Creation

Hi ICANT,I've skipped your reply to me, since Mod answered it all better than I would already. I am out of my depth with a lot of this stuff, so I will also not touch on most of your questions here, but there's one persistent misunderstanding I wanted to correct. Firstly, the idea that inflation happened 'at the speed of light' is yours. This doesn't seem to be part of any standard model. More importantly, expansion of space can't happen at one 'speed'. As space expands, more space is created, which is itself expanding. This means that, as space expands between two objects, the rate at which the distance between them increases will also increase. This is why expansion is given in terms of distance/time/distance; rather than just distance/time.But that's not the important misunderstanding. You're imagining what would happen after a second of inflation; but this means you're not looking carefully at the numbers Mod gave in his account of inflationary cosmology:

quote:

---

Inflationary epoch: 10−36 - 10-32 seconds.

---

10^-36 to 10^32 seconds means a period of slightly less than 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds. How things would look after a second of inflation is not really relevant, since this is supposed to have gone on for only the tiniest fraction of a second,You're a big fan of quoting Roger Penrose, so to clarify what he's saying - it's the infinitesimally tiny fraction of a second referred to above that he has major doubts about. He does not doubt the observed expansion of space (which is very slow); he merely believes that most cosmologists are wrong in thinking that expansion much have happened at an enormously faster rate for an incredibly short time to explain how the universe looks today.Does the concept of inflation lasting only 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds clarify why things would still be pretty close together when it ended?Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

As mentioned above, I'm a bit out of my depth with this stuff; but why would an infinite universe not be compatible with the big bang theory?

To do that, we'd also need to know its size at a given prior point of time. Which we don't. So we can't. The universe we observe today had grown to that size. I'm pretty sure I said that the universe was opaque - meaning photons couldn't freely travel. Meaning that technically the observable universe was 0m in diameter at that time. But what we call the observable universe today - that which we can observe had a particular diameter. I've already proven this false since there aren't enough miles in the universe to space out all the particles this way. All that remains is for you to concede this. That is what you are objecting to, I'm telling you what it is that you are objecting to and how your objections fail.Your objections rely on assuming the model is true in order prove a contradiction that renders it impossible. Unfortunately, you are misunderstanding the model and the problem you raise does not impact it. I've explained why. The universe started off so dense that by the time particles start coalescing, the energy density was still great enough that the particles coalesce in a dense form...not hundreds of thousands miles between them. Granted - any particles that formed pre-inflation or during inflation are scattered huge distances if they survived that long - but the density of the quark-gluon plasma after inflation is still dense enough that your core objection fails. Better to trust empirical science than the word of some anonymous author, I feel. It refers to the observable universe as it is today, not then. It literally tells you in the bit you didn't quote. The heat is just a function of energy density. The reheating came about when new particles coalesced:

quote:

---

When inflation ends the temperature returns to the pre-inflationary temperature; this is called reheating or thermalization because the large potential energy of the inflaton field decays into particles and fills the Universe with Standard Model particles, including electromagnetic radiation

---

A phase transition of the thing that causes the expansion. You talk as if science doesn't use observations of experiments to determine what happens in places we can't see. "God did it" is meaningless, explains nothing and predicts nothing.

Hasn't you already received explanations of why this is wrong? Have you rebutted those explanations yet? This is yet another example of your arguing in bad faith.

It would be compatible. My comment was off base.

