T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe

I do not believe you do not believe it; so now do you believe it? I hope that helps.

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

Then why shouldn't that apply to the possibility of a higher intelligence capable of creating and designing the complex systems observable in the universe. We can and do cite many reasons to argue for intelligent design but you argue that it's magic/unbelievable/impossible.

---

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

The reason I was bring up our comprehension of an absence of anything is that everything we know about has a beginning in something. Hawking has his unbounded universe starting in imaginary time. The only way the singularity can exist is to have somewhere to exist. That is the reason I say we can not understand non existence. Science has an absence of time.I do not have an absence of time. Only an absence of time as you and I know it in 24 hr. periodsDo you think those galaxies on the great wall is concerned with time? I wish my bank account would work like that.That is the ultimate free lunch. You could have your cake sitting on the table and start eating it and never run out of cake. All energy that there ever was is or will be is the great I AM.Anything that is everything to me would have to be God. You can call it energy, force, or nature. Whatever it is it is awesome.If there is a God that could create this universe, and I believe there is. How could we limit what He could do because we don't understand it. I believe there could be millions of universes if not trillions. I have knowledge of only one but that does not rule out others. No, when they use the balloon they are talking about the ants crawling around on the outside surface of the balloon. I never did get it. I kept thinking if I was there and look up it would be blank.Now if the universe is like taking cake dough and putting a bunch of raisins in it with a lot of yeast in the dough. When you bake the cake all the raisins will get father apart as the cake cooks and the yeast makes the dough get much bigger. Now if you could expand that cake dough to the size of the universe those raisins would be scattered all through out that cake dough.If you were on anyone of those raisins you could only see 37+ billion light years in any direction therefore you would assume you were at the center of the universe.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."

This is not the topic of this thread but I feel that this needs a brief response.I have never said intelligent design is impossible. Nor do I believe any of those on the the science or atheist side of the debate have ever done so. Deeply unlikely maybe. But impossible in this context requires a level of certainty only found via faith. A level of certainty that empirical evidence alone can never bring about. A level of certainty that no atheist I know would subscribe to.
I have never declared my objection to intelligent design or theism as based on my inability to believe or comprehend.
Any objections to such claims are based on the complete lack of objective and empirical evidence for such claims. In some cases there is even the existence of evidence that would seem contrary to such claims.Buz - Lets not hijack this thread with talk of whether there is evidence for a creator or not.This universe exists. What scientific theories are there as to how this universe originated and what issues and problems are there with these theories, is the issue at hand.If you think the standards of evidence between concepts in modern physics as compared to a creator based universe are biased and unfair then I suggest you start a thread that directly addreses that area. I would be happy to take part in such a thread (although I do currently have my hands full with the two threads I have started recently and the end of your BBUH thread.)

It might, but there is no evidence for it. It also adds a layer of complexity (higher intelligence) to conditions that do not add any explanatory power, because the question emerges 'how did this higher intelligence' come to being? Calling it 'eternal' is just side stepping the basic question. If there is something 'outside' of our current time/space that caused our time/space to occur, then why assign the attribute of 'higher intelligence' to it?

Do time and space need "something" else in which to exist? Why must we assume that they do? There my be viable objections but our inability to comprehend "nothingness" has really got nothing to do with it. I don't understand any of the above?
Before the BB there was no time as we know it. Time as we know it was created as part of the BB. As part of spacetime.
Are you proposing an alternative view? If so on what basis?
Hedge funds? And yet a zero energy universe, in principle if not currently in practise, is an empiricably testable conclusion.
Would it change your mind about anything if it was indeed verified that the total energy of the universe is indeed zero? OK. Well flat 2D creatures inside the surface of the balloon only capable of comprehending or looking in their two dimensions would be a better anology than ants that can look up. Yes. But in the case of mass in the universe there are also significant attractive forces betwen bodies that pull them together. Yes much like the surface of a sphere. Wherever you are appears to be the center.

