[lean bean]

Really?  Any real thing you can conceive, consequently sketch ignoring the scale and accuracy (close in a solid). If you claim you can imagine infinite universe, could you then outline it? If so, I will admit you're right.

Well, I'm having trouble 'conceiving' how your un-moving ether can have an  ‘accidental occurrence’ or density change when there is no motion to ‘cause’ them in the first place?
niebieskieucho

Ether doesn't move (if not disturbed),

[dlorde]

Really?  Any real thing you can conceive, consequently sketch ignoring the scale and accuracy (close in a solid). If you claim you can imagine infinite universe, could you then outline it? If so, I will admit you're right.

Sure, it's a universe of infinite spatial and/or temporal extent, i.e. it never ends spatially and/or temporally. Can you sketch a photon? a black hole? the universe itself?

On the other hand, I can imagine plenty of things that are not real, so I'm not sure where your 'imaginable' assertion gets you. Oh, yes, you didn't respond to my previous point: were black holes, supernovae, the big bang, and galaxies real before people could imagine them?

[yor_on]

Turn it around.

How would you define 'finity'?

That's our old type of definitions, the ones we're used to, and the ones that make the most sense intuitively in our daily lives. Is nature a finite phenomena? Or are nonlinearities and infinities nature? To me the 'old ways' are our box,  comfortable and safe, but?

When you catch a ball, how do you calculate its path?

[evan_au]

When was matter created?
Is the amount of matter still increasing?

There was a Steady State theory of the universe, which suggested that matter is continually being created to fill the void as the universe expands. There were experiments done to try to find these bits of matter that popped into existence, without success; essentially the same experiment is being continued in an attempt to find evidence for dark matter. But discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation effectively killed the Steady-State theory, since it pointed to something that happened in the past, which is not happening in the same way today.

Is the amount of dark energy increasing?

Various theories try to explain dark energy - some of them predict extremely high levels of it in every cubic centimeter of space.
As noted in other posts, energy levels tend to decrease to the lowest possible level, over time.
This suggests that the level of dark energy is decreasing over time, and showing itself in the increased acceleration we have seen in the expansion of the universe.

[dlorde]

... the level of dark energy is decreasing over time, and showing itself in the increased acceleration we have seen in the expansion of the universe.

So dark energy is 'holding the universe together' ?  by gravity or by some other means?

[niebieskieucho]

acecharly:
Would it make sense that this could be because you too are part of the universe to which that reality belongs and so find it difficult to comprehend anything outside of what we already know from here within. If a man was raised  inside a room with no windows and locked doors he too would probably think like this.

dlorde:
That seems like a very particular definition of 'imaginable'. Black holes, supernovae, the big bang, and galaxies weren't imaginable until the relevant fields of knowledge provided a framework for their imagination, but they were still real. People have imagined an infinite universe since ancient times; it may or may not be real.

Really?  Any real thing you can conceive, consequently sketch ignoring the scale and accuracy (close in a solid). If you claim you can imagine infinite universe, could you then outline it? If so, I will admit you're right.

All thoughts surrounding an infinite universe are currently conceptual and without questioning we would never know that this will hold true.

I see that you cannot sketch the universe, regardless of scale and accuracy. I have no doubt. Infinite universe does not exists. BTW what would it mean? Constantly expanding in its finiteness? How do you understand infiniteness in nature? Could you construct asymptotic ski jumping hill?

[niebieskieucho]

Well, I'm having trouble 'conceiving' how your un-moving ether can have an  ‘accidental occurrence’ or density change when there is no motion to ‘cause’ them in the first place?

Ether, which has no inner structure, doesn't perform spinning motion. Nevertheless, it is no quite immobile. It's motion is oscillation. Scientific literature says that ether is immobile as a mass in contrast to spinning / rotating matter.

[niebieskieucho]

Really?  Any real thing you can conceive, consequently sketch ignoring the scale and accuracy (close in a solid). If you claim you can imagine infinite universe, could you then outline it? If so, I will admit you're right.

Sure, it's a universe of infinite spatial and/or temporal extent, i.e. it never ends spatially and/or temporally.

I did not ask you for a verbal description, only a sketch.

Can you sketch a photon? a black hole? the universe itself?

No problem. Any of them I can sketch as a sphere.

On the other hand, I can imagine plenty of things that are not real, so I'm not sure where your 'imaginable' assertion gets you.

It doesn't matter. The discussion is on reality.

Oh, yes, you didn't respond to my previous point:

Sorry. I probably overlooked. Now I am on vacation, so may respond irregularly.

were black holes, supernovae, the big bang, and galaxies real before people could imagine them?

Yes, but it has nothing to do with a lack of imagining of them. BTW big bang never occurred. The BB belongs to number of scientific myths.

[niebieskieucho]

Turn it around.

How would you define 'finity'?

In word "limes", e.g. any object has finite number of atoms.

That's our old type of definitions, the ones we're used to, and the ones that make the most sense intuitively in our daily lives. Is nature a finite phenomena? Or are nonlinearities and infinities nature? To me the 'old ways' are our box,  comfortable and safe, but?
[/quote]
Not quite. There is no need to use intuition by dividning eg 10 / 3 or calculating pi to realize that they are never ending calculations.

When you catch a ball, how do you calculate its path?

This calculation is performed by brain. Faster than solution of the equation.

[dlorde]

I did not ask you for a verbal description, only a sketch.