Then why use the term "ultimate" do describe it when that's clearly not the case?I suppose I don't understand calling something an "ultimate purpose" when we understand that we don't really care about it anyway.
It seems like adding confusion for no reason. A nice story, but there's plenty of issues with this sort of analogy attempting to explain "ultimate purpose."Allow me to add a bit in order to expose the issues:What if the junior stone mason had a dying grandma and the junior had been telling his grandma all about this stone with specific dimensions and other characteristics and how proud he was to make it for the master.
The grandma is really impressed with her grandson.
The grandma is really old and kind of sick.
The grandma tells the grandson she'd really like to see the stone before she dies so she can see the beauty and talent her grandson is carrying into the future.
The grandson would love to... but he can't. The master took it and didn't return it.
Years pass.
The grandma dies before the cathedral is finished.
The junior stone mason finally sees the magnificent cathedral with his stone in the top corner and now understands why he couldn't get it back from the master to show his grandma.The stone mason understands.
But this doesn't change the fact that the junior would still have rather showed the stone to his grandma before she died.
The junior acknowledges that the cathedral looks magnificent and is happy that his stone is used so prominently.
But, if he had the choice, the junior would rather have been able to share the stone with his grandma, possible bury it with her if she valued it so much, and use any-other-stone-at-all in the cathedral.The junior understands the "ultimate purpose" as decided by the master.
However, the junior still desires his "greater-than-ultimate purpose..." his "real purpose" as decided by himself and regrets that he couldn't do things that way.Or maybe the junior doesn't regret it and does enjoy the cathedral-usage more?The point isn't that it has to be one way or the other.
The point is that the "greater-than-ultimate purpose" is decided by the junior... not the master.And, if there exists a "greater-than-ultimate purpose" then why use the word "ultimate" in the first place? It only adds confusion for no reason.
Well, I suppose the reason would be to prop-up the "greatness" of the master. But... that seems like a rather silly reason to add such obvious confusion.

Hi NoNukes, entity, definition: a thing with distinct and independent existence.Could you explain why whatever existed at 1 billionth of a second after T=0 was not a thing that had independent existence and was distinct?Actually the electrons at 1 billionth of a second after T=0 was called radiation. I don't remember mentioning T=0 that is your insertion.At 1 billionth of a second after T=0 when the temperature was trillions of degrees and even hotter a plasma existed. The electron was what cosmologists consider radiation.Why does electrons and plasma need a Biblical source. Science is what describes how God created the universe. Expansion=space expanding.
Electrons, Protons, or any other particle is not expanding.Only the space which would be between each and everyone of the electrons, quarks, or gluons and anything else at 1 billionth of a second after T=0 would be expanding.If that happened the space between them would be expanded to 19 light years in diameter at 1 second after T=0.Now if expansion theory is wrong that would not happen.God Bless,

You are nitpicking. What the heck is a thing? Would you really refer, for example, to the Atlantic ocean as an entity? Is it helpful to refer to the universe as an entity? All I said that the definition was problematic. I did not say that you could not use it. And I also explained exactly why I rejected the word object and what connotations of the word entity that I thought we should avoid.Not all things, or entities, or objects are the same. What I wanted to avoid was you generalizing improperly about the properties of objects and entities to conclude things that were either untrue or not known to be true. How is that term helpful, ICANT? As long as you keep the term distinct from the electromagnetic radiation, which is different, feel free. Electrons cannot expand. They are not believed to have any dimensions at all. Protons, being formed of sub-particles might be expanding, although I would expect such expansion to be negligible. Are you just making up stuff and waiting for me to correct it? Why not just ask questions. Aren't you ignoring 1) the strong nuclear force and 2) the fact that these particles formed from energy at some point? Your claims in this regard have been rebutted many times, and you have yet to tell anyone why the rebuttals are wrong. I have to conclude that you are not really interested in further debate. Perhaps you are just not able to comprehend what is being said. Either way.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi caffeine, Where would I get such an idea. The Bible says no such thing as the speed the universe is expanding at. It only says God stretched it out.Here is one place I get the idea from.

quote:

---

Some of the misunderstandings surrounding this topic might come from confusion over what is meant by the universe "expanding faster than the speed of light." However, for the simplest interpretation of your question, the answer is that the universe does expand faster than the speed of light, and, perhaps more surprisingly, some of the galaxies we can see right now are currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light!

---

Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an AstronomerHere is another one you have to click page down 5 times to reach the information which is located in a black circle. Cosmic Inflation: How It Gave the Universe the Ultimate Kickstart (Infographic) | Space Why not? Especially when the total volume of everything is no larger than a pin point.

quote:

---

The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light. During this period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times, going from subatomic-sized to golf-ball-sized almost instantaneously.

