



I'll have the Costco cab with this fight going on.  ding sounds conceptual, too, i.e. it's all in his head.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > There is positive energy of the matter/energy and there is the negative energy of the gravity which is a consequence that space and time are warped and they perfectly balance such that they sum to zero. And since they sum to zero, the creation of space and time from nothing does not violate the law of conservation.
> ...


I'd suggest we look in the bible for a comprehensive description of gravity. Who needs experiments when ''the gods did it'' answers all questions.


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Then why are you asking me questions about God?  I mean you believe the atheist science, but don't believe what God said.

What you know about your Catholic God is conceptual just like what you know about atheist science.  Just the concepts.  You didn't answer my religious question to you whether the Holy Spirit has a intuitive affect on you?

I don't know what you mean when you don't explain and just copy paste.  I asked you if you believed im multiverses?  You can't answer that.

There is no singularity with the arguments I'm hearing between you and edthecynic .  It could mean you are just arguing about who knows more about quantum mechanics and its differences with the laws of physics such as quantum entanglement vs action at a distance or something from nothing vs an universe from nothing.

The nothing that people want to describe as the universe just can't happen from "nothing," i.e. no spacetime.  One has to have the fourth dimension of spacetime and the the three dimensions as nothing is created.  Today, we there are things in the nothing, but that's another topic.  Before that we had to have the fourth dimension of spacetime to represent the beginning.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> No, you're wrong.  Temperature is the just the measurement of heat energy.  It doesn't comprise of energy, but measures the changes of the energy.  We know water flows from a higher location to a lower location and that is what ed is referring to with fluid mechanics.



I just scanned through the chapter on Temperature in my dog-eared copy of Halliday/Resnik ... clearly says, and explains in detail, that temperature is the (macroscopic) measure of kinetic energy ... I think you're confusing "temperature" with "thermometer" ... and that's why your thermodynamics comes across as bozo ... try to use real physics ...

Add 8 joules of energy to a gram of water and we can measure the 2ºC temperature increase ... with a thermometer ... see the difference? ...


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > There is positive energy of the matter/energy and there is the negative energy of the gravity which is a consequence that space and time are warped and they perfectly balance such that they sum to zero. And since they sum to zero, the creation of space and time from nothing does not violate the law of conservation.
> ...


If gravity were a force that acted over distance then there would be a lag component because of the distance.  So the only way for the effect of gravity to be instantaneous is if it is built in the fabric of space.  Ergo space is warped.  That's how I know.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


The only question that I am aware of asking you that had to do with God had to do with your belief that God left.

Your views are so strange that I wonder if your intention isn't to be subversive.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> Ha, I can still read and respond to ding's donkey crap upon occasion w/o unignoring him.
> 
> 
> > No need to worry, however. Shortly after Lyttleton and Bondi’s proposal, John King and his group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began to test experimentally whether the proton and electron differ in charge, and found that the charges appear to be wholly identical. That is an extraordinary fact, and not made easier to understand by the present belief that, though the electron is a single, apparently indivisible particle, the proton is made up of three quarks, to of them with charges of +2/3 _e_, and one with a charge of -1/3 _e_.
> ...


You aren't arguing with me.  You are arguing with George Wald, Nobel Laureate.  Good job.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I'm honored to be compared to ReinyDays.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

And for the last time a singularity is not a noteworthy physical event.  A singularity is where the field equations calculate infinite values.  It's where the math or equations breaks down so to speak.  It's the point at which the equations no longer produce usable numbers.  It is not some physical event.  It's mathematical.


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



There are no thought experiments to show the creation of spacetime (along which our three dimensions would come with).  We can't have quantum mechanics without spacetime.  Once that is created, then we have the three dimensions and a beginning.  What people are arguing about is what came about after this singularity.  There was nothing and then something or beginning.  That's the true singulairty.  We call this x, y, and z axis of space our universe and it had nothing so it was dark.  The atheists have to have this nothing as the beginning for their singularity.  Thus, some assume that time and space were always there.  Otherwise, it's difficult to explain the beginning of spacetime just happened in my opinion.

So the singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density couldn't possibly exist without spacetime.  That nothing state of no spacetime is difficult if not impossible to overcome.

The other thing ding wants is GR and the warping of space.  I agree that that's what large masses do, but is that the only explanation?  I think both smaller and larger masses still attract each other as our bodies feel that with the Earth.  We see that with the apple falling from the tree to the ground.  Is ding going to tell me that with GR if I throw the apple that it will curve around the tree that it fell from before falling to the ground?

So with quantum mechanics, that brings up the quantum entanglement or action at a distance topic.  We still don't have good explanation for it, but maybe the best one lies with Bell's Theorem.  His theorem basically states that it is just a matter of probability that the spin of one photon determines the spin of its entangled pair.  He states the times when they aren't the same or not equal will show itself.  When we do the experiments to show this, we find that his inequalities do not hold.  Einstein thought this was the spooky action at a distance and thought there was some kind of faster than light communications.  Instead, Bell thought one of his assumptions were failing in that of locality or physical reality was failing.  With QE, it was locality.









						Everything You Need to Know About Bell's Theorem
					

Bell's Theorem helped solidify the idea that the interactions in quantum physics between entangled particles are instantaneous and non-local in nature.




					www.thoughtco.com
				



.

It's a simple theorem, but not easy to explain in action with quantum entanglement.  It lead to Einstein and his people thinking of faster than light communications.  One can see it in action without the entanglement or measuring being done in the following youtube.  Sorry, it's kinda long.  Basically it shows the failure of Bell's locality without the QE experiments:


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> What you know about your Catholic God...


