Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

[Rosy]

If you could cram all of the matter in the universe into a space that is a fraction of a single atom, that would qualify as a miracle to me.

But there is zero evidence that this ever existed, and no human has ever shown a scintilla of evidence that it happened this way

Describing it as zero evidence is wrong, I think. There is evidence, but you don't think it's compelling evidence.

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

Red shift and background radiation are the observations which support Friedmann’s solution to Einstein’s field equations.

What supports a speeding expansion with 85 percent less mass then needed

The equations fail

 

[Montrovant]

It's already been brought up, but sure.

"The discovery, if confirmed, will also lend support to the inflation model in cosmology – the hypothesis that the universe underwent a brief period of exponential expansion immediately after the big bang"
What is cosmic inflation?| Explore | physics.org

"According to the theory of inflation, the early Universe expanded exponentially fast for a fraction of a second after the Big Bang."
Centre for Theoretical Cosmology: The Origins of the Universe: Inflation Introduction

"Cosmic inflation is the idea that the very early universe went through a period of accelerated, exponential expansion during the first 10-35 of a second before settling down to the more sedate rate of expansion we are still experiencing, so that all of the observable universe originated in a small (indeed, microscopic) causally-connected region."
Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

"Inflation is a general term for models of the very early Universe which involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion"
Inflation for Beginners

"Inflation is the mysterious force that blew up the scale of the infant universe from sub-microscopic to gargantuan in a fraction of a second."
Cosmic Inflation: How It Gave the Universe the Ultimate Kickstart (Infographic)

Note that in every definition, inflation is about the rapid expansion of the universe after the energy which expanded already existed.

Note further that in a couple of the definitions it describes it as happening after the Big Bang. Apparently the Big Bang is defined slightly different by different people, as I mentioned earlier.

I am reposting this.

I think the problem is that you are confusing the big bang singularity with the beginning of space and time. The big bang singularity is where Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinities. That's just a mathematical thing. Inflation theory explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. So logically that occurred before the so called big bang singularity.

I think of the big bang as the beginning of the expansion and cooling. Inflation is the build up of energy and matter before the expansion and cooling of the universe.

Well, I just gave you definitions of inflation from multiple sources indicating that you are incorrect about what it entails. I'm not sure what else to say. It's just a matter of mislabeling.

Just consider the name inflation. To inflate is not to create, it is to expand. A balloon can only be inflated after the balloon exists.

Inflation theory explains how matter and energy were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the expansion and cooling of the universe.

The big bang singularity is where Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinities. That is the point where all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom. At this point in the timeline all of the matter is in place and then it began to expand and cool.

But if you want to characterize it that the big bang came first and then inflation occurred, please do so. That makes no sense to me. If people are characterizing it that way, I believe they are characterizing it wrong. Inflation theory was discovered after Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's equations so I can see how confusion occurred, but Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's equations never explained how matter and energy were created. Inflation does.

Here, let me quote a post you recently made:

The Inflation Theory, developed by Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Paul Steinhardt, and Andy Albrecht, offers solutions to these problems and several other open questions in cosmology. It proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today.

WMAP Inflation Theory

Read the part you put in blue and larger letters. How can you possibly claim that inflation has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe after you just highlighted a quote which states that inflation is about the expansion of the universe?

I'll try to explain my understanding of the Big Bang definition differences. Before inflation was conceived, the Big Bang was proposed based on a much less rapid expansion of the universe, which was expected to go back to the point of a singularity. Once inflation became a generally accepted idea, some people considered the Big Bang to be the point at which that less rapid expansion started after inflation. Other people consider the idea of the Big Bang to be the expansion of the universe from the singularity, regardless of whether the expansion is in the rapid, inflation stage or the slower stage following. Because of that, they consider the Big Bang to mean the point at which expansion began, not the point at which more gradual expansion began, so the BB happens before the rapid expansion of inflation. It really isn't an important distinction except in the sense of everyone in the conversation understanding which starting point for the BB one is using.

