The Second Law of Thermodynamics Precludes an Infinite Acting Universe

[sealybobo]

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.

I don’t mind it. I just don’t think you understand what nothing is because it’s beyond comprehension. Nothing you conclude is 100% conclusive. Even if we did come from “nothing” I’m sure if scientists were around back then it could be scientifically explained and it wouldn’t prove a god must exist which we all know is what you’re getting at.

 

[ding]

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.

I don’t mind it. I just don’t think you understand what nothing is because it’s beyond comprehension. Nothing you conclude is 100% conclusive. Even if we did come from “nothing” I’m sure if scientists were around back then it could be scientifically explained and it wouldn’t prove a god must exist which we all know is what you’re getting at.

Why do you keep bringing up God?

I'm discussing whether or not the universe has always existed or was created from nothing.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

OK -- That's unique and weird.. Can't even weigh in without psychedelics.. So -- what existed was a egg shell with a hard boundary.. Either from gravity so dense that no radiation can penetrate it or built from anti-matter or whatever.. And a "spark of life" caused this distributed LATENT matter/energy to coalesce inward to a tiny point at the center and IGNITED something like the Big Bang..

Maybe Genesis is not that far fetched.. OR we're living in some kind of faulty garbage compactor where the "closed system" simply COMPACTS when a certain shape/distribution of matter/energy equilibrium is reached within it's closed borders -- and causes the garbage to be spewed as far away as possible..

First and only observation would be that would seem to a PERIODIC occurrence in most KNOWN closed systems and by it's nature means the chances for oscillation are pretty high on SOME "universe time scale".,..

 

[ding]

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.

OK -- That's unique and weird.. Can't even weigh in without psychedelics.. So -- what existed was a egg shell with a hard boundary.. Either from gravity so dense that no radiation can penetrate it or built from anti-matter or whatever.. And a "spark of life" caused this distributed LATENT matter/energy to coalesce inward to a tiny point at the center and IGNITED something like the Big Bang..

Maybe Genesis is not that far fetched.. OR we're living in some kind of reverse flushing toilet where the "closed system" simply COMPACTS when a certain shape/distribution of matter/energy equilibrium is reached within it's closed borders..

First and only observation would be that would seem to a PERIODIC occurrence in most KNOWN closed systems and by it's nature means the chances for oscillation are pretty high on SOME "universe time scale".,..

It's not that weird or unique if you accept that matter and energy must have a beginning. Which I cannot see any other way around. Which means that there has to be an explanation for how it was created without violating the FLoT which he has done (i.e. the net energy of the universe is zero, much like the sum of forces is zero for a statics problem).

Another problem with a periodic or cyclical universe would be in replicating the cosmic background radiation which required equal amounts of anti-matter and matter to create. That's the next thread I'm creating.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

OK -- That's unique and weird.. Can't even weigh in without psychedelics.. So -- what existed was a egg shell with a hard boundary.. Either from gravity so dense that no radiation can penetrate it or built from anti-matter or whatever.. And a "spark of life" caused this distributed LATENT matter/energy to coalesce inward to a tiny point at the center and IGNITED something like the Big Bang..

Maybe Genesis is not that far fetched.. OR we're living in some kind of reverse flushing toilet where the "closed system" simply COMPACTS when a certain shape/distribution of matter/energy equilibrium is reached within it's closed borders..

First and only observation would be that would seem to a PERIODIC occurrence in most KNOWN closed systems and by it's nature means the chances for oscillation are pretty high on SOME "universe time scale".,..

It's not that weird or unique if you accept that matter and energy must have a beginning. Which I cannot see any other way around. Which means that there has to be an explanation for how it was created without violating the FLoT which he has done (i.e. the net energy of the universe is zero, much like the sum of forces is zero for a statics problem).

Another problem with a periodic or cyclical universe would be in replicating the cosmic background radiation which required equal amounts of anti-matter and matter to create. That's the next thread I'm creating.