This sounds remarkably like something Hollie would write.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Created from energy that always exists, and energy is NOT nothing.
Your own quote contradicts you, but you are too STUPID to realize it!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Because it uses words you could never understand.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> Einstein and his people thinking of faster than light communications.


Yes, fields can interact instantaneously. Duh! Like Einstein, QM got lost in its own ego and has yet to recover.


----------



## Flash (Oct 27, 2020)

One of these days the Big Bang theory will be thought of as being as silly theory as the universe being on the back of a big turtle.

It simply doesn't jive.  It is in conflict with just about everything we know about physics.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Where did that energy come from and why wasn't it already contained in its own space and time?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> *If* *gravity were a force that acted over distance* then there would be a lag component because of the distance. So the only way for the effect of gravity to be instantaneous is if it is built in the fabric of space. Ergo space is warped. That's how I know.


You don't know squat!
Gravity IS a force that acts over distance, gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the separation distance between the two interacting objects
Space is warped by mass and the greater the mass the greater the gravity.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You mean like... 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 (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> You aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with George Wald, Nobel Laureate. Good job.


*Appeal to Authority fallacy*
argumentum ad verecundiam
(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)
*Description:* Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the _appeal to false authority_ .


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > *If* *gravity were a force that acted over distance* then there would be a lag component because of the distance. So the only way for the effect of gravity to be instantaneous is if it is built in the fabric of space. Ergo space is warped. That's how I know.
> ...


No.  That's just a calculation.  The warping of space is gravity so to speak.  That's how the effects of gravity can be felt instantaneously over any distance.  

So is it your contention that gravity is a force whose effects are felt instantaneously regardless of the distance between the two objects?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> Space is warped by mass


There we disagree.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with George Wald, Nobel Laureate. Good job.
> ...


Yes, you are an internet troll arguing with George Wald, a Nobel Laureate.  In this analogy you are the false authority.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Space is warped by mass and the greater the mass the greater the gravity.
> ...


If you ever agreed with Ed on anything then you are an even bigger idiot than I already thought you were.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries.  The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable. 

You write of ''we'' doing experiments. Who is this ''we'? We know that the creation ministries do no research so it seems you are relying in the works of evilutionist, atheist scientists who do actual research and publish in peer reviewed journals.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The energy of a closed system is NEVER zero, and space/time has a beginning, NOT energy.
Thank you for proving you could never understand a physics book.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Now you are arguing with Alexander Vilenkin, the Leonard Jane Holmes Bernstein Professor of Evolutionary Science and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, and has written over 260 publications.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You are like Tramp, when caught in a fallacy you double down by accusing others of the same fallacy!!!


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I'm not the one arguing with Nobel Laureates.  That would be you.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

I think Ed is getting ready to cry.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Keep them logical fallacies coming!
*Appeal to Authority*
argumentum ad verecundiam
(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)
*Description:* Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the _appeal to false authority_ .


----------



## miketx (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?
> 
> I learned in high school that energy can’t be created.  It can only be converted from one form to another.


Yes I can.






PS: If energy can't be created why do we have planes trains and automobiles?


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Again...   you are an internet troll arguing with Alexander Vilenkin, a world renowned Physicist. In this analogy you are the false authority.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Arguing with a Nobel Laureate is NOT the same as appealing to a Nobel Laureate, IDOIT!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> I think Ed is getting ready to cry.


You are projecting!


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


It's actually worse.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I think Ed is getting ready to cry.
> ...


Your behaviors say otherwise, Ed.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I have reduced you to a broken record!


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Winning hands keep getting played, Ed.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Only to a fool, but it certainly isn't a FALLACY, IDIOT!!!!!


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I'm going to have to trust you on that since you are an expert on being a fool, Ed.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Except you are too STUPID to know you are losing.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 27, 2020)

ding is why the ignore function was created. It lives to pester rather than discuss.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

I have wound up Ed tighter than Hillary Clinton's twat the night she lost to the Donald.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding is why the ignore function was created. It lives to pester rather than discuss.


Funny how you are seeing this exchange between me and Ed this way, G-nut.  It's very revealing.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Do you feel better now, Ed?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 27, 2020)

Hollie said:


> You write of ''we'' doing experiments. Who is this ''we'? We know that the creation ministries do no research so it seems you are relying in the works of evilutionist, atheist scientists who do actual research and publish in peer reviewed journals.


Eerily similar to how one always finds that denialists never actually do any of their own research. They just deliberately screw around with other people's data and evaluations therefrom.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> So the singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density couldn't possibly exist without spacetime. That nothing state of no spacetime is difficult if not impossible to overcome.


Actually it's a mathematical limitation of the field equations.  

That there was a nothing state or a false vacuum that existed before the creation of the universe can be solved through inspection.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You write of ''we'' doing experiments. Who is this ''we'? We know that the creation ministries do no research so it seems you are relying in the works of evilutionist, atheist scientists who do actual research and publish in peer reviewed journals.
> ...


I bet you get news feeds from FB.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> And for the last time a singularity is not a noteworthy physical event.  A singularity is where the field equations calculate infinite values.  It's where the math or equations breaks down so to speak.  It's the point at which the equations no longer produce usable numbers.  It is not some physical event.  It's mathematical.





james bond said:


> We call this x, y, and z axis of space our universe and it had nothing so it was dark.  The atheists have to have this nothing as the beginning for their singularity.  Thus, some assume that time and space were always there.  Otherwise, it's difficult to explain the beginning of spacetime just happened in my opinion.



[Emphases mine]

I believe singularities exist as infinitesimal ... (dx, dy, dz, dt) ... try not to get bogged down in discrete values ... 

