Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

You need to reconsider demeaning my character as dishonest.I've learned to avoid the word/term "model" relative to this segment of the debate. Please note the wording of my late messages to which you are responding. You misrepresented my argument
here and here. 1. I'm not claiming the status of theory. I'm attempting to show reason to question your claim to that status relative to BB conventional theory.2. I'm questioning the falsifiability of BB conventional theory which is prevalently tolerated. If you think that is the case then you need to empirically refute my argument. You haven't done that yet. The BBUH involves transferred energy. Yours implies created energy. I don't buy all that I've been told just as you don't. There was a time in history where the majority were allegedly told that the earth was flat.I've done some research on the perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind such as
this The above example would be unusual so far as conventional science goes as is the BBUH but the principle would be analogous. The source of energy would be the supreme designer/creator who would be the ocean full of energy and creation, the ship.You can buy a perpetual clock which runs by barometric pressure. I sold a vintage one on ebay a few years ago. It would be another example of how the BBUH would work within 2LoT.Wikipedia says this which is helpful in making my point here as well. (embolding mine)Note the word, usually. The BBUH is unusual such as a perpetual machine of the 2nd time.The BBUH is hypothetical since it factors in the LoTs, mathematical probabilities, observance of complex design, etc and since there is a reasonable amount of corroborative evidence for the credibility of the Biblical record whether antagonists want to admit that or not. I have been often obligated to answer repetitive responses to my messages. Though my time is limited I do the best I can in that regard.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Oh for the love of God......You do not have corroborating evidence for anything. You don't even have a hypothesis if by definition you are unable to test any of it.
You simply have some misunderstandings of physics cobbled together to justify your preconceived religious requirement for an eternal universe. Where is your empirical evidence for your key concept of "eternity"?
The Big Bang theory has been tested against it's predicted measurable results.
The Big Bang theory has been verified by the accuracy of these predictions.Your "hypothesis", by your own admission, cannot ever be tested.
You continue to ignore this fundamental and key difference because it is inconvenient for you ro acknowledge.
It pretty much wipes out your whole argument.TALKING AT CROSS PURPOSES
The issues that you have with BB theory do not really relate to BB theory at all.
You seem to want to know what happened at (or more accurately what "caused") T=0
You seem to want to know "what" was "there" at "T<0" and how the energy that you assume the universe has now was initially "created".Is this a fair summary of your position with regard to why the BB theory is inadequate?The problem is that BB theory doesn't claim to say anything about T=0 other than infer it's logical existence.
By the very definition of BB theory TNothing is said of how this small hot dense universe came to "be" or what it was like prior to this point.
I don't think you have graspd this. Hence the frustrations and talking at cross purposes that endlessly occurs on this topic in general.If you want to consider T=0 or "T"<0 you are entering the world of multiverses, branes, quantumly fluctuating universes and like. none these things any scientist worth name would describe as anything but speculation potential hypotheses until we can think a way to test such theories.
if want explain away with god i personally disagree (on basis that is road nowhere) neither us have evidence either way. yet.however definitely do know (by virtue predictions tested results) universe has expanded from very small, hot dense state. it continues expand. this all indisputable based on continue acquire. no matter ow much philosophically object.if claim existed in hot, state for "eternity" "time" external our univere before expanding it's current size so your eternal be happy then find illogical was not actually case.we nothing about t<0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds
we don't t<0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001so if dispute bb theory need claims (and successfully predicted makes t>0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.Any problems you have with BB theory that relate to anything before this point in time are not part of current BB theory and BB theory is not therefore what you are actually disputing with your 2LoT argument.For this argument you do need to consider things like zero energy universes which are indeed unconfirmed and speculative.I hope that this makes things clearer to you and explains why some of us are getting so frustrated at your attacks on BB theory regarding things that BB makes noreal claims about.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

The problem I see and have repeatedly posed throughout this thread with your theory, is that the the expansion allegedly came to be from T<0

---

Huh? You seem to be talking about the inflationary period but the word you used was "expansion." You do know that inflation and expansion are completely different things, yes?When you figure out what you're talking about, please let us know.And "T<0"? What on earth does that mean? There is no such thing as "T<0" in standard cosmology.

quote:

---

Your thermodynamic related theory contradicts all of the observed scientific LoTs.

