Hi Joe,

Like the sum of all debts and credits on Earth by definition is nil (which doesn't mean that there exists no money), in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, conservation laws say that everything inside of it has to add to nil, then such universe has no physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, so it makes no sense at all to ask what its entropy is, nor ask how old it is.

In contrast, the creation of a big bang universe does constitutes a violation of conservation laws: Big Bang Cosmology (BBC), in regarding the universe as an ordinary object which has properties and evolves as a whole in time, asserts that it lives in a time realm not of its own making, so can be ascribed a (finite) age, so a big bang universe is not eternal.

The quite fatal flaw of BBC is that as it is impossible to look at it from the outside, to imagine looking at it from without, as if looking over God's shoulders at His creation, is scientifically illegitimate: BBC represents an essentially religious view of our world and is just a present-day version of the Genesis tale, for a tale it is.

If as seen from within, according to the uncertainty principle, a particle with an infinitesimal rest energy (greater than zero) has an infinite lifetime, then in this sense the particle and hence its universe is eternal, not if you regard it as something which has a physical reality as a whole, as seen from the outside.

As to ''chronologically sequential events'', I argue that the observed sequence of events doesn't necessarily mean that the first is the cause of the second.

Regards, Anton

Hi Basudeba,

1) With the creation of the egg I mean the entire evolution of the hen/egg and it actually laying the egg; as to gasses, their particles must similarly have evolved.

2) ''Entropy is the inertia that'' sorry, you've lost me

3) ''making time cyclic''

Never mind whether your statement makes sense or not, you can only say such a thing from an imaginary observation post outside the universe: if it is an ordinary object you can inspect from without: if it lives in a time realm not of its own making, that is, if the universe has been created by some outside interference, which I insist it has not.

4) As I argue in my answer (of 9 June) to the post of Joe Fisher, if doesn't makes no sense to ask, from the outside, what the entropy of the universe is, then we also cannot ask that question from within.

5) '' you cannot separate particle properties from particles'' Well, if particles, particle properties are both cause and effect of their interactions, then a property is not a privately owned quantity (which is what I presume you think it is), something which can be observed objectively.

6) ''Even light travels slower in denser mediums''

Well, I am speaking about a gravitational field in empty space: according to the photon itself, to a local clock and ruler, its 'velocity' is the same everywhere.

That is, if the 'speed' of light c would refer to the motion of light instead of just being the property of spacetime it actually is: it is because c is a property of spacetime, a number which says how many kilometers space distance correspond to on second time distance why all observers, no matter their own motion, measure the same value for c. (See for the distinction between c as a (finite) velocity of light and c as a property of spacetime ''Einstein's Error'', my 2012 FQXi essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1328.)

7) ''Many particles acquire mass via strong interaction''

Well, yes, but to acquire mass requires the particles, before they start to interact and acquire mass, to already have some property which enables them to interact, so unless we explain the origin of that property (color, flavor) we still don't know why there is a strong interaction and hence the mass one assumes originates in that interaction.

My point is that to explain mass, or any property, causally is a hopeless enterprise as a primordial cause cannot be explained by definition: this is why I insist that particle properties are both cause and effect of their interactions.

8) A breaking of symmetry would make the universe have some particular property as a whole -which is impossible in a self-creating universe.

9) As to the need for virtual photons in QED, the problem is that they are thought of as particles moving at a finite (light) speed: the contradictions disappear when we finally acknowledge that the 'speed' of light doesn't refer to a velocity of light (though it obviously is a limit for the motion of massive particles) but to a property of spacetime.

Unlike a big bang universe where, as it lives in a time realm not of its own making, it is the same cosmic time everywhere so here the 'speed' of light is a (finite) velocity, as a self-creating does not live in a time continuum not of its own making, it contains and produces all time within, here clocks must be observed to run slower as they are more distant, the consequence of which is that in such universe it is not the same time everywhere: in such universe a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all, agreeing with relativity theory according to which to traveler moving at the 'speed' of light, there passes no time at all.