HELL YEAH it's difficult to explain the beginning of spacetime ... an area of active research ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> I just scanned through the chapter on Temperature in my dog-eared copy of Halliday/Resnik ... clearly says, and explains in detail, that temperature is the (macroscopic) measure of kinetic energy ... I think you're confusing "temperature" with "thermometer" ... and that's why your thermodynamics comes across as bozo ... try to use real physics ...
> 
> Add 8 joules of energy to a gram of water and we can measure the 2ºC temperature increase ... with a thermometer ... see the difference? ...



No, you are wrong in comprehending your sources.  Heat is the joules of energy.  Temperature is what heat changes.  You don't know the difference?

No wonder you take the whine of ding while I'll have the wine.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I just scanned through the chapter on Temperature in my dog-eared copy of Halliday/Resnik ... clearly says, and explains in detail, that temperature is the (macroscopic) measure of kinetic energy ... I think you're confusing "temperature" with "thermometer" ... and that's why your thermodynamics comes across as bozo ... try to use real physics ...
> ...


I don't understand your statement temperature is what heat changes.  Do you have a link for that?  

Temperature is a macroscopic parameter that is a measure of the average KE of the molecules in a system. Heat flows from the hot system (lowering its internal energy and temperature) to a cold system (raising its internal energy and temperature).



			http://www2.physics.uiowa.edu/~rmerlino/11Sum13/29011_Notes_7.22.pdf


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I just scanned through the chapter on Temperature in my dog-eared copy of Halliday/Resnik ... clearly says, and explains in detail, that temperature is the (macroscopic) measure of kinetic energy ...
> ...



1 joule = 1 kilogram meter^2/sec^2 ... do you know the difference between "numbers" and "units" ... yeesh ... if you can't handle freshman physics, you ought not to be blabbing about graduate level stuff ... 

How the hell can you not know what a joule is? ... let's try an easier one, do you know what a newton is and how it's defined? ...

*Heat is the joules of energy.*  ---  What's your source for this? ...

Before you forget, I still want to know why you changed your rhetoric from "near infinite" to "infinite" ... those aren't the same ...


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


Not to sidetrack but the consequences of infinite time are mind boggling to me.  Even tiny losses of matter would have huge implications in infinite time.  



> The first generation of stars began as hydrogen, and lived by fusing it to helium. 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


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> Not to sidetrack but the consequences of infinite time are mind boggling to me.  Even tiny losses of matter would have huge implications in infinite time.



Not at all ... conservation laws would apply over all time ... whether finite or infinite ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You should've been able to answer my question.  It means you don't know.

Newton thought gravity was an attractive force between two masses, but it doesn't explain spacetime correctly (Newton formally separated space and time) while Einstein's GR could explain spacetime and embraced it.  From there, Einstein was correct in the curvatures of spacetime.  

We've discovered gravity isn't a force like Newton thought.  The GR theory guy and his partners thought it would have to be faster than light communications for QE, but it wasn't that at all.  We still don't understand the mechanism, but it could have to do with finding what causes gravity, i.e. electromagnetism (?) -- Electric Gravity? Electromagnetic gravity? How is Gravity instant?.  Some scientists have been looking a electromagnetism as its source for many years.

Newton was trying to explain action at a distance, too.  For example, the example you give of gravity as waves in space could explain quantum entanglement.   Gravity could be like light as both a particle and wave.   The results do not have to be instantaneous, but good enough for the sensors to detect them as opposite.  Thus the action at a distance is fast enough before the sensors picked up what happened.  

I don't think any of us understand gravity completely, but some continue working on it.  They're looking at the gravity in a black hole.  Now, they're even criticizing Einstein.  My guess is the entangled particles are on the same wavelength of gravity in space throughout the universe.



ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > What you know about your Catholic God...
> ...



Many Christian groups look upon Catholicism as being on its own, i.e. polite way to say heresy.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?
> 
> I learned in high school that energy can’t be created.  It can only be converted from one form to another.



Well, it's more credible than some spirit in the sky created the Universe in seven days.


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I'm using what Father Georges Lemaitre meant by singularity.  It's in Webster's.  Today, it's been hijacked by the atheists to explain multiple types of singularities or their predictions for infinite density point, e.g. spacetime singularity or gravitational singularity.  I suppose there will be black hole singularity, too.  I suppose that's how these guys come up with their multiverses, but where is the infinite heat energy?


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > So the singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density couldn't possibly exist without spacetime. That nothing state of no spacetime is difficult if not impossible to overcome.
> ...



 Haha. Who was there to inspect it for you?


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?
> ...



Big bang can fit easily with God creating "In the beginning" than any of the other silly answers.  Where is the energy for creating spacetime and the three dimensions of space or the x, y, and z-axes.  We also have the three states of time as past, present, and future.  The Christian God was a big proponent of threes as in the Trinity.  More evidence for our side.


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> *Heat is the joules of energy.* --- What's your source for this? ..



You're no physicist nor engineer, Frannie.  Do you know what the difference is between a scientist (physicist) and an engineer?  A physicist wants to get his discovery published in Science and Nature while the engineer wants to use his discovery to make big bucks .   (I'm not laughing at my own joke.  An engineer told me that.).

James Joule, the guy whose name you mentioned.  He was the one who came up with "the various forms of energy—mechanical, electrical, and heat—are basically the same and can be changed one into another. Thus, he formed the basis of the law of conservation of energy, the first law of thermodynamics."

...

