If the universe is <10,000 old....

[philadiddle]

I'm going to assume that you are setting your other argument aside for whatever reason, so let's move on. Also note, while I may have had an attitude in some earlier posts (and I apologize if I did) I have made my last few posts stick to the science and I have avoided personal attacks.

Is the energy in your cars gas tank 'net zero'...while it is not in use? There is one sure fire way to find out; Switch on the ignition key. So just think of the universe as one giant gas tank. Perhaps that will put things into perspective.

So tell us, what is the net energy of the universe and how did you calculate it?

The 'net zero' arugment is merely a philosophical toy for scripture rejecting skeptics to play with. It has no real value as far as our physical world is concerned.

Actually it's a calculation, not philosophy. Here's a couple of examples for you to refute:

General Relativity and Gravitation, Volume 36, Number 6 - SpringerLink

International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Volume 39, Number 4 - SpringerLink

I'll let sfs respond to the rest of your post.

 

[sfs]

"Let there be light and there was light". Genesis 1:3. There you have your answer; God created it by the power of His word. His word tells us that He is the only Creator and that nothing else can create. The 1st law is merely a confirmation of this eternal truth.

"I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" Isaiah 44:24

Now what more do you need?

To sit in church, I don't need anything else. To do science, however, I di need more: I need to know how God created. Was the immediate origin of our visible universe a miracle? Maybe so. But I don't see any reason for assuming it was, and you haven't given me one here. God could also have created the visible universe by means of a quantum fluctuation in a quantum vacuum.

Your verses don't help me answer scientific questions at all. The Bible also says that God brings the rain and causes the plants to grow. Do you tell meteorologists to stop studying how clouds form and biologists to stop studying how seeds germinate?

Is the energy in your cars gas tank 'net zero'...while it is not in use?

No, certainly not. Why ever would you think it was?

There is one sure fire way to find out; Switch on the ignition key. So just think of the universe as one giant gas tank. Perhaps that will put things into perspective.

No, all it does is tell me that you don't understand the physics involved. The net energy of the universe may be zero because it the positive energy of matter and photons and the like is largely offset by the negative energy of gravitational attraction. There's very little gravitational attraction within a gas tank, and so of course the tank's net energy is positive.

The 'net zero' arugment is merely a philosophical toy for scripture rejecting skeptics to play with. It has no real value as far as our physical world is concerned.

No, the zero energy argument is an attempt by scientists (some of whom reject scripture, some of whom don't) to understand nature. You're not in a position to tell them whether it has value in that endeavor or not.

You could easily prove me/us wrong by reproducing the effect. But that you cannot do...even with the 'virtual particle' that your side brought up. But that particle lasts less than a nano-second. Do you know how long a nano-second is?

Yes, I know how long a nanosecond is. (It's the length of time it takes light to travel one foot, actually, give or take.) There are lots of things scientists can't reproduce but can study anyway; the entire universe is certainly one of them.

Of course, you could also prove the cosmologists wrong by having God produce a brand new universe in a fully mature state, but you can't do that, can you? Since no human can produce a universe, how about we just stick to studying the evidence we find in the existing universe, and see if we can learn something from it.

So, unless you can demonstate that matter can be created and stay physical for longer than that you have no case.

Sorry, but you don't get to unilaterally declare what constitutes evidence in physics. A zero-energy fluctuation is only a hypothesis, and is far from firmly established. As far as I know, however, nothing in known physics rules it out. Not persuaded by it? No problem. Want to claim it's impossible because it violates the laws of physics? Then you do have a problem: you have to show that it does. So far you haven't.

I maintain that the virtual particle is our connection with the spirit realm for we know neither where they come from nor where they go, a la...

Well, okay, but I can write down equations that describe exactly how virtual particles behave. What can you do with your idea? And how does this spiritual connection square with the predictable way virtual particles do behave?

