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]

Originally Posted by questor

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by questor

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]

Originally Posted by C1ay

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?