​

The work that goes into understanding the expanding universe comes from a combination of theoretical physics and direct observations by astronomers. However, in some cases astronomers have not been able to see direct evidence such as the case of gravitational waves associated with the cosmic microwave background, the leftover radiation from the Big Bang. A preliminary announcement about finding these waves in 2014 was quickly retracted, after astronomers found the signal detected could be explained by dust in the Milky Way.

---

What slowed the speed of that expansion down to the Hubble speed?
I reckon a better question would be is, what started that expansion from zero to the speed of light?Actually I can't find any scientific evidence prior to 380,000 years after the BB. How is more space created?
All the space that is in the universe existed at 10^-34s.
As I understand it that existing space is what expanded. Nothing was created as it was a self contained universe at that time. How can the rate increase?In Message 884 You presented a couple of pictures.Dave the Alien is on one edge of your picture I am in the middle and Fred the Alien on the other edge of the picture. If the space between Dave and I expands and the space between Fred and I expands the distance between Fred and Dave is twice what it is between Dave and I or Fred and I.Dave sees the space expand between himself and I and also he sees the space expand between myself and Fred so the space has doubled between Dave and Fred. I am not imagining anything. I am doing the same thing that Mod is doing. I am presenting somebody else's imagination. Roger had doubts about string theory, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. He came up with his twistor theory.

quote:

---

Arguing that string theory has veered away from physical reality by positing six extra hidden dimensions, Penrose cautions that the fashionable nature of a theory can cloud our judgment of its plausibility. In the case of quantum mechanics, its stunning success in explaining the atomic universe has led to an uncritical faith that it must also apply to reasonably massive objects, and Penrose responds by suggesting possible changes in quantum theory. Turning to cosmology, he argues that most of the current fantastical ideas about the origins of the universe cannot be true, but that an even wilder reality may lie behind them. Finally, Penrose describes how fashion, faith, and fantasy have ironically also shaped his own work, from twistor theory, a possible alternative to string theory that is beginning to acquire a fashionable status, to "conformal cyclic cosmology," an idea so fantastic that it could be called "conformal crazy cosmology."

---

The older he gets the smarter he gets. He is even leaning to the soul (spirit) living beyond death. You know inflation lasted 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds because _______________________________________________________________ Fill in the blank present any scientific facts you have.But Roger said Cosmic Inflation Is ‘Fantasy’. I think he means it was fantasized in somebody's mind not in scientific fact. I could be wrong and someone could present scientific facts that support such a fantasy.God Bless,

Hi NoNukes, Why would I do that? It has a name, so you call it by it's name. No, but most things, entities, or objects have names. Aren't electrons actually energy? Wouldn't they have to have space inside them to expand? If they did they what would keep them from expanding eternally. But yes they can attach other particles and build galaxies. I don't have any problem with them existing at some point.Do you have any verifiable evidence to tell us when they began to exist? I have been told several times my claims are wrong. But no one has rebutted them with verifiable evidence.My main claim is that if expansion is correct and the space in the pin point sized universe expanded at the speed of light every quark, gluon, electrons or anything else that existed in the universe would be separated in 1 second by 186,000 miles of space. One cosmologist puts the diameter of the universe at that time as 19.7 light years.Now are you going to tell me that inflation only lasted 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 of a second.If so what caused it to accelerate from zero to 186,000 miles per second then brake and slow down to Hubble's rate of expansion.How long would it take to go from zero to 186,000 miles per second?
How long would it take to slow down from 186,000 miles per second to Hubble's rate of expansion? Do you understand there is no verifiable evidence until after 380,000 years after the Big Bang.You say but there is evidence. Then present it.Sir Roger Penrose says Cosmic Inflation Is ‘Fantasy’.God Bless,

Hi Mod, There was no prior point in time unless time exists outside of the universe. But according to you time is a dimension in the universe. Which would have happened in 1 second. The universe is said to be 19.7 light years in diameter.Page down to page 22.

quote:

---

When the Universe was one second old, it was too hot to form stable nuclei; protons and neutrons were in a sea of hot plasma. Also, the entire observable Universe would have a radius that, if we drew it around the Sun today, would enclose just the seven nearest star systems, with the farthest being Ross 154.

