Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

[edthecynic]

The universe is expanding so it had to have a beginning.

You don't know the entire "universe" is expanding. Our relatively new part of the universe is expanding and slowing down in its expansion, but the most distant and oldest matter in the universe is accelerating away from us and may be contracting as it is pulled into some supermassive black hole either in our universe or another black hole outside our universe.

 

[edthecynic]

Cyclical models are dead. Eventually the universe runs out of usable energy.

Only when ALL motion stops, and that NEVER happens according to the TLoT.

 

[BreezeWood]

Cyclical models are dead. Eventually the universe runs out of usable energy.

Only when ALL motion stops, and that NEVER happens according to the TLoT.

.
not to mention the contrasting gravitation forces in mirror image pulling matter back together after the apex has been breached.

 

[edthecynic]

Is it my imagination are does being liberal remove the brain’s ability to use reason and logic.

Well, a brainless mindless CON would imagine exactly that!

 

[ding]

It would appear that I have angered Ed/Rosy.

 

[edthecynic]

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging. Which just so happens to be what truth is.

So you redefine energy as truth!

 

[edthecynic]

It would appear that I have angered Ed/Rosy.

Pure projection.

 

[edthecynic]

That’s actually pretty much the same belief that militant atheists who are socialists have. Congratulations.

You know less about Atheists and Socialists then you do about science, and everything you know about science is WRONG!

 

[edthecynic]

I find that militant atheists are the least scientific people on the planet

That would make YOU a militant Atheist.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?
※→ edthecynic, et al,

I think we need to be careful here. Thermodynamics is a "practical science" and NOT something that is fundamental alongside physics. Thermodynamics deals with "work" as it relates to:

• Heat (energized particles) by temperature
• Radiation or transfer of energy​

Cyclical models are dead. Eventually, the universe runs out of usable energy.

(COMMENT)

All energy is "usable." We may not know what all forms of energy there are, but if it is out there, it is usuable. Usability is only limited by our knowledge; know-how.

As long as there are the (chemical) elements of matter or some form of radiation (wavelengths), there is energy. And as long as there is energy, we have not reached "absolute zero."

Q: Is there a place in which absolute zero is expected? A: YES!​

As we understand our universe today, at someplace ≈ 13.799±0.021 billion light-years beyond the origin of the universe, there is a point at which energy from the "big bang" has not yet traversed. This assumes that there is only one single source of original energy and only one point of origin of original energy.

Only when ALL motion stops, and that NEVER happens according to the TLoT.

(COMMENT)

Again, we do not know, although we highly suspect, that within the boundary of ≈ 13.799±0.021 billion light-years beyond the origin of the universe, only a few localized phenomena have that characteristic. An example might be a "Black Hole.=;" a localized place with such a gravitational impact that no form of electromagnetic radiation may escape. The gravitational field crushes all energy of a system as a result of the Black Hole's gravitational field. This crush compresses all the constituent resonating particles that the gravitational field counteracts the resonant frequency and brings all to a stop.

Just on man's opinion...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[edthecynic]

It’s called inflation theory and it is the leading cosmological model, dumbass.

It is actually Inflation THEOLOGY, and it is not in any way scientific, YOUR own source Lederman says so.

"When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the Very Beginning (and so far She hasn't let on)."
- The Beginning…
By Leon M. Lederman

 

[ding]

RE: Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?
※→ edthecynic, et al,

I think we need to be careful here. Thermodynamics is a "practical science" and NOT something that is fundamental alongside physics. Thermodynamics deals with "work" as it relates to:

• Heat (energized particles) by temperature
• Radiation or transfer of energy​

Cyclical models are dead. Eventually, the universe runs out of usable energy.

(COMMENT)

All energy is "usable." We may not know what all forms of energy there are, but if it is out there, it is usuable. Usability is only limited by our knowledge; know-how.

As long as there are the (chemical) elements of matter or some form of radiation (wavelengths), there is energy. And as long as there is energy, we have not reached "absolute zero."

Q: Is there a place in which absolute zero is expected? A: YES!​

As we understand our universe today, at someplace ≈ 13.799±0.021 billion light-years beyond the origin of the universe, there is a point at which energy from the "big bang" has not yet traversed. This assumes that there is only one single source of original energy and only one point of origin of original energy.

Only when ALL motion stops, and that NEVER happens according to the TLoT.

(COMMENT)

Again, we do not know, although we highly suspect, that within the boundary of ≈ 13.799±0.021 billion light-years beyond the origin of the universe, only a few localized phenomena have that characteristic. An example might be a "Black Hole.=;" a localized place with such a gravitational impact that no form of electromagnetic radiation may escape. The gravitational field crushes all energy of a system as a result of the Black Hole's gravitational field. This crush compresses all the constituent resonating particles that the gravitational field counteracts the resonant frequency and brings all to a stop.