---

Huh? Thermodynamic theory contradicts the laws of thermodynamics? What on earth does that mean?Do you mean that the inflation of the universe violates thermodynamics? Once again, I ask you directly:What makes you think the inflation of the universe was a thermodynamic process? Once again, we go back to the balloon analogy:If you have two spots on the surface of a balloon and it inflates, the two spots move apart. However, no thermodynamic activity has taken place. Work is force through a distance, but neither of the spots have moved any distance. Instead, the space itself has increased.

quote:

---

Such unfalsifiable claims are never tolerated on behalf of creationists positions.

---

Huh? We can measure the inflation of the universe directly. What do you think COBE, WMAP, and PLANCK are about? You claim it is "unfalsifiable," and yet we have hard data concerning it. How does that make it "unfalsifiable"? We ran an experiment that could have falsified it. Isn't that the definition of "falsifiable"?We can measure the expansion of the universe directly. What do you think the red-shift is? You claim it is "unfalsifiable," and yet we have hard data concerning it. How does that make it "unfalsifiable"? We ran an experiment that could have falsified it. Isn't that the definition of "falsifiable"?

quote:

---

On the otherhand my (BBUH/Buzsaw Biblical Universe Hypothesis) of infinite energy

---

Hold on just a parboiled second there."Infinite energy"? Where did that come from? Is this a subtle attempt to move the goalposts?

quote:

---

infinite energy does not contradict observed scientific LoTs

---

Ahem: Infinite energy is most definitely a violation of thermodynamics as well as simple observation. If there were infinite energy, the universe would be naught but plasma......and once again the universe would be at equilibrium. Infinite equilibrium, to be sure, but equilibrium nonetheless. Since the universe is clearly not at equilibrium, then clearly there is not infinite energy.

quote:

---

in that energy is transfered, not created.

---

That's a direct violation of the second law.There are no perfect engines.Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Where has it has been empirically established that my hypothesis does not comply with all of the LoTs?

---

In every single one of my posts to you.Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

'm questioning the falsifiability of BB conventional theory which is prevalently tolerated.

---

We have run multiple experiments to measure the inflation of the universe. How does that result in a claim of "unfalsifiable"?What do you think the cosmic background radiation is? Are you claiming that COBE and WMAP were frauds? That PLANCK is a figment?

quote:

---

The BBUH involves transferred energy.

---

Direct violation of the second law. There are no perfect engines as your claims require.Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

If you think that is the case then you need to empirically refute my argument. You haven't done that yet.

---

COBE, WMAP, PLANCK, and the red-shift all empirically refute your argument. The laws of thermodynamics empirically refute your argument.When are you going to respond to that?Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

I don't buy all that I've been told just as you don't.

---

So help us out by giving us your description of what the second law says. I've given my description. Where is yours? Clearly we don't think the second law says the same thing. I think it means that entropy always increases in real physical processes. I think it means there are no perfect engines. I think it means there are no perfect refrigerators. I think it means that S = Q/T.What do you think it means?Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

I've done some research on the perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind such as
this

​

Could a machine have 100% efficiency?

---

No. There are no perfect engines. That's what the second law says.

quote:

---

Perpetual motion machines of the second kind operate by extracting energy at some point in their cycle, use it for work, yet have everything return to an original state unchanged at the end of the cycle.

---

Direct violation of the second law. In every physical process, some energy is always and irrevocably lost to entropy.Don't believe me? Then here's a simple test:What would happen if we hooked up your engine to a refrigerator?I've asked you that question at least half a dozen times and so far, you have never answered. It's time to put up or shut up.What would happen if we hooked up your engine to a refrigerator?

quote:

---

The source of energy would be the supreme designer/creator who would be the ocean full of energy and creation, the ship.

---

Direct violation of the second law. There are no perfect engines.What would happen if we hooked up your engine to a refrigerator?

quote:

---

Note the word, usually. The BBUH is unusual such as a perpetual machine of the 2nd time.

