Bye Bye Ape Man!!!

[Skaloop]

Not in this reality.

In all realities.

 

[Loudmouth]

God is self-existent.

Then so is energy. Mystery solved.

 

[Brennin]

In all realities.

You can add that assertion to the pile of things you are wrong about.

 

[Brennin]

Then so is energy. Mystery solved.

Was energy conserved in the big bang?

Probably not!

General relativity is the premier theory that we have for accurately describing gravity and spacetime. From this theory we get big bang cosmology. General relativity also discriminates between the things we measure in 'local' reference frames such as those defined in special relativity, and what we should expect to see happen in larger more 'general' frames of reference.

Conservation of energy is a measure of the total energy of a system and how it 'doesn't' change over time, but the problem is that operationally it only makes sense to define it in a spacetime that is flat...or as the theorists say, asymptotically flat. This means that, today, we can calculate the energy of a system, but if we make the same calculation when the gravitational field is very strong, or changing its curvature rapidly, we cannot mathematically define total energy any longer because the spacetime is not at all flat, nor, can you find an 'asymptotic' approximation to it within which you can define the total energy.

This means that, at the big bang, conservation of energy MAY have been badly violated, and that the gravitational field and its fluctuations introduced more energy into the system than what we might extrapolate from today's geometry for spacetime working backwards to the big bang.

Until we have a fully quantum mechanical theory of gravity, we can only estimate and guess how badly energy conservation was violated back then. It was clearly enough to create our physical world almost literally out of nothing!

(source)

Don't quit your day job.

 

[Skaloop]

You can add that assertion to the pile of things you are wrong about.

Well, before we get to far into this, define "self-existent." Just to make sure I get your meaning. Because the definition I have in mind is indeed an impossibility. But maybe your definition is different, so let me hear it.

 

[Brennin]

Well, before we get to far into this, define "self-existent." Just to make sure I get your meaning. Because the definition I have in mind is indeed an impossibility. But maybe your definition is different, so let me hear it.

Self`-ex`ist´ent
a. 1. Existing of or by himself, independent of any other being or cause; - as, God is the only self-existent being.

Or, in other words, God is a necessary being.

 

[Loudmouth]

Was energy conserved in the big bang?

Energy was present from the very beginning.

General relativity is the premier theory that we have for accurately describing gravity and spacetime. From this theory we get big bang cosmology.

It describes inflation, but it does not describe the origin of energy.

This means that, at the big bang, conservation of energy MAY have been badly violated, and that the gravitational field and its fluctuations introduced more energy into the system than what we might extrapolate from today's geometry for spacetime working backwards to the big bang.

Until we have a fully quantum mechanical theory of gravity, we can only estimate and guess how badly energy conservation was violated back then. It was clearly enough to create our physical world almost literally out of nothing!
[/I]
(source)

Don't quit your day job.

From my reading, I disagree with where the astronomer is going. From everything I have read energy was there "before" the Big Bang, if such a thing as "before" can exist in an atemporal state. At < one plank second we simply can not describe what was going on at this point. At >= there was energy. The asymetry of fundamental forces and the inequal amounts of matter and anti-matter certainly need explaining, but I really don't see how GR can deal with these. Perhaps I am off my rocker here, but this is my understanding from the few books I have read on the matter (no pun inteded).

 

[Brennin]

Energy was present from the very beginning.



It describes inflation, but it does not describe the origin of energy.



From my reading, I disagree with where the astronomer is going. From everything I have read energy was there "before" the Big Bang, if such a thing as "before" can exist in an atemporal state. At < one plank second we simply can not describe what was going on at this point. At >= there was energy. The asymetry of fundamental forces and the inequal amounts of matter and anti-matter certainly need explaining, but I really don't see how GR can deal with these. Perhaps I am off my rocker here, but this is my understanding from the few books I have read on the matter (no pun inteded).

Hmmm...A microbiologist versus a Harvard-educated astronomer. This is a tough one...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Self`-ex`ist´ent
a. 1. Existing of or by himself, independent of any other being or cause; - as, God is the only self-existent being.

Or, in other words, God is a necessary being.

In other other words, rather than ponder the issue of where God came from, we just invent a term and define Him away.

 

[Skaloop]

Self`-ex`ist´ent
a. 1. Existing of or by himself, independent of any other being or cause; - as, God is the only self-existent being.

So did God make Himself, or did he always exist?

Or, in other words, God is a necessary being.

Your definition above makes no mention of such a being being necessary. But I can perhaps grant you that a starting influence (god) may be necessary (for the sake of argument), but that by no means makes the Judeo-Christian God necessary.

 

[Brennin]

In other other words, rather than ponder the issue of where God came from, we just invent a term and define Him away.

Necessary versus contingent beings/objects is an important distinction in Logic, your ignorance of the field notwithstanding.

 

[Brennin]

So did God make Himself, or did he always exist?



