Problems with Ex Nihilo Creation

[edthecynic]

The increase in mass probably seems strange at first, because it sounds like a gross violation of the principle of energy conservation. Mass and energy are equivalent, so we are claiming that the energy of the matter within the patch increased by a colossal factor. The reason this is possible is that the conservation of energy has a sort of a loophole, which physicists have known at least since the 1930s,but haven't talked about very much. Energy is always conserved; there are no loopholes to that basic statement. However, we normally think of energies as always being positive. If that were true, then the large amount of energy that we see in the universe could not possibly have gotten here unless the universe started with a lot of energy. However, this is the loophole: energies are not always positive. In particular, the energy of a gravitational field is negative. This statement, that the energy of a gravitational field is negative, is true both in the context of the Newtonian theory of gravity and also in the more sophisticated context of general relativity.

So, during inflation, total energy is conserved. As more and more positive energy (or mass) appears as the patch expands at constant density, more and more negative energy is simultaneously appearing in the gravitational field that fills the region. The total energy is constant, and it remains incredibly small because the negative contribution of gravity cancels the enormous positive energy of the matter. The total energy, in fact, could very plausibly be zero. It is quite possible that there is a perfect cancellation between the negative energy of gravity and the positive energy of everything else.

Cosmic Questions - Guth: How Does Inflation Work?

So there was already a patch of energy before inflation! Again a patch of energy is not nothing.
You keep proving energy always existed and will always exist with your own sources!
Thank you.

No. I keep proving energy had a beginning.

Do you have any scientific background, Ed?

No, you keep pontificating that energy had a beginning and then citing sources that contradict your pontifications.

And yes I am a physicist. So you are trying to lie about physics to a physicist, good luck with that.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Here is what he and everyone else who believes in inflation says:

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.

And there it is right in front of you from your own source, what you are calling "nothing" your own source is calling it a BALANCE of 2 (two) THINGS, positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Net energy equaling zero means the 2 energies, positive and negative, are EQUAL, not that they don't exist and are "nothing."
Get it?
It is very simple and I'm sure everyone else gets it!

Clearly you don't understand that according to inflation theory nothing exists until space time is created through a quantum tunneling event where all energy is created and that the negative force is a consequence of the positive force just like in statics where the sum of forces equals zero.

Inflation says no such thing, that is YOUR perversion of inflation
Your own quote clearly says positive and negative energy exists and it is their very existence that creates space/time by a quantum fluctuation of those TWO existing energies.

Quantumists Are Quacks

As time goes on, it doesn't need anything else to be going at all.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth?

Again your OWN link contradicts your NOTHINGNESS theory!!!!!

From your link:

"Inflation was the 'bang' of the Big Bang," Filippenko told SPACE.com "Before inflation, there was just a little bit of stuff, quite possibly, expanding just a little bit. We needed something like inflation to make the universe big."

Like Post Modernism, Postclassical Physics Is Decadent Irrationalism

This "little bit of stuff" is an impossible concentration of matter/energy. So the singularity never existed; the first fissure into this universe had to be fed from outside.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

At some time in the future no more energy transformations can take place. The Universe will reach some stage of maximum entropy and thermal equilibrium. The Second Law essentially says that the Universe must have had a beginning and a end.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

There is no such thing as perpetual motion.

Even Vilenkin says there is no end to the universe, only a beginning.

Inflationist Guth describes the universe as the ultimate free lunch.

And the rule is there is no such thing as a perpetual motion MACHINE!!!!!

Nature is however a completely different story, the electron orbiting the nucleus of a stable atom is in perpetual motion. If the entropy of such an electron was not zero, it would lose velocity and be drawn into the nucleus splitting it and no matter could exist.
Does matter exist? If so then perpetual motion exists in the universe.

Don't Feed the Dogma

What friction slows down the speed of light to c? That must slow down the electron, too, so it must also return the energy to the electron at the opposite end of its orbit. This may be what creates the electron's charge.

 

[ding]

http://inspirehep.net/record/551244/files/Pages_from_C00-01-22_53.pdf

Inflation and Creation of Matter in the Universe

Please pull the quote that says ENERGY had a beginning.

Here is a pull quote from your link that contradicts your claim that the universe has an end:

It
appears
that in many models large scalar field during inflation produces
large quantum
fluctuations
which may locally increase
the value of the scalar field in some parts of the universe.
These regions
expand at a greater rate than their
parent domains,
and quantum
fluctuations
inside
them lead to production
of new inflationary
domains which
expand even faster. This
surprising
behavior leads
to an eternal process of self-reproduction
of the universe

Eternal into the future. Not eternal into the past. If there is expansion there must be a beginning.

