In the beginning...

[Jayhawker Soule]

Give one quote from a respected scientist that says this is how it was.

The @Ted Evans subtext is obvious:

• you don't know what happened before the Big Bang,
• therefore God

What it lacks in intellectual force it makes up for in brevity.

 

[Super Universe]

But, of course, it doesn't. Why we can study it with those laws of physics. I'd suggest Wald's book on General Relativity or Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's book called Gravitation.



Not another force. Another contribution to the energy. It is also called the cosmological constant if you want to look up the older literature on it.



Nope. Dark energy is NOT a type of gravity. It is a type of energy density that stays constant on expansion. If you put such into the equations of gravity, you get an accelerating expansion.



You won't be able to see farther than 13.8 billion light years because the universe is only 13.8 billion years old and light travels one light year in a year.



I'm just pointing it out as a possibility that it at least as likely as your creator deity and perhaps even more likely. But neither has any evidence in favor.

You suggest that I read books on gravitation? Which one postulates a theory as to how gravity ceases to work during the big bang? None.

Something contributes to the increased expansion of the universe but it's not another force? Then it would have to be a known force. The known forces are electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity. Which one of them is causing the expansion of space?

The theory of the cosmological constant is a value of the energy density of the vacuum of space to achieve a stable universe that is not expanding or contracting. You can't force the universe to behave the way you think it should.

You're trying to deflect this all over the place. You can't get around the fact that gravity would have stopped the big bang and neither can the scientists. You guys don't have the answer.

Dark energy is not a type of gravity? I know it's not. I didn't say it was, you did.

If you put energy density that stays constant on expansion into gravity you get an accelerating expansion? No, you don't. When someone fires a bullet upward they are not changing gravity, they are using another force, a repulsive force that is stronger than gravity. You're trying to figure this out only using the standard model pieces that you have. You can't do it that way, there are more pieces. Don't be afraid to go outside the box, the standard model is not complete yet.

If we had a group of hubble telescopes in the formation of an interferometer we still would not be able to see farther because the universe is only 13.8 billion light years old? But your proof of the age of the universe is dependant on how far you can see. You think that just because you can only see that far that there is nothing beyond that.

Please name the telescope that can see farther than 13.8 billion light years? Just one.

You're pointing out the possibility that there are other ways the universe could have come into existence? There really is no other way. You're just very anti-religion so you have to be fully committed to the idea that the scientists can explain everything. They will never be able to find a Grand Unified Theory until they add God into the math and God is the infinite source of the universe. So, instead of erasing your math once you've reached an infinity result you have to realize that result is God.

 

[Super Universe]

OK, if you know so much physics, explain the possible spacetime metrics that satisfy Einstein's field equations for conditions where there is both matter and radiant energy. Then add a contribution to these equations corresponding to a cosmological constant.

Don't know.

But I know that gravity contracts and I know you can't see farther than 13.8 billion light years so that's the number you went with.

EDIT: Also, you need to stop trying to make a dimension of time. Time exists in all dimensions.

 

[Polymath257]

You suggest that I read books on gravitation? Which one postulates a theory as to how gravity ceases to work during the big bang? None.

That is because gravity does work in the BB.

Something contributes to the increased expansion of the universe but it's not another force? Then it would have to be a known force. The known forces are electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity. Which one of them is causing the expansion of space?

It is not another force. Gravity, when there is a cosmological constant, can produce spatial expansion.

The theory of the cosmological constant is a value of the energy density of the vacuum of space to achieve a stable universe that is not expanding or contracting. You can't force the universe to behave the way you think it should.

That is only how Einstein originally used it. The actual, observed, value is different than the one needed for stability.

You're trying to deflect this all over the place. You can't get around the fact that gravity would have stopped the big bang and neither can the scientists. You guys don't have the answer.

We don't 'get around' this because it is a false statement.

Dark energy is not a type of gravity? I know it's not. I didn't say it was, you did.

No, I did not. Dark energy is another contribution to the energy balance of the universe. Gravity is produced by energy as well as by mass. So dark energy contributes to gravity. But it does so in a way that produces an accelerating expansion of space.

If you put energy density that stays constant on expansion into gravity you get an accelerating expansion? No, you don't.

