If God's Flood was only a regional flood...

[ding]

It’s a guess, nothing more.

No. You implying that something material existed before space and time existed is a guess, Taz.

Me saying that before space and time existed there was a vacuum, a curious void which held potential is science. It's called inflation theory, Taz. Look it up.

The paradox that I find with that answer is, before space and time, what existed? You say a vacuum, but where did that vacuum come from?

Before there was a universe, there was nothing, but can you imagine nothing? It's hard to comprehend. If there was nothing, then how could there now be something. You cant create something out of absolute nothing.

You say there was a vacuum, if there was a vacuum, that means there had to be some sort of material or void to create that vacuum. Where did that material or void come from?

It's something that I have a hard time understanding because, I simply cannot imagine nothingness. My brain cannot imagine the absence of anything, because my brain comprehends that as empty space....but if there was empty space. Then there obviously was something there, and my question is, where did that something come from.

Lol, my philosophy, if you cant beat 'em, confuse 'em!

As I stated before, it seems like much more of a leap of faith to believe that all of this sprang from nothing, than to believe that all of this was created by God who has always been here. Yes, I know, the next response to that would be, "who created God", to which, I have no answer. There can only be two answers, one is that there has always been a void that just mysteriously has always existed, and from that void, an explosion happened, and from that explosion, life was created, or that God has always existed, and He created life and everything else.

Or a third answer: we simply don't know what was before the BB and are still searching.

Don't be silly, Taz. We know space and time were created ~14 billion years ago.

What existed before that was a vacuum; a curious void which contained potential.

Can you prove the vacuum? No, you can’t.

I can prove the beginning. Before that there was no space or time. There was nothing. Nothing equals a vacuum, Taz.

 

[Taz]

Inflation theory is for when the BB happened. Look it up.

"You implying that something material existed before space and time existed is a guess, Taz. " No, I'm stating for the record that we don't know what was before the BB. Theories yes, facts, no.

Yes, and before inflation there was a vacuum; a curious void which held potential.

What existed before inflation were the laws of nature.

It's a theory among others. None are proven as of today. But why do you insist on saying that things are fact when you know that they aren't? Aren't you supposed to be an engineer?

You believe the theory of evolution is fact, right?

I think that evolution is a natural process and that that has been proven. The steps in man's evolution are somewhat there but aren't completely worked out. it's not just a theory, some parts still are rather theoretical, sure, but some aren't.

All according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

I thought you said there was a vacuum before the BB? Now it’s the laws of nature, no vacuum?

 

[ding]

Yes, and before inflation there was a vacuum; a curious void which held potential.

What existed before inflation were the laws of nature.

It's a theory among others. None are proven as of today. But why do you insist on saying that things are fact when you know that they aren't? Aren't you supposed to be an engineer?

You believe the theory of evolution is fact, right?

I think that evolution is a natural process and that that has been proven. The steps in man's evolution are somewhat there but aren't completely worked out. it's not just a theory, some parts still are rather theoretical, sure, but some aren't.

All according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

I thought you said there was a vacuum before the BB? Now it’s the laws of nature, no vacuum?

A vacuum is nothing, Taz.

And yes, the laws of nature had to exist for space and time to be created per the laws of nature.

You think the creation of space and time followed no laws?

 

[Taz]

No. You implying that something material existed before space and time existed is a guess, Taz.

Me saying that before space and time existed there was a vacuum, a curious void which held potential is science. It's called inflation theory, Taz. Look it up.

The paradox that I find with that answer is, before space and time, what existed? You say a vacuum, but where did that vacuum come from?

Before there was a universe, there was nothing, but can you imagine nothing? It's hard to comprehend. If there was nothing, then how could there now be something. You cant create something out of absolute nothing.

You say there was a vacuum, if there was a vacuum, that means there had to be some sort of material or void to create that vacuum. Where did that material or void come from?

