Problems with Ex Nihilo Creation

[there4eyeM]

What is stationary energy? Energy that is stored and not yet employed is potential, while in motion it is kinetic. Is that to say that before the universe started 'being', there was the potential for it?

 

[ding]

Actually that isn't true. We've been through several times already.

Matter and energy did have a beginning.

Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

Energy has no beginning and no end, what part of "can neither be created nor destroyed" don't you understand? Your video said nothing about energy having a beginning.

Actually it did.

But if you want to hear it more explicitly...

Except positive energy is something, it can be measured, and negative energy is also something and can also be measured, neither is nothing. Your argument is two somethings in equal amounts and in balance are suddenly nothing.

You mean the position of every leading cosmologist? Yes. That is what they believe. The net energy of a closed system is zero.

Again that does not mean that energy is NO THING!!!!
It means the THING called positive energy and the THING called negative energy are in BALANCE. Both THINGS exist at the same time in equal measurable amounts.

And before space and time existed they didn't. They began.

 

[ding]

Or if you prefer a more in depth discussion...

Again it is the same thing, nowhere in that video does he argue that ENERGY has a beginning. YOU are basically arguing that if the universe had a beginning then energy had a beginning, an argument none of your videos makes.
Again, the FLoT states that energy can neither be created (has no beginning) nor destroyed (has no end).

Space and time is energy and matter.

You left out two critical words, "IN MOTION."
As has been pointed out to you many times before, tine exists ONLY in terms of motion.

No, Ed. You don't know what you are talking about.

Time can be said to be the measure of the expansion of the universe.

When I say space and time it is meant to imply space time.

There was no time before the universe began because there was no space time.

Get with the program Ed.

You can't make up your own physics. If there is no motion there is no time. Please show just ONE physics equation for time that does not involve motion.
You can't and you know it.

Before space time began there was no motion.

In the beginning there was a curious void which held potential.... Nothing existed but no thing did.

 

[there4eyeM]

It may be splitting hairs, but to say a void held potential still seems to describe a state of the 'non being' existing (something of an oxymoron). Perhaps we could put it that 'potential' alone is as close to what could be said to 'exist'.

 

[edthecynic]

Energy has no beginning and no end, what part of "can neither be created nor destroyed" don't you understand? Your video said nothing about energy having a beginning.

Actually it did.

But if you want to hear it more explicitly...

Except positive energy is something, it can be measured, and negative energy is also something and can also be measured, neither is nothing. Your argument is two somethings in equal amounts and in balance are suddenly nothing.

You mean the position of every leading cosmologist? Yes. That is what they believe. The net energy of a closed system is zero.

Again that does not mean that energy is NO THING!!!!
It means the THING called positive energy and the THING called negative energy are in BALANCE. Both THINGS exist at the same time in equal measurable amounts.

And before space and time existed they didn't. They began.

No, and your own video says they were always there.

 

[edthecynic]

Again it is the same thing, nowhere in that video does he argue that ENERGY has a beginning. YOU are basically arguing that if the universe had a beginning then energy had a beginning, an argument none of your videos makes.
Again, the FLoT states that energy can neither be created (has no beginning) nor destroyed (has no end).

Space and time is energy and matter.

You left out two critical words, "IN MOTION."
As has been pointed out to you many times before, tine exists ONLY in terms of motion.

No, Ed. You don't know what you are talking about.

Time can be said to be the measure of the expansion of the universe.

When I say space and time it is meant to imply space time.

There was no time before the universe began because there was no space time.

Get with the program Ed.

You can't make up your own physics. If there is no motion there is no time. Please show just ONE physics equation for time that does not involve motion.
You can't and you know it.

Before space time began there was no motion.

In the beginning there was a curious void which held potential.... Nothing existed but no thing did.

So you cannot produce even one equation in physics that solves for time that does not have motion as a component. So that is settled.

WHAT held potential????? Surely not a void, a void is void of everything including potential or it wouldn't be a void!!!!! You obviously know this or you wouldn't have resorted to double-talk with your next pontification.
Your own video said the "Potential" was in the balance of positive and negative energy. They are both NOT nothing or no thing.

