Science Proves Creation

[Ophiolite]

By one definition. Here's another:

universe noun [ U ]
us /ˈju·nəˌvɜrs/


everything that exists, esp. all physical matter, including all the stars and planets in space

universe Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Seriously? Scientists do not use dictionary definitions for technical terms. It's a ridiculous idea. Dictionaries are effective at defining colloquial usage, etymology and pronunciation. They are not of value in defining meaning for technical terms.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I didn't imply such. Again, your inference. I don't know how I can make it any more clear.

Ok.

So in other words, as far as you are concerned, saying that the universe was created at some point, leaves the door wide open as to what kind of event that creation was?

As in: it need not be some personal/intelligent entity and might just as well have been some natural "universe creation" process.

In that case, I agree.
The universe as we know it today likely "originated" at some point and how that happened, is unknown at this point.


Sorry for insisting on that point, but in my experience, on this site it is best to not leave such stones unturned.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have yet to see any creation, by neither anyone, nor anything, which compares to the creation of matter.

Exactly.
Which is why the use of such a word, especially considering its usual implications in day-to-day life, might not be justified to describe what happened during the origins of the universe.

Which is why it needed clarification on what exactly you meant by it.

I usually never use that word to describe the beginning of the universe, precisely because of the ambiguity of the term. Instead, i'll use words like "when the universe formed" or "when the universe originiated" - because such words truelly leave the door wide open as to what kind of process made that happen.

But you clarified it already. If I understand correctly at least (because I must say that while you clarified a bit, you still seem to not unambiguously state it clearly), you indeed mean the same as I mean, when I say that the universe "originated".

ie: with 0 implication as to what kind of process that was and what triggered it.

Now please, run along, and go read a dictionary, while we adults attempt to have an intelligent conversation.

There really is no need for this kind of behaviour.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If there is no space outside to expand into; how could it expand? Think about it for just one moment. It's pretty basic stuff.

Here's the problem........

Our brains are "stuck" in 3-dimensional temporal context, with limited experience of gravitational fields and that only deals with sub-lightspeeds.

To think that our intuition / common sense applies outside of such context is simply delusional. And we know that already.

Our brains have no affinity with the quantum world, with the strange things that happen when approaching light speeds, when approaching extreme gravitational fields (like black holes) etc.

We can express these things mathematically and we can see that the math is sound. When we build machines that use quantum mechanics and base them on those models - they work.
But it doesn't make "intuitive" sense to us at all.

Don't remember who it was, but a theoretical physicist once said:
"Quantum mechanics is absolutely absurd. It makes no sense whatsoever. But what I really hate about it... is that it actually works".

Einstein, arguable one of the best physicists that ever lived, considered the quantum world and black holes so absurd that he even assumed that his theories were wrong or that he missed something.

space
/spās/
noun

• 1. a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied: "a table took up much of the space" synonyms: room, capacity, area, volume, expanse, ... more
• 2. the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move:

These definitions are describing conditions WITHIN the space-time continuum.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For any unit of measure; one can measure in any direction. If you can measure from a point inward from the surface of a sphere; you can measure from a point outward from the surface of a sphere. The fact that nothing tangible exists outside that sphere will not negate the relationship between what is measurable of the sphere. Therefore, those measurable relationships can be applied to what surrounds those measurable relationships, even if it is empty space.

That entire paragraph is written within the context of being IN the space-time continuum.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Again:

The mass of an atom is determined by the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The lightest element in existence is hydrogen, which has only one proton. The combined number of protons and neutrons possessed by an element is knows as its atomic mass. The average atomic mass of the elements on Earth can be found displayed in the periodic table. Unlike a proton, a neutron has no charge, but its mass is about the same as that of a proton. The mass of the proton or neutron is 1836 times bigger than that of the electron.

The size of the atoms is about 1~2 Å. Compared to the overall size of the atom, the nucleus is about the size of a raindrop in a playground. A nucleus’ volume is only 10^14 that of the atom. Empty space takes up most of the space occupied by an atom.

And once again: atoms exist within the space-time continuum. The "empty space" that exists within the atom, is 'space' of the space-time continuum.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I claimed in the original post of this thread, that the Universe is finite. I claimed that space is infinite.

Space is an aspect of the universe (aka, the space-time continuum).
If space is infinite, then so is the universe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do not the laws of physics apply to the physical universe?

The laws of physics apply within the physical universe. It's the physics of the universe.
How the physics work, is determined by the cosmological constants of the universe and the forces that exists within the universe.

 

[Shemjaza]

Time is a relationship between moving objects. Time = distance/speed.

