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

[Grumblenuts]

Where is the energy for creating spacetime and the three dimensions of space or the x, y, and z-axes.

Coordinates! They are not "dimensions."

In geometry, a coordinate system is a system that uses one or more numbers, or coordinates, to uniquely determine the position of the points or other geometric elements on a manifold such as Euclidean space.[1][2]

 

[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.

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?

It's less important what a Catholic Priest may have believed vs. what cosmologists, physicists and mathematicians have discovered in the years since.

Your still stuck on bad metaphors and a description of a 'singularity'' that was never intended to describe what the ID'iot creation ministries now cling to. Don't be an accomplice to ID'iot creation ministry nonsense.

Your silly notion of evilutionist, atheist scientists ''hijacking'' something is quaint but hardly meaningful.

 

[ReinyDays]

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.

You have no source for your definition ... instead you give me some stupid joke ...

I never mention James Joule ... can't you read ... I used the word joule:

Joule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The joule is named after James Prescott Joule. As with every SI unit named for a person, its symbol starts with an upper case letter (J), but when written in full it follows the rules for capitalization of a common noun; i.e., "joule" becomes capitalized at the beginning of a sentence and in titles, but is otherwise in lower case"

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

 

[ding]

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 ...

Given that matter is being converted into radiation, over an infinite amount of time wouldn't the conversion of matter to radiation have significant consequences such as all or almost all matter being converted to radiation?

I am speaking to the hypothetical case of a cyclical big crunch big bounce never ending and never beginning universe that exists for infinity.

 

[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 ...

Given that matter is being converted into radiation, over an infinite amount of time wouldn't the conversion of matter to radiation have significant consequences such as all or almost all matter being converted to radiation?

I am speaking to the hypothetical case of a cyclical big crunch big bounce never ending and never beginning universe that exists for infinity.

Generally speaking, only the first 25 element give off energy when their nuclei are formed ... heavier elements take energy to form ... starting with iron ... and pair production continues, condensing energy into matter ...

If we have an oscillating universe ... we're still in the expanding portion, and temperature is falling ... when we start contracting, temperatures will rise again ... the CMB radiation may well have been emitted in the picometer range ... and due to the expanding universe, it's now in the microwave band ... by the time we "turn the corner", it may well be in the long-ass radio bands ... the main problem I have with the oscillating universe is that it gives hope for the future and makes mowing my lawn a meaningful task ... dammit ... too late in the season to nuke it with Round-up ...

=====

String theory attempts to answer some of these questions ... this is still in the philosophical stages of development, as we have no way to test any of this ... but this gives universes a reason to form, some manner of intersection of some of the existing 26 dimensions forming a membrane ... our universe just happens to be using 4 dimensions is all ... it is this membrane that starts out as a singularity, and then immediately a Big Bang ... as we expand, these 4 dimensions begin to lose their ability to stay connected and will eventually disassociate causing our universe to wink out of existence ... the Big Rip ... easy come, easy go ...

I could have some or all of this wrong ... it's happened to me before ... but these are the ideas as I understand them ... and is does make lawn mowing completely meaningless and a waste of time ... I think we can all appreciate the value of these beliefs when she tells us for the 826th time to fix the dripping kitchen faucet ... why bother when the entire 8 x 10^33 cubic light years we know as the universe will wink out of existence at any moment ...

"Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after" ...

 

[WinterBorn]

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!!!

Sure, it can be created by a supernatural God, but not by natural means because energy can't be created.

Who said the energy was created? What if it was already there?

The atheist scientists did like Stephen Hawking, but energy had to start somewhere and with God he started with light. Anything that gets created needs energy and will leave evidence of it.

The atheist scientists couldn't explain rationally how time and space started using quantum mechanics, so they just assumed it was always there.

However, a tremendous amount of energy had to exist for the big bang to happen. It's too hard to believe that kind of power could just be assumed to exist. Also, to use it and harness it would require some kind of intelligence behind it. Thus, you're stuck with no explanation nor evidence.

A black hole has unfathomable energy. It also has huge mass. The gravitational pull is so powerful if prevents light from leaving.

Energy is not created. But energy and pass can change forms.

The best understanding of our universe and the big bang is that it is likely and ongoing process. The explosion of the big bang flung matter and energy outward. As the energy is expended (matter moving outward against other gravity), the matter slows. All matter has gravitational force, depending on its mass. So pieces of matter attract each other. Which increases their gravitational attract to other matter. It all begins to fall back towards the center. When the mass comes together and reaches a certain level, the explosion occurs again. Things are flung outward, they slow and attract each other, and then they gravitate back together.

 

[WinterBorn]

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!!!

Sure, it can be created by a supernatural God, but not by natural means because energy can't be created.

No, but energy and matter can change form. Wood is matter. But you can burn it to release energy.

