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

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
1,608
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Usually, we have to accept their singularity that laws of physics were violated because there were no laws of physics. I think I can accept that, but we don't completely understand quantum mechanics and the quantum world. People think all the energy is there when light or electromagnetic spectrum explains it as best theory.
I'm not sure it's usual ... we don't have a preacher giving his sermon on this ... any honest physicist will tell you honestly that we honestly don't know ... no one understands QM or GR completely ... much of it is profoundly non-intuitive ... the laws of physics have never been carved in stone ... we can't say they're being violated until we know what they are in the first place ...

The early universe was opaque ... there are no photons from this time ... no light to examine ... there's a wall out there past which is completely dark, absolutely no information comes from this time as light ... that doesn't mean we're guessing, we can apply the laws of physics as we understand them and make some shrewd speculations and at least for now these speculations seem to be holding water ... but "seems", "maybe", "could be" are all weasel words, we continue to study these matters and we should expect changes in our reasoning ...

Light and electromagnetic radiation doesn't explain anything about our early universe ... absolutely nothing from before the CMB Epoch, when the universe became transparent and photons could travel freely throughout ...

We just don't know as much about this as you think we do ...
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
1,608
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson


"In the beginning," means there was nothing. No three dimensions. Thus, God created the three dimensions of which there was only darkness and gave it the qualities of the fourth dimension to it so it had spacetime. Nothing is dark, so God created the expanding and accelerating universe such as we explain by the big bang or expansion. He created the "light" or the electromagnetic spectrum. He separated the light and dark parts into two and called the light parts day and the dark parts night. The three dimensions had to be separated. We have day and night from the dimension of time, so time passes into day 1, day 2, day 3, etc.

The EMS can be shown graphically as:

View attachment 406678

The energy is heat which the radiation from the different parts of light emit and we can see the different temperatures associated with it. Light exists as particle and wave, so everything in the universe can be created from it.
The Bible says "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ... you're just adding things that the Bible does NOT say ... somewhere you need to explain the problems with pair production ... which again the Bible is completely silent about ... heat and light are two different things, add in motion and latency ... there comes a time to say "it just is", and not worry so much about it ...
Post your evidence.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,286
Reaction score
11,256
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
I think what happens when we discuss the origins of the Big Bang, then people over the world start falling apart. They can't readily answer where the energy came from where I can provide evidence for my claim.

Usually, we have to accept their singularity that laws of physics were violated because there were no laws of physics. I think I can accept that, but we don't completely understand quantum mechanics and the quantum world. People think all the energy is there when light or electromagnetic spectrum explains it as best theory.

I can also tell you that God left the universe after Adam's sin. The point is it was such a grave sin of free will that God was forced to leave the universe. Adam also lost dominion of the world. Still, God remains with us in spirit.
They can't readily answer where the energy came from where I can provide evidence for my claim.

You can provide evidence for where all energy in the Universe came from? Sweet!!!

Post your evidence.


"In the beginning," means there was nothing. No three dimensions. Thus, God created the three dimensions of which there was only darkness and gave it the qualities of the fourth dimension to it so it had spacetime. Nothing is dark, so God created the expanding and accelerating universe such as we explain by the big bang or expansion. He created the "light" or the electromagnetic spectrum. He separated the light and dark parts into two and called the light parts day and the dark parts night. The three dimensions had to be separated. We have day and night from the dimension of time, so time passes into day 1, day 2, day 3, etc.

The EMS can be shown graphically as:

View attachment 406678

The energy is heat which the radiation from the different parts of light emit and we can see the different temperatures associated with it. Light exists as particle and wave, so everything in the universe can be created from it.
Thanks.....are you going to post your evidence now?
 
OP
james bond

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,969
Reaction score
944
Points
170
Thanks.....are you going to post your evidence now?
I know you don't want to get it as it means death of your spiritually perfect self and eternal misery.

I think ding got closest to an explanation with Alexander Vilenkin, but he gets shot down because he thinks the beginning of the universe didn't have a cause to disavow Kalam's Cosmological Argument, and then illogically makes up rules for quantum mechanics that existed in order to start his universe. That's being soft in the head.

Before I forget, the error with infinite temperature of the singularity is that temperature is not energy. It's the result of heat energy as my graph showed.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,286
Reaction score
11,256
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
Thanks.....are you going to post your evidence now?
I know you don't want to get it as it means death of your spiritually perfect self and eternal misery.

I think ding got closest to an explanation with Alexander Vilenkin, but he gets shot down because he thinks the beginning of the universe didn't have a cause to disavow Kalam's Cosmological Argument, and then illogically makes up rules for quantum mechanics that existed in order to start his universe. That's being soft in the head.

Before I forget, the error with infinite temperature of the singularity is that temperature is not energy. It's the result of heat energy as my graph showed.
So you're not going to post your evidence?
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
1,608
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Thanks.....are you going to post your evidence now?
I know you don't want to get it as it means death of your spiritually perfect self and eternal misery.
Post your evidence and we'll see ...

