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

[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.

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.

The energy of a closed system is NEVER zero, and space/time has a beginning, NOT energy.
Thank you for proving you could never understand a physics book.

Now you are arguing with Alexander Vilenkin, the Leonard Jane Holmes Bernstein Professor of Evolutionary Science and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University.

Keep them logical fallacies coming!
Appeal to Authority
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 .

Again... you are an internet troll arguing with Alexander Vilenkin, a world renowned Physicist. In this analogy you are the false authority.

I have reduced you to a broken record!

Winning hands keep getting played, Ed.

Except you are too STUPID to know you are losing.

 

[Grumblenuts]

ding is why the ignore function was created. It lives to pester rather than discuss.

 

[ding]

I have wound up Ed tighter than Hillary Clinton's twat the night she lost to the Donald.

 

[ding]

ding is why the ignore function was created. It lives to pester rather than discuss.

Funny how you are seeing this exchange between me and Ed this way, G-nut. It's very revealing.

 

[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.

The energy of a closed system is NEVER zero, and space/time has a beginning, NOT energy.
Thank you for proving you could never understand a physics book.

Now you are arguing with Alexander Vilenkin, the Leonard Jane Holmes Bernstein Professor of Evolutionary Science and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University.

Keep them logical fallacies coming!
Appeal to Authority
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 .

Again... you are an internet troll arguing with Alexander Vilenkin, a world renowned Physicist. In this analogy you are the false authority.

I have reduced you to a broken record!

Winning hands keep getting played, Ed.

Except you are too STUPID to know you are losing.

Do you feel better now, Ed?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You write of ''we'' doing experiments. Who is this ''we'? We know that the creation ministries do no research so it seems you are relying in the works of evilutionist, atheist scientists who do actual research and publish in peer reviewed journals.

Eerily similar to how one always finds that denialists never actually do any of their own research. They just deliberately screw around with other people's data and evaluations therefrom.

 

[ding]

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.

Actually it's a mathematical limitation of the field equations.

That there was a nothing state or a false vacuum that existed before the creation of the universe can be solved through inspection.

 

[ding]

You write of ''we'' doing experiments. Who is this ''we'? We know that the creation ministries do no research so it seems you are relying in the works of evilutionist, atheist scientists who do actual research and publish in peer reviewed journals.

Eerily similar to how one always finds that denialists never actually do any of their own research. They just deliberately screw around with other people's data and evaluations therefrom.

I bet you get news feeds from FB.

 

[ReinyDays]

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.

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.

[Emphases mine]

I believe singularities exist as infinitesimal ... (dx, dy, dz, dt) ... try not to get bogged down in discrete values ...

HELL YEAH it's difficult to explain the beginning of spacetime ... an area of active research ...

 

[james bond]

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? ...

No, you are wrong in comprehending your sources. Heat is the joules of energy. Temperature is what heat changes. You don't know the difference?

No wonder you take the whine of ding while I'll have the wine.

 

[ding]

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? ...

No, you are wrong in comprehending your sources. Heat is the joules of energy. Temperature is what heat changes. You don't know the difference?

No wonder you take the whine of ding while I'll have the wine.

I don't understand your statement temperature is what heat changes. Do you have a link for that?

Temperature is a macroscopic parameter that is a measure of the average KE of the molecules in a system. Heat flows from the hot system (lowering its internal energy and temperature) to a cold system (raising its internal energy and temperature).

http://www2.physics.uiowa.edu/~rmerlino/11Sum13/29011_Notes_7.22.pdf

 

[ReinyDays]

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 ...

No, you are wrong in comprehending your sources. Heat is the joules of energy. Temperature is what heat changes. You don't know the difference?
No wonder you take the whine of ding while I'll have the wine.

1 joule = 1 kilogram meter^2/sec^2 ... do you know the difference between "numbers" and "units" ... yeesh ... if you can't handle freshman physics, you ought not to be blabbing about graduate level stuff ...

How the hell can you not know what a joule is? ... let's try an easier one, do you know what a newton is and how it's defined? ...

Heat is the joules of energy. --- What's your source for this? ...

Before you forget, I still want to know why you changed your rhetoric from "near infinite" to "infinite" ... those aren't the same ...

 

[ding]

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 ...

No, you are wrong in comprehending your sources. Heat is the joules of energy. Temperature is what heat changes. You don't know the difference?
No wonder you take the whine of ding while I'll have the wine.

1 joule = 1 kilogram meter^2/sec^2 ... do you know the difference between "numbers" and "units" ... yeesh ... if you can't handle freshman physics, you ought not to be blabbing about graduate level stuff ...

How the hell can you not know what a joule is? ... let's try an easier one, do you know what a newton is and how it's defined? ...

Heat is the joules of energy. --- What's your source for this? ...

Before you forget, I still want to know why you changed your rhetoric from "near infinite" to "infinite" ... those aren't the same ...

Not to sidetrack but the consequences of infinite time are mind boggling to me. Even tiny losses of matter would have huge implications in infinite time.

