Where did the energy come from?

[Jonesy]

If there WAS a Big Bang, and it was a huge energy explosion, then, where the hell did this energy come from? I'm just wondering about this, maybe at the point of the explosion, the energy came from a different dimension or something? Does anyone know more about this or has some opinion? Maybe the natural laws/processes were much different at the Big Bang than they are now?

[DB_Hunter]

[quote]Originally posted by Thiaoouba:
<strong>If there WAS a Big Bang, and it was a huge energy explosion, then, where the hell did this energy come from? I'm just wondering about this, maybe at the point of the explosion, the energy came from a different dimension or something? Does anyone know more about this or has some opinion? Maybe the natural laws/processes were much different at the Big Bang than they are now?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why is it an "explosion"? There was nothing for it to "explode" into - the bounderies of the universe simply expanded. As for where the energy came from: E=mc^2. The mass of the universe was contained in basically a singularity, but we don't even know anything about that period. Hell, time as we understand it didn't exist.

We'll know the conditions at Plank time for the big bang when we have, first a Grand Unified Theory, and then a Theory of Everything. Until then, we're pretty much clueless.

Read a few good books (either general or college textbooks), not only on big bang theory, but also on general cosmology and quantum mechanics.

DB

[Jonesy]

So, what you are saying is that the mass was initially infinitely small; and then, the mass began to increase and travel with the speed of light squared, thus creating the energy. But can we apply Einstein's equation to those micro moments after T=0? What if the initial exapnsion progressed at a speed greater than light? Also, wasn't light itself being created for a few seconds?

Also, if the entire mass was in a singularity at the start, then what was the 'impulse' to INITIATE the expansion FROM that singularity. I would tend to think that any event such as this has INPUTS that 'propel' the expansion. These inputs - maybe they came from another dimension? And, being inputs that start a process (I mean, one day we will probably be able to draw a curve representing the increase of atoms with time from T=0), isn't it likely that if EVERYTHING was a consequence of this singularity suddenly expanding itself, then, AFTER the explosion, we would get DECAY? But scientists have found that things in the Universe are STILL accelerating AWAY from each other! But this means that the inputs that caused the Big Bang are STILL operating and thus the 'mechanism' is still operating.

To me, this points to some type of a design process that occurred BEFORE the Big Bang, because it's like these initial conditions were 'designed' to KEEP the universe expanding (maybe forever - maybe the 'program' has a never ending loop that ensures the rate of expansion will never reach 'an upper limit'?

[DB_Hunter]

[quote]Originally posted by Thiaoouba:
<strong>So, what you are saying is that the mass was initially infinitely small; and then, the mass began to increase and travel with the speed of light squared, thus creating the energy. But can we apply Einstein's equation to those micro moments after T=0? What if the initial exapnsion progressed at a speed greater than light? Also, wasn't light itself being created for a few seconds?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Are you incapable of reading, and completely ignorant of physics? What part of "We'll know the conditions at Plank time for the big bang when we have, first a Grand Unified Theory, and then a Theory of Everything" do you not understand? The following sentence pretty much sums it all up - we know the conditions a few seconds after the big bang, but by that time, most of the really cool, very weird stuff already happened. It's the stuff around 10^-43 seconds that we don't know about, and CAN'T understand until we have a working GUT and TOE. E=mc^2 has nothing do do with travel of matter - it means that matter and energy are just different forms of the other. Wrap your brain around vacuum diagrams, and when you understand how a antiproton can go back in time to start the quantum fluctuation that formed it, come back.

Again, read a textbook on QM and big bang cosmology. Better yet, start with a non-science textbook on general physics, and work your way up.

[quote]<strong>Also, if the entire mass was in a singularity at the start, then what was the 'impulse' to INITIATE the expansion FROM that singularity. I would tend to think that any event such as this has INPUTS that 'propel' the expansion. These inputs - maybe they came from another dimension?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Again, no GUT or TOE, no theory. And, since we can't replicate those conditions yet, we can't know much about it.

