Peanut Gallery Comments on Great Debate

Hi Phat, But a static universe was the scientific answer until Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding.When science discovers the source of the energy that caused the temperature that existed at T=10up>-44. The theory will have to change again.The Problem is no one is looking for that source. All they do is make an assumption of it being there.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

Hi AZ, Please present any information you can find of observations that occurred between T=-44> and T=300,000 thousand years after T=-44>.

​

I can find none. Where there are no observations there can only be assumptions.

​

AZ writes:

​

Hypothesis: There are 12 eggs in the basket.

​

What idiot would form such a Hypothesis if he put four eggs in the basket to begin with.

​

AZ writes:

​

No one knows what happened or what systems operated prior to the planck time (10^-44)

​

How could the laws of physics control the creation of the universe if they were inside the universe?

​

AZ writes:

​

What "facts" would those be?

​

The fact energy can not be created. As it would have been outside of the universe or the universe could not have been formed from the energy.

​

AZ writes:

​

Energy can not be created or destroyed in our universe. All bets are off when speaking otherwise.

​

But if the universe is the only thing that exists, there is nothing outside of the universe.

​

So what was the universe formed from?

​

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 see you're even quote mining me now. Old habit I suppose. What I actually said was How can you - or I - possibly have an opinion about this stuff? Neither of us have any foundation in the subject let alone the ability to think like that. You have no education beyond school in any of this, your opinion is utterly worthless. As is mine. The sin of pride ... If you even get to produce this book, it will be vanity published won't it? Why don't you send a draft to an actual physicist, it will save you making a fool of yourself. I do not have an opinion about cosmological physics - for a rational person with no education or practice in the subject, that would be impossible. But not for an irrational fundamental christian. My opinion is confined to observing that you are not qualified to have an opinion.Satan's curses.

I take exception to ringo on this one.At the time, the only evidence available, all the scientific evidence, led to the conclusion that our universe was static, eternal and was the size of what we would later call our galaxy.Einstein's blunder was not in adding a cosmological constant to GR but was in ignoring what his equations were telling him. The universe was not static and eternal but was dynamic and bounded. He gave in to his bias for a static universe instead of following what the new science was telling him. There isn't any. There never was. The only thing we have are speculations.As you keep pointing out thermodynamics requires entropy to be very low and energy to be exceptionally high at the beginning in order for this universe to operate as we see it today.How that was achieved has not been, and may never be, adequately explained.Your contention that *our* physics extends back before 10^-44 and precludes such high energy at the beginning is obviously false since the big bang inflationary state stems from precisely this condition. Are you saying extensions of physical timelines and conditions based on our demonstrably reliable equations and simulations are assumptions and not observations?I'm sure your religious sensibilities believe that, like assumptions of dinosaurs and a young Earth, anything we didn't see didn't happen, but the rest of society, especially the scientific community, strenuously rejects such an absurd contention. You're the one who put the eggs in the basket. I'm the scientist trying to figure out the reality.The point remains that the science limits the math we can use. You are not allowed to just pull equations from your ass. Your misunderstanding of Dr. Hawking's lecture seems intractable. So be it.Your contention that he claims our physics transcends the point where they cease to function is ludicrous. This has become another doctrine of your personal religious catechism, hasn't it.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

And when that belief was proven wrong, it ceased to be the scientific view. Science is self-correcting.

Hi ringo, If the scientific view that the universe was eternal and static was proven to be wrong by Hubble's discovery, what makes you think the current view is the correct view.

quote:

---

The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. For example, turning on a light would seem to produce energy; however, it is electrical energy that is converted.

---

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/...-laws-of-thermodynamicsThat is considered a law of Physics.According to that law it is impossible for energy to be created.That requires the universe to be eternal in existence as it could not have a beginning to exist which is the reason for hundreds of years the scientific view was 'the universe was eternal in existence and static'.But the second law of thermodynamics says the universe can not be eternal in existence as the useable energy would have been used up and the universe would have reached a point there would be no useable energy and it would be a frozen universe.Hubble discovered the universe was expanding thus it could not be eternal in existence.For our universe to exist today which it does, would require and eternal unlimited source of energy to maintain the universe and hold it together.God Bless,

Or it would require a physics beyond and (maybe) prior to our experience in this universe.Or it would require the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster touching our brane-world with his noodley appendage.Or it would require a cyclic universe effect which would become clear to us when we solve quantum gravity.Or ...Or ...Or ...