As I argue in my 2012 essay, a particle cannot emit a photon, energy, without the cooperation of the particle which is to absorb it: indeed, the absorbing particle is as much the cause of the transmission as the emitting particle, so here we have no contradictions, no need for spooky photons which, as you say, cannot carry real energy.

The problem is that we regard the properties and behavior of the source particles to be independent from that of and absorbing particles because we interpret the 'speed' as a (finite) velocity and vice versa: as if the source particles only can affect the absorbing particles but not the other way around, which is nonsense.

As to the Higgs particle/field: though we can posit the existence of fields and attribute them any property to our hearts content, as to explain their origin ad infinitum requires the invention of another kind of field, this approach leads nowhere.

However fruitful and valuable this has been in the past, like in QED, the time has come for a different, a non-causal approach.

Regards, Anton

Hello Anton,

You make a couple of thought provoking statements in your essay. These should help unravel a couple of physical truths. Since you dwell on the second law, which more or less is usually stated: dS = dU/T. By which is implied that if you drop a hot object (energy) say in a glass of water at temperature T, the entropy increases (dS) according to this equation.

I have often wondered whether if this equation is universally correct, what happens if the temperature is Absolute zero. Could this have a cosmological implication? Supposing a Creator (I am just assuming this to avoid chicken and egg question) dropped a tiny amount of energy in a "nothing" which of course must be of absolute zero temperature, what can happen?

All the best in the contest?

Akinbo

*You may also want to read my entry. It may or may not have something in it that may enhance your theory.

    Respectfully Mr. Biermans,

    I am afraid I did not understand your answer. As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, the real Universe only deals with real unique absolutes. The real absolute of real duration is real eternal. Although I have not mentioned it in my essay, the humanly contrived abstract absolute of duration is abstract now. We can only ever know what we know now. Now there is living and non-living material clearly existing simultaneously. Why do we take it for granted that by Godly imperative, or by comprehensive explosion, all of the inanimate stuff had to come first?

    Though I wouldn't of conceived of the pathways you did to arrive at your conclusions I must say I agree w/ the following rather emphatically:

    Though their behavior may seem random if the underlying mechanism is unknown, it's unlikely that nature doesn't know what it does, that there is no mechanism: though it may not know randomness, it does know uncertainty--an indefiniteness we mistake for randomness."

    -And-

    The idea of a 'Closed' System in nature is somewhat erroneous/in error.

    Brave hypothesis; so how do such thoughts influence your thinking on the 'Beginning of the Universe' (sorry if I simply missed this)?

      Dear Sir,

      Thank you for devoting so much thought to our post.

      Reg. your reply to: 3) ''making time cyclic'': Our observation applies equally to an imaginary observation post outside the Universe as well as ALL observation posts inside the Universe. The concept of time arises out of the ordered sequential arrangement of events; i.e., evolutionary changes in objects. How does the disorder spread in a system? It is due to inertia only (after the first action that is the creation event) that starts the chain reaction, which redistributes the density leading to equilibrium. But then what? And how did the first action start? The only answer is it must be cyclic.

      Regarding 4), a fish swimming in water does not know its density. But we can certainly know by comparing it with waters of different density.

      Regarding 5), certainly we do not think property as a privately owned quantity, but a universal concept that reveals itself in varying degrees in all objects acquiring different nomenclature based on the constituents of the object and its interaction with other objects.

      Regarding 6), gravitational field in empty space is an oxymoron. If it is empty, there cannot be mass. If there is no mass, there cannot be gravity or gravitational field. We agree that c is a property of spacetime.

