No Possibility of God

[Nakosis]

Yes, but if that's the case, "God" is as valid as anything else is. More-so, really, in that at least it's definition is in keeping with the absolute inexplicable mystery.

Or as equally invalid. One can of course imagine whatever one wishes. I think for Hawkin, he was satisfied there was no need to.

 

[Link]

Actually, the math involved is almost exactly the same between the BB and the north pole. The actual equations that govern General Relativity (and hence, the BB) are *geometrical* equations, relating the geometry of spacetime to the density of matter and energy.

The actual solutions for the equations give solutions that are similar, in may ways, to the geometry of a sphere at a pole. This comes out of the math.

The analogy is actually quite good.

Except it would have to the first point of time was always there, and it would have to existed from eternity for it to make sense. You don't go past North, nothing happens, you stop time wise, then nothing exists beyond that, yet where did it come from, if it's by definition a temporal moment (ie. doesn't exist forever but shifts from a->b->c).

 

[Link]

To make clear what I'm saying:

You are assuming the universe to be temporal (begin and start), but that time wise, there is nothing before it. But the first point of time didn't always exist, and so by definition had to come being. We are getting into sophistry if we say otherwise.

 

[Link]

No, the proofs are uniformly poor in logic. It's just that some people want the conclusion so much, they are willing to use poor logic.

Nah, you hate God too much to see it that's all there is to it.

 

[Polymath257]

Does that imply that as the universe expands, additional 'dark energy' appears from somewhere and maintains a minimum density, a minimum energy of the vacuum, everywhere? Or is there only a strict ration that keeps getting thinner till it can no longer resist the Big Rip?

Well, first of all, conservation of energy is problematic in General Relativity. The problem is that 'energy' is one component of the energy-momentum 4-vector and, in curved space time, vectors are localized to points. So, to 'add up' the energy in a region attempts to add components of vectors at different points, and that isn't well defined. There is a concept of 'parallel transport' that allows for moving a vector along a path to another point, but the result depends on the path taken.

Except for the 'comes from somewhere' (which assumes a conservation law that doesn't apply in this context), you have it basically correct: there is a minimum energy level for a vacuum, everywhere.

Now, those familiar with QM immediately see this as being some sort of ground state for the energy. And, for typical quantum systems, the ground state is non-zero. So this could well be the origin of this 'energy density of a vacuum'.

The problem is that every particle type would contribute to this energy and it is possible to do a basic calculation for what the known quantum fields would give for this energy density. The result is one of the absolute worst predictions ever made in physics: the calculated value is off by *120 orders of magnitude* from the observed value. In some ways, it would be easier to understand a *zero* value than a small non-zero value (which is what we see).

Anyway, this points to the fact that we don't understand something and that has to do with the interaction of GR and QM.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for correcting me. Does it prove Newton's theory to be wrong? Is it no longer accepted in scientific community? Isn't it true that Newton's theory is still used for most application, while Einstein's theory is used in another context?

Wrongness is relative.

Newton's theory is a very good *approximation* under most circumstances (avoid black holes, neutron stars, anything the size of galaxy clusters). It is also *far* easier to calculate with. SO, for situations like sending probes to Mars, we use Newtonian physics and the results are good enough.

But it is known in the scientific community that it is an approximation and that in some cases it is necessary to go to GR to get accurate results.

The same is true, by the way, with quantum mechanics. Under most everyday circumstances, the Newtonian approximation works perfectly well for designing buildings and bridges. But, if you get to the level of atoms and smaller molecules, you need the quantum description to get accurate results.

Newtonian mechanics is *wrong*, but it is a very good *approximation* and is usually MUCH easier to use than the more 'correct' descriptions. Unless you are dealing with the atomic level, or very strong gravitational forces, or speeds that are a substantial fraction of the speed of light, the Newtonian description is likely to be good enough to give you, say, 4 decimal places of accuracy or more.

 

[Polymath257]

To make clear what I'm saying:

You are assuming the universe to be temporal (begin and start), but that time wise, there is nothing before it. But the first point of time didn't always exist, and so by definition had to come being. We are getting into sophistry if we say otherwise.

To 'come into being' requires time. To say otherwise is the sophistry.

Nah, you hate God too much to see it that's all there is to it.

