A Universe from Nothing?

[ChristineM]

It is logical proof I provide, not just evidence, If mass and energy can not be created or destroyed according to the science you believe in, it was never created to begin with and thus is eternal.

Now if you do not agree with the logic, it is not enough to just deny its validity, you are required to explain what you think is in error in the logic.

No it is not logical proof. The rules of logic for this universe did not begin to coalesce until 10e-34 of a second AFTER the bb.

Now if you think you know more than cosmologists i suggest you present your findings.

Do not tell me what i believe, you have no comprehension.

And still you have provided nothing to back up your claim.

 

[Willamena]

But he does believe and repeatedly stomps his foot that only he is right that time is eternal.

To make such a claim without evidence means doubly diddley-squat.

He provided a sound argument. That's all anyone could do.

 

[Willamena]

No it is not logical proof. The rules of logic for this universe did not begin to coalesce until 10e-34 of a second AFTER the bb.

Rather, I think they began to coalesce sometime in the 7th or 6th Century B.C. in ancient Greece.

 

[ChristineM]

You did not answer my question, what and who is it that sees one electron at heat death?

It is a metaphor. Sorry if it flew right over your head

Talking about answering questions... Need i continue?

 

[ChristineM]

Rather, I think they began to coalesce sometime in the 7th or 6th Century B.C. in ancient Greece.

No, that's the usage, the rules coalesced almost 14 billion years before that

 

[ChristineM]

He provided a sound argument. That's all anyone could do.

No he didn't, he provided opinion based on ignorance

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No it is not logical proof. The rules of logic for this universe did not begin to coalesce until 10e-34 of a second AFTER the bb.

Now if you think you know more than cosmologists i suggest you present your findings.

Do not tell me what i believe, you have no comprehension.

And still you have provided nothing to back up your claim.

Haha......now that is the funniest thing i've seen from you so far...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is a metaphor. Sorry if it flew right over your head

Talking about answering questions... Need i continue?

Yes I understand, like saying that 10e-34 of a second AFTER the bb, you would only then see the rules of logic of the universe begin to coalesce. ...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, that's the usage, the rules coalesced almost 14 billion years before that

So what about all those cosmologists doing research indicating a multiverse, would you say that no matter what they say about the universe theorized or hypothesized prior to 10e-34 of a second AFTER the bb, it will not be logical such as that said about the universe after 10e-34 of a second AFTER the bb?

 

[gnostic]

Do not tell me what i believe, you have no comprehension.

Ben does that a lot.

He is always making assumptions about what I believe, when I tell him no such bloody things. He used straw man arguments a lot.

One of his claims that he used frequently on me is that he assume that I believe in "universe from nothing", when I have made no such claim.

I have accepted the Big Bang model, as far as the evidences allow. And the observable evidences of the Big Bang stopped at the Recombination epoch, which is about 377,000 years after the Big Bang (e.g. CMBR).

All epochs prior to the Recombination epoch is theoretical and hypothetical (e.g. Pla.

None of the BB models (inflationary and non-inflationary versions) say anything about nothingness.

If the universe was a singularity prior to the Big Bang, then that's not "nothing".

singularity ≠ nothing​

Of course, the singularity and anything before the Planck epoch are really unknown, theoretical and hypothetical.

But so is, the universe being eternal or time being eternal. We don't have enough evidences or data to say one way or the other is true.

 

[gnostic]

Scientific knowledge and understanding is not determined by a person's color, gender, race, or creed, so wake up and cease with the ignorant bigotry.

Ah, where is this coming from?

When did I ever bring up race, color, gender or creed?

And second, I don't have creed.

My post I have revealed my background in education, particularly in high school and in my 2 university courses, where I relied on applied science, not theoretical science.

All I am saying in the previous reply is that much of grounding in science are the experimental science, involving testable and verifiable evidences, not on pure mathematics and logic alone.

That not expressing any bigotry that you have mentioned. Is this more straw man?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ben does that a lot.

