Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?

[shunyadragon]

I was wondering how star gazers could estimate the age of the universe.
NASA says it's based on Einstein (Yes, that guy) and his General Relativity:

from http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

That struck me as odd. Why don't they say 'We can use mathematics ' ? So I looked up General Relativity and found this:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

and more on good old Einstein from the same web page:


But blunders or not - let's use flaky mathematics for all sorts of purposes:

So let's stick with a massive mathematical blunder to determine the age of the universe!

Magellan

Yeah, sure, really, drum roll from Vaudeville. From a Cracker Jack diploma clownshoes.

[seer]

The matter and energy that is not eternal is that that exists above the zero-state field. The zero-state field contains energy at the lowest possible level, and is possibly eternal. Read the reference I cited.

Well good, then we agree that matter and energy (like we see in this universe, above the zero-field) is not eternal. And of course there is no evidence that this zero-field is eternal. Nor could that, even in theory, be demonstrated.

high school Newtonian physics

In physics, potential energy is the energy of a body or a system due to the position of the body or the arrangement of the particles of the system.

Yes, but this depends on particles (matter) being present. Didn't you already say in this thread that matter was also "potential" in the zero field:

The energy/matter relationship that we can observe above absolute zero only exists as potential energy and matter at this level.

So where are you getting the particles to fulfill the above high school definition if the particles themselves are only potential?

[shunyadragon]

Well good, then we agree that matter and energy (like we see in this universe, above the zero-field) is not eternal. And of course there is no evidence that this zero-field is eternal. Nor could that, even in theory, be demonstrated.

Yes, there is evidence that zero-state field is eternal and infinite, your ignoring the references I cite.

Yes, but this depends on particles (matter) being present. Didn't you already say in this thread that matter was also "potential" in the zero field:

Read the references and understand what the zero-state field is than come back. Some have described particles as being present in the zero-state field as zero-state, one reference uses the analogy of a spring at rest. it has been observed that quantum particles arise from the zero-state field, quantum particles make up neutrons, protons and electrons.

So where are you getting the particles to fulfill the above high school definition if the particles themselves are only potential?

E=mC^2 energy and particles are interchangeable, particles, or exist at zero-state, arise from the zero state as quantum particles.

Particles and other objects have potential and kinetic energy by their nature and position in relation to a reference zero-state.

[seer]

Yes, there is evidence that zero-state field is eternal and infinite, your ignoring the references I cite.

Your reference doesn't show evidence that said field is eternal, what are you talking about. As a matter of fact you have no idea if this field even existed before this present universe.

Read the references and understand what the zero-state field is than come back. Some have described particles as being present in the zero-state field as zero-state, one reference uses the analogy of a spring at rest. it has been observed that quantum particles arise from the zero-state field, quantum particles make up neutrons, protons and electrons.

That is not the point. You said that matter was only potential in the zero-field - your definition from "high school Newtonian physics" required actual particles, not potential particles. So your use of that definition was totally specious.

E=mC^2 energy and particles are interchangeable, particles, or exist at zero-state, arise from the zero state as quantum particles.

Particles and other objects have potential and kinetic energy by their nature and position in relation to a reference zero-state.

Listen Shuny, neither potential particles or potential energy are actual energy or particles. Or you would no label them "potential." Yes an actual particle may have potential or kinetic energy, but what does a potential particle have?

[shunyadragon]

Your reference doesn't show evidence that said field is eternal, what are you talking about. As a matter of fact you have no idea if this field even existed before this present universe.

Your not reading nor understanding the references.

That is not the point. You said that matter was only potential in the zero-field - your definition from "high school Newtonian physics" required actual particles, not potential particles. So your use of that definition was totally specious.

Did not read ALL the references, nor do you apparently understand how potential is used different ways in Physics. Face it your clueless.remember . . .

Potential energy does not exist.

Oh boy!!!! What a quote. I am going to save that one and hang it on the wall!!!!

Listen Shuny, neither potential particles or potential energy are actual energy or particles. Or you would no label them "potential." Yes an actual particle may have potential or kinetic energy, but what does a potential particle have?

Absolutely wrong if not kind of humorously tragic. Read the references and understand. First energy is potentially particles, and particles are potentially energy as you use it above. E=mc^2. Remember high school physics, and nuclear bomb?.

[JimL]

Except Jim, we have no evidence for this greater cosmos. We only have evidence for this universe. Let me quote from the New Scientist again, the under lined portions deal with your point.:

Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
11 January 2012 by Lisa Grossman
Magazine issue 2847.



http://www.newscient...ion-event.html?