I have been told many times that space and time exists only in the universe. Space is expanding inside the universe but the universe is not expanding into anything. Why would it change my mind? Buzzsaw argued for a full thread that God managed energy where there was no problem and got tore all to pieces. So if you want to get on board with an endless supply of energy that the total energy of the universe is zero welcome aboard. Science has an absence of time before T=0+. Now could you tell me what marked time from that point?I do not have an absence of time. Eternity is from everlasting to everlasting. Time is just a segment marked off in eternity for the benefit of man.Now correct me if I am wrong. Time as we know it is measured in seconds, minutes, hours, and days. These are determined by how long it takes our planet to rotate 360 degrees at the equator.Our years are determined by how long it takes the earth to circle our sun.What I was trying to raise when I mentioned the galaxies on the great wall was, Does the universe need time?If the earth exploded tomorrow would time cease?There would be no way to mark time nor anyone to mark time.
Time would continue on just not as we know time.Would the universe cease to exist?
Of course not. I doubt if it would even phase the Milky Way. I agree that before the BB there was no time as we know it.I disagree that time as WE know it was created as part of the BB, as part of spacetime.
Time is a product of man observing and sequencing the movement of our planet in relationship to our sun. (These are my words as I wrote them prior to going to Wikipedia.)Am I proposing something new? No not at all. Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, according to Wikipedia holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable.We seem to place too much importance on US.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."

This is effectively what I was saying too. I didn't say I wanted to change your mind. I just wondered if evidence against one of the main objections to BB theory (i.e. where did the energy come from? What about conservation of energy etc. etc.) were to be in place whether or not it would have any effect on your view? No problem? Buz got "tore all to pieces" because his model of the universe was obviously and intrinsically flawed. A schoolboy with a decent grasp of physics could have pointed this out to him. Buz had no comprehension at all of the physical processes he was either vying against or advocating.
He attempted to replace the theory of the Big Bang, which has one single instant that may or may not violate the first law of thermodynamics, with a model of the universe that violates the second law of thermodynamics contimually and eternally even as we write.
The lesson that should be learnt from that is that if you are going to challenge the conclusions of science based on science then at least understand the science involved. The "creation" of space and time in the Big Bang. So you are OK with the concept of eternity but not with "nothingness"? Can you really comprehend eternity? I mean really comprehend it? I don't think so and yet your argument of incomprehension used against nothingness does not apply. Why? How we choose to measure time is neither here nor there. Galaxies form in time. Planets form in time. Whether the Earth moves round the sun or not is immaterial to all but our arbitary methods of splitting time into units. Don't be daft. Who claimed that the universe would cease to exist if the Earth exploded? where on Earth did you ever hear anyone advocate that?However if time as we know it were not formed as one of the dimensions of the BB. There would indeed be no time as know it. Things were evolving in time (Galaxies, the universe) long before we came on the scene. Nobody would sanely claim otherwise. Well neither Leibniz nor Kant made the specific measurable predictions of Einstein's general relativty. This in itself suggests that their theories of time are inferior to those of GR. I place no importance on US at all in this context.
We are completely irrelevant.
The only person I have ever seen describe the fundamental concept of time as meaningless if seperated from the spin of the Earth or other humans forms of measurment is you.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Buz was saying the same thing as Guth when he was talking about the zero total enery universe. Maybe not explaining it so you could understand it but I did.Buz said God supplied the energy and managed it so it did not break the lots. He did not give any specific details of how that was accomplished. But if an accident could do it, it should be easy for God. An assertion that time was created does not answer the question of what marked time. To mark time you have to measure it so how was it measured. Eternity is foever in the past and forever into the future.
Nothingness that something can appear in I do have a problem with because it is not an absence of anything.
An absence of anything is what I said is hard to understand because everything we know anything about came from somewhere or something and not from an absence of anything. I will agree Galaxies form, and Planets form. But they can't tell time and time does not matter to them. They exist in eternity.
Eternity is a measure of time.
One second is a measure of time.
1 minute is a measure of time.
1 hour is a measure of time.
24 hours is a measure of time.
years is a measure of time. A year equal to 365 1/4 days.Galaxies form in time. Is an assertion not a measure of time.
Planets form in time. Is an assertion not a measure of time. Time was not formed.
Time is not an event, thing, or place. It is an invention of man to measure duration. Just as inches, feet, yards and miles are to measure distance. How do you know they were evolving in time?
What determines the amount of time they were evolving?
What is that formula based on? It only means that they disagree as to what time is.If time is not a measure of duration please enlighten me. I agree. Don't give me a big head now.Be specific. The rotation of the earth at the equator takes almost 24 hours and this is considered one day as half has been light and half dark. I know the North Pole has six months of daylight and six months of darkness.Why is that not considered one day?What if it was such that it never got dark?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."