---

Didn't you read your own source? Note the word "supposedly." That's because even this type of perpetual motion machine is a direct violation of the second law. There is no way to sustain motion while losing energy. There are no perfect engines.

quote:

---

The BBUH is hypothetical since it factors in the LoTs

---

Incorrect. It is a direct violation of both the first and second laws.Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

mathematical probabilities

---

Incorrect. You haven't provided any math at all.

quote:

---

observance of complex design

---

What does that have to do with anything, Franklin? [bonus points if you catch the reference.]We're talking about cosmology. If you're talking about the superstructure of the universe, that's what quantum cosmology is all about and what was directly measured by COBE and WMAP and will be even more closely studied by PLANCK.

quote:

---

since there is a reasonable amount of corroborative evidence for the credibility of the Biblical record

---

Incorrect. The Bible is actually a pretty piss poor guide to history. By your logic, we should accept the Greek myths regarding creation since "there is a reasonable amount of corroborative evidence for the credibility of the Iliad and the Odyssey whether antagonists want to admit that or not."

quote:

---

I have been often obligated to answer repetitive responses to my messages.

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!Well, to be fair, you have, indeed, been obligated to answer repetitive responses to your messages.But the reason why they're repetititive is because you have failed to live up to your obligations. You have yet to answer a single direct question put to you.Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

Though my time is limited I do the best I can in that regard.

---

Why is it you have the time to respond to dozens of posts but no time to answer direct questions put to you? If you respond to nothing else in this post, respond to these direct questions:How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

1. It passes the test of mathematical probabilities.2. It passes the test of observable complex design.3. It passes the test of compatibility with LoTs.4. The historical record from which it is derived from passes the test of credibility relative to Biblical related archeological discoveries, such as the Aqaba Exodus crossing, etc, discovery of archeological sites, Black Sea Discoveries, etc.5. Metaphysical observations relative to both the good and the evil evidence the existence of intelligence beyond that which is normally observable by the naked eye.6. It passes the test of logic and common sense relative to the properties of space, the before problem and outside problem relative to the BB theory.7. It provides a logical answer to the problem of energy, forces and spacetime (how they happen to exist) relative to LoTs.8 For Biblical creationists it passes the test of where God was in eternity relative to the universe according to the Genesis record.Those are a few of the many tests which would apply to the BBUH.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Sigh......
These are not tests Buz. Why is this so darn hard for you to understand?
I could analyse each of these in turn and rip them apart individually but the main thing you are missing here is the very concept of scientific 'test'.You have simply listed the dispirate elements that you are basing your nonsense on and relabelling them 'tests'. Most of these boil down to arguments of incredulity on your part with regard to what you mistakenly think BB theory actually is. The rest are interpretations of biblical stories which are about as reliable as a newspaper horoscope entry in any remotely objective terms.To test a conclusion you need to work out the impications of that conclusion (ideally specify an actual measurable quantity or predict the existence of a new physical phenomenon) and then determine whether or not the predictions of your theory are true or not. New and as yet unknown phenomenon and measuremnts are the result. Theories of nature need to be tested against the realities of nature.Your whole argument can be summed up - "I know what the bible tells me. T=0 makes no sense to me. By picking and choosing some misunderstood concepts in physics I can justify to myself an eternal universe just as my bible tells me" QED.BB theory effectively starts at T=10^-43secs
T=0 is logically inferred from BB theory but current cosmological models really say nothing about anything before T=10^-43sec
If you want to discuss perceived problems with BB theory you need to tackle the predictions conclusions and observations that BB theory is based on. Conclusions that have been scientifically verified by means of predicted results. Conclusions that do not say anything about T=0 other than logically infer it's existence.
The expansion of the universe from a very small, very hot, very dense state and it's ongoing expansion have been proved about as conclusively as you get within science.All your problems with BB theory relate to T=0 and TTheories of nature need to be tested against the realities of nature. The scientific testing of theories involves predicting new results that are a direct consequence of the theory in question and then verifying these against nature itself.Have you done this with you "hypothesis"? Quite obviously not. Hence the fact it remains a mish mash of ill understood concepts held together by your overarching desire to make nature fit your personal interpretation of biblical text.The reason we test the conclusions of theories against nature it to avoid such obviously subjective pitfalls.BTW I think Rhain has some questions he wants you to answer......