Yes, actually, you do. When you put this into the equations that describe gravity, that is what happens.

When someone fires a bullet upward they are not changing gravity, they are using another force, a repulsive force that is stronger than gravity. You're trying to figure this out only using the standard model pieces that you have. You can't do it that way, there are more pieces. Don't be afraid to go outside the box, the standard model is not complete yet.

Irrelevant. In GR, a cosmological constant has the effect I described. if you don't believe that, please show where the mathematical derivation is flawed.

If we had a group of hubble telescopes in the formation of an interferometer we still would not be able to see farther because the universe is only 13.8 billion light years old?

That is correct.

But your proof of the age of the universe is dependant on how far you can see. You think that just because you can only see that far that there is nothing beyond that.

No, that is not the claim. In fact, *nobody* claims that there is nothing beyond that, only that we won't be able to detect it.

Please name the telescope that can see farther than 13.8 billion light years? Just one.

You can't because it is impossible.

 

[Super Universe]

That is because gravity does work in the BB.



It is not another force. Gravity, when there is a cosmological constant, can produce spatial expansion.



That is only how Einstein originally used it. The actual, observed, value is different than the one needed for stability.



We don't 'get around' this because it is a false statement.


No, I did not. Dark energy is another contribution to the energy balance of the universe. Gravity is produced by energy as well as by mass. So dark energy contributes to gravity. But it does so in a way that produces an accelerating expansion of space.


Yes, actually, you do. When you put this into the equations that describe gravity, that is what happens.



Irrelevant. In GR, a cosmological constant has the effect I described. if you don't believe that, please show where the mathematical derivation is flawed.


That is correct.



No, that is not the claim. In fact, *nobody* claims that there is nothing beyond that, only that we won't be able to detect it.


You can't because it is impossible.

Okay, if gravity works during the big bang, and we know that the force of gravity is a contracting force, and we know that the effect is cumulative, then how does all the matter in the universe escape the contracting force of gravity?

You can't use dark energy as the repulsive force that caused the inflation in the big bang because dark energy is not nearly strong enough to counter the contracting force of gravity. It just doesn't work.

It's not another force that is causing the expansion of the universe? It is. It really is.

Gravity can produce spatial expansion? No, it can't. You're trying to force the math to do what you want it to do. You can't. Things are way, way, way more complicated than you realize.

The cosmological constant value is different today than Einstein proposed? Once again you're trying to force the math to do what you want it to do, to say what you want it to say. Your approach to this is wrong because you guys think you're so close to figuring it all out. You have to realize you're almost infinitely far from figuring it all out and start observing things instead of trying to force fit them into an explanation that you want.

The big bang could not have happened because gravity would not allow it to happen. So, it's wrong, back to the drawing board. Are galaxies expanding? No, but space is (I'm giving you a hint). Hmm...

Gravity only being a contracting force is a wrong statement? It's really not. If you're talking about proposed theories, then there are all kinds of things that "could" have happened but if we're talking about accepted science, gravity contracts and that's it. Done deal. Case closed.

Dark energy is another contribution to the energy balance in the universe? Here you go again, you're trying to force things to fit what you think should be. Why do you think there has to be an energy balance? If you look into at things do we see balance in the wind? Is there balance in suns output? Is there balance in black holes? Is there balance in galaxies? There are opposing forces that act and counteract each other but don't see it as a perfect balance because it's just a matter of time before things change.

Gravity can become an expansive force? It can't. You can call your cat "dog" but that doesn't make it a dog. You can't force fit the universe into your little box.

In General Relativity the cosmological constant has the effect you described? What force is causing it? Oh, gravity supposedly reverses? That is incorrect. Gravity doesn't reverse.

It's impossible to see farther than 13.8 billion light years? Prove it. What observation gives you evidence for that assumption? You're assuming you are right without trying to verify it because if you're wrong it would be an unacceptable change to your preconceived notions.

Why does it really matter to you that the universe is only 13 billion years old? What if I told you it was more like 250 billion years old, so what, what does it matter?

 

[sayak83]

Okay, if gravity works during the big bang, and we know that the force of gravity is a contracting force, and we know that the effect is cumulative, then how does all the matter in the universe escape the contracting force of gravity?