The relationship exists within a windup clock, between the gears. The clock as a whole doesn't have to be moving, nor expanding, for the time relationship between the gears to exist.

On the normal human scale of experience sure, but that isn't all there is to the universe.

Relativity has been measured and the relationship between gravity, relative speed, and time and space has been observed.

Do not the laws of physics apply to the physical universe?

Why do you suppose that gravitational compression wouldn't apply to an early universe?

Because the laws of physics are not some scaled up version of Newtonian mechanics. Space and time already go strange around the comparatively small mass of a star or black hole. We don't know how they behave on a larger scale and assuming nothing happens is inconstant with the weirdness of remnants like the cosmic microwave background.

If space can be created (I doubt it. It's like saying infinity + 1, when + 1 was already next in line of the sequence) ; then that only further supports that space is infinite.

Why?

Who says it can't curve back in on itself? WE don't know, but have a read about Hubble's law, the expansion of space is well evidenced.

By one definition. Here's another:

universe noun [ U ]
us /ˈju·nəˌvɜrs/
everything that exists, esp. all physical matter, including all the stars and planets in space

universe Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Semantics aren't evidence.

When cosmologists talk about the formation of the universe, they aren't talking about a conventional explosion in a flat smooth space. They are talking about the rapid expansion of space time and energy.



You can't use simplistic or ignorant definitions, or assumptions and just claim all modern cosmology doesn't exist.


In addition you never did explain how a creator solves any of the issues with the universe?

 

[Speedwell]

Any sphere.

I thought you were talking about the universe. The universe is not a sphere.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Let's start with a couple of axioms.

1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.

'Axiom one' isn't really an axiom because it isn't self-evidently true - and you've provided an argument to establish it. But, be that as it may, it's mistaken.

There is no problem with having an infinite universe with an infinite amount of matter & energy distributed within, if the matter is cold; and no problem with an infinite universe with an infinite number of stars - if it is expanding (as ours appears to be).

2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.

Space may well be infinite, and is often taken to be so for cosmological purposes, but it may not be. If the curvature of spacetime isn't completely flat on a large scale (it seems to be pretty close), the universe may be spatially finite.

This doesn't mean there must be a boundary; topologically, it can be finite but unbounded in 3 dimensions by curving in a 4th spatial dimension (just as loop of string is finite but unbounded in 1 dimension by looping in 2 dimensions, and the surface of a sphere is finite but unbounded in 2 dimensions by curving in 3 dimensions).

In other words, no energy; no work. No work, no motion. No motion; no molecules.

You're correct that the universe appears to be heading towards heat-death, but the temperature will never become zero; quantum fluctuations will continue to generate a minimum level of activity.

The tangible universe as we perceive it could not, nor cannot, have existed, nor continue to exist, eternally.
Some would argue that the Singularity preexisted the current universe eternally, before the Big Bang.

The universe as we know it started at the big bang; we don't know what, if anything preceded that. Talk of singularities is just an indication that our physical models break down, few cosmologists think they really exist, and I've not heard any suggest an eternal singularity - do you have a citation?

There are plenty of ideas about eternal cosmologies that can give rise to universes like ours through big bang type events. The problem is finding ways to test such ideas.

 

[Jon Osterman]

If it was very hot; would it not have emitted EMR? Would it not have dissipated unrecoverable heat?

Yes, to both. For a while though it would be an ionised plasma so opaque to EMR. Then, when atoms form it becomes transparent. We actually see this EMR as the cosmic microwave background.

Our current Physics models don't allow for the dissipation of very high concentrations of heat? If a law does not apply 100% of the time; is it law; or is it nothing more than a really, really, really, really, good guess, at best?

Laws usually only apply in fixed domains. General Relativity doesn’t work in the quantum realm for example. And the Standard Model of particle physics doesn’t include gravity. We don’t have any data about what would happen at such high temperature so we really don’t know!

What mechanism would capture unrecoverable heat in a collapsing universe?

No idea but our ignorance does not mean there can’t be something that does.

If the known universe came from a larger universe, wouldn't visible light also have come from the same source?

No, for the reasons I explained in the first paragraph. However, gravitational waves might, which is one of the reasons they are quite exciting.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Space is a part of the universe, not external to it.

By one definition. Here's another:

universe noun [ U ]
us /ˈju·nəˌvɜrs/


everything that exists, esp. all physical matter, including all the stars and planets in space

universe Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Wait, so Firstly, you're using a Dictionary (laypeople's everyday usage of words) rather than the very specific scientific definition while speaking about the science - which would indicate you're not up to speed on this for a start, then Secondly, this definition you quote still defines everything inclusive "in space" as PART OF the universe, not external to it.

so, what were you pointing out to @Shemjaza again?

