Dark Energy & the Creation Problem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

There is still a 'singularity' in the view point of the op, in that, after existing for potentially ever, in one random 'singular' instant for some reason the universe we are familiar with began beginning.

This is not true. You are applying your own beliefs/disbeliefs to the OP. Perhaps you've read it casually, without a detailed perusal. The natural event to which I referred was a necessary precursor, but not the creation of the universe. Moreover, no "physical singularities" were involved in this event.

Kindly do not mistake a random event for a singularity. You wouldn't do that, would you?

Admittedly the OP does not include the entire theory of which it is a small component. Nonetheless, there is nothing in it to support your statement.

reply to post by Greylorn


Perhaps you have a very specific semantical definition of the meaning of singularity you dislike and are saying that definition of that word does not equal the theory you wish to relay.

But in the op it says something like, dark energy was all that existed and it was of one exact kind and was space, or something. And we must admit the universe right now appears very different when compared to those statements. This means at some 'point' the equal, simple, eternal, still, dark energy... began heading towards the direction of reality existence the universe has been and is currently manifested as. Even if it was a gradual change, there has to be some batch of causes and affects and reasons as to why the eternal dark energy essence began forming a different type of existence, that initial moment of change can be referred to as a singularity, even if it cant, it still must be accounted for.

So in that sense it is the same as the idea of singularity in big bang theory, they might as well start with the same precursor scenario in your op and then say, 'then the dark energy big banged and turned into different kinds of energy and started making this universe', its the same idea, only difference is after the singularity they have a snip ton more of data, information and theories regarding the nature of nature.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

Perhaps you have a very specific semantical definition of the meaning of singularity you dislike and are saying that definition of that word does not equal the theory you wish to relay.

But in the op it says something like, dark energy was all that existed and it was of one exact kind and was space, or something. And we must admit the universe right now appears very different when compared to those statements. This means at some 'point' the equal, simple, eternal, still, dark energy... began heading towards the direction of reality existence the universe has been and is currently manifested as. Even if it was a gradual change, there has to be some batch of causes and affects and reasons as to why the eternal dark energy essence began forming a different type of existence, that initial moment of change can be referred to as a singularity, even if it cant, it still must be accounted for.

So in that sense it is the same as the idea of singularity in big bang theory, they might as well start with the same precursor scenario in your op and then say, 'then the dark energy big banged and turned into different kinds of energy and started making this universe', its the same idea, only difference is after the singularity they have a snip ton more of data, information and theories regarding the nature of nature.

Humans are such absurd, silly, be-right machines. Do you know that it is okay to be mistaken? Moreover, it is important that we make errors in thinking, for they are essential to the learning process. However, hanging onto mistaken opinions no matter what merely delays the learning process, thereby prolonging ignorance, which I'd hope that you as a seeker of sensible ideas would be anxious to be rid of.

One occasionally hears the phrase, 'singular,' applied to one-of-a kind events, such as the collision between the moon and early earth, and the extinction of the dinosaurs. The Big Bang would have been a singular event. However, this is not the same as a physical singularity, which describes a static condition, not an event.

You'll need to do some work on your own to get past ego-based thinking. Here is my advice, which I expect you to refuse to take because you fear the outcome of it.

1. When you refer to someone's statements, and those statements are readily available for explicit quoting, quote them directly instead of reiterating what you imagine, through your mental filters, that they actually wrote. It keeps you credible and, more importantly, honest.

2. Get onto Wikipedia and learn the definition of a mathematical singularity. That is what a singularity actually is.

3. Actually study something about the history of Big Bang theory, so as to learn how much difficulty it had defining the precursor to the bang. At first this was a tiny lump of mass-energy. Then it became a tiny lump of m/e smaller than a proton. Then someone did the math and discovered that this thing could not blow up. So about a decade ago they began calling it a physical singularity. Since there can be no such thing as a physical singularity, Dr. Caca and his gang of cosmological nitwits could not explain its origin, and so could stop trying for awhile. Moreover, since their precursor was mathematically undefinable, as well as physically impossible, they could make up whatever they want to about it--- exactly like religionists do with their infinite, omnipotent, non-physical God.

