Cosmogenesis .

[unbeliever]

You should have said it might be expanding and it might have had a beginning, something that is very unlikely by the way.

 

I should not have said that. It almost certainly had a beginning and I'd bet my life that it's expanding.

[sutty27]

I should not have said that. It almost certainly had a beginning and I'd bet my life that it's expanding.

 

Yet there is no known mechanism for getting something from nothing, it also assumes that nothing is possible.

 

You will never win the bet because we will never know one way or the other.

 

I would put my money on always existed and infinite but I also will never know.

[unbeliever]

Yet there is no known mechanism for getting something from nothing, it also assumes that nothing is possible.

 

You will never win the bet because we will never know one way or the other.

 

I would put my money on always existed and infinite but I also will never know.

 

That solves nothing as your eternal, infinite universe still begs the question of why is such a complex thing there at all. The zero energy universe model at least makes a step toward a solution to that question.

 

I place a second bet that at some point we shall know with high certainty.

I already know with high confidence that your eternal, infinite universe model is wrong as in order to make a static universe model you have to make something else (e.g. time) change with time. If something else is changing then it's not a stable system.

 

Here's more evidence that the universe is not infinitely old.

The universe is constantly increasing in entropy. The primary mechanism for this is that hydrogen is being converted to helium (and heavier elements) in stars emitting various kinds of radiation in the process. Eventually the supply of hydrogen will be effectively exhausted and the stars will go out. If the universe had been here for ever, there would be no stars.

[sutty27]

That solves nothing as your eternal, infinite universe still begs the question of why is such a complex thing there at all. The zero energy universe model at least makes a step toward a solution to that question.

50/50 chance of there being nothing or something, it just happened to be something, maybe nothing is impossible.

 

 

I place a second bet that at some point we shall know with high certainty.

I already know with high confidence that your eternal, infinite universe model is wrong as in order to make a static universe model you have to make something else (e.g. time) change with time. If something else is changing then it's not a stable system.

 

In which post did I say anything about it being a static universe.

 

 

Here's more evidence that the universe is not infinitely old.

The universe is constantly increasing in entropy.

Unless it just this part of an infinite universe that is constantly increasing in entropy

 

 

The primary mechanism for this is that hydrogen is being converted to helium (and heavier elements) in stars emitting various kinds of radiation in the process. Eventually the supply of hydrogen will be effectively exhausted and the stars will go out. If the universe had been here for ever, there would be no stars.

 

For hydrogen to exist their must be a mechanism within the universe that creates hydrogen.

 

Unless it is constantly being replaced.

 

Unless stars form and die constantly throughout the universe.

[unbeliever]

 

For hydrogen to exist their must be a mechanism within the universe that creates hydrogen.

 

 

What mechanism?

We have a lot of big telescopes and other instruments. Where should we look for these hydrogen sources?

 

Don't tell me. You have no idea. But somehow that doesn't invalidate your position.

 

In the big bang model the universe went through an early phase of very high energy density and at this point all heavier elements cannot form because they are broken up by intense radiation. As the universe expanded the radiation spread out and the hydrogen was left behind. Later gravity pulled hydrogen together into lumps forming stars which ever since have been turning the hydrogen into heavier elements.

 

The conditions for the formation of new hydrogen have long since gone.

 

So in your model where does the hydrogen come from.

 

Now's the bit where you weasel out of an explanation for this catastrophic flaw in your model of the universe.

 

My problem with your approach to this debate is not that you disagree. It's that you're trying to tell me that your disagreement is consistent with science. It's isn't.

Edited May 9, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

What mechanism?

You believe everything can be created from nothingness, yet you are finding it difficult to imagine a universe that can create hydrogen. Which is more plausible, hydrogen created within a universe we don't fully understand, or hydrogen created from that which may not even be possible, non existence, nothingness.

 

 

We have a lot of big telescopes and other instruments. Where should we look for these hydrogen sources?

 

Its all over the universe.

 

A Giant Hydrogen Cloud Is Heading Toward the Milky Way

The vast, invisible cloud is expected to reach the Milky Way in 30 million years. When the cloud, which astronomers say is 11,000 light years long and 2,500 light years across, reaches the galaxy it is has enough gas to create a burst of 2 million suns.

http://time.com/4199809/hydrogen-cloud-milky-way/

 

 

Don't tell me. You have no idea. But somehow that doesn't invalidate your position.