[quote]<strong>To me, this points to some type of a design process that occurred BEFORE the Big Bang, because it's like these initial conditions were 'designed' to KEEP the universe expanding (maybe forever - maybe the 'program' has a never ending loop that ensures the rate of expansion will never reach 'an upper limit'?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then your "designer" is an idiot - if the Hubble constant keeps increasing, the universe will die a heat death, and LAWKI would be impossible. Lots of compassion there - life all over the universe would just freeze to death. Remember - we're living in the very youth of the universe, and it's already starting to lose it's luster.

DB

[Answerer]

Well, actually, it will be wrong if you assume energy begin first, they are believed to come together with spacetime and matter which is a form of energy too. Sadly, no one really knows what happens before the Big Bang, if someone claims he does, that people most likely must be lying or otherwise he is beyond hope.

[Oolon Colluphid]

DB Hunter asked of Thiaoouba:

[quote]Are you incapable of reading<hr></blockquote>

Not incapable, but boy you should see what he’s reading:

[quote]Originally posted by Thiaoouba in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000226&p=2" target="_blank">this thread</a>:
<strong>

Please read the following. It's short and simple to read:

<a href="http://www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip" target="_blank">www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip</a>

(Download, unzip and use password 'free' in the pdf file)

The description of that book is under:
<a href="http://TheFreedomofChoice.com/" target="_blank">http://TheFreedomofChoice.com/</a>

I'm coming from lines similar to those of the author of that book.

Initially there was Nothing. The inteligent creator was the very first thing to develop IN the nothing. He thought up and designed the Big Bang and everything that goes after it. When 'in' the nothing, the intelligent being was 'something' and for this 'creator', reality was much different (we don't know what exactly) then our reality now. The creator, being infinitely intelligent, can be in whatever reality it desires to be. We, humans, have to date figured out how to experience only one reality.

But have a read of the book above, as it best presents the argument for Intelligent Design of the Universe.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]and completely ignorant of physics? <hr></blockquote>

DB, I guess you figured out the answer to that...

Oolon

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

[Rational Ag]

[quote] If there WAS a Big Bang, and it was a huge energy explosion, then, where the hell did this energy come from? <hr></blockquote>

Energy and matter are fundamentally the same thing, in interchangeable forms. The universe didn't have to necessarily start with only energy or only matter, and since the "origins" of the universe are not known, most of what we can come up is purely speculation.

In addition, they didn't have to "come from" anything. Energy and matter, in a very large finite quantity (since neither energy or matter can be destroyed as we currently understand it), is likely eternally existent. I think DB_hunter is right on target with regards to the age of universe, and the respective changes that have been slowly happening since the "big bang".

-Rational Ag

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Rational Ag ]</p>

[Francois Tremblay]

"Where did the energy come from ?" is a loaded question. Thiaoouba, have you stopped beating your wife ?

[Queen of Swords]

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000223" target="_blank">Thiaoouba.</a> :)

[eh]

While this may sound like a crackpot question, it's not. Though his motives may be questionable, the question still is an interesting one. In cosmology, the leading answer is inflation.

In short, all energy comes from gravity. All you need is a small bubble of vacuum energy to convert a universe 100 million times smaller than a proton to a massive expanding fireball with massive amounts of energy. Do a search on Yahoo for 'inflation cosmology' and you should be able to dig something up interesting. If inflation is true, one must wonder what a creator is needed for.

There is also the Ekpyrotic scenario, which is based on M-theory. Basically our universe is on of 2 branes in a bulk 3D 5th dimension. When these branes collide, the energy of the collision is what cause our big bang. Unlike the other BB models, there is no singularity here. Do a search on Yahoo for 'ekpyrotic' for some got info on the subject. This one may sound quite out of this world, but it has made some predictions that will be tested in the near future. Besides, in this scenario the energy does come from another dimension, so it might be your cup of tea.

Now as for the idea that a designer was needed to set the initial conditions, this might be true. But, you should be aware that some natural explainations do exist, and though unproven as of yet, they do offer a better explaination than the supernatural one.