 

[ding]

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 ...

Given that matter is being converted into radiation, over an infinite amount of time wouldn't the conversion of matter to radiation have significant consequences such as all or almost all matter being converted to radiation?

I am speaking to the hypothetical case of a cyclical big crunch big bounce never ending and never beginning universe that exists for infinity.

Generally speaking, only the first 25 element give off energy when their nuclei are formed ... heavier elements take energy to form ... starting with iron ... and pair production continues, condensing energy into matter ...

If we have an oscillating universe ... we're still in the expanding portion, and temperature is falling ... when we start contracting, temperatures will rise again ... the CMB radiation may well have been emitted in the picometer range ... and due to the expanding universe, it's now in the microwave band ... by the time we "turn the corner", it may well be in the long-ass radio bands ... the main problem I have with the oscillating universe is that it gives hope for the future and makes mowing my lawn a meaningful task ... dammit ... too late in the season to nuke it with Round-up ...

=====

String theory attempts to answer some of these questions ... this is still in the philosophical stages of development, as we have no way to test any of this ... but this gives universes a reason to form, some manner of intersection of some of the existing 26 dimensions forming a membrane ... our universe just happens to be using 4 dimensions is all ... it is this membrane that starts out as a singularity, and then immediately a Big Bang ... as we expand, these 4 dimensions begin to lose their ability to stay connected and will eventually disassociate causing our universe to wink out of existence ... the Big Rip ... easy come, easy go ...

I could have some or all of this wrong ... it's happened to me before ... but these are the ideas as I understand them ... and is does make lawn mowing completely meaningless and a waste of time ... I think we can all appreciate the value of these beliefs when she tells us for the 826th time to fix the dripping kitchen faucet ... why bother when the entire 8 x 10^33 cubic light years we know as the universe will wink out of existence at any moment ...

"Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after" ...

So... I'm still confused. As long as there is hydrogen being fused into helium and loss of mass is converted into radiation according to Einstein’s equation, E=mc2. As time approaches infinity - assuming that the big crunch takes us back to a tiny dense state of subatomic particle soup - we would eventually end up with a universe filled with only radiation.

The key assumption here is that every rebound starts from the exact same subatomic particle soup that forms hydrogen and helium as it cools. What am I missing? Infinity is a bitch.

 

[ding]

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!!!

Sure, it can be created by a supernatural God, but not by natural means because energy can't be created.

Who said the energy was created? What if it was already there?

The atheist scientists did like Stephen Hawking, but energy had to start somewhere and with God he started with light. Anything that gets created needs energy and will leave evidence of it.

The atheist scientists couldn't explain rationally how time and space started using quantum mechanics, so they just assumed it was always there.

However, a tremendous amount of energy had to exist for the big bang to happen. It's too hard to believe that kind of power could just be assumed to exist. Also, to use it and harness it would require some kind of intelligence behind it. Thus, you're stuck with no explanation nor evidence.

A black hole has unfathomable energy. It also has huge mass. The gravitational pull is so powerful if prevents light from leaving.

Energy is not created. But energy and pass can change forms.

The best understanding of our universe and the big bang is that it is likely and ongoing process. The explosion of the big bang flung matter and energy outward. As the energy is expended (matter moving outward against other gravity), the matter slows. All matter has gravitational force, depending on its mass. So pieces of matter attract each other. Which increases their gravitational attract to other matter. It all begins to fall back towards the center. When the mass comes together and reaches a certain level, the explosion occurs again. Things are flung outward, they slow and attract each other, and then they gravitate back together.

Why do you believe the best understanding of our universe and the big bang is that it is likely and ongoing process. Assuming you are talking about a cyclical universe, my understanding of the best understanding is that a universe that has existed forever has been abandoned by the scientific community. But damn it sure is believed to be the standard model by people posting at USMB.

 

[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.

Haha. Who was there to inspect it for you?

Logic.

 

[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.

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.

No. It means I don't read most of your posts.

 

[ding]

No offense but anyone who believes the universe has existed forever is an idiot.

 

[ReinyDays]

So... I'm still confused. As long as there is hydrogen being fused into helium and loss of mass is converted into radiation according to Einstein’s equation, E=mc2. As time approaches infinity - assuming that the big crunch takes us back to a tiny dense state of subatomic particle soup - we would eventually end up with a universe filled with only radiation.

The key assumption here is that every rebound starts from the exact same subatomic particle soup that forms hydrogen and helium as it cools. What am I missing? Infinity is a bitch.

Maybe your confusion is that we're only conserving mass/energy ... we lose a bit of mass but gain a bit of energy, or we lose a bit of energy and gain a bit of mass ... quantitatively by the ratio E=mc^2 ... we can switch back-and-forth all the day long and still conserve ... the total mass/energy is constant in the universe at all times ...