---

How big was the Universe at the moment of its creation? | by Ethan Siegel | Starts With A Bang! | Medium Are you saying that for 380,000 years the universe was not expanding?Since it was unobservable for 380,000 years why did you write the following? If it was unobservable where did all that information come from? Actually all you can prove is that the expansion theory is wrong. How do you know the universe started off so dense that by the time particles start coalescing, the energy density was still great enough that the particles coalesce in a dense form?Electrons existed pre-inflation and was called radiation by cosmologist. Some say quarks, and gluons existed but the temperature is the trillions of degrees K so there would have been a plasma.You say inflation lasted 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds. Where does that number come from?How did it go from zero mps to 186,000 mps in that short of a time span and then how did it slow to the Hubble rate of expansion?What was the cause of that acceleration? What is the empirical scientific evidence concerning anything from the BB to 380,000 years? So inflation did not take place at Planck time 10^-43 seconds, is that what you are saying? You haven't explained yet what caused expansion to begin, what was it? If you can't see what is there, how big it is, or what it is made of how can you design an experiment to test what happened? The Fantasy you believe in is meaningless, explains nothing and predicts nothing.God Bless,

We're talking about the size of the universe today. And there definitely was a prior point in time for today. Yesterday is an example. Which is what I said. Did you forget what your point was or something? No. Understanding how the fundamental particles and forces work. That is to say: physics. I have answered this several times now. I'll take that as a concession that your objection regarding particles being too far apart to form atoms is faulty. You certainly can't address the proof I gave that shows its flaws and have to rely on this kind of response so that's how it seems to me. I already showed you. You estimate what the density of the observable universe is, then you calculate how dense it would be if you reduced the amount of volume to the size it was when this was happening and the answer is staring you in the face. I'm sure you have a point, but you forgot to make it. Physics. You've not demonstrated any ability to understand advanced physics so it seems like a fool's errand to put it in front of you. So I'll give you the layman's summary. You calculate what the consequences would be if it were true that the inflation occurred at that time for that long - then you compare those consequences with what we observe. If they match up, your confidence that it's true rises. The degree to which your confidence rises depends on the accuracy and specificity of the numbers involved. In simple terms: a scalar field through all of space with a high potential energy which drops as the universe expands - this results in a phase change resulting in a slowing of the expansion rate.This doesn't really help you, but there's no real way of explaining this fully without you understanding the equation above. Our experiments involving high energy particles give us information about how they behave, how they work, their composition etc. We apply that knowledge to the conditions of the early universe (temperature, density etc). That is to say, for the umpteenth time, physics. There's a huge amount of this evidence, it is not possible for me to just dump it in this thread even if I had it all and it certainly wouldn't illuminate you if I did. The conclusion about inflation is unrelated to what I was talking about in the section you quoted. So, no, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that inflationary theory only applies to the observable universe that we see today.You are right though, I have said several times that inflation did not take place at 10^-43 seconds. It took place between 10⁻³⁶ and 10^-32 seconds as you quoted me saying in the very post you asked this question! I put something that was at least -10C in a glass and locked in a safe that only I have the key for. 24 hours later I open the safe and it has water in it. The current temperature of the safe is 25C. Without being able to see this happen but knowing some information about the early conditions and the final outcome you can guess that the glass contained some ice. You can make an experiment where you put ice in a glass with those conditions and find the outcome is the same. You can conclude with reasonable certainty that when I did it, it was also ice that was in the glass even though you didn't see it.That's science. You can work out what happened in an accident, a murder or whatever other phenomena you are interested in by building experiments based on educated guesswork and seeing the consequences and figuring out what the experiment results tell you about the phenomena in question. The degree of certainty can vary depending on a number of factors. Nothing except the history of the last 13.7 billion years, the structure of the universe, the formation of galaxies, the nature of orbiting bodies, satnav, how fundamental particles travel .... well actually it explains almost everything we see. Which, granted, might be nothing relative to how much we haven't explained - but it's still a heck of a lot more than 'god did it'. You measure the rate of expansion between you and Dave and you and Fred. Let's say, for simplicity that it's 100km/s for both of them.If Dave and Fred were able to measure the rate of expansion between them they'd find it was 200km/s. They are further away from each other so there is more space expanding between them so it all adds up.If Dave and Fred are really far away then the rate of expansion between them may be faster than the speed of light - so Fred and Dave wouldn't be able to see each other - but you could still see both of them and they can both see you.