No he was not!!!! Buz's whole objection to BB was that the BB broke the first law of thermodynamics by the creation of previously non-existent energy. The whole premise of a zero energy universe is that energy is indeed conserved because the total energy of the universe is zero. Buz required God to be continually violoating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In fact in Buz's eternal universe there is no 2nd law of thermodynamics because God is eternally reversing entropy (the 2nd law of thermodynaimcs tells us that entropy will always increase in a closed system).
A one off "accident" that may or may not break one law of thermodynamics is hardly comparable with the claim that the second law of thermodynamics is effectively null and void because of the continual and ongoing activities of a creator.
Your understanding of thermodynamics obviously rivals Buz's in terms of complete and utter incomprehension. The BB marked time. We now measure it from the point of the BB. Our ability or otherwise to mark it as it progresses is irrelevant. I do not see your point? Yes I can describe nothingness too. The absence of space, time or matter. These are just words.
I still don't see how you can claim to comprehend eternity any more than you can comprehend nothingness. Both are humanly incomprehensible.
Do you know of anything that had no beginning?
Yet you accept this concept whilst not accepting something from nothing?
This is utterly inconsistent. In the absence of intelligence no measure of time is possible. That hardly stops time progressing. You are the one asserting that the measurment of time is anything other than an abstract human concept. Time will pogress and galaxies will form in time regardless of us (interesingly the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the increase of entropy is often claimed to be the source of the "arrow of time").Ultimately - Is not an assertion but an empirically verifiable fact. The verified predictions of general relativity all but prove otherwise. According to GR time is an intrinsic component of the universe.
If you want to demonstrate otherwise you need to at least match the predictive power of GR. Predicted results and verified conclusions. Time is an inherent component of the universe regardless of our ability to measure it.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I will agree that the BB marks a time in the history of the universe that we can measure the duration from that event until today. We say that is 13.7 Billion years.Now how do we decide what a year is? Sure. All the energy in the universe. I AM.For the zero total energy universe you had to have two types the positive and the negative. I never said time ceased. I said time ceased as we know it. Why? Those tell you what is. Nothing to do with time. Then that is not time as we know it.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."

I'm becoming inclined to agree with you on this relative to the universe at large but not necessarily to systems in the universe. I'll not get into this further though as I don't want to get off topic here.I'm still convinced that your zero factor relative to BB does violate 1LoT, however.

---

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

Fair enough.I don't know if anyone is convinced that the total energy of the universe is 0. It is an idea. A hypothesis that is going to be extremely difficult to verify or refute.
As mentioned previously it is also debateable whether or not the law of conservation of energy (i.e. the consistency of the total energy in the universe in time) can actualy apply in the absence of time as we know it.
However none of the this is tested or known either way. It is all speculation at this stage.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The units of time we use or what we base them are on are utterly and totally irrelevant to the progress of time in the universe. Nobody but you is claiming otherwise.
Measure time in Klingon doodlespecs if you want. The rate at which things happen is independent of the measuring device or units used.An atomic clock measures the progress of time by means of a physical process that has nothing to do with human conventions.
An atomic clock in a satellite orbiting the Earth progresses faster than one at the surface of the Earth.
Time progresses more slowly the stronger the gravitational field!!! Did you know that?
The different rates at which the same physical proceses occur in different strength gravitational fields are accurately predicted by General Relativity.
General Relativity tells us that time and space are intrinsically entwined. Time is as much a component of our universe as is space.
Both time and space as we know them came out of the BB. No. You didn't have to have any energy at all.
The spontaneaous creation of both the positive and the negative in the form of our universe would mean (if a 0 energy universe is indeed true) that in total there is still no energy overall. Because if you are claiming something to be a truth of nature it needs to be tested against nature in order to be verified and thus be made a reliable conclusion.
Without this process your alternative view of time remains a completely unreliable subjective belief that exists nowhere but in your head and which is unlikely to have any basis in reality whatsoever. I am afraid that you are wrong. The predictions of General Relativity tell us a great deal about the nature of time. The nature of time as part of a 4D universe is inherent to the theory and the results of the theory are indisputable. Satellite navigation would not work but for the calculations of GR based on the mass of the Earth warping 4D space-time. It is very much time as we know it. As already stated practical technologies rely on this very concept of time and the predictions it results in.I would suggest that whatever alternative it is that you are proposing would fail any practical test and certainly would not lead to new technologies.Becuse yours is a false concept of timeEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

