Existence Ex Nihilo (NOT Creation Ex Nihilo)

[THoR]

In spite of astronomical observations that suggest the most remote galaxies are fleeing from us faster than the speed of light, cosmologists persist in the conclusion the Hubble Red Shift is Doppler related and the Universe is inflating. I suppose that's the conventional wisdom, but - as is so common - the conventional wisdom is wrong. In fact, it flies in the face of simple logic and, in this case, it leads to the presumption the Universe began (i.e.existence is the result of cause and effect).

 

GIVEN: In order for something to change, act or be acted upon, it must exist (any who dissent must believe in things that don't exist)

IMPLICATION: Cause and effect is a "function of" existence

GIVEN: No phenomenon can be the result of its own subordinate derivative

CONCLUSION: Existence is the SOURCE of cause and effect and not the result of it.

 

This means the Universe didn't "begin", not with Genesis nor with a Big Bang. And it's not going to dissolve into entropy.

 

This is simple stuff, people. Don't be misled by scholarly pundits with names suffixed with magna cum laudinous academic labels. Their hypotheses have no clothes. Extra dimensions? Finite universe? Entropy death? Have the disciples of cosmology lost their branes?

 

The phenomenon of existence CAN be explained, but not with a cause and effect approach. Ironically, the answer to the enigma of existence lays hidden in plain sight.

[michel123456]

The phenomenon of existence CAN be explained, but not with a cause and effect approach. Ironically, the answer to the enigma of existence lays hidden in plain sight.

And is...?

[Appolinaria]

In spite of astronomical observations that suggest the most remote galaxies are fleeing from us faster than the speed of light, cosmologists persist in the conclusion the Hubble Red Shift is Doppler related and the Universe is inflating. I suppose that's the conventional wisdom, but - as is so common - the conventional wisdom is wrong. In fact, it flies in the face of simple logic and, in this case, it leads to the presumption the Universe began (i.e.existence is the result of cause and effect).

 

GIVEN: In order for something to change, act or be acted upon, it must exist (any who dissent must believe in things that don't exist)

IMPLICATION: Cause and effect is a "function of" existence

GIVEN: No phenomenon can be the result of its own subordinate derivative

CONCLUSION: Existence is the SOURCE of cause and effect and not the result of it.

 

This means the Universe didn't "begin", not with Genesis nor with a Big Bang. And it's not going to dissolve into entropy.

 

This is simple stuff, people. Don't be misled by scholarly pundits with names suffixed with magna cum laudinous academic labels. Their hypotheses have no clothes. Extra dimensions? Finite universe? Entropy death? Have the disciples of cosmology lost their branes?

 

The phenomenon of existence CAN be explained, but not with a cause and effect approach. Ironically, the answer to the enigma of existence lays hidden in plain sight.

 

energy

[pantheory]

In spite of astronomical observations that suggest the most remote galaxies are fleeing from us faster than the speed of light, cosmologists persist in the conclusion the Hubble Red Shift is Doppler related and the Universe is inflating. I suppose that's the conventional wisdom, but - as is so common - the conventional wisdom is wrong. In fact, it flies in the face of simple logic and, in this case, it leads to the presumption the Universe began (i.e.existence is the result of cause and effect).

 

GIVEN: In order for something to change, act or be acted upon, it must exist (any who dissent must believe in things that don't exist)

IMPLICATION: Cause and effect is a "function of" existence

GIVEN: No phenomenon can be the result of its own subordinate derivative

CONCLUSION: Existence is the SOURCE of cause and effect and not the result of it.

 

This means the Universe didn't "begin", not with Genesis nor with a Big Bang. And it's not going to dissolve into entropy.

 

This is simple stuff, people. Don't be misled by scholarly pundits with names suffixed with magna cum laudinous academic labels. Their hypotheses have no clothes. Extra dimensions? Finite universe? Entropy death? Have the disciples of cosmology lost their branes?

 

The phenomenon of existence CAN be explained, but not with a cause and effect approach. Ironically, the answer to the enigma of existence lays hidden in plain sight.

I am a theorist and for the most part would agree with your above proposals.

 

The phenomenon of existence CAN be explained, but not with a cause and effect approach. Ironically, the answer to the enigma of existence lays hidden in plain sight.

"Hidden in plain sight" is somewhat of an enigmatic phrase, instead I would use the phrase "logically apparent."

I agree there are no extra dimensions, no entropic death of the universe, but a finite universe could also be much older, not just infinite.

 

Have the disciples of cosmology lost their branes?