 

[HARK!]

I thought you were talking about the universe. The universe is not a sphere.

Shape of the observable universe
Main article: Observable universe
See also: Distance measures (cosmology)
As stated in the introduction, there are two aspects to consider:

1. its local geometry, which predominantly concerns the curvature of the universe, particularly the observable universe, and
2. its global geometry, which concerns the topology of the universe as a whole.

The observable universe can be thought of as a sphere that extends outwards from any observation point for 46.5 billion light years,

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

 

[HARK!]

Ok.

So in other words, as far as you are concerned, saying that the universe was created at some point, leaves the door wide open as to what kind of event that creation was?

As in: it need not be some personal/intelligent entity and might just as well have been some natural "universe creation" process.

In that case, I agree.
The universe as we know it today likely "originated" at some point and how that happened, is unknown at this point.


Sorry for insisting on that point, but in my experience, on this site it is best to not leave such stones unturned.

So in other words, as far as you are concerned, saying that the universe was created at some point, leaves the door wide open as to what kind of event that creation was?

As in: it need not be some natural "universe creation" process and might just as well have been some personal/intelligent entity.

In that case, I agree.

I'm happy to see that you are leaving no stones unturned!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Shape of the observable universe
Main article: Observable universe
See also: Distance measures (cosmology)
As stated in the introduction, there are two aspects to consider:

1. its local geometry, which predominantly concerns the curvature of the universe, particularly the observable universe, and
2. its global geometry, which concerns the topology of the universe as a whole.

The observable universe can be thought of as a sphere that extends outwards from any observation point for 46.5 billion light years,

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

The observable universe is only that part of the universe we can see. What we can see is limited by the time light takes to travel to us. The universe proper, i.e. the whole universe, of which the observable universe is only the part we can observe directly, is much larger, possibly infinitely large. Estimates suggest it's at least 250 times larger than the observable universe. Here's a recent article on the size and shape of the universe.

 

[HARK!]

The observable universe is only that part of the universe we can see. What we can see is limited by the time light takes to travel to us. The universe proper, i.e. the whole universe, of which the observable universe is only the part we can observe directly, is much larger, possibly infinitely large. Estimates suggest it's at least 250 times larger than the observable universe. Here's a recent article on the size and shape of the universe.

This article claims it to be a sphere too. It goes on to say that this sphere is larger than what we have observed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So in other words, as far as you are concerned, saying that the universe was created at some point, leaves the door wide open as to what kind of event that creation was?

As in: it need not be some natural "universe creation" process and might just as well have been some personal/intelligent entity.

We don't know; but it seems reasonable to look for some explanation consistent with the body of knowledge and the observations that led us to discover the big bang in the first place, using the scientific method.

The suggestion that some personal and/or intelligent entity was involved is not such an explanation; it's not really an explanation in any useful sense, it's not consistent with scientific knowledge, and has no evidence to support it. Any other imaginative concoction, from the thousands of mythologies of human religions to comic book gods, heroes, and science-fiction, would be equally applicable.

However, we now have a range of scientifically plausible ideas about the origin of our universe, so fanciful and imaginative proposals without any scientific basis can go back in the toy box.

But anyone that needs to believe in a personal/intelligent creator can do so; it's just not particularly scientifically plausible concept.

 

[Herman Hedning]

This article claims it to be a sphere too. It goes on to say that this sphere is larger than what we have observed.

Selective reading for the win. How about this, from that article?

The word "observable" is key; the sphere limits what scientists can see but not what is there.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This article claims it to be a sphere too. It goes on to say that this sphere is larger than what we have observed.

What they say is that if it is finite, it may be closed like a sphere; but remember, a sphere is a 2 dimensional surface closed in 3 dimensions. The universe we experience is a 3D volume, so it will be closed in 4 dimensions.

In this case the expected topology would be a 3-sphere (a kind of 3-manifold). This is finite 3 dimensional space that is unbounded - you can go any distance in any direction without meeting a boundary. This is because, as I described previously, in this topology space is curved in 4 dimensions. This is a higher dimensional analog of the finite but unbounded surface of a sphere; three dimensions that form the boundary of a ball in four dimensions.

This is not to say there isn't, in some sense, something 'outside' the 3D universe we perceive - if it's curved in a 4th spatial dimension, there clearly is, but it's no more accessible to us than three dimensions are accessible to hypothetical two dimensional Flatlanders on the surface of a sphere - who move through three dimensions without being aware of it.