When you look out at the vastness of the Universe, at the planets, stars, galaxies, and all there is out there, one obvious question screams for an explanation: why is there something instead of nothing? The problem gets even worse when you consider the laws of physics governing our Universe, which appear to be completely symmetric between matter and antimatter. Yet as we look at what's out there, we find that all the stars and galaxies we see are made 100% of matter, with scarcely any antimatter at all. Clearly, we exist, as do the stars and galaxies we see, so something must have created more matter than antimatter, making the Universe we know possible. But how did it happen? It's one of the Universe's greatest mysteries, but one that we're closer than ever to solving.

Consider these two facts about the Universe, and how contradictory they are:

1. Every interaction between particles that we’ve ever observed, at all energies, has never created or destroyed a single particle of matter without also creating or destroying an equal number of antimatter particles.
2. 
   
3. When we look out at the Universe, at all the stars, galaxies, gas clouds, clusters, superclusters and largest-scale structures everywhere, everything appears to be made of matter and not antimatter.

It seems like an impossibility. On one hand, there is no known way, given the particles and their interactions in the Universe, to make more matter than antimatter. On the other hand, everything we see is definitely made of matter and not antimatter. Here's how we know.

How Did The Matter In Our Universe Arise From Nothing?

If the laws of physics are completely symmetric between matter and antimatter, how did our Universe come to be?

www.forbes.com

In our own galaxy’s interstellar medium, the mean lifetime would be on the order of about 300 years, which is tiny compared to the age of our galaxy! This constraint tells us that, at least within the Milky Way, the amount of antimatter that’s allowed to be mixed in with the matter we observe is at most 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000! On larger scales — of galaxies and galaxy clusters, for example — the constraints are less stringent but still very strong. With observations spanning from just a few million light-years away to over three billion light-years distant, we’ve observed a dearth of the X-rays and gamma rays we’d expect from matter-antimatter annihilation. What we’ve seen is that even on large, cosmological scales, 99.999%+ of what exists in our Universe is definitely matter (like us) and not antimatter.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

OK -- That's unique and weird.. Can't even weigh in without psychedelics.. So -- what existed was a egg shell with a hard boundary.. Either from gravity so dense that no radiation can penetrate it or built from anti-matter or whatever.. And a "spark of life" caused this distributed LATENT matter/energy to coalesce inward to a tiny point at the center and IGNITED something like the Big Bang..

Maybe Genesis is not that far fetched.. OR we're living in some kind of faulty garbage compactor where the "closed system" simply COMPACTS when a certain shape/distribution of matter/energy equilibrium is reached within it's closed borders -- and causes the garbage to be spewed as far away as possible..

First and only observation would be that would seem to a PERIODIC occurrence in most KNOWN closed systems and by it's nature means the chances for oscillation are pretty high on SOME "universe time scale".,..

In the late 1960s, physicist Andrei Sakharov identified three conditions necessary for baryogenesis, or the creation of more baryons (protons and neutrons) than anti-baryons. They are as follows:

1. The Universe must be an out-of-equilibrium system.
2. It must exhibit C- and CP-violation.
3. There must be baryon-number-violating interactions.

In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe.

The fact that we exist and are made of matter is indisputable; the question of why our Universe contains something (matter) instead of nothing (from an equal mix of matter and antimatter) is one that must have an answer. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. And when it does, one of the greatest mysteries in all of existence will finally have a solution.

 

[flacaltenn]

Another problem with a periodic or cyclical universe would be in replicating the cosmic background radiation which required equal amounts of anti-matter and matter to create. That's the next thread I'm creating.

You can knock yourself out there, but on the TIME SCALE of any period/cyclical activity, the TRACE of cosmic background for previous cycles would be LONG gone or you'd have to get much better in finding the remains...

 

[JimBowie1958]

We don’t know.

That's the only thing we do know, for sure.

There are a great many things we do not know via Science, but do know via other disciplines no less certainly.
And how can you prove that our Universe is a closed system?