 

If me not knowing invalidates my position, then big bang theory must also be invalid because they don't have all the answerers.

 

 

In the big bang model the universe went through an early phase of very high energy density and at this point all heavier elements cannot form because they are broken up by intense radiation.

That's an unproven assumption that may or may not turn out to be wrong.

 

 

 

As the universe expanded the radiation spread out and the hydrogen was left behind.

 

But what created the hydrogen.

 

Later gravity pulled hydrogen together into lumps forming stars which ever since have been turning the hydrogen into heavier elements.

 

All this could happen in a universe that already existed, in fact it is more likely to have happened in a universe that already existed and could be happening right now in other parts of the universe, its less likely to have just popped out of nothingness.

 

 

The conditions for the formation of new hydrogen have long since gone.

 

That's an unproven assumption, we don't know everything there is to know.

 

Its very unlikely that the conditions existed when there was nothing, yet here we are.

 

So in your model where does the hydrogen come from.

 

Where id it come from in your model?

 

 

 

 

My problem with your approach to this debate is not that you disagree. It's that you're trying to tell me that your disagreement is consistent with science. It's isn't.

 

Yet I am the one that produced links from scientific sources whilst you produced some wiki links.

[unbeliever]

You believe everything can be created from nothingness, yet you are finding it difficult to imagine a universe that can create hydrogen. Which is more plausible, hydrogen created within a universe we don't fully understand, or hydrogen created from that which may not even be possible, non existence, nothingness.

 

 

 

 

Its all over the universe.

 

A Giant Hydrogen Cloud Is Heading Toward the Milky Way

The vast, invisible cloud is expected to reach the Milky Way in 30 million years. When the cloud, which astronomers say is 11,000 light years long and 2,500 light years across, reaches the galaxy it is has enough gas to create a burst of 2 million suns.

http://time.com/4199809/hydrogen-cloud-milky-way/

 

 

 

 

If me not knowing invalidates my position, then big bang theory must also be invalid because they don't have all the answerers.

 

 

That's an unproven assumption that may or may not turn out to be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

But what created the hydrogen.

 

 

 

All this could happen in a universe that already existed, in fact it is more likely to have happened in a universe that already existed and could be happening right now in other parts of the universe, its less likely to have just popped out of nothingness.

 

 

 

 

That's an unproven assumption, we don't know everything there is to know.

 

Its very unlikely that the conditions existed when there was nothing, yet here we are.

 

 

 

Where id it come from in your model?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet I am the one that produced links from scientific sources whilst you produced some wiki links.

 

 

Wiki links are easier to follow and include references if you really want the primary sources.

As to the rest of your nonsense, I'm not going through it all again.

Your reasoning is completely at odds with the science. Live with it.

[sutty27]

Wiki links are easier to follow and include references if you really want the primary sources.

As to the rest of your nonsense, I'm not going through it all again.

Your reasoning is completely at odds with the science. Live with it.

 

It doesn't surprise me that you can't answer the questions, you want me to explain how my model would works yet you can't explain how your model works. Your model assumes that a universe can emerge from non existence, and mine assumes that everything already existed but not as we see it now.

 

The formation of Hydrogen requires very hot dense conditions, and gravity can create very hot dense condition, the centre of our galaxy is apparently very hot and very dense.

[unbeliever]

 

The formation of Hydrogen requires very hot dense conditions, and gravity can create very hot dense condition, the centre of our galaxy is apparently very hot and very dense.

 

Excellent. So hydrogen is being generated by the centre of the galaxy is it?

Let's set aside the question of how it escapes from the super-massive black whole which lives there for a moment.

In which direction should we point the telescope to see the hydrogen coming out?

 

Honestly this is silly. You're waving your hands about with no meaningful understanding of the field.

You prefer to think that the universe is eternal. You go right ahead. It's pretty harmless.

I doubt you'll come to any harm defining all experimental results which don't agree with your crazy ideas as "assumptions". Be wrong. Just don't be surprised by all the pointing and laughing.

[sutty27]

Excellent. So hydrogen is being generated by the centre of the galaxy is it?

Let's set aside the question of how it escapes from the super-massive black whole which lives there for a moment.

In which direction should we point the telescope to see the hydrogen coming out?

 

Perhaps it becomes a white hole and eventually regurgitates all the matter and energy that it swallowed.

 

 

Honestly this is silly. You're waving your hands about with no meaningful understanding of the field.

 

But not as silly as the universe emerged from non existence.