      Regarding 7), we agree that particle properties are both cause and effect of their interactions, as only that can explain evolution. But causally is not a hopeless enterprise as a primordial cause can be explained. Already LQG simulations are showing a "Big Bounce", which has been interpreted as colliding galaxies. We posit that like everything in the Universe, inertia of motion also has a complement - inertia of restoration (elasticity). Till the condition of maximum entropy is reached, inertia of motion dominates, after which the inertia of restoration starts the reverse process leading to singularity. However, there must be an inherent instability that brings back inertia of motion to start the Big Bang. The bang propels energy resisted by the inertia of restoration at every point losing energy like a bow-shock effect when a boat moves in a river. Thus, after some huge distance, it becomes zero and reverts back slowly cutting of a big chunk which we call our Universe. This process repeats, but slower and slower every time, so that if we calculate at the present rate of so-called expansion, there will be a mismatch (Inflation). These reactions compress the primordial substance at some localities forming huge structures that gives rise to the present evolutionary state of the Universe. Thus, it is all cause and effect.

      Regarding 8), the Universe has some particular properties as a whole - conservation and inertia. Only these are enough to explain everything. Have you ever wondered the difference between force and energy? Free on-line dictionary defines force as "The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power" in the general category, but changes to "A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application" in the physics category. The same dictionary defines energy as "The capacity for work or vigorous activity; vigor; power" and "The capacity of a physical system to do work" in general and physics category respectively. The word "capacity to cause" physical change means, energy in its stored or potential state is force. In its kinetic state (vigorous activity), it is interaction and after it ceases to act, it is action. Though the three are only evolutionary states of the same thing, they are physically different.

      Gravity has two functions: structure formation that makes particles interact and its complement displacement that makes particles separates. Gravity as a "force" stabilizes orbits between interacting bodies, when both bodies circle around a point called barycenter. If you take the distance from this point to the centers of each body, draw a square of that length and distribute the mass of the two bodies in the reverse field, you will find some interesting results. We leave it to you for working it out so that you can draw your own conclusions. For this reason, gravity is closer to magnetism. Bodies with strong magnetic fields exhibit high gravitational potential also.

      On the other hand, gravity as "energy" in its structure formation function; makes particles interact in four different combinations of proximity-distance variables (proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance) between the two bodies involved in interaction. These four are expressed as strong, weak nuclear, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration respectively.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      Hi Basudeba,

      Your seem not to be able to wrap your brains (plural?) around the idea that a universe which creates itself out of nothing has no physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say.

      Whereas the creation of energy at the big bang universe either constitutes a violation of conservation laws or means that it has been created by some outside intervention (or both), as a universe which creates itself out of nothing obeys the mother of all conservation laws, the Nix law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) is not something which can have properties as whole, so unlike big bang cosmologist naively want to believe, it doesn't make any sense to ask, to make statements about how large or old the universe is, what entropy it has etcetera.

      As according to the Nix law it has no 'external' physical reality as a whole, it obviously can have no beginning as 'seen' from without, so in this universe there is no such thing as a ''first action''.

      It only exists as seen from within, so if according to the uncertainty principle a particle of infinitesimal energy (i.e. greater than zero) has an infinite lifetime, then we can say that it takes the particle an infinite time to evolve from a zero energy (non-existence) to a non-zero energy so in this sense it has always existed and will always exist, though the lower its energy is, the weaker its interactions are, the less its existence makes a difference from its non-existence, the less defined its properties are.

      Agreeing with the cosmological principle according to which no point in space is more unique than any other, in a SCU every particle can consider itself to be (at) the center of its own interaction horizon, the origin and cause of its own universe, so according to the particle its universe starts to exist as it starts to exist itself, unlike the fictitious Big Bang Universe (BBU) where all particles have the same 'birth date', which does have a beginning in time.

      So another difference between these universes is that whereas a BBU lives in a time realm not of its own making, a SCU contains and produces all time within, the consequence of which is that it at all times contains objects in all possible phases of their evolution, and hence all 'entropies' which are associated with these phases, so here it makes no sense to ask what the entropy of the universe as a whole is.

      As to your question ''How does the disorder spread in a system?'', I think the answer can be found in the question where the order comes from in the first pace -which is the subject of my essay.

      My objection to conceive of a particle property as a ''universal concept'' is that it refers to an imaginary observation post outside the universe -which makes no sense in a SCU.