It's something that I have a hard time understanding because, I simply cannot imagine nothingness. My brain cannot imagine the absence of anything, because my brain comprehends that as empty space....but if there was empty space. Then there obviously was something there, and my question is, where did that something come from.

Lol, my philosophy, if you cant beat 'em, confuse 'em!

As I stated before, it seems like much more of a leap of faith to believe that all of this sprang from nothing, than to believe that all of this was created by God who has always been here. Yes, I know, the next response to that would be, "who created God", to which, I have no answer. There can only be two answers, one is that there has always been a void that just mysteriously has always existed, and from that void, an explosion happened, and from that explosion, life was created, or that God has always existed, and He created life and everything else.

Or a third answer: we simply don't know what was before the BB and are still searching.

Don't be silly, Taz. We know space and time were created ~14 billion years ago.

What existed before that was a vacuum; a curious void which contained potential.

Can you prove the vacuum? No, you can’t.

I can prove the beginning. Before that there was no space or time. There was nothing. Nothing equals a vacuum, Taz.

You’re claiming that you know what was before, you’re in dreamland.

 

[ding]

The paradox that I find with that answer is, before space and time, what existed? You say a vacuum, but where did that vacuum come from?

Before there was a universe, there was nothing, but can you imagine nothing? It's hard to comprehend. If there was nothing, then how could there now be something. You cant create something out of absolute nothing.

You say there was a vacuum, if there was a vacuum, that means there had to be some sort of material or void to create that vacuum. Where did that material or void come from?

It's something that I have a hard time understanding because, I simply cannot imagine nothingness. My brain cannot imagine the absence of anything, because my brain comprehends that as empty space....but if there was empty space. Then there obviously was something there, and my question is, where did that something come from.

Lol, my philosophy, if you cant beat 'em, confuse 'em!

As I stated before, it seems like much more of a leap of faith to believe that all of this sprang from nothing, than to believe that all of this was created by God who has always been here. Yes, I know, the next response to that would be, "who created God", to which, I have no answer. There can only be two answers, one is that there has always been a void that just mysteriously has always existed, and from that void, an explosion happened, and from that explosion, life was created, or that God has always existed, and He created life and everything else.

Or a third answer: we simply don't know what was before the BB and are still searching.

Don't be silly, Taz. We know space and time were created ~14 billion years ago.

What existed before that was a vacuum; a curious void which contained potential.

Can you prove the vacuum? No, you can’t.

I can prove the beginning. Before that there was no space or time. There was nothing. Nothing equals a vacuum, Taz.

You’re claiming that you know what was before, you’re in dreamland.

You do understand the implications of space and time having a beginning, right?

 

[Taz]

It's a theory among others. None are proven as of today. But why do you insist on saying that things are fact when you know that they aren't? Aren't you supposed to be an engineer?

You believe the theory of evolution is fact, right?

I think that evolution is a natural process and that that has been proven. The steps in man's evolution are somewhat there but aren't completely worked out. it's not just a theory, some parts still are rather theoretical, sure, but some aren't.

All according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

I thought you said there was a vacuum before the BB? Now it’s the laws of nature, no vacuum?

A vacuum is nothing, Taz.

And yes, the laws of nature had to exist for space and time to be created per the laws of nature.

You think the creation of space and time followed no laws?

So something existed before the BB? So not a vacuum?

 

[Taz]

Or a third answer: we simply don't know what was before the BB and are still searching.

Don't be silly, Taz. We know space and time were created ~14 billion years ago.

What existed before that was a vacuum; a curious void which contained potential.

Can you prove the vacuum? No, you can’t.

I can prove the beginning. Before that there was no space or time. There was nothing. Nothing equals a vacuum, Taz.

You’re claiming that you know what was before, you’re in dreamland.

You do understand the implications of space and time having a beginning, right?

You understand that you don’t know what was there before the BB?

 

[ding]

You believe the theory of evolution is fact, right?

