Material Creation

[coldcreation]

The essential theme of Cold Creation curtailed and blunted up till now, comes into view here in physical and human terms, the forward direction of automatic material creation and the emergence of complexity being the central topic under review.

 

Creation of the light elements?

 

Ex Nihilo?

 

Pre-material creation?

 

Primordial?

 

Thermodynamics?

 

Hot creation?

 

Cold creation?

 

Confusion surrounding the big bang has emerged as a result of the failure to address several crucial issues: notably, how and when material creation transpired, the origin of the light elements, but too, the mechanism behind redshift and the source of the cosmic background radiation (possibly related issues).

 

Material creation, evolution and dynamics of the large-scale structure of the universe, are not specifically defined, they are simply left to other theories to explain.

 

The absence of a mechanism responsible for material creation and the absence of a mechanism responsible for the gravitational interaction (certainly related), and its curious powers of fine-tuning, deprives us of greater insight into the workings of nature, into the history of the universe, into the science of physical cosmology.

 

The comical scene of destruction obliteration and devastation that would have been left over in the wake of the primordial hot creation event capitulated by relativistic evolutionary cosmologists is not the platform on which Cold Creation reposes—though it is a general relativistic evolutionary model (‘evolutionary’ here has nothing to do with the radius or size of the universe). This is not World War Three, it is Cold War Two.

 

Cold Creation

[questor]

if the event of occurence of the cosmos was not hot, how did the sun and the earth's molten core occur?

[C1ay]

if the event of occurence of the cosmos was not hot, how did the sun and the earth's molten core occur?

It is a result of the pressure resulting from the great gravitational force of all of the matter surrounding their cores.

[Tormod]

CC, if this is an "attack" on cosmology it is both puny and pointless. You really like to run around the topic like a cat chasing a mouse: we know something is going to happen but not when.

 

So *when* are you going to stop laughing at modern cosmology and actually come up with anything other than pointless (and empty) criticism of it?

 

Cold War Two...LMAO.

[C1ay]

The essential theme of Cold Creation curtailed and blunted up till now, comes into view here in physical and human terms, the forward direction of automatic material creation and the emergence of complexity being the central topic under review.

What evidence do we have that there was any creation at all? If observation tells us that matter cannot be created is it a reasonable hypothesis that matter has existed for eternity? Is it possible that a big bang event just redistributed existing matter and didn't create any of it?

[coldcreation]

if the event of occurence of the cosmos was not hot, how did the sun and the earth's molten core occur?

 

 

The heat inside stars is not a remnant from the creation of the cosmos (or occurrence). It is due to gravity, pressure, kinetic energy, fusion, nucleosynthesis.

 

It is well known that clouds of cold gas, hydrogen, dust, and other light elements, molecules, gravitationally collapse or compress to form stars.

 

The point of this thread is to describe conceptions about material creation (with respect to hydrogen especially, the most abundant element in the universe) and compare them to the most recent observational evidence, in terms of potential time-scales, abundance of light elements, stellar nucleosynthesis, and primordial nucleosynthesis.

 

 

cc

[coldcreation]

What evidence do we have that there was any creation at all? If observation tells us that matter cannot be created is it a reasonable hypothesis that matter has existed for eternity? Is it possible that a big bang event just redistributed existing matter and didn't create any of it?

 

Are you talking about protons, neutrons and electrons or all the elements? Are you saying that heavy elements have potentially always existed, and that there is no nucleosynthesis or creation of heavy elements via stellar processes (e.g., in supernovae blasts)?

 

Do you believe in the recombination epoch of the standard model, where and when most light elements where formed, created primordially?

 

cc

[coldcreation]

CC, if this is an "attack" on cosmology it is both puny and pointless. You really like to run around the topic like a cat chasing a mouse: we know something is going to happen but not when.

 

So *when* are you going to stop laughing at modern cosmology and actually come up with anything other than pointless (and empty) criticism of it?

 

Cold War Two...LMAO.

 

Actually, this thread is designed to layout the concept of material cold creation. In doing so it must be pointed out the pitfalls of modern cosmology, otherwise, why even bother to create an alternative model, though Hoyle did a pretty good job at that while still alive and kicking. Now that he's gone, someone else has to.

 

Constructive criticism is neither empty nor pointless, it can be both fruitful and enriching. History has shown that to be the case more often than not.

 

Cold Creation is just another bit of history repeating...

[questor]

since the sun is probably the parent of the earth and since the sun weighs in pounds

4.3 times 10^30 and the earth weighs 1.3 times 10^25, why does not this tremendous mass of the sun cause a gravitational collapse inward as you described?

[questor]

if creation was cold, does that mean there was no nuclear fusion or fission? does it also mean no collisions between matter and anti-matter?

[C1ay]

Are you talking about protons, neutrons and electrons or all the elements? Are you saying that heavy elements have potentially always existed, and that there is no nucleosynthesis or creation of heavy elements via stellar processes (e.g., in supernovae blasts)?

 

Do you believe in the recombination epoch of the standard model, where and when most light elements where formed, created primordially?

 

cc

Fusion does not equal creation in my opinion. That heavy elements are forged from lighter elements is simply a redistribution of matter resulting from an atomic process.

 

I cannot say that I particularly agree with the standard model. I personally think that we are likely correct that matter cannot be created. Matter changes form and stellar process can account for most of it in converting light elements to heavy via fusion and heavy elements to light via fission. I try to remain open to all of the various theories and tend to believe that there are many natural processes that we have yet to discover or understand. For that reason I am very reluctant to draw any conclusions from the standard model.