Remember, any intelligent human being looking for truth can mistakenly adopt an incorrect version of it. I've done that more times than I can count. However, only fools treat their mistakes as treasured family heirlooms, never to be rescinded.

reply to post by Greylorn


en.wikipedia.org...

"In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as differentiability"

Is the moment before the beginning of the universe well defined? and the knowledge of how and why it began?

You wrote a whole lot but it = nothing, hopefully you can create a singularity and manifest a universe of useful information for me, or continue with meaningless, content-less paragraphs of nonsense.

All of my comments have not been aimed at anything other then the info in the OP describing the existence of eternal dark energy which was equal and had no difference between it. And then, it turned into the universe. You are arguing semantics, "I dont like the word singularity to describe that mysterious and unknown event that occurred to begin this universe...booo hooo"

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

en.wikipedia.org...

"In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as differentiability"

Is the moment before the beginning of the universe well defined? and the knowledge of how and why it began?

You wrote a whole lot but it = nothing, hopefully you can create a singularity and manifest a universe of useful information for me, or continue with meaningless, content-less paragraphs of nonsense.

All of my comments have not been aimed at anything other then the info in the OP describing the existence of eternal dark energy which was equal and had no difference between it. And then, it turned into the universe. You are arguing semantics, "I dont like the word singularity to describe that mysterious and unknown event that occurred to begin this universe...booo hooo"

edit on 31-8-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Thank you for your input, which you probably regarded as thoughtful and insightful. And, good bye.

reply to post by Greylorn


You are bad at arguing and bad at thinking and knowing. Pitiful creature you are. How can you read your past few responses to me and be proud of what you wrote? How do you not question your ignorance, and honestly think about what I say?

reply to post by Greylorn


No begining and no end is a concept physical beings studying the physical universe cannot grasp in any fashion.

God is spirit (outside physical realm, mind being, conciousness) His spirit (mind, conciousness, outside physical realm) sustains all that exists in the physical realm.

Dark matter exists outside the physical realm (subspace/antimatter). We know it exists because the physical realm exists in the manner it does and yet and it could not exist without this "power" or substance (up to 96% of all space). We know it is used when creating matter and destroying matter.

Scientists "know" there is dark matter and that dark matter is the substance which sustains the physical matter in the universe. Dark matter exist outside the physical realm, recent scientist have said dark matter even has "conciousness" accociated with it.

Draw your own conclusions (as you are meant to in this age). But it is clear that dark matter and God's spirit are one in the same thing observed by scientists and religious folks alike.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

You are bad at arguing and bad at thinking and knowing. Pitiful creature you are. How can you read your past few responses to me and be proud of what you wrote? How do you not question your ignorance, and honestly think about what I say?

Thanks again for your thoughtful and generously proferred insights into my personality.

I do not question my ignorance, ever. How can one question the absence of information? The best that I or anyone can do with his, her, or its ignorance is acknowledge it, then seek some mitigating knowledge.

I think about what you have written before every response I've made to your posts, as with everyone to whom I respond. I don't need to think much in your case, because your posts, IMO, are mostly devoid of interesting content. You could change that, but you might first address your personal issues, such as low self-esteem, manifested by your handle and by your tendency to bitch rather than contribute. (Hey, one free analysis deserves another.)

Originally posted by ElohimJD
reply to post by Greylorn

 

No begining and no end is a concept physical beings studying the physical universe cannot grasp in any fashion.

God is spirit (outside physical realm, mind being, conciousness) His spirit (mind, conciousness, outside physical realm) sustains all that exists in the physical realm.

Dark matter exists outside the physical realm (subspace/antimatter). We know it exists because the physical realm exists in the manner it does and yet and it could not exist without this "power" or substance (up to 96% of all space). We know it is used when creating matter and destroying matter.

Scientists "know" there is dark matter and that dark matter is the substance which sustains the physical matter in the universe. Dark matter exist outside the physical realm, recent scientist have said dark matter even has "conciousness" accociated with it.

Draw your own conclusions (as you are meant to in this age). But it is clear that dark matter and God's spirit are one in the same thing observed by scientists and religious folks alike.

There seems no point in arguing with someone who has named himself after the Gods of Hebrew lore, then presented assertions that belong in an OP of your own, but fail to address my particular OP. Kindly present your personal agenda on your own thread. Religious dogma does not belong here.

reply to post by Greylorn


What dreams may come...

we are energy, positive and negative, experincing a physical reality.
more of our energy is being added to this physical dimension, this is the dark energy we see

but then again, believe what you want to believe

Originally posted by kalisdad
reply to post by Greylorn

 

What dreams may come...

we are energy, positive and negative, experincing a physical reality.
more of our energy is being added to this physical dimension, this is the dark energy we see

but then again, believe what you want to believe

\
Kindly offer a physics-based example of "negative" energy, else go away. Thank you.

Originally posted by Greylorn
Kindly offer a physics-based example of "negative" energy, else go away. Thank you.

your attitude and snarky reply is a clear enough example for me...

buh bye

reply to post by Greylorn


My handle is a play on words, I guess you are too smart to have realized.

You have not legitly responded to any of the content in my posts, only deflected and attacked my character. You are good with the english language, but the mass of words you have memorized cannot be rearranged into meaningful thoughts with depth, you are nothing but a fool who thinks hes not.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

There is still a 'singularity' in the view point of the op, in that, after existing for potentially ever, in one random 'singular' instant for some reason the universe we are familiar with began beginning.

Buy and read a dictionary. The adjective "singular" is not a synonym of the noun "singularity."

reply to post by Greylorn


sin·gu·lar·i·ty
ˌsiNGgyəˈlaritē/
noun
noun: singularity

1.
the state, fact, quality, or condition of being singular.
"he believed in the singularity of all cultures"
synonyms: uniqueness, distinctiveness More
"the singularity of their concerns"
a peculiarity or odd trait.
plural noun: singularities
synonyms: idiosyncrasy, quirk, foible, peculiarity, oddity, eccentricity More
"his singularities"
2.
PhysicsMathematics
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, esp. in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.

keyword in the 2nd definition, a point...a singular point.

relation to the first definition. The beginning of the universe is unknown, so in a sense it is unique, as in it occurred once, singular...it is peculiar and odd to us, because it is so mysterious and at this point unknowable. Equations have been worked backwards, the universe reversed engineered...to a point, where we have no idea what happened beyond that, why it happened, where it happened, when it happened, how it happened, what it was that happened.

ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

sin·gu·lar·i·ty
ˌsiNGgyəˈlaritē/
noun
noun: singularity

1.
the state, fact, quality, or condition of being singular.
"he believed in the singularity of all cultures"
synonyms: uniqueness, distinctiveness More
"the singularity of their concerns"
a peculiarity or odd trait.
plural noun: singularities
synonyms: idiosyncrasy, quirk, foible, peculiarity, oddity, eccentricity More
"his singularities"
2.
PhysicsMathematics
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, esp. in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.

keyword in the 2nd definition, a point...a singular point.

relation to the first definition. The beginning of the universe is unknown, so in a sense it is unique, as in it occurred once, singular...it is peculiar and odd to us, because it is so mysterious and at this point unknowable. Equations have been worked backwards, the universe reversed engineered...to a point, where we have no idea what happened beyond that, why it happened, where it happened, when it happened, how it happened, what it was that happened.

IF,
Thank you for doing some research. Of course you recognize that Definition 2 is applicable to our preceding conversation. Not Def. 1.

BTW, no equations have been worked backward. The Big Bang theory is an extrapolation of current observations of an expansion of the universe that were mentally run backward in time, with the same level of common sense which informed Aristotle that heavy objects necessarily fell faster than light objects. i.e. Dr. Caca extrapolated from the apparently obvious, to the obvious conclusion. No significant math was involved. Moreover, the "obvious" data were sloppy and incorrect, involving velocity measurements but neglecting any rate of change in velocity, i.e. acceleration/deceleration. (Such measurements offered another magnitude of experimental difficulty.)

Big Bang theory led to the conclusion that after the Bang, gravity would be sucking the universe back into the alleged tiny micropea from which it emerged. This conclusion proved to be absolutely false.

Around 1998, astronomers discovered that, exactly contrary to predictions of the stupid (but obvious!) Big Bang theory, the expansion of the universe was found to be accelerating. This observation would have disqualified the conclusions of a Big Bang theory derived from the original observations. If cosmologists were honest scientists, they would have abandoned Big Bang theory immediately upon their discovery of the acceleration.

(Note, please, that physics has made its mark by virtue of its many successful predictions. Yet no one in scientific prominence has wondered, in public, why Big Bang theory failed to predict the accelerated expansion.)

BTW, no math was applied to the original observations and the Big Bang itself until around the turn of this century, and that math did not work. To make it work, the mathematicians threw in an arbitrary "fudge factor," a convenient variation in the speed of light (without any physics explanation as to why "c" might have been, briefly, not a constant).

As is typically the case of hack scientists who are wedded to an idea, rather than admit the obvious, that there was no "bang," and that the force of dark energy was operative from the beginning, they claimed that dark energy only came into existence and began accelerating the universe's expansion just several billion years ago. The nitwit perfessers on the Dr. Caca shows who propose this silly concept do not even attempt to explain the physics behind it-- i.e. what brought Dark Energy into existence, and why so late in the evolution of the universe?

The "suddenly, dark energy concept" is clearly an inept belief, pretty much on the level with phlogiston theory and "the devil in the form of a talking snake without vocal chords tempted Eve, who ate some fruit and thereby gave her progeny (all mankind) original sin, and so Christ came down."

As you point out, the beginning of the universe is clearly a unique and singular (Def. 1) event. But this event need not be the hypothetical Big Bang. My theories describe an entirely different context for the beginnings of things and propose a gradual form of creation, where conventional matter is created in black holes formed from dark matter (following the ideas of physicist Andrew Hamilton), thus creating the early galaxies which separated as a natural effect of raw (dark) energy. Like it or not, my theories are also "singular," i.e. different from the usual.

I've offered only a non-rigorous hand-waving "explanation" at this point. (In the same style as the explanations on documentary TV.) I have no math to support it because I am a #ty mathematician. But I'll wager that if Dr. Caca proposed the exact same idea on the Science Channel, or even better, if the actor Morgan Freeman intoned these words on "Through the Wormhole," nits galore would be bobbling their empty heads in agreement.

My theories nicely fit into Def. 1 in that they are unique, and may be properly described as "singular." However, not one of my ideas, including my core theory of the real "bang," involves a singularity of any sort. So, what about...

Definition 2, "PhysicsMathematics
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, esp. in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.

This is an incompetent definition. (Kindly provide the source.) Its heading is "physics/mathematics," but these are not the same subject.

Notice how the first phrase of the definition applies to mathematics, talking about functions. Then it abruptly shifts to a physics application. Functions are mathematical. You won't find such a thing as physical functions. This definition was written by an incompetent, and I would greatly appreciate your supplying me with its source so that I can call them on their incompetence.

In math, singularities abound. Divide by zero. Figure the tangent of 90 degrees, etc. But math is merely the language with which we describe physics, and is not itself physics. Were we to imagine a universe devoid of matter/energy but filled with brilliant mathematically inclined minds, all the mathematical concepts we know today could exist as pure abstractions, with nothing to which they might be applied.

Were you to take a physics course and propose a solution to a problem that involved a mathematical singularity, you would get a zero score on that problem, unless you were taking the course from Dr. Caca or one of his disciples-- in which case you might as well be in Theology 203, "Something From Nothing-- How God Did It."

Really, honestly-- I promise that anyone who proposes the reality of a physical singularity is saying that he does not have the slightest idea about the physics involved. Or, he is trying to describe an event that cannot have transpired.