This may not be a very diplomatic statement You can attract more proponents with sugar rather than by using vinegar, but "branes" is not a bad play on words for humor

//

Edited November 21, 2011 by pantheory

[Mr Skeptic]

In spite of astronomical observations that suggest the most remote galaxies are fleeing from us faster than the speed of light, cosmologists persist in the conclusion the Hubble Red Shift is Doppler related and the Universe is inflating.

 

Not if by Doppler shift you specifically mean related to movement.

 

I suppose that's the conventional wisdom, but - as is so common - the conventional wisdom is wrong. In fact, it flies in the face of simple logic and, in this case, it leads to the presumption the Universe began (i.e.existence is the result of cause and effect).

 

How does it lead to the presumption that the universe began?

 

This means the Universe didn't "begin", not with Genesis nor with a Big Bang. And it's not going to dissolve into entropy.

 

If you've found a way to reduce entropy, please share. The Second Law of Thermodynamics and I would really like to know.

[superball]

well you gave me a possible solution I had been looking for.

 

Cause of red shift in this case it may be something other than expansion of universe.

 

I aim my scope over there, as it passes by a high gravitational mass, even Jupiter it may result in a red shift.

 

Some one may have assumed there must be a cause leading to dark matter, but the gravitation lensing may occur even when dealing with a small body or mass. the returning echo can be absorbed.

 

Not good enough, try this instead. when light is reflected ,or even direct light from a source it travels a small given distance,and it spreads out in all directions. the farther you go the more spread. So yea there is light spreading away from the observer from any source in all directions. The return trip, or echo did the same exact thing spherical waves spreading in both directions. Radar works exactly in the same way. The shift can be accounted for with simple tests.

 

You may need 20 miles to do that, taking a reading by aiming at a concrete wall, and waiting for the return, same test on an iron wall. Metal absorbs that type of wave, (iron nickle) so now you have a decrease in energy on the return, the energy wave is also spreading in both directions a red shift.

 

This is what gravitational lensing really looks like. Observe the smoking gun, not one inbound object, see at least 2 objects. I wonder why the energy bands are facing the wrong direction.. Torque induced Precession. Take a look how gravity waves over lapp another gravity wave causing a monstrous hill. Induction causes expansion.

 

 

Holy cow, cheers.. Push the green button now you have one. Time to break out the tinfoil hats.

Edited November 21, 2011 by superball

[THoR]

Not if by Doppler shift you specifically mean related to movement.

Inflation

How does it lead to the presumption that the universe began?

If BigBang created the universe then existence had an origin in time. The more sophisticated cosmologists don't actually claim this, only about 95% of them do.

If you've found a way to reduce entropy, please share. The Second Law of Thermodynamics and I would really like to know.

Energy moves, but is never lost. If the universe is infinite and the infinity of space we cannot detect is similar to what we have in our neighborhood then energy may transferred and even reduced temporarily until it is received back. The universe would be similar to an infinitely large insulated system - because there is nothing for it to be insulated from.

 

I am a theorist and for the most part would agree with your above proposals.

There is a more rational explanation for the phenomenon of existence, and it is really quite obvious. It's been posted on my website for decades. Only occasionally does it seem to elucidate live brain cells - and I get an email response. Most often it is dismissed out of hand as contrary to the "conventional wisdom". NO PROBLEM, an eon from now it will be common knowledge and it really has no commercial value so I am not so eager to confide this revelation as I was 40 years ago when I encountered the logic that led me to my conclusions. I have enough fun just thinking - and watching the flat earthers embarrass themselves. Don't wanna go before the Pope and explain my heresy.

"Hidden in plain sight" is somewhat of an enigmatic phrase, instead I would use the phrase "logically apparent."

I agree there are no extra dimensions, no entropic death of the universe, but a finite universe could also be much older, not just infinite.

The enigmatism was intentional.

This may not be a very diplomatic statement You can attract more proponents with sugar rather than by using vinegar, but "branes" is not a bad play on words for humor

//

I don't like sweets, hence the vinegar. PICKLES RULE!!

 

well you gave me a possible solution I had been looking for.

 

Cause of red shift in this case it may be something other than expansion of universe.

 

I aim my scope over there, as it passes by a high gravitational mass, even Jupiter it may result in a red shift.

 

Some one may have assumed there must be a cause leading to dark matter, but the gravitation lensing may occur even when dealing with a small body or mass. the returning echo can be absorbed.

 

Not good enough, try this instead. when light is reflected ,or even direct light from a source it travels a small given distance,and it spreads out in all directions. the farther you go the more spread. So yea there is light spreading away from the observer from any source in all directions. The return trip, or echo did the same exact thing spherical waves spreading in both directions. Radar works exactly in the same way. The shift can be accounted for with simple tests.

