Creation Ex Nihilo

JRich,

Of course all that Tryon has done is (possibly) verify the 1st Law. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The "zero energy" is the amount of excess energy, not the total energy as he claims. It is akin to a company Balance Sheet. The Assets and Liabilities always balance, but it is only when they are both zero can the company reasonably be said to not exist. It is not a proof of creation ex nihilo, it mearly says that if creation ex nihilo happens then there must be a balance - if matter is created, the corresponding gravitational energy must be created also. Also, it should be noted that the quantum vacuum from which Tryon theorizes matter/energy may be created, is not at all the same as "nothing". It has properties and rules. So he really hasn't proved what he claims, and in that sense has he shown his theory to be nothing.[/b]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: If putting your spin on this issue makes you happy you just made me happy. Creation ex nihilo didn't happen, therefore your God is non-existant or isn't the creator of every thing.

Which way do you want it.? (Creation ex nihlo by God or Nature) or (No God and No Creation ex nihilo)?


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

JRich,

I just read your link. Not all that bad. I did find references to the Pope and McBeth as being less than scientific.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Tom,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>If mass and energy are apples, and time and gravity are oranges, then you are quilty as charged. Since these things you wish to combine to get zero do not even have the same physical units, they cannot cancel one another in any meaningful way.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: This is a big "IF" with a bias. If mass and energy are apples and gravity is -apples (rotten apples, apples in decay) the Tryon stand vindicated.

At the most basic level these names that we apply to enities are infact common enities. Energy is energy, be it a bullit or that I expend at the key board defending "Nothing".


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>By contrast, if you have P physical entities having positive properties and wish to combine them with N physical entities having negative properties, you will have P+N physical entities no matter what value you get for their net properties.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: You seem to prefer to not also recognize that your P & N are my +s and -s and may be derived from "Nothing" without violating conservation.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Some of us see it as a principle of physics (i.e., a matter of logic, not experiment or observation) that something cannot become nothing and vice versa. You have stated clearly that you do not agree; and if you leave it at that, I think others here will leave you in peace. But you keep trying to defend your belief as if it could be reached by logic, and that attempt is guaranteed to draw continued criticism unless you can find a way to defeat logic with better logic.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I have yet to witness better logic than Creation ex nihilo.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>As things stand, your strongest case seems to be that mainstream astronomy also ignores principles of physics (logic), and allows creation ex nihilo, singularities, the finite becoming infinite, time reversal and other causality violations, energy conservation violation (the BB does not conserve energy as space expands), and instantaneous action at a distance. So you are in excellent company in having beliefs that violate such principles of physics. But that does not make any of these things logical or possible, and this MB is an especially bad place to argue otherwise because Meta Research exists to point out these illogical elements in mainstream science wherever they surface.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I respect and appreciate the other views but I do not find them persuasive. I do think you use to broad a brush when your assert these things violate some cast in stone law. Our physics have no such laws. Many of your examples are readily explained by symmetry breaking theories or the Uncertainity Principle, etc.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>I do admire your fortitude in making the effort despite so many opponents. I am reminded of the scene in "Raiders of the Lost Arc" where Harrison Ford falls into a pit of hissing vipers. -|Tom|-</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS:[] Thanks. I am reminded that as boys growing up my two older brothers and I had a favorite summer pass time.

We would stand back to back with ping pong paddles and stir up a bumble bees nest and test our resolve.

Damn bees always won.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Mac,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />JRich,

Of course all that Tryon has done is (possibly) verify the 1st Law. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The "zero energy" is the amount of excess energy, not the total energy as he claims. It is akin to a company Balance Sheet. The Assets and Liabilities always balance, but it is only when they are both zero can the company reasonably be said to not exist. It is not a proof of creation ex nihilo, it mearly says that if creation ex nihilo happens then there must be a balance - if matter is created, the corresponding gravitational energy must be created also. Also, it should be noted that the quantum vacuum from which Tryon theorizes matter/energy may be created, is not at all the same as "nothing". It has properties and rules. So he really hasn't proved what he claims, and in that sense has he shown his theory to be nothing.[/b]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: If putting your spin on this issue makes you happy you just made me happy. Creation ex nihilo didn't happen, therefore your God is non-existant or isn't the creator of every thing.

Which way do you want it.? (Creation ex nihlo by God or Nature) or (No God and No Creation ex nihilo)?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
As you may have surmised, I prefer no creation and no deity. The only thing we have in common is that my view and creation ex nihilo do not require a deity. In fact, creation ex nihilo pretty much rules one out while my view is neutral. In modern times, science dispensed with theology and creation and assumed a static universe until it appeared that the universe was expanding. Of course scientists realized that it couldn't have been expanding forever so there must have been a beginning. Whether this beginning was a creation ex nihilo is something that most BBers really don't want to talk about. The question is usually avoided. Sometimes ideas are played with but it is not really considered important. I think the weight of evidence against BB is close to critical and that it will be shown invalid in my lifetime. What effect would this paradigm shift have on your belief?


JR

JRich,

I have no mathematics to support my view but my hunch is that BB is a false concept. In fact I favor a Big Rip view. Not having a singularity BB could infact eliminate the need for an inflationary period.

My view could be seen more along the lines of an osmosis Creation ex niholo. I do not accept singularities nor infinite physical realities or eternities.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

I have yet to witness better logic than Creation ex nihilo.
___________________________________________________________________

mac

and of course i have never witnessed anything more illogical than creation ex nihilo!!