You asked me to provide sources for the idea that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, rather than the creation of the energy of the universe, and I have done so. I provided quite a few sources, and I also quoted Vilenkin from an interview you linked to. Perhaps you could show where inflation is about the creation of the energy of the universe rather than the rapid expansion of the universe?

Because the theory is about explaining how space and time were created.

In other words the initial conditions.

Everything thing after that point is based on Einstein’s field equations.

Inflation is about explaining the expansion of the universe from the singularity. I posted multiple definitions from multiple sources which all show the definition as being about the expansion, not the creation. You yourself posted the same thing.

 

[Rosy]

Do you know that all the people who have looked at this have come to the conclusion that the expansion is impossible using known math

No. I'm pretty sure you are completely wrong about that. Just in this thread there have been links to a number of theoretical physicists and other cosmologists who believe that the concept makes both logical and mathematical sense.

Wrong 100 percent, the math fails without the 85 percent of missing dark matter

You said that all the people who have looked at this think it is impossible. I pointed out that that is untrue, as evidenced by the people quoted and linked to in this thread who do believe it is possible. Saying the math is wrong doesn't change that people have looked at the concept of the universe starting as a singularity and accepted it as working mathematically.

Actually the missing matter is needed to fuel the continued and speeding expansion. No one knows if the math is wrong, or the observations are in error. I will say that demanding that we know is foolish. Remember in universal terms we are touching each other right now and you still do not know what's in my pockets, yet you say that the beginning of time is knowable from the same perspective

Its not

The beginning of time is knowable in approximate times. That space and time had a beginning is knowable from the second law of thermodynamics.

According to the second law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down in speed from the initial inflation speed. The observations are the exact opposite in that the speed of inflation is increasing. Nothing in the second law of thermodynamics predicts this, nor does it explain the missing 85 percent of the universe needed to explain the speeding effect.

Try again kid.

You are bright for an 8 year old.

 

[ding]

No. I'm pretty sure you are completely wrong about that. Just in this thread there have been links to a number of theoretical physicists and other cosmologists who believe that the concept makes both logical and mathematical sense.

Wrong 100 percent, the math fails without the 85 percent of missing dark matter

You said that all the people who have looked at this think it is impossible. I pointed out that that is untrue, as evidenced by the people quoted and linked to in this thread who do believe it is possible. Saying the math is wrong doesn't change that people have looked at the concept of the universe starting as a singularity and accepted it as working mathematically.

Actually the missing matter is needed to fuel the continued and speeding expansion. No one knows if the math is wrong, or the observations are in error. I will say that demanding that we know is foolish. Remember in universal terms we are touching each other right now and you still do not know what's in my pockets, yet you say that the beginning of time is knowable from the same perspective

Its not

The beginning of time is knowable in approximate times. That space and time had a beginning is knowable from the second law of thermodynamics.

According to the second law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down in speed from the initial inflation speed. The observations are the exact opposite in that the speed of inflation is increasing. Nothing in the second law of thermodynamics predicts this, nor does it explain the missing 85 percent of the universe needed to explain the speeding effect.

Try again kid.

You are bright for an 8 year old.

Can you explain why you believe that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down?

 

[ding]

I am reposting this.

I think the problem is that you are confusing the big bang singularity with the beginning of space and time. The big bang singularity is where Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinities. That's just a mathematical thing. Inflation theory explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. So logically that occurred before the so called big bang singularity.

I think of the big bang as the beginning of the expansion and cooling. Inflation is the build up of energy and matter before the expansion and cooling of the universe.

Well, I just gave you definitions of inflation from multiple sources indicating that you are incorrect about what it entails. I'm not sure what else to say. It's just a matter of mislabeling.

Just consider the name inflation. To inflate is not to create, it is to expand. A balloon can only be inflated after the balloon exists.

Inflation theory explains how matter and energy were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event without violating the law of conservation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the expansion and cooling of the universe.

The big bang singularity is where Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinities. That is the point where all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom. At this point in the timeline all of the matter is in place and then it began to expand and cool.

