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

[edthecynic]

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.

Energy still existed prior to the existence of our universe, and it is highly questionable that our universe is a closed system.

It’s an isolated system.

If that were true, then matter would not be accelerating.

 

[ding]

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

Energy still existed prior to the existence of our universe, and it is highly questionable that our universe is a closed system.

You can't actually know if energy (as we understand it, anyway) existed prior to the universe.

Until someone else PROVES the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong, energy can neither be created nor destroyed stands as the Law before during and after the universe, the rest is conjecture with NO evidence to support it.

Inflation theory explains how energy can be created from nothing without violating the first law of thermodynamics.

That's YOUR lie.

No. It’s what the people who developed the theory say.

 

[ding]

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.

Energy still existed prior to the existence of our universe, and it is highly questionable that our universe is a closed system.

It’s an isolated system.

If that were true, then matter would not be accelerating.

My point was that it may not be because our understanding of the speed of light throughout the universe is flawed. But that is the topic of another thread. Not this one. That has nothing to do with how the universe began.

Stay on point, Ed.

 

[edthecynic]

I have already nailed you in that lie on several other threads, and hear you are repeating what you know is a lie on yet another thread.
A real miracle would be to get you to tell the truth!

It isn't a lie. It may not be true, but ding has posted some interviews with Alexander Vilenkin in which he describes the idea of the universe being generated from nothing. For example (although I don't know that ding linked to these specific things):
Alexander Vilenkin and the Universe From Nothing
https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

Interisting that your first link is to a Christian Philosophy of Theology site.

Which Vilenkin said jokingly which Ding chose to take seriously, and seeming has taken you in also. Did you know that in many of Vilenkin's writings he puts the "nothing" in quotes?

Vilenkin's "nothing" is equal amounts of gravitational energy and matter. For there to actually be "nothing" gravity and matter would have to CANCEL each other out. But Vilenkin and Ding also, but unwittingly, say gravity and mater are in BALANCE, so they are both NOT nothing before and after inflation.

“The way the universe gets around that problem is that gravitational energy is negative,” Vilenkin says. That’s a consequence of the fact, mathematically proven, that the energy of a closed universe is zero: The energy of matter is positive, the energy of gravitation is negative, and they always add up to zero. “Therefore, creating a closed universe out of nothing does not violate any conservation laws.”

It's a bit like an old-fashioned measuring scale. You can put a heavy weight on one side, so long as it is balanced by an equal weight on the other. In the case of the universe, the matter goes on one side of the scale, and has to be balanced by gravity.

Physicists have calculated that in a flat universe the energy of matter is exactly balanced by the energy of the gravity the mass creates. But this is only true in a flat universe. If the universe had been curved, the two sums would not cancel out.

Vilenkin was joking? What do you base that on?

Besides, it isn't as if Vilenkin is the only one to propose or consider the idea that the universe was generated from nothing.

And again, the point is that it is not a lie just because you believe it to be incorrect.

That's right, he and others are talking about a MATHEMATICAL zero, not a PHYSICAL "nothing." Saying that the universe came from "nothing" gets more attention than saying the universe was in balance. So yes Vilenkin was using "nothing" as a tongue-in-cheek attention getter. Of course Ding jumped on the mathematical zero as if it was a physical nothing, not getting the pun.

As energy was being created it was balanced by gravity such that the net energy of the universe was always zero throughout the process of the creation of energy.

Now you have really gone off the rails.

Energy was never created, and net universal energy has never been, is not now, and will never be zero.

 

[edthecynic]

I'd like to have a discussion on dark energy with you.

I don't believe it exists. What's your take on that?

You don't believe it exists, well that settles it, it does exist.
I will give you a tease since your Inflation Theology is involved.

Accelerating Universe and Dark Energy - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

Like dark matter, cosmic inflation (even if it is not actually proven beyond all doubt) is now usually seen as part of the standard Big Bang theory, and to some extent the two additional concepts rescue the Big Bang theory from being completely untenable. However, other potential problems still remain.

It’s nothing more than a fudge factor.

Sure, a fudge factor that accelerates matter.

Maybe. Or maybe it’s that the speed of light isn’t constant throughout the universe. Maybe between galaxies it is some other speed.

Maybe pigs can fly!

 

[RoccoR]

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

​

We can know ithat energy as we know it has never existed forever in this universe.

(COMMENT)

✪

IF there is energy
THEN there is a universe.​

(QUESTIONs)

"never existed forever in this universe"

All mass in the universe is, by definition, derived from the "Big Bang." There is a direct relationship between mass and energy. While this relationship takes many different forms even in total dissipation (as far as we know) the residual in its basic form is energy.