It is certainly true that there is no absolute evidence of a greater cosmos, but there is no evidence of a distinct creater either. But if the natural world is evidence of anything, it evinces the fact that no thing can be created out of nothing.

[shunyadragon]

It is certainly true that there is no absolute evidence of a greater cosmos, but there is no evidence of a distinct creater either. But if the natural world is evidence of anything, it evinces the fact that no thing can be created out of nothing.

Nor can anything be created nor destroyed.

[magellan004]

Einstein thought his cosmological constant was a blunder, but with the discovery of accelerating expansion of the universe in the 90s, this has brought the idea back into fashion.

Thanks, Robrecht

Indeed. There is no denying that Einstein is quite the fashion accessory for the modern cosmologist.

Magellan

[robrecht]

Indeed. There is no denying that Einstein is quite the fashion accessory for the modern cosmologist.

Magellan

Actually, quantum theory is much more fashionable, as people try to develop a particle theory of gravity that could also encompass Einstein's theory. Einstein's theory seems easier conceptually so I am more familiar with it, but only as a layman. Surely, you do not mean to seriously imply that Einstein's theory should not be employed by cosmologists and other scientists, do you?

[seer]

Your not reading nor understanding the references.

Well how about this Shuny, can you link to where Vilenkin says that this zero-field is possiblly eternal and his reasons for believing it? Your references which I read twice now are completely speculative. No hard science.

Did not read ALL the references, nor do you apparently understand how potential is used different ways in Physics. Face it your clueless.remember . .

Merriam, Potential: existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality

So unless the discipline of physics has completely changed the definition you are incorrect. Can you link this new, different definition?

Oh boy!!!! What a quote. I am going to save that one and hang it on the wall!!!!

Shuny, can you show me where I said that "Potential energy does not exist." I don't remember writing that.

Absolutely wrong if not kind of humorously tragic. Read the references and understand. First energy is potentially particles, and particles are potentially energy as you use it above. E=mc^2. Remember high school physics, and nuclear bomb?.

But that is not what you said - you said that in the zero-field both matter and energy were potential, and according to the definition that means they are not actual. If you are now saying that energy is actual in this zero-field, then yes that could develop into matter. But that is not what you originally claimed.

[seer]

It is certainly true that there is no absolute evidence of a greater cosmos, but there is no evidence of a distinct creater either. But if the natural world is evidence of anything, it evinces the fact that no thing can be created out of nothing.

And since this universe is subject to entropy, we are back to the original problem. Where did the universe come from?

[shunyadragon]

Indeed. There is no denying that Einstein is quite the fashion accessory for the modern cosmologist.

Magellan

Agree with robrecht, actually no. Einstein was a pioneer in modern physics, bit most definitely not current to the modern theories. Your acrimonious derogatory attitude toward Einstein if off the scale of reasonable understand of the basics of science.

What are your qualifications for such reprehensible behavior?

[JimL]

And since this universe is subject to entropy, we are back to the original problem. Where did the universe come from?

Well, no doubt, our particular universe had a beginning, and it began in a state of very low entropy, but that I don't think is a good reason to assume creation out of nothing. Where did it come from is an unanswered question which is why we have science.

[seer]

Well, no doubt, our particular universe had a beginning, and it began in a state of very low entropy, but that I don't think is a good reason to assume creation out of nothing. Where did it come from is an unanswered question which is why we have science.

Well you assume that science can even answer the question. How could science look back into eternity, even in theory? Let's say we have good reason to believe that this universe was born out of Shuny's zero-field, or was the result of a previous universe - how do we know where these came from? Personally, I don't see how science could ever figure that out. Besides, science is not my god, God is my God...

[JimL]

Well you assume that science can even answer the question. How could science look back into eternity, even in theory? Let's say we have good reason to believe that this universe was born out of Shuny's zero-field, or was the result of a previous universe - how do we know where these came from? Personally, I don't see how science could ever figure that out. Besides, science is not my god, God is my God...

I understand that you believe in God and that he created the universe out of nothing, and of course since we can't say for sure, being that we do not know the answer to this question, at least not as of yet, it is a possibility, but it is also possible that that which is, i.e., the natural world, is eternal and that the universe, our universe, is a part of that eternal existence. We do know of possibilities as to how our universe came to be which does not contradict the natural law of cause and effect, what we don't know of is why, as Liebniz put, there is something rather than nothing, and that question would would need be answered whether it were asked of God or of the universe.