"Joule studied with the noted English chemist John Dalton at the University of Manchester in 1835. Describing “Joule’s law” in a paper, _On the Production of Heat by Voltaic Electricity_ (1840), he stated that the heat produced in a wire by an electric current is proportional to the product of the resistance of the wire and the square of the current. In 1843 he published his value for the amount of work required to produce a unit of heat, called the mechanical equivalent of heat. He used four increasingly accurate methods of determining this value. By using different materials, he also established that heat was a form of energy regardless of the substance that was heated."









						James Prescott Joule | Biography & Facts
					

James Prescott Joule,  (born December 24, 1818, Salford, Lancashire [now in Greater Manchester], England—died October 11, 1889, Sale, Cheshire), English physicist who established that the various forms of energy—mechanical, electrical, and heat—are basically the same and can be changed one into...



					www.britannica.com
				




Temperature is the measurement of heat as it flows.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> Where is the energy for creating spacetime and the three dimensions of space or the x, y, and z-axes.


Coordinates! They are not "dimensions."


> In geometry, a *coordinate system* is a system that uses one or more numbers, or coordinates, to uniquely determine the position of the points or other geometric elements on a manifold such as Euclidean space.[1][2]


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


It's less important what a Catholic Priest may have believed vs. what cosmologists, physicists and mathematicians have discovered in the years since. 

Your still stuck on bad metaphors and a description of a 'singularity'' that was never intended to describe what the ID'iot creation ministries now cling to. Don't be an accomplice to ID'iot creation ministry nonsense. 

Your silly notion of evilutionist, atheist scientists ''hijacking'' something is quaint but hardly meaningful.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > *Heat is the joules of energy.* --- What's your source for this? ..
> ...



You have no source for your definition ... instead you give me some stupid joke ... 

I never mention James Joule ... can't you read ... I used the word joule:




__





						Joule - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



"The joule is named after James Prescott Joule. As with every SI unit named for a person, its symbol starts with an upper case letter (J), but when written in full it follows the rules for capitalization of a common noun; i.e., "_joule_" becomes capitalized at the beginning of a sentence and in titles, but is otherwise in lower case"

*Before you forget, I still want to know why you changed your rhetoric from "near infinite" to "infinite" ... those aren't the same ...*


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Not to sidetrack but the consequences of infinite time are mind boggling to me.  Even tiny losses of matter would have huge implications in infinite time.
> ...


Given that matter is being converted into radiation, over an infinite amount of time wouldn't the conversion of matter to radiation have significant consequences such as all or almost all matter being converted to radiation?  

I am speaking to the hypothetical case of a cyclical big crunch big bounce never ending and never beginning universe that exists for infinity.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Generally speaking, only the first 25 element give off energy when their nuclei are formed ... heavier elements take energy to form ... starting with iron ... and pair production continues, condensing energy into matter ... 

If we have an oscillating universe ... we're still in the expanding portion, and temperature is falling ... when we start contracting, temperatures will rise again ... the CMB radiation may well have been emitted in the picometer range ... and due to the expanding universe, it's now in the microwave band ... by the time we "turn the corner", it may well be in the long-ass radio bands ... the main problem I have with the oscillating universe is that it gives hope for the future and makes mowing my lawn a meaningful task ... dammit ... too late in the season to nuke it with Round-up ...

=====

String theory attempts to answer some of these questions ... this is still in the philosophical stages of development, as we have no way to test any of this ... but this gives universes a reason to form, some manner of intersection of some of the existing 26 dimensions forming a membrane ... our universe just happens to be using 4 dimensions is all ... it is this membrane that starts out as a singularity, and then immediately a Big Bang ... as we expand, these 4 dimensions begin to lose their ability to stay connected and will eventually disassociate causing our universe to wink out of existence ... the Big Rip ... easy come, easy go ... 

I could have some or all of this wrong ... it's happened to me before ... but these are the ideas as I understand them ... and is does make lawn mowing completely meaningless and a waste of time ... I think we can all appreciate the value of these beliefs when she tells us for the 826th time to fix the dripping kitchen faucet ... why bother when the entire 8 x 10^33 cubic light years we know as the universe will wink out of existence at any moment ...

"Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after" ...


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



A black hole has unfathomable energy.    It also has huge mass.   The gravitational pull is so powerful if prevents light from leaving.

Energy is not created.  But energy and pass can change forms.    

The best understanding of our universe and the big bang is that it is likely and ongoing process.    The explosion of the big bang flung matter and energy outward.   As the energy is expended (matter moving outward against other gravity), the matter slows.   All matter has gravitational force, depending on its mass.  So pieces of matter attract each other.  Which increases their gravitational attract to other matter.   It all begins to fall back towards the center.   When the mass comes together and reaches a certain level, the explosion occurs again.   Things are flung outward, they slow and attract each other, and then they gravitate back together.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



No, but energy and matter can change form.    Wood is matter.   But you can burn it to release energy.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


So... I'm still confused.  As long as there is hydrogen being fused into helium and loss of mass is converted into radiation according to Einstein’s equation, E=mc2.  As time approaches infinity - assuming that the big crunch takes us back to a tiny dense state of subatomic particle soup - we would eventually end up with a universe filled with only radiation.  

The key assumption here is that every rebound starts from the exact same subatomic particle soup that forms hydrogen and helium as it cools.  What am I missing?  Infinity is a bitch.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Why do you believe the best understanding of our universe and the big bang is that it is likely and ongoing process.  Assuming you are talking about a cyclical universe, my understanding of the best understanding is that a universe that has existed forever has been abandoned by the scientific community.  But damn it sure is believed to be the standard model by people posting at USMB.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Logic.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


No.  It means I don't read most of your posts.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

No offense but anyone who believes the universe has existed forever is an idiot.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> So... I'm still confused.  As long as there is hydrogen being fused into helium and loss of mass is converted into radiation according to Einstein’s equation, E=mc2.  As time approaches infinity - assuming that the big crunch takes us back to a tiny dense state of subatomic particle soup - we would eventually end up with a universe filled with only radiation.
> 
> The key assumption here is that every rebound starts from the exact same subatomic particle soup that forms hydrogen and helium as it cools.  What am I missing?  Infinity is a bitch.