Hi AZ, I don't know what Einstein was thinking.But he did know and believe the first law of thermodynamics that energy could not be created. That gave him a problem as it does me. I can only come up with two possibilities for the energy to exist. It was either eternal in existence or it had to be created. But it can't be created according to the laws of Physics. That means I have to accept God provided the energy. Einstein could not believe that so he adjusted his equations to show the universe was eternal and static.So when Hubble discovered the universe was expanding in every direction from us the second law of thermodynamics comes into effect requiring the universe to have a beginning to exist.So the move to the beginning to exist theory came about but a lot of things had to be ignored. Like where did the energy come from that produced the universe.Assumption made that the universe was a self contained universe with nothing outside. Assumption made that this universe existed at T=10^-44 . Nobody has an answer as to how it got there, it just is. That sounds to me like I hope that is the way it is. But that is not the thoughts that are presented.It has been assumed the energy was there and where or how it got there is of no consequence.That sounds like accepting something by faith. Although I have been told there is not accepted in science by faith. Actually I am trying to point out that if the universe had a beginning to exist in the BB a source of energy would be required to produce the universe in which we live as the energy could not be created.That is the reason Guth proposed a zero energy universe that was never accepted.I am also trying to point out that if the universe is eternal in existence it has to have an eternal unlimited source of power to exist as we see it today.I know this flies in the face of everything you have been taught.I am just trying to look at the statements of the laws of physics and determine if what I have read and studied concerning the beginning to exist of the universe.Let me state what I believe and see if I can clear up some misconceptions.I believe the universe is eternal in existence but not necessarily in the form we see it today.I believe that an entity that has been called God is the creator of the universe and has a unlimited supply of energy. This entity also supplies everything that is required to hold the universe together.I believe the universe as we know it was created in one light period sometime in eternity past. Genesis 1:1 tells us that God created the heavens and earth. Genesis 2:4 tells us that was accomplished in one light period. The history of that day is recorded in Genesis 2:4-4:24.
There was no darkness on earth until we find it at Genesis 1:2 which ended day one when the second light period ended that darkness.
If you ask me how old the heavens and the earth are. I will say I don't know. You might say are you comfortable with 13.8 billion years old. I would say it is probably a lot older than that.I think you can get from that I am not a YEC. Did I miss something somewhere. When did the inflation hypothesis reach consensus? What timelines are you talking about.I am saying that until 300,000 years after T=0 you can't observe anything. Anything you believe took place or existed before that 300,000 is nothing but a guess. And anything you build a theory or hypothesis on is an assumption. You have to assume that what you believe is true. I thought reality is what did the limiting. We don't live in a fantasy world. There is nothing hard to understand what he said.He said the laws of Physics would determine how the universe would begin.The first law of thermodynamics affirms energy can not be created.
The beginning of the universe to exist would require lots of energy be created.If energy can't be created it has to be eternal in existence. He is the one (not me) that said the laws of Physics would determine how the universe began to exist. That requires the laws to be outside of the universe. I don't have a religious catechism.God Bless,

Hi AZ,Where would you purpose the energy could come from in your rant?God Bless,

Sure, it could be wrong. Sure, it might change some day. What makes you think it would change BACK to a view that has already been proven wrong? It has already been pointed out to you that our laws of physics only date back to the Big Bang.

Hi ringo, What view are you referring too? Didn't Hawking say the laws of Physics would determine how the universe began to exist?God Bless,

The one we're talking about. Don't you read your own posts?

quote:

---

If the scientific view that the universe was eternal and static was proven to be wrong by Hubble's discovery, what makes you think the current view is the correct view. Message 126

---

What has that got to do with it? The laws of physics go back to the Big Bang.

As I said in Message 124 there is no evidence of any kind for the beginning, how t=0 came about. All there are, all there may ever be, are speculations. Our physics is not sufficient enough to even hypothesize if there was anything prior to t=0 or what physics may have operated then.What I do know is that ancient peoples all over the world sought to explain the world in the face of their ignorance and invented deities and creation stories based on nothing but the visions and insistences of what we today would call religious zealots. I also know that what we see in the operations of this universe does not require any deities thus continuing to invoke a deity because of ancient stories or to cover our continued ignorance is intellectually repugnant.But since you askedYes, we know a lot, very accurately, about how this universe operates. We know how the forces and the quarks condensed out of the intense energies that existed after the inflationary epoch. We know how matter and stars and planets and people came to be. There are still holes in our knowledge but for the most part the history and operations of this universe are very well understood.But, I know our present physics is woefully inadequate to understand the origins and full operations of this universe.My hope, my speculation, is that as human intellect and technology progress we will uncover the physics that answers the origins questions. And when we find those answers I believe they will be totally surprising, totally unforeseen and will lead to even bigger greater questions we didn’t even know to ask.Unfortunately, I won’t be around to see this play out and I have grave concerns whether humanity will survive long enough to do this.

Dr. Hawking also said the universe would reverse back to a big crunch.That view has been rejected.Dr. Hawking is not always right.

Hi AZ, I thought he said: "if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition."
it would end in a big crunch.God Bless,