What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
62,497
Reaction score
17,610
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Before I read the whole thing consider our universe is just one bubble in a vast lava lamp of bubbles. Each bubble is unique. You know the edge of our universe? It’s expanding right? So it’s fluid. It grows. At one time our universe got started. Science thinks a Big Bang happened 13 billion years ago. But what about before that? Is that beyond your comprehension? We don’t know.
And if they exist, they each exist in their own space time and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

You have got to love people who elevate science to a religion but can't be bothered with learning it.
You’re claiming to know stuff you don’t know for sure. In a lava lamp does any bubble stay in one place?
I'm telling you what the science tells us.

Why does it bother you that the universe was created from nothing and then began to expand and cool?
Nothing? No such thing.
The universe being created from nothing totally disturbs you, bro.

But we agree -- it was NOT "created from nothing" ... The hard part to wrap a human brain around is the theory that all this matter/energy was IGNITED from a space not much larger than a pinhead..
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
62,497
Reaction score
17,610
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
But they only know for sure right now from 300,000 years till now. They only assume what you are saying. What happened 7 days before the Big Bang?
Red shift, CMB, FLoT, SLoT, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and inflation theory say otherwise.

The laws of nature existed before the universe was created from nothing.

Maybe not.. There was no "periodic table" in existence as we know it.. The timing and energy of the Big Bang DETERMINED the presence and the rarity or abundance of every element that we know today... Also might not have been "light" as we know it prior to the Big Bang..
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,812
Reaction score
10,391
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
But they only know for sure right now from 300,000 years till now. They only assume what you are saying. What happened 7 days before the Big Bang?
Red shift, CMB, FLoT, SLoT, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and inflation theory say otherwise.

The laws of nature existed before the universe was created from nothing.

Maybe not.. There was no "periodic table" in existence as we know it.. The timing and energy of the Big Bang DETERMINED the presence and the rarity or abundance of every element that we know today... Also might not have been "light" as we know it prior to the Big Bang..
It will probably carry more weight hearing it from him.

 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
55,141
Reaction score
15,363
Points
2,180
Do you believe that there are no 100% efficient processes?

Don't confuse mechanical efficiency with natural reactions.

Matter and Energy, in a closed system, are a balanced equation. If we say energy is lost in a reaction, it only means that the energy has been redirected in such a way that it is not useful to us. It doesn't mean the energy is unaccounted for. There must be an accounting of both energy and matter in a closed system.

Based on what we have observed about the increasing speed of universal expansion ... there would seem to be an ever-increasing amount of energy in The Universe that we can't explain. We have labeled this energy as 'Dark Energy' simply because we can't observe it or measure it, we can only observe its effects.

Energy can't increase in a closed system so there must be other factors at work here that we currently can't comprehend.
Dark Energy
It's called Choe-Shek; that Torah doesn't miss anything.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
55,141
Reaction score
15,363
Points
2,180
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.
Ding is merely stating scientific consensus, which seems to bug the hell out of you.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,812
Reaction score
10,391
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
But they only know for sure right now from 300,000 years till now. They only assume what you are saying. What happened 7 days before the Big Bang?
Red shift, CMB, FLoT, SLoT, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and inflation theory say otherwise.

The laws of nature existed before the universe was created from nothing.

Maybe not.. There was no "periodic table" in existence as we know it.. The timing and energy of the Big Bang DETERMINED the presence and the rarity or abundance of every element that we know today... Also might not have been "light" as we know it prior to the Big Bang..
I believe the laws of nature which predestined the evolution of space and time and everything that unfolded since it was created was built into the fabric of energy and matter and had to exist before energy and matter because the creation of space and time was according to those laws.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
55,141
Reaction score
15,363
Points
2,180
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Before I read the whole thing consider our universe is just one bubble in a vast lava lamp of bubbles. Each bubble is unique. You know the edge of our universe? It’s expanding right? So it’s fluid. It grows. At one time our universe got started. Science thinks a Big Bang happened 13 billion years ago. But what about before that? Is that beyond your comprehension? We don’t know.
And if they exist, they each exist in their own space time and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

You have got to love people who elevate science to a religion but can't be bothered with learning it.
You’re claiming to know stuff you don’t know for sure. In a lava lamp does any bubble stay in one place?
I'm telling you what the science tells us.

Why does it bother you that the universe was created from nothing and then began to expand and cool?
Nothing? No such thing.
The universe being created from nothing totally disturbs you, bro.