In the ekpyrotic model, the cycle of collisions is likely to go on forever, which means it could have been going on for a long time into the past. We just happen to be on a cycle where the universe formed life, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

With inflation, the same mechanism for the creation our universe is present today - that being this mysterious vacumm energy in an expanding universe. It is possible that at certain regions, inflation occurs and that region will expand much more rapidly than power law expansion, and in the process lay the seeds for the formation of new galaxies, much the same as our local big bang. The laws of physics may be slightly different in these different regions of the universe, and we just happen to live in one where life is possible.

Neither of these has been proven yet, but neither has the concept of a designer. The difference is, both of these scenarios will be testable in the near future, while the designer never will be.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: eh ]</p>

[eh]

DB_Hunter,

Do you suppose there is a way to type in the squared symbol on a keyboard? It comes up often, and it kinda sucks to have to write is E=MC2, or E=mc^2. I know there must be a way to do it, but I can't recall how.

[Melintur]

hmm. does this work?

E=mc²

----
yep seemed to. The Windows key command is
ALT-0178

-=C

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Melintur ]</p>

[DB_Hunter]

That works... I'm just too lazy to look up the codes, so I just followed the standard conventions and used the caret.

There was an article put out a few days ago about the Hubble constant steadily decrease the further back in time/space you look - i.e., it's speeding up. The researchers jsut called it "dark energy," something that opposed gravity. We still don't know WHAT gravity is, exactly - Einstein's "matter warping spacetime" or QM's gaviton-carried force. Time to build that backyard gravity wave detector - all I need now is a good interferometer...

DB

[Answerer]

[quote]Originally posted by eh:
<strong>While this may sound like a crackpot question, it's not. Though his motives may be questionable, the question still is an interesting one. In cosmology, the leading answer is inflation.

In short, all energy comes from gravity. All you need is a small bubble of vacuum energy to convert a universe 100 million times smaller than a proton to a massive expanding fireball with massive amounts of energy. Do a search on Yahoo for 'inflation cosmology' and you should be able to dig something up interesting. If inflation is true, one must wonder what a creator is needed for.

There is also the Ekpyrotic scenario, which is based on M-theory. Basically our universe is on of 2 branes in a bulk 3D 5th dimension. When these branes collide, the energy of the collision is what cause our big bang. Unlike the other BB models, there is no singularity here. Do a search on Yahoo for 'ekpyrotic' for some got info on the subject. This one may sound quite out of this world, but it has made some predictions that will be tested in the near future. Besides, in this scenario the energy does come from another dimension, so it might be your cup of tea.

Now as for the idea that a designer was needed to set the initial conditions, this might be true. But, you should be aware that some natural explainations do exist, and though unproven as of yet, they do offer a better explaination than the supernatural one.

In the ekpyrotic model, the cycle of collisions is likely to go on forever, which means it could have been going on for a long time into the past. We just happen to be on a cycle where the universe formed life, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

With inflation, the same mechanism for the creation our universe is present today - that being this mysterious vacumm energy in an expanding universe. It is possible that at certain regions, inflation occurs and that region will expand much more rapidly than power law expansion, and in the process lay the seeds for the formation of new galaxies, much the same as our local big bang. The laws of physics may be slightly different in these different regions of the universe, and we just happen to live in one where life is possible.

Neither of these has been proven yet, but neither has the concept of a designer. The difference is, both of these scenarios will be testable in the near future, while the designer never will be.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: eh ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry eh, I hate to say this but I don't think that all energies come from gravity for if what you said is true, the physicists would not have been searching for the 'One force'. Anyway, string theory faces the big problem of not being realistic. So far, there is no single experiment capable of discovering the 'extra' dimensions and super particle 'tarchon' that was predicted in string theory. Besides if the string theory is true, then the law of causality is wrong and this will cause an upheaval in the religious community.

[Pennywise the clown]

Jiminy Crickets Thiaoouba!

Beep! Beep!

Hello, hello, is anyone in there?

*raps on forehead*

How many boards have you hit with your tacky web page, crappy book, and sorry theories?

Vana, can I get a vowel please?

You'd think that after 2 plus years of people making fun of bio-resonant shirts and your crackpot theories that you'd finally figure out that maybe people are NEVER going to take you seriously.

Give it up junior!

Has the international science community embraced Dr. Chalko's theories?

No I say!

Has his crackpot theories appeared in any credible scientific journals?

No I say!

Would your bio-resonant shirt make a good clown cape?

Beep! Beep! Yes I say!

I'm the biggest goofball in the world and if I can figure this out there's hope for you!

Sheesh!

This is going to take two candles and a whole pot of incense!

Now where did I put my "happy place"?

[eh]

[quote]Originally posted by Answerer:
<strong>

Sorry eh, I hate to say this but I don't think that all energies come from gravity for if what you said is true, the physicists would not have been searching for the 'One force'. Anyway, string theory faces the big problem of not being realistic. So far, there is no single experiment capable of discovering the 'extra' dimensions and super particle 'tarchon' that was predicted in string theory. Besides if the string theory is true, then the law of causality is wrong and this will cause an upheaval in the religious community.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well that is just what inflation proposes. Hawkings and others say that the universe borrows its energy from the potential energy of gravity, though this 'debt' won't have to be paid back since the universe will expand forever.

What is this 'one' force you are referring to? Is it when the four forces where as one at the planck era?

[Dacurl930]

[quote]Originally posted by Thiaoouba:
<strong>If there WAS a Big Bang, and it was a huge energy explosion, then, where the hell did this energy come from?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm no expert but, according to recent studies the net amount of energy in the universe is about 0. Meaning there is and equal amount of positive energy and negative energy (gravity, anti-matter, anti-energy, ect..). Therefore, since the universe contains zero positive energy and the big bang (under the inflation theory) required zero energy to start, our universe came into existence without breaking any laws of physics.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Dacurl930 ]

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Dacurl930 ]</p>

[Answerer]

[quote]Originally posted by eh:
<strong>

Well that is just what inflation proposes. Hawkings and others say that the universe borrows its energy from the potential energy of gravity, though this 'debt' won't have to be paid back since the universe will expand forever.

What is this 'one' force you are referring to? Is it when the four forces where as one at the planck era?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, I refer to the unifying force in the beginning. However, as I have observed physicist is becoming more and more and more like fantasy writers as they could no longer accurately predict their newest theories. This is a bad trend that I hope will change.

[Bill]

As somebody who finds the early stages of string theory to be a convincing prelude to the ever-elusive Theory of Everything (ToE), I highly recommend Brian Greene's book <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=186" target="_blank">The Elegant Universe</a> for a good description of just how everything might be explained.

As for where does the energy come from, the last I recall is that there seems to be (in the equations underlying string theory) a vast energy source just one iota away along the extra-dimensional axis towards said source, or something along those lines. Thus, the "Big Bang" was just one of those places where that reservoir sort-of "sprung a leak" and spit out a universe in the process.

== Bill

[Zar]

[quote]Originally posted by Answerer:
<strong>Sadly, no one really knows what happens before the Big Bang, if someone claims he does, that people most likely must be lying or otherwise he is beyond hope.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How dogmatic! ;)

Along these lines, a cosmologist by the name of Alan Guth of MIT has provided an explanation of what happened before the classical big bang that has been challenged many times but successfully corroborated (passed all tests devised for it thus far.) The April 2002 Issue of Discover Magazine relates Guth's inflationary pre-big bang theory, which begins by stating that the universe popped into existence out of nothing. End of story. He says over the years there has been mounting evidence for this.

Although the Discover article would not satisfy a real cosmologist in terms of depth, it is an interesting read and I recommend it. My personal feeling about this is the existence of the universe we live in must ultimately be explicable in terms of beginning from nothing (ex nihilo) or having existed (in some form) eternally. There are no other choices. It looks like the answer is the former.