 

[ding]

Actually it did.

But if you want to hear it more explicitly...

Except positive energy is something, it can be measured, and negative energy is also something and can also be measured, neither is nothing. Your argument is two somethings in equal amounts and in balance are suddenly nothing.

You mean the position of every leading cosmologist? Yes. That is what they believe. The net energy of a closed system is zero.

Again that does not mean that energy is NO THING!!!!
It means the THING called positive energy and the THING called negative energy are in BALANCE. Both THINGS exist at the same time in equal measurable amounts.

And before space and time existed they didn't. They began.

No, and your own video says they were always there.

No. They don't. That's why they say the universe began, lol.

 

[ding]

It may be splitting hairs, but to say a void held potential still seems to describe a state of the 'non being' existing (something of an oxymoron). Perhaps we could put it that 'potential' alone is as close to what could be said to 'exist'.

Yes, that is splitting hairs. Given the first cause... everything has potential.

 

[ding]

Space and time is energy and matter.

You left out two critical words, "IN MOTION."
As has been pointed out to you many times before, tine exists ONLY in terms of motion.

No, Ed. You don't know what you are talking about.

Time can be said to be the measure of the expansion of the universe.

When I say space and time it is meant to imply space time.

There was no time before the universe began because there was no space time.

Get with the program Ed.

You can't make up your own physics. If there is no motion there is no time. Please show just ONE physics equation for time that does not involve motion.
You can't and you know it.

Before space time began there was no motion.

In the beginning there was a curious void which held potential.... Nothing existed but no thing did.

So you cannot produce even one equation in physics that solves for time that does not have motion as a component. So that is settled.

WHAT held potential????? Surely not a void, a void is void of everything including potential or it wouldn't be a void!!!!! You obviously know this or you wouldn't have resorted to double-talk with your next pontification.
Your own video said the "Potential" was in the balance of positive and negative energy. They are both NOT nothing or no thing.

Time is a consequence of expansion if nothing exists there is no expansion, there is no time. You want an equation for nothing?

 

[ding]

Did our Universe have a Beginning? | Closer to Truth

 

[edthecynic]

Except positive energy is something, it can be measured, and negative energy is also something and can also be measured, neither is nothing. Your argument is two somethings in equal amounts and in balance are suddenly nothing.

You mean the position of every leading cosmologist? Yes. That is what they believe. The net energy of a closed system is zero.

Again that does not mean that energy is NO THING!!!!
It means the THING called positive energy and the THING called negative energy are in BALANCE. Both THINGS exist at the same time in equal measurable amounts.

And before space and time existed they didn't. They began.

No, and your own video says they were always there.

No. They don't. That's why they say the universe began, lol.

They say the universe began, NOT energy began!!!

 

[ding]

You mean the position of every leading cosmologist? Yes. That is what they believe. The net energy of a closed system is zero.

Again that does not mean that energy is NO THING!!!!
It means the THING called positive energy and the THING called negative energy are in BALANCE. Both THINGS exist at the same time in equal measurable amounts.

And before space and time existed they didn't. They began.

No, and your own video says they were always there.

No. They don't. That's why they say the universe began, lol.

They say the universe began, NOT energy began!!!

No. They say both; that it is possible for energy to have a beginning. There is even an elegant mathematical formula for it that honors the the FLoT.

 

[edthecynic]

You left out two critical words, "IN MOTION."
As has been pointed out to you many times before, tine exists ONLY in terms of motion.

No, Ed. You don't know what you are talking about.

Time can be said to be the measure of the expansion of the universe.

When I say space and time it is meant to imply space time.

There was no time before the universe began because there was no space time.

Get with the program Ed.

You can't make up your own physics. If there is no motion there is no time. Please show just ONE physics equation for time that does not involve motion.
You can't and you know it.

Before space time began there was no motion.

In the beginning there was a curious void which held potential.... Nothing existed but no thing did.