You might want to read Message 255 again. If you're not to be dissuaded from your current course in this thread then that's fine, I just want to be sure that the way you're moderated in the science threads in the future won't come as a surprise to you.Please, no replies.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Buz
It seems to me that you are not actually interested in the BB theory at all.
You are only really interested in T=0 and "before". About which BB theory says little or nothing.The conclusions, predictions and verified results of current BB cosmological theory irrefutably (with a quick nod to the necessary tentativity of all science) tell us that the universe expanded to it's present state from a very small, very hot and very dense previous state billions of years ago. The same forms of evidence and tested results also tell us that the universe continues to expand.
Nothing you have said addresses this evidence or these conclusions.Nor has any of the above much of anything to do with T=0, 2LoT or any of the objections you have raised.I have started a thread to explore the T=0 and "before" issue -
http://EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe -->EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe
Feel free to join in there.I suggest that the remainder of this thread we spend concentrating on the validity of your own hypothesis on it's own merits rather than further pointlessly comparing it to your misapprehensions of BB theory.There are only 30 or so posts left so giving expliict and detailed answers to Rrhain's repeated questions regarding your "hypotheis" would seem the obvious way to progress. I also have a couple of questions of my own -1) How does your model explain the CMB?
2) What value for the CMB does your model predict and on what basis is this calculated?
3) How does your model explain the abundance of light elements?
3) How does your model explain the apparent lumpiness of the universe?
4) What are black holes and how do they form according to the BBUH? (or if there are no black holes according to BBUH what are the sources of such observed apparently massive gravitational effects)
5) What is the ultimate fate of the universe given that gravity is slowly attracting all matter to all other matter?
6) What is the ultimate fate of the universe given that entropy is forever increasing?I look forward to your answers.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

1..."The fields are already there,"How do we know since none have ever been found?2..."no actual space and time for stuff to exist in."There is an absence of anything for stuff to exist in. How could it exist?3..."However the fields are there,"Where does "there" exist at?How do you know the fields are there if none has ever been found to exist?You have to believe that the possibility exists that the field was there and that is where the universe came from. There is no way to know for sure. Even if you could find an scaler field today there is much matter, time, gravity and space it could have. But there was none of those things for the original instanton as all that was inside of the instanton. There would be no way to compare the two types of fields. One has an environment the other had an absence of anything.Either there was something for the instanton to exist in or it appeared in an absence of anything and began to expand into an absence of anything.How can it expand into an absence of anything?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

ICANT
It seems to me that you are not actually interested in the BB theory at all.
You are only really interested in T=0 and "before". About which BB theory says little or nothing.The conclusions, predictions and verified results of current BB cosmological theory irrefutably (with a quick nod to the necessary tentativity of all science) tell us that the universe expanded to it's present state from a very small, very hot and very dense previous state billions of years ago. The same forms of evidence and tested results also tell us that the universe continues to expand.
Nothing you have said addresses this evidence or these conclusions.Nor has any of the above much of anything to do with T=0, 2LoT or any of the objections you have raised.I have started a thread to explore the T=0 and "before" issue -
http://EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe -->EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe
Feel free to join in there.I suggest that the remainder of this thread we spend concentrating on the validity of Buz's hypothesis on it's own merits rather than further pointlessly comparing it to various misapprehensions of BB theory.

1. I'm quite sure I know what Tmagic, ignoring LoTs. Why should I allow you to slide by on it relative to this debate?3. Please articulate empirically, concisely and precisely in one message of brief statements why the BBUH violates Lot's 1, 2 and 3. Please do them one by one. I would appreciate that from you.4. Then please articulate empirically, concisely individually and precisely how a T<0, required for a temporal universe (Time-related to the past; not eternal) complies with LoTs 1, 2 and 3.(abe: Relative to the above, I'm not arguing that T<0 is part and parcel of bb theory beginning from t<10-43. my argument that the expansion being temporal (time-related to past; not eternal) must does assume a t<0.)
Edited by Buzsaw, : Clarify position

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

You are utterly confusing an empirically verified theory of cosmological evolution with a theory of cosmological origins. I started the second thread on cosmological origins because that seems to be what you and ICANT are actually interested in. It is indeed an interesting subject. But not one that BB theory makes any real claims to answer.
The expansion of the universe and it's prior very hot, very small, very dense state are all but indisputable based on observational evidence and verified prediction.Anyway........ To the best of my ability I will try and thoroughly answer your questions (I am happy to be corrected on anything by our resident experts). Not really no. Time is a dimension. Time is part of space-time. Strictly speaking time starts with the Big Bang so there can be no T<0. Purely in terms of the Big Bang theory the question you ask makes no sense.
There are however some highly speculative theories of cosmological origins involving the multiverse, branes, instantons and other such things in which you might consider a sort of "time" external to the universe. In that sense you could conceivably talk about a "before" the Big Bang. There are also highly speculative theories about the universe being the result of a "previous" 'Big Crunch in which case again you could conceivably talk about an abstract "before" I suppose.
But none of these are part of BB theory. Nobody claims to have any empirical evidence of such things as yet and nobody claims to have any answers as yet.
By objecting to evidence based BB theories of cosmological evolution with continual reference to TCurrent evidence based cosmological models make no real claims whatsoever about any time prior to the Planck time. Including T=0.
In terms of current evidence based cosmological models the very term T<0 makes no sense at all.
Current evidence based cosmological models tell us how the universe evolved from a very small, very hot, very dense prior state. It seems that you think that there is a great anti-religious philosophical conspiracy at the source of BB theory. A conspiracy so huge that every physicist in the world is willing to forego one of the most basic principles of their discipline in order to advocate a theory that so obviously violates this principle in an immense and ongoing anti-God cover-up. This is quite evidently not the case but I doubt that anything anyone says is going to convince you otherwise. However I will try and answer your question at face value as best I can.The expansion of space-time is itself not a thermodynaic event. No work is being done. No energy is being expended. The expansion of space-time is the expansion of space and time not the creation of energy as you seem to be implying. BB theory is a theory of the universe and it's expansion from a very small, very hot, very dense state. BB theory is perfectly consistent with the 1st LoT in that the total amount of energy within the universe remains constant (i.e. the equations of GR are time symmetric thus energy is conserved) at all times as the universe expands.
Again I suspect your objection to all of this is more to do with T=0 and the question of where any overall energy in the universe might have originated from. Again I refer you to the alternate thread setup to discuss such speculations regarding the origin of the universe and related subjects. Again I state that current, evidence based and scientifically verified, BB cosmological models make no claims about the origins of the universe.
However you do need to realise that -The (ongoing) expansion of the universe from a prior very hot, very small, very dense state is completely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. 1st Law
Well if your "hypothesis" involves a beginning to the universe you break the 1st law in exactly all the ways that you seem to be accusing naturalistic theories of cosmological origins doing. Does the universe have energy overall? If so where did this energy come from? etc. etc. All you are presumably doing is invoking God as the source of any energy creation? But any sort of energy creation violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. You could just as well state that God started the Big Bang.
If you are claiming that the universe had no beginning because it is literally eternal (has always been and always will be) then you do (sort of) circumvent any problems with the 1st law but you definitely fall foul of the 2nd law.2nd Law
In a closed system entropy increases over time. Therefore a universe that has existed for eternity will by definition be in a state of maximum entropy. In terms of the universe this would mean complete cosmological equilibrium. No stars, no galaxies, no planets, no life. Just space time and random particles in the complete thermodynamic equilibrium of absolute zero (or actually slightly above AZ).
Unless God is providing energy from "outside" (in which case the 1st LoT would be being broken and energy within the universe would not be conserved) the second law tells us what the universe would most definitely not be in the state we observe it to be.
Your claims of an eternal universe in a non-maximum entropy state are effectively claims of a perpetual motion machine. Perpetual motion machines are an impossibility according to the 2nd LoT (Don't confuse perpetual motion machines with "perpetual" motion machines which ultimately require an external energy source)3rd Law
The 3rd LoT tells us that we will never actually reach absolute zero. As described above in an eternal universe of maximum entropy things would be as infitesimally close to AZ as possible. This is quite evidently not what we observe to be the case. This question has no meaning in terms of BB theory where Toutside the remit of that which has been empirically tested. The ongoing expansion of the universe from a prior very hot, very small, very dense state billions of years ago has been empiriaclly verified beyond all reasonable doubt.
How that very hot, very dense, very small state came to exist in the first place nobody knows and no scientist claims to know.Summary