Nope. I have looked at the arguments, found gaping holes in them, and have concluded they are not up to the task of proving there is a deity. I also have other reasons to believe there *is* no deity, but the arguments usually made are very poor logic.

 

[Link]

People rejecting clear proofs of God is nothing new. And people relying on irrational sophistry to do away with a need of a Creator is nothing new either.

 

[Polymath257]

Except it would have to the first point of time was always there, and it would have to existed from eternity for it to make sense. You don't go past North, nothing happens, you stop time wise, then nothing exists beyond that, yet where did it come from, if it's by definition a temporal moment (ie. doesn't exist forever but shifts from a->b->c).

Well, that is the point. it doesn't 'come from' anything. It is uncaused. And it is so by necessity since *causes* require time.

So, yes, you can't go back past the beginning of time. Period.

 

[Polymath257]

People rejecting clear proofs of God is nothing new. And people relying on irrational sophistry to do away with a need of a Creator is nothing new either.

People using poor logic to justify their belief in a supernatural being is nothing new. And people relying more on emotion than logic to support their belief is nothing new either.

 

[Link]

Well, that is the point. it doesn't 'come from' anything. It is uncaused. And it is so by necessity since *causes* require time.

So, yes, you can't go back past the beginning of time. Period.

By induction, you can conclude like all other moments of time it didn't always exist. By induction you can conclude the first moment of time like all other movements of times, have a cause.

Sophistry and conjecture doesn't do away with the truth.

 

[Link]

People using poor logic to justify their belief in a supernatural being is nothing new. And people relying more on emotion than logic to support their belief is nothing new either.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Keep denying.

 

[Nakosis]

It seems to me Hawking started with an anthropomorphic God of mythic-literal Christianity and shows how it doesn't fit the world science sees. This is no big accomplishment. One doesn't need to understanding M-Theory to see the flaws with that.

That said however, saying that time did not exist before the BB, actually only agrees with traditional theism that God exists outside of time, that God is eternal. I'm not sure why this should be considered a death-blow to that, when it actually tends to validate it?

I think it comes down to any concept of God, as far as a God's involvement with the creation of the universe, being unnecessary. Similar to Nietzsche saying "God is dead".

So there may be a God of some type but as far as the physical universe goes, such a God has no value.

 

[Polymath257]

By induction, you can conclude like all other moments of time it didn't always exist. By induction you can conclude the first moment of time like all other movements of times, have a cause.

And this is an incorrect inference. The induction fails because of other aspects coming in (like the fact that time is affected by mass and energy).

Time is not caused. it is the background in which causes happen.

Sophistry and conjecture doesn't do away with the truth.

Agreed. Usually done by those with a religious agenda.

Give *one* valid argument for the existence of a deity.

 

[Polymath257]

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Keep denying.

i can say the same: keep believing in your mythology. You have that right.

 

[Super Universe]

I'm not going to spend more time explaining this because you're obviously not really interested, if you were, you'd already know at least enough not to think the BB would lead to a shell of galaxies.

I will however repeat that the same theory applies in different situations. You're rather like somebody looking at Newton's law of gravitation and saying "how come gravity works for apples falling to earth but not the moon which doesn't fall".

There's also plenty of articles you can find about how the BB differs from a black hole. Here's one example:

According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?



If you can explain how the stars produce the CMB, there's a second Nobel prize for you! You seem to imagine that scientists just make hand-wavy stuff up (like you just did) and say something like, "well the BB must have been hot, so there must be some sort of radiation left, oh look there's some radiation!"

It was a precise prediction, using a mathematical model, of the exact characteristics of the radiation we would expect to see. It turned out to exist. That's what scientists call evidence - a theory makes a prediction and an experiment or observation confirms it.

If the bb was true there wouldn't be an expanding sphere of space and galaxies? So how would it fill in? Where is your forced math that shows that space and matter would know to fill in the empty center?

The same theory applies in different situations? So black holes are exploding?

There article starts out by explaining inflation, not the bb. Once again, inflation is inflation, the bb is the bb. One is allowed, the other is not. Then it says that the difference between the bb and black holes is that in the bb space was expanding along with the matter. If you simply dismiss gravity then your bb idea works. What the unimaginative math robots did was invent pressure to counter act the gravity but there is just no way. Yes, hydrogen can be pressurized but the suns interior is pressurized and it doesn't explode.