 

[ding]

Another problem with a periodic or cyclical universe would be in replicating the cosmic background radiation which required equal amounts of anti-matter and matter to create. That's the next thread I'm creating.

You can knock yourself out there, but on the TIME SCALE of any period/cyclical activity, the TRACE of cosmic background for previous cycles would be LONG gone or you'd have to get much better in finding the remains...

If that is the case isn't that one more reason to believe the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It's still there. We can see it using a TV set.

But my point is there wouldn't be any cosmic background radiation in a cyclical universe because there was no anti-matter to create it. It's just a universe of matter contracting and expanding.

 

[ding]

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.

OK -- That's unique and weird.. Can't even weigh in without psychedelics.. So -- what existed was a egg shell with a hard boundary.. Either from gravity so dense that no radiation can penetrate it or built from anti-matter or whatever.. And a "spark of life" caused this distributed LATENT matter/energy to coalesce inward to a tiny point at the center and IGNITED something like the Big Bang..

Maybe Genesis is not that far fetched.. OR we're living in some kind of faulty garbage compactor where the "closed system" simply COMPACTS when a certain shape/distribution of matter/energy equilibrium is reached within it's closed borders -- and causes the garbage to be spewed as far away as possible..

First and only observation would be that would seem to a PERIODIC occurrence in most KNOWN closed systems and by it's nature means the chances for oscillation are pretty high on SOME "universe time scale".,..

In the late 1960s, physicist Andrei Sakharov identified three conditions necessary for baryogenesis, or the creation of more baryons (protons and neutrons) than anti-baryons. They are as follows:

1. The Universe must be an out-of-equilibrium system.
2. It must exhibit C- and CP-violation.
3. There must be baryon-number-violating interactions.

In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe.

The fact that we exist and are made of matter is indisputable; the question of why our Universe contains something (matter) instead of nothing (from an equal mix of matter and antimatter) is one that must have an answer. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. And when it does, one of the greatest mysteries in all of existence will finally have a solution.

You do realize his process is based upon a universe that is spontaneously created, right?

"In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. "

 

[sealybobo]

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.

OK -- That's unique and weird.. Can't even weigh in without psychedelics.. So -- what existed was a egg shell with a hard boundary.. Either from gravity so dense that no radiation can penetrate it or built from anti-matter or whatever.. And a "spark of life" caused this distributed LATENT matter/energy to coalesce inward to a tiny point at the center and IGNITED something like the Big Bang..

Maybe Genesis is not that far fetched.. OR we're living in some kind of faulty garbage compactor where the "closed system" simply COMPACTS when a certain shape/distribution of matter/energy equilibrium is reached within it's closed borders -- and causes the garbage to be spewed as far away as possible..

First and only observation would be that would seem to a PERIODIC occurrence in most KNOWN closed systems and by it's nature means the chances for oscillation are pretty high on SOME "universe time scale".,..

In the late 1960s, physicist Andrei Sakharov identified three conditions necessary for baryogenesis, or the creation of more baryons (protons and neutrons) than anti-baryons. They are as follows:

1. The Universe must be an out-of-equilibrium system.
2. It must exhibit C- and CP-violation.
3. There must be baryon-number-violating interactions.

In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe.

The fact that we exist and are made of matter is indisputable; the question of why our Universe contains something (matter) instead of nothing (from an equal mix of matter and antimatter) is one that must have an answer. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. And when it does, one of the greatest mysteries in all of existence will finally have a solution.

You do realize his process is based upon a universe that is spontaneously created, right?

"In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. "

Yea like bubbles in a lava lamp spontaneously form. Or when a lightening strikes. It’s spontaneous.

 

[ding]

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.

OK -- That's unique and weird.. Can't even weigh in without psychedelics.. So -- what existed was a egg shell with a hard boundary.. Either from gravity so dense that no radiation can penetrate it or built from anti-matter or whatever.. And a "spark of life" caused this distributed LATENT matter/energy to coalesce inward to a tiny point at the center and IGNITED something like the Big Bang..

