An Ether-Based Creation Model

Hi Michael, I see you are just like these posters here.I have been asking for years where whatever it was that the universe was formed from came from?The best answer I have got so far is "We don't know".So I will ask you the same question where did the "Entity could have arisen as part of a first-causal cosmic setting." come from.Better yet is where did it exist?Don't get me wrong. I do believe there is an energy field in which the universe exists. I believe the universe has always existed in some form just not in the form we see it today. I believe in the future it will melt and then be re-created and it will not look like it does today.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

Hi Tanypteryx From his opening statement I don't believe he believes in either.He is just looking for a reason he can believe in the Cosmic egg theory of creation.God Bless,

Hi Tanypteryx So are you saying all the assumptions that have to be believed and accepted to get the Big Bang Theory off the ground are worthless also?Definition of assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. assumption - SearchSo you never heard of Hawking/Hartley instanton or Son Goku and cavedivers little pea sized something that became the Universe?We sure have discussed it a lot over the past 13 years.Michael has to make certain assumptions to get his theory off the ground. His assumptions sounds just as true to me as your assumptions unless you have a source for all the energy that had to begin to exist as the universe had to have a beginning to exist.God Bless,

Hi Michael That does not tell me anything about where the ether came from. So you are assuming that all universal space existed?But where did that space come from if there was not existence? As I understand this model all this stuff, thingamagiggers, and whatever was just floating around in existence for eternity past until some point " a creational Entity arose". This entity started the events that eventually " became a sapient Entity". Which "produced reverberating energy circuts, which were able to form intelligence and consciousness".So let me be very clear here.You say something had to exist prior to T=0.
This something jostled around and eventually the universe appeared.That sounds more logical than what they have been telling me for the past thirteen years. They tell me space, time, energy, matter, did not exist at T=0.The reason being that math they keep pounding on you about breaks down and becomes silent at T=0.I don't know why they keep harping math to you when they don't have any.God Bless,

Hi Tanypteryx Yes that would be science.So is the study of the human body.So is the study of the earth and what is in it. etc Since there is zero data, or experiments, of what existed at T=0 the Big Bang Theory is not a theory as it is based upon an assumption but a hypothesis. Yet it is taught a a fact.Remember the definition of an assumption? "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof." So where is the data that supports the universe popping into existence out of non existence?At least Michael is not trying to support such an idea as he has something existing that caused the universe to begin to exist.All though he won't give a source of that something. He just assumes it was there and caused the universe to begin to exist over time.Could you explain the difference between Michael's assumption and the assumption that is required for the BBT.There must be a universe existing in some form for it to expand and us be able to observe and study that process.Since I came here in 07 my question has always been, "Where did it come from"?Would you like to give it a try? Insted of your snide remarks as you ended the post with.You are a puppet that has drank the koolaid and believe everything you are told rather than have an open mind and question everything.Just give me the facts.God Bless,

Hi Michael I did not ask what the ether is in respect to space.I simply asked where it came from.If it had existed eternally in the past would mean all the energy that is in the universe today had to have existed in the beginning. If that was the case by now there would be no energy left as it would have reach equiliberium, a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced. Therefore we would not be here. This was the problem with the steady state theory held by Einstein. Therefore the realization that the universe had to have a beginning to exist. Which is why scientist tell us the universe is somewhere between 8 billion and 20 billion years old. The age depends on who you listen too. Since energy can not be created would require that at the beginning all energy in the universe today had to already exist. Or do you propose a way that energy can be produced as Guth did to get his zero energy universe? Where did this original space come from? I am sitting here in a seat typing this message on a keyboard. Both are considered to be mass, but in reality they are only atoms that are held together by some unknown energy force. Remove that force and the chair and keyboard would disappear.Everything in this universe is held together by that same energy force.By the way if you will click the peek mode on the top right of this message you can see how we quote each other.God Bless,

Hi Tanypteryx I was only asking you.I know several in the scientific communities answer is ""WE DON'T KNOW!!" as I have been told that by several scientist.Since no one knows where or how the universe began to exist, how can we know how we got from there to here?I live in South Florida so I decide to go to New York City how many choices on travel by land do I have to get to my destination?You want to tell me the way you believe we got from T=0 to where we are today is the only correct way possible. Why do you believe that? I have never claimed to know anything about physics.I do claim to know non existence can not produce existence.
I was raised on a farm and I know life produces life, but a dead animal could only produce a bad odor.If I remember there was quite a few experiments trying to produce life from non life that all failed.I also claim that the universe has always existed in some form just not as we see it now.If it did not always exist then it had to begin to exist which requires a creation to take place.God Bless,