But if you want to characterize it that the big bang came first and then inflation occurred, please do so. That makes no sense to me. If people are characterizing it that way, I believe they are characterizing it wrong. Inflation theory was discovered after Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's equations so I can see how confusion occurred, but Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's equations never explained how matter and energy were created. Inflation does.

Here, let me quote a post you recently made:

The Inflation Theory, developed by Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Paul Steinhardt, and Andy Albrecht, offers solutions to these problems and several other open questions in cosmology. It proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today.

WMAP Inflation Theory

Read the part you put in blue and larger letters. How can you possibly claim that inflation has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe after you just highlighted a quote which states that inflation is about the expansion of the universe?

I'll try to explain my understanding of the Big Bang definition differences. Before inflation was conceived, the Big Bang was proposed based on a much less rapid expansion of the universe, which was expected to go back to the point of a singularity. Once inflation became a generally accepted idea, some people considered the Big Bang to be the point at which that less rapid expansion started after inflation. Other people consider the idea of the Big Bang to be the expansion of the universe from the singularity, regardless of whether the expansion is in the rapid, inflation stage or the slower stage following. Because of that, they consider the Big Bang to mean the point at which expansion began, not the point at which more gradual expansion began, so the BB happens before the rapid expansion of inflation. It really isn't an important distinction except in the sense of everyone in the conversation understanding which starting point for the BB one is using.

You asked me to provide sources for the idea that inflation is about the expansion of the universe, rather than the creation of the energy of the universe, and I have done so. I provided quite a few sources, and I also quoted Vilenkin from an interview you linked to. Perhaps you could show where inflation is about the creation of the energy of the universe rather than the rapid expansion of the universe?

Because the theory is about explaining how space and time were created.

In other words the initial conditions.

Everything thing after that point is based on Einstein’s field equations.

Inflation is about explaining the expansion of the universe from the singularity. I posted multiple definitions from multiple sources which all show the definition as being about the expansion, not the creation. You yourself posted the same thing.

I don’t believe it is.

Inflation explains how matter and energy were created from nothing. Then it began to expand and cool according to Einstein’s GToR and the SLoT.

 

[Rosy]

Wrong 100 percent, the math fails without the 85 percent of missing dark matter

You said that all the people who have looked at this think it is impossible. I pointed out that that is untrue, as evidenced by the people quoted and linked to in this thread who do believe it is possible. Saying the math is wrong doesn't change that people have looked at the concept of the universe starting as a singularity and accepted it as working mathematically.

Actually the missing matter is needed to fuel the continued and speeding expansion. No one knows if the math is wrong, or the observations are in error. I will say that demanding that we know is foolish. Remember in universal terms we are touching each other right now and you still do not know what's in my pockets, yet you say that the beginning of time is knowable from the same perspective

Its not

The beginning of time is knowable in approximate times. That space and time had a beginning is knowable from the second law of thermodynamics.

According to the second law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down in speed from the initial inflation speed. The observations are the exact opposite in that the speed of inflation is increasing. Nothing in the second law of thermodynamics predicts this, nor does it explain the missing 85 percent of the universe needed to explain the speeding effect.

Try again kid.

You are bright for an 8 year old.

Can you explain why you believe that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down?

That is what all explosions do...………………..really

 

[ding]

But there is zero evidence that this ever existed, and no human has ever shown a scintilla of evidence that it happened this way

Describing it as zero evidence is wrong, I think. There is evidence, but you don't think it's compelling evidence.

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

Red shift and background radiation are the observations which support Friedmann’s solution to Einstein’s field equations.

What supports a speeding expansion with 85 percent less mass then needed

The equations fail

Needed for what?

 

[ding]

You said that all the people who have looked at this think it is impossible. I pointed out that that is untrue, as evidenced by the people quoted and linked to in this thread who do believe it is possible. Saying the math is wrong doesn't change that people have looked at the concept of the universe starting as a singularity and accepted it as working mathematically.

