"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Yes. An open system would mean matter outside the Universe can act on it. A closed system means matter outside of it cannot act on it. Since the Universe is defined as “All that exists” that would mean there isn't anything outside of it that can act on it thus the Universe is a closed system.
Good. Then you'd have to retract what you said here, right?Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:03 pmYes. An open system would mean matter outside the Universe can act on it. A closed system means matter outside of it cannot act on it. Since the Universe is defined as “All that exists” that would mean there isn't anything outside of it that can act on it thus the Universe is a closed system.
You do realize that since the universe hadn't existed yet, DBowling's post does not contradictYour claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.
Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 12:18 pmSo you insist on getting your information about the Big Bang from someone who doesn't even believe the Big Bang ever happened? Is this the method to your madness? Because if it is it definitely explains a lot!DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:02 pm So you keep saying...
But it is supported by the positions of both Lemaître and Hoyle in your source material.
And based on the accuracy of your assertions in our dialogue so far, I am inclined to give more weight to the positions of Lemaître and Hoyle than your inaccurate assertions.
When you appeal to source material, it would help your cause if your source material actually supported your claims.
I’m not saying my sources are wrong; I’m saying you’re wrong. Lemaitre spoke of time and space; not matter. Your claim is about matter so he didn’t support your claim; and Hoyle favored the Steady State theory, not the Big Bang theory. And he only implied matter was created as a joke; and the article was clear that he wasn’t serious when he said it.
Lemaitre isn't the one that claimed matter was created.
Your claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
Big Bang theory doesn’t say that. If you think it does, provide an outside source that says the Big Bang claims matter came into existence.
No I don't understand what you are saying. When you say the Universe hadn't existed yet, are you referring to the Singularity prior to it expanding?RickD wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:23 pmGood. Then you'd have to retract what you said here, right?Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:03 pmYes. An open system would mean matter outside the Universe can act on it. A closed system means matter outside of it cannot act on it. Since the Universe is defined as “All that exists” that would mean there isn't anything outside of it that can act on it thus the Universe is a closed system.You do realize that since the universe hadn't existed yet, DBowling's post does not contradictYour claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.
The law of conservation of mass.
You do see your error, right?
Ok so let's see what we can actually agree on then
Based on the position of Lemaître, would you agree with the following statement?Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.
In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[55]
This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.
There was no universe, so there was no law to be contradicted. So your statement is wrong.Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:45 pmNo I don't understand what you are saying. When you say the Universe hadn't existed yet, are you referring to the Singularity prior to it expanding?RickD wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:23 pmGood. Then you'd have to retract what you said here, right?Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:03 pmYes. An open system would mean matter outside the Universe can act on it. A closed system means matter outside of it cannot act on it. Since the Universe is defined as “All that exists” that would mean there isn't anything outside of it that can act on it thus the Universe is a closed system.You do realize that since the universe hadn't existed yet, DBowling's post does not contradictYour claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.
The law of conservation of mass.
You do see your error, right?
Ok so let's see what we can actually agree on then
Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.
In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[55]
This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.
I was not disputing that.DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:33 pmBased on the position of Lemaître, would you agree with the following statement?
"Science tells us that at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence"?
I was not disputing that either.
I don’t understand the concept of space and time coming into existence so I was not commenting on any of that.
So we have agreed on two basic principles...Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 12:18 pmDBowling wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:02 pm
Do you agree with these three quotes from your source material?Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.
In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[55]
This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.I was not disputing that.DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:33 pmBased on the position of Lemaître, would you agree with the following statement?
"Science tells us that at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence"?
I was not disputing that either.I don’t understand the concept of space and time coming into existence so I was not commenting on any of that.
So your point is prior to the singularity expanding in what is known as the Big Bang, the laws of physics as we know them didn’t exist at that time so quoting the law of Conservation of Mass is an error because it didn’t apply at that time.RickD wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:47 pmThere was no universe, so there was no law to be contradicted. So your statement is wrong.Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:45 pmNo I don't understand what you are saying. When you say the Universe hadn't existed yet, are you referring to the Singularity prior to it expanding?RickD wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:23 pmGood. Then you'd have to retract what you said here, right?Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:03 pmYes. An open system would mean matter outside the Universe can act on it. A closed system means matter outside of it cannot act on it. Since the Universe is defined as “All that exists” that would mean there isn't anything outside of it that can act on it thus the Universe is a closed system.You do realize that since the universe hadn't existed yet, DBowling's post does not contradictYour claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.