If I can explain how stars produce radiation I can win a Nobel Prize? You did not seriously post that, did you? This is the problem. You can't even think on your own.

Also, if the CMB did come from one bb event it would be moving outward in one direction BUT we are getting it from EVERY direction. That proves that it's coming from the stars that are all around us, not a single event.

 

[Super Universe]

Yes, the cosmological constant is present around black holes. The amount of the pressure isn't enough, though, to stop the formation of the black hole.

Yes, gravity does work at the Big Bang. In fact, it is the equations governing gravity that leads to our understanding of the BB.



Sorry, but this doesn't work. You can't get a consistent, black-body radiation to within 1 part in 100,000 from stars in this way. There are simply too many different temperatures for the different stars, which would lead to a spread in the detected radiation that is contrary to the actual observations.



The matter-antimatter asymmetry happened before the time of nucleogenesis. Since we are still investigating the specifics of CP violation (leading to that matter-antimatter asymmetry), but we know it exists, it is more a matter of the *amount* of matter left matching the observations than anything else.

This is an area of active research in the particle physics community. But the basics is that the symmetry between matter and antimatter isn't perfect. We know this from the differences between the K meson and the anti-K meson. And, just recently, we found CP violations in reactions involving neutrinos (which is far more likely to give the correct amount of remaining matter: 1 part in a billion).

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-matter-antimatter-asymmetry-t2k-results-restrict.html



Not an idea that remotely fits with the observations. Stars alone cannot produce the specifics of the radiation that we observe.

Anyone can play with the math. It's the overall acceptance of the "played with math" that is unethical.

You can't get a consistent black body radiation to within 1 part in 100,000 from stars? You can, and we do, and it's coming from EVERY direction, not one direction as in a bb. And, we get cosmic bursts all the time.

Stars can't produce the specifics of the radiation that we observe? There's more than stars out there.

 

[Polymath257]

If the bb was true there wouldn't be an expanding sphere of space and galaxies?

No.

So how would it fill in? Where is your forced math that shows that space and matter would know to fill in the empty center?

There is no center. All you are doing is showing that you don't understand the BB model *at all*.

The same theory applies in different situations? So black holes are exploding?

No, the same *mathematical* theory: the theory of General relativity, applies to both situations and gives different predictions because the situations are different.

There article starts out by explaining inflation, not the bb. Once again, inflation is inflation, the bb is the bb. One is allowed, the other is not. Then it says that the difference between the bb and black holes is that in the bb space was expanding along with the matter. If you simply dismiss gravity then your bb idea works. What the unimaginative math robots did was invent pressure to counter act the gravity but there is just no way. Yes, hydrogen can be pressurized but the suns interior is pressurized and it doesn't explode.

If I can explain how stars produce radiation I can win a Nobel Prize? You did not seriously post that, did you? This is the problem. You can't even think on your own.

No, what you need to do is explain how a background of stars at various temperatures can produce a blackbody radiation to one part in 100,000.

Also, if the CMB did come from one bb event it would be moving outward in one direction BUT we are getting it from EVERY direction. That proves that it's coming from the stars that are all around us, not a single event.

And, once again, you show you don't understand the *first thing* about the BB theory*.

It is NOT an explosion of matter into space. it is an expansion of space *everywhere* that carries along the matter. Matter and energy are uniformly distributed throughout space, which is what produces the type of singularity at the BB according to GR.

 

[Polymath257]

Anyone can play with the math. It's the overall acceptance of the "played with math" that is unethical.

OK, so you disagree with all of physics since Newton.

You can't get a consistent black body radiation to within 1 part in 100,000 from stars? You can, and we do, and it's coming from EVERY direction, not one direction as in a bb. And, we get cosmic bursts all the time.

Do you even understand what a blackbody radiation is?

Stars can't produce the specifics of the radiation that we observe? There's more than stars out there.

Nope, they cannot, unless every star is at exactly the same temperature (which we know is false).

 

[ratiocinator]

If the bb was true there wouldn't be an expanding sphere of space and galaxies?

No, that was your misunderstanding (#7) that I've already corrected and I was using to illustrate your obvious lack of genuine interest in the subject. I said: "...you're obviously not really interested, if you were, you'd already know at least enough not to think the BB would lead to a shell of galaxies."

You can't even be bothered to read the actual posts and remember what has already been said.