E = mc 2

Normally our discusion have been on evolution and abiogenesis, but this time it is on the less discussed cosmology aspect of origins.

Cosmology is an interesting topic, how it relates to origins and creation is that a question remains in regards to the scientific ideas that the entire universe and all it's matter came from a big bang, all this matter was basically invested into the universe at a single point and began to expand. To be clear I do not dispute the big bang or it's scientific timeline. But as E=mc2 states, massive energy was needed to convert to enormous amounts of atomic mass. And so the simple question is this, if the space that the physical universe now occupies, was a void of no matter and energy 1 trillion years ago, where did all that energy come from ?

The below video is very interesting and purely scientific, it actually mostly deals with the time aspect which is for a different thread, but it does make the point of matter to energy and energy to matter briefly.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
And so the simple question is this, if the space that the physical universe now occupies, was a void of no matter and energy 1 trillion years ago, where did all that energy come from ?

Can you generally define/describe what void means to you before I give my answer?

S&F

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The void would be equal to nothing, I guess it could be debated that if there was no physical universe, even the empty space that holds our entire physical universe did not exist back then. Or there could be and an endless void of nothing with no parameters, after all our universe is said to be still expanding, which would mean it has an expanding border, what is 500,000 million light years beyond that border, nothing, space, a void, what ? But at some point in the future the universe will occupy that space too, as it continues to expand, like it has for billions of years.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The void would be equal to nothing, I guess it could be debated that if there was no physical universe, even the empty space that holds our entire physical universe did not exist back then. Or there could be and an endless void of nothing with no parameters, after all our universe is said to be still expanding, which would mean it has an expanding border, what is 500,000 million light years beyond that border, nothing, space, a void, what ?

This is basically where I go with it, too.

How can you describe a void without comparing it to something? To say a void has no parameters is an idea dependent on the simultaneous idea of parameters. To say a void is empty is an idea dependent on the simultaneous idea of full, or partially full. To say a void does not exist in time is an idea dependent on time passing.

It seems to me, that a void (Nothing, emptiness) that exists in space but not in time, could not exist without a non-void (Something, fullness) existing in space and time to define it by comparison.

So all the energy in the non-void is what is necessary to produce a perpetual non-void because a perpetual void is dependent on it.

I wonder if the 'big bang' is just the latest beginning of a perpetual cycle where the contents of the non-void are sucked into a vortex and spit out again -- which is repeated again and again as necessary to make the non-void perpetual.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The void would be equal to nothing, I guess it could be debated that if there was no physical universe, even the empty space that holds our entire physical universe did not exist back then.

Also, how can a void not exist in space without a non-void existing in space to define it?

Everything In Space & Time AND Nothing Not In Space Nor Time have to exist simultaneously.

Let's take COLOR, for example:

For the void to be colorless, then there must be color. And if a color exists then it, too, needs another color to define it by comparison. And if two colors exist, they can combine to make another color. And if a new mixed-color exists, then it can mix with both of the original colors. And so on and so forth.

So the contents of the perpetual non-void in space and time are complex by necessity.

If the void is stationary, then the non-void must move. And if the non-void is complex and perpetual by necessity, then a lot of energy will be created as it moves in a perpetual path.

Recently I read something that Dr. Jason Lisle (Director of Research
Astronomy, Apologetics, Physics) wrote:

"Many of the laws of nature can be derived mathematically from other laws. For example, Kepler’s laws of planetary motion can be derived from Newton’s laws of gravity and motion (classical physics). And (it is thought that) the reason gravity works the way it does is because mass “curves space-time.” Essentially, space and time are treated as a “fabric” which is distorted by the presence of mass; the mass curves space-time, and then space-time tells the mass how to move. Many laws of nature depend on other laws which depend on still others, and so on. Ultimately, the fundamental laws of nature require a law-giver."

God perhaps? I can't think of many explanations to how something comes from nothing. That is mind blowing stuff. It only makes senses that some sort of divine intervention occurred.

a reply to: @OP

The answer is no one knows. There could be many universes and space/time could be infinite. If it is, then there was no beginning. If the energy came from another universe and was folded into a new universe, we'll probably never know that.



science.nasa.gov...

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Your post made me think helix. Perhaps our universe, reality and timeline exists in helix form. Maybe double, triple helixes(?). Several realities existing on almost the same plane, entangled and in one cohesive unit, going through the same perpetual motions.

originally posted by: SlowNail
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Your post made me think helix. Perhaps our universe, reality and timeline exists in helix form. Maybe double, triple helixes(?). Several realities existing on almost the same plane, entangled and in one cohesive unit, going through the same perpetual motions.

YES!

I have a shape in mind, too. I think of a torus with the big bang being our last exit from the vortex.

The shape of the torus is 'Space,' and the motion in and out is 'Time.' And it's all perpetual.

Also, if we travel one direction on the torus in time, perhaps another universe exists traveling the opposite way so that we can define our own path by comparison.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The idea of nothing is just that, an idea. No one has ever shown that at some point there was nothing and then there was something. As far as I'm concerned absolute nothing like you describe is just a concept, like the idea of perfection. Nothing can ever be truly perfect, it doesn't exist, and neither does nothing. There always had to be something.

Even in the creationist worldview this is so, there is always something eternal, in that case though it is an intelligent agency, a disembodied all powerful mind that exists in this void (typically God creates ex nihilo). I feel that this God requires some pretty egregious special pleading and violations of Occam's razor.

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
There always had to be something.