P.S.: An interesting clip from a website where Guth was speaking to an audience of colleagues:

[quote]Well, inflation is actually a process that doesn't go back all the way to the beginning. Inflation sets in at a certain point. So it doesn't really change the issue of the singularity in detail, but it does change the way that people think about it because inflation allows you to produce a universe as large as what we see from a universe that's initially microscopic. <strong>And that means that one can think about that initial microscopic universe as something that was created entirely by a quantum fluctuation.</strong> So one gets away from the equations describing the big bang in the context of classical general relativity. I think it's the belief of almost everybody working in cosmology today that the singularity of classical general relativity is an artifact of the classical theory, something that will disappear when we understand things properly from a quantum point of view. And inflation is certainly an important link to that story. It allows you to start with a quantum-sized universe and produce a big universe.<hr></blockquote>

And if I understand his meaning of "quantum fluctuation" correctly, it means a fluctuation in nothingness that results in a "somethingness." Apparently this happens even now, except the matter quickly annihilates itself again, so there is no change anywhere. But there is an infinitessimal chance it could result in something more. Quantum physics is a probablilistic enterpreise, so this sort of thing is possible, even if exceedingly unlikely. Don't ask me to explain the quantum physics that underly this any further, because I don't pretend to understand it. This is just what he and apparently many other physicists seem to think is a plausible theory.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Zar ]</p>

[Malaclypse the Younger]

Zar

[quote]How dogmatic! ;) <hr></blockquote>

Of course it is not. To accept or reject an idea by reason is not dogmatism. To accept it or reject it by the authority of another is dogmatism.

However, Answerer's post could be a little more precise. I would phrase it as, "The physics of the universe outside the boundries of observable space-time are poorly understood, and resistant to direct experimental investigation. Therefore, anyone who claims to understand those physics is most likely merely speculating, and their ideas should be treated with the highest skeptical investigation."

[quote]And if I understand his meaning of "quantum fluctuation" correctly, it means a fluctuation in nothingness that results in a "somethingness." Apparently this happens even now...<hr></blockquote>

This is not correct. The vacuum is not "nothing", it is "vacuum". however, even vacuum is merely a particular state of the relativistic quantum field (RQF), which simply exists. Spacetime and mass-energy are merely particular states of the RQF, represented by particular solutions of RQF theory (RQFT).

Interestingly enough the RQF fulfills all the requirements (according to my very high-level layman's understanding of RQFT) of the "first cause" or Kalaam "deity". It self-existing "outside" spacetime. It is creative, through pure randomness. It is "eternal" without being of infinite duration (since duration itself is a local special case). It is "omnipotent", in that all things that can happen, do happen, "somewhere" (whatever "somewhere" means wrt a phenomenon where location itself is alsom merely a local special case).

However, there is no justification to believe the RQF is sentient or benevolent. It merely is.

[Zar]

Thanks for the comments, Malaclypse. And I have no cause to disagree with you.

I'll let the people who know better than me take it from here...I just thought the article was interesting and at least showed that respected scientists (not "liars") did think they knew something about what happened before the so-called big bang.

[Bob K]

Try this:

The universe consists of at least three independent realities: (1) the spatial reality; (2) the temporal reality; (3) the physical reality.

1. The spatial reality is the infinite emptiness which is space; space would be empty—a pure vacuum—except for the presence of the matter/energy which is the physical reality; the spatial reality is infinite in duration; the spatial reality is dimensionless, unbounded, limitless.

2. The temporal reality is the concept of time which is the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences by means of time-intervals; time as measured by invariant time-intervals is the same for all observers—time measured by means of invariant time-intervals in clocks which are motion/gravity-sensing and self-adjusting always show an increase in clock face readings; time moves forwards into the future, is irreversible and therefore is asymmetrical; there was never a beginning to time, nor will there ever be an ending of time.

