Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Subduction Zone]

Precisely, so what do you think science can come up with to actually make them disappear into nothing?

No one is trying to do that. Your misunderstanding does not apply to the Big Bang.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok, you said "Therefore a universe that starts from "Zero energy" could expand as ours has and have galaxies, stars, and planets without violating the conservation of energy law." in your post #527.
Presuming the principle of reciprocity applies, how can we get back to "Zero energy" making all the galaxies, etc. revert to nothing?.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, you said "Therefore a universe that starts from "Zero energy" could expand as ours has and have galaxies, stars, and planets without violating the conservation of energy law." in your post #527.
Presuming the principle of reciprocity applies, how can we get back to "Zero energy" making all the galaxies, etc. revert to nothing?.

You can't go back. And you are making the error of thinking in terms of Newtonian physics. Do you remember what the Big Bang was?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can't go back. And you are making the error of thinking in terms of Newtonian physics. Do you remember what the Big Bang was?

I do not intend to deviate from the point I have been discussing, something from nothing, like a "Let there be light!" moment when time began. If matter and energy came from nothing, why is it not cosmically possible for the process to be reciprocal?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not intend to deviate from the point I have been discussing, something from nothing, like a "Let there be light!" moment when time began. If matter and energy came from nothing, why is it not cosmically possible for the process to be reciprocal?

This is not a deviation. And by dodging you demonstrate that you have very little understanding of the science that you disagree with.


Once again do you remember what the Big Bang was?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is not a deviation. And by dodging you demonstrate that you have very little understanding of the science that you disagree with.


Once again do you remember what the Big Bang was?

It is you who is dodging, I am talking about the something from nothing bb. It is the hypothesis that the universe came into existence from absolute nothing, the precise detail about which no one can know because time was not the moment it began. What happens after is not what I am discussing, but how it came from nothing!

 

[ratiocinator]

Fwiw, I value my intuition as providing a much greater depth of perception than the thinking mind, and serves as well as a near perfect b/s detector. Time as an entity does not pass the smell test, but as an essential human conceptual construct to help understand reality as perceived through the human sensory system and mind, it is indispensable.

Your intuition may well serve you well in everyday life (that's what it evolved to do) but it is completely worthless in the face of a theory that makes exact numerical predictions that have proved to be correct and are used in technology. Quantum mechanics is even more counter-intuitive than relativity and space-time but whatever device your using to look at this on simply wouldn't work if it wasn't a good model of reality.

I accept that there may be, at least to your understanding, a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that suggests something from nothing is possible, but for me, I will accept it when I hear that some part of the existing space-time reality has been turned into nothing! If that can be done, then by the principle of reciprocity, something from nothing is possible.

But you don't seem to care even when there is solid evidence - as there is for space-time. The tunnelling from 'nothing' is a hypothesis at this stage - I've no idea if it's possible but it is based on an extrapolation of what is known so it must be better than blind guesses about gods or whatever.

I am not sure why you are saying that but let me say, I have no problem with scientific hypothetical speculation, but I am patient to see actual proof, not merely to believe it because of some emerging consensus among those who believe it to be true.

Again, you don't seem to care even when there is evidence (science doesn't do proof).

 

[ratiocinator]

I am not challenging science, I am saying it as I understand it on this one item, something from nothing bb...

Let's be clear about this - the big bang theory is not a something from nothing theory. The theory covers the only the time after the 'start'. Everything else is hypothesis and most of those don't involve something from nothing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Let's be clear about this - the big bang theory is not a something from nothing theory. The theory covers the only the time after the 'start'. Everything else is hypothesis and most of those don't involve something from nothing.

And I've been confining myself to the 'something from nothing' bb hypothesis that most of those other hypotheses don't imply.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your intuition may well serve you well in everyday life (that's what it evolved to do) but it is completely worthless in the face of a theory that makes exact numerical predictions that have proved to be correct and are used in technology. Quantum mechanics is even more counter-intuitive than relativity and space-time but whatever device your using to look at this on simply wouldn't work if it wasn't a good model of reality.

But you don't seem to care even when there is solid evidence - as there is for space-time. The tunnelling from 'nothing' is a hypothesis at this stage - I've no idea if it's possible but it is based on an extrapolation of what is known so it must be better than blind guesses about gods or whatever.

Again, you don't seem to care even when there is evidence (science doesn't do proof).

No Gods or BBs from nothing are necessary imho for there was never a beginning to eternity. However I keep an open mind and don't dismiss the good work of science in trying to better understand the universe regardless of some, imho, less enlightened hypotheses.

 

[ratiocinator]

And I've been confining myself to the 'something from nothing' bb hypothesis that most of those other hypotheses don't imply.