He is always making assumptions about what I believe, when I tell him no such bloody things. He used straw man arguments a lot.

One of his claims that he used frequently on me is that he assume that I believe in "universe from nothing", when I have made no such claim.

I have accepted the Big Bang model, as far as the evidences allow. And the observable evidences of the Big Bang stopped at the Recombination epoch, which is about 377,000 years after the Big Bang (e.g. CMBR).

All epochs prior to the Recombination epoch is theoretical and hypothetical (e.g. Pla.

None of the BB models (inflationary and non-inflationary versions) say anything about nothingness.

If the universe was a singularity prior to the Big Bang, then that's not "nothing".

singularity ≠ nothing​

Of course, the singularity and anything before the Planck epoch are really unknown, theoretical and hypothetical.

But so is, the universe being eternal or time being eternal. We don't have enough evidences or data to say one way or the other is true.

I understand that you believe that the singularity existed before the big bang. I am not sure that Christine does, so let's ask her.

For ChristineM, do you agree with gnostic that there was not nothing before the bb because the singularity was already present?

For you....if you believe the singularity existed before the bb, it seems there are only two possibilities as to its existence, the first is that the singularity came from nothing, or secondly, it is a just one aspect of an eternal process..what do you think?

 

[gnostic]

Most of that which you post is copy and paste or repeating what you read basic physics, and not relevant to my posts, so I mostly don't even read it, besides which, I am mostly very familiar with it. You really need to learn to be and stay relevant in any exchange, and to be succinct and to the point.

What is relevant to your argument is that you are ignoring that mass and energy can be transformed.

You are also ignoring that conserving of mass and energy, are not perfect. Not all systems are closed or isolated.

You are ignoring a lot of modern science about the Standard Model of particle physics. You are also ignoring that the law of conservation don't take into account of quantum physics and special relativity.

The Big Bang model and our universe are not completely known. There are still more that we can learn, more that we can discover, but as far as time and eternity are concerned, we don't have enough evidences to show what are facts.

And even though part of the Big Bang is still theoretical, the logic between after the Planck epoch and before Recombination epoch, are based on what we do know about particle physics and nuclear physics. The framework to the Big Bang model before the Recombination epoch is sound and logical.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ah, where is this coming from?

When did I ever bring up race, color, gender or creed?

And second, I don't have creed.

My post I have revealed my background in education, particularly in high school and in my 2 university courses, where I relied on applied science, not theoretical science.

All I am saying in the previous reply is that much of grounding in science are the experimental science, involving testable and verifiable evidences, not on pure mathematics and logic alone.

That not expressing any bigotry that you have mentioned. Is this more straw man?

Your rant about creationists. You do know though that I am not a creationist, more a pantheist, but this in no way affects the logical proof of the eternal nature of existence. So it matters not what one's creed is or lack thereof, logical truth transcends belief or lack thereof.

 

[gnostic]

I understand that you believe that the singularity existed before the big bang. I am not sure that Christine does, so let's ask her.

Actually, although I do understand the concept of the singularity, I am still not saying that it is factual.

Cosmologists are speculating and theorising what this singularity is, they don't have enough information and evidences to say it is true.

Understanding any cosmology is one thing, but verifying if it true or not, is a lot harder.

Fact required evidences, not logic. And we don't have enough evidences to say it is or isn't.

That's what I have been trying to tell you all along, Ben.

Using logic is find and being able to think outside of the box is great, but it isn't fact until you have the evidences to back it up.

Your knowledge conservation of mass and energy is somewhat limited.

If you look at the Big Bang more closely, especially before the first stars were formed, looking at how matters formed, then yo will get a better picture that the law of conservation of mass-energy don't really hold up.

You say I am being bigot about what I know, but doesn't that also apply to you when you are stuck in the 18th-19th century science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What is relevant to your argument is that you are ignoring that mass and energy can be transformed.

You are also ignoring that conserving of mass and energy, are not perfect. Not all systems are closed or isolated.