 

You may need 20 miles to do that, taking a reading by aiming at a concrete wall, and waiting for the return, same test on an iron wall. Metal absorbs that type of wave, (iron nickle) so now you have a decrease in energy on the return, the energy wave is also spreading in both directions a red shift.

 

This is what gravitational lensing really looks like. Observe the smoking gun, not one inbound object, see at least 2 objects. I wonder why the energy bands are facing the wrong direction.. Torque induced Precession. Take a look how gravity waves over lapp another gravity wave causing a monstrous hill. Induction causes expansion.

 

 

Holy cow, cheers.. Push the green button now you have one. Time to break out the tinfoil hats.

You must have visited my site. While refraction over vast distances may cause some red shift (THESIS ANYONE??) I am more prone to believe that the intercedence of billions of ambient sources of light at different angles into any given ray may cause deteriorization (red shift) over billions of light years (ANOTHER THESIS ANYONE??). This is not subject to empirical testing since it would take billions of years to replicate.

Edited November 23, 2011 by THoR

[Ringer]

If BigBang created the universe then existence had an origin in time. The more sophisticated cosmologists don't actually claim this, only about 95% of them do.

 

Could you walk through the simple logical steps that the universe never began.

 

Energy moves, but is never lost. If the universe is infinite and the infinity of space we cannot detect is similar to what we have in our neighborhood then energy may transferred and even reduced temporarily until it is received back. The universe would be similar to an infinitely large insulated system - because there is nothing for it to be insulated from.

 

He asked about entropy, not energy. They are very different things.

[pantheory]

Could you walk through the simple logical steps that the universe never began(?)

(parenthesis added)

Although I don't believe in an infinite universe I would like to hear it from you since I think it will be closer to the truth than the BB model.

 

He asked about entropy, not energy. They are very different things.

They sure are but what is your point? Say whatever you believe and I think you will be on the right tract, if not I will correct you

//

Edited November 23, 2011 by pantheory

[Ringer]

Although I don't believe in an infinite universe I would like to hear it from you since I think it will be closer to the truth than the BB model.

 

What? The OP said that the universe never began follows from simple logic. I would like to hear what these simple logical steps are.

 

They sure are(,) but what is your point? Say whatever you believe and I think you will be on the right tract, if not I will correct you

//

 

When correcting people's grammar one is bound to make a similar mistake.

 

My point is that he didn't answer the concern that his statement flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics.

[THoR]

And is...?

...and is about 2000 words - too long to post here, but click here if interested

 

Could you walk through the simple logical steps that the universe never began.

Sure.

 

If the cosmos "began" it had to be "created" at some distant point in the remote past.

To "create" means to cause something to occur.

Existence is not an occurrence.

 

Existence is required in order for change to occur, so cause and effect (change) is a FUNCTION OF existence (not the reverse).

Time is simply the measurement of relative rates of change (vibration of a Cesium atom, rotation of a planet, etc.).

Time is a function of change. Existence (of the Universe) is not a function of change (see above) hence it is not temporal in nature.

Why WOULD you think the universe began? Have you ever seen something that did not exist suddenly materialize before your eyes?

Because our minds deal predominately with cause and effect, we have a bias to presume cause and effect explains all. It does not.

Cause and effect, itself, has a source and that source supercedes the phenomenon of change (aka time).

Processes have beginnings and endings, existence is not the result of a process. The universe is eternal.

 

He asked about entropy, not energy. They are very different things.

In cosmological terms, entropy is a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death). Heat is energy.

 

Although I don't believe in an infinite universe I would like to hear it from you since I think it will be closer to the truth than the BB model.

If the universe "began" then unless it inflated at an infinite rate or for an infinite time, it would necessarily be finite.

Fortunately, it didn't "begin" (see first post). What follows is from my thesis:

 

Scholars are quick to point out that infinity doesn't exist - and they are absolutely correct. But that doesn't mean the Universe is finite.

 

Infinity is the non-existence of a limit, and if a non-existence existed it wouldn't be a non-existence. There is obviously a finite distance between every two points in the Universe, but there is no point, however distant, where the Universe ends. Some mistakenly believe that if there is a finite distance between every pair of points then the farthest point in the cosmos must be a finite distance away. What they don't understand is that just defining two points sways the realm of their consideration from the infinite back to the finite. When dealing with infinity, there is no limit, there is no 'farthest' and there is no 'all'. The fact that no defined point of infinity exists serves only to further validate the concept.