Either your "hypothesis" breaks the laws of thermodynaics or you invoke God at every turn to overcome your violations of the laws of thermodynamics. If you are going to do this you might as well invoke God as the creator of the Big Bang (which of course many do). This, unlike your hypothesis, would at least be consistent with the observed evidence of an expanding universe that has evolved from a very hot, very small, very dense prior state.
BB theory itself is a theory of cosmological evolution not cosmological origins as such. Nothing BB theory claims regarding the present or past states of the universe is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics. BB theory makes no claims about "where" energy, matter, space or time "came from". BB theory makes no real claims about T=0. In terms of BB theory the question of T<0 is literally meaningless. Any such questions are outside the scope of BB theory and are the subject of theories that are highly speculative at best.Final Remarks
I can see why you might think this is a cop-out. It isn't. It is an admission of ignorance. An admission of (hopefully temporary) defeat on the part of science to answer the ultimate question of the origin of the universe. Unlike religion this is how science works. We admit when we don't have an evidence based and empirically tested answer to a given question. The mistake I think people like you make is to think this a weakness of scientific investigation rather than the basis of it's strength.In terms of empirical evidence and prediction BB theory is all but indisputable.
Issues of T=0 and "before" on the other hand are deeply disputable. They are also highly speculative, and have had some of the finest minds on the planet completely perplexed, baffled and bamboozled.
Confusing and conflating empirically tested and verified issues of universe expansion with issues of universe origins does neither your case nor your understanding of the issues involved any good at all.It remains the case that your "hypothesis" makes no predictions, is inherently untestable and explains none of the features of the observed universe (CMB, lumpiness, abundance of light elements etc. etc.) On it's own merits it is about as poor a theory of anything as one could hope to find.I created a thread relating purely to T=0 and cosmological origins so that these isues can be discussed without conflating them with current empirically teetd and verified Big Bang cosmolological models.
http://EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe -->EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy UniverseI again suggest that the remainder of this thread is spent examining your "hypothesis" on it's own merits. Without comparison to continual misapprehensions of BB theory and without any further talk of cosmological origins (which I suggest are speculated upon in the new thread).Any credible theory must, after all, stand on it's own two feet without reference to any other theory. Does BBUH do that? I don't think so. It is up to you to show otherwise.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add linkEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Thanks very much, Straggler for taking the time and effort to respond to my points and answer questions. I just opened the thread and read your response. I don't have time to do much at this time since I've got some things needing to be done by tomorrow away from the computer but I'll begin with the following: 1. My position all through this thread and all related threads has been that the universe is eternal, having no beginning. This is required for the existence of an eternal intelligent designer/manager of the universe. I have no idea how you missed that after all I've said on it.2. My position relative to energy is that the aggregate of it never increases or diminishes, the designer/manager being the source of everything including energy. Energy in this system works like the ship analogy in which the ship draws it's energy/power from the ocean (which source of energy will always be greater than the ship) The ship in turn expels energy as the analogy explains which returns energy to the ocean. There are differences in that the designer possesses intelligence so as to manage the system at will.3. If you reread my messages you should be aware by now that the source of energy is the designer/creator from whom all creation came, each thing in it's own time within eternity.4. Again, no energy is created. It is all transferred from the source, effecting varied states of equilibrium relative to the system. Remember, I said the energy source rested on the 7th day after having expended 6 creation days of work. Remember also that I said Jesus, son of the energy source stated that energy had left him when the woman from the pressing crowd secretly touched the hem of his garment resulting in her sudden healing. Energy was transerred from Jesus to the woman causing a sensation of loss from the healer/son of the universe designer/manager.So as you admit, factoring the above, the BBUH passes the test of the first Law. Hopefully, tomorrow I can move on to the 2nd Law relative to the BBUH with responses to your points.Thanks again for the time and effort you've expended to address this.ABE: I haven't had the time to go to the TEdited by Buzsaw, : Add to message and update message title.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Your whole theory still relies on energy transfer in a closed system (incorporating both your creator and the universe) with no increase in entropy.
This is a clear violoation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
How can you possibly claim otherwise?If you are going to invoke God to explain unknowns or circumvent the laws of physics when inconvenient you might as well at least invoke God in such a way as to be consistent with the observed phenomenon of the universe and the currently known laws of the universe.Your "hypotheis" does neitherYour "hypothesis" violoates the laws of physics.
Your "hypotheis" explains none of the observed phenomenon of the universe.
Your "hypotheis" makes no predictions.
Your "hypotheis" is inherently untestable.
Your "hypotheis" has been formed from a preconceived view of the universe derived from ideology rather than nature.It is hard to think of a worse basis for a theory..............?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.