So does the universe ICANT. Yet you called it an entity. No. Electrons are matter. They have mass. No. Where do you get that idea? You did not address the question. Your assumption that particles were too widely separated to form atoms makes assumptions about how and when those particles formed, and other assumptions about the effect of forces between particles when they were close. Your assumptions do not reflect what we know about the strong nuclear force, and they also ignore the fact that particles form from energy and that that process is observed to occur even now.So yes, some particles are separated, but not all, and the conclusion that such is the case is based on what we know about particles and science well after To when the laws of physics are well known. Electrons and positron pairs from electromagnetic radiation on a frequent basis. All that is required is the presence of a mass in so that momentum and energy can be conserved.Against that, we have you just making stuff up and not feeling any need to justify what you make up.Do you have a relevant response? Can you justify your assumptions?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Just a suggestion, but I find conversations make more sense if you read an understand an entire argument at a time, rather than breaking a paragraph into individual clauses and treating them as isolated aphorisms. Maybe this approach would mean less repetition. I mean, if I wrote to somebody "I can't come on Wednesday. I'll be on a business trip in Brussels", and received the reply I would have my doubts about how interested they are in trying to understand me. So, as I mentioned, the idea that inflation happened "at the speed of light" remains yours, and yours alone. "Faster than the speed of light" and "at the speed of light" are not the same thing.More importantly, however, the above quote is not referring to inflation. It's talking about the incredibly slow expansion of space happening right now. We're not discussing an initial state of expanding at the speed of light which has now slowed; rather the slow expansion of space means that some things are being moved apart from one another at faster than the speed of light, because of the scale of the universe. If space expands then there is more space. This is surely self-evident. The amount of stuff contained in that space remained the same, just more spread out, but it doesn't make any sense to say that there is the same quantity of space, just more spread out. Space doesn't have a volume - it's empty. That's kind of the definition. Objects that are far apart have more space between them than objects that are close together. Otherwise they would not be far apart. Mod answered this already, but I thought I'd to make the point clearer.To choose some arbitrary numbers, let's say you are one parsec from Dave, and one parsec from Fred.Over the course of time, space expands, and after one year you are now two parsecs from Dave, and two parsecs from Fred. The distance between you and Dave has increased by one parsec in one year; so the space has expanded at an average rate of one parsec/year. Simple.But what about Dave and Fred? They began two parsecs from each other; but they are now four parsecs apart. The space between them has expanded at an average rate of two parsecs/year.Thus we see that it makes no sense to talk about space expanding at one speed. The rate at which space expands between two objects increases with distance. That's why distant galaxies can be receding faster than the speed of light; while the objects within our own galaxy are not flying apart from one another. He did indeed come up with twistor theory. And if you asked him he would also affirm that space is expanding at faster than the speed of light. As I described in a previous post without apparently making any impact; his primary problem with inflationary theory is that he believes it does not solve the problems it was invented to solve; and thus there is no justification to invoke it. Kind of like 'God did it'. I don't claim to know this, and nor do I know how this is calculated. You seem to be fond of arguments along the line of "Standard cosmology says x. If x, then y, which is absurd." I'm just trying to point out some of those cases where you're wrong about what standard cosmology actually says; so your objection is not relevant.

That's what we are all saying. Nicely put.