Can You Show the Universe and Earth Was Created by the Big Bang by Showing the Energy?

If the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron, all matter would be fluid and there would be no planets, no stars, no galaxies and no life.
How do you know that life is not possible in a fluid state?

1.1 Fluid Mechanics
Fluid mechanics is the branch of science concerned with moving and stationary fluids. Given that the vast majority of the observable mass in the universe exists in a fluid state, that life as we know it is not possible without fluids, and that the atmosphere and oceans covering this planet are fluids, fluid mechanics has unquestioned scientific and practical importance.
Because in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms.
now you are just making shit up as you PONTIFICATE!
There ARE fluid molecules and therefore it is possible those molecules could form a kind of fluid life in another universe with different natural laws. Nothing is "impossible" in the multiverse, except maybe you admitting the truth.
Take it up with Nobel Laureate George Wald.



"...I should like now to raise two problems to do with protons and electrons, one involving their masses, the other their electric charge.

Every atom has a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons, except the smallest one, hydrogen, which has only one proton as its nucleus. Electrons orbit these nuclei at distances relatively greater than separate our sun from its planets. Both protons and neutrons have masses almost two thousand times the mass of an electron -- 1840 times when I last looked -- so virtually the whole mass of an atom is in its nucleus. Hence the atom is hardly disturbed at all by the motions of its electrons, and an atom can hold its position in a molecule, and molecules their positions in larger structures. Only that circumstance permits molecules to hold their shapes, and solids to exist.

If on the contrary the protons and neutrons were closer in mass to the electrons, whether light or heavy, then the motions of the electrons would be reflected in reciprocal motions by the others. All structures composed of such atoms would be fluid; in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms.

And now, electric charge: How does it come about that elementary particles so altogether different otherwise as the proton and electron possess the same numerical charge? How is it that the proton is exactly as plus-charged as the electron is minus-charged?

It may help to accept this as a legitimate scientific question to know that in 1959 two of our most distinguished astrophysicists, Lyttleton and Bondi, proposed that in fact the proton and electron differ in charge by the almost infinitesimal amount, 2 x 10 -18e -- two billion billionths e, in which e is the already tiny charge on either the proton or electron. The reason they made that proposal is that, given that nearly infinitesimal difference in charge, all the matter in the universe would be charged, and in the same sense, plus or minus. Since like charges repel one another, all the matter in the universe would repel all the other matter, and so the universe would expand, just as it is believed to do. The trouble with that idea is that yes, the universe would expand, but -- short of extraordinary special dispensations - it would not do anything else. Even so small a difference in electric charge would be enough to overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together; and so we should have no planets, no stars, no galaxies -- and, worst of all, no physicists.

No need to worry, however. Shortly after Lyttleton and Bondi’s proposal, John King and his group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began to test experimentally whether the proton and electron differ in charge, and found that the charges appear to be wholly identical. That is an extraordinary fact, and not made easier to understand by the present belief that, though the electron is a single, apparently indivisible particle, the proton is made up of three quarks, to of them with charges of +2/3 e, and one with a charge of -1/3 e.

To summarize, if the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron, all matter would be fluid; and if the proton and electron did not possess exactly the same electric charge, no matter would aggregate. These are primary conditions for the existence of life in the universe..."

:dance:
 
Last edited:
The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing.
Not quite1

And what does he say?

Because I am almost certain he does not believe as you do that the universe has existed forever.

If you had listened he contradicted your know-it-all claim that the laws of physics and nature are no thing.
Here is another well known scientist saying the same thing in a more jocular manner.

And they all agree with me that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago being created from nothing and being hardwired to create intelligence.

They admitted no such thing, they both are arguing that there is no such thing as nothing.
Can't you be honest about anything????

Maybe you should watch the videos, ed. :lol:
 
Ooop, folks.. Looks like it's.. Copypasta time again!.. Quick, more sauce!.. More cheese!..
 
Ha, I can still read and respond to ding's donkey crap upon occasion w/o unignoring him.
No need to worry, however. Shortly after Lyttleton and Bondi’s proposal, John King and his group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began to test experimentally whether the proton and electron differ in charge, and found that the charges appear to be wholly identical. That is an extraordinary fact, and not made easier to understand by the present belief that, though the electron is a single, apparently indivisible particle, the proton is made up of three quarks, to of them with charges of +2/3 e, and one with a charge of -1/3 e.
"to of them"? Gee, what could possibly make it more obvious that "electrons" are not really "particles" in any sense, just complementary fields rather (Schrödinger fields), induced by the very existence of protons. There really are no "electrons" nor "positive and negative." Only zones of charge, zones that lack charge, and zones that split the difference (including 1/3 multiples of e obviously).
 
