Afterlife….How About For You?

[Hollie]

People who study the universe admit they only understand about 5% of it.

Why can’t we study what was created? Why can’t we use our experiences as creators? Why can’t we use reason and logic?

We have been studying the results of the creation of the universe but we still don't understand 95% of it.

Not so bad, really. Keep in mind that it has been only about 100 years since Einstein's general and special relativity; less than 100 years since the development of electronics and technology to build radio telescopes; only a few decades since the Hubble telescope.

Contrast that with 2,000 years of Bibles, Korans and various holy texts that have remained static. I recognize and in fact celebrate the fluid nature of science, that knowledge grows and changes and tomorrow facts we think we know may get re-written. I find that exhilarating, not oppressive. It is theists who believe in a less or not-at-all fluidity of their worldviews. And if the pursuit of learning has taught humanity anything, it's theists who do not realize their "immutable word" -- in reality -- is just as likely to be changed as any tenet of science.

 

[ding]

People who study the universe admit they only understand about 5% of it.

Why can’t we study what was created? Why can’t we use our experiences as creators? Why can’t we use reason and logic?

We have been studying the results of the creation of the universe but we still don't understand 95% of it.

I’m not sure what your point is because I could study 5 % of the things you created and still learn something about you even if I didn’t have any knowledge of the other 95% of your creations. What I can discover about what I know is not invalidated by what I don’t know.

 

[ding]

People who study the universe admit they only understand about 5% of it.

Why can’t we study what was created? Why can’t we use our experiences as creators? Why can’t we use reason and logic?

We have been studying the results of the creation of the universe but we still don't understand 95% of it.

We actually do understand the creation of the universe.

We don’t understand the apparent increase in acceleration. So we invented the nebulous dark matter / dark energy. But we could have just as easily have used a cosmological constant instead.

At the end of the day I suspect we will find a much simpler explanation than making up a fudge factor.

 

[Newtonian]

People who study the universe admit they only understand about 5% of it.

Why can’t we study what was created? Why can’t we use our experiences as creators? Why can’t we use reason and logic?

We have been studying the results of the creation of the universe but we still don't understand 95% of it.

We actually do understand the creation of the universe.

We don’t understand the apparent increase in acceleration. So we invented the nebulous dark matter / dark energy. But we could have just as easily have used a cosmological constant instead.

At the end of the day I suspect we will find a much simpler explanation than making up a fudge factor.

So how did God create the universe? And what cosmological constant are you referring to?

All seriousness aside:

I hope we will have fudge factors - I love chocolate!

 

[Newtonian]

Time after time I see atheists arguing against the fact that the universe was literally created from nothing and literally popped into existence and then began to expand and cool and evolve until the universe itself became conscious.

I have yet to find one atheist who agrees with what science tells us. The only possible reason is because they understand this implication and they are violently opposed to believing that intelligence created the material world despite the overwhelming evidence that it did.

No one really knows how the universe was actually created and that includes people who think a god did it

There you go again contradicting your beliefs that the universe was created 14 billion years ago.

Not at all

All I said was we don't know HOW it was created.

Again, we have ample evidence to know.

All we know is the after effects after the moment of origin and we still don't understand what 95% of the universe is made of

Sure we do. Energy. It’s all energy.

and it had an origin. It was created from nothing and then began to expand and cool and eventually produce beings that know and create.

According to the law of conservation of matter and energy - energy cannot be created from nothing.

The actual proven formula is: E = Mc^2 - Energy equals Mass times the speed of light squared.

 

[Newtonian]

Time after time I see atheists arguing against the fact that the universe was literally created from nothing and literally popped into existence and then began to expand and cool and evolve until the universe itself became conscious.

I have yet to find one atheist who agrees with what science tells us. The only possible reason is because they understand this implication and they are violently opposed to believing that intelligence created the material world despite the overwhelming evidence that it did.

No one really knows how the universe was actually created and that includes people who think a god did it

There you go again contradicting your beliefs that the universe was created 14 billion years ago.

Not at all

All I said was we don't know HOW it was created.

Again, we have ample evidence to know.

All we know is the after effects after the moment of origin and we still don't understand what 95% of the universe is made of

Sure we do. Energy. It’s all energy.

and it had an origin. It was created from nothing and then began to expand and cool and eventually produce beings that know and create.