So you cannot produce even one equation in physics that solves for time that does not have motion as a component. So that is settled.

WHAT held potential????? Surely not a void, a void is void of everything including potential or it wouldn't be a void!!!!! You obviously know this or you wouldn't have resorted to double-talk with your next pontification.
Your own video said the "Potential" was in the balance of positive and negative energy. They are both NOT nothing or no thing.

Time is a consequence of expansion if nothing exists there is no expansion, there is no time. You want an equation for nothing?

If what exists is not expanding, it still exists, it is just NOT expanding and it never is nothing.

 

[ding]

1. We know that space and time had a beginning.
2. We know that that beginning followed rules.
3. We know that rules are the domain of intelligence.
4. We know that matter and energy has only changed form since the beginning of space and time.
5. We know that those changes followed rules. The rules which existed before space and time.
6. We know that the universe is full of information.
7. We know that information is the domain of intelligence.
8. We know that at that beginning all space and matter existed in the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom.
9. We know that at that time the universe was perfectly ordered.
10. We know that at that time the energy that make up the atoms of every single human being that ever existed or will ever exist was present in that perfectly ordered state.
11. We know that as space and time evolved that beings that know and create arose and that they arose according to the laws of nature which were in place before space and time existed.
12. We know that the universe became self aware.
13. We know that consciousness is the most complex thing created by the laws of nature.
14. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

 

[ding]

No, Ed. You don't know what you are talking about.

Time can be said to be the measure of the expansion of the universe.

When I say space and time it is meant to imply space time.

There was no time before the universe began because there was no space time.

Get with the program Ed.

You can't make up your own physics. If there is no motion there is no time. Please show just ONE physics equation for time that does not involve motion.
You can't and you know it.

Before space time began there was no motion.

In the beginning there was a curious void which held potential.... Nothing existed but no thing did.

So you cannot produce even one equation in physics that solves for time that does not have motion as a component. So that is settled.

WHAT held potential????? Surely not a void, a void is void of everything including potential or it wouldn't be a void!!!!! You obviously know this or you wouldn't have resorted to double-talk with your next pontification.
Your own video said the "Potential" was in the balance of positive and negative energy. They are both NOT nothing or no thing.

Time is a consequence of expansion if nothing exists there is no expansion, there is no time. You want an equation for nothing?

If what exists is not expanding, it still exists, it is just NOT expanding and it never is nothing.

Then it requires a cause to make it begin expanding. Not to mention that universe is probabilistically unstable and would collapse. Didn't you watch the videos?

 

[edthecynic]

Did our Universe have a Beginning? | Closer to Truth

Again we are talking about ENERGY, not the universe. Linking to videos you don't understand does not prove energy can be created or destroyed. Clearly in Vilenkin's universe both positive energy and negative energy BOTH exist in equal amounts at all times.

What is Nothing?

Is there any place in the Universe where there's truly nothing? Consider the gaps between stars and galaxies? Or the gaps between atoms? What are the properties of nothing?

I want you to take a second and think about nothing. Close your eyes. Picture it in your mind. Focus. Fooooocus. On nothing….It's pretty hard, isn't it? Especially when I keep nattering at you.

Instead, let's just consider the vast spaces between stars and galaxies, or the gaps between atoms and other microscopic particles. When we talk about nothing in the vast reaches between of space, it's not actually, technically nothing. Got that? It's not nothing. There's… something there.

Even in the gulfs of intergalactic space, there are hundreds or thousands of particles in every cubic meter. But even if you could rent MegaMaid from a Dark Helmet surplus store, and vacuum up those particles, there would still be wavelengths of radiation, stretching across vast distances of space.

There's the inevitable reach of gravity stretching across the entire Universe. There's the weak magnetic field from a distant quasar. It's infinitesimally weak, but it's not nothing. It's still something.

Philosophers, and some physicists, argue that *that* nothing isn't the same as "real" nothing. Different physicists see different things as nothing, from nothing is classical vacuum, to the idea of nothing as undifferentiated potential.