Just on man's opinion...

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't believe there is a place where absolute zero is reached. I believe there is a place where thermal equilibrium is reached. From a thermodynamic perspective this can only be reached if there is a loss of useable energy for each matter to energy conversion. Unless of course energy is added to the system. Which creates a different question to answer.

Do you agree with these statements?

Because if you do, then I would assume you would agree that this is the reason cyclical models for an infinite acting universe can be eliminated by inspection.

Furthermore, this is also the basis for believing that the universe has not existed forever (i.e. the universe had a beginning).

 

[edthecynic]

’m not a fan of trolls. I do not suffer fools.

No wonder you hate yourself so.

 

[BreezeWood]

As we understand our universe today, at someplace ≈ 13.799±0.021 billion light-years beyond the origin of the universe, there is a point at which energy from the "big bang" has not yet traversed.

just curious how there is an origin of the universe (non cyclical) and what the BB has yet to transverse imply's your definition of the universe as being within something already present.

 

[Montrovant]

It’s called inflation theory and it is the leading cosmological model, dumbass.

It is actually Inflation THEOLOGY, and it is not in any way scientific, YOUR own source Lederman says so.

"When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the Very Beginning (and so far She hasn't let on)."
- The Beginning…
By Leon M. Lederman

That only applies if inflation is considered to include the creation of energy prior to the expansion of the universe. Otherwise inflation is not part of the beginning which has no data in the Lederman quote.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?
※→ BreezeWood, et al,

The "Big Bang" (an unfortunate adopted name) is a "theoretical" point of the beginning (with unknow qualities and characteristics). We do not know if it is a shaped rapid expansion of the space-time framework (theory) along with matter → or → if it is a uniform spherical space-time framework rapidly expanding and building the universe as it goes.

We do not know if the "Big Bang" has terminated (ie if it has stopped banging, was a flash release of energy, or had a rise and fall of an undetermined period) → or → if the origin is still spewing energy outward (at an undetermined rate) that eventually condenses into matter within the framework.

It is reasonable to assume that if we can look back in time (Hubble Deep Field to revealing galaxies in the process of forming) to less than 500 million years after the "Big Bang" -- it means that all matter was not formed instantaneously. Some parts of the universe are (today and always have been) moving apart from each other (space is expanding) at "faster than the speed of light." Our ability to see and detect objects in space is only limited by the "particle horizon."

As we understand our universe today, at someplace ≈ 13.799±0.021 billion light-years beyond the origin of the universe, there is a point at which energy from the "big bang" has not yet traversed.

just curious how there is an origin of the universe (non cyclical) and what the BB has yet to transverse imply's your definition of the universe as being within something already present.

(COMMENT)

We have no idea what we will find beyond the particle horizon. But it is possible that the universe is finite, but expanding. What it is expanding into is "unknown."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Picaro]

Sooner or later matter runs out of energy, and those 'red shift' thingies slow down

Except MEASUREMENTS show matter at the far extremes of the universe is speeding up, not slowing down!

This would be the case if one is using Einstein's math; in curved space the matter is actually moving in large circles and spirals, not in straight lines directly away from where it originated from, so it would appear to be changing speeds, depending on the moving frame of reference. They aren't being observed from non-moving reference points. In fact one can't really know where one is measuring anything from relative to what they're observing on such a large scale any more than they can for quantum level observations.

In any case, we aren't seeing anything far off as it is in the present; we're seeing them from many thousands or millions of years ago and far longer.

 

[sparky]

 

[edthecynic]

It’s called inflation theory and it is the leading cosmological model, dumbass.

It is actually Inflation THEOLOGY, and it is not in any way scientific, YOUR own source Lederman says so.

"When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the Very Beginning (and so far She hasn't let on)."
- The Beginning…
By Leon M. Lederman

That only applies if inflation is considered to include the creation of energy prior to the expansion of the universe. Otherwise inflation is not part of the beginning which has no data in the Lederman quote.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed.

 

[Montrovant]

It’s called inflation theory and it is the leading cosmological model, dumbass.

It is actually Inflation THEOLOGY, and it is not in any way scientific, YOUR own source Lederman says so.

"When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the Very Beginning (and so far She hasn't let on)."
- The Beginning…
By Leon M. Lederman

That only applies if inflation is considered to include the creation of energy prior to the expansion of the universe. Otherwise inflation is not part of the beginning which has no data in the Lederman quote.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed.

In a closed system. When the laws of our universe apply. Neither of those were necessarily true prior to the existence of our universe.