Why? It's a long way from being established science. The fact is that we simply don't know what happened at the big bang. We can extrapolate back to the first fractions of a second but the further we go the less certain we can be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is you who is dodging, I am talking about the something from nothing bb. It is the hypothesis that the universe came into existence from absolute nothing, the precise detail about which no one can know because time was not the moment it began. What happens after is not what I am discussing, but how it came from nothing!

Oh, you are back to your own personal version of the Big Bang. The one that no one else seems to follow. Have fun with that.

 

[ratiocinator]

No Gods or BBs from nothing are necessary imho for there was never a beginning to eternity.

Simply not the case. There many possibilities. As I've already said, time having a finite past does not mean something from nothing. There are also possibilities in which time extends infinitely into the past or even changes direction at the BB, so if you go backwards through it, you'd end up going forwards again into another bubble of space-time.

Gods simply don't explain anything, it's effectively giving up on the problem and saying "I dunno, it must be magic".

 

[Native]

We have a mathematical theory of space-time, that makes exact, numerical predictions that we can test and use in technology (GPS in this case).

It´s STILL all just a human invented measurement methods for "motions".

 

[Native]

Scientists do not assume in the sense that you do. They make models and test them. So they did not assume that motion followed the same rules everywhere..

I don´t assume anything at all. I´m analyzing the standing theories how they were started and have evolved.

Well, why did they then have to invent "dark matter" on the galactic scales in order to conserve their prime assumptions of "laws of celestial motions around a gravity center" in a Solar System which is integrated in the galactic formation and motion where "dark matter" is needed?

How can scientists accept one set of laws in the Solar System and another set which needs "dark matter" in the same closed galactic system?

Since it was very accurate besides this it made little sense to throw it out. As usual they tweaked the model a bit. Dark Matter was only one of several tweaks attempted. Like all models it was tested. And they found further evidence supporting it.

Yes "tweaking" is a usual thing in cosmological science Which other models but "dark matter" were attempted? How can "further evidences" confirm someting which cannot be observed directly?

Don't assume that scientists are guilty of your sins. You are incorrect when you accuse them of assuming. That is what you appear to do.

OK, then lets skip my "assumptions" and call it "guessings" in stead

 

[Native]

I preferred reality over personal logic.

How can you descide "reality" without using your personal logic?

 

[Native]

First off you need to define your terms. If you are only talking "energy" then it appears that something from nothing may be possible and it supported by the science.

Nonsense, this is a violation of the conservation laws of energy.

 

[Native]

Okay, your personal version of the Big Bang theory could be incorrect. That says nothing about the version accepted by physicists.

What version? There are numerous versions of a "Big Bang" which all could be wrong.

 

[Native]

And by dodging you demonstrate that you have very little understanding of the science that you disagree with.

Or maybe you just agree with a cosmological science which you don´t understand because there is no overall consensus and just assumptions

 

[ratiocinator]

Nonsense, this is a violation of the conservation laws of energy.

Most people have entirely the wrong idea about energy. Firstly, it isn't 'stuff', it's always a property of things or systems of things. Secondly, it is conserved (to the extent that it is) entirely because of the fact that the laws of physics don't change over time. Thirdly, the total energy is spacial relativity is relative to a specific frame of reference and not an absolute value. Fourthly, it is not well defined in general relativity except is specific cases, so whether energy conservation applies to the universe as a whole is an open question.

Basically energy and its conservation (to the extent it applies) only make sense within a universe that has unchanging laws. If the universe had a start, it makes no sense to ask where the energy came from because it can only be defined after it started.

From: Conservation of energy - Wikipedia:

The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories. From a mathematical point of view it is understood as a consequence of Noether's theorem, developed by Emmy Noether in 1915 and first published in 1918. The theorem states every continuous symmetry of a physical theory has an associated conserved quantity; if the theory's symmetry is time invariance then the conserved quantity is called "energy". The energy conservation law is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time; energy conservation is implied by the empirical fact that the laws of physics do not change with time itself. Philosophically this can be stated as "nothing depends on time per se". In other words, if the physical system is invariant under the continuous symmetry of time translation then its energy (which is canonical conjugate quantity to time) is conserved. Conversely, systems which are not invariant under shifts in time (an example, systems with time dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy – unless we consider them to exchange energy with another, external system so that the theory of the enlarged system becomes time invariant again. Conservation of energy for finite systems is valid in such physical theories as special relativity and quantum theory (including QED) in the flat space-time.
...
With the discovery of special relativity by Henri Poincaré and Albert Einstein, energy was proposed to be one component of an energy-momentum 4-vector.
...
Thus, the rule of conservation of energy over time in special relativity continues to hold, so long as the reference frame of the observer is unchanged. This applies to the total energy of systems, although different observers disagree as to the energy value.
...
In general relativity, energy–momentum conservation is not well-defined except in certain special cases. Energy-momentum is typically expressed with the aid of a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor. However, since pseudotensors are not tensors, they do not transform cleanly between reference frames. If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics such as the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined. The theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe.​