You can't use dark energy as the repulsive force that caused the inflation in the big bang because dark energy is not nearly strong enough to counter the contracting force of gravity. It just doesn't work.

It's not another force that is causing the expansion of the universe? It is. It really is.

Gravity can produce spatial expansion? No, it can't. You're trying to force the math to do what you want it to do. You can't. Things are way, way, way more complicated than you realize.

The cosmological constant value is different today than Einstein proposed? Once again you're trying to force the math to do what you want it to do, to say what you want it to say. Your approach to this is wrong because you guys think you're so close to figuring it all out. You have to realize you're almost infinitely far from figuring it all out and start observing things instead of trying to force fit them into an explanation that you want.

The big bang could not have happened because gravity would not allow it to happen. So, it's wrong, back to the drawing board. Are galaxies expanding? No, but space is (I'm giving you a hint). Hmm...

Gravity only being a contracting force is a wrong statement? It's really not. If you're talking about proposed theories, then there are all kinds of things that "could" have happened but if we're talking about accepted science, gravity contracts and that's it. Done deal. Case closed.

Dark energy is another contribution to the energy balance in the universe? Here you go again, you're trying to force things to fit what you think should be. Why do you think there has to be an energy balance? If you look into at things do we see balance in the wind? Is there balance in suns output? Is there balance in black holes? Is there balance in galaxies? There are opposing forces that act and counteract each other but don't see it as a perfect balance because it's just a matter of time before things change.

Gravity can become an expansive force? It can't. You can call your cat "dog" but that doesn't make it a dog. You can't force fit the universe into your little box.

In General Relativity the cosmological constant has the effect you described? What force is causing it? Oh, gravity supposedly reverses? That is incorrect. Gravity doesn't reverse.

It's impossible to see farther than 13.8 billion light years? Prove it. What observation gives you evidence for that assumption? You're assuming you are right without trying to verify it because if you're wrong it would be an unacceptable change to your preconceived notions.

Why does it really matter to you that the universe is only 13 billion years old? What if I told you it was more like 250 billion years old, so what, what does it matter?

Gravity can become repulsive according to Einstein's own General Relativity.
Mass and more — Einstein Online

Pressure
But that is not all. Besides the mass (equivalently, the energy, or more precisely mass and energy density), Einstein's equations contain a further source of gravity: the inner pressure of matter.

In most situations, the contribution of pressure to gravity is undetectably small and can be neglected. This is true, for instance, throughout the solar system. But in more extreme situations the pressure contribution can be crucial. One example is the case of a very massive star. Stars keep a precarious balance between gravity - with a consequent tendency to contract to ever-smaller volume - and an inner pressure resisting any reduction of volume.

For stars like our sun, the inner pressure results from the thermal motion of the particles of the stellar gas; this motion, in turn, is kept going by nuclear fusion processes heating up the star's interior. The more compact a star, the greater the pressure that is needed to prevent further collapse. But once a certain degree of compactness is reached, the inner pressure needed to counterbalance gravity would be so great that its own contribution to gravity becomes significant - instead of preventing the collapse, the gravitational influence of such pressure would accelerate it! This leads to an upper limit of compactness, above which no stable configurations of matter are possible - an object reaching that degree of compactness would keep collapsing until a black hole is formed.

Another context in which the pressure contribution is important arises in modern cosmology. According to astronomical observations, our universe has entered a phase of accelerated expansion. In the cosmological models, this acceleration can be traced back to an additional term added to Einstein's equations, the so-called cosmological constant. Exactly equivalent to this cosmological constant would be an unusual type of energy permeating all of space, which is called dark_energy. Quite generally in our universe, masses are always positive, so gravity is always attractive. However, by definition the pressure associated with dark energy is negative and comparatively strong. Pressure is a source of gravity, and the gravitational effect of this negative pressure does not lead to attraction, but to repulsion - this pressure-induced gravitational repulsion is how dark energy causes the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Note negative pressure is nothing esoteric. It's just a form of tension.

 

[Super Universe]

Gravity can become repulsive according to Einstein's own General Relativity.
Mass and more — Einstein Online

Pressure
But that is not all. Besides the mass (equivalently, the energy, or more precisely mass and energy density), Einstein's equations contain a further source of gravity: the inner pressure of matter.