I think that evolution is a natural process and that that has been proven. The steps in man's evolution are somewhat there but aren't completely worked out. it's not just a theory, some parts still are rather theoretical, sure, but some aren't.

All according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

I thought you said there was a vacuum before the BB? Now it’s the laws of nature, no vacuum?

A vacuum is nothing, Taz.

And yes, the laws of nature had to exist for space and time to be created per the laws of nature.

You think the creation of space and time followed no laws?

So something existed before the BB? So not a vacuum?

Nothing existed. The best way of describing nothing is calling it a vacuum. Which is exactly how theoretical physicists and cosmologists describe it.

 

[ding]

Don't be silly, Taz. We know space and time were created ~14 billion years ago.

What existed before that was a vacuum; a curious void which contained potential.

Can you prove the vacuum? No, you can’t.

I can prove the beginning. Before that there was no space or time. There was nothing. Nothing equals a vacuum, Taz.

You’re claiming that you know what was before, you’re in dreamland.

You do understand the implications of space and time having a beginning, right?

You understand that you don’t know what was there before the BB?

No, I don't understand that. I understand that you don't know what existed before space and time were created. I do. The laws of nature existed before space and time were created because space and time were created according to the laws of nature.

 

[Taz]

Can you prove the vacuum? No, you can’t.

I can prove the beginning. Before that there was no space or time. There was nothing. Nothing equals a vacuum, Taz.

You’re claiming that you know what was before, you’re in dreamland.

You do understand the implications of space and time having a beginning, right?

You understand that you don’t know what was there before the BB?

No, I don't understand that. I understand that you don't know what existed before space and time were created. I do. The laws of nature existed before space and time were created because space and time were created according to the laws of nature.

So no vacuum?

 

[Taz]

I think that evolution is a natural process and that that has been proven. The steps in man's evolution are somewhat there but aren't completely worked out. it's not just a theory, some parts still are rather theoretical, sure, but some aren't.

All according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

I thought you said there was a vacuum before the BB? Now it’s the laws of nature, no vacuum?

A vacuum is nothing, Taz.

And yes, the laws of nature had to exist for space and time to be created per the laws of nature.

You think the creation of space and time followed no laws?

So something existed before the BB? So not a vacuum?

Nothing existed. The best way of describing nothing is calling it a vacuum. Which is exactly how theoretical physicists and cosmologists describe it.

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

 

[ding]

I can prove the beginning. Before that there was no space or time. There was nothing. Nothing equals a vacuum, Taz.

You’re claiming that you know what was before, you’re in dreamland.

You do understand the implications of space and time having a beginning, right?

You understand that you don’t know what was there before the BB?

No, I don't understand that. I understand that you don't know what existed before space and time were created. I do. The laws of nature existed before space and time were created because space and time were created according to the laws of nature.

So no vacuum?

A vacuum is nothing, Taz. No space, no time, no energy, no matter. Just the laws of nature (i.e. potential)

Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

 

[ding]

All according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

I thought you said there was a vacuum before the BB? Now it’s the laws of nature, no vacuum?

A vacuum is nothing, Taz.

And yes, the laws of nature had to exist for space and time to be created per the laws of nature.

You think the creation of space and time followed no laws?

So something existed before the BB? So not a vacuum?

Nothing existed. The best way of describing nothing is calling it a vacuum. Which is exactly how theoretical physicists and cosmologists describe it.

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

Sure they have. 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. If it is a periodic 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. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. 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.

 

[Taz]

You’re claiming that you know what was before, you’re in dreamland.

You do understand the implications of space and time having a beginning, right?

You understand that you don’t know what was there before the BB?

No, I don't understand that. I understand that you don't know what existed before space and time were created. I do. The laws of nature existed before space and time were created because space and time were created according to the laws of nature.

So no vacuum?

A vacuum is nothing, Taz. No space, no time, no energy, no matter. Just the laws of nature (i.e. potential)

Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Nice theory, maybe one day will figure it out.