But YOU said the universe has an end, eternal into the future does not sound like an end to me! The point being you know nothing about which you speak and therefore contradict yourself with your own links.

The Second Law essentially says that the Universe must have had a beginning and a end.

The end is thermal equilibrium. Don't read anything more into that.

Inflation being eternal into the future has nothing to do with this universe at all.

It has to do with creating new universes each which will have a beginning and end in thermal equilibrium.

 

[edthecynic]

http://inspirehep.net/record/551244/files/Pages_from_C00-01-22_53.pdf

Inflation and Creation of Matter in the Universe

Please pull the quote that says ENERGY had a beginning.

Here is a pull quote from your link that contradicts your claim that the universe has an end:

It
appears
that in many models large scalar field during inflation produces
large quantum
fluctuations
which may locally increase
the value of the scalar field in some parts of the universe.
These regions
expand at a greater rate than their
parent domains,
and quantum
fluctuations
inside
them lead to production
of new inflationary
domains which
expand even faster. This
surprising
behavior leads
to an eternal process of self-reproduction
of the universe

Eternal into the future. Not eternal into the past. If there is expansion there must be a beginning.

But YOU said the universe has an end, eternal into the future does not sound like an end to me! The point being you know nothing about which you speak and therefore contradict yourself with your own links.

The Second Law essentially says that the Universe must have had a beginning and a end.

The end is thermal equilibrium. Don't read anything more into that.

Inflation being eternal into the future has nothing to do with this universe at all.

It has to do with creating new universes each which will have a beginning and end in thermal equilibrium.

Your own link shot down your thermal equilibrium bullshit, you should have read it before you posted it or after I quoted the part you missed.

 

[ding]

The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth?

Again your OWN link contradicts your NOTHINGNESS theory!!!!!

From your link:

"Inflation was the 'bang' of the Big Bang," Filippenko told SPACE.com "Before inflation, there was just a little bit of stuff, quite possibly, expanding just a little bit. We needed something like inflation to make the universe big."

Like Post Modernism, Postclassical Physics Is Decadent Irrationalism

This "little bit of stuff" is an impossible concentration of matter/energy. So the singularity never existed; the first fissure into this universe had to be fed from outside.

Your first sentence is incorrect. Your second sentence is mostly correct but there was no universe before the "fissure." There was only a curious vacuum which held potential.

The "little bit of stuff" describes a false vacuum, not inflation. The "little bit of stuff" describes what existed before inflation.

 

[ding]

http://inspirehep.net/record/551244/files/Pages_from_C00-01-22_53.pdf

Inflation and Creation of Matter in the Universe

Please pull the quote that says ENERGY had a beginning.

Here is a pull quote from your link that contradicts your claim that the universe has an end:

It
appears
that in many models large scalar field during inflation produces
large quantum
fluctuations
which may locally increase
the value of the scalar field in some parts of the universe.
These regions
expand at a greater rate than their
parent domains,
and quantum
fluctuations
inside
them lead to production
of new inflationary
domains which
expand even faster. This
surprising
behavior leads
to an eternal process of self-reproduction
of the universe

Eternal into the future. Not eternal into the past. If there is expansion there must be a beginning.

But YOU said the universe has an end, eternal into the future does not sound like an end to me! The point being you know nothing about which you speak and therefore contradict yourself with your own links.

The Second Law essentially says that the Universe must have had a beginning and a end.

The end is thermal equilibrium. Don't read anything more into that.

Inflation being eternal into the future has nothing to do with this universe at all.

It has to do with creating new universes each which will have a beginning and end in thermal equilibrium.

Your own link shot down your thermal equilibrium bullshit, you should have read it before you posted it or after I quoted the part you missed.

No. It didn't. You can't get around thermal equilibrium. Not without adding energy to the system. For every corresponding exchange of matter to energy and energy to matter there will be a loss of usable energy.

 

[ding]

No one, except Ed, believes that it is possible for a cyclical universe to exist for infinity because of the SLoT.

No one, except Ed, believes that matter and energy existed forever in this universe.

 

[edthecynic]

The "little bit of stuff" describes what existed before inflation.