There was no 'big bang'. That is a pseudo-scientific claim that is predicated on the idea that the universe made itself...despite the 1st law...which they claim was not in existence at that time but came into existence later. Do they give us proof? No. Do they give us a date when the 1st law became law? No. They don't know. They guess. They guess wrongly. It is the Lord who told us the truth.

What we're talking about here does not violate the 1st Law, so you'd better find some other objection.

You should believe Him and not them.

Oh, I do believe him. I just don't believe you.

 

[Metal Minister]

No, all it does is tell me that you don't understand the physics involved. The net energy of the universe may be zero because it the positive energy of matter and photons and the like is largely offset by the negative energy of gravitational attraction. There's very little gravitational attraction within a gas tank, and so of course the tank's net energy is positive.

The problem I see here though is that we cannot calculate how much gravity there is in the universe. There could be enough to, as you say, keep the net energy at zero, yet this would be an assumption. I believe the point is that there are a lot of assumptions in modern science that are simply accepted as fact. Like gravity for instance. We have no idea what gravity is, or if its effects can be manipulated by outside forces. We don't know what space is, but we believe it can be "warped" or changed by gravity. Albert Einstein believed that space was sort of like a water bed. That objects with large mass/ gravity would create a wake or dip in space, causing objects (like our moon) to slip into these pockets or curvature. [ http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/einstein/curved.html ]
But if this were completely true, our moon would be getting closer, not further away. We would be going towards the sun, not away.
The point is, that scientists are proved wrong all the time, and theories must be altered or scrapped until proven 100% true, and while o believe science is the way to view God's handy work, I do not let it be the final word on His creation. I leave the final word to Him.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Metal Minister]

Let me add an addendum: I'm not saying gravity doesn't exist, I'm simply saying we don't know what it is, and therefore make the assumption we know all of its properties. I realized it somewhat sounded like I was denying gravity in my las post. Lol!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[philadiddle]

The problem I see here though is that we cannot calculate how much gravity there is in the universe.

Here are some calculations for you.

General Relativity and Gravitation, Volume 36, Number 6 - SpringerLink

International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Volume 39, Number 4 - SpringerLink

There could be enough to, as you say, keep the net energy at zero, yet this would be an assumption. I believe the point is that there are a lot of assumptions in modern science that are simply accepted as fact.

Throwing out the word "assumption" as a way to avoid dealing with the actual data is a pretty cheap trick.

Please show what the assumptions are in the above two papers and explain why those assumptions are wrong.

 

[Martyrs44]

To sit in church, I don't need anything else. To do science, however, I di need more: I need to know how God created. Was the immediate origin of our visible universe a miracle? Maybe so. But I don't see any reason for assuming it was, and you haven't given me one here. God could also have created the visible universe by means of a quantum fluctuation in a quantum vacuum.

Although His Word is enough for those who trust that Word, He has given you more.

The quantum theory of light researchers discovered a few decades ago that light has the quality of 'knowing' that it is being observed and that it 'knows' in one location what is happening in another location. In other words it seems to have intelligence.

Your verses don't help me answer scientific questions at all. The Bible also says that God brings the rain and causes the plants to grow. Do you tell meteorologists to stop studying how clouds form and biologists to stop studying how seeds germinate?

Science (Latin = scienta; knowledge) comes from the Lord. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, not neo-Darwinian theory. All true science therefore is in terms of His word and all scientific fact will therefore, at bottom line, match what His word says about life and nature.

No, certainly not. Why ever would you think it was?

The question was rhetorical. You didn't get it.

No, all it does is tell me that you don't understand the physics involved. The net energy of the universe may be zero because it the positive energy of matter and photons and the like is largely offset by the negative energy of gravitational attraction. There's very little gravitational attraction within a gas tank, and so of course the tank's net energy is positive.

That response tells me/us that you are the one who doesn't understand.
Proof: your following statement...

No, the zero energy argument is an attempt by scientists (some of whom reject scripture, some of whom don't) to understand nature.

Real energy in our world is understood in terms of that which burns...or that which can and will burn in reality, not in language that is couched in philosophical terminology. Our world is understood in terms of potential(energy at rest) and kinetic (energy at work).

