Is it possible for something to come from nothing?

[Aqueous Id]

@wellwisher

Scientific observation proves the Genesis creation myth false. In particular, there is no abundance of water in space as the story says. While it is true that the Universe is mostly made of hydrogen, this has no bearing on the point you are making about water, since, as you note, oxygen is required to make water. There is not nearly enough oxygen to produce any appreciable amount of water as you claim, even if it were true that water emits the redshift signature, which is an invention of maximal bogosity. Note, you would have to have a shell of microwave-emitting solid water surrounding the universe, which probably even stretches the mind of a Creation Science fan beyond the snapping point.

If the Creation Science people think that scientists are lying, they can easily take up a Sunday collection and invest in a good second hand observatory. Bring in your own pseudoscientists from the College of Intelligent Design and the Institute of Solid Water Shell Physics in order to set up a project to disprove this. Please contact me when you folks decide to go ahead with it, because I will be running a wagering site (all profits go to charity) offering jackpot odds that you are insanely wrong.

Genesis can be disproved by something as simple as spectrometery, although, in practice, to make this measurement with any accuracy, and to cover all of the sky, is a scientific feat unto itself. Good luck with that.

Your belief that liquid water can exist in a vacuum is equally bogus. At best there might be some minute crystals of solid H₂O, depending on how it might be formed in the first place. As you might expect, to enter the liquid state requires a mild temperature-pressure product. This is not observed, and the odds of such conditions would be nil, further decreasing the odds to next to nothing, since oxygen was already rare before the smoke and mirrors were added.

Note, COBE tells us these microwaves are coming at us from all directions. Thus COBE disproves Genesis, even if you choose to believe that the Big Bang was a divine command and that space water emits microwaves. The waters aren't there, they never were there, it's just a myth. Trying to shore it up with bald bogusness only shows how desperate Creation Science really is, and what kind of science it is really creating.

If only the Canaanites had observatories - and useful tools, like spectrometry - they never would have invented such a hollow idea. At least they could claim ignorance.

You, however, have the benefit of living in the information age. What's the rationale behind your invented ideas?

[pluto2]

@wellwisher

Scientific observation proves the Genesis creation myth false. In particular, there is no abundance of water in space as the story says.

Actually there is an abundance of water in the universe.

From Wikipedia, I quote:

"Much of the universe's water is produced as a byproduct of star formation. When stars are born, their birth is accompanied by a strong outward wind of gas and dust. When this outflow of material eventually impacts the surrounding gas, the shock waves that are created compress and heat the gas. The water observed is quickly produced in this warm dense gas.[20]

On 22 July 2011, a report described the discovery of a gigantic cloud of water vapor, containing "140 trillion times more water than all of Earth's oceans combined," around a quasar located 12 billion light years from Earth. According to the researchers, the "discovery shows that water has been prevalent in the universe for nearly its entire existence."[21][22]

Water has been detected in interstellar clouds within our galaxy, the Milky Way. Water probably exists in abundance in other galaxies, too, because its components, hydrogen and oxygen, are among the most abundant elements in the universe. Interstellar clouds eventually condense into solar nebulae and solar systems such as ours."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water#In_the_universe

No one knows for sure how our universe came to be. However physicists Paul Steinhardt (Princeton University) and Neil Turok (Cambridge University) offer an alternative to ex nihilo creation. Their proposal stems from the ancient idea that space and time have always existed in some form. Using developmentsin string theory, Steinhardt and Turok suggest the Big Bang of our universe as a bridge to a pre-existing universe, and speculate that creation undergoes an eternal succession of universes, with possibly trillions of years of evolution in each. Gravity and the transition from Big Crunch to Big Bang characterize an everlasting succession of universes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihi...ical_arguments

Keith Mayes, an amateur astronomer writes a very similar thing here:

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%...rse%20from.htm

Also in the Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita, The Bhagavad Gita (BG) states the eternality of matter and its transformability clearly and succinctly: "Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo#Hindu_views

[origin]

Also in the Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita, The Bhagavad Gita (BG) states the eternality of matter and its transformability clearly and succinctly: "Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature."

Well there you go! If some guys who did not have the advantage of science and advanced mathematics and instead attributed natural occurances to supernatural beings then I guess there is no argument!

[NietzscheHimself]

E nhilo nihil fit!!

Something comes from everything...

[peters]

@wellwisher

Scientific observation proves the Genesis creation myth false. In particular, there is no abundance of water in space as the story says. While it is true that the Universe is mostly made of hydrogen, this has no bearing on the point you are making about water, since, as you note, oxygen is required to make water. There is not nearly enough oxygen to produce any appreciable amount of water as you claim, even if it were true that water emits the redshift signature, which is an invention of maximal bogosity. Note, you would have to have a shell of microwave-emitting solid water surrounding the universe, which probably even stretches the mind of a Creation Science fan beyond the snapping point.

If the Creation Science people think that scientists are lying, they can easily take up a Sunday collection and invest in a good second hand observatory. Bring in your own pseudoscientists from the College of Intelligent Design and the Institute of Solid Water Shell Physics in order to set up a project to disprove this. Please contact me when you folks decide to go ahead with it, because I will be running a wagering site (all profits go to charity) offering jackpot odds that you are insanely wrong.

Genesis can be disproved by something as simple as spectrometery, although, in practice, to make this measurement with any accuracy, and to cover all of the sky, is a scientific feat unto itself. Good luck with that.

Your belief that liquid water can exist in a vacuum is equally bogus. At best there might be some minute crystals of solid H₂O, depending on how it might be formed in the first place. As you might expect, to enter the liquid state requires a mild temperature-pressure product. This is not observed, and the odds of such conditions would be nil, further decreasing the odds to next to nothing, since oxygen was already rare before the smoke and mirrors were added.