although I'm probably infamous for my unique perspective concerning this issue, i am glad for once a topic that explores the potentials of what t=0 is or is not.simply stated, T=0 is a coordinate in space time when there is nothing measurable by today's science. and whatever existed at this coordinate is singular, with no outside variables. some want to say it is 0 energy. but this of course is impossible, because without something, nothing could be.i implore you to hear me out. and consider what i say.evolution (change) is evident. somthing before what is now, also evident. these are facts. t=0 is the conclusion of the question : before that?as long as 2 things are, before that is a relevant question. so only until there is only the one, unchanged existing, there could not be a universe. if there was no evolution and all was, as always was, there would be no before that. no evolution, no big bang of any form. for then reasonably, could we say: all was and is. all evidence is contrary.science cannot measure energy until it is active. potential energy is potential, or inactive potential force from some "thing". at t=0, this is what you have. a "thing" (noun)with no 2 points to measure. but it is and was there at T=0, because if it wasn't, nothing would be.t=0 is inevitable by all observation and all data. no model can exist without it. the problem is, when science hits this magnificent roadblock in the ability to measure or calculate, it throws out all reason and ignores assumed reality. assumed reality is one of the most important foundations that ground science to make it science.so with reason, based on observation, is the only way to explore what t=0 is telling us.a: t=0 is inevitable.
b: so what does a timeless state of all energy mean, when the energy has no outside force or environment to interact with, and apparently is only potential energy, since it has no area to measure?it means all energy of the universe in a single wholeness, as one, with no heat, no cold, no thing to measure, BUT, something that IS.so, biggest question people cannot grasp: where did all the big huge planets and billions of stars and stuff that were the size of a PEA go?here's a brain feeder: the universe by all data is expanding. but what is it expanding IN?there is a big bang model that is almost identical to the current that not only explains this question, but also has explanations for black holes.however, just ask ICANT to tell you what that is, or Percy, as I've written it in previos topics. if your interested.so at T=0 all the energy that exists in the entire universe was in a singular immeasurable state. : fact. this is why science just closes its eyes on anything more about it.but there is more to be said about it. if all the energy of the world existed in a singular immeasurable state, as it did by all modern science observation and calculation, then it was and is the start of all we can see, and cannot see, of our entire universe. no outside interactions. and it evolved. to what is now.so how does something , with nothing else to react with, no environment, no other energy, become all that is?chance. or direction. period. thats the answer. and the question concerning t=0.if you want to argue t=0 is not, you have to prove the universe hasn't evolved.since we know it has, then t=0 is inevitable.t=0 is singular state of the universe. and it evolved, which could only be by a: chance happenings. or b: direction.direction means intelligence. chance means random interactions.so if there is nothing but a singular (potential) energy (thing)with nothing else to interact with that evolved itself, chance is impossible (nothing to interact with, so its a self evolution, only possible if directed by itself)so by definite observation by possibilities, all observation and measuring conclude: God.t=0 is God as God first was. only God was. and from himself came all that is.surprise. your just a cell in his body.it will be awhile before i can get back to the PC..lost my home connection. but as time (and gas) allows, ill try to reply to any debate.if you dont agree with me, thats fine. show me an alternative that isn't ridiculous science fiction dreamed out of nowhere. we know trees have intelligence because they communicate via chemicals to each other to ward off pests and desease. if you can understand that, then understand the fact that the energy that sustains even the very atoms, and all of the cosmos is also intelligent. just superior to man, unlike a tree which is inferior. so i dont understand why God is so hard for people to accept. especially since all science if scrutinized, only shows that God IS.Edited by tesla, : changed some sentence structure.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides