Asia Mathematika Volume: 2 Issue: 2 , (2018) Pages: 11 – 12 Available online at www.asiamath.org Remark on vacuum fluctuation as the cause of Universe creation: Or How Neutrosophic Logic and Material Point Method may Resolve Dispute on the Origin of the Universe through re-reading Gen. 1:1-2 Victor Christianto1∗, Florentin Smarandache1,2 1Malang Institute of Agriculture, IPM, Malang, INDONESIA 2Dept. Math. Science, University of New Mexico, Gallup, NM, USA Received: .201 • Accepted: .201 • Published Online: ..201 Abstract:QuestionsregardingtheformationoftheUniverseandwhatwastherebeforetheexistenceofEarlyUniverse have been great interest to mankind of all times. In recent decades, the Big Bang as described by the Lambda CDM- Standard Model Cosmology has become widely accepted by majority of physics and cosmology communities. Among other things, we can cite A.A. Grib Pavlov who pointed out some problems of heavy particles creation out of vacuum and also other proposal of Creatio ex nihilo theory (CET). But the philosophical problems remain, as Vaas pointed out: Did the universe have a beginning or does it exist forever, i.e. is it eternal at least in relation to the past? This fundamental question was a main topic in ancient philosophy of nature and the Middle Ages, and still has its revival in modernphysicalcosmologybothinthecontroversybetweenthebigbangandsteadystatemodelssomedecadesagoand in the contemporary attempts to explain the big bang within a quantum cosmological (vacuum fluctuation) framework. In this paper we argue that Neutrosophic Logic offers a resolution to the long standing disputes between beginning and eternity of the Universe. In other words, in this respect we agree with Vaas, i.e. it can be shown: “how a conceptual andperhapsphysicalsolutionofthetemporalaspectofImmanuelKant’s firstantinomyofpurereason“ispossible,i.e. ” how our universe in some respect could have both a beginning and an eternal existence. Therefore, paradoxically, there might have been a time before time or a beginning of time in time.” By the help of computational simulation, we also show how a model of early Universe with rotation can fit this new picture. Further observations are recommended. Key words: Big Bang, Steady state, rotating universe, fluid, singularity-free, cosmology model, early Universe, the book of Genesis, Spirit, Creation. 1. Introduction QuestionsregardingtheformationoftheUniverseandwhatwastherebeforetheexistenceofEarlyUniversehave beengreatinteresttomankindofalltimes. Inrecentdecades,theBigBangasdescribedbytheLambdaCDM- Standard Model Cosmology has become widely accepted by majority of physics and cosmology communities. Amongotherthings,wecanciteA.A.Grib Pavlovwhopointedpossibleheavyparticlescreationoutofvacuum and also other proposal such as Creatio Ex-Nihilo theory (CET).[36-37] But the philosophical problems remain, as Vaas pointed out: Did the universe have a beginning or does it exist forever, i.e. is it eternal at least in relation to the past? This fundamental question was a main topic in ancient