Note, COBE tells us these microwaves are coming at us from all directions. Thus COBE disproves Genesis, even if you choose to believe that the Big Bang was a divine command and that space water emits microwaves. The waters aren't there, they never were there, it's just a myth. Trying to shore it up with bald bogusness only shows how desperate Creation Science really is, and what kind of science it is really creating.

If only the Canaanites had observatories - and useful tools, like spectrometry - they never would have invented such a hollow idea. At least they could claim ignorance.

You, however, have the benefit of living in the information age. What's the rationale behind your invented ideas?

this water mentioned in Genesis is NOT water but a combination of a Bohr Einstein condensate and Einsteins GR description of the center of a black hole ,"infinity +infinity+ infinity". It's a sea of straight string energy and being read incorrectly.

[AlexG]

this water mentioned in Genesis is NOT water but a combination of a Bohr Einstein condensate and Einsteins GR description of the center of a black hole ,"infinity +infinity+ infinity". It's a sea of straight string energy and being read incorrectly.

Word salad with no dressing.

[HectorDecimal]

Imagine that you are at point at the cosmos where there are no stars, galaxies or any light sources at all. Because there are no light sources that you can see, all you can see around you is the color black or total darkness.

So do you think it is possible for something to originate out of this infinite blackness of space?

Sure. A lot of blood, guts and crap being torn into an ever finer mesh of stuff. If you are in such a place you could not exist long enough to bring back the answer...

[river]

this topic is so old , I thought we resolved this once and for all , apparently not though

who then will define nothing , who is in the thinking that something can come from nothing , I ask

[wlminex]

this topic is so old , I thought we resolved this once and for all , apparently not though

who then will define nothing , who is in the thinking that something can come from nothing , I ask

I agree . . . to discuss this topic logically, we need to agree on a definition of "nothing" . . . and also "something"

[NietzscheHimself]

Hi all.

Quick question/observation for discussion if anyone is interested.....

Would the scattering and other absorption/reemission tend to 'diffuse' the microwaves more than visible wavelengths? So would we ever 'see' any such microwave source associations even if the microwaves WERE emitted by those galaxies as initially shorter wavelengths)? Could that explain why there are 'no point/galaxy sources' for any of the CMB identifiable....because the dispersal/diffusion of microwaves 'smears' any otherwise identifiable 'source' location?

Back in a couple of days to see what comments/thoughts you may have. Thanks!

.

You bring up a very interesting point with your first statements. The second is a bunch of jibber jabber unfortunately. Not saying that is a bad thing... Everything is connected... if we realize What we are uncertain of we know what questions to ask. From there its just a matter of formulating an experiment.

Now for judging the scatter made by microwaves against the CMB of an entire galaxy we would have to have two telescopes. One immediately in the vicinity of the galaxy and one a couple hundred lightyears away... So start making those and we will have an answer in a couple billion years.

Your smarter than most will give you credit for. Keep thinking.

[peters]

Word salad with no dressing.

I didn't realize you were also a biblical scholar. Genesis means beginning, where heavens [space] end earth [matter] were first created. They came out of this "water" which is the original source/state of space energy and forces. that's why its called genesis. Its just that religious people are reading it and not scientists. the water is sort of like a super superfluid.

[Whitewolf4869]

yes

because space is a consequence of energy and matter

inotherwords energy and matter come first , energy and matter , produce space

So your saying the egg came before the chicken?

[peters]

So your saying the egg came before the chicken?

matter is energy. matter and space were born at the same time. pre universe infinite energy fitted into 1 space at absolute zero. After the universes birth 1 matter unit [particle] needed 1 space unit to fit into.

[SciWriter]

Eternal/forever systems, such as the overall Cosmos, out of which our universe was born, are their own precursor. That means that everything required was always there.

For example, matter needs light (energy) before it to form, yet energy (light) needs matter before it to form; so, the chicken and the egg are always there at the same time.

(Space could be considered as matter/energy, ending where there influence ends.)

Here's another one: Stellar ignition requires previous star material. No first star?

[pluto2]

I think it's quite possible for 'something' to come from 'nothing' because 'nothing' is unstable.

What I mean is that that there are many many ways to have 'something' but only one way to have 'nothing'.

[Cortex_Colossum]

Imagine that you are at point at the cosmos where there are no stars, galaxies or any light sources at all. Because there are no light sources that you can see, all you can see around you is the color black or total darkness.

So do you think it is possible for something to originate out of this infinite blackness of space?

No. It is impossible to create something from nothing. Therefore, existence (sat) has always been around in some form or other.

[Hertz]

NOTHING: no space, no time; NOTHING. Nothing minus one=ANYthing. Anything produces everything and so we have gravestones because everything is greedy and needs more and more to live: it exagerates, it kills; it needs EVERYTHING.

[Gravage]

Easy answer, you can't have something from nothing, meaning that "the primordial something" has to be eternal, without the beginning or the end and literally infinite.
Cheers.

[Syne]

Not so easy, but more factual, answer, due to the time-energy uncertainty relation, quantum fluctuations can cause something from nothing. These fluctuations are virtual particles, which are the force carriers in quantum mechanics.

[Rav]

The "nothing" described by physicists isn't really absolute nothingness. It has properties. At the very least, it has the property of being unstable. That is, the properties necessary for a quantum fluctuation to even occur in the first place. I mean really, you've got to ask yourself what it is, exactly, that fluctuates. What is the arena within which a fluctuation can occur?

It might be "scientific" nothingness, but it's certainly not absolute nothingness, and I feel certain that as this is fleshed out in the physics community, the importance of this distinction is going to become more evident. There are already a number of physicists who are saying the same thing (Michio Kaku is one, off the top of my head).