Before I forget, the error with infinite temperature of the singularity is that temperature is not energy. It's the result of heat energy as my graph showed.
Temperature is the measure of energy content ... near infinite energy measures as near infinite temperature, even in a singularity ... your graph only shows electromagnetic energy emitted, which reduces temperature ... conservation of energy ...
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,470
Reaction score
5,693
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
This is S&T, so I'll just say you're making stuff up about God in your head again.
Yes, this is S&T ... you do have to describe the experiment we can perform to verify your claims ... I'm sad you've turned your face from God, and you feel He has deserted you for your sin ... sounds like your excuse to just keep sinning ...

So, do you believe in the infinite temperature and infinite density singularity? What's wrong with that? You're the one who knows about thermodynamics.
The conditions you've given us is "near infinite energy" ... thus we'd have "near infinite" temperature and "near infinite" density in our "near infinitely small" singularity ... that's what the math says, can you review Wassermann's derivation and tell me where it's wrong ... please ... and explain it, my topology is weak ...
james bond

What he said.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,470
Reaction score
5,693
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
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?
 
OP
james bond

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,969
Reaction score
944
Points
170
Usually, we have to accept their singularity that laws of physics were violated because there were no laws of physics. I think I can accept that, but we don't completely understand quantum mechanics and the quantum world. People think all the energy is there when light or electromagnetic spectrum explains it as best theory.
I'm not sure it's usual ... we don't have a preacher giving his sermon on this ... any honest physicist will tell you honestly that we honestly don't know ... no one understands QM or GR completely ... much of it is profoundly non-intuitive ... the laws of physics have never been carved in stone ... we can't say they're being violated until we know what they are in the first place ...

The early universe was opaque ... there are no photons from this time ... no light to examine ... there's a wall out there past which is completely dark, absolutely no information comes from this time as light ... that doesn't mean we're guessing, we can apply the laws of physics as we understand them and make some shrewd speculations and at least for now these speculations seem to be holding water ... but "seems", "maybe", "could be" are all weasel words, we continue to study these matters and we should expect changes in our reasoning ...

Light and electromagnetic radiation doesn't explain anything about our early universe ... absolutely nothing from before the CMB Epoch, when the universe became transparent and photons could travel freely throughout ...

We just don't know as much about this as you think we do ...
Let's not confuse religion with science. I'm trying to stay on topic, but it's funny how religion comes into S&T and science comes into R&E forums. It goes to show that they are related and two sides of the same coin. For example, I answered ding's question, but he doesn't answer mine so I wonder about his intuition of God. He doesn't believe that God has physically left our universe.

In S&T, it's atheists who believe in their scientific atheism myths about the origins of the universe and life on Earth. They can't explain infinite temperature and infinite density. It's supposed to be a singularity, i.e. only happen once, but the violation of the laws of physics happened happened milliseconds later by cosmic inflation. Next, we have the incredulous claims of infinite multiverses, i.e. the singularity is no singularity.

Moreover, there is no evidence for multiverses, let alone it violates the laws of physics once the laws of physics were established after the first universe. Even the time after the second and consequent big bangs with its cosmic inflation violates the law of physics. I can accept the impossible infinite temperature and infinite density singularity, but not the cosmic inflation's violations. With multiverses, I have to accept it happened more than once and the singularity wasn't really a singularity. That really is a fairy tale.

I think I thought of this topic when temperature is the result of changes in heat energy. It's heat that provides the energy. The atheist scientists like Hawking don't even mention the energy required. Thus, we have some kind of INFINITE singularity condition and yet we have a near cataclysmic expansion and all this stuff ends up falling into place after billions of years. It does sound incredulous to believe as there is no evidence for it except that the universe had a beginning.

As for you comments on light and radiation, you don't even explain how this energy just expanded with big bang. It's just more incredulity.

That's why when it comes to origins science, it is the creation scientists who have the best theory. People end up falling apart trying to explain their scientific atheism origin.
 

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
40,316
Reaction score
5,430
Points
1,830
Where is the evidence for your created energy?
There is NO evidence of "created" energy, as you well know, in fact it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed
CMB says otherwise.
No it doesn't!
What do you believe the CMB is, Einstein?

What created the CMB?
The CMB is the remnant of the Big Bang, Discovered by scientists here in NJ.
 