• What manner of measurement determines the age of energy?
• How would one distinguish between energy from the "Big Bang" and energy derived from some other source?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

It isn't a lie. It may not be true, but ding has posted some interviews with Alexander Vilenkin in which he describes the idea of the universe being generated from nothing. For example (although I don't know that ding linked to these specific things):
Alexander Vilenkin and the Universe From Nothing
https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

Interisting that your first link is to a Christian Philosophy of Theology site.

Which Vilenkin said jokingly which Ding chose to take seriously, and seeming has taken you in also. Did you know that in many of Vilenkin's writings he puts the "nothing" in quotes?

Vilenkin's "nothing" is equal amounts of gravitational energy and matter. For there to actually be "nothing" gravity and matter would have to CANCEL each other out. But Vilenkin and Ding also, but unwittingly, say gravity and mater are in BALANCE, so they are both NOT nothing before and after inflation.

“The way the universe gets around that problem is that gravitational energy is negative,” Vilenkin says. That’s a consequence of the fact, mathematically proven, that the energy of a closed universe is zero: The energy of matter is positive, the energy of gravitation is negative, and they always add up to zero. “Therefore, creating a closed universe out of nothing does not violate any conservation laws.”

It's a bit like an old-fashioned measuring scale. You can put a heavy weight on one side, so long as it is balanced by an equal weight on the other. In the case of the universe, the matter goes on one side of the scale, and has to be balanced by gravity.

Physicists have calculated that in a flat universe the energy of matter is exactly balanced by the energy of the gravity the mass creates. But this is only true in a flat universe. If the universe had been curved, the two sums would not cancel out.

Vilenkin was joking? What do you base that on?

Besides, it isn't as if Vilenkin is the only one to propose or consider the idea that the universe was generated from nothing.

And again, the point is that it is not a lie just because you believe it to be incorrect.

That's right, he and others are talking about a MATHEMATICAL zero, not a PHYSICAL "nothing." Saying that the universe came from "nothing" gets more attention than saying the universe was in balance. So yes Vilenkin was using "nothing" as a tongue-in-cheek attention getter. Of course Ding jumped on the mathematical zero as if it was a physical nothing, not getting the pun.

As energy was being created it was balanced by gravity such that the net energy of the universe was always zero throughout the process of the creation of energy.

Now you have really gone off the rails.

Energy was never created, and net universal energy has never been, is not now, and will never be zero.

Then that would mean energy has existed forever and everything would be thermally equalized which we do not see.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Energy still existed prior to the existence of our universe, and it is highly questionable that our universe is a closed system.

It’s an isolated system.

If that were true, then matter would not be accelerating.

My point was that it may not be because our understanding of the speed of light throughout the universe is flawed. But that is the topic of another thread. Not this one. That has nothing to do with how the universe began.

Stay on point, Ed.

It is the point if YOU claim the universe is a closed or isolated system, which is why you want to avoid it.

 

[edthecynic]

What manner of measurement determines the age of energy?

The FLoT has proved with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, that means there is the same total energy in all its forms today as there was in the past and will be in the future. The age of energy is ageless. Energy simply IS.

 

[edthecynic]

Interisting that your first link is to a Christian Philosophy of Theology site.

Which Vilenkin said jokingly which Ding chose to take seriously, and seeming has taken you in also. Did you know that in many of Vilenkin's writings he puts the "nothing" in quotes?

Vilenkin's "nothing" is equal amounts of gravitational energy and matter. For there to actually be "nothing" gravity and matter would have to CANCEL each other out. But Vilenkin and Ding also, but unwittingly, say gravity and mater are in BALANCE, so they are both NOT nothing before and after inflation.

“The way the universe gets around that problem is that gravitational energy is negative,” Vilenkin says. That’s a consequence of the fact, mathematically proven, that the energy of a closed universe is zero: The energy of matter is positive, the energy of gravitation is negative, and they always add up to zero. “Therefore, creating a closed universe out of nothing does not violate any conservation laws.”

It's a bit like an old-fashioned measuring scale. You can put a heavy weight on one side, so long as it is balanced by an equal weight on the other. In the case of the universe, the matter goes on one side of the scale, and has to be balanced by gravity.

Physicists have calculated that in a flat universe the energy of matter is exactly balanced by the energy of the gravity the mass creates. But this is only true in a flat universe. If the universe had been curved, the two sums would not cancel out.

Vilenkin was joking? What do you base that on?

Besides, it isn't as if Vilenkin is the only one to propose or consider the idea that the universe was generated from nothing.

And again, the point is that it is not a lie just because you believe it to be incorrect.