Maybe Genesis is not that far fetched.. OR we're living in some kind of faulty garbage compactor where the "closed system" simply COMPACTS when a certain shape/distribution of matter/energy equilibrium is reached within it's closed borders -- and causes the garbage to be spewed as far away as possible..

First and only observation would be that would seem to a PERIODIC occurrence in most KNOWN closed systems and by it's nature means the chances for oscillation are pretty high on SOME "universe time scale".,..

In the late 1960s, physicist Andrei Sakharov identified three conditions necessary for baryogenesis, or the creation of more baryons (protons and neutrons) than anti-baryons. They are as follows:

1. The Universe must be an out-of-equilibrium system.
2. It must exhibit C- and CP-violation.
3. There must be baryon-number-violating interactions.

In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe.

The fact that we exist and are made of matter is indisputable; the question of why our Universe contains something (matter) instead of nothing (from an equal mix of matter and antimatter) is one that must have an answer. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. And when it does, one of the greatest mysteries in all of existence will finally have a solution.

You do realize his process is based upon a universe that is spontaneously created, right?

"In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. "

Yea like bubbles in a lava lamp spontaneously form. Or when a lightening strikes. It’s spontaneous.

Except in this case it's a quantum tunneling event with equal or nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter particles.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

OK -- That's unique and weird.. Can't even weigh in without psychedelics.. So -- what existed was a egg shell with a hard boundary.. Either from gravity so dense that no radiation can penetrate it or built from anti-matter or whatever.. And a "spark of life" caused this distributed LATENT matter/energy to coalesce inward to a tiny point at the center and IGNITED something like the Big Bang..

Maybe Genesis is not that far fetched.. OR we're living in some kind of faulty garbage compactor where the "closed system" simply COMPACTS when a certain shape/distribution of matter/energy equilibrium is reached within it's closed borders -- and causes the garbage to be spewed as far away as possible..

First and only observation would be that would seem to a PERIODIC occurrence in most KNOWN closed systems and by it's nature means the chances for oscillation are pretty high on SOME "universe time scale".,..

In the late 1960s, physicist Andrei Sakharov identified three conditions necessary for baryogenesis, or the creation of more baryons (protons and neutrons) than anti-baryons. They are as follows:

1. The Universe must be an out-of-equilibrium system.
2. It must exhibit C- and CP-violation.
3. There must be baryon-number-violating interactions.

In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe.

The fact that we exist and are made of matter is indisputable; the question of why our Universe contains something (matter) instead of nothing (from an equal mix of matter and antimatter) is one that must have an answer. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. And when it does, one of the greatest mysteries in all of existence will finally have a solution.

You do realize his process is based upon a universe that is spontaneously created, right?

"In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. "

Since the universe is dominated by DARK matter.. Or that's the view today.. And its all moving relatively the same directions as the matter we can see easily, where is the "tunneling leak" that allows this "closed system egg" to charge with "equal parts of matter/anti-matter as the fuel for the ignition? When you consider the mass and joules involved in the ignition, SOMETHING compressed the "tunneling" into ONE minute location?

Quantum tunneling is a QUANTUM LEVEL process.. It's not a bulk mass delivery system...

 

[Indeependent]

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

There is a popular saying among Jews that God created Something From Nothing.
Those who study Kabbalah, which is not at all spooky stuff, but an actual explanation of the Torah's words, as opposed to the Septuagint, translated by the Rabbis for Greek edification, state the reality that God, being the sole Something, created Nothing, otherwise known as the universe, From Something, otherwise referred to as God.
Thus, God created Nothing From Something.

A primer...
Something is a pristine essence that can only be tolerated by a created being that can completely negate it's ego....become Nothing.
Something is inherently absolute perfection that cannot be manipulated into negativity.
Nothing allows itself to be subsumed into Something and is absolute perfection because it cannot be manipulated into negativity.