How do you know there is Something?

(This is just a straightforward question, not a Matrix/simulation type question.)

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Because it's nonsensical to say that nothing exists.

Even if we were to say that none of what we think exists exists we'd be in the exact same place, just not using the word "exist".

The assumption that external reality exists is one that human beings must make in order to move forward at all.

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Because it's nonsensical to say that nothing exists.

Even if we were to say that none of what we think exists exists we'd be in the exact same place, just not using the word "exist". The assumption that external reality exists is one that human beings must make in order to move forward at all.

Oh, I believe we exist and are a part of Something and realize you do, too.

But why do WE both believe that? I want you to put it in words.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I was going to try and say this in the other thread before you posted it:

Energy = matter. That's what E=MC2 is all about. The energy doesn't convert to matter, the energy IS matter. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. This means that the energy should have always been there, in one form or another. I don't know what form it was prior to singularity, if any, but it certainly wasn't nothing. Based on those laws, the energy was not created, so it rules out creation. If there are multiple dimensions, the energy could have come from there, or from another universe.

I have a very loose theory (layman's theory) on it. The theme of dark vs light has been part of our cultures for a long time. Virtually every holy book or ancient text has references to light vs dark or positive vs negative. What if doesn't actually mean good and evil, it references the dark and the light, the 2 key components of the universe. I know it can't be as simple as this, but you have a dimension of pure energy, and a dimension of darkness (call it the void or whatever you'd like). Every now and then the light expands into the dark. God is the dimension of light to which we are all connected.

This is where all the talk of duality comes from.

The yin and yang
god vs devil
the balance of karma
Set vs Ra

Perhaps it is all just in the very fabric of our beings because that is how this universe exists. It is like the light dimension blowing a bubble into the dark. Eventually the bubble will push it all back into the light dimension and a new one forms somewhere else. Black holes are caused by the stress of the border between them from stretching. This is why supernovas have the power to break through and create them. Once they are there, they act like relief valves.

I know it's all just a big guess, but I can't think of any other way to explain how this could happen without breaking laws of physics or accounting for the concept of time before time existed.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Polarising realities. So, our universe would eventually shrink to implosion at the same time as a new big bang takes place on the opposing timeline. We constantly force each other's realities into existence. Our universe is expanding right now, we're experiencing the bang in our current cycle. Wonder what it would be like on the 'other' side, in a regressing universe.

Good stuff. You've blown my mind.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Because to believe otherwise is nonsensical.

We think therefore we are. We experience sensations that tell us about external reality. We, human beings, gather observations that tell us, objectively, about the reality around us. Even if there were no reality around us we would know we exist (Cogito Ergo Sum) and we would still need to live our lives as if reality did exist.

a reply to: Barcs

Energy is equal to matter times the speed of light squared. Now, would that not prove we are more than flesh and bone? Yet, everything that exist is energy as well, so what happens to a tree when it dies? Does this energy dissipate? Or does it simply not exist any longer? What happens to all of this energy in living things once they are dead and gone?

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Because to believe otherwise is nonsensical.

We think therefore we are. We experience sensations that tell us about external reality. We, human beings, gather observations that tell us, objectively, about the reality around us. Even if there were no reality around us we would know we exist (Cogito Ergo Sum) and we would still need to live our lives as if reality did exist.

Obviously, we are just a part of Something much broader that isn't dependent on us thinking and therefore knowing we are. Even if there were no thinking and observing life in Something, it could/would obviously still exist.

And the only reason Something exists is because it is absolutely not Nothing, by comparison.

If there was a Creator, then where did the Creator originate? Out of Nothing?

It makes more sense to me that Nothing does not exist -- neither in space or time -- AND Something exists in space and time simultaneously and perpetually. Each giving the other the qualities and lack of qualities by comparison.

I used color as an example above. If Nothing is colorless, then Something must have color. Otherwise, how could Nothing be colorless?

But what color? No color could exist unless another color exists simultaneously to compare it to. And if two colors must exist, de facto, then those two colors could mix to make a third color. And then the third color can mix with both of the defacto first colors to make new colors...and so on until all the colors that make up Something define one another and 'colorlessness,' by comparison. Color is not limitless, it is limited to the amount of colors needed. No more, no less.

Everything that makes up Something is exactly the right variables to to bring Something into a perpetual state of being.

That makes more sense to me than just raising a new question: In the beginning there was a Creator, now where did the Creator originate?

Theories!!! YOU GOTTA LOVE EM!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Obviously, we are just a part of Something much broader that isn't dependent on us thinking and therefore knowing we are. Even if there were no thinking and observing life in Something, it could/would obviously still exist.

I completely agree. The Universe, Cosmos, Reality, whatever you want to call it, is obviously not contingent upon the existence of minds that can experience or comprehend it and I would argue is not contingent on any sort of mind at all for that matter.

Each giving the other the qualities and lack of qualities by comparison.

If I'm following you correctly than we are in complete agreement here. Nothing is defined as the absolute absence of something/anything. So nothing does not exist and cannot in any real sense. There never was, in my opinion, a point at which things went from a state of nothing to there being something, there "always" was something.

In philosophy it's one of the big questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? But the more I thought about it the more that bothered me, how is NOTHING even a possibility. It's just an assumption humans tend to make that nothing could even exist and yet the statement "(a) nothing exists" makes no sense. In my opinion the question itself is silly, it's one of the fundamental questions of philosophy that remains unanswered because the question itself is malformed.