It's obviously not the type of energy or matter that we understand.

Not exactly. I believe it is beyond energy and matter. Not a different type. But something altogether foreign to energy and matter.

Sounds like a religious belief - but based on what?

"God is a spirit" (John 4:24); The Hebrew and Greek words for spirit are ruach/pneuma and can refer to any invisible active force - aka invisible energy. Isaiah 40:26 refers to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and God's dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim).

Two invisible types of energy involved in the expansion of the universe are gravity and dark energy. It makes sense that God would use invisible forms of energy to stretch out the heavens as Isaiah 40:22 says since God is invisible (1 Timothy 1:17; Colossians 1:15).

But, yes, there may be forms of energy we are not yet aware of - and we really don't know what dark/invisible energy is!

All seriousness aside:

It is either something or something else!

 

[ding]

People who study the universe admit they only understand about 5% of it.

Why can’t we study what was created? Why can’t we use our experiences as creators? Why can’t we use reason and logic?

We have been studying the results of the creation of the universe but we still don't understand 95% of it.

We actually do understand the creation of the universe.

We don’t understand the apparent increase in acceleration. So we invented the nebulous dark matter / dark energy. But we could have just as easily have used a cosmological constant instead.

At the end of the day I suspect we will find a much simpler explanation than making up a fudge factor.

So how did God create the universe? And what cosmological constant are you referring to?

All seriousness aside:

I hope we will have fudge factors - I love chocolate!

I believe it was willed into existence. No calculations needed.

we know from the background radiation that for every 1 billion particles of antimatter there were 1 billion and 1 matter particles. Given the perfect symmetry between the two, there shouldn’t have been any matter particles left over at all.

so, it wasn’t an accident.

my reference to the cosmological constant is that today’s dark matter / dark energy serves the same role as the cosmological constant did. It’s just a fudge factor to make our apparent observations on the expansion of the universe match the field equations.

I believe it is much simpler to believe there is something we don’t understand than to make up fudge factors like the ever dark matter / dark energy.

I don’t buy increasing acceleration or gravitational collapse mumbo jumbo BS.

but putting all that aside, it’s just a distraction. The universe literally popped into existence from nothing 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool despite foolish attempts at distracting from this self evident truth.

 

[ding]

Time after time I see atheists arguing against the fact that the universe was literally created from nothing and literally popped into existence and then began to expand and cool and evolve until the universe itself became conscious.

I have yet to find one atheist who agrees with what science tells us. The only possible reason is because they understand this implication and they are violently opposed to believing that intelligence created the material world despite the overwhelming evidence that it did.

No one really knows how the universe was actually created and that includes people who think a god did it

There you go again contradicting your beliefs that the universe was created 14 billion years ago.

Not at all

All I said was we don't know HOW it was created.

Again, we have ample evidence to know.

All we know is the after effects after the moment of origin and we still don't understand what 95% of the universe is made of

Sure we do. Energy. It’s all energy.

and it had an origin. It was created from nothing and then began to expand and cool and eventually produce beings that know and create.

According to the law of conservation of matter and energy - energy cannot be created from nothing.

The actual proven formula is: E = Mc^2 - Energy equals Mass times the speed of light squared.

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.

 

[ding]

Time after time I see atheists arguing against the fact that the universe was literally created from nothing and literally popped into existence and then began to expand and cool and evolve until the universe itself became conscious.

I have yet to find one atheist who agrees with what science tells us. The only possible reason is because they understand this implication and they are violently opposed to believing that intelligence created the material world despite the overwhelming evidence that it did.

No one really knows how the universe was actually created and that includes people who think a god did it

There you go again contradicting your beliefs that the universe was created 14 billion years ago.

Not at all

All I said was we don't know HOW it was created.

Again, we have ample evidence to know.

All we know is the after effects after the moment of origin and we still don't understand what 95% of the universe is made of

Sure we do. Energy. It’s all energy.

and it had an origin. It was created from nothing and then began to expand and cool and eventually produce beings that know and create.

It's obviously not the type of energy or matter that we understand.

Not exactly. I believe it is beyond energy and matter. Not a different type. But something altogether foreign to energy and matter.

Sounds like a religious belief - but based on what?

"God is a spirit" (John 4:24); The Hebrew and Greek words for spirit are ruach/pneuma and can refer to any invisible active force - aka invisible energy. Isaiah 40:26 refers to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and God's dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim).