Actually the missing matter is needed to fuel the continued and speeding expansion. No one knows if the math is wrong, or the observations are in error. I will say that demanding that we know is foolish. Remember in universal terms we are touching each other right now and you still do not know what's in my pockets, yet you say that the beginning of time is knowable from the same perspective

Its not

The beginning of time is knowable in approximate times. That space and time had a beginning is knowable from the second law of thermodynamics.

According to the second law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down in speed from the initial inflation speed. The observations are the exact opposite in that the speed of inflation is increasing. Nothing in the second law of thermodynamics predicts this, nor does it explain the missing 85 percent of the universe needed to explain the speeding effect.

Try again kid.

You are bright for an 8 year old.

Can you explain why you believe that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down?

That is what all explosions do...………………..really

How is that an explanation for why you believe the SLoT says the universe should be slowing down?

 

[Rosy]

Describing it as zero evidence is wrong, I think. There is evidence, but you don't think it's compelling evidence.

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

Red shift and background radiation are the observations which support Friedmann’s solution to Einstein’s field equations.

What supports a speeding expansion with 85 percent less mass then needed

The equations fail

Needed for what?

Needed to push the accelerating and not slowing expansion.

You have no clue

Never will

Read your Hawking book again, you will know the mind of a brilliant nothing

 

[Rosy]

Actually the missing matter is needed to fuel the continued and speeding expansion. No one knows if the math is wrong, or the observations are in error. I will say that demanding that we know is foolish. Remember in universal terms we are touching each other right now and you still do not know what's in my pockets, yet you say that the beginning of time is knowable from the same perspective

Its not

The beginning of time is knowable in approximate times. That space and time had a beginning is knowable from the second law of thermodynamics.

According to the second law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down in speed from the initial inflation speed. The observations are the exact opposite in that the speed of inflation is increasing. Nothing in the second law of thermodynamics predicts this, nor does it explain the missing 85 percent of the universe needed to explain the speeding effect.

Try again kid.

You are bright for an 8 year old.

Can you explain why you believe that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down?

That is what all explosions do...………………..really

How is that an explanation for why you believe the SLoT says the universe should be slowing down?

The universe is expanding at an ever speeding rate. Nothing explains this.

And SLoT has no meaning to me. I googled it and came up slot machines, and you are grandiose in a serious way

 

[ding]

The only evidence is in the present, where the matter expanding currently came from is anyone's guess

If you follow that expansion backwards, eventually you come to the singularity. That's a simplistic version of the idea probably, but I think follows the general idea. So the expansion is the evidence. You don't have to agree with it, but it is evidence of a sort.

Red shift and background radiation are the observations which support Friedmann’s solution to Einstein’s field equations.

What supports a speeding expansion with 85 percent less mass then needed

The equations fail

Needed for what?

Needed to push the accelerating and not slowing expansion.

You have no clue

Never will

Read your Hawking book again, you will know the mind of a brilliant nothing

What does that have to do with red shift and cosmic background radiation?

 

[ding]

The beginning of time is knowable in approximate times. That space and time had a beginning is knowable from the second law of thermodynamics.

According to the second law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down in speed from the initial inflation speed. The observations are the exact opposite in that the speed of inflation is increasing. Nothing in the second law of thermodynamics predicts this, nor does it explain the missing 85 percent of the universe needed to explain the speeding effect.

Try again kid.

You are bright for an 8 year old.

Can you explain why you believe that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down?

That is what all explosions do...………………..really

How is that an explanation for why you believe the SLoT says the universe should be slowing down?

The universe is expanding at an ever speeding rate. Nothing explains this.

And SLoT has no meaning to me. I googled it and came up slot machines, and you are grandiose in a serious way

So you admit that you don’t know anything about the SLoT but you said according to the SLoT the universe should be slowing down?

 

[Rosy]

According to the second law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down in speed from the initial inflation speed. The observations are the exact opposite in that the speed of inflation is increasing. Nothing in the second law of thermodynamics predicts this, nor does it explain the missing 85 percent of the universe needed to explain the speeding effect.

Try again kid.

You are bright for an 8 year old.

Can you explain why you believe that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down?