If the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron, all matter would be fluid and there would be no planets, no stars, no galaxies and no life.
How do you know that life is not possible in a fluid state?

1.1 Fluid Mechanics
Fluid mechanics is the branch of science concerned with moving and stationary fluids. Given that the vast majority of the observable mass in the universe exists in a fluid state, that life as we know it is not possible without fluids, and that the atmosphere and oceans covering this planet are fluids, fluid mechanics has unquestioned scientific and practical importance.
Because in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms.
now you are just making shit up as you PONTIFICATE!
There ARE fluid molecules and therefore it is possible those molecules could form a kind of fluid life in another universe with different natural laws. Nothing is "impossible" in the multiverse, except maybe you admitting the truth.
Take it up with Nobel Laureate George Wald.



"...I should like now to raise two problems to do with protons and electrons, one involving their masses, the other their electric charge.

Every atom has a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons, except the smallest one, hydrogen, which has only one proton as its nucleus. Electrons orbit these nuclei at distances relatively greater than separate our sun from its planets. Both protons and neutrons have masses almost two thousand times the mass of an electron -- 1840 times when I last looked -- so virtually the whole mass of an atom is in its nucleus. Hence the atom is hardly disturbed at all by the motions of its electrons, and an atom can hold its position in a molecule, and molecules their positions in larger structures. Only that circumstance permits molecules to hold their shapes, and solids to exist.

If on the contrary the protons and neutrons were closer in mass to the electrons, whether light or heavy, then the motions of the electrons would be reflected in reciprocal motions by the others. All structures composed of such atoms would be fluid; in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms.

And now, electric charge: How does it come about that elementary particles so altogether different otherwise as the proton and electron possess the same numerical charge? How is it that the proton is exactly as plus-charged as the electron is minus-charged?

It may help to accept this as a legitimate scientific question to know that in 1959 two of our most distinguished astrophysicists, Lyttleton and Bondi, proposed that in fact the proton and electron differ in charge by the almost infinitesimal amount, 2 x 10 -18e -- two billion billionths e, in which e is the already tiny charge on either the proton or electron. The reason they made that proposal is that, given that nearly infinitesimal difference in charge, all the matter in the universe would be charged, and in the same sense, plus or minus. Since like charges repel one another, all the matter in the universe would repel all the other matter, and so the universe would expand, just as it is believed to do. The trouble with that idea is that yes, the universe would expand, but -- short of extraordinary special dispensations - it would not do anything else. Even so small a difference in electric charge would be enough to overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together; and so we should have no planets, no stars, no galaxies -- and, worst of all, no physicists.

No need to worry, however. Shortly after Lyttleton and Bondi’s proposal, John King and his group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began to test experimentally whether the proton and electron differ in charge, and found that the charges appear to be wholly identical. That is an extraordinary fact, and not made easier to understand by the present belief that, though the electron is a single, apparently indivisible particle, the proton is made up of three quarks, to of them with charges of +2/3 e, and one with a charge of -1/3 e.

To summarize, if the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron, all matter would be fluid; and if the proton and electron did not possess exactly the same electric charge, no matter would aggregate. These are primary conditions for the existence of life in the universe..."

:dance:
He is entitled to his OPINION, and that is all it is, OPINION.
Life can exist in forms we can't even imagine and probably not even recognize if conditions were different.
 
The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing.
Not quite1

And what does he say?

Because I am almost certain he does not believe as you do that the universe has existed forever.

If you had listened he contradicted your know-it-all claim that the laws of physics and nature are no thing.
Here is another well known scientist saying the same thing in a more jocular manner.

And they all agree with me that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago being created from nothing and being hardwired to create intelligence.

They admitted no such thing, they both are arguing that there is no such thing as nothing.
Can't you be honest about anything????

Maybe you should watch the videos, ed. :lol:

Obviously you didn't!
 
The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing.
Not quite1

And what does he say?

Because I am almost certain he does not believe as you do that the universe has existed forever.

If you had listened he contradicted your know-it-all claim that the laws of physics and nature are no thing.
Here is another well known scientist saying the same thing in a more jocular manner.

And they all agree with me that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago being created from nothing and being hardwired to create intelligence.

They admitted no such thing, they both are arguing that there is no such thing as nothing.
Can't you be honest about anything????