In most situations, the contribution of pressure to gravity is undetectably small and can be neglected. This is true, for instance, throughout the solar system. But in more extreme situations the pressure contribution can be crucial. One example is the case of a very massive star. Stars keep a precarious balance between gravity - with a consequent tendency to contract to ever-smaller volume - and an inner pressure resisting any reduction of volume.

For stars like our sun, the inner pressure results from the thermal motion of the particles of the stellar gas; this motion, in turn, is kept going by nuclear fusion processes heating up the star's interior. The more compact a star, the greater the pressure that is needed to prevent further collapse. But once a certain degree of compactness is reached, the inner pressure needed to counterbalance gravity would be so great that its own contribution to gravity becomes significant - instead of preventing the collapse, the gravitational influence of such pressure would accelerate it! This leads to an upper limit of compactness, above which no stable configurations of matter are possible - an object reaching that degree of compactness would keep collapsing until a black hole is formed.

Another context in which the pressure contribution is important arises in modern cosmology. According to astronomical observations, our universe has entered a phase of accelerated expansion. In the cosmological models, this acceleration can be traced back to an additional term added to Einstein's equations, the so-called cosmological constant. Exactly equivalent to this cosmological constant would be an unusual type of energy permeating all of space, which is called dark_energy. Quite generally in our universe, masses are always positive, so gravity is always attractive. However, by definition the pressure associated with dark energy is negative and comparatively strong. Pressure is a source of gravity, and the gravitational effect of this negative pressure does not lead to attraction, but to repulsion - this pressure-induced gravitational repulsion is how dark energy causes the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Note negative pressure is nothing esoteric. It's just a form of tension.

So, if gravity is no longer a force then what force causes matter to contract?

The inner pressure of matter is pressure. Pressure is not gravity. Gravity is not pressure. Just because this pressure is at the quantum level doesn't make it gravity. If I overpressurize a tank and it explodes I'm not causing gravity to reverse, I'm exceeding the force of gravity with a stronger force.

You're trying to change gravity into something that it's not. You have accepted scientific facts that don't agree with each other, the big bang violates the law of gravity, so you've chosen to change gravity when you should have chosen to change the idea of the big bang.

This: "Exactly equivalent to this cosmological constant would be an unusual type of energy permeating all of space, which is called dark_energy."

You are trying to make gravity into dark energy but it seems others realize that it's something very different.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't really know, but I suspect they are in some respect "hardwired" to think in such terms. But to put that in context, we are all of us hardwired with certain cognitive biases, yet education and training can ameliorate how often we fall victim to them. In much the same way, I suppose that -- if some of us are hardwired to think in such simplistic terms -- education and training might help us to be more realistic.

So maybe there is hope!

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, if gravity works during the big bang, and we know that the force of gravity is a contracting force, and we know that the effect is cumulative, then how does all the matter in the universe escape the contracting force of gravity?

You can't use dark energy as the repulsive force that caused the inflation in the big bang because dark energy is not nearly strong enough to counter the contracting force of gravity. It just doesn't work.

Show me the math.

It's not another force that is causing the expansion of the universe? It is. It really is.

Gravity can produce spatial expansion? No, it can't. You're trying to force the math to do what you want it to do. You can't. Things are way, way, way more complicated than you realize.

OK, show me the math based on the current theory of gravity: general relativity.

The cosmological constant value is different today than Einstein proposed?

Yes. Einstein proposed a value that lead to a stable universe (well, at least an equilibrium). The actual value for that constant is different than what he proposed.

Once again you're trying to force the math to do what you want it to do, to say what you want it to say. Your approach to this is wrong because you guys think you're so close to figuring it all out. You have to realize you're almost infinitely far from figuring it all out and start observing things instead of trying to force fit them into an explanation that you want.

The big bang could not have happened because gravity would not allow it to happen. So, it's wrong, back to the drawing board. Are galaxies expanding? No, but space is (I'm giving you a hint). Hmm...

Are you proposing a different theory of gravity than GR? If so, present it. If not, show where it doesn't do what is claimed.