      As to a ''gravitational field in empty space'': if the mass of particles is both the cause and effect of their interactions, then a particle has no surface which separates some content (mass) from its (effects on its) environment, no border between where its mass ends and where its environment, its gravitational field begins.

      So if according to relativity theory a yardstick shrinks in the gravitational field as seen from outside of the field, then mass, a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime: the weaker the field, the less energy it contains, the emptier spacetime is.

      And as to ''a primordial cause can be explained'': no, as a primordial cause by definition cannot be reduced to a preceding cause, it cannot be explained, understood: a primordial cause can only be believed in, believed that it happened but never proved.

      As to ''the difference between force and energy'', in a SCU we cannot accuse one of being the cause of the other: the energy of particles is as much the product as the source of their interactions, of the force between them.

      Regards, Anton

      Hi Akinbo,

      By (hypothetically) assuming that the universe was created by some Creator outside of it, you regard the universe as an ordinary object which has particular properties as a whole, which has a beginning and evolves in time, so such universe lives in a time continuum not of its own making: here all particles have the same birth date.

      Conservation laws insist that in a universe without Creator, which creates itself out of nothing, without any stuff or assistance from the outside, everything inside of it somehow must cancel: what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, so this universe has no physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, so it doesn't even make sense to ask how large or old it is, what entropy it has.

      A self-creating universe only exists as seen from within, so if we regard all different particle species which inhabit, for the universe as different kinds of numbers, then they all add to nil: like the sum of all credits and debts on Earth by definition is zero (so obeys the conservation law according to which this sum must remain nil) doesn't mean that there is no money.

      Just like to an alien who cannot use anything the Earth has to offer, the value of the dollar is undefined, so you cannot from outside the universe make statements about the universe as a whole, how old it is, how much energy it contains or how large it is or what its entropy is: the meter, second, gram and joule simply aren't defined outside the universe.

      As to the ''cosmological implication'': as despite the above arguments big bang cosmology nevertheless does make assertions about the age, state and properties of the universe completely invalidates the theory -if the hotchpotch of unjustified assumptions it is based upon even merits the title 'theory' at all.

      What happens when you drop ''a tiny amount of energy in a ''nothing" which of course must be of absolute zero temperature'': you first need to design, define, specify what energy is going to be and do before dropping it in a "nothing" -which, being nothing, of course cannot be attributed any temperature, let alone 0 degree Kelvin.

      Since you cannot design, create energy without the environment (spacetime) in which it is to express its nature, in doing so you automatically design spacetime itself: without energy there is no space nor time and vice versa.

      Though the big bang is described as a state of infinite energy density, to be able to speak about its density requires that space is a quantity which is independent from energy and hence unaffected by it: this not only contradicts relativity theory, it also shows how highly intelligent physicists can be very dumb as you can only speak about the energy density of the universe if the meter and joule are defined even outside the universe.

      Regards, Anton

      Dear Sir,

      We have never entered a black hole to see the back of our head in front of us. We are ordinary mortal looking straight in the eye and asking simple questions, because we have nothing to hide or evade. Hence we do not become abusive. We may be wrong, but we never even hinted that the Universe was created out of nothing. This and many similar accusations are unfair.

      All we said was that the Universe is self re-creating based on simple laws of conservation and inertia. What others call as dark energy, we call a background structure, because energy cannot be dark (non-interacting) - energy is always inferred from its interactions involving mass and has never been seen directly. Bare mass is dark. The galaxy rotation problem is wrong mathematics. The galactic clusters only appear to recede from each other because the Universe as a whole is spinning on its central axis just like planets go round the Sun. Temporarily they appear to recede from each other to come close again. Similarly, after many years, the galactic clusters will appear to come closer. This is the reason why the expansion of the Universe is not evident in lesser scales.

