You may be aware that the estimates for the mass of the universe are changing. Are they becoming more accurate? That’s the idea! Is it true? I don’t know about this estimate or that, but it’s clear to me that, taking, for example, 10 year intervals, that the accepted estimate is more accurate than that of 10 years before.

Look at the history of the Hubble constant. Hubble’s first estimate was 500. [I’m omitting the unit description; that doesn’t change.] It caused serious problems with his data because 1,000 divided by 500 is 2. That gave Hubble’s first estimate of the age of the universe to be 2 billion years old.

Unfortunately, it was already known back in ’28 that the earth was at least 3 to 3 1/2 billion years old. That set Hubble’s theories back a bunch.

Now, we know the value of Hubble’s constant is actually in the low 70’s. That’s different, right? [What is the currently accepted value of it? It’s the one that gives us the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years old. Curiously, some published current values of it don’t quite agree with the 13.7 billion year estimate — but they’re all close.]

We give Hubble credit for, by using the inverse of the Hubble constant, determining the age of the universe, but Hubble, an atheist, never agreed. All he wanted to prove was the immensity of the universe. It was 10, 100, 1000, … … times bigger than what was believed before his work.

Back in the ’20’s, the Milky Way galaxy was thought to be the entire universe!!!!!!! How about that? Hubble just wanted to show how big it was; he rejected the inference that its linear expansion showed all galaxies had originated at a common point. [Those atheists, like Einstein, are tough nuts to crack.]

Onward. Yes, we all agree on one thing, to know the energy God used, you need to know the mass of the universe.

The best number that I’ve been able to find is for the ‘observable’ universe [‘observable’ does not mean ‘visible’ — we can observe with other variables than what we can see]. What’s that mass [for the ‘observable’ universe]? 3 x 10^55 grams. A big number, right?

Oh, you object because the unit is so small — a lousy gram. OK, how about kilograms? The the mass becomes 3 x 10^52 kilograms. Didn’t change much, did it? How about metric tons [there are 1,000 kg per metric ton]? Now what’s the mass? 3 x 10^49 metric tons. As a practical matter, there’s not much difference between 10^55 and 10^49, is there? [It’s the first 10^40th or so, RIGHT?]

What does ‘observable’ mean? First, it DOESN’T mean ‘visible’. ‘Observable’ includes both the visible universe, and the ‘cold dark matter’ [CDM]. I accept the existence of the CDM. There are data to support it. For example, when the refraction of light around a globular cluster is measured, it bends way too much based on the visible mass [what we can actually see] and dark matter within a galaxy, i.e., black holes [‘hot’ dark matter?]. There must be something there whose mass makes the light bend. I’ll buy that. That stuff is cold dark matter. Most of the CDM is hydrogen gas which has not become a star. Anyway, the mass of the ‘observable’ universe [visible + CDM] is 3 x 10^55 grams.

What I don’t accept is the ‘dark energy’ assumption. Yes, assumption. No one has a shred of data to support it. So my first estimate of the energy God used will be based on that visible + CDM weight. [We are told the visible stuff is 4% of the total weight of the universe and the CDM is 23%. But my first estimate will assume that those two make up 100% of the weight of the universe.

[Let’s be honest The whole idea of ‘dark energy’ derives from a very recent ‘finding’ that the expansion of the universe is NOW accelearating. AFTER WHAT? … … 12, 13 BILLION YEARS, THE RATE CHANGED? {See NASA’s site for the time it’s supposed to have begun. I accept the current estimate of the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years if I haven’t made that clear.} This whole scenario reminds me of Eddington’s comment: ‘Don’t worry if your theory doesn’t agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong’ So the dark energy mass is discounted for my initial calculations. Anyway, perhaps surprisingly, you’ll see it doesn’t matter a heck of a lot.]

OK. We’re going to perform the calculation to determine the energy that GOD used to create the universe But first what units should we use? I started with foot-pounds because I have experience with foot pounds; I know what a foot-pound is. However, using foot-pounds, the number comes out really big.

So I decided to make the units as big as possible to reduce the number. I decided to use the biggest unit that I thought was within common knowledge [at least it could be] and, also, had actually happened on earth. I chose the Hiroshima atom bomb. It’s believed to be the equivalent of 12,500 tons of TNT. That’s big!

So how many A-bombs [when I say ‘A-bombs’ you’ll know that I mean Hiroshima atom bombs] are needed to make the universe? Solving e = mc^2, I calculate the answer to be 5 quintillion quintillion quintillion A-bombs! [A ‘quintillion’ equals a billion times a billion.] Yes, it’s clearly a number beyond comprehension even using the biggest unit I thought meaningful.

Not big enough? You want to add the dark energy mass? What does that give you for the energy required? Remember, the total weight of the universe, 100%, is thought to be 4% visible matter, 23% CDM and 73% dark energy. If you accept dark energy mass, now how much energy did it take God to make the universe?

Not much different. Solving the fourth proportional, I get 20.833 quintillion quintillion quintillion A-bombs. [Let’s abbreviate ‘quintillion quintillion quintillion’ as Q^3, OK?]

You can see it has little effect on the result. I mean can you tell me the difference that you can perceive between 5 Q^3 A-bombs or 21 Q^3 A-bombs, or, for that matter, 100 Q^3 A-bombs or 1 Q^3 A-bombs. I thought not. One Q^3 A-bombs is beyond comprehension.

Next time we’ll talk about how this affects the current [atheist] cosmology, that is, how God initiates the Big Bang cosmology rather than, as the atheists tell it, it just happens, ‘by nothing and out of nothing’. [We already know the out of nothing is wrong, don’t we?] ‘Til next time.