 

The old 'balloon' ploy is often put forth as a three-dimensional example of cosmic expansion in a four-dimensional configuration. Stroking the ego of the unwary layman for his ability to understand a hypothetical abstraction, pundits propose this as an example of how the Universe is finite but unbounded. The scholarly sleight of hand to which theorists occasionally descend is, indeed, amazing. Three independent values (XYZ coordinates) are all that is necessary to uniquely specify any point of existence within the Universe - hence there are said to be three 'dimensions' (more accurately, three axes). If the Universe were finite, then for any given point there must exist another point within a finite distance at which travel in any direction will not increase the distance between the two. If someone wants me to believe the universe is finite, then all they have to do is simply convince me that the value of at least one of the XYZ coordinates has a limit. And if anyone wishes me to believe there are more than three dimensions, then prove to me that there are locations in the cosmos which cannot be specified within those coordinates

Edited November 23, 2011 by THoR

[Ringer]

If the cosmos "began" it had to be "created" at some distant point in the remote past.

To "create" means to cause something to occur.

Existence is not an occurrence.

 

 

 

Existence is required in order for change to occur, so cause and effect (change) is a FUNCTION OF existence (not the reverse).

Time is simply the measurement of relative rates of change (vibration of a Cesium atom, rotation of a planet, etc.).

Time is a function of change. Existence (of the Universe) is not a function of change (see above) hence it is not temporal in nature.

Why WOULD you think the universe began? Have you ever seen something that did not exist suddenly materialize before your eyes?

Because our minds deal predominately with cause and effect, we have a bias to presume cause and effect explains all. It does not.

Cause and effect, itself, has a source and that source supercedes the phenomenon of change (aka time).

Processes have beginnings and endings, existence is not the result of a process. The universe is eternal.

 

 

 

The existence of the matter isn't in question. No one says that everything in the universe came from nothing, only that it was insanely condensed. I haven't seen something that hasn't existed before materialize before my eyes, and that's not what any body says outside of zealous religious circles. I have, on the other hand, experienced a very small, undetectable to the naked eye object develop into a complex system. I would imagine everyone typing has undergone what I am talking about (hint:conception).

 

If I am reading this right you contradict yourself. If cause and effect has a source, would that not be cause and effect. Meaning there was cause and effect before cause and effect.

In cosmological terms, entropy is a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death). Heat is energy.

 

In a closed system there is a certain amount of energy that is available, as I'm sure you are aware. For every reaction energy must be used, but not all of that energy is used to 100% efficiency. Because there is waste a certain amount of energy will be lost to the system, usually in the form of heat. Even if that heat is used for more reactions there will still be waste. That waste will build up in a closed system until all the energy that has been used will no longer be in a form that is usable. Heat death is a conclusion some have come up with in response to entropy. But, since I'm not a specialist in any way on entropy or cosmology, I would like to hear why you believe that a closed system, the universe, would not end in entropy death.

[superball]

Thor, I enjoyed the reading from the link you have provided.

 

I sent my write up to the mystery, I thank you for sharing.

 

 

 

 

Sincerely, super-ball

Edited November 23, 2011 by superball

[michel123456]

@Ringer

The universe cannot be compared to a living system, with birth & death. A physical system knows nothing about death & birth, only about transformation.

Creation has never been observed, and so-called "annihilation" is transformation of particles into particles.

 

...and is about 2000 words - too long to post here, but click here if interested

 

@THoR , I am blind. Below the response from your link.

Your IP has been identified as a possibly malicious address

If you believe this is an error please email THoR@Theory-Of-Reciprocity.com

and I will review the IP listing.

Thank you.

Sorry I will not send you an e-mail.

Edited November 23, 2011 by michel123456

[THoR]

The existence of the matter isn't in question. No one says that everything in the universe came from nothing, only that it was insanely condensed. I haven't seen something that hasn't existed before materialize before my eyes, and that's not what any body says outside of zealous religious circles. I have, on the other hand, experienced a very small, undetectable to the naked eye object develop into a complex system. I would imagine everyone typing has undergone what I am talking about (hint:conception).

Au contraire, mon frère. The VAST majority of the population has been informed by TV pseudo-scientists that nothing pre-existed the event of Big Bang. Not all (obviously) disciples of cosmology agree, but they appear to be in the minority so far as the public limelight is concerned.

 

When it comes to vast collections of galaxies congealing into a critical mass and then inflating, I find so much to the contrary - like this debunker (one of many) - that I would give the hypothesis of Big Bang less than a 1% probability of being anywhere near correct.

