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

[james bond]

Temperature is the measure of heat. There is no temperature where the motion is zero.

Is this some 12th Century book you getting this from? ... I don't think I've used the word "heat" since Middle School ...

The macroscopic definition of temperature is total kinetic energy ... electrons orbiting, vibration states, motion through space ... everything has a temperature, even if it's 0 K ...

You forgot to tell us about the friction within an atom ... I'm extremely curious ...

No, you're wrong. Temperature is the just the measurement of heat energy. It doesn't comprise of energy, but measures the changes of the energy. We know water flows from a higher location to a lower location and that is what ed is referring to with fluid mechanics.

You're just conceptual, Frannie.

I want whine with my dine ...

I'll have the Costco cab with this fight going on. ding sounds conceptual, too, i.e. it's all in his head.

 

[Hollie]

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.

I'd suggest we look in the bible for a comprehensive description of gravity. Who needs experiments when ''the gods did it'' answers all questions.

 

[james bond]

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 ?

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.

Then why are you asking me questions about God? I mean you believe the atheist science, but don't believe what God said.

What you know about your Catholic God is conceptual just like what you know about atheist science. Just the concepts. You didn't answer my religious question to you whether the Holy Spirit has a intuitive affect on you?

I don't know what you mean when you don't explain and just copy paste. I asked you if you believed im multiverses? You can't answer that.

There is no singularity with the arguments I'm hearing between you and edthecynic . It could mean you are just arguing about who knows more about quantum mechanics and its differences with the laws of physics such as quantum entanglement vs action at a distance or something from nothing vs an universe from nothing.

The nothing that people want to describe as the universe just can't happen from "nothing," i.e. no spacetime. One has to have the fourth dimension of spacetime and the the three dimensions as nothing is created. Today, we there are things in the nothing, but that's another topic. Before that we had to have the fourth dimension of spacetime to represent the beginning.

 

[ReinyDays]

No, you're wrong. Temperature is the just the measurement of heat energy. It doesn't comprise of energy, but measures the changes of the energy. We know water flows from a higher location to a lower location and that is what ed is referring to with fluid mechanics.

I just scanned through the chapter on Temperature in my dog-eared copy of Halliday/Resnik ... clearly says, and explains in detail, that temperature is the (macroscopic) measure of kinetic energy ... I think you're confusing "temperature" with "thermometer" ... and that's why your thermodynamics comes across as bozo ... try to use real physics ...

Add 8 joules of energy to a gram of water and we can measure the 2ºC temperature increase ... with a thermometer ... see the difference? ...

 

[ding]

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.

If gravity were a force that acted over distance then there would be a lag component because of the distance. So the only way for the effect of gravity to be instantaneous is if it is built in the fabric of space. Ergo space is warped. That's how I know.

 

[ding]

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 ?

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.

Then why are you asking me questions about God? I mean you believe the atheist science, but don't believe what God said.

What you know about your Catholic God is conceptual just like what you know about atheist science. Just the concepts. You didn't answer my religious question to you whether the Holy Spirit has a intuitive affect on you?

I don't know what you mean when you don't explain and just copy paste. I asked you if you believed im multiverses? You can't answer that.

There is no singularity with the arguments I'm hearing between you and edthecynic . It could mean you are just arguing about who knows more about quantum mechanics and its differences with the laws of physics such as quantum entanglement vs action at a distance or something from nothing vs an universe from nothing.

The nothing that people want to describe as the universe just can't happen from "nothing," i.e. no spacetime. One has to have the fourth dimension of spacetime and the the three dimensions as nothing is created. Today, we there are things in the nothing, but that's another topic. Before that we had to have the fourth dimension of spacetime to represent the beginning.

The only question that I am aware of asking you that had to do with God had to do with your belief that God left.

Your views are so strange that I wonder if your intention isn't to be subversive.

 

[ding]

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).

You aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with George Wald, Nobel Laureate. Good job.

 

[ding]

Temperature is the measure of heat. There is no temperature where the motion is zero.

Is this some 12th Century book you getting this from? ... I don't think I've used the word "heat" since Middle School ...

The macroscopic definition of temperature is total kinetic energy ... electrons orbiting, vibration states, motion through space ... everything has a temperature, even if it's 0 K ...

You forgot to tell us about the friction within an atom ... I'm extremely curious ...

No, you're wrong. Temperature is the just the measurement of heat energy. It doesn't comprise of energy, but measures the changes of the energy. We know water flows from a higher location to a lower location and that is what ed is referring to with fluid mechanics.

You're just conceptual, Frannie.

I want whine with my dine ...

I'll have the Costco cab with this fight going on. ding sounds conceptual, too, i.e. it's all in his head.