Even if you could remove all the particles, shield against all electric and magnetic fields, your box would still contain gravity, because gravity can never be shielded or cancelled out. Gravity doesn't go away, and it's always attractive, so you can't do anything to block it. In Newton's physics that's because it is a force, but in general relativity space and time *are* gravity.

So, imagine if you could remove all particles, energy, gravity… everything from a system. You'd be left with a true vacuum. Even at its lowest energy level, there are fluctuations in the quantum vacuum of the Universe. There are quantum particles popping into and out of existence throughout the Universe. There's nothing, then pop, something, and then the particles collide and you're left with nothing again. And so, even if you could remove everything from the Universe, you'd still be left with these quantum fluctuations embedded in spacetime.

There are physicists like Lawrence Krauss that argue the "universe from nothing", really meaning "the universe from a potentiality". Which comes down to if you add all the mass and energy in the universe, all the gravitational curvature, everything… it looks like it all sums up to zero. So it is possible that the universe really did come from nothing. And if that's the case, then "nothing" is everything we see around us, and "everything" is nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

1. We know that space and time had a beginning.
2. We know that that beginning followed rules.
3. We know that rules are the domain of intelligence.
4. We know that matter and energy has only changed form since the beginning of space and time.
5. We know that those changes followed rules. The rules which existed before space and time.
6. We know that the universe is full of information.
7. We know that information is the domain of intelligence.
8. We know that at that beginning all space and matter existed in the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom.
9. We know that at that time the universe was perfectly ordered.
10. We know that at that time the energy that make up the atoms of every single human being that ever existed or will ever exist was present in that perfectly ordered state.
11. We know that as space and time evolved that beings that know and create arose and that they arose according to the laws of nature which were in place before space and time existed.
12. We know that the universe became self aware.
13. We know that consciousness is the most complex thing created by the laws of nature.
14. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

You know nothing!

 

[edthecynic]

You can't make up your own physics. If there is no motion there is no time. Please show just ONE physics equation for time that does not involve motion.
You can't and you know it.

Before space time began there was no motion.

In the beginning there was a curious void which held potential.... Nothing existed but no thing did.

So you cannot produce even one equation in physics that solves for time that does not have motion as a component. So that is settled.

WHAT held potential????? Surely not a void, a void is void of everything including potential or it wouldn't be a void!!!!! You obviously know this or you wouldn't have resorted to double-talk with your next pontification.
Your own video said the "Potential" was in the balance of positive and negative energy. They are both NOT nothing or no thing.

Time is a consequence of expansion if nothing exists there is no expansion, there is no time. You want an equation for nothing?

If what exists is not expanding, it still exists, it is just NOT expanding and it never is nothing.

Then it requires a cause to make it begin expanding. Not to mention that universe is probabilistically unstable and would collapse. Didn't you watch the videos?

Obviously YOU didn't.
Your own video says it only requires a fluctuation in the balance between positive and negative energy and these fluctuations happen all the time just like the formation of virtual particles.

Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called 'virtual particle' pairs are known as 'quantum fluctuations.' Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Cosmologists have constructed a theory called inflation that accounts for the way in which a small volume of space occupied by a virtual particle pair could have ballooned to become the vast universe we see today.

 

[there4eyeM]

A lot of anthropomorphic projection seems to be involved in these 'explanations'. Again, we have to examine the limitations of our verbiage and our capacities to perceive and allow for fundamental 'out of the box'-ing.
Think wu-wei; non doing doing, for example.

 

[there4eyeM]

It may be splitting hairs, but to say a void held potential still seems to describe a state of the 'non being' existing (something of an oxymoron). Perhaps we could put it that 'potential' alone is as close to what could be said to 'exist'.

Yes, that is splitting hairs. Given the first cause... everything has potential.

Again, words can throw us back on words. "Everything has potential", OK, but (here it comes) where did/does potential come from?
When we cannot find the answer to a question after much time and effort, we must wonder if there is something not right about the question.