But we agree -- it was NOT "created from nothing" ... The hard part to wrap a human brain around is the theory that all this matter/energy was IGNITED from a space not much larger than a pinhead..
Do you study Talmud?
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
9,308
Reaction score
2,843
Points
210
Location
alaska, usa
Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo.
Ergo man was created without certain body parts or enough good common sense to make his own decisions by the all-knowing God of the judicial-medical Establishment.
 

sealybobo

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
93,462
Reaction score
9,664
Points
2,060
Location
Michigan
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.
What is it that you think is my hypothesis?

I don’t know. It’s why I asked.
You said it was my wild hypothesis. It's not my hypothesis. This is what is believed. This isn't something I made up on my own. The universe has not existed forever. It was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.
You’re coming to a conclusion that may not be 100% accurate. Sorry. You’re spitballing
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,812
Reaction score
10,391
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.
What is it that you think is my hypothesis?

I don’t know. It’s why I asked.
You said it was my wild hypothesis. It's not my hypothesis. This is what is believed. This isn't something I made up on my own. The universe has not existed forever. It was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.
You’re coming to a conclusion that may not be 100% accurate. Sorry. You’re spitballing
Which conclusion would that be exactly?
 

sealybobo

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
93,462
Reaction score
9,664
Points
2,060
Location
Michigan
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.
Ding is merely stating scientific consensus, which seems to bug the hell out of you.
Yea but what is nothing? Science still debates this. So what he is concluding(that it must be god) isn’t the obvious answer
 

sealybobo

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
93,462
Reaction score
9,664
Points
2,060
Location
Michigan
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.
What is it that you think is my hypothesis?

I don’t know. It’s why I asked.
You said it was my wild hypothesis. It's not my hypothesis. This is what is believed. This isn't something I made up on my own. The universe has not existed forever. It was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.
You’re coming to a conclusion that may not be 100% accurate. Sorry. You’re spitballing
Which conclusion would that be exactly?
That it had to be a god.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,812
Reaction score
10,391
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.
What is it that you think is my hypothesis?

I don’t know. It’s why I asked.
You said it was my wild hypothesis. It's not my hypothesis. This is what is believed. This isn't something I made up on my own. The universe has not existed forever. It was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.
You’re coming to a conclusion that may not be 100% accurate. Sorry. You’re spitballing
Which conclusion would that be exactly?
That it had to be a god.
Where did I make that claim?

I haven't come within a hundred miles of God. It seems that YOU are the one who has reached that conclusion.

The only point of this thread is to discuss the two possibilities; an eternal universe or a universe created from nothing.

The only conclusion I have reached is that an eternal universe is scientifically impossible and that the universe began when it was created from nothing.
 

sealybobo

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
93,462
Reaction score
9,664
Points
2,060
Location
Michigan
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.
What is it that you think is my hypothesis?

I don’t know. It’s why I asked.
You said it was my wild hypothesis. It's not my hypothesis. This is what is believed. This isn't something I made up on my own. The universe has not existed forever. It was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.
You’re coming to a conclusion that may not be 100% accurate. Sorry. You’re spitballing
Which conclusion would that be exactly?
That it had to be a god.
Where did I make that claim?

I haven't come within a hundred miles of God. It seems that YOU are the one who has reached that conclusion.

The only point of this thread is to discuss the two possibilities; an eternal universe or a universe created from nothing.

The only conclusion I have reached is that an eternal universe is scientifically impossible and that the universe began when it was created from nothing.
Those aren’t the only two options.

Put it this way. You don’t understand what nothing means. And neither do scientists completely
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,812
Reaction score
10,391
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.
What is it that you think is my hypothesis?

I don’t know. It’s why I asked.
You said it was my wild hypothesis. It's not my hypothesis. This is what is believed. This isn't something I made up on my own. The universe has not existed forever. It was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.
You’re coming to a conclusion that may not be 100% accurate. Sorry. You’re spitballing
Which conclusion would that be exactly?
That it had to be a god.
Where did I make that claim?

I haven't come within a hundred miles of God. It seems that YOU are the one who has reached that conclusion.

The only point of this thread is to discuss the two possibilities; an eternal universe or a universe created from nothing.

The only conclusion I have reached is that an eternal universe is scientifically impossible and that the universe began when it was created from nothing.
Those aren’t the only two options.

Put it this way. You don’t understand what nothing means. And neither do scientists completely
Sure they are. What other options are there?

In the context of a vacuum where quantum fluctuations pop into and out of existence versus a universe filled with massive amounts of energy and matter, I believe they do understand the difference.
 

sealybobo

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
93,462
Reaction score
9,664
Points
2,060
Location
Michigan
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.
What is it that you think is my hypothesis?