As long as a created being has desires that veer from Something's plan, that created being will deny the omniscient Something to some degree, or entirely.
When I allow my desires to "rebel" my path from that which has been defined by Something, I'm just as guilty.

Does this mean I'm anti science?
If I was anti science, I wouldn't have all the latest gadgets.

I can imagine this post will drive atheists insane.

 

[ding]

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.

OK -- That's unique and weird.. Can't even weigh in without psychedelics.. So -- what existed was a egg shell with a hard boundary.. Either from gravity so dense that no radiation can penetrate it or built from anti-matter or whatever.. And a "spark of life" caused this distributed LATENT matter/energy to coalesce inward to a tiny point at the center and IGNITED something like the Big Bang..

Maybe Genesis is not that far fetched.. OR we're living in some kind of faulty garbage compactor where the "closed system" simply COMPACTS when a certain shape/distribution of matter/energy equilibrium is reached within it's closed borders -- and causes the garbage to be spewed as far away as possible..

First and only observation would be that would seem to a PERIODIC occurrence in most KNOWN closed systems and by it's nature means the chances for oscillation are pretty high on SOME "universe time scale".,..

In the late 1960s, physicist Andrei Sakharov identified three conditions necessary for baryogenesis, or the creation of more baryons (protons and neutrons) than anti-baryons. They are as follows:

1. The Universe must be an out-of-equilibrium system.
2. It must exhibit C- and CP-violation.
3. There must be baryon-number-violating interactions.

In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe.

The fact that we exist and are made of matter is indisputable; the question of why our Universe contains something (matter) instead of nothing (from an equal mix of matter and antimatter) is one that must have an answer. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. And when it does, one of the greatest mysteries in all of existence will finally have a solution.

You do realize his process is based upon a universe that is spontaneously created, right?

"In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. "

Since the universe is dominated by DARK matter.. Or that's the view today.. And its all moving relatively the same directions as the matter we can see easily, where is the "tunneling leak" that allows this "closed system egg" to charge with "equal parts of matter/anti-matter as the fuel for the ignition? When you consider the mass and joules involved in the ignition, SOMETHING compressed the "tunneling" into ONE minute location?

Quantum tunneling is a QUANTUM LEVEL process.. It's not a bulk mass delivery system...

I'm not convinced of dark matter and even if I were I don't see how it has anything to do with the creation of space and time. At least not with my understanding of how they say dark matter is "created."

The "tunneling leak" was that ONE minute location. Matter and anti matter particles weren't compressed. They came into existence all at once or practically all at once. Whereby the mutual annihilation which was two billion times larger in mass than the remaining matter particles set those particles in motion. At which time they quickly formed hydrogen and helium. That's my understanding.

But back to my point, I have not heard anyone claim that the cosmic background radiation wasn't the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe. Do you know something about CMB that I don't?

Because logically if the CMB was the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe and if the time scale of any period/cyclical activity erased all traces of it, doesn't the presence of CMB mean the universe had a beginning because if you are correct all traces of CMB should be erased, right? What am I missing here?

 

[Indeependent]

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.

OK -- That's unique and weird.. Can't even weigh in without psychedelics.. So -- what existed was a egg shell with a hard boundary.. Either from gravity so dense that no radiation can penetrate it or built from anti-matter or whatever.. And a "spark of life" caused this distributed LATENT matter/energy to coalesce inward to a tiny point at the center and IGNITED something like the Big Bang..

Maybe Genesis is not that far fetched.. OR we're living in some kind of faulty garbage compactor where the "closed system" simply COMPACTS when a certain shape/distribution of matter/energy equilibrium is reached within it's closed borders -- and causes the garbage to be spewed as far away as possible..

First and only observation would be that would seem to a PERIODIC occurrence in most KNOWN closed systems and by it's nature means the chances for oscillation are pretty high on SOME "universe time scale".,..

In the late 1960s, physicist Andrei Sakharov identified three conditions necessary for baryogenesis, or the creation of more baryons (protons and neutrons) than anti-baryons. They are as follows:

1. The Universe must be an out-of-equilibrium system.
2. It must exhibit C- and CP-violation.
3. There must be baryon-number-violating interactions.