The first generation of stars began as hydrogen, and lived by fusing it to helium. A hydrogen atom is composed of a proton as nucleus and one electron moving about it; but at temperatures of about five million degrees they are driven apart, and one is dealing with naked protons, hydrogen nuclei. Now four such protons, each of mass 1, begin to fuse to a helium nucleus of about mass 4, but in this process a very small amount of mass is lost -- four protons have a slightly larger mass than a helium nucleus -- and this tiny loss of mass is converted into radiation according to Einstein’s equation, E=mc2. Even so small a loss of mass yields a huge amount of radiation, and that flood of radiation pours out in the interior of what had been a collapsing mass of gas and stops its further collapse, stabilizing it, and is also the source of starlight. George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ReinyDays]

Not to sidetrack but the consequences of infinite time are mind boggling to me. Even tiny losses of matter would have huge implications in infinite time.

Not at all ... conservation laws would apply over all time ... whether finite or infinite ...

 

[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.

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 should've been able to answer my question. It means you don't know.

Newton thought gravity was an attractive force between two masses, but it doesn't explain spacetime correctly (Newton formally separated space and time) while Einstein's GR could explain spacetime and embraced it. From there, Einstein was correct in the curvatures of spacetime.

We've discovered gravity isn't a force like Newton thought. The GR theory guy and his partners thought it would have to be faster than light communications for QE, but it wasn't that at all. We still don't understand the mechanism, but it could have to do with finding what causes gravity, i.e. electromagnetism (?) -- Electric Gravity? Electromagnetic gravity? How is Gravity instant?. Some scientists have been looking a electromagnetism as its source for many years.

Newton was trying to explain action at a distance, too. For example, the example you give of gravity as waves in space could explain quantum entanglement. Gravity could be like light as both a particle and wave. The results do not have to be instantaneous, but good enough for the sensors to detect them as opposite. Thus the action at a distance is fast enough before the sensors picked up what happened.

I don't think any of us understand gravity completely, but some continue working on it. They're looking at the gravity in a black hole. Now, they're even criticizing Einstein. My guess is the entangled particles are on the same wavelength of gravity in space throughout the universe.

What you know about your Catholic God...

This sounds remarkably like something Hollie would write.

Many Christian groups look upon Catholicism as being on its own, i.e. polite way to say heresy.

 

[Rye Catcher]

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.

Well, it's more credible than some spirit in the sky created the Universe in seven days.

 

[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:

Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.

You write of ''we'' doing experiments. Who is this ''we'? We know that the creation ministries do no research so it seems you are relying in the works of evilutionist, atheist scientists who do actual research and publish in peer reviewed journals.

I'm using what Father Georges Lemaitre meant by singularity. It's in Webster's. Today, it's been hijacked by the atheists to explain multiple types of singularities or their predictions for infinite density point, e.g. spacetime singularity or gravitational singularity. I suppose there will be black hole singularity, too. I suppose that's how these guys come up with their multiverses, but where is the infinite heat energy?

 

[james bond]

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.

Actually it's a mathematical limitation of the field equations.

That there was a nothing state or a false vacuum that existed before the creation of the universe can be solved through inspection.

Haha. Who was there to inspect it for you?

 

[james bond]

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.

Well, it's more credible than some spirit in the sky created the Universe in seven days.

Big bang can fit easily with God creating "In the beginning" than any of the other silly answers. Where is the energy for creating spacetime and the three dimensions of space or the x, y, and z-axes. We also have the three states of time as past, present, and future. The Christian God was a big proponent of threes as in the Trinity. More evidence for our side.

 

[james bond]

Heat is the joules of energy. --- What's your source for this? ..

You're no physicist nor engineer, Frannie. Do you know what the difference is between a scientist (physicist) and an engineer? A physicist wants to get his discovery published in Science and Nature while the engineer wants to use his discovery to make big bucks . (I'm not laughing at my own joke. An engineer told me that.).

James Joule, the guy whose name you mentioned. He was the one who came up with "the various forms of energy—mechanical, electrical, and heat—are basically the same and can be changed one into another. Thus, he formed the basis of the law of conservation of energy, the first law of thermodynamics."

...

"Joule studied with the noted English chemist John Dalton at the University of Manchester in 1835. Describing “Joule’s law” in a paper, On the Production of Heat by Voltaic Electricity (1840), he stated that the heat produced in a wire by an electric current is proportional to the product of the resistance of the wire and the square of the current. In 1843 he published his value for the amount of work required to produce a unit of heat, called the mechanical equivalent of heat. He used four increasingly accurate methods of determining this value. By using different materials, he also established that heat was a form of energy regardless of the substance that was heated."

James Prescott Joule | Biography & Facts | Britannica

James Prescott Joule, English physicist who established that the various forms of energy, such as electrical and heat, are basically the same and can be changed one into another. Thus, he formed the basis of conservation of energy, the first law of thermodynamics. Learn more about Joule’s life...

www.britannica.com

Temperature is the measurement of heat as it flows.