You wrote, "...keyword in the 2nd definition, a point...a singular point."

The "singular point" comment is your own, not part of the definition, in the context of which the word "point" does not appear to be mathematically rigorous as in the definition of a geometrical point. Of course there is no such thing as a definable geometrical point in physical space, or in space-time.

What could I offer you in exchange for giving up your unpaid and unappreciated, probably self-appointed job as Dr. Caca's science camp-follower?

Greylorn
My theories describe an entirely different context for the beginnings of things and propose a gradual form of creation, where conventional matter is created in black holes formed from dark matter (following the ideas of physicist Andrew Hamilton), thus creating the early galaxies which separated as a natural effect of raw (dark) energy. Like it or not, my theories are also "singular," i.e. different from the usual.

Well there are some holes in that theory, literally, where did the black holes come from, where did the dark matter come from, its not even known what dark matter is?

Definition 2, "PhysicsMathematics
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, esp. in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.

This is an incompetent definition. (Kindly provide the source.) Its heading is "physics/mathematics," but these are not the same subject.

lmgtfy.com...

ImaFungi

Greylorn
My theories describe an entirely different context for the beginnings of things and propose a gradual form of creation, where conventional matter is created in black holes formed from dark matter (following the ideas of physicist Andrew Hamilton), thus creating the early galaxies which separated as a natural effect of raw (dark) energy. Like it or not, my theories are also "singular," i.e. different from the usual.

Well there are some holes in that theory, literally, where did the black holes come from, where did the dark matter come from, its not even known what dark matter is?

Definition 2, "PhysicsMathematics
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, esp. in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.

This is an incompetent definition. (Kindly provide the source.) Its heading is "physics/mathematics," but these are not the same subject.

lmgtfy.com...

My larger theory describing the mechanics of creation is Chapter 17 of my book. None of the ideas expressed therein would make an iota of sense outside the context of the preceding 17 chapters. I'm trying to work through them here on ATS, but we are still pretty much dealing with Chapter 1 concepts that few readers seem able to understand.

There are holes in that theory as well, and I'll be the first to acknowledge them. Via the book and ATS threads, I hope to find a few highly intelligent individuals who see the value in my current theories and also see the way to their expansion.

You are correct to point out that dark matter is a problem. It would be off topic to discuss that here because I've not established any context for it. If I manage to persist with this project all the way to my explanation of dark energy, that context will be established.

If you are genuinely curious about this subject, and especially if it is something that you might be willing to contribute to, you can get ahead of my slow-moving threads by reading the book. Even then, you'd need to initiate your own thread on the subject. Unless you found a better way to present the essential preceding 17 chapters of context than I've found, and do so correctly, I doubt that I could respond to it in a way that would make sense to readers.

ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

en.wikipedia.org...

"In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as differentiability"

Is the moment before the beginning of the universe well defined? and the knowledge of how and why it began?

"Moments," in your context, are not defined in physics. The concept of "moment" is an incompetently applied linguistic term referring to such things as measurement of inertia. Moments of time are not defined. So I'd guess that the "moment" before the BB cannot be defined either.

I know what a mathematical singularity is. I've dealt with them in the solution of real world engineering problems. The Wikipedia definition is correct.

What you seem to REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND is that mathematical singularities cannot apply to physical reality.

They often appear in the solution of theoretical physics problems. Their appearance is a signal that our physics theories suck.

reply to post by Greylorn


I agree, I dont think in reality, all the sudden a 'mysterious singularity' occurred. I only ever meant to use the term to imply the incredible ignorance of every intelligence on the other side of that 'point of creation'. There is truth, we can learn and know and deduce. Though there may be truths to far back in time to detect, perhaps they can be generally posited. The only reason I was bluntly questioning your ideas and not being impressed with them, is because it is of my opinion that they lack in substance, they are very simple and easy thoughts to come by, I just dont see why you think they are so groundbreaking and important? I dont see how they stand out among all other theories attempting to grasp and depict truth.