Your definition above makes no mention of such a being being necessary. But I can perhaps grant you that a starting influence (god) may be necessary (for the sake of argument), but that by no means makes the Judeo-Christian God necessary.

God has always existed. The idea that God made Himself is good for a laugh, but I do not argue for it nor do I know of anyone who argues for it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hmmm...A microbiologist versus a Harvard-educated astronomer. This is a tough one...

I agree. I would take the opinion of experts over mine, which is why I qualified my comments with "from my understanding from what litle I have read". However, here are a few opinions from the real experts:

Elvis,
If the universe began with a "Big Bang", then the energy had to have already
been here.

One theory is that it was all compressed into tightly packed matter. Energy
can be in the form of matter, based on Einstein's E=mc^2. That tightly
packed matter then exploded, much of the matter-energy converting into other
forms.

Another theory is oscillation. The universe has always been here, and
always will be. The universe expands to a certain limit, and then it
collapses back to its compressed form. The universe does this repeatedly.
It always has been oscillating and always will be oscillating.

Both of the above assume that the universe is all that exists. It is
possible that other sources of energy do exist, other universes, other
dimensions, a variety of possibilities. Because we would have no way to
measure such a thing, science tends to limit itself to the first two
options. We really have no way to know which is true.

Dr. Ken Mellendorf
Physics Instructor
Illinois Central College
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05045.htm
------------------------

Our universe is probably a huge black hole. If that is true, all the light and heat ejected by various celestial bodies into the space will be confined within it and shuttling ceaselessly, leading eventually to a uniform equilibrium radiation at certain temperature. The authors hold that the 3 K background radiation discovered in 1965 is actually such equilibrium radiation. The 3 K background radiation is convincible evidence that our universe is a closed one and it is actually a huge heat ocean. Billions of galaxies produced in the big bang will also be shuttling within the closed universe, passing the central part of the universe again and again. They have many chances to meet each other. There are numerous black holes of various sizes in these galaxies. A black hole absorbs matter and radiation, even swallows in other approaching celestial bodies. These black holes provide the mechanism of matter-re-gathering and energy-re-gathering in the universe. All the real matter will finally gather again to form a single huge black hole. The huge black hole absorbs energy from the heat ocean further, until its energy overpasses certain threshold value, leading to a new big bang. The heat ocean has energy, hence it has mass, too. Calculations show that, the mass of the heat ocean surpasses overwhelmingly the mass of all the real matter. The heat ocean is the dominant part of the universe, and the real matter is only a fraction, which explodes and re-gathers repeatedly within the universe.

Authors: Fu, Xinyong; Fu, Zitao
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/0311472
----------------------

Those are just two. I could find more, but there are knowledgeable physicists here on this forum who could probably say more.

 

[Loudmouth]

God has always existed.

Why? Because you say so?

Fine then. Faeries are self-existent. There you go.

Or maybe God was created by the Uber-God who presides over the Ubernatural. The Uber-God was created by the super-Uber-God who presides in the super-ubernatural. I can propose nonsense as well.

 

[mpok1519]

yes, energy has always been constant. Never did energy ever appear, or disappear.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why? Because you say so?

Fine then. Faeries are self-existent. There you go.

Or maybe God was created by the Uber-God who presides over the Ubernatural. The Uber-God was created by the super-Uber-God who presides in the super-ubernatural. I can propose nonsense as well.

And then comes the hyper-ultra-double-fudge-with-sprinkles-on-top-super-uber-God...

 

[Loudmouth]

I found an online debate that mirrors a lot of what is being said in this thread.

http://fayfreethinkers.com/quacks/briney/davethermoroast.shtml

 

[Skaloop]

The idea that God made Himself is good for a laugh, but I do not argue for it nor do I know of anyone who argues for it.

Well, then, glad we agree on that.

God has always existed.

So complex entities can exist without being created?

 

[JamesDaJust]

There is a fundamental disconnect here.

You are claiming we are foolish for using science as the best means for discovering truth and reality because science has been wrong (and is wrong, and will be wrong). However often science is wrong though isn't the point, its that science is self correcting and improving. We may be wrong today, but we are less wrong tomorrow.

And then new testing and then wrong again with the latest study.
Oh, and don't forget critical peer review.

In contrast, the bible is stagnant and unchanging.

That's right. Steady as she goes.

It is also wrong

So opinionated not worth the comment.

(a bat is not a bird, we don't stone people for adultery, its ok to work on sunday)

Biblical illiteracy and bad interpretation is not a good debate.

You're stuck with a manual on life that is being increasingly shown as outdated and incorrect (especially inregards to scientfic claims, like the age of the earth

All based on ones own interpretation.

and the origin of species), and all you can do is desperately try to poke holes in the theories that threaten your belief.

No desperation true science does a pretty good job.

 

[JamesDaJust]

So did God make Himself, or did he always exist

Genesis 1:27 So God created eth ha adam in His own image, in the image of God created He him;
Sure could make the case.