Maybe you should watch the videos, ed. :lol:

Obviously you didn't!

In 2012 Krauss wrote a book titled, A Universe from Nothing. :lol:
 
It means zero NET energy. So 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.



Isn't Vilenkin the guy Dr. William Lane Craig thrashed for his beliefs in infinite multiverses and that universe had a beginning but no cause?

Probably. I reach a different conclusion than Vilenkin on what it means that the laws of nature were in place before space and time.

Did Vilenkin state there was no cause? Or did he say 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?

How is that not a cause?


First, let's close our God is not in our universe discussion. Do you have any intuition of the Holy Spirit?

I think Vilenkin said the first premise of KCA is wrong and that there isn't a cause -- "Everything that begins to exist has a cause to its existence."

He applies that to the universe that there was no cause before it and then starts making up his rules of quantum mechanics as to the cause.

I think it's all to avoid the third statement -- Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

That is best explained by God. Not quantum mechanics as it does not have a source of near infinite energy such as EMS.

No. Let's not. You are so far afield of most everything that it serves no logical purpose to discuss these things with you. There's no value in it for me.


So you admit you and your boy Vilenkin lost. Do you believe in multiverses, too? Where did that infinite energy come from :auiqs.jpg:?

And I thought you said it was a singularity, i.e. one time occurrence? What kind of liar is Vilenkin anyway?

The LIE of the atheist scientists' big bang singularity (only one big bang) is infinite temperature. They didn't want to say to say infinite heat, which is the energy that causes rise in temperature, because that would mean they would have to explain how the heat was created. And it would have to be infinite heat which we know cannot exist unless it was supernatural. Later, they explain this as dark energy. Dark energy may as well be God. That's evidence for God to the weak minded.

It's just like you who makes up stuff about God in your head.
 
The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing.
Not quite1

And what does he say?

Because I am almost certain he does not believe as you do that the universe has existed forever.

If you had listened he contradicted your know-it-all claim that the laws of physics and nature are no thing.
Here is another well known scientist saying the same thing in a more jocular manner.

And they all agree with me that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago being created from nothing and being hardwired to create intelligence.

They admitted no such thing, they both are arguing that there is no such thing as nothing.
Can't you be honest about anything????

Maybe you should watch the videos, ed. :lol:

Obviously you didn't!

" In the beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago, all the space and all the matter and all the energy of the known universe was contained in a volume less than one trillionth the size of the point of a pin. Conditions were so hot, the basic forces of nature that collectively describe the universe were unified. For reasons unknown, this sub-pinpoint-sized cosmos began to expand...."

"...Yes, the universe had a beginning. Yes, the universe continues to evolve. And yes, every one of our body's atoms is traceable to the Big Bang and to thermonuclear furnace within high-mass stars.

We are not simply in the universe, we are part of it. We are born from it. One might even say we've been empowered by the universe to figure itself out. And we've only just begun. I'm Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and the Frederick P. Rose Director of New York City's Hayden Planetarium. Keep looking up."

:lol:
 
It means zero NET energy. So 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.



Isn't Vilenkin the guy Dr. William Lane Craig thrashed for his beliefs in infinite multiverses and that universe had a beginning but no cause?

Probably. I reach a different conclusion than Vilenkin on what it means that the laws of nature were in place before space and time.

Did Vilenkin state there was no cause? Or did he say 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?

How is that not a cause?


First, let's close our God is not in our universe discussion. Do you have any intuition of the Holy Spirit?

I think Vilenkin said the first premise of KCA is wrong and that there isn't a cause -- "Everything that begins to exist has a cause to its existence."

He applies that to the universe that there was no cause before it and then starts making up his rules of quantum mechanics as to the cause.

I think it's all to avoid the third statement -- Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

That is best explained by God. Not quantum mechanics as it does not have a source of near infinite energy such as EMS.

No. Let's not. You are so far afield of most everything that it serves no logical purpose to discuss these things with you. There's no value in it for me.


So you admit you and your boy Vilenkin lost. Do you believe in multiverses, too? Where did that infinite energy come from :auiqs.jpg:?

And I thought you said it was a singularity, i.e. one time occurrence? What kind of liar is Vilenkin anyway?

The LIE of the atheist scientists' big bang singularity (only one big bang) is infinite temperature. They didn't want to say to say infinite heat, which is the energy that causes rise in temperature, because that would mean they would have to explain how the heat was created. And it would have to be infinite heat which we know cannot exist unless it was supernatural. Later, they explain this as dark energy. Dark energy may as well be God. That's evidence for God to the weak minded.