      In case you point out that the ether model, which was supposed to be a background structure has been demolished by the null result of the MM Experiment, this is our reply. Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as such. All transverse waves are background invariant by its very definition. Since light is propagated in transverse waves, Maxwell used a transverse wave and aether fluid model for his equations. Feynman has shown that Lorentz transformation and invariance of speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations. Einstein's causal analysis in SR is based on Lorentz's motional theory where a propagation medium is essential to solve the wave equation. Einstein's ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell's Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (aether) based. Thus, the non-observance of aether drag (as observed in Michelson-Morley experiments) cannot serve to ultimately disprove the aether model. The equations describing spacetime, based on Einstein's theories of relativity, are mathematically identical to the equations describing ordinary fluid and solid systems. Yet, it is paradoxical that physicists have denied aether model while using the formalism derived from it. They don't realize that Maxwell used transverse wave model, whereas aether drag considers longitudinal waves. Thus, the notion that Einstein's work is based on "aether-less model" is a myth. All along he used the aether model, while claiming the very opposite.

      Regarding ''gravitational field in empty space'', we never said that "the mass of particles is both the cause and effect of their interactions". We have earlier said that: "Gravity is not a force that contracts like magnetism. It stabilizes the two bodies to orbit around each other with the barycenter as the center to induce equilibrium." Here we clearly differentiated between massive bodies and attributed their movement along their barycenter (effect) to gravity (cause). In empty space, there cannot be massive bodies, so that the effect of gravity cannot be evident.

      We have repeatedly written in all forums that the length contraction is only apparent to the observer and not real. We do not require relativity, but simple Doppler effect to explain the observed result. For the body moving at great speed, assuming, but not conceding that if there is any length contraction, then it would apply proportionately to the scale also, so that the net effect will be zero.

      We only believe in direct evidence and inference based on such evidence. We do not believe anything without logic, as it is superstition.

      As to ''the difference between force and energy'', we never said that "one of being the cause of the other": we only said that they represent two different states of the same thing. Kindly do not misquote us.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      Hi John,

      A self-creating universe (as opposed to a big bang universe which has been created by some outside interference) has no physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, so obviously cannot have a beginning, see my reply to Basudeba of Jun. 11, 2013, or, better yet, the first chapter of my study in www.quantumgravity.nl.

      Regards, Anton

      Okay, okay Anton let me rephrase the issues. Forget "nothing", forget big bang theory, forget Creator, etc

      1 - Is the equation dS = dE/T, also sometimes written dS = dU/T correct?

      (I have removed the work terms pdV VdP) to avoid beclouding the issues).

      2 - If the equation is correct, does it apply to T = 0?

      3 - If you wish to deny the possibility of T = 0 (I am trying to block all escape routes here!), then will the equation apply to an infinitesimally small temperature, say like 10^-15K?

      Be careful and in your considered reply, because I have a follow up final question/ statement.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

      Hi Akinbo,

      As far as I'm aware of your equation is correct; as to the question whether it applies at T = 0 ?

      Without intending to allow myself an escape route, you must be aware that like a velocity of 99,9999999999999999 ... % of the speed of light is still infinitely far away from ''the'' speed of light as it is unreachable, 10^-15K is infinitely far away from the absolute zero, so you question or statement will anyhow concern a hypothetic and untestable state.

      I am, nevertheless very curious as to your follow-up final question/statement.

      If it is related to you previous post, you should keep in mind that empty space is not the same as "nothing": unlike a mathematical space where all points are identical but for their coordinate numbers, space is not something (like a spatial grid) which only is curved by mass or energy, locally stretched and contracted.

      A physical spacetime is a physical 'object': its observed properties not only depend on the mass and energy in its near and far environment, but also on the mass of the observer or observing particle, the distance he/it looks from and his/its motion.

      Furthermore, except the universe, no system inside of it can be perfectly closed.

      So whether the equation applies to an infinitesimally low temperature may depend on what kind or form of energy you want to put inside some area and the location of that area.

      Another point is that whereas it is the same cosmic time everywhere in a big bang universe so time is the same kind of 'thing' everywhere, this is not the case in the self-creating universe we actually live in.

      Regards, Anton

      Hi Basudeba,

      I didn't intend to be abusive: as English is not my first language I don't know whether you (figuratively) say and write "wrap your brain -or brains- around some idea".