 

[Taz]

I thought you said there was a vacuum before the BB? Now it’s the laws of nature, no vacuum?

A vacuum is nothing, Taz.

And yes, the laws of nature had to exist for space and time to be created per the laws of nature.

You think the creation of space and time followed no laws?

So something existed before the BB? So not a vacuum?

Nothing existed. The best way of describing nothing is calling it a vacuum. Which is exactly how theoretical physicists and cosmologists describe it.

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

Sure they have. 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. If it is a periodic 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. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. 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.

Doesn’t prove what was before. Yawn.

 

[ding]

A vacuum is nothing, Taz.

And yes, the laws of nature had to exist for space and time to be created per the laws of nature.

You think the creation of space and time followed no laws?

So something existed before the BB? So not a vacuum?

Nothing existed. The best way of describing nothing is calling it a vacuum. Which is exactly how theoretical physicists and cosmologists describe it.

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

Sure they have. 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. If it is a periodic 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. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. 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.

Doesn’t prove what was before. Yawn.

Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?

Why do you hate science so much?

 

[james bond]

And I'm sure that you think you know. But you don't, nobody does.

In regards to Noah's Flood, the evidence is overwhelming that there was a global flood. Not local. What you believe was one hypothesis in the news.

We find that monoliths came up from the seafloor. We find fossils of sea creatures high above sea level around the world. We find rapid burial of plants and animals. There are rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas and transported long distances. Creation scientists have experiments to demonstrate what happened and it fits what we observe. Rapid or no erosion between strata. Much strata laid down in rapid succession so that rocks ended up folded and not broken.

The worldview of atheists and evolutionary thinkers is that the present is the key to the past or what I call the "religion" of uniformitarianism. To the contrary, the earth was much different from today than in the past and it was formed rapidly by catastrophism.

"Creation scientists" is an oxymoron. Got a link anyways? I could use a laugh.

Taz, I'm sorry to report that you are hellbound. It's my inner Jack Chick channeling me.

Jack Chick Cartoons on Mobile

"8 But God dremembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And eGod made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2 fThe fountains of the deep and fthe windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end gof 150 days the waters had abated, 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of hArarat. 5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen." Genesis 8:1-5

Anyway, here's evidence of the "fountains of the deep" and monoliths coming up from the seafloor. It explains why earth is 3/4 covered with water. Just rain won't do it.



Seafloor spread was found inadvertently by naval geologist Harry Hess and discussed in Bill Nye's vid on plate tectonics. However, Nye didn't know he was showing what creation scientists had been saying all along that mountains and the earth's water came from fountains of the deep and earthquake and volcanic activity, i.e. catastrophism.

There's is no scientific evidence for what you claim. No geologic evidence either. Plate tectonics don't explain a 40 day flood either. Creation science is an oxymoron, there's nothing scientific about it.

Then you've been believing in evolution so long that your brain has turned to mush. Holy guacamole! Google mid-Atlantic ridge and see how far it goes. It also cuts through land. It's not the only seafloor mountain range. Moreover, you cannot explain how the earth is covered by water. We know from creation science that we should look for planets that have water below their surface, such as Titan or Europa moons (one also wants plate tectonics), in order to colonize in case something catastrophic happens to our planet. No, not global warming ha ha.

I already stated that raining for 40 days and 40 nights won't do it. It was extra water that came from the heavens. Thus, the earth was hit from water below and water above. A flood causes the most deaths in terms of catastrophes.

 

[Taz]

And I'm sure that you think you know. But you don't, nobody does.

In regards to Noah's Flood, the evidence is overwhelming that there was a global flood. Not local. What you believe was one hypothesis in the news.

We find that monoliths came up from the seafloor. We find fossils of sea creatures high above sea level around the world. We find rapid burial of plants and animals. There are rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas and transported long distances. Creation scientists have experiments to demonstrate what happened and it fits what we observe. Rapid or no erosion between strata. Much strata laid down in rapid succession so that rocks ended up folded and not broken.