Two invisible types of energy involved in the expansion of the universe are gravity and dark energy. It makes sense that God would use invisible forms of energy to stretch out the heavens as Isaiah 40:22 says since God is invisible (1 Timothy 1:17; Colossians 1:15).

But, yes, there may be forms of energy we are not yet aware of - and we really don't know what dark/invisible energy is!

All seriousness aside:

It is either something or something else!

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.

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.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[Blues Man]

People who study the universe admit they only understand about 5% of it.

Why can’t we study what was created? Why can’t we use our experiences as creators? Why can’t we use reason and logic?

We have been studying the results of the creation of the universe but we still don't understand 95% of it.

I’m not sure what your point is because I could study 5 % of the things you created and still learn something about you even if I didn’t have any knowledge of the other 95% of your creations. What I can discover about what I know is not invalidated by what I don’t know.

What you could learn from that 5% would not be very much just like we do not know very much about the universe

Tell me if a Dr only understood 5% of human anatomy and physiology would you let him cut you open?

If your accountant only knew 5% of the finance laws would you let him do your taxes?

5% is minuscule therefore what you can glean from it is minuscule

 

[Blues Man]

People who study the universe admit they only understand about 5% of it.

Why can’t we study what was created? Why can’t we use our experiences as creators? Why can’t we use reason and logic?

We have been studying the results of the creation of the universe but we still don't understand 95% of it.

We actually do understand the creation of the universe.

We don’t understand the apparent increase in acceleration. So we invented the nebulous dark matter / dark energy. But we could have just as easily have used a cosmological constant instead.

At the end of the day I suspect we will find a much simpler explanation than making up a fudge factor.

No we only understand what happened immediately after creation.

In order for us to understand entirely we need to know what happened the instant before the origin of the universe.

To do that we would need to integrate not only gravity into General Relativity but we would also need to integrate that with quantum theory.

And we have no clue as how to do that

 

[ding]

People who study the universe admit they only understand about 5% of it.

Why can’t we study what was created? Why can’t we use our experiences as creators? Why can’t we use reason and logic?

We have been studying the results of the creation of the universe but we still don't understand 95% of it.

I’m not sure what your point is because I could study 5 % of the things you created and still learn something about you even if I didn’t have any knowledge of the other 95% of your creations. What I can discover about what I know is not invalidated by what I don’t know.

What you could learn from that 5% would not be very much just like we do not know very much about the universe

Tell me if a Dr only understood 5% of human anatomy and physiology would you let him cut you open?

If your accountant only knew 5% of the finance laws would you let him do your taxes?

5% is minuscule therefore what you can glean from it is minuscule

Nothing because the background radiation proves that the 5% is really the 100%.

A doctor would tell you that he treats what he sees. And red shift and background radiation tell us that the universe began and then began to expand and cool. The SLoT tells us that it is not possible for the universe to exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium which we do not see which tells us the universe began and was created from nothing.

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.

 

[ding]

People who study the universe admit they only understand about 5% of it.

Why can’t we study what was created? Why can’t we use our experiences as creators? Why can’t we use reason and logic?

We have been studying the results of the creation of the universe but we still don't understand 95% of it.

I’m not sure what your point is because I could study 5 % of the things you created and still learn something about you even if I didn’t have any knowledge of the other 95% of your creations. What I can discover about what I know is not invalidated by what I don’t know.

What you could learn from that 5% would not be very much just like we do not know very much about the universe

Tell me if a Dr only understood 5% of human anatomy and physiology would you let him cut you open?

If your accountant only knew 5% of the finance laws would you let him do your taxes?

5% is minuscule therefore what you can glean from it is minuscule

Here is what they would tell you... the only thing that not being able to find, observe, capture or measure dark energy and dark matter tells us is that we don't know anything about dark matter and dark energy.

Everything else we do know and were able to measure, informs us that the universe began ~14 billion years ago when it literally popped into existence and then began to expand and cool.

 

[Blues Man]

People who study the universe admit they only understand about 5% of it.

Why can’t we study what was created? Why can’t we use our experiences as creators? Why can’t we use reason and logic?

We have been studying the results of the creation of the universe but we still don't understand 95% of it.