You're not in a position to tell them whether it has value in that endeavor or not.

And yet you feel that you are in a position to tell the rest of the world that energy/matter is created apart from the Creator God who made it...all. He told us He created it all but you don't believe Him. Incredible.

Yes, I know how long a nanosecond is. (It's the length of time it takes light to travel one foot, actually, give or take.) There are lots of things scientists can't reproduce but can study anyway; the entire universe is certainly one of them.

Good for them. I encourage such studies. But what they will find is what God created and a little bit as to how it functions.They will not ever create anything nor will they see matter created though; they will only see what He created.

Of course, you could also prove the cosmologists wrong by having God produce a brand new universe in a fully mature state, but you can't do that, can you?

No. But God Almighty can, and did.

Since no human can produce a universe, how about we just stick to studying the evidence we find in the existing universe, and see if we can learn something from it.

You are going to be seriously limited in your understanding by sticking with Darwinian theory. Remember that Isaac Newton, Sir Humphrey Davies, Rudolph Virchow, Louis Aggasiz, Louis Pasteur, Mendel, (among many others) were creationists.

How about you start believing that God who created you and everything else in the world? The truth is that the Creator did not fail to communicate to us the truth about the origins of the world and all life in it; it is just that you and those of your persuasion don't believe Him. You would rather believe Darwin and/or his followers.

Sorry, but you don't get to unilaterally declare what constitutes evidence in physics. A zero-energy fluctuation is only a hypothesis, and is far from firmly established.

That's right. Now you're starting to catch on.

I will copy that statement and post it in gold just in case any of your other companions in doubt decide to use the argument again.

In response to: 'but you don't get to unilaterally declare what constitutes evidence in physics'...

Unilaterrally? Poor me. If only I had known you 45 yrs ago before I started researching the subject. Would that include the experts in the field such as Carnot? Boltzman? Clausius? How about Dr. Harold Blum? Isacc Asimov?(Check out his article ""In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal June 1970, p. 6)

THEY are the ones who established the defintions and parameters. I just happen to be in almost complete agreement with those men on this issue. So your statement is so foolish that I will dismiss it and move on.

As far as I know, however, nothing in known physics rules it out.(????) Not persuaded by it? No problem. Want to claim it's impossible because it violates the laws of physics? Then you do have a problem: you have to show that it does. So far you haven't.

Nope. You are not a clear thinker. You and your comrades are the ones who say that natural law(the ones we discussed here) can be violated. The onus is on you. But I am not going to continue to endlessly haggle with you on this.

Well, okay, but I can write down equations that describe exactly how virtual particles behave. What can you do with your idea? And how does this spiritual connection square with the predictable way virtual particles do behave?

You were told in scripture...but alas, you don't believe scripture when it goes against your prejudices. Nonetheless:

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

consist = &#7952;&#963;&#964;&#943; 'to set together'

Do you know what the word 'all' means? Those virtual particles are included in this. But there is more:

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power..." Hebrews 1:3

What we're talking about here does not violate the 1st Law, so you'd better find some other objection.

Twisted thinking. You are torturing logic to escape the obvious. You claim that matter can be created despite the first law but you seek to turn everything around as if I/we are the ones who must prove what nature already tells us is impossible.

Oh, I do believe him. I just don't believe you.

No, you don't believe Him. You believe the neo-Darwinians.

But I am really getting mentally weary with this because I have been discussing it so much in different locations. I get tired of reading the same old worn out arguments. So unless you can visibly demonstate that matter can be created out of nothing, then let's shut this down.

 

[sfs]

The problem I see here though is that we cannot calculate how much gravity there is in the universe. There could be enough to, as you say, keep the net energy at zero, yet this would be an assumption.

Not an assumption -- rather a hypothesis, to be investigated further. As I said, this is far from being a settled matter. What I'm responding to, though, is the claim that it's outright impossible.