The worldview of atheists and evolutionary thinkers is that the present is the key to the past or what I call the "religion" of uniformitarianism. To the contrary, the earth was much different from today than in the past and it was formed rapidly by catastrophism.

"Creation scientists" is an oxymoron. Got a link anyways? I could use a laugh.

Taz, I'm sorry to report that you are hellbound. It's my inner Jack Chick channeling me.

Jack Chick Cartoons on Mobile

"8 But God dremembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And eGod made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2 fThe fountains of the deep and fthe windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end gof 150 days the waters had abated, 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of hArarat. 5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen." Genesis 8:1-5

Anyway, here's evidence of the "fountains of the deep" and monoliths coming up from the seafloor. It explains why earth is 3/4 covered with water. Just rain won't do it.



Seafloor spread was found inadvertently by naval geologist Harry Hess and discussed in Bill Nye's vid on plate tectonics. However, Nye didn't know he was showing what creation scientists had been saying all along that mountains and the earth's water came from fountains of the deep and earthquake and volcanic activity, i.e. catastrophism.

There's is no scientific evidence for what you claim. No geologic evidence either. Plate tectonics don't explain a 40 day flood either. Creation science is an oxymoron, there's nothing scientific about it.

Then you've been believing in evolution so long that your brain has turned to mush. Holy guacamole! Google mid-Atlantic ridge and see how far it goes. It also cuts through land. It's not the only seafloor mountain range. Moreover, you cannot explain how the earth is covered by water. We know from creation science that we should look for planets that have water below their surface, such as Titan or Europa moons (one also wants plate tectonics), in order to colonize in case something catastrophic happens to our planet. No, not global warming ha ha.

I already stated that raining for 40 days and 40 nights won't do it. It was extra water that came from the heavens. Thus, the earth was hit from water below and water above. A flood causes the most deaths in terms of catastrophes.

You live in a dreamworld.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I thought you said there was a vacuum before the BB? Now it’s the laws of nature, no vacuum?

A vacuum is nothing, Taz.

And yes, the laws of nature had to exist for space and time to be created per the laws of nature.

You think the creation of space and time followed no laws?

So something existed before the BB? So not a vacuum?

Nothing existed. The best way of describing nothing is calling it a vacuum. Which is exactly how theoretical physicists and cosmologists describe it.

So they haven’t proven anything yet?

Sure they have. 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. If it is a periodic 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. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. 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.

I guess I'm having a problem comprehending "nothing". Nothingness almost seems to be an impossibility. In my head, when I try to imagine nothing, my mind thinks of blackness, like the blackness of space, but that cant be it, because space cant exist in nothingness...nothing can.

You see, in my mind, if you follow the theory of evolution, then the big bang was the beginning of everything, the universe, space, matter, atoms, everything. The only thing I think couldn't have been created by the big bang is time...because time, even in nothingness, still ticks, at least that's how my mind thinks of it.

Now, you say there was energy and that energy is what caused the universe to appear, to me, that doesnt make sense, because in nothingness, energy cant exist, nothing can exist in nothingness. So, I go back to, where did that energy come from?

Big bang theorists say that the universe is expanding continually. For that to happen, that would mean it has to be expanding into nothingness. Also, for a universe to expand continually, that would have to mean that new matter is having to be created continually. Does this mean that, at the furthest reaches of the universe, that the big bang is happening continuously?

Wow, it's just boggling to think about all of this.

 

[hobelim]

Also, for a universe to expand continually, that would have to mean that new matter is having to be created continually. Does this mean that, at the furthest reaches of the universe, that the big bang is happening continuously?

awesome thought. I don't think its the big bang happening continuously it would have to be the aftermath of big bang, nothing becoming something, that is still happening or else there would be no continuing expansion.