That's right, he and others are talking about a MATHEMATICAL zero, not a PHYSICAL "nothing." Saying that the universe came from "nothing" gets more attention than saying the universe was in balance. So yes Vilenkin was using "nothing" as a tongue-in-cheek attention getter. Of course Ding jumped on the mathematical zero as if it was a physical nothing, not getting the pun.

As energy was being created it was balanced by gravity such that the net energy of the universe was always zero throughout the process of the creation of energy.

Now you have really gone off the rails.

Energy was never created, and net universal energy has never been, is not now, and will never be zero.

Then that would mean energy has existed forever and everything would be thermally equalized which we do not see.

Energy HAS existed forever and thermal equalization will NEVER happen.

 

[BreezeWood]

I'd like to have a discussion on dark energy with you.

I don't believe it exists. What's your take on that?

You don't believe it exists, well that settles it, it does exist.
I will give you a tease since your Inflation Theology is involved.

Accelerating Universe and Dark Energy - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

Like dark matter, cosmic inflation (even if it is not actually proven beyond all doubt) is now usually seen as part of the standard Big Bang theory, and to some extent the two additional concepts rescue the Big Bang theory from being completely untenable. However, other potential problems still remain.

.
Two main possibilities therefore present themselves: either the universe contains sufficient matter (known as the "critical mass") for its gravity to reverse the expansion, causing the universe to collapse back to what has become known as the “Big Crunch”, a kind of mirror image of the initial Big Bang; or it contains insufficient matter and it will go on expanding forever.

or it contains insufficient matter and it will go on expanding forever - at a finite angle of trajectory.

its finite angle of trajectory will traverse matter back to its origin without changing direction.

the 3rd option not mentioned is the explosive conversion back to matter from energy (cyclical point of singularity) has propelled all matter at the same rate along a finite angle of trajectory that will traverse the matter in unison as a mirror image back to the point of singularity, never changing direction to begin a new cycle of compaction back into energy.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Energy still existed prior to the existence of our universe, and it is highly questionable that our universe is a closed system.

You can't actually know if energy (as we understand it, anyway) existed prior to the universe.

Until someone else PROVES the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong, energy can neither be created nor destroyed stands as the Law before during and after the universe, the rest is conjecture with NO evidence to support it.

Everything regarding what might have existed prior to our universe, especially prior to the existence of space and time, is conjecture.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Energy still existed prior to the existence of our universe, and it is highly questionable that our universe is a closed system.

You can't actually know if energy (as we understand it, anyway) existed prior to the universe.

Until someone else PROVES the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong, energy can neither be created nor destroyed stands as the Law before during and after the universe, the rest is conjecture with NO evidence to support it.

Everything regarding what might have existed prior to our universe, especially prior to the existence of space and time, is conjecture.

Maybe so, but all the other conjecture has NO evidence to support it, but the conjecture about energy has a repeatable experiment that proves that energy cannot be created nor destroyed so the conjecture that it preexisted and will out last this universe does have SOME evidence to support it.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

Energy still existed prior to the existence of our universe, and it is highly questionable that our universe is a closed system.

You can't actually know if energy (as we understand it, anyway) existed prior to the universe.

Until someone else PROVES the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong, energy can neither be created nor destroyed stands as the Law before during and after the universe, the rest is conjecture with NO evidence to support it.

Everything regarding what might have existed prior to our universe, especially prior to the existence of space and time, is conjecture.

.

Everything regarding what might have existed prior to our universe, especially prior to the existence of space and time, is conjecture.

... prior to our universe

there is no prior to the universe, perhaps prior to matter and energy but what those items now reside in, the universe, is boundless and eternal.

void may be what is lacking in the discussion - point of singularity is compressed energy to become matter with cessation of compression, the "universe" at that time is an endless, unoccupied void, neither energy or matter - unless other cyclical singularities occur beyond the boundaries of our own.

 

[Montrovant]

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

Energy still existed prior to the existence of our universe, and it is highly questionable that our universe is a closed system.

You can't actually know if energy (as we understand it, anyway) existed prior to the universe.

Until someone else PROVES the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong, energy can neither be created nor destroyed stands as the Law before during and after the universe, the rest is conjecture with NO evidence to support it.

Everything regarding what might have existed prior to our universe, especially prior to the existence of space and time, is conjecture.

.

Everything regarding what might have existed prior to our universe, especially prior to the existence of space and time, is conjecture.