I believe the point is that there are a lot of assumptions in modern science that are simply accepted as fact. Like gravity for instance. We have no idea what gravity is, or if its effects can be manipulated by outside forces. We don't know what space is, but we believe it can be "warped" or changed by gravity. Albert Einstein believed that space was sort of like a water bed. That objects with large mass/ gravity would create a wake or dip in space, causing objects (like our moon) to slip into these pockets or curvature. [ Albert Einstein: Curved Space ]
But if this were completely true, our moon would be getting closer, not further away. We would be going towards the sun, not away.
The point is, that scientists are proved wrong all the time, and theories must be altered or scrapped until proven 100% true, and while o believe science is the way to view God's handy work, I do not let it be the final word on His creation. I leave the final word to Him.

You raise several points. First, I quite agree that we don't really know what gravity is. For that matter, we don't really know what anything is. All we know is how stuff behaves. From looking at lots and lots of stuff, it turns out that it behaves in quite orderly ways, such that we can make all kinds of models about the behavior and predict much of it very well. That's what science does. And we do have a very good model for gravity, and that's what we use to inform ideas like the zero-energy universe.

Second, you argue that Einstein's version of gravity (aka General Relativity) isn't really right because it doesn't predict the behavior of objects like the Moon. Here you're simply incorrect. The actual equations of Einstein's theory (which is expressed mathematically -- the "mass warps space like a waterbed" is a touchy-feely analogy) predict the behavior of the Moon correctly, and with great precision.

Third, scientists scrap theories all the time. Well, they certainly scrap ideas all the time and modify theories, but well-tested and supported theories are very rarely scrapped wholesale. They simply explain too much to be wholly wrong.

None of this is really relevant to the issue at hand, however, which is the claim that the Big Bang model violates the laws of physics.

 

[Metal Minister]

Here are some calculations for you.

General Relativity and Gravitation, Volume 36, Number 6 - SpringerLink

International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Volume 39, Number 4 - SpringerLink

Throwing out the word "assumption" as a way to avoid dealing with the actual data is a pretty cheap trick.

Please show what the assumptions are in the above two papers and explain why those assumptions are wrong.

I need less than a second to show its an assumption. We have no idea how large the universe is, how many planets, stars, etc. there are. An assumption is not a fact.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Metal Minister]

Not an assumption -- rather a hypothesis, to be investigated further. As I said, this is far from being a settled matter. What I'm responding to, though, is the claim that it's outright impossible.

You raise several points. First, I quite agree that we don't really know what gravity is. For that matter, we don't really know what anything is. All we know is how stuff behaves. From looking at lots and lots of stuff, it turns out that it behaves in quite orderly ways, such that we can make all kinds of models about the behavior and predict much of it very well. That's what science does. And we do have a very good model for gravity, and that's what we use to inform ideas like the zero-energy universe.

Second, you argue that Einstein's version of gravity (aka General Relativity) isn't really right because it doesn't predict the behavior of objects like the Moon. Here you're simply incorrect. The actual equations of Einstein's theory (which is expressed mathematically -- the "mass warps space like a waterbed" is a touchy-feely analogy) predict the behavior of the Moon correctly, and with great precision.

Third, scientists scrap theories all the time. Well, they certainly scrap ideas all the time and modify theories, but well-tested and supported theories are very rarely scrapped wholesale. They simply explain too much to be wholly wrong.

None of this is really relevant to the issue at hand, however, which is the claim that the Big Bang model violates the laws of physics.

Hypothesis: synonym: assumption (online thesaurus) my point has been while we can use science to observe God's creation, we should be wary, and question thoroughly information that comes from those who may have an agenda to disprove the works or words of God.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Martyrs44]

Hypothesis: synonym: assumption (online thesaurus) my point has been while we can use science to observe God's creation, we should be wary, and question thoroughly information that comes from those who may have an agenda to disprove the works or words of God.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

The goose that laid the golden egg.

He shot down their entire argument against what we've been saying in light of scripture. But do you think any of them will see it or admit it?

Don't hold your breath.