I’m not sure what your point is because I could study 5 % of the things you created and still learn something about you even if I didn’t have any knowledge of the other 95% of your creations. What I can discover about what I know is not invalidated by what I don’t know.

What you could learn from that 5% would not be very much just like we do not know very much about the universe

Tell me if a Dr only understood 5% of human anatomy and physiology would you let him cut you open?

If your accountant only knew 5% of the finance laws would you let him do your taxes?

5% is minuscule therefore what you can glean from it is minuscule

Nothing because the background radiation proves that the 5% is really the 100%.

A doctor would tell you that he treats what he sees. And red shift and background radiation tell us that the universe began and then began to expand and cool. The SLoT tells us that it is not possible for the universe to exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium which we do not see which tells us the universe began and was created from nothing.

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.

No it doesn't.

What we understand does not explain the fact that galaxies are accelerating away from each other at an increasing rate.

All the physics we understand predicts that expansion would slow down over time not speed up.

What we think it means is that there is much more matter in the universe is needed to account for this acceleration and that in turn was why the term "dark matter" was coined.

 

[ding]

They have been smashing atoms and observing subatomic particles for decades and not once have they discovered anything close to resembling dark matter and dark energy.

It doesn't exist.

 

[ding]

People who study the universe admit they only understand about 5% of it.

Why can’t we study what was created? Why can’t we use our experiences as creators? Why can’t we use reason and logic?

We have been studying the results of the creation of the universe but we still don't understand 95% of it.

I’m not sure what your point is because I could study 5 % of the things you created and still learn something about you even if I didn’t have any knowledge of the other 95% of your creations. What I can discover about what I know is not invalidated by what I don’t know.

What you could learn from that 5% would not be very much just like we do not know very much about the universe

Tell me if a Dr only understood 5% of human anatomy and physiology would you let him cut you open?

If your accountant only knew 5% of the finance laws would you let him do your taxes?

5% is minuscule therefore what you can glean from it is minuscule

Nothing because the background radiation proves that the 5% is really the 100%.

A doctor would tell you that he treats what he sees. And red shift and background radiation tell us that the universe began and then began to expand and cool. The SLoT tells us that it is not possible for the universe to exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium which we do not see which tells us the universe began and was created from nothing.

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.

No it doesn't.

What we understand does not explain the fact that galaxies are accelerating away from each other at an increasing rate.

All the physics we understand predicts that expansion would slow down over time not speed up.

What we think it means is that there is much more matter in the universe is needed to account for this acceleration and that in turn was why the term "dark matter" was coined.

It is either a measurement error or an error in understanding. There is no need to create a fudge factor.

 

[ding]

What we think it means is that there is much more matter in the universe is needed to account for this acceleration and that in turn was why the term "dark matter" was coined.

There is no reason to make up things that cannot be proven. You said it yourself. They made it up to make things work.

 

[ding]

People who study the universe admit they only understand about 5% of it.

Why can’t we study what was created? Why can’t we use our experiences as creators? Why can’t we use reason and logic?

We have been studying the results of the creation of the universe but we still don't understand 95% of it.

We actually do understand the creation of the universe.

We don’t understand the apparent increase in acceleration. So we invented the nebulous dark matter / dark energy. But we could have just as easily have used a cosmological constant instead.

At the end of the day I suspect we will find a much simpler explanation than making up a fudge factor.

No we only understand what happened immediately after creation.

In order for us to understand entirely we need to know what happened the instant before the origin of the universe.

To do that we would need to integrate not only gravity into General Relativity but we would also need to integrate that with quantum theory.

And we have no clue as how to do that

Wrong. 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.

 

[Blues Man]

They have been smashing atoms and observing subatomic particles for decades and not once have they discovered anything close to resembling dark matter and dark energy.

It doesn't exist.

Funny that most physicists think it does exist.

The 2011 Nobel Prize was awarded to the astronomers who actually discovered that the universal expansion was accelerating.

And we have no way of detecting what we call dark matter all we know is that there is something out there that is causing expansion to accelerate when the physics we understand tells us the opposite should be happening

 

[Blues Man]

What we think it means is that there is much more matter in the universe is needed to account for this acceleration and that in turn was why the term "dark matter" was coined.

There is no reason to make up things that cannot be proven. You said it yourself. They made it up to make things work.

It has been proven that the expansion of the universe is accelerating