Maybe your confusion is that we're only conserving mass/energy ... we lose a bit of mass but gain a bit of energy, or we lose a bit of energy and gain a bit of mass ... quantitatively by the ratio E=mc^2 ... we can switch back-and-forth all the day long and still conserve ... the total mass/energy is constant in the universe at all times ...

Subatomic particles are items of matter ... they would be converted back into energy during the Big Crunch ... such that at our volume minima, the universe is all energy, no matter ... temperatures are too high for matter to exist ... (except primordial marinara sauce according to the colanderhead freaktoids) ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > And for the last time a singularity is not a noteworthy physical event.  A singularity is where the field equations calculate infinite values.  It's where the math or equations breaks down so to speak.  It's the point at which the equations no longer produce usable numbers.  It is not some physical event.  It's mathematical.
> ...



Not really.  One singularity is called an infinite set in math like our counting system.  What you are describing are imaginary sets.  Atheist scientists start with imaginary sets and think they get infinite multiverses from the singularities.  It has nothing to do with reality.  Just a thought experiment.  No way to prove it.  No way to verify it.  No evidence at all.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So... I'm still confused.  As long as there is hydrogen being fused into helium and loss of mass is converted into radiation according to Einstein’s equation, E=mc2.  As time approaches infinity - assuming that the big crunch takes us back to a tiny dense state of subatomic particle soup - we would eventually end up with a universe filled with only radiation.
> ...


So are you suggesting the radiation can become matter again?


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> No offense but anyone who believes the universe has existed forever is an idiot.



I'm offended ... I understand that a static universe is an idiot idea ... but that doesn't make ME an idiot ... 

We assume the speed of light is constant ... as far as I know, there's no evidence that it is ... what we observe here as galaxies moving away from us can just as easily be explained if the light emitted by these galaxies was moving faster ... what we see is these galaxies _as they once were_, not as they are today ... the universe may well be stock still, no Big Bang, no Big Crunch, no Dark Energy ... what has been will always be ... makes Hinduism a better fit ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the energy for creating spacetime and the three dimensions of space or the x, y, and z-axes.
> ...



Coordinates just give you your position.  The dimensions give you actual space of the universe.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No offense but anyone who believes the universe has existed forever is an idiot.
> ...


I have my skepticism on the speed of light but a static universe.  Say it ain't so.  

But still... a cyclical universe? No way.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> Not really.  One singularity is called an infinite set in math like our counting system.  What you are describing are imaginary sets.  Atheist scientists start with imaginary sets and think they get infinite multiverses from the singularities.  It has nothing to do with reality.  Just a thought experiment.  No way to prove it.  No way to verify it.  No evidence at all.



An infinitesimal set like our counting system ... you grasp of math is even weaker than that of basic physics ... shouldn't you be mowing the neighborhood widow woman's lawn or something ... you know, God's work ... 

Imaginary sets are strictly scalar, and have no bearing on this discussion ... and a simple epsilon/delta proof is more than robust enough to prove these claims ... verification can be found within the event horizon of super massive black holes ... and theoretically LIGO-at-scale should be able to "see" this feature using gravity waves instead of light waves ... as well as "see" into the early universe before the CMB Epoch ...

Exciting times ahead for us ... or, exciting times for you young puppies ... I'm please to have lived long enough to see that shithole Pluto demoted ... get back to work, pay your taxes and we'll get our long baseline interferometer up into space ... [snaps whip] ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

Hollie said:


> It's less important what a Catholic Priest may have believed vs. what cosmologists, physicists and mathematicians have discovered in the years since.



You are too biased.  Father Georges Lemaitre accomplished more in his lifetime than many atheist scientists.  He was a pioneer of the big bang.  He was nominated twice for the Nobel Prize and should've got one -- http://www.vaticanobservatory.va/co...documenti/Workshop_Presentations/01_Kragh.pdf.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> So are you suggesting the radiation can become matter again?



Radiation is a very specific form of energy ... and certainly not the only one ... and it's best to see radiation as a carrier of energy rather than energy itself ... of course energy can become matter, think pair production ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> I have my skepticism on the speed of light but a static universe.  Say it ain't so.



I will, I will, I will ... I know very little about this so I'm _entitled_ to very strong opinions ...



ding said:


> But still... a cyclical universe? No way.



Well, it solves our singularity problems ... they won't need to exist ... time has always been and will always be ... only GR predicts their existence, QM prohibits them ... 300 posts into a discussion of something known to be impossible ... better than mowing lawns I guess ...


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So are you suggesting the radiation can become matter again?
> ...


Right.  If you tried to create matter from a photon, you just end up right back where you started.  Paired production that would just annihilate itself again and leave a photon.  

I am getting more and more convinced that a cyclical universe would eventually annihilate itself out of existence and just leave a universe of radiation.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I have my skepticism on the speed of light but a static universe.  Say it ain't so.
> ...


Me too.

I don't see singularities as a problem.  What's the problem?  Other than having to mow lawns that is.  I just pay someone to do it so it's not really a big problem.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?
> 
> I learned in high school that energy can’t be created.  It can only be converted from one form to another.


Perhaps from a collapsing sun---------massive energy would have to be sent somewhere--perhaps it goes to create another solar system/universe.   Maybe it is an endless cycle....