      As to "we never even hinted that the Universe was created out of nothing": no, that was my statement.

      As far as I'm aware of we have not much choice: either the universe has been created by some outside intervention (Creator, God or Whatever), or it creates itself, in which case it necessarily does so out of nothing -and fundamental particles must be as much the cause as the effect of their interactions so mass cannot causally precede gravity.

      Please correct me if I'm wrong.

      Regards, Anton

      Anton, I completely agree with you that physics is too obsessed with causality and the second law is not fundamental. I wrote about that in my previous essay http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1369 and the message is not widely accepted.

      regards, Phil

      Dear Sir,

      If you go through our essay published on May 31, you will find a great degree of commonality in both our approaches.

      The Universe was self-recreating, but it is not out of nothing. Only a part of it becomes the background structure and the other part uses inertia and conservation laws to create everything. Here we must clarify that there is nothing like inertia of rest - it is simply equilibrium of forces acting on a body. Elsewhere we have mathematically proved that if we accept inertia of rest, then total inertia of the body will be reduced to zero, which is absurd. Whenever the forces acting on a body exert inertia of motion, the conservation principles generates an equal inertia of restoration (elasticity). The non-linear interaction of these can create different structures to explain the observable Universe. We have written about this in many forums giving the detailed mechanism.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      Dear Anton,

      You ask a very relevant question and proceed to answer it in an interesting manner. Many of your arguments seem original. For example you say, "though a broken egg doesn't unbreak, its evolution, its creation in fact comes down to unbreaking the egg." Took me a moment to understand your point but it is an excellent point.

      You conclude, "if in a closed universe particles and laws of physics similarly are the product of an evolution so there is no initial low entropy, then the second-law doesn't hold." My model is based on the evolution of a single field, and I've been unable to resolve this question. Your essay helps me to think about these issues.

      Like you, (and Calabi) I consider that a gravitational field can exist in space. In fact I consider it to define space. If one considers a field with (effectively) infinite density than one might view this as negative (binding) energy. If the field is expanding in all directions, then the 'motion' of the expanding field energy may be viewed as positive kinetic energy. If the energy of the expanding field equals energy of the initial configuration, then it would seem that the 'big bang-like' system could exhibit the zero energy of the 'self-creating universe'

      And, although I understand your analogy with money, it is abstract when applied to a universe which one cannot "stand outside of". From within, the money seems quite real, as does physical reality. In reviewing your responses to Basudeba's comments, you state that the BBU lives in a time not of its own making where a SCU contains and produces all time within. Given the zero-sum BBU, it is not clear to me why these models cannot be merged. In my model the initial expanding field is perfectly symmetric and scale invariant, hence time invariant. Only when the perfect radial symmetry breaks does cyclical motion occur, effectively introducing time to a timeless system. Additionally you note: "in imposing a direction on events, gravity may be said to power time itself...".

      You recognize the key part played by gravity, both as to time and mass. You state "mass cannot causally precede gravity nor the other way around. You further note that it is faulty to interpret "mass as preceding gravity."

      My theory assumes that Maxwell was correct in stating that fields have energy and Einstein correct in the mass equivalence of energy, hence the aboriginal supremely dense gravity field provides its own mass. Once symmetry breaks, the vortex circulation in this field will lead to soliton-like particle creation, including the self-trapping 'confinement' of quarks, with no need for 'color' or strong force. The model, I believe, is generally compatible with Masudeba's take on the problems with QED and QCD. I also like your analysis of the Higgs.

      Because you're dealing with the toughest problems in physics, the nature of creation and the nature of order, it's difficult to come up with definitive answers. But I very much like the questions you ask and the answers you give. You have inspired me to reread your earlier essays.

      I hope you will find time to read and comment upon my essay.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Hi Edwin,

        Nice to hear that you appreciate the essay, thanks!