You are ignoring a lot of modern science about the Standard Model of particle physics. You are also ignoring that the law of conservation don't take into account of quantum physics and special relativity.

The Big Bang model and our universe are not completely known. There are still more that we can learn, more that we can discover, but as far as time and eternity are concerned, we don't have enough evidences to show what are facts.

And even though part of the Big Bang is still theoretical, the logic between after the Planck epoch and before Recombination epoch, are based on what we do know about particle physics and nuclear physics. The framework to the Big Bang model before the Recombination epoch is sound and logical.

Where do you get the idea from that I am ignoring transformation, are you suggesting that transformation causes a reduction in the sum total of mass and energy of the universe?

But the universe is a closed system, what do you think lies outside the universe into which the mass or energy of the universe can escape into?

The rest of your post is irrelevant, you learned nothing from my comment you quoted concerning the importance of being and staying relevant in any exchange, and to be succinct and to the point.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, although I do understand the concept of the singularity, I am still not saying that it is factual.

Cosmologists are speculating and theorising what this singularity is, they don't have enough information and evidences to say it is true.

Understanding any cosmology is one thing, but verifying if it true or not, is a lot harder.

Fact required evidences, not logic. And we don't have enough evidences to say it is or isn't.

That's what I have been trying to tell you all along, Ben.

Using logic is find and being able to think outside of the box is great, but it isn't fact until you have the evidences to back it up.

Your knowledge conservation of mass and energy is somewhat limited.

If you look at the Big Bang more closely, especially before the first stars were formed, looking at how matters formed, then yo will get a better picture that the law of conservation of mass-energy don't really hold up.

You say I am being bigot about what I know, but doesn't that also apply to you when you are stuck in the 18th-19th century science.

Ok then, if you are now saying the existence of a singularity prior to the bb is a not a fact, then it follows logically that you leave open the possibility of there being a nothing. But if you simultaneously believe there is no nothing, then where does that leave you?

Why are you wasting your time talking about anything after the bb, it is irrelevant to the point of our exchange. Try and keep your posts relevant and to the point?

 

[metis]

We have to be careful that we don't confuse "singularity" by believing that even though there is a high concentration of sub-atomic particles at that point that these particles are all the same. IOW, the singularity within itself does not appear to be monolithic, and cosmologists believe it is possible that these varied particles may have actually caused the BB because of coming into too close a contact that may have started a repelling, much like magnets will repel if turned a certain way.

 

[ChristineM]

Ben does that a lot.

He is always making assumptions about what I believe, when I tell him no such bloody things. He used straw man arguments a lot.

One of his claims that he used frequently on me is that he assume that I believe in "universe from nothing", when I have made no such claim.

I have accepted the Big Bang model, as far as the evidences allow. And the observable evidences of the Big Bang stopped at the Recombination epoch, which is about 377,000 years after the Big Bang (e.g. CMBR).

All epochs prior to the Recombination epoch is theoretical and hypothetical (e.g. Pla.

None of the BB models (inflationary and non-inflationary versions) say anything about nothingness.

If the universe was a singularity prior to the Big Bang, then that's not "nothing".

singularity ≠ nothing​

Of course, the singularity and anything before the Planck epoch are really unknown, theoretical and hypothetical.

But so is, the universe being eternal or time being eternal. We don't have enough evidences or data to say one way or the other is true.

He's used the same bs on me because i have presented it as an option. I actually prefer the theory of Laura Mersini-Houghton because it addresses the three previously unexplained phenomena observed in the universe.

However I have to disagree on the nothing scenario, i have heard of a model in which nothing is the starting point. The Wuhan teams mathematical solution indicated the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle shows quantum fluctuations in a metastable false vacuum can give rise to virtual particle pairs which can on occasion separate and inflate exponentially.

Exactly, no one knows yet ben is adamant he is right.

 

[ChristineM]

Haha......now that is the funniest thing i've seen from you so far...

Your deliberate ignorance is noted