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> You are too biased.  Father Georges Lemaitre accomplished more in his lifetime than many atheist scientists.  He was a pioneer of the big bang.  He was nominated twice for the Nobel Prize and should've got one -- http://www.vaticanobservatory.va/co...documenti/Workshop_Presentations/01_Kragh.pdf.



You've been slinging "atheist scientists" around this whole thread ... did you know atheism was socially unacceptable in scientific circles up until about 50 years ago ... Einstein believed in God, Darwin was a member of the Church of England, Newton was President of the Royal Society ... Copernicus was an ordained priest ... all these great minds through history were God-fearing upright folk ... 

"Judge not lest ye be judged, for that which you mete out will be measured unto you again" ... I'm afraid you've not posted anything here that would lead me to believe you have any call to question the piety of anyone else ...


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You are too biased.  Father Georges Lemaitre accomplished more in his lifetime than many atheist scientists.  He was a pioneer of the big bang.  He was nominated twice for the Nobel Prize and should've got one -- http://www.vaticanobservatory.va/co...documenti/Workshop_Presentations/01_Kragh.pdf.
> ...


You forgot the Father of Genetics and the paleontologist who took part in the discovery of Peking man and many more.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> Right.  If you tried to create matter from a photon, you just end up right back where you started.  Paired production that would just annihilate itself again and leave a photon.
> 
> I am getting more and more convinced that a cyclical universe would eventually annihilate itself out of existence and just leave a universe of radiation.



I'm getting a little over my head here ... but photons do have particle characteristics, as such should be considered matter ... they also have wave characteristics, as such should be considered energy ... 

I don't know ... it's a gauge boson, and is called a "force carrier", which I suppose means they don't carry energy but rather electromagnetic force ... much like a Scotsman's fist is the force carrier, the other Scotsman's face is where the energy is transferred ... and photons only massless at rest, once moving they are affected by gravity which should mean they have mass, thus objects of matter ... just like mowing lawns ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Where the heck have you been?  I haven't seen anything from you for too long.

Cosmology is more philosophy, but I suppose today we place more importance on it because we can't explain how exactly the beginning happened and how the expansion fo the universe happened.

Black hole cosmology is something I am not well acquainted with.  It's suppose to be the new explanation of gravity and its field.  What I've read to add to what you said is that it pulls large and small matter of any size into it at the event horizon.  Thus, it grows and gets stronger in mass and gravity.  It is supposed to create a singularity at its core as everything it pulls is stretched and pulled into an infinite density.  I think the explosion comes out of a white hole which we probably can't see either and this is why there is a growing legion of scientists who believe in multiverses, but we don't know anything like that.  All we know about is the first big bang and there isn't an explaination of why and how it violates the laws of physics except the laws of physics wasn't there.  However, one the beginning started, then the laws of physics should have been there because now we have spacetime and the three dimensions.  I can't get my head behind the cosmic expansion as there would've had to been a great amount of matter and energy like you said already in place for some intelligence to direct it to where the infinite density and for lack of a better word infinite energy to go.  I mean you would need mind before matter..


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

ding said:


> You forgot the Father of Genetics and the paleontologist who took part in the discovery of Peking man and many more.



Baylor University, the very bastion of religious higher education, teaches evolution without apology ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2020)

WinterBorn said:


> No, but energy and matter can change form. Wood is matter. But you can burn it to release energy.



I don't doubt that, but where was the light energy it at the original singularity?  Instead of infinite temperature, couldn't they have said near infinite energy from such and such.  I think one could just start the universe expanding like a motorcycle with a gas and air mixture and a spark.  While the expansion would need an great amount of fuel to continue the way it has, it would explain what kind of energy and the amount and where it was coming from.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> ... the infinite density and for lack of a better word infinite energy to go.  I mean you would need mind before matter..



"Near infinite" is the better term ... or "approaches infinity" ... we're not allowed to use the word "infinity" to quantify things ... it's not a number, it's a quality ... 

We can divide by zero, just the results are undefined ... the result exists, we have no way to state what that result is with a number ... infinity isn't a number ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Very funny. Now try making some sense. Space and time are the only dimensions ever applied to "universe." First you need to locate an "origin" or "observer" somewhere for reference. Then the shit generally starts getting complicated..


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> Instead of infinite temperature, couldn't they have said near infinite energy from such and such.



If you've read something that uses the term "infinite energy" ... throw your RED FLAG and read with an extremely critical mind ... it's a sure bet it's fake news ... 

If there was infinite energy then, there'd be infinite energy today ... obviously not the case ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 28, 2020)

Turtlesoup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?  Where is the evidence for this energy being created?
> ...



Prior to an endless cycle, there must've been a beginning.  The first singularity.  How did spacetime and the three dimensions start for it and then suddenly this singularity which seemed to pop out of nowhere  get the energy to do what it did.  I can see how it can continue and create another universe if black holes can form within its system.  We don't know  or I don't know enough about black holes to beleive it can do what it is claimed to do.  Instead of a black hole, we can have one white hole which caused the universe to spread out.


----------



## james bond (Oct 28, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ... the infinite density and for lack of a better word infinite energy to go.  I mean you would need mind before matter..
> ...



If I understand atheist thinking or heretic thinking if you include ding, then there has to be something to match an equivalent infinite God who existed before the big bang.  The big bang isn't what the argument is anymore.  It's what existed before the big bang.  We had the infinite universe, but found that it had a beginning with CMB.  Once we had a beginning, then we had to have a cause.  Thus, the atheists can assume time and space or 4th dimension always existed and then they can have quantum mechanics start up the big bang.