Maybe I'll see you elsewhere later, brother.

 

[sfs]

Although His Word is enough for those who trust that Word, He has given you more.

The quantum theory of light researchers discovered a few decades ago that light has the quality of 'knowing' that it is being observed and that it 'knows' in one location what is happening in another location. In other words it seems to have intelligence.

Sorry, that's not even remotely right. I know the quantum theory of light pretty well (I used to know it much better when I was a high energy physicist), and nothing about it suggests intelligence. The "knowing" involved has nothing to do with intelligence, any more than a rock thrown through a window "knows" that it should break the glass.

The question was rhetorical. You didn't get it.

The question makes no sense rhetorically or any other way.

Real energy in our world is understood in terms of that which burns...or that which can and will burn in reality, not in language that is couched in philosophical terminology. Our world is understood in terms of potential(energy at rest) and kinetic (energy at work).

As I said, you don't understand the physics. The potential energy of two separated bodies (being they planets or atoms) is negative. The kinetic energy of the same bodies is positive, as is their mass energy. When you add it all together (in a proper general relativistic framework), the total energy can sum to zero.

And yet you feel that you are in a position to tell the rest of the world that energy/matter is created apart from the Creator God who made it...all. He told us He created it all but you don't believe Him. Incredible.

No, I feel that I am in a position to tell the rest of the world that you don't understand physics and shouldn't be criticizing the Big Bang model based on misunderstanding it. Beyond that, your response is a complete misrepresentation of what I've said. Nowhere have I suggested that physics allows energy to be created, nor have I suggested that anything at all can occur apart from God, and I have said that I believe God created everything. Making up stuff and attributing it to other people is a great way to annoy them.

Good for them. I encourage such studies. But what they will find is what God created and a little bit as to how it functions.They will not ever create anything nor will they see matter created though; they will only see what He created.

I'm sorry to upset you, but I've seen matter created. Any particle physicist has.

You are going to be seriously limited in your understanding by sticking with Darwinian theory.

Darwinian theory has precisely nothing to do with the subjects we're discussing.

How about you start believing that God who created you and everything else in the world? The truth is that the Creator did not fail to communicate to us the truth about the origins of the world and all life in it; it is just that you and those of your persuasion don't believe Him. You would rather believe Darwin and/or his followers.

I already do believe that God created me and everything else in the world. How about you stop making up stuff about what I believe?

Nope. You are not a clear thinker. You and your comrades are the ones who say that natural law(the ones we discussed here) can be violated. The onus is on you. But I am not going to continue to endlessly haggle with you on this.

You have yet to give any reason to think that the Big Bang violates conservation of energy. I realize you think you understand physics better than physicists to, but you're wrong.

Twisted thinking. You are torturing logic to escape the obvious. You claim that matter can be created despite the first law but you seek to turn everything around as if I/we are the ones who must prove what nature already tells us is impossible.

You made a claim. Support it.

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

consist = &#7952;&#963;&#964;&#943; 'to set together'

It's not important, but &#7952;&#953;&#956;&#943; is just the verb "to be".

But I am really getting mentally weary with this because I have been discussing it so much in different locations. I get tired of reading the same old worn out arguments. So unless you can visibly demonstate that matter can be created out of nothing, then let's shut this down.

It's entirely up to you. When you make false statements about science, you'll be corrected. If you stop, the corrections will stop.

 

[sfs]

Hypothesis: synonym: assumption (online thesaurus)

Hypothesis: 3. A supposition or conjecture put forth to account for known facts; esp. in the sciences, a provisional supposition from with to draw conclusions that shall be in accordance with known facts, and which serves as a starting-point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved and the true theory arrived at. (OED)

my point has been while we can use science to observe God's creation, we should be wary, and question thoroughly information that comes from those who may have an agenda to disprove the works or words of God.

We should question thoroughly information that comes from any source. We should question attacks on faith from those who may despise it. We should question attacks on science from those who may misunderstand and fear it. We should question our own level of knowledge and our own motivations. Lots of questions, all good. But when we're done with asking the questions, we might want to spend a little time thinking about the answers, too.