... prior to our universe

there is no prior to the universe, perhaps prior to matter and energy but what those items now reside in, the universe, is boundless and eternal.

void may be what is lacking in the discussion - point of singularity is compressed energy to become matter with cessation of compression, the "universe" at that time is an endless, unoccupied void, neither energy or matter - unless other cyclical singularities occur beyond the boundaries of our own.

Whether or not the universe is eternal is, itself, speculation.

 

[BreezeWood]

Energy still existed prior to the existence of our universe, and it is highly questionable that our universe is a closed system.

You can't actually know if energy (as we understand it, anyway) existed prior to the universe.

Until someone else PROVES the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong, energy can neither be created nor destroyed stands as the Law before during and after the universe, the rest is conjecture with NO evidence to support it.

Everything regarding what might have existed prior to our universe, especially prior to the existence of space and time, is conjecture.

.

Everything regarding what might have existed prior to our universe, especially prior to the existence of space and time, is conjecture.

... prior to our universe

there is no prior to the universe, perhaps prior to matter and energy but what those items now reside in, the universe, is boundless and eternal.

void may be what is lacking in the discussion - point of singularity is compressed energy to become matter with cessation of compression, the "universe" at that time is an endless, unoccupied void, neither energy or matter - unless other cyclical singularities occur beyond the boundaries of our own.

Whether or not the universe is eternal is, itself, speculation.

.

Whether or not the universe is eternal is, itself, speculation.

ok, were that an object - the issue is in the interpretation ...

Everything regarding what might have existed prior to our universe, especially prior to the existence of space and time, is conjecture.

space is what some refer synonymously as the universe existing with or without time. the Everlasting - for this forum. eternal.

 

[ding]

Energy still existed prior to the existence of our universe, and it is highly questionable that our universe is a closed system.

You can't actually know if energy (as we understand it, anyway) existed prior to the universe.

Until someone else PROVES the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong, energy can neither be created nor destroyed stands as the Law before during and after the universe, the rest is conjecture with NO evidence to support it.

Everything regarding what might have existed prior to our universe, especially prior to the existence of space and time, is conjecture.

.

Everything regarding what might have existed prior to our universe, especially prior to the existence of space and time, is conjecture.

... prior to our universe

there is no prior to the universe, perhaps prior to matter and energy but what those items now reside in, the universe, is boundless and eternal.

void may be what is lacking in the discussion - point of singularity is compressed energy to become matter with cessation of compression, the "universe" at that time is an endless, unoccupied void, neither energy or matter - unless other cyclical singularities occur beyond the boundaries of our own.

Whether or not the universe is eternal is, itself, speculation.

Not according to thermodynamic principles it isn't. Unless something is adding heat to the universe as time approaches infinity thermal equilibrium is achieved. There is no getting around this.

 

[ding]

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.

Energy still existed prior to the existence of our universe, and it is highly questionable that our universe is a closed system.

You can't actually know if energy (as we understand it, anyway) existed prior to the universe.

Until someone else PROVES the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong, energy can neither be created nor destroyed stands as the Law before during and after the universe, the rest is conjecture with NO evidence to support it.

Everything regarding what might have existed prior to our universe, especially prior to the existence of space and time, is conjecture.

No. Philosophical. It is the realm of philosophy and logic.

 

[ding]

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

Energy still existed prior to the existence of our universe, and it is highly questionable that our universe is a closed system.

It’s an isolated system.

If that were true, then matter would not be accelerating.

My point was that it may not be because our understanding of the speed of light throughout the universe is flawed. But that is the topic of another thread. Not this one. That has nothing to do with how the universe began.

Stay on point, Ed.

It is the point if YOU claim the universe is a closed or isolated system, which is why you want to avoid it.

The universe is an isolated system. Google it for yourself.

 

[ding]

Vilenkin was joking? What do you base that on?

Besides, it isn't as if Vilenkin is the only one to propose or consider the idea that the universe was generated from nothing.

And again, the point is that it is not a lie just because you believe it to be incorrect.

That's right, he and others are talking about a MATHEMATICAL zero, not a PHYSICAL "nothing." Saying that the universe came from "nothing" gets more attention than saying the universe was in balance. So yes Vilenkin was using "nothing" as a tongue-in-cheek attention getter. Of course Ding jumped on the mathematical zero as if it was a physical nothing, not getting the pun.

As energy was being created it was balanced by gravity such that the net energy of the universe was always zero throughout the process of the creation of energy.

Now you have really gone off the rails.

Energy was never created, and net universal energy has never been, is not now, and will never be zero.

Then that would mean energy has existed forever and everything would be thermally equalized which we do not see.

Energy HAS existed forever and thermal equalization will NEVER happen.

Thermal equilibrium is inevitable unless energy is added to the system.