In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe.

The fact that we exist and are made of matter is indisputable; the question of why our Universe contains something (matter) instead of nothing (from an equal mix of matter and antimatter) is one that must have an answer. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. And when it does, one of the greatest mysteries in all of existence will finally have a solution.

You do realize his process is based upon a universe that is spontaneously created, right?

"In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. "

Since the universe is dominated by DARK matter.. Or that's the view today.. And its all moving relatively the same directions as the matter we can see easily, where is the "tunneling leak" that allows this "closed system egg" to charge with "equal parts of matter/anti-matter as the fuel for the ignition? When you consider the mass and joules involved in the ignition, SOMETHING compressed the "tunneling" into ONE minute location?

Quantum tunneling is a QUANTUM LEVEL process.. It's not a bulk mass delivery system...

I'm not convinced of dark matter and even if I were I don't see how it has anything to do with the creation of space and time. At least not with my understanding of how they say dark matter is "created."

The "tunneling leak" was that ONE minute location. Matter and anti matter particles weren't compressed. They came into existence all at once or practically all at once. Whereby the mutual annihilation which was two billion times larger in mass than the remaining matter particles set those particles in motion. At which time they quickly formed hydrogen and helium. That's my understanding.

But back to my point, I have not heard anyone claim that the cosmic background radiation wasn't the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe. Do you know something about CMB that I don't?

Because logically if the CMB was the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe and if the time scale of any period/cyclical activity erased all traces of it, doesn't the presence of CMB mean the universe had a beginning because if you are correct all traces of CMB should be erased, right? What am I missing here?

Dark Matter (Choe-Shek) was the default and ultimate destiny of the Big Bang.
God intervened and uttered Light (Ohr) into existence.

 

[flacaltenn]

But back to my point, I have not heard anyone claim that the cosmic background radiation wasn't the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe. Do you know something about CMB that I don't?

Because logically if the CMB was the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe and if the time scale of any period/cyclical activity erased all traces of it, doesn't the presence of CMB mean the universe had a beginning because if you are correct all traces of CMB should be erased, right? What am I missing here?

Not denying any of it.. Just pointing out the chances of finding and SEPARATING CMB from PREVIOUS events to show cyclic operation of this (proposed) closed system is limited in TIME. Because there's no reason to believe that radiation would have any permanence on that type of time scale.. 20 Billion years is fairly young for an expansion STILL HAPPENING..

But I would still suspect if the closed system did this ONCE -- it wouldn't be the 1st time.. It's kinda like the expectation for major energy forcings in a closed system. And if it HAS happened before, eventually the energy/mass in the closed system WOULD increase or we need new physics for a truly closed systems..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

OK -- That's unique and weird.. Can't even weigh in without psychedelics.. So -- what existed was a egg shell with a hard boundary.. Either from gravity so dense that no radiation can penetrate it or built from anti-matter or whatever.. And a "spark of life" caused this distributed LATENT matter/energy to coalesce inward to a tiny point at the center and IGNITED something like the Big Bang..

Maybe Genesis is not that far fetched.. OR we're living in some kind of faulty garbage compactor where the "closed system" simply COMPACTS when a certain shape/distribution of matter/energy equilibrium is reached within it's closed borders -- and causes the garbage to be spewed as far away as possible..

First and only observation would be that would seem to a PERIODIC occurrence in most KNOWN closed systems and by it's nature means the chances for oscillation are pretty high on SOME "universe time scale".,..

In the late 1960s, physicist Andrei Sakharov identified three conditions necessary for baryogenesis, or the creation of more baryons (protons and neutrons) than anti-baryons. They are as follows:

1. The Universe must be an out-of-equilibrium system.
2. It must exhibit C- and CP-violation.
3. There must be baryon-number-violating interactions.

In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe.