And there it is, you are admitting that some THING existed before inflation gave rise to space/time.
As I have pointed out you don't understand anything about physics and as a result you habitually contradict yourself without realizing.

 

[ding]

At some time in the future no more energy transformations can take place. The Universe will reach some stage of maximum entropy and thermal equilibrium. The Second Law essentially says that the Universe must have had a beginning and a end.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

There is no such thing as perpetual motion.

Even Vilenkin says there is no end to the universe, only a beginning.

Inflationist Guth describes the universe as the ultimate free lunch.

And the rule is there is no such thing as a perpetual motion MACHINE!!!!!

Nature is however a completely different story, the electron orbiting the nucleus of a stable atom is in perpetual motion. If the entropy of such an electron was not zero, it would lose velocity and be drawn into the nucleus splitting it and no matter could exist.
Does matter exist? If so then perpetual motion exists in the universe.

Don't Feed the Dogma

What friction slows down the speed of light to c? That must slow down the electron, too, so it must also return the energy to the electron at the opposite end of its orbit. This may be what creates the electron's charge.

And this is important, why?

 

[ding]

The increase in mass probably seems strange at first, because it sounds like a gross violation of the principle of energy conservation. Mass and energy are equivalent, so we are claiming that the energy of the matter within the patch increased by a colossal factor. The reason this is possible is that the conservation of energy has a sort of a loophole, which physicists have known at least since the 1930s,but haven't talked about very much. Energy is always conserved; there are no loopholes to that basic statement. However, we normally think of energies as always being positive. If that were true, then the large amount of energy that we see in the universe could not possibly have gotten here unless the universe started with a lot of energy. However, this is the loophole: energies are not always positive. In particular, the energy of a gravitational field is negative. This statement, that the energy of a gravitational field is negative, is true both in the context of the Newtonian theory of gravity and also in the more sophisticated context of general relativity.

So, during inflation, total energy is conserved. As more and more positive energy (or mass) appears as the patch expands at constant density, more and more negative energy is simultaneously appearing in the gravitational field that fills the region. The total energy is constant, and it remains incredibly small because the negative contribution of gravity cancels the enormous positive energy of the matter. The total energy, in fact, could very plausibly be zero. It is quite possible that there is a perfect cancellation between the negative energy of gravity and the positive energy of everything else.

Cosmic Questions - Guth: How Does Inflation Work?

So there was already a patch of energy before inflation! Again a patch of energy is not nothing.
You keep proving energy always existed and will always exist with your own sources!
Thank you.

No. I keep proving energy had a beginning.

Do you have any scientific background, Ed?

No, you keep pontificating that energy had a beginning and then citing sources that contradict your pontifications.

And yes I am a physicist. So you are trying to lie about physics to a physicist, good luck with that.

Excellent. So then as a physicist, can you explain how the universe came to be?

 

[ding]

The "little bit of stuff" describes what existed before inflation.

And there it is, you are admitting that some THING existed before inflation gave rise to space/time.
As I have pointed out you don't understand anything about physics and as a result you habitually contradict yourself without realizing.

If you want to call a false vacuum a thing. Why would you do that?

 

[ding]

I find it odd that Ed the physicist didn't understand that for this universe inflation isn't eternal into the past?

 

[edthecynic]

Please pull the quote that says ENERGY had a beginning.

Here is a pull quote from your link that contradicts your claim that the universe has an end:

It
appears
that in many models large scalar field during inflation produces
large quantum
fluctuations
which may locally increase
the value of the scalar field in some parts of the universe.
These regions
expand at a greater rate than their
parent domains,
and quantum
fluctuations
inside
them lead to production
of new inflationary
domains which
expand even faster. This
surprising
behavior leads
to an eternal process of self-reproduction
of the universe

Eternal into the future. Not eternal into the past. If there is expansion there must be a beginning.

But YOU said the universe has an end, eternal into the future does not sound like an end to me! The point being you know nothing about which you speak and therefore contradict yourself with your own links.

The Second Law essentially says that the Universe must have had a beginning and a end.

The end is thermal equilibrium. Don't read anything more into that.

Inflation being eternal into the future has nothing to do with this universe at all.

It has to do with creating new universes each which will have a beginning and end in thermal equilibrium.

Your own link shot down your thermal equilibrium bullshit, you should have read it before you posted it or after I quoted the part you missed.

No. It didn't. You can't get around thermal equilibrium. Not without adding energy to the system. For every corresponding exchange of matter to energy and energy to matter there will be a loss of usable energy.