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
40,316
Reaction score
5,430
Points
1,830
The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.
Here you go again with this disproven crap again!
Usable energy is KINETIC energy, AKA, the energy of MOTION, As the 3rd Law states there is no temperature at which ALL motion stops therefor thermal equilibrium is impossible. As you admitted entropy can "stay the same" IOW, equal zero.
The universe is a perpetual motion machine with an entropy of ZERO.
If you want believe atoms vibrating means no thermal equilibrium, be my guest. That's just plain stupid.
Electrons don't "vibrate," they orbit, you know in perpetual motion.
You can obfuscate all you want, but just because atomic motion does not stop does not mean thermal equilibrium has not been practically reached. There is literally no way around this. There are no perfectly efficient processes. Perpetual motion in terms of doing real work does not exist. It is a figment of your imagination.
Perpetual motion exists in nature, otherwise no matter could exist. Do you agree mater actually does exist?
Perpetual motion machines made by man do not exist because of friction. nature is another story entirely.
This was all explained to you in other threads, so you can't claim ignorance for your dishonesty..
 
OP
james bond

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,969
Reaction score
944
Points
170
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.
 

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
40,316
Reaction score
5,430
Points
1,830
That's what I have been arguing, so where did the energy come from if the universe had a beginning.
Energy didn't come from (can't be created) or go away from (destroyed) anything.
Sure energy can have a beginning. Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that 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.
We've gone through this before, EQUAL amounts of positive and negative energy does not mean there is ZERO energy! Zero energy would mean a zero amount of positive energy and a zero amount of negative energy.
It means zero NET energy.
No it means total energy has a neutral CHARGE, not that there is zero "NET" energy which would mean NO energy of any kind, when you have already admitted there were equal amounts of 2 different charged energies.
 

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
40,316
Reaction score
5,430
Points
1,830
Where is the evidence for your created energy?
There is NO evidence of "created" energy, as you well know, in fact it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed
You mean other than the CMB?

There is no such thing as nothing!!!
So your video falls apart before it even starts.
Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is another SOMETHING, two somethings in equal amounts do NOT make a nothing!!!!!
I think I'm going to go with Alexander Vilenkin on this one over some anonymous internet troll who has no grasp of science.

You would back a loser in the face of the truth you can't handle. All you and he are doing is playing perverted word games with the meaning of "nothing."
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,470
Reaction score
5,693
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Where is the evidence for your created energy?
There is NO evidence of "created" energy, as you well know, in fact it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed
CMB says otherwise.
No it doesn't!
What do you believe the CMB is, Einstein?

What created the CMB?
The CMB is the remnant of the Big Bang, Discovered by scientists here in NJ.
Right. But that doesn't answer the question I am asking. What atomic interaction was responsible for creating the background radiation?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,470
Reaction score
5,693
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.
Here you go again with this disproven crap again!
Usable energy is KINETIC energy, AKA, the energy of MOTION, As the 3rd Law states there is no temperature at which ALL motion stops therefor thermal equilibrium is impossible. As you admitted entropy can "stay the same" IOW, equal zero.
The universe is a perpetual motion machine with an entropy of ZERO.
If you want believe atoms vibrating means no thermal equilibrium, be my guest. That's just plain stupid.
Electrons don't "vibrate," they orbit, you know in perpetual motion.
You can obfuscate all you want, but just because atomic motion does not stop does not mean thermal equilibrium has not been practically reached. There is literally no way around this. There are no perfectly efficient processes. Perpetual motion in terms of doing real work does not exist. It is a figment of your imagination.
Perpetual motion exists in nature, otherwise no matter could exist. Do you agree mater actually does exist?
Perpetual motion machines made by man do not exist because of friction. nature is another story entirely.
This was all explained to you in other threads, so you can't claim ignorance for your dishonesty..
If you use the standard definition for "perpetual motion machines of the first kind", which can indefinitely produce work. Entropy increases monotonically over the entire universe, and eventually all free energy will be gone. This cannot be avoided.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,470
Reaction score
5,693
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
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.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,470
Reaction score
5,693
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
That's what I have been arguing, so where did the energy come from if the universe had a beginning.
Energy didn't come from (can't be created) or go away from (destroyed) anything.
Sure energy can have a beginning. Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that 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.
We've gone through this before, EQUAL amounts of positive and negative energy does not mean there is ZERO energy! Zero energy would mean a zero amount of positive energy and a zero amount of negative energy.
It means zero NET energy.
No it means total energy has a neutral CHARGE, not that there is zero "NET" energy which would mean NO energy of any kind, when you have already admitted there were equal amounts of 2 different charged energies.
No. That's not what the cosmologists are saying at all. 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.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,470
Reaction score
5,693
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Where is the evidence for your created energy?
There is NO evidence of "created" energy, as you well know, in fact it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed
You mean other than the CMB?

There is no such thing as nothing!!!
So your video falls apart before it even starts.
Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is another SOMETHING, two somethings in equal amounts do NOT make a nothing!!!!!
I think I'm going to go with Alexander Vilenkin on this one over some anonymous internet troll who has no grasp of science.

You would back a loser in the face of the truth you can't handle. All you and he are doing is playing perverted word games with the meaning of "nothing."
That doesn't convince me to believe you over a renowned cosmologist. :lol:
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top