Hi Paul But it does relegate it to a hypotheses without certain assumptions. Parametrization is the process of deciding and defining the parameters necessary for a complete or relevant specification of a model or geometric object. What would those parameters be based upon?First we have a cosmological constant associated with dark energy.
Then the postulated (suggest or assumed existence of) Cold Dark Matter.
With the third ingredient of ordinary matter.So what does that explain?It does tell us what the universe has in it. Not its origin. There you go closing your mind to any other possibilities. But no vaccine is 100% effective. Just because you believe it does not make it so. Science has changed a lot in my 82 years on this planet. The BBT can never answer what existed at T=0 as the math no longer works therefore there is no information available to process.Religion or Metaphysics will have to produce that information.God Bless,

Hi Tanypteryx But the Miller and Urey experiments were real back in the 50's.They were trying to prove several things.To see if biological compounds could form spontaneously on early EarthTo see if simple molecules can combine spontaneously.To find out how biological molecules could have first formedHow life can evolve from nonliving matterOther experiments.
Redi's Experiment 1668.
Lazzaro Spallanzani's experiment.
Pasteur's Experiment.All of these experiments proved non life could not produce life. They did prove that life produced life.God Bless,

Hi Tanypteryx Glad you thought so but your thoughts don't change reality.Do you think that in the future time travel will be discovered and someone can go back to T=0 and then return and write a scientific paper as to what was there and how things really happened?If the first statement was funny this one is probably hilarious.God Bless,

Piss Off!OKGod Bless, and you have a nice life now.

Hi Michael Actually anyone who believes in the BBT is a creationist whether they admit it or not.The BBT requires a beginning to exist.Einstein believed in a steady state universe until it was discovered that the universe was expanding, in 1929, by Edwin Hubble.But he was not the first to propose an expanding universe. Lemaître was the principal architect. In 1927 he combined his dynamical solutions of the Einstein equations with astronomical observations to conclude that the universe is expanding. https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2281If space is what is expanding between galaxies at the speed of light all galaxies should be moving away from each other.Well that is not what is happening. galaxies have collided in the past and we are on a collision course with Andromeda. This has been known for years. But when talking about expansion this elephant in the room is pushed into a corner and he does not exist.Space between the Milky Way and Andromeda is not expanding but contracting.If the fabric of the universe is being stretched in both directions from the halfway point between Andromeda and the Milky Way the space between them would be increasing by 88.234 miles per second.How would they ever collide?Maybe some of these smart people would explain the math that would allow them to collide.So Einstein had to change his thinking.But if the universe was expanding it would have to have a beginning to exist. You ask why? Well because energy and mass can not be created even though Alan Guth did so with math. Which was rejected except for a few around EvC.To get around the problem of energy and mass being created it is just said that the laws of thermodynamics just did not apply to the early universe.I notice in your ether theory you try to solve the energy problem by collision of universes.But where did all this energy that these universes had in the beginning come from?I believe the universe has always existed in some form just not in the form we see it today. I believe the universe was created from an energy source that is unlimited in volume. I believe there was a light period that existed eternally in the past that caused the CMBR that we see today.I believe time is a creation of mankind that was determined by the Egyptians using the duration of a light period and a dark period which they divided into 24 hours of 60 minutes per hr. with each minute 60 seconds long. I believe that in the future there will come a time when time will be no more as there will only be light with no darkness. This will take place after the earth and universe has melted with fervent heat.So don't let these guys get you down. Just keep on searching and one day you may find the answer to where the universe came from and what holds it together today.God Bless,

Hi Taq That is not true.We are on a collision course with Andromeda.God Bless,

Hi Taq They were trying to reproduce the early earth and produce life forms.

quote:

---

Stanley L. Muller and Harold C. Urey performed an experiment to describe the origin of life on earth.

---

why did miller and urey do their experiments - Search

quote:

---

Miller experiment)[2] was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions.

---

Miller–Urey experiment - WikipediaSeems like they were trying to produce life from chemicals to me.God Bless,

Hi AZPaull I do.God Bless,