That is what all explosions do...………………..really

How is that an explanation for why you believe the SLoT says the universe should be slowing down?

The universe is expanding at an ever speeding rate. Nothing explains this.

And SLoT has no meaning to me. I googled it and came up slot machines, and you are grandiose in a serious way

So you admit that you don’t know anything about the SLoT but you said according to the SLoT the universe should be slowing down?

I never said that the universe should be slowing, I said that it is speeding and that the 85 percent of missing matter (Dark) is needed to fuel the expansion.

 

[ding]

Red shift and background radiation are the observations which support Friedmann’s solution to Einstein’s field equations.

What supports a speeding expansion with 85 percent less mass then needed

The equations fail

Needed for what?

Needed to push the accelerating and not slowing expansion.

You have no clue

Never will

Read your Hawking book again, you will know the mind of a brilliant nothing

What does that have to do with red shift and cosmic background radiation?

What is your IQ

Does this mean you can’t explain why you believe that according to the SLoT that the universe should be slowing down?

 

[ding]

Needed for what?

Needed to push the accelerating and not slowing expansion.

You have no clue

Never will

Read your Hawking book again, you will know the mind of a brilliant nothing

What does that have to do with red shift and cosmic background radiation?

What is your IQ

High enough to not make statements that have no basis.

In other words you have no clue.

Mine is 130, not genius, unless one counts my apples

Then it shouldn’t be too difficult to tell me why you believe the SLoT tells us the universe should be slowing down, right?

 

[ding]

How is that an explanation for why you believe the SLoT says the universe should be slowing down?

The universe is expanding at an ever speeding rate. Nothing explains this.

And SLoT has no meaning to me. I googled it and came up slot machines, and you are grandiose in a serious way

So you admit that you don’t know anything about the SLoT but you said according to the SLoT the universe should be slowing down?

I never said that the universe should be slowing, I said that it is speeding and that the 85 percent of missing matter (Dark) is needed to fuel the expansion.

According to the second law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down in speed from the initial inflation speed.

Are you disputing that?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Yes, the SLoT implies no such thing.

The SLoT says that for every matter to energy conservation there is a loss of usable energy.

So as time approaches infinity the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

This we do not see. Therefore, space and time has not existed forever. Therefore, the universe had a beginning just as the observations of red shift and background radiation confirm and Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations predict.

Inflation theory explains how this happened according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

I win again.

 

[Rosy]

The universe is expanding at an ever speeding rate. Nothing explains this.

And SLoT has no meaning to me. I googled it and came up slot machines, and you are grandiose in a serious way

So you admit that you don’t know anything about the SLoT but you said according to the SLoT the universe should be slowing down?

I never said that the universe should be slowing, I said that it is speeding and that the 85 percent of missing matter (Dark) is needed to fuel the expansion.

According to the second law of thermodynamics the universe should be slowing down in speed from the initial inflation speed.

Are you disputing that?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Yes, the SLoT implies no such thing.

The SLoT says that for every matter to energy conservation there is a loss of usable energy.

So as time approaches infinity the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

This we do not see. Therefore, space and time has not existed forever. Therefore, the universe had a beginning just as the observations of red shift and background radiation confirm and Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations predict.

Inflation theory explains how this happened according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

I win again.

But simpleton, there is no loss of energy in the universe, in fact the energy is increasing with the speed of expansion.

Did your Mother drop you often

 

[ding]

According to the SLoT there will always be a loss of useable energy and can never be an increase of useable energy.

 

[Vastator]

A quick video on the previously mentioned theory of black holes, vs white holes. What roles they could theoretically play in universe creation. And “yes!” It’s got thermodynamics!

 

[ding]

A quick video on the previously mentioned theory of black holes, vs white holes. What roles they could theoretically play in universe creation. And “yes!” It’s got thermodynamics!

I liked that video. Thanks.

It seems to me that if a white hole is the other side of a black hole and that the white hole forms another universe, then the matter and energy of the other universe is supplied by the matter and energy of this universe. In other words no new matter or energy was created in the formation of the other universe. Would you agree with that?