 

[Metal Minister]

Hypothesis: 3. A supposition or conjecture put forth to account for known facts; esp. in the sciences, a provisional supposition from with to draw conclusions that shall be in accordance with known facts, and which serves as a starting-point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved and the true theory arrived at. (OED)
We should question thoroughly information that comes from any source. We should question attacks on faith from those who may despise it. We should question attacks on science from those who may misunderstand and fear it. We should question our own level of knowledge and our own motivations. Lots of questions, all good. But when we're done with asking the questions, we might want to spend a little time thinking about the answers, too.

The key being, we as humans don't even know what the questions are...let alone know the answers!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[philadiddle]

I need less than a second to show its an assumption. We have no idea how large the universe is, how many planets, stars, etc. there are. An assumption is not a fact.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Can you outline where that assumption is in their calculations and how it throws the whole thing off? Or are you just making the assumption that they have misused an assumption?

 

[philadiddle]

You made a claim. Support it.

I get the feeling that won't happen. He said that since the sun is burning off energy then that means it couldn't be made through natural processes. After several attempts to try to get an explanation of why that is the case, he started focusing on attitude until my posts were direct and to the point at which point he just ignored the issue. I think he may have even put me on ignore.

It would be nice to have a creationist on here who could actually see an argument through, instead of pretending they never even made the argument when their misunderstandings of the basics of science are uncovered.

 

[Metal Minister]

Can you outline where that assumption is in their calculations and how it throws the whole thing off? Or are you just making the assumption that they have misused an assumption?

Wow...so you're trying to tell me scientists know exactly how big the universe is, and how many stars planets etc there is within it?

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[philadiddle]

Wow...so you're trying to tell me scientists know exactly how big the universe is, and how many stars planets etc there is within it?

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Their calculations are contained in those papers for you to scrutinize. Feel free to point out where they're wrong.

I strongly recommend you read the following essay on the Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov. I'm actually beggin you to. If necessary in exchange I will read any similarly lengthed paper you give me. I just know from what you are saying how much you reading this will help you understand our knowledge from science a little bit better.

Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong

 

[Metal Minister]

Their calculations are contained in those papers for you to scrutinize. Feel free to point out where they're wrong.

I strongly recommend you read the following essay on the Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov. I'm actually beggin you to. If necessary in exchange I will read any similarly lengthed paper you give me. I just know from what you are saying how much you reading this will help you understand our knowledge from science a little bit better.

Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong

Or we could listen to NASA:
So how big is the universe? No one knows if the universe is infinitely large, or even if ours is the only universe that exists. And other parts of the universe, very far away, might be quite different from the universe closer to home. Future NASA missions will continue to search for clues to the ultimate size and scale of our cosmic home.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[philadiddle]

Or we could listen to NASA:
So how big is the universe? No one knows if the universe is infinitely large, or even if ours is the only universe that exists. And other parts of the universe, very far away, might be quite different from the universe closer to home. Future NASA missions will continue to search for clues to the ultimate size and scale of our cosmic home.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Why do they need to know all the details of the universe to make the calculation? Again, the calculation is out in the open for people to criticize. Go ahead and take a stab at it.

It seems to me that we have tens of thousands of physicists over hundreds of years refining our knowledge of the universe. They make observations, do calculations, produce models that make predictions, test those predictions, refine their models, make more calculations, make more observations that introduce new data, and they publish all their work to be analyzed by others so that if there are errors they can be corrected.

And after all that a guy on a forum says "Nuh-uh, I have a NASA link that says they don't know everything so their calculations are wrong, even though I don't understand their calculations or the models they are using, I am still confident in my position."

And for some reason, we are the ones not listening who need to learn from you.....

 

[Metal Minister]

I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse. Isaac Asimov

I don't believe in personal immortality; the only way I expect to have some version of such a thing is through my books. Isaac Asimov

May God Richly Bless You! MM