If I am reading this right you contradict yourself. If cause and effect has a source, would that not be cause and effect. Meaning there was cause and effect before cause and effect.

I see no contradiction. Exisence causes 'cause and effect'. Existence is not 'caused by' cause and effect.

 

In a closed system there is a certain amount of energy that is available, as I'm sure you are aware. For every reaction energy must be used, but not all of that energy is used to 100% efficiency. Because there is waste a certain amount of energy will be lost to the system, usually in the form of heat. Even if that heat is used for more reactions there will still be waste. That waste will build up in a closed system until all the energy that has been used will no longer be in a form that is usable. Heat death is a conclusion some have come up with in response to entropy. But, since I'm not a specialist in any way on entropy or cosmology, I would like to hear why you believe that a closed system, the universe, would not end in entropy death.

Energy cannot escape the universe - it has nowhere else to go. Why would we not expect there is energy throughout the cosmos, although not necessarily equally disbursed at any point in time. It may ebb and flow from one location to another, but it cannot escape. Infinity is ultimately the perfect thermos bottle. Energy and matter are two forms of the same thing - according to uncle Al (Einstein). They are readily interchangeable. Why should we presume all of it will eventually go one way or the other?

Edited November 23, 2011 by THoR

[Ringer]

Au contraire, mon frère. The VAST majority of the population has been informed by TV pseudo-scientists that nothing pre-existed the event of Big Bang. Not all (obviously) disciples of cosmology agree, but they appear to be in the minority so far as the public limelight is concerned.

 

We aren't talking about the general public, we are talking about scientific consensus.

 

When it comes to vast collections of galaxies congealing into a critical mass and then inflating, I find so much to the contrary - like this debunker (one of many) - that I would give the hypothesis of Big Bang less than a 1% probability of being anywhere near correct.

I see no contradiction. Exisence causes 'cause and effect'. Existence is not 'caused by' cause and effect.

 

I don't think a press advisory will be enough for me to believe you. If there is only 1% chance of the BB being correct, why is it still the standard model?

 

So you don't think that saying a source caused cause and effect is a contradiction?

 

Energy cannot escape the universe - it has nowhere else to go. Why would we not expect there is energy throughout the cosmos, although not necessarily equally disbursed at any point in time. It may ebb and flow from one location to another, but it cannot escape. Infinity is ultimately the perfect thermos bottle. Energy and matter are two forms of the same thing - according to uncle Al (Einstein). They are readily interchangeable. Why should we presume all of it will eventually go one way or the other?

 

Can you point out when I ever said energy leaves the universe? I said useful energy will be made into less useful energy until there would be enough useful energy to drive reactions.

 

We presume it will go one way because the direction of, say, a chemical reaction is always in accordance with increasing entropy if the system is closed. If the system is closed only certain reactions will occur and those reaction move towards and increase in entropy.

[THoR]

@Ringer

The universe cannot be compared to a living system, with birth & death. A physical system knows nothing about death & birth, only about transformation.

Creation has never been observed, and so-called "annihilation" is transformation of particles into particles.

 

 

 

@THoR , I am blind. Below the response from your link.

 

Sorry I will not send you an e-mail.

 

Found your IP in my visitor logs and unblocked it (Greek IP sourced from this website).

I've been getting hit by a lot of rogue spammers from Russia and China and have blocked a number of IP's by their first three digits.

Please try again.

 

We aren't talking about the general public, we are talking about scientific consensus.

 

I have no problem with those who say "I don't know" how to justify the existence of the universe. Too many credentialed scholars are touting extra dimensions, a finite universe (all that exists, not just the known universe), and multiverses as the gospel.

I don't think a press advisory will be enough for me to believe you. If there is only 1% chance of the BB being correct, why is it still the standard model?

At the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift of elemental markers indicates galaxies are moving away from us at a pace faster than the speed of light...and accelerating. This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists who have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate.

 

The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised theory can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results. Hypothetical dark energy and matter are far-fetched speculations, not hard science. I give them a 1% chance of finding these elusive substances.

 

If you drop a white cue ball into a tub of cranberry juice, the deeper the tub, the redder it appears - but the cue ball is NOT accelerating. If there exists some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum over vast distances, it would explain why the red shift seems to be intensifying at greater distances instead of being constant. When dealing with distances in the billions of light years, we have no idea what subtle nuances of nature might produce startling effects and to empirically test for these nuances would take billions of years.

 

So you don't think that saying a source caused cause and effect is a contradiction?