It's harder to understand how spacetime or the 4th dimension started before the big bang.  I think that's why ding wants the multiverse thing.  It makes it easier to say the cause was infinite.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 28, 2020)

james bond said:


> atheist thinking or heretic thinking


Both presuppose an alternative. You are stating that simply relying upon faith requires thought. It clearly doesn't. It's the default. Short a satisfactory alternative, _godidit_ wins, every time. Even without all the crazed, _git 'em while they're young_ indoctrination. The unknown triggers fears. Humans are wired to first seek a miraculous, lower brain stem, unthinking, fight or flight explanation. Like it or not, "secular" (in opposition to religious or supernatural) is the term you need to use in order to make sense in such contexts.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 28, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It's less important what a Catholic Priest may have believed vs. what cosmologists, physicists and mathematicians have discovered in the years since.
> ...


A religious extremist hurling the “you are too biased”, slogan is comical.

The inertia of discovery has supplanted a literal Big Bang explosion with a different description of the expansion of the universe, one that is still being explored by evilutionist, atheist scientists. I’m not aware that any of the fundamentalist creation ministries are involved in any research exploring time and matter stretching back billions of years. But I’m sure you have some updates for us.


----------



## james bond (Oct 28, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of infinite temperature, couldn't they have said near infinite energy from such and such.
> ...



Sure, the atheist scientists like Hawking and Valenkin couldn't say infinite energy, so they replaced it with infinite temperature with no explanation of where the energy came from.  If I were them, then I'd assume the spacetime and the three dimensions always existed and then introduce the quantum mechanics.  With the infinite density, then you're getting the gravitational effects like that of a black hole I suppose.


----------



## james bond (Oct 28, 2020)

Hey ding, I found a Bible passage that describes God's timelessness.  I think it shows he did create spacetime "In the beginning."

Here's what Moses said, “For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” Psalm 90:4

Anyway, without spacetime and the energy required to create it, you are toast.  No quantum mechanics.  No black hole.  Questionable if a singularity can be present.  With no passage of time, its gravity can't create a singularity if that's what it does.  No transfer of energy.


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Right.  If you tried to create matter from a photon, you just end up right back where you started.  Paired production that would just annihilate itself again and leave a photon.
> ...


While lawns are mowed cyclically, there is no such thing as a free lawn mowing.


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hey ding, I found a Bible passage that describes God's timelessness.  I think it shows he did create spacetime "In the beginning."
> 
> Here's what Moses said, “For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” Psalm 90:4
> 
> Anyway, without spacetime and the energy required to create it, you are toast.  No quantum mechanics.  No black hole.  Questionable if a singularity can be present.  With no passage of time, its gravity can't create a singularity if that's what it does.  No transfer of energy.


Not really sure why you have a problem with the universe having a beginning.  I don't believe you have thought through the theological implications of a perpetual universe with no beginning and no end.  Atheists certainly have and that's why they believe the universe existed forever and was never created.

Just because some cosmologists believe that a universe being created from nothing means there is no room for a creator, doesn't mean there was no first cause or no creator.  I believe that it is self evident that it means there was.  The only scenario that has no room for a first cause or a creator is a universe without a beginning or an end.

Like I said... I don't believe you have thought this through.


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> or "approaches infinity"


That's always been my preferred way of looking at things.  Infinity is a bitch.


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot the Father of Genetics and the paleontologist who took part in the discovery of Peking man and many more.
> ...


I'm actually not that well read.  I did not grow up particularly religious.  Ok... I wasn't religious at all.  But the Good Lord kept putting things in front of me - totally unrelated tings -  that spoke to me in unusual ways, that fit together like a puzzle that had no earthly reason to fit together.  One of those pieces was "The Phenomenon of Man" by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2020)

james bond said:


> It's harder to understand how spacetime or the 4th dimension started before the big bang. I think that's why @ding wants the multiverse thing. It makes it easier to say the cause was infinite.


No one knows if there are other universes and no one will ever know if there are other universes.  To say ding wants multiverses is incorrect.  You keep making assumptions about what others believe.  It's a nasty habit of yours and is one of the prime reasons I don't discuss things with you.  It's hard enough to make an argument without others misstating that argument and assuming they know what I believe.  

With that said, if God wants to create other universes, who are you to say He can't?

And lastly, the cause - God - is infinite and unchanging.


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2020)

james bond I am not wanting to be hard on you.  I am perfectly fine with your worldview.  I am perfectly fine with your literal interpretation of Genesis.  I believe that all things are part of God's plan.  So I accept how things are.  I have faith that everything works out for the best possible outcome that can possibly exist for 7 billion journeys of free will and every journey before that and every journey after that. I have faith in God who I perceive as being infinite love, infinite goodness, infinite beauty, infinite truth, infinite logic, infinite wisdom, infinite justice, infinite mercy and infinite being.  Mind you, I am not saying God has those attributes, I am saying God IS those attributes.   I have peace. because I believe God is those things.  Which is how I know everything works out according to His plan. How can it not?

But our two different views (allegorical vs literal interpretation of Genesis) will probably never be able to be reconciled when we discuss science.  It just isn't possible.  So what purpose does the conversation serve.  I can't see one.  I want you to take the journey you are on.  I don't think I am part of that journey.  I don't want to influence your journey.  My journey is studying what God created so I can better understand God and God's ways.  It is my belief that God can be known through human reason and the chief tool I have in my toolbox is studying what God created.  If you are interested in the basis of my beliefs that is fine.  But let's not keep trying to convince one another.  Fair enough?