In General Relativity the cosmological constant has the effect you described? What force is causing it? Oh, gravity supposedly reverses? That is incorrect. Gravity doesn't reverse.

Please show the math saying otherwise based on GR with a cosmological constant.

It's impossible to see farther than 13.8 billion light years? Prove it. What observation gives you evidence for that assumption? You're assuming you are right without trying to verify it because if you're wrong it would be an unacceptable change to your preconceived notions.

The evidence shows that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. The evidence also shows that light goes one light year in one year. So light has only had the chance to go 13.8 billion light years since the universe started.

Why does it really matter to you that the universe is only 13 billion years old? What if I told you it was more like 250 billion years old, so what, what does it matter?

Well, if it were that old, we would be able to see things up to 250 billion light years away, for one.

There would also be evidence of this in the background radiation, the rate of expansion, etc.

 

[sayak83]

So, if gravity is no longer a force then what force causes matter to contract?

The inner pressure of matter is pressure. Pressure is not gravity. Gravity is not pressure. Just because this pressure is at the quantum level doesn't make it gravity. If I overpressurize a tank and it explodes I'm not causing gravity to reverse, I'm exceeding the force of gravity with a stronger force.

You're trying to change gravity into something that it's not. You have accepted scientific facts that don't agree with each other, the big bang violates the law of gravity, so you've chosen to change gravity when you should have chosen to change the idea of the big bang.

This: "Exactly equivalent to this cosmological constant would be an unusual type of energy permeating all of space, which is called dark_energy."

You are trying to make gravity into dark energy but it seems others realize that it's something very different.

If you disbelieve in Einstein's General Relativity, be my guest. It was his greatest achievement where he completely transformed our understanding of gravity. Gravity is today understood as a distortion of space-time due to mass, energy, pressure or tension. The distortion can cause space-time to warp, bend, expand or contract... and the movement of matter through distorted spacetime is felt as either attraction or (in more rare cases) repulsion. That is what gravity is since 1915. Of course plenty of observational evidence validates general relativity.

 

[Polymath257]

Don't know.

But I know that gravity contracts and I know you can't see farther than 13.8 billion light years so that's the number you went with.

EDIT: Also, you need to stop trying to make a dimension of time. Time exists in all dimensions.

OK, so you don't know enough about the current description of gravity (general relativity) to reply to *basic* questions.

So, all of the rest of your statements claiming that gravity doesn't work a particular way are simply based on ignorance of the actual theory of gravity.

Time is one of the dimensions in GR.

 

[Super Universe]

Show me the math.



OK, show me the math based on the current theory of gravity: general relativity.


Yes. Einstein proposed a value that lead to a stable universe (well, at least an equilibrium). The actual value for that constant is different than what he proposed.



Are you proposing a different theory of gravity than GR? If so, present it. If not, show where it doesn't do what is claimed.




Please show the math saying otherwise based on GR with a cosmological constant.



The evidence shows that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. The evidence also shows that light goes one light year in one year. So light has only had the chance to go 13.8 billion light years since the universe started.



Well, if it were that old, we would be able to see things up to 250 billion light years away, for one.

There would also be evidence of this in the background radiation, the rate of expansion, etc.

Show you the math on how gravity is a contracting force? You can look it up. I suggest you start with Wikipedia.

Show you the math on how gravity is not repulsive? It doesn't exist. Trying to call pressure "reverse gravity" doesn't make it gravity. It's still pressure.

Einstein proposed a value that led to a stable universe? Why would you assume the universe is stable? You're assuming things and trying to prove things that are just not true.

Am I proposing a different theory of gravity than General Relativity? You're the one trying to do that.

The evidence shows that the universe is 13.8 billion years old? You mean the telescopes that can only see 13.8 billion years prove that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old?

If the universe were 250 billion light years old we would be able to see things that were that far away? Who told you that? Hubble stared for over 3 months just to be able to barely make out galaxies that are 13 billion light years away. Name one telescope that can see farther than 13 billion light years. Just one. Hubble can't do it.

There would be evidence of an older universe in the background radiation and rate of expansion? Stars emit microwaves. Name one direction that has no stars or galaxies. There is none. So, microwave radiation is coming from all directions because every direction you look has a galaxy full of stars emitting microwaves.