More concisely "Cause and effect is a FUNCTION OF existence. Existence is NOT a function of cause and effect." Semantics can really get in the way, can't they?

 

Can you point out when I ever said energy leaves the universe? I said useful energy will be made into less useful energy until there would be enough useful energy to drive reactions.

 

We presume it will go one way because the direction of, say, a chemical reaction is always in accordance with increasing entropy if the system is closed. If the system is closed only certain reactions will occur and those reaction move towards and increase in entropy.

Entropy death has already been disproven empirically. Considering the universe has been around forever, if it hasn't happened yet, it ain't a'gonna happen. (t=infinity already)

[michel123456]

Found your IP in my visitor logs and unblocked it (Greek IP sourced from this website).

I've been getting hit by a lot of rogue spammers from Russia and China and have blocked a number of IP's by their first three digits.

Please try again.

 

Aargh. Now I am home and I get the same message. No matter, I'll visit tomorrow from work.

 

Anyway your POV makes sense to me. Except that nothing is evident about it. I also have the profound conviction that the BB hypothesis is wrong. For many reasons. But that makes only 2 lunatics that agree on something.

[Ringer]

@Ringer

The universe cannot be compared to a living system, with birth & death. A physical system knows nothing about death & birth, only about transformation.

Creation has never been observed, and so-called "annihilation" is transformation of particles into particles.

 

I know, I was making a simplified analogy. I was just showing that a single thing can develop into an infinitely more complex system.

 

Again, where did I ever say that anything was made out of nothing?

 

I have no problem with those who say "I don't know" how to justify the existence of the universe. Too many credentialed scholars are touting extra dimensions, a finite universe (all that exists, not just the known universe), and multiverses as the gospel. At the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift of elemental markers indicates galaxies are moving away from us at a pace faster than the speed of light...and accelerating. This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists who have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate.

 

Only religion is trying to justify any existence. Science works by trying to explain what is observed, nothing about any scientific theory will ever be 100% correct. The things you are posing as ridiculous are attempts to explain known phenomena, except the multiverses IIRC that is a conclusion based on probabilities of some sort. I am not at all a physicist, so I can't comment on the redshift of galaxies since I only have very basic knowledge of that, but I do trust the scientific methodology to root out false presumptions. As I said before nothing in science is 100%, but the models in place are there not because they felt like it was pretty. It made testable predictions that turned out to be correct, and until a better model comes into play it will be used.

 

The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised theory can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results. Hypothetical dark energy and matter are far-fetched speculations, not hard science. I give them a 1% chance of finding these elusive substances.

 

Well that's odd considering they have found plenty of evidence for dark matter than just saying it's there. One example is the gravitational affect of bending space around very massive objects. Since dark matter has massive gravitation it causes light to bend around it quite a bit. When that happens an observer can see the bending effects without seeing the dark matter.

 

If you drop a white cue ball into a tub of cranberry juice, the deeper the tub, the redder it appears - but the cue ball is NOT accelerating. If there exists some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum over vast distances, it would explain why the red shift seems to be intensifying at greater distances instead of being constant. When dealing with distances in the billions of light years, we have no idea what subtle nuances of nature might produce startling effects and to empirically test for these nuances would take billions of years.

 

As I said before, I'm only marginally familiar with how redshift works so I can't comment.

Entropy death has already been disproven empirically. Considering the universe has been around forever, if it hasn't happened yet, it ain't a'gonna happen. (t=infinity already)

 

This is a logical fallacy called begging the question.

 

If the universe has been around forever and, in general, things are moving away from each other why is anything even around our galaxy?

[THoR]

Aargh. Now I am home and I get the same message. No matter, I'll visit tomorrow from work.

Found it. Unblocked.

Anyway your POV makes sense to me. Except that nothing is evident about it. I also have the profound conviction that the BB hypothesis is wrong. For many reasons. But that makes only 2 lunatics that agree on something.

The logic that explains the phenomenon of existence is the foundation for every equation ever formulated. It was touched upon by Newton when he noted every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It just takes a slightly different perspective to see how it applies to the phenomenon of being.

[Mr Skeptic]

If BigBang created the universe then existence had an origin in time. The more sophisticated cosmologists don't actually claim this, only about 95% of them do.

 

I'm not sure how that follows. Also, you and cosmologists might not be talking about the same sort of creation -- certainly at the time of the BB any information from any previous universe would have been largely destroyed due to the environment, so we could say our universe was created then then even if the matter and energy were there forever. On the other hand, I have heard suggestions that the total energy of the universe is zero due to some sort of negative energy from the expansion of space

 

Energy moves, but is never lost.