The fact that we exist and are made of matter is indisputable; the question of why our Universe contains something (matter) instead of nothing (from an equal mix of matter and antimatter) is one that must have an answer. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. And when it does, one of the greatest mysteries in all of existence will finally have a solution.

You do realize his process is based upon a universe that is spontaneously created, right?

"In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. "

Since the universe is dominated by DARK matter.. Or that's the view today.. And its all moving relatively the same directions as the matter we can see easily, where is the "tunneling leak" that allows this "closed system egg" to charge with "equal parts of matter/anti-matter as the fuel for the ignition? When you consider the mass and joules involved in the ignition, SOMETHING compressed the "tunneling" into ONE minute location?

Quantum tunneling is a QUANTUM LEVEL process.. It's not a bulk mass delivery system...

I'm not convinced of dark matter and even if I were I don't see how it has anything to do with the creation of space and time. At least not with my understanding of how they say dark matter is "created."

The "tunneling leak" was that ONE minute location. Matter and anti matter particles weren't compressed. They came into existence all at once or practically all at once. Whereby the mutual annihilation which was two billion times larger in mass than the remaining matter particles set those particles in motion. At which time they quickly formed hydrogen and helium. That's my understanding.

But back to my point, I have not heard anyone claim that the cosmic background radiation wasn't the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe. Do you know something about CMB that I don't?

Because logically if the CMB was the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe and if the time scale of any period/cyclical activity erased all traces of it, doesn't the presence of CMB mean the universe had a beginning because if you are correct all traces of CMB should be erased, right? What am I missing here?

Dark Matter (Choe-Shek) was the default and ultimate destiny of the Big Bang.
God intervened and uttered Light (Ohr) into existence.

I KNEW I should have kept reading the Talmud instead of Carl Sagan...

 

[zaangalewa]

It's way too early to jump to any conclusions. The Laws of Thermodynamics, classical non-Quantum Newtonian Physics, are based on a closed system and as we keep learning, The Universe is less and less 'closed' as we previously believed.

Sorry: But if it is not a closed sytem where's the outside? The universe expands from all points: This means everyone and everything what travels thougzh the universe is always in the middle of the universe and never able to reach an end or to leave it, because the universe expands into all directions. And "to expand" means the space itselve expands.

Until the early part of the 20th Century, it was believed that the entirety of the Universe was contained in the Milky Way. Hubble's dual discoveries of the actual distance between galaxies and the red-shift of the expanding universe changed that picture completely and caused Einstein to reject his Cosmological Constant.

The idea that The Universe consists mainly of unobservable (dark) matter and energy

"Dark energy" is perhaps only an idea without reality

means that our ability to understand cosmological destiny is severely handicapped until we can learn how to observe and measure them.

We do so in case of dark matter - but not in case of dark energy- what are two totally different things.

The relatively recent discovery that the rate of expansion is increasing due to ever increasing power of Dark Energy means that, fundamentally, we can only begin to speculate on how The Universe will die or prosper.

Or we make a mistake in the interpretation of so called "standard candles" as far as I heard. So perhaso teh univrse is indeed not accelerated expanding.

I'm afraid that any certain proclamation made today, with our infinitesimal knowledge of The Universe,

With our what? Infinitesimal calculations are only a part of the universe.

will seem as quaint and silly as Kepler's concept of crystal spheres or Ptolemy's Sun Centered Universe does to us now.

Kepler's system was anything else than silly, if you take a look at the three laws of Kepler. No one had believed only one word from the obscure theory of Newton, if his theory had not explained the laws of Kepler. Einstein was the giant on the shoulders of Newton in a similar way as Newton was the giant on the shoulders of Kepler (and Tycho Brahe). And the theory of relativity says very clear that the natural laws, energy and the spacetime were suddenly existing - without any possibility to say what was "before" it was so, because "before" the universe existed existed no time, so there was no "before" 'before'.

 

[zaangalewa]

We don’t know.

That's the only thing we do know, for sure.

What a nonsense. I'm sure you know for example whether you have a knee or not.