OK - you weren't specific; a sketch can mean an abbreviated verbal description.

Can you sketch a photon? a black hole? the universe itself?

No problem. Any of them I can sketch as a sphere.

Really?? If you feel a sphere qualifies as a sketch of those items, I'll give you a blank (or uniformly shaded) sheet of paper as a sketch of an infinite universe.

[yor_on]

Infinity can be described several ways, the modern idea seems to be be a bounded infinity. As if you took that paper and made it into a cylinder, assuming us on the outside/inside. What I mean with a balls path N, is that it from quantum scale approach becomes probabilities. Although to us presenting a 'finite' description, enabling us to catch it. And we're all mathematicians, at least when it comes to geometry, animals and humans both. We have to be to survive our motions

As for a aether, that will depend on how one define it. Is a 'field' a aether? Or a wave function?

[dlorde]

... the modern idea seems to be be a bounded infinity. As if you took that paper and made it into a cylinder, assuming us on the outside/inside.

Nope, making it a cylinder doesn't make it infinite, it makes it finite but unbounded around its circumference, just as the surface of a sphere is finite but without boundaries.

[lean bean]

Ether, which has no inner structure, doesn't perform spinning motion. Nevertheless, it is no quite immobile. It's motion is oscillation. Scientific literature says that ether is immobile as a mass in contrast to spinning / rotating matter.

Can you explain this 'oscillation' ? does it involve a time period?? if so, can you explain what's changing or moving for your structureless ether to be considered  in oscillation?  Are you saying the ocillations are what we 'see' as particles, is that your idea?

[yor_on]

A ' unbounded 'finity' ' is to me a 'bounded infinity' all depending on where you stand looking at it. Take the idea of you leaving to the left of a universe, just to come in at the right

[dlorde]

A ' unbounded 'finity' ' is to me a 'bounded infinity' all depending on where you stand looking at it. Take the idea of you leaving to the left of a universe, just to come in at the right

The old arcade game 'Asteroids' worked like that. Whenever you left the screen on one edge, you'd reappear at a corresponding point on the opposite edge. This is a closed unbounded 2D world; you can travel through it for an infinite time but it is not itself infinite, any more than a clock face is infinite because the hands can go round it for ever. All infinities are unbounded in some respect, but not all that is unbounded is infinite (e.g. closed topologies).

[yor_on]

Well, I guess it's a question of terminology dlorde? You use it in a certain manner, people agreeing with you on what they mean by it. But to the guy inside the game the 'infinity' should exist, and presuming homogeneity and isotropy he won't know when he left to the left, to come in at the right. At least I would expect it to be so. Still, using they eye of a God we know it is still 'bounded'. And that is what I meant by a 'bounded infinity'. Shouldn't have used that paper analogy though

[Pr. snoerkel]

Back to the original qustions:

Re:How can something be created from nothing?
Just remember that official science in this context is pure speculation - same as every other theory. You may be able to think of a better theory that fits into the known facts just as well, if you think out of the box.

Re: Is the amount of matter still increasing?
Look at the stars. Every second they convert at lot of matter to energy, so even though most matter is black matter, and we do not know what that is made of, it is a fair assumption to say that the amount of matter is decreasing and will continue to do so. There is strong support for a theory that even the proton is basicly unstable.

Re: 13.8 billion years ago the big bang created the universe. There was no space, matter. Time started then.
That number is based on the apparent expansion rate of the Universe. Some stars indicate that the universe is much older - and it probably is.

Re: When was matter created?
If matter is unstable at the low temperatures in the present Universe, it stands to reason that matter will form in the right temperature range/energy density

Re: Is the amount of dark energy increasing?
In my mind dark energy is an illusion caused by our perception of time and volume. But, yes.

[dlorde]

Well, I guess it's a question of terminology dlorde?

No, it's not a question of terminology. If you run round a running track and fail to notice you've got back to where you started, that doesn't make the track infinitely long; the same applies to the 'guy inside the game'. If you have it your way, every circle has an infinite circumference and every sphere an infinite area, which is... absurd.

[dlorde]

Re: 13.8 billion years ago the big bang created the universe. There was no space, matter. Time started then.

Those are hypotheses. Many cosmologists now hypothesize that there actually was something before the big bang.

Some stars indicate that the universe is much older - and it probably is.

Last I heard, the uncertainty in the measurement of the age of the 'methuselah star' has a range that allows it to be younger than the age of the universe. It also has the lack of heavier elements characteristic of a first generation star. See Oldest Known Star. What else makes you think cosmologists have got the age of the universe wrong?

[niebieskieucho]

I did not ask you for a verbal description, only a sketch.

OK - you weren't specific; a sketch can mean an abbreviated verbal description.

Maybe my English is not good enough, but by "to sketch", I literally meant "to draw" (not necessarily precisely).

Can you sketch a photon? a black hole? the universe itself?

No problem. Any of them I can sketch as a sphere.

Really?? If you feel a sphere qualifies as a sketch of those items, I'll give you a blank (or uniformly shaded) sheet of paper as a sketch of an infinite universe.

Yes indeed ((!))
You compare incomparable things. I didn't ask for prcise and to scale drawing. Any real (material) object can be comprised in a solid. You cannot do it with infinite universe. Similarly as you divide 100 by 13 and you'll never see the final result (quotient), but you can see endless sequence of numbers.