From your OWN earlier link:
"It has long been known that gravity is important for keeping the universe out of thermal equilibrium. Gravitationally bound systems have negative specific heat—that is, the velocities of their components increase when energy is removed. ... Such a system does not evolve toward a homogeneous equilibrium state. Instead it becomes increasingly structured and heterogeneous as it fragments into subsystems."

 

[edthecynic]

The increase in mass probably seems strange at first, because it sounds like a gross violation of the principle of energy conservation. Mass and energy are equivalent, so we are claiming that the energy of the matter within the patch increased by a colossal factor. The reason this is possible is that the conservation of energy has a sort of a loophole, which physicists have known at least since the 1930s,but haven't talked about very much. Energy is always conserved; there are no loopholes to that basic statement. However, we normally think of energies as always being positive. If that were true, then the large amount of energy that we see in the universe could not possibly have gotten here unless the universe started with a lot of energy. However, this is the loophole: energies are not always positive. In particular, the energy of a gravitational field is negative. This statement, that the energy of a gravitational field is negative, is true both in the context of the Newtonian theory of gravity and also in the more sophisticated context of general relativity.

So, during inflation, total energy is conserved. As more and more positive energy (or mass) appears as the patch expands at constant density, more and more negative energy is simultaneously appearing in the gravitational field that fills the region. The total energy is constant, and it remains incredibly small because the negative contribution of gravity cancels the enormous positive energy of the matter. The total energy, in fact, could very plausibly be zero. It is quite possible that there is a perfect cancellation between the negative energy of gravity and the positive energy of everything else.

Cosmic Questions - Guth: How Does Inflation Work?

So there was already a patch of energy before inflation! Again a patch of energy is not nothing.
You keep proving energy always existed and will always exist with your own sources!
Thank you.

No. I keep proving energy had a beginning.

Do you have any scientific background, Ed?

No, you keep pontificating that energy had a beginning and then citing sources that contradict your pontifications.

And yes I am a physicist. So you are trying to lie about physics to a physicist, good luck with that.

Excellent. So then as a physicist, can you explain how the universe came to be?

You have proven you would not understand!!!

 

[ding]

So the singularity never existed

The singularity is an artifact of the math, not a physical phenomenon.

 

[edthecynic]

I find it odd that Ed the physicist didn't understand that for this universe inflation isn't eternal into the past?

You don't speak for me!

 

[ding]

The increase in mass probably seems strange at first, because it sounds like a gross violation of the principle of energy conservation. Mass and energy are equivalent, so we are claiming that the energy of the matter within the patch increased by a colossal factor. The reason this is possible is that the conservation of energy has a sort of a loophole, which physicists have known at least since the 1930s,but haven't talked about very much. Energy is always conserved; there are no loopholes to that basic statement. However, we normally think of energies as always being positive. If that were true, then the large amount of energy that we see in the universe could not possibly have gotten here unless the universe started with a lot of energy. However, this is the loophole: energies are not always positive. In particular, the energy of a gravitational field is negative. This statement, that the energy of a gravitational field is negative, is true both in the context of the Newtonian theory of gravity and also in the more sophisticated context of general relativity.

So, during inflation, total energy is conserved. As more and more positive energy (or mass) appears as the patch expands at constant density, more and more negative energy is simultaneously appearing in the gravitational field that fills the region. The total energy is constant, and it remains incredibly small because the negative contribution of gravity cancels the enormous positive energy of the matter. The total energy, in fact, could very plausibly be zero. It is quite possible that there is a perfect cancellation between the negative energy of gravity and the positive energy of everything else.

Cosmic Questions - Guth: How Does Inflation Work?

So there was already a patch of energy before inflation! Again a patch of energy is not nothing.
You keep proving energy always existed and will always exist with your own sources!
Thank you.

No. I keep proving energy had a beginning.

Do you have any scientific background, Ed?

No, you keep pontificating that energy had a beginning and then citing sources that contradict your pontifications.

And yes I am a physicist. So you are trying to lie about physics to a physicist, good luck with that.

Excellent. So then as a physicist, can you explain how the universe came to be?

You have proven you would not understand!!!

You have proven you cannot explain it or even attempt to explain it.

This is me winning, Ed.

 

[ding]

I find it odd that Ed the physicist didn't understand that for this universe inflation isn't eternal into the past?

You don't speak for me!

I have proven you are lying, Ed.