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 28, 2020)

ding said:


> While lawns are mowed cyclically, there is no such thing as a free lawn mowing.



Counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, clockwise in the Southern ... and goats will pay in milk to keep our lawns mowed, worth it if we plant alfalfa grass ...



ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > or "approaches infinity"
> ...



The mathemagical arts at their finest ...


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2020)

So to tie this in a nice neat little bow... There are only two options; the universe began or the universe did not begin and has always existed for eternity.  There are no other options.  That's it.  Just these two.  And this is not a new debate either.  This debate has been on going since the time of Adam.

Some physicists and some atheists are uncomfortable with the idea that the universe had a beginning because they understand the theological implications of a universe which had a beginning. But regardless of their uncomfortableness, the data overwhelming shows that the universe had a beginning.  There are no credible infinite universe models.  The cosmological community does not take seriously the idea that the universe has always existed .  The debate was settled decades ago.

So the only question which remains is where did the energy come from.  And for that we also have two options and two options only; it was created from nothing or it was preexisting.  Of these two options the former is the simplest because the only thing standing in its way is the First Law of Thermodynamics; the conservation of energy.  This problem is easily solved because the net energy of a universe created from nothing is zero.  So energy is conserved.  The positive energy of the universe is exactly balanced by the negative energy of gravity.  Which leads us to the problem of the second option; the presence of energy creates space time.  So now we have the cumbersome explanation how a different  spacetime created our spacetime and doing so in the way we know it was created; by cramming all the known energy of our known universe into the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom.  And I am not even including the 1 billion particles of antimatter and 1 billion particles of matter for every single particle of the known universe.   The other problem for this option is energy and matter cannot be an infinite source because it is subject to decay into radiation.  So really there is only one viable option; that space and time were created from nothing.  The universe had a beginning and literally popped into existence and began to expand and cool and produced beings that know and create.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 28, 2020)

ding said:


> ... I have faith in God who I perceive as being infinite love, infinite goodness, infinite beauty, infinite truth, infinite logic, infinite wisdom, infinite justice, infinite mercy and infinite being ...



d(God)/dt = ∂(love)/∂t + ∂(goodness)/∂t + ∂(beauty)/∂t + ∂(truth)/∂t + ∂(logic)/∂t + ∂(wisdom)/∂t + ∂(justice)/∂t + ∂(mercy)/∂t + ∂(being)/∂t

Can't believe you forgot anger ... see Psalms 90 ...


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ... I have faith in God who I perceive as being infinite love, infinite goodness, infinite beauty, infinite truth, infinite logic, infinite wisdom, infinite justice, infinite mercy and infinite being ...
> ...


He was also called Jealous too.  

Seriously, though it's based upon what is extant.   It's the whole two sided coin but only one coin thingee.


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ... I have faith in God who I perceive as being infinite love, infinite goodness, infinite beauty, infinite truth, infinite logic, infinite wisdom, infinite justice, infinite mercy and infinite being ...
> ...


So... if you think about it (which I do).  The whole what came first argument boils down to something which is infinite and eternal.  And for something to be eternal it must be unchanging.  I don't see how anything material can be eternal because it is subject to change.  So the first cause must be "something" (really no thing) beyond energy and matter.  So I don't see how the first cause can be anything other than the incorporeal such as truth, logic, etc.


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2020)

Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.


----------



## james bond (Nov 15, 2020)

ding said:


> No one knows if there are other universes and no one will ever know if there are other universes.



I'm not sure what the Bible means to you.  You disregard what it states.  There is no multiverse.  Just one universe and Earth created 6,000 years ago.  I thought you believed in multiverses because of who you follow.



ding said:


> It's a nasty habit of yours and is one of the prime reasons I don't discuss things with you.



My opinion is you sound like someone who will be misled.  I can't stop and make you listen.  All I did was point out what Book of Genesis said and the Bible is God's spoken word.  it's supposed to be literal.  However, you don't believe in that.  You've been swayed by scientific atheism.  Many Christians believe in long time and ToE.  It's what they were taught in school.



ding said:


> With that said, if God wants to create other universes, who are you to say He can't?



See, you still don't get it.  You've already been misled.



ding said:


> But our two different views (allegorical vs literal interpretation of Genesis) will probably never be able to be reconciled when we discuss science. It just isn't possible. So what purpose does the conversation serve. I can't see one. I want you to take the journey you are on. I don't think I am part of that journey. I don't want to influence your journey. My journey is studying what God created so I can better understand God and God's ways. It is my belief that God can be known through human reason and the chief tool I have in my toolbox is studying what God created. If you are interested in the basis of my beliefs that is fine. But let's not keep trying to convince one another. Fair enough?



It can't be reconciled not because of me, but of you.  You won't listen to God's breathed word.  Already you are misled.  I'm not even sure you read the Bible, but make up your own beliefs to show atheists that you are better than them.  That's just my opinion, so it's fine you don't listen to what God said.  That's just part of what God created in free will.

ETA:  Do you believe God created all the energy the universe and Earth with ever need with the electromagnetic spectrum?  It explains the false science of dark energy as the Bible states God stretches out the heavens like a tent.  God the Father is part of the EMS on the high band side.


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 15, 2020)

james bond said:


> ETA:  Do you believe God created all the energy the universe and Earth with ever need with the electromagnetic spectrum?  It explains the false science of dark energy as the Bible states God stretches out the heavens like a tent.  God the Father is part of the EMS on the high band side.



Where in the Bible does it say these things? ...


----------



## james bond (Nov 15, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Where in the Bible does it say these things? ...



Book of Genesis.


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 15, 2020)

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Where in the Bible does it say these things? ...
> ...



Thank you ...


----------