Subatomic particles are items of matter ... they would be converted back into energy during the Big Crunch ... such that at our volume minima, the universe is all energy, no matter ... temperatures are too high for matter to exist ... (except primordial marinara sauce according to the colanderhead freaktoids) ...

 

[james bond]

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 ...

Not really. One singularity is called an infinite set in math like our counting system. What you are describing are imaginary sets. Atheist scientists start with imaginary sets and think they get infinite multiverses from the singularities. It has nothing to do with reality. Just a thought experiment. No way to prove it. No way to verify it. No evidence at all.

 

[ding]

So... I'm still confused. As long as there is hydrogen being fused into helium and loss of mass is converted into radiation according to Einstein’s equation, E=mc2. As time approaches infinity - assuming that the big crunch takes us back to a tiny dense state of subatomic particle soup - we would eventually end up with a universe filled with only radiation.

The key assumption here is that every rebound starts from the exact same subatomic particle soup that forms hydrogen and helium as it cools. What am I missing? Infinity is a bitch.

Maybe your confusion is that we're only conserving mass/energy ... we lose a bit of mass but gain a bit of energy, or we lose a bit of energy and gain a bit of mass ... quantitatively by the ratio E=mc^2 ... we can switch back-and-forth all the day long and still conserve ... the total mass/energy is constant in the universe at all times ...

Subatomic particles are items of matter ... they would be converted back into energy during the Big Crunch ... such that at our volume minima, the universe is all energy, no matter ... temperatures are too high for matter to exist ... (except primordial marinara sauce according to the colanderhead freaktoids) ...

So are you suggesting the radiation can become matter again?

 

[ReinyDays]

No offense but anyone who believes the universe has existed forever is an idiot.

I'm offended ... I understand that a static universe is an idiot idea ... but that doesn't make ME an idiot ...

We assume the speed of light is constant ... as far as I know, there's no evidence that it is ... what we observe here as galaxies moving away from us can just as easily be explained if the light emitted by these galaxies was moving faster ... what we see is these galaxies as they once were, not as they are today ... the universe may well be stock still, no Big Bang, no Big Crunch, no Dark Energy ... what has been will always be ... makes Hinduism a better fit ...

 

[james bond]

Where is the energy for creating spacetime and the three dimensions of space or the x, y, and z-axes.

Coordinates! They are not "dimensions."

In geometry, a coordinate system is a system that uses one or more numbers, or coordinates, to uniquely determine the position of the points or other geometric elements on a manifold such as Euclidean space.[1][2]

Coordinates just give you your position. The dimensions give you actual space of the universe.

 

[ding]

No offense but anyone who believes the universe has existed forever is an idiot.

I'm offended ... I understand that a static universe is an idiot idea ... but that doesn't make ME an idiot ...

We assume the speed of light is constant ... as far as I know, there's no evidence that it is ... what we observe here as galaxies moving away from us can just as easily be explained if the light emitted by these galaxies was moving faster ... what we see is these galaxies as they once were, not as they are today ... the universe may well be stock still, no Big Bang, no Big Crunch, no Dark Energy ... what has been will always be ... makes Hinduism a better fit ...

I have my skepticism on the speed of light but a static universe. Say it ain't so.

But still... a cyclical universe? No way.

 

[ReinyDays]

Not really. One singularity is called an infinite set in math like our counting system. What you are describing are imaginary sets. Atheist scientists start with imaginary sets and think they get infinite multiverses from the singularities. It has nothing to do with reality. Just a thought experiment. No way to prove it. No way to verify it. No evidence at all.

An infinitesimal set like our counting system ... you grasp of math is even weaker than that of basic physics ... shouldn't you be mowing the neighborhood widow woman's lawn or something ... you know, God's work ...

Imaginary sets are strictly scalar, and have no bearing on this discussion ... and a simple epsilon/delta proof is more than robust enough to prove these claims ... verification can be found within the event horizon of super massive black holes ... and theoretically LIGO-at-scale should be able to "see" this feature using gravity waves instead of light waves ... as well as "see" into the early universe before the CMB Epoch ...

Exciting times ahead for us ... or, exciting times for you young puppies ... I'm please to have lived long enough to see that shithole Pluto demoted ... get back to work, pay your taxes and we'll get our long baseline interferometer up into space ... [snaps whip] ...

 

[james bond]

It's less important what a Catholic Priest may have believed vs. what cosmologists, physicists and mathematicians have discovered in the years since.

You are too biased. Father Georges Lemaitre accomplished more in his lifetime than many atheist scientists. He was a pioneer of the big bang. He was nominated twice for the Nobel Prize and should've got one -- http://www.vaticanobservatory.va/co...documenti/Workshop_Presentations/01_Kragh.pdf.