As for the rate of expansion as verification that the universe is 13 billion years old, that depends on everything coming from one place, a big bang. If the big bang didn't really happen then you can't use that to determine the age of the universe.

Also, if all the matter in the universe came from one big bang then all the matter in the universe would be located in an expanding sphere with giant empty zones inside and outside but that's not what we see. Matter is pretty uniform throughout.

 

[Super Universe]

If you disbelieve in Einstein's General Relativity, be my guest. It was his greatest achievement where he completely transformed our understanding of gravity. Gravity is today understood as a distortion of space-time due to mass, energy, pressure or tension. The distortion can cause space-time to warp, bend, expand or contract... and the movement of matter through distorted spacetime is felt as either attraction or (in more rare cases) repulsion. That is what gravity is since 1915. Of course plenty of observational evidence validates general relativity.

If I spin a bucket of water over my head, what keeps the water in the bucket? Inertia resists the force of gravity but gravity does not reverse. Inertia is not repulsive gravity. Pressure is not repulsive gravity.

 

[Super Universe]

OK, so you don't know enough about the current description of gravity (general relativity) to reply to *basic* questions.

So, all of the rest of your statements claiming that gravity doesn't work a particular way are simply based on ignorance of the actual theory of gravity.

Time is one of the dimensions in GR.

No one knows as much as you do. I'll be waiting for you to come up with the GUT for the rest of us.

How much longer do you think I will have to wait?

 

[Repox]

The most reliable argument for the universe having a beginning and therefore God as the explanation is the time line. Based on laws of entropy we know the universe progresses forward, it is not circular and it doesn't repeat itself. Because science cannot explain how something comes from nothing, God is the only explanation.

 

[Jose Fly]

Good grief, I think I see the problem; I have a theory (the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION) and you know what I have or do not have, even my conclusion. Nothing scientific about it, just simple definition of an English word.

After reading the posts in this thread, it is certainly easy to understand why there are so many that apparently believe that in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded and over billllions and billions of years the universe was created. No space, no time, no energy, no matter, no intelligent programing, just a miracle that trumps every miracle in the Bible. Now that is faith that many Christians do not have.

So after all the time and effort multiple people have put into trying to explain things for you, you're going to walk away just as ignorant as when you came in. IOW, all that effort was for naught....a complete waste of time.

This is why I don't bother trying to show and explain science to Christian creationists.

 

[Repox]

The most reliable argument for the universe having a beginning and therefore God as the explanation is the time line. Based on laws of entropy we know the universe progresses forward, it is not circular and it doesn't repeat itself. Because science cannot explain how something comes from nothing, God is the only explanation.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's funny to see @Jayhawker Soule post...

The @Ted Evans subtext is obvious:

• you don't know what happened before the Big Bang,
• therefore God

What it lacks in intellectual force it makes up for in brevity.​

And on the same page see @Repox basically make that exact argument...

Because science cannot explain how something comes from nothing, God is the only explanation.​

 

[Polymath257]

No one knows as much as you do. I'll be waiting for you to come up with the GUT for the rest of us.

How much longer do you think I will have to wait?

This isn't a matter of GUT, it follows from GR quite well.

Recall that you claimed the theory of gravity doesn't allow for the claims made. That theory *is* GR.

Now, either show how GR doesn't allow for the effects claimed or admit that you are wrong.

 

[Ted Evans]

Answer in post #161.

My question…, can you tell me what matter is created by the energy of a nuclear explosion?

This was in the context of, “in the beginning”

Is this your answer to my specific question or is it only a response?

“But the conversion can, and does, go the other way also. For example, if you collide two electrons together at high energy (kinetic energy), they will often produce extra matter by conversion of the kinetic energy into mass. What is produced depends on the energy level of the collision, but it is quite possible to produce protons and anti-protons (which are each 1800 times as massive as an electron).”

The problem is, I cannot find any science related link that makes the claim a nuclear explosion creates matter and you did not tell me what matter was created. Can you provide such a link and if not, then you did not answer the question as it was asked, you only responded to it, big difference. I also fail to see how protons can be considered as matter although I found where they can interact with matter.