 

That's the First Law of Thermodynamics, and in no way conflicts with the second law.

 

If the universe is infinite and the infinity of space we cannot detect is similar to what we have in our neighborhood then energy may transferred and even reduced temporarily until it is received back. The universe would be similar to an infinitely large insulated system - because there is nothing for it to be insulated from.

 

Exactly, and in an insulated system the entropy increases -- so says the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy is not destruction of energy, it just means you won't be able to use that energy.

 

Edit: Just to clarify, an example of increasing entropy would be what happens when you mix 1 gram of water with 300 calories of energy with 1 gram of water with 350 calories of energy -- you get 2 grams of water with a total of 650 calories of energy (325 calories each). See how the entropy increased there?

[THoR]

I know, I was making a simplified analogy. I was just showing that a single thing can develop into an infinitely more complex system.

 

Again, where did I ever say that anything was made out of nothing?

BUT IT IS...really...I wouldn't kid you about that. It is the connotation of nothing that needs clarification.

Only religion is trying to justify any existence. Science works by trying to explain what is observed, nothing about any scientific theory will ever be 100% correct.

Observe the Universe. Try to explain it. Works for me.

The things you are posing as ridiculous are attempts to explain known phenomena, except the multiverses IIRC that is a conclusion based on probabilities of some sort. I am not at all a physicist, so I can't comment on the redshift of galaxies since I only have very basic knowledge of that, but I do trust the scientific methodology to root out false presumptions.

Faith is a poor substitute for reason.

As I said before nothing in science is 100%, but the models in place are there not because they felt like it was pretty. It made testable predictions that turned out to be correct, and until a better model comes into play it will be used.

May sound presumptuous with my lowly BS (of course) in math and physics, but it seems to me the hypothesis of reciprocal balance complies with Occam's Razor. It does not refute the measurements and observations, it only interprets their inferences from a different perspective.

Well that's odd considering they have found plenty of evidence for dark matter than just saying it's there. One example is the gravitational affect of bending space around very massive objects. Since dark matter has massive gravitation it causes light to bend around it quite a bit. When that happens an observer can see the bending effects without seeing the dark matter.

Theoretical physicists will be the first to admit dark energy/matter is just a hypothesis - and not the only explanation.

This is a logical fallacy called begging the question.

It's ALL ABOUT begging the question(s) - specifically "how was the universe created" and "when did it begin". Questions with false premeses BEG to be begged.

If the universe has been around forever and, in general, things are moving away from each other why is anything even around our galaxy?

Even if all of the celestial bodies in the known universe were moving away from each other, it wouldn't necessarily imply an expanding cosmos. Given a finite number of moving objects randomly vectored at random velocities within a finite volume (the 'known universe' IS finite), all collisions which could occur WILL occur within a finite period of time. Many of those collisions may occur outside of the original volume, but they will still take place within a finite distance, and eventually all of the objects will be moving away from each other.

 

The Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy is in the process of colliding with our own Milky Way as we speak. If the scholarly pundits' cosmological calculations of distance and velocity of distant bodies proves to be flawed (and there is a pretty good chance of that - they are trying to interpret differentials in light that is billions of years old) stuff they think is moving away may be on a trajectory toward us.

 

Exactly, and in an insulated system the entropy increases -- so says the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy is not destruction of energy, it just means you won't be able to use that energy.

Given X energy concentrated in the center of Y volume. As I understand SLT, that energy will eventually disburse until equilibrium is reached. Given X mass equally disbursed as a cloud in Y volume, eventually gravitational forces will coalesce the cloud into a material clump - and if critical mass is reached it will explode. Energy and mass are just conditions, two forms of the same thing according to Uncle Al. They differ significantly in nature in that mass tends to coalesce and energy tends to disburse.

 

I agree with Uncle Al tht energy and mass are just conditions - states of being that apply to those entities that exhibit those attributes.

Edited November 23, 2011 by THoR

[Mr Skeptic]

Given X energy concentrated in the center of Y volume. As I understand SLT, that energy will eventually disburse until equilibrium is reached. Given X mass equally disbursed as a cloud in Y volume, eventually gravitational forces will coalesce the cloud into a material clump - and if critical mass is reached it will explode. Energy and mass are just conditions, two forms of the same thing according to Uncle Al. They differ significantly in nature in that mass tends to coalesce and energy tends to disburse.

 

So if I'm understanding correctly, you propose that there is a machine that can produce work by taking gravitationally condensed clumps of matter and dispersing them through space? This seems rather odd to me; I can easily think of a machine that does the opposite but not one that does what you seem to be proposing. If you don't propose that such a machine can be made, then are we agreed that distributed matter has more useable energy than gravitationally clumped matter, and that gravitational clumping reduces the amount of useable energy?