I don’t know. It’s why I asked.
You said it was my wild hypothesis. It's not my hypothesis. This is what is believed. This isn't something I made up on my own. The universe has not existed forever. It was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.
You’re coming to a conclusion that may not be 100% accurate. Sorry. You’re spitballing
Which conclusion would that be exactly?
That it had to be a god.
Where did I make that claim?

I haven't come within a hundred miles of God. It seems that YOU are the one who has reached that conclusion.

The only point of this thread is to discuss the two possibilities; an eternal universe or a universe created from nothing.

The only conclusion I have reached is that an eternal universe is scientifically impossible and that the universe began when it was created from nothing.
Those aren’t the only two options.

Put it this way. You don’t understand what nothing means. And neither do scientists completely
Sure they are. What other options are there?

In the context of a vacuum where quantum fluctuations pop into and out of existence versus a universe filled with massive amounts of energy and matter, I believe they do understand the difference.
What does it mean a flat universe?
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,812
Reaction score
10,391
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.
What is it that you think is my hypothesis?

I don’t know. It’s why I asked.
You said it was my wild hypothesis. It's not my hypothesis. This is what is believed. This isn't something I made up on my own. The universe has not existed forever. It was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.
You’re coming to a conclusion that may not be 100% accurate. Sorry. You’re spitballing
Which conclusion would that be exactly?
That it had to be a god.
Where did I make that claim?

I haven't come within a hundred miles of God. It seems that YOU are the one who has reached that conclusion.

The only point of this thread is to discuss the two possibilities; an eternal universe or a universe created from nothing.

The only conclusion I have reached is that an eternal universe is scientifically impossible and that the universe began when it was created from nothing.
Those aren’t the only two options.

Put it this way. You don’t understand what nothing means. And neither do scientists completely
Sure they are. What other options are there?

In the context of a vacuum where quantum fluctuations pop into and out of existence versus a universe filled with massive amounts of energy and matter, I believe they do understand the difference.
What does it mean a flat universe?
That it had a beginning and when through an inflation phase.
 

sealybobo

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
93,462
Reaction score
9,664
Points
2,060
Location
Michigan
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.
What is it that you think is my hypothesis?

I don’t know. It’s why I asked.
You said it was my wild hypothesis. It's not my hypothesis. This is what is believed. This isn't something I made up on my own. The universe has not existed forever. It was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.
You’re coming to a conclusion that may not be 100% accurate. Sorry. You’re spitballing
Which conclusion would that be exactly?
That it had to be a god.
Where did I make that claim?

I haven't come within a hundred miles of God. It seems that YOU are the one who has reached that conclusion.

The only point of this thread is to discuss the two possibilities; an eternal universe or a universe created from nothing.

The only conclusion I have reached is that an eternal universe is scientifically impossible and that the universe began when it was created from nothing.
Those aren’t the only two options.

Put it this way. You don’t understand what nothing means. And neither do scientists completely
Sure they are. What other options are there?

In the context of a vacuum where quantum fluctuations pop into and out of existence versus a universe filled with massive amounts of energy and matter, I believe they do understand the difference.
What does it mean a flat universe?
That it had a beginning and when through an inflation phase.
Some of the things you are asking or inferring we just don’t know. Don’t act like we do.

Science says we came from nothing? And that doesn’t blow your mind? Or you think it suggests something?
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,812
Reaction score
10,391
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. 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.
Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.
There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.
True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.
You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?
Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?
If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.
No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.
What is it that you think is my hypothesis?

I don’t know. It’s why I asked.
You said it was my wild hypothesis. It's not my hypothesis. This is what is believed. This isn't something I made up on my own. The universe has not existed forever. It was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.
You’re coming to a conclusion that may not be 100% accurate. Sorry. You’re spitballing
Which conclusion would that be exactly?
That it had to be a god.
Where did I make that claim?

I haven't come within a hundred miles of God. It seems that YOU are the one who has reached that conclusion.

The only point of this thread is to discuss the two possibilities; an eternal universe or a universe created from nothing.

The only conclusion I have reached is that an eternal universe is scientifically impossible and that the universe began when it was created from nothing.
Those aren’t the only two options.

Put it this way. You don’t understand what nothing means. And neither do scientists completely
Sure they are. What other options are there?

In the context of a vacuum where quantum fluctuations pop into and out of existence versus a universe filled with massive amounts of energy and matter, I believe they do understand the difference.
What does it mean a flat universe?
That it had a beginning and when through an inflation phase.
Some of the things you are asking or inferring we just don’t know. Don’t act like we do.

Science says we came from nothing? And that doesn’t blow your mind? Or you think it suggests something?
What we do know you don't like because it does blow your mind.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List