        As to whether ''the 'big bang-like' system could exhibit the zero energy of the 'self-creating universe''': a BBU is a universe which is conceived of as an ordinary object which has a beginning and has particular properties as a whole, which evolves in its entirety so here all particles have about the same birthday (ignoring virtual particles which managed to become real) and all galaxies are in about the same evolutionary phase: this universe grows old in time, it lives in a time realm not of its own making, so is a fictitious universe. A BBU has a physical reality as 'seen' from without, which would be observable (and hence have a non-zero energy) if not for the fact that it is impossible to actually step outside of it and inspect it from without. In contrast, only in a SCU which creates itself out of nothing, obeys the conservation laws which says that everything inside of it, including space and time must cancel, so an imaginary observe who look at it from without would see nothing at all. A SCU only exists as seen from within, to an inside observer whose body particles are part of the sum which is to stay nil.

        If the universe would only contain a single charged particle so it wouldn't be able to express its charge, then it cannot be charged itself, so a property only exists, is preserved in interactions between charged particles. So in saying that the universe has particular properties as a whole, that it evolves, 'en bloc', big bang cosmology in fact asserts that there is something outside of it, encompassing it, something it owes its properties, its (in that case, non-zero) energy, so implicitly asserts that the universe has been created by some outside intervention.

        Lawrence Krauss, in ''A Universe From Nothing: Why there is Something Rather than Nothing'' (2012) also argues that the (big bang) universe is zero energy universe: if the sum of the potential energy (due to gravity between galaxy clusters) plus the kinetic energy as residing in their motion away from each other is nil, then it is a (flat) zero-energy universe. Unfortunately, this doesn't make sense: if in a zero energy universe the potential energy of the particles created at or shortly into the bang always would have been equal to their kinetic energy (since they depend in the same way on their mass) then there wouldn't have been a bang at all. The error of today's cosmologists, of Krauss, is that they regard the mass of particles as an absolute, unchangeable, privately owned quantity they got at their creation (whether with or without the help of Higgs) in contrast to a SCU where particles create one another and evolve towards higher energies.

        Unlike a BBU which lives in a time realm not of its own making, where it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere, in a SCU which contains and produces all time within, it is not the same time everywhere. In a SCU an observer sees clocks show an earlier time as they are more distant, meaning that clocks here are observed to run at a slower pace as they are farther away even if they are at rest with respect to the observer.

        Indeed, if we must reject causality, then we can no longer conceive of the speed of light as a (finite) velocity of light*, meaning that, unlike a BBU where we see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past, in ''the'' past, in a SCU we see the galaxy as it is ''at present'', to "us" -a difference which is elaborated on in my site (which I'm afraid still is quite a mess). (*Never mind that for obvious reasons the 'speed' of light is a limit to the velocity of massive objects) As I argued in my 2012 essay, ''Einstein's Error'' ( http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1328), in a SCU c is just a number which says how many kilometers space distance corresponds to one second time distance: here a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all, in contrast to a BBU where, since it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere, it takes a photon time to travel.

        Regards, Anton

        Hi Anton,

        Your long reply I believe is to give you an escape route, in case of my follow up question. Dont be afraid! :)

        Well, as you agree the equation is correct, at the very least I think it is one of the few equations that can be used to create an astronomically sized entity/change from an infinitessimal quantity given a suitable initial condition.

        Cheers,

        Akinbo

        *Do you have any criticism on my essay. I prefer criticism to being told, I have a good essay! Thanks.

        Hi Akinbo,

        The key word in your reply is ''initial conditions'' which implies Something/Someone to choose and install them.

        The concept of initial conditions refers to an imaginary observation post outside the universe, as if looking over God's shoulders at His creation, a habit you share with big bang cosmologists, with everybody (except yours truly), an addiction which exposes the big bang hypothesis as a religious tale, as an idea which has no scientific value whatsoever.

        Indeed, to create from ''an infinitesimal quantity'' an '' astronomically sized entity'' presupposes the intervention of Something/Someone to create that quantity; to assume the existence of an ''astronomically sized entity'' is to assume that the meter and second are defined even outside the universe, which they of course aren't.

        I have, by the way, already posted a comment on your thread.

        Anton