[superball]

Au contraire, mon frère. The VAST majority of the population has been informed by TV pseudo-scientists that nothing pre-existed the event of Big Bang. Not all (obviously) disciples of cosmology agree, but they appear to be in the minority so far as the public limelight is concerned.

 

When it comes to vast collections of galaxies congealing into a critical mass and then inflating, I find so much to the contrary - like this debunker (one of many) - that I would give the hypothesis of Big Bang less than a 1% probability of being anywhere near correct.

I see no contradiction. Exisence causes 'cause and effect'. Existence is not 'caused by' cause and effect.

 

Energy cannot escape the universe - it has nowhere else to go. Why would we not expect there is energy throughout the cosmos, although not necessarily equally disbursed at any point in time. It may ebb and flow from one location to another, but it cannot escape. Infinity is ultimately the perfect thermos bottle. Energy and matter are two forms of the same thing - according to uncle Al (Einstein). They are readily interchangeable. Why should we presume all of it will eventually go one way or the other?

 

I understand this does not relate to your questioning, But it will serve for my purpose intended.

 

Have you considered this explanation? Energy is increasing in a closed system. You have taken a balloon, you have set it at rest, and then watch the heat dissipate from the closed system analogy.

 

Have you considered placing the balloon inside a hotter system after you have blown up the balloon? Now you see there is measurable effects on the system as a whole. The energy continues to increase until the balloon explodes.

 

I am speaking of a closed system that has external energy in the form of induction entering the system. You may interject. I say there is outgoing heat, and incoming heat in relation. Outgoing energy is also increasing.

Therefore both internal energy, and external energy is changing in relation. The closed system has a greater ability to retain the energy for a much longer time period.

 

So if we continue in this manner, or line of cause, and effect the balloon will eventually pop.

 

Bruce lee stated " it strikes all by itself" I concede to his line of reasoning, gravity bends all by itself. see picture.

sincerely super-ball.

Edited November 23, 2011 by superball

[THoR]

So if I'm understanding correctly, you propose that there is a machine that can produce work by taking gravitationally condensed clumps of matter and dispersing them through space? This seems rather odd to me;

Let's see...If those realistic cosmologists who do not attribute the beginning of all existence to Big Bang are correct, there IS a machine called singularity that congeals clumps of matter into supercritical masses and then disperses them into space. Seems odd to me, too. If we can get the make, model and serial number, it would be worth while looking up the manufacturer for possible investment opportunities (long term).

I can easily think of a machine that does the opposite but not one that does what you seem to be proposing. If you don't propose that such a machine can be made, then are we agreed that distributed matter has more useable energy than gravitationally clumped matter, and that gravitational clumping reduces the amount of useable energy?

The condition called energy can readily be exchanged for the condition called mass. Potential energy can be transformed into kinetic. I think I'm having trouble understanding what you call 'useable energy'. To me it's all useable...and you can't get rid of it even if you wanted to.

 

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your cogent and civil challenges. We are all cows trying to learn calculus. Eons from now if these messages are preserved they will, indeed, be amusing to the next intellectual generation of humanity.

 

I understand this does not relate to your questioning, But it will serve for my purpose intended.

 

Have you considered this explanation? Energy is increasing in a closed system. You have taken a balloon, you have set it at rest, and then watch the heat dissipate from the closed system analogy.

 

Have you considered placing the balloon inside a hotter system after you have blown up the balloon? Now you see there is measurable effects on the system as a whole. The energy continues to increase until the balloon explodes.

 

I am speaking of a closed system that has external energy in the form of induction entering the system. You may interject. I say there is outgoing heat, and incoming heat in relation. Outgoing energy is also increasing.

Therefore both internal energy, and external energy is changing in relation. The closed system has a greater ability to retain the energy for a much longer time period.

 

So if we continue in this manner, or line of cause, and effect the balloon will eventually pop.

The cosmos is infinite. It is not closed, it is completely open. With infinity, there is no 'ALL', there is always more. Infinity doesn't exist because it is, by definition the non-existence of a limit. If a non-existence existed, it wouldn't be a non-existence. That being said, the Steady State theory was long ago discarded by conventional science. Probably because it really isn't that steady. Vast fluctiations occur that are beyond out ability to comprehend. Stuff moves, it flows, it changes from a condition of mass to a condition of energy. This happens forever and wherever the Universe exists (which is everywhere).