It's just like you who makes up stuff about God in your head.

You skip so many steps it's impossible to actually have an honest discussion with you.
 
So you admit you and your boy Vilenkin lost. Do you believe in multiverses, too? Where did that infinite energy come from :auiqs.jpg:?

And I thought you said it was a singularity, i.e. one time occurrence? What kind of liar is Vilenkin anyway?

The LIE of the atheist scientists' big bang singularity (only one big bang) is infinite temperature. They didn't want to say to say infinite heat, which is the energy that causes rise in temperature, because that would mean they would have to explain how the heat was created. And it would have to be infinite heat which we know cannot exist unless it was supernatural. Later, they explain this as dark energy. Dark energy may as well be God. That's evidence for God to the weak minded.

It's just like you who makes up stuff about God in your head.

Why did you change your rhetoric from "near infinite" energy to now you are saying "infinite" energy? ...

Ah ... you admit your logic completely fails with the former ... and you're hoping no one remembers what you said ... sorry ... we do remember ...

Infinite energy in the beginning would remain infinite today ... the entire universe would be a solid energy ... no matter a'tall ... God gifted you with a brain, try using it sometime ...
 
No question as to whether or not all the universe we know of started with a bang. What occurred prior to the bang and shortly thereafter remains unknown (open to speculation). Multiverses cannot be ruled out, but we have no evidence to support any's existence either. We know a lot of heat was involved in the first 300,000 years before things cooled enough for matter to begin coagulating (producing the CMB).
 
The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing.
Not quite1

And what does he say?

Because I am almost certain he does not believe as you do that the universe has existed forever.

If you had listened he contradicted your know-it-all claim that the laws of physics and nature are no thing.
Here is another well known scientist saying the same thing in a more jocular manner.

And they all agree with me that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago being created from nothing and being hardwired to create intelligence.

They admitted no such thing, they both are arguing that there is no such thing as nothing.
Can't you be honest about anything????

Maybe you should watch the videos, ed. :lol:

Obviously you didn't!

In 2012 Krauss wrote a book titled, A Universe from Nothing. :lol:

Where he admits nothing is something that actually has weight!!!!
You should read the book!
 
" In the beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago, all the space and all the matter and all the energy of the known universe was contained in a volume less than one trillionth the size of the point of a pin. Conditions were so hot, the basic forces of nature that collectively describe the universe were unified. For reasons unknown, this sub-pinpoint-sized cosmos began to expand...."
Sure sounds like something a bit more than nothing!!!!
 
" In the beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago, all the space and all the matter and all the energy of the known universe was contained in a volume less than one trillionth the size of the point of a pin. Conditions were so hot, the basic forces of nature that collectively describe the universe were unified. For reasons unknown, this sub-pinpoint-sized cosmos began to expand...."
Sure sounds like something a bit more than nothing!!!!
Which was created from nothing. You don’t believe the matter was lying around somewhere else do you?
 
There is positive energy of the matter/energy and there is the negative energy of the gravity which is a consequence that space and time are warped and they perfectly balance such that they sum to zero. And since they sum to zero, the creation of space and time from nothing does not violate the law of conservation.

How do you know that spacetime is warped? It's a good model to explan gravity, but it could be an attractive force between two masses. I've read of experiments to show gravity could be different due to the surface at various points on Earth.
 
The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing.
Not quite1

And what does he say?

Because I am almost certain he does not believe as you do that the universe has existed forever.

If you had listened he contradicted your know-it-all claim that the laws of physics and nature are no thing.
Here is another well known scientist saying the same thing in a more jocular manner.

And they all agree with me that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago being created from nothing and being hardwired to create intelligence.

They admitted no such thing, they both are arguing that there is no such thing as nothing.
Can't you be honest about anything????

Maybe you should watch the videos, ed. :lol:

Obviously you didn't!

In 2012 Krauss wrote a book titled, A Universe from Nothing. :lol:

Where he admits nothing is something that actually has weight!!!!
You should read the book!

How do you know I didn’t?
 
If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created? Where is the evidence for this energy being created?

I learned in high school that energy can’t be created. It can only be converted from one form to another.

If the universe and Earth was created by the Big Bang, then wouldn't there be much energy created?

Yes. Look around. It's everywhere!!!
I was created by a Big Bang. OK Small bang. 10 minutes in the back of a 49 Plymouth.....
 

Forum List

Back
Top