3. The physical reality is the matter/energy (including gravity and the electric charge) which comprises all things [objects] and events [relationships between/among things]; the physical reality fills part if not all of space; its duration is infinite—matter/energy can be changed in form but never destroyed: E = mc2 and m = E/c2; its quantity is finite—the sum total of matter/energy is a constant [Thermodynamics]; the physical reality as matter/energy is the source of causality; nothing comes from nothing, therefore something can only come from something else.

Since there was no beginning to time, nor is there an ending, since there was no beginning to space, nor is there an ending, since there was no beginning to matter/energy, nor is there an ending, since nothing comes from nothing/something can only come from something, and since matter/energy is the source of all causality, then if a big bang occurred the energy was present as matter/energy, matter/energy was present as the source of the causality of the bang, space was also present as the unbounded place within which the bang could occur, and time was also present as a concept only needing to be realized.

Summary: The energy needed for the big bang was present prior to the bang.

[Answerer]

[quote]Originally posted by Zar:
<strong>

And if I understand his meaning of "quantum fluctuation" correctly, it means a fluctuation in nothingness that results in a "somethingness." Apparently this happens even now, except the matter quickly annihilates itself again, so there is no change anywhere. But there is an infinitessimal chance it could result in something more. Quantum physics is a probablilistic enterpreise, so this sort of thing is possible, even if exceedingly unlikely. Don't ask me to explain the quantum physics that underly this any further, because I don't pretend to understand it. This is just what he and apparently many other physicists seem to think is a plausible theory.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Zar ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well Zar, obviously, theory is not fact or laws and I think you know that, so isn't you are making my point?

[Light]

Originally posted by Bob K Summary: The Energy needed for the big-bang was present prior to the bang.

Is this Energy you speak of ... God? Was it He Who was The Effective Cause of Creation, Al 'Illah?

Do you think that God Created one big-bang Universe or is it possible that He Created it Galaxy by Galaxy in the Sea of Infinite and Eternal Energy of The Nun?

The Conservation of Energy Principle applies, as you say, to conservation of energy as Created Matter returns to energy only.

That confirms what I was saying in other threads, if you agree.

E = mc² has always interested me, and I made a mistake about this only recently, however what you are looking at is one spherical explosion, if it is conducted in free space.

Here the quantity of Energy released will equal the Volume of the sphere, and it occured to me that this could easily be constructed using the volume of a sphere formula together with the General Energy Equation, E = mv.

So 4/3x3.142xr³ where r & v is replaced by c as Light radiates out from the centre of the explosion in 3 dimensions.

So E = 4,1887902048 x mc³

Obviously this is wrong as well.

[eh]

What is with these old threads being brought back to life recently? You can see the date of the post if you look closely enough, and any thread you find the archive is likely to be over a year old.

[rasputin1072]

Read a few good books (either general or college textbooks), not only on big bang theory, but also on general cosmology and quantum mechanics.

I recomend "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. It is an excelent read. Also, if you knew about physics you would know that things Don't just come from other demensions. The whole realm of science fiction has butchered the facts about demensions beyond recognition.

[Secular Elation]

What is with these old threads being brought back to life recently?

So what?

[Shake]

First, let me echo Secular Elation's "so what?" I mean, why can't newer users participate in a topic that was started before they got here? Of course, if the new user thinks that all of the original players are still interested, then that's their fault.

In this particular case, I saw no specific resolution.

Anyway, on to the new post:
Originally posted by Light
Is this Energy you speak of ... God? Was it He Who was The Effective Cause of Creation, Al 'Illah?

Do you think that God Created one big-bang Universe or is it possible that He Created it Galaxy by Galaxy in the Sea of Infinite and Eternal Energy of The Nun?No. This board is primarily composed of non-theists. We don't believe in your (or anyone else's) god(s).

E = mc² has always interested me, and I made a mistake about this only recently, however what you are looking at is one spherical explosion, if it is conducted in free space.I think it's generally accepted that you can't truly call the Big Bang a spherical explosion. IIRC the current Big Bang cosmologies posit that spacetime itself was created in this "explosion". Our current perception of "explosion" is only an attempt to put what happened into terms which we can more easily understand. There was no "outside" in which to perceive what happened.