[HydrogenBond]

Cold creation is not concensus opinion but it is just as valid a theory as the rest of the lot. Consensus opinion does not equal truth when direct proof is lacking. In all cases, nobody addresses t=0, from nothing to something. If one does not know the origin how does one know their theory lines up properly. There is a lot of uncertainity starting and going from step two when there is no origin for an anchor for the correct alignment.

[CraigD]

Actually, this thread is designed to layout the concept of material cold creation.

I, for one, have been very eager to read your ideas since becoming aware of them at this site and your (very pretty, I might add) homepage, and am glad to see you starting in earnest.

In doing so it must be pointed out the pitfalls of modern cosmology, otherwise, why even bother to create an alternative model…

I quite disagree.

 

I believe it’s safe for you to assume that your core audience understands that the Big Bang model is far from conclusive or exclusive, and that there’s plenty of room in cosmology for competing theories. Rather than expending time and effort reading about these problems, I’d prefer to read your theory “from the ground up,” with no mention of any theoretical ideas it is intended to replace. Once we readers have gained a working understanding of your theory, there will be plenty of time and opportunity to compare it to its competition, and form our own opinions on the matter. (slight pun intended)

 

Of course, it’s convenient to reuse conventional terms (eg: nucleosynthesis), and, if your theory casts them in a way critically different than the usual, it’s important to point out that difference. This kind of distinction making is different than an “attack.”

 

To recycle an old adage, “build a better (or just different) cosmological theory, and the scientific world will beat a path to your door.” So get building! :Waldo:

[Tormod]

Constructive criticism is neither empty nor pointless, it can be both fruitful and enriching. History has shown that to be the case more often than not.

 

I agree 100% with you here. I am just waiting (what is it - five months now?) for you to actually provide anything at all except criticism. I am still waiting for your alternative explanations! :Waldo:

[CraigD]

Fusion does not equal creation in my opinion. That heavy elements are forged from lighter elements is simply a redistribution of matter resulting from an atomic process.

I don’t believe anyone is claiming it is.

 

According to the traditional Big Bang theory, nucleosynthesis, the production of heavier nuclei from lighter, occurred during only during 2 periods: in

• the Lepton Epoch, of the Primordial Age (about 1 sec - 3 minutes after-the-Big-Bang), in which H-1 (hydrogen) nuclei (protons) and free electrons combined via electron capture and fusion to form H-2 (deuterium), He-3, He-4 (helium), and Li-7 (lithium), and Be-9 (berylluim), and B-11 (boron), atomic numbers 2-5.

and, again, much later, in and after

• The Galaxy/Star formation and reionization Epoch of the Stelliferous Age (10^8 years ABB – present (about 10^10 years)), in which stars form all the other elements via fusion

Before 10^-33 seconds, it postdicts that there are no particles but bosons (force), and not yet all of them, in particular (no pun intended) no photons (electromagnetic force). At 10^-33 seconds, there are quarks, electrons, (and their antiparticles), and photons, but no baryons such as protons yet. They begin to form at about 1 second, but can’t capture electrons to form matter for at least another 300,000 years.

 

The point of all this is that there were, according to the Big Bang theory, brief but significant periods where there was lots of energy, but no matter at all. It really does describe the creation of matter from energy.

 

Of course, this is all according to the Hot Big Bang theory, not what Coldcreation is intending to present in this thread. I cite it just to make the preceding point.

[Guest FinalFantasy]

Well, I just posted a response on the topic "First Atom," and reading this now leads me to ask whether you gentleman and ladies are conversing about science or etiological philosophy? If the final truth is something so complex to involve the number 10 to the negative 33 seconds, then I suddenly feel so very depressed and suicidal in a Mad World.

[coldcreation]

I don’t believe anyone is claiming it is.

 

According to the traditional Big Bang theory, nucleosynthesis, the production of heavier nuclei from lighter, occurred during only during 2 periods: in

• the Lepton Epoch, of the Primordial Age (about 1 sec - 3 minutes after-the-Big-Bang), in which H-1 (hydrogen) nuclei (protons) and free electrons combined via electron capture and fusion to form H-2 (deuterium), He-3, He-4 (helium), and Li-7 (lithium), and Be-9 (berylluim), and B-11 (boron), atomic numbers 2-5.

and, again, much later, in and after

• The Galaxy/Star formation and reionization Epoch of the Stelliferous Age (10^8 years ABB – present (about 10^10 years)), in which stars form all the other elements via fusion

Before 10^-33 seconds, it postdicts that there are no particles but bosons (force), and not yet all of them, in particular (no pun intended) no photons (electromagnetic force). At 10^-33 seconds, there are quarks, electrons, (and their antiparticles), and photons, but no baryons such as protons yet. They begin to form at about 1 second, but can’t capture electrons to form matter for at least another 300,000 years.

 

The point of all this is that there were, according to the Big Bang theory, brief but significant periods where there was lots of energy, but no matter at all. It really does describe the creation of matter from energy.

 

Of course, this is all according to the Hot Big Bang theory, not what Coldcreation is intending to present in this thread. I cite it just to make the preceding point.

 

It's good to see somebody does their homework.

 

Yes, big bang cosmology has no choice but to spell out creation of the light elements primordially, since during the short timescale (13 or 15 Gyrs) the age of the universe, there has not been enough time to creat (fuse) them through stellar means, by normal nucleosynthesis.