I'm honored to be compared to ReinyDays.

 

[ding]

And for the last time a singularity is not a noteworthy physical event. A singularity is where the field equations calculate infinite values. It's where the math or equations breaks down so to speak. It's the point at which the equations no longer produce usable numbers. It is not some physical event. It's mathematical.

 

[james bond]

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.

I'd suggest we look in the bible for a comprehensive description of gravity. Who needs experiments when ''the gods did it'' answers all questions.

There are no thought experiments to show the creation of spacetime (along which our three dimensions would come with). We can't have quantum mechanics without spacetime. Once that is created, then we have the three dimensions and a beginning. What people are arguing about is what came about after this singularity. There was nothing and then something or beginning. That's the true singulairty. We call this x, y, and z axis of space our universe and it had nothing so it was dark. The atheists have to have this nothing as the beginning for their singularity. Thus, some assume that time and space were always there. Otherwise, it's difficult to explain the beginning of spacetime just happened in my opinion.

So the singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density couldn't possibly exist without spacetime. That nothing state of no spacetime is difficult if not impossible to overcome.

The other thing ding wants is GR and the warping of space. I agree that that's what large masses do, but is that the only explanation? I think both smaller and larger masses still attract each other as our bodies feel that with the Earth. We see that with the apple falling from the tree to the ground. Is ding going to tell me that with GR if I throw the apple that it will curve around the tree that it fell from before falling to the ground?

So with quantum mechanics, that brings up the quantum entanglement or action at a distance topic. We still don't have good explanation for it, but maybe the best one lies with Bell's Theorem. His theorem basically states that it is just a matter of probability that the spin of one photon determines the spin of its entangled pair. He states the times when they aren't the same or not equal will show itself. When we do the experiments to show this, we find that his inequalities do not hold. Einstein thought this was the spooky action at a distance and thought there was some kind of faster than light communications. Instead, Bell thought one of his assumptions were failing in that of locality or physical reality was failing. With QE, it was locality.

Everything You Need to Know About Bell's Theorem

Bell's Theorem helped solidify the idea that the interactions in quantum physics between entangled particles are instantaneous and non-local in nature.

www.thoughtco.com

.

It's a simple theorem, but not easy to explain in action with quantum entanglement. It lead to Einstein and his people thinking of faster than light communications. One can see it in action without the entanglement or measuring being done in the following youtube. Sorry, it's kinda long. Basically it shows the failure of Bell's locality without the QE experiments:

 

[ding]

What you know about your Catholic God...

This sounds remarkably like something Hollie would write.

 

[edthecynic]

" 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?

Created from energy that always exists, and energy is NOT nothing.
Your own quote contradicts you, but you are too STUPID to realize it!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Obviously you didn't!

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

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

How do you know I didn’t?

Because it uses words you could never understand.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Einstein and his people thinking of faster than light communications.

Yes, fields can interact instantaneously. Duh! Like Einstein, QM got lost in its own ego and has yet to recover.

 

[Flash]

One of these days the Big Bang theory will be thought of as being as silly theory as the universe being on the back of a big turtle.

It simply doesn't jive. It is in conflict with just about everything we know about physics.

 

[ding]

" 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?

Created from energy that always exists, and energy is NOT nothing.
Your own quote contradicts you, but you are too STUPID to realize it!!!!!

Where did that energy come from and why wasn't it already contained in its own space and time?

 

[edthecynic]

If gravity were a force that acted over distance then there would be a lag component because of the distance. So the only way for the effect of gravity to be instantaneous is if it is built in the fabric of space. Ergo space is warped. That's how I know.

You don't know squat!
Gravity IS a force that acts over distance, gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the separation distance between the two interacting objects
Space is warped by mass and the greater the mass the greater the gravity.

 

[ding]

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.

Obviously you didn't!

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

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

How do you know I didn’t?

Because it uses words you could never understand.

You mean like... 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.

 

[edthecynic]

You aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with George Wald, Nobel Laureate. Good job.

Appeal to Authority fallacy
argumentum ad verecundiam
(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)
Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority .

 

[ding]

If gravity were a force that acted over distance then there would be a lag component because of the distance. So the only way for the effect of gravity to be instantaneous is if it is built in the fabric of space. Ergo space is warped. That's how I know.

You don't know squat!
Gravity IS a force that acts over distance, gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the separation distance between the two interacting objects
Space is warped by mass and the greater the mass the greater the gravity.

No. That's just a calculation. The warping of space is gravity so to speak. That's how the effects of gravity can be felt instantaneously over any distance.

So is it your contention that gravity is a force whose effects are felt instantaneously regardless of the distance between the two objects?