The law of conservation of mass.
You do see your error, right?
That does make sense to me.DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:25 pmSo we have agreed on two basic principles...Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 12:18 pmDBowling wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:02 pm
Do you agree with these three quotes from your source material?Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.
In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[55]
This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.I was not disputing that.DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:33 pmBased on the position of Lemaître, would you agree with the following statement?
"Science tells us that at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence"?
I was not disputing that either.I don’t understand the concept of space and time coming into existence so I was not commenting on any of that.
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
Without claiming to understand the concept of space and time coming into existence and based on #2 above...
Would you agree that "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"?
We now agree on three principles...Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:43 pmThat does make sense to me.DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:25 pm So we have agreed on two basic principles...
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
Without claiming to understand the concept of space and time coming into existence and based on #2 above...
Would you agree that "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"?
The big bang theory speaks of space and time as something that has an actual existence. This is a part of the theory I don't understand; it makes no sense to me, I have no idea what that means. I've always thought of space as meaning nothing at all, and time as a system to measure action. But obviously nobody is going to claim "nothing at all" came into existence, or a system began to exist before people existed, so it must mean something else. However I can see your point that if these things did come into existence, it makes sense to believe something outside of it must have caused it to come into existence.DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:49 amWe now agree on three principles...Kenny wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:43 pmThat does make sense to me.DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:25 pm So we have agreed on two basic principles...
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
Without claiming to understand the concept of space and time coming into existence and based on #2 above...
Would you agree that "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"?
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
Based on these three principles...
Would you agree that the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"?
(I think that is the implication of your most recent response to Rick)
Would you agree that whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space?
I don't claim to understand it either.Kenny wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:52 amThe big bang theory speaks of space and time as something that has an actual existence. This is a part of the theory I don't understand; it makes no sense to me,DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:49 am We now agree on three principles...
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
Based on these three principles...
Would you agree that the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"?
(I think that is the implication of your most recent response to Rick)
Would you agree that whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space?
So far I think the following five principles can be derived from the Big Bang TheoryHowever I can see your point that if these things did come into existence, it makes sense to believe something outside of it must have caused it to come into existence.
The big bang theory speaks of space and time as something that has an actual existence. This is a part of the theory I don't understand; it makes no sense to me, I have no idea what that means. I've always thought of space as meaning nothing at all, and time as a system to measure action. But obviously nobody is going to claim "nothing at all" came into existence, or a system began to exist before people existed, so it must mean something else. However I can see your point that if these things did come into existence, it makes sense to believe something outside of it must have caused it to come into existence.
Not sure what you mean by Casual Agent, But if we assume there are parameters to space and time, and that they came into existence, at face value it would make sense that something outside of time and space could be responsible for it coming into existence. But in order for that to happen, that something else would have to be active, and whatever actions anything make, time can be applied to that action. After all, how could something exist before time?DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:36 amI don't claim to understand it either.Kenny wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:52 amThe big bang theory speaks of space and time as something that has an actual existence. This is a part of the theory I don't understand; it makes no sense to me,DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:49 am We now agree on three principles...
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
Based on these three principles...
Would you agree that the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"?
(I think that is the implication of your most recent response to Rick)
Would you agree that whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space?
Because I exist within the natural parameters of our space-time continuum, I don't even have a frame of reference to understand what it means to exist outside of the context of our space-time continuum.
However, the Big Bang Theory tells us that...
at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
So far I think the following five principles can be derived from the Big Bang TheoryHowever I can see your point that if these things did come into existence, it makes sense to believe something outside of it must have caused it to come into existence.
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
4. the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"
5. whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space
So to put this all together, would you agree that the Big Bang Theory points to the existence of...
A cause for the fabric of time space coming into existence that functions outside of time and space and is is not constrained by the laws of physics as we understand them.
or to put it more simply
A causal agent that transcends space, time, and the laws of nature.