Summations Only

I don't propose heat pops into existence in non-existence. I'm not.My position is this. The universe has an edge 13.7 billion years ago. It is unclear if something preceded or caused it, but current thinking seems to be in that there might well be. I agree that there should be to be something that explains the high order of the early universe. I don't know what that explanation is. I think pretending that my preferred explanation is the real one is futile.Was it Branes? Was it a place where time stretches infinitely forwards and back that simply generates entropy, the inevitable conclusion of which is the generation of universes? Was it something else? I have no idea.

Heat is an abstraction, remember? Another way to say temperature. Which is a measure of motion of objects. It is a mathematical description. An amount of motion of objects. Distance travelled per unit volume. No objects moving, no heat.
You only need to understand that and your bigbangism will disappear in a puff of logic.

Hi ringo, I don't know that.You did not ask what I would know.You asked what I would expect.Since there has never been a recorded event of something that has never existed beginning to exist instaneously anything we would expect would be dreamed up in our imagination. I see you have not looked up non-existence and you have no clue as to what non-existence is.Existence either exists or it does not exist and there is no mechanism by which existence could begin to exist.God Bless,

An objection I countered in Message 206 by pointing to an early time in the universe where there was motion and thus heat. And the temperature at that point could be construed as 'hot'.

None of that is true.Well - that's that.
Your baseless unfounded assertions have been completely refuted by my own baseless unfounded assertion.Perhaps you have something more than your usual arse-sourced word salad?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

There is also no mechanism by which it could have existed eternally.

You forgot to tell the judge what it was exactly doing the motions in so-called early universe, Mod. They claim no atoms or particles only fields of energetic soup. That's the essence of that religion: motions move and extensions get extended. Do you reckon the cat is about to swallow that?

Hi Omnivorous, Try my experiment of a balloon with air being added causing it to expanding in a bottle. It can only expand to the point the outside of the balloon reaches the glass that make up the bottle then it will try to expand outside the bottle, through the neck.If you then take another balloon and put air into it to make it expand without putting it in a container it will expand until it bursts.If the universe is as I have been told all that there is and was the size of a pea shortly after T=0 and there was nothing to expand into it would still be the size of that pea. Come to think of it that may be what exists, and we are much smaller than we think we are. For all I know we could be brains in a jar in a lab being manipulated by some kind of life form.So what is the difference? The existence outside of the universe provides a place where the universe can exist and expand Existence is Eternal.What else exists in the existence that our universe exists in?I put on my imagination hat and then I come up with:Another universe.
Many other universes.
Universes which have life just as ours.
Universes which have life far superior to ours.
Universes out there that are communicating with other universes.
Universes where things are happening that Gene Roddenberry never dreamed of.God Bless,

You need to demonstrate how the opposite is possible. For example separate heat from what is hot, leave the hot object to yourself and send its heat to the cat by the morning mail. Your persistence in your crypto-creo denial is noted by the cat, Pandita.

That may mean there is a mechanism whereby all that exists may not exist.
Your irrational faith addled your prevaricating brains. You lot here laugh at people like ICANT calling them creationists but he is consistent in comparison with you and is wiping the floor with your illogic each and every time.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Hi Mod, Either it existed 13.7 billion years ago or it began to exist 13.7 billion years ago as we have a problem at T=0 where the math does not work and tells us there was nothing there. From what I have read here at EvC the early universe was anyhing but a highly ordered universe.As I understand it the earliest moment of the existence of the universe it was a very small very hot smaller than a pea, cosmic soup of some kind. How it got to be trillions of degrees no one knows. The sourse of that heat no one knows. The mechanism that caused that cosmic soup to begin to expand no one knows. What caused the period of inflation no one knows. What caused it to slow down no one knows. No one knows what caused it to speed up again and continue to speed up today.But everybody assure me that it did. Sure you have an IDEA you just put forth Branes. You also mentioned eternal existence, (time stretches infinitely forwards and back).If our universe is eternal wouldn't it require a restart periodically with a renewal of energy? Just one of my musings.God Bless,

Nobody claims that. The temperature was the average kinetic energy of particles in the quark-gluon/electroweak plasma. Perhaps it would be better to criticize the actual theory.

Again - it would have been quicker if you had just typed "No".It is almost embarrassing to watch you struggle and fail to support even your most simplest of claims.
Your complete inability to provide any evidence for your assertions leads to the unavoidable conclusion that you are plucking ideas from out of thin air and have zero understanding of either physics or cosmology.
But I expect that your ignorance is a badge that you wear with pride.

Hi Mod, Can you explain to me how there could be movement in a substance that was planck size that everything that exists today in the universe existed?God Bless,

Then why would you expect it? We've never seen anything instantaneously beginning to exst and we've never seen anything existing eternally. Both hypothesis are equivalently imaginary. Existence isn't a thing; it's a property of things. Existence doesn't exist; only things exist.There is no known mechanism by which the universe could begin to exist from nothing nor is there any known mechanism by which it could exist eternally. (Eternity is an essentially meaningless concept anyway.)