Here the quantity of Energy released will equal the Volume of the sphere, and it occured to me that this could easily be constructed using the volume of a sphere formula together with the General Energy Equation, E = mv.

So 4/3x3.142xr³ where r & v is replaced by c as Light radiates out from the centre of the explosion in 3 dimensions.

So E = 4,1887902048 x mc³

Obviously this is wrong as well. Well, I don't see how your first assertion is true, and where did you get the E=mv equation? This looks to me like the formula for momentum, p=mv. I'm afraid I don't follow how you reach the conclusion that E is equal to anything but mc².

[Light]

First, let me echo Secular Elation's "so what?" I mean, why can't newer users participate in a topic that was started before they got here? Of course, if the new user thinks that all of the original players are still interested, then that's their fault.

In this particular case, I saw no specific resolution.

Anyway, on to the new post:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Light
Is this Energy you speak of ... God? Was it He Who was The Effective Cause of Creation, Al 'Illah?

Do you think that God Created one big-bang Universe or is it possible that He Created it Galaxy by Galaxy in the Sea of Infinite and Eternal Energy of The Nun?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. This board is primarily composed of non-theists. We don't believe in your (or anyone else's) god(s).

I don't believe in theories either. I just believe in God.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E = mc² has always interested me, and I made a mistake about this only recently, however what you are looking at is one spherical explosion, if it is conducted in free space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's generally accepted that you can't truly call the Big Bang a spherical explosion. IIRC the current Big Bang cosmologies posit that spacetime itself was created in this "explosion". Our current perception of "explosion" is only an attempt to put what happened into terms which we can more easily understand. There was no "outside" in which to perceive what happened.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here the quantity of Energy released will equal the Volume of the sphere, and it occured to me that this could easily be constructed using the volume of a sphere formula together with the General Energy Equation, E = mv.

So 4/3x3.142xr³ where r & v is replaced by c as Light radiates out from the centre of the explosion in 3 dimensions.

So E = 4,1887902048 x mc³

Obviously this is wrong as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Well, I don't see how your first assertion is true, and where did you get the E=mv equation? This looks to me like the formula for momentum, p=mv. I'm afraid I don't follow how you reach the conclusion that E is equal to anything but mc²".

Just that the energy contained in the momentum p is converted to energy when the mass strikes another object.

Years ago this was called The General Energy Equation and simply written E = mv. E = mc² refers to the bomb energy release, NOT to Creation.

This has happened a lot as we all use different systems. Imperial, Metric or SI, and even the SI system was not standard.

The "Big-Bang" was really a potential discharge in a sea of pure energy which has aways existed (eternal) as the Conservation of Energy Principle states that energy cannot be destroyed completely but just runs down the energy gradient until it reaches maximum entropy when no potential is left in the system to do further work.

An "additional force" is then needed to raise the potential (Creation).

After the potential discharge then the two sides of the Sea close rapidly and force energy to coalesce into Atoms and Molecules. This is then the start of Creation. The Atoms and Molecules then coalesce further to form mass and eventually produce a black hole which then condenses into a Sun.

When it reaches the critical mass the shell blows off and it gives Light.

This is the same for an infinite, or boundless, system as it is for a closed system. It is just that you can measure this happening in a closed system but then you have to visualise it clearly for the infinite system.

The spherical explosion which I am referring to is that of an atomic bomb. The big-bang was an implosion.

This produces a Red Sun, and it is therefore just like the "story" of the Red Sea which swallowed up the Egyptians.

A rather curious "coincidence". (?)

May the "Force" be with you. = God be with you.

[wade-w]

Light, please start using the quote function. As it is, the formatting in your replies is extremely difficult to read.

[Light]

Originally posted by wade-w
Light, please start using the quote function. As it is, the formatting in your replies is extremely difficult to read.

Hello Wade. When I use the quote function, if it has quotes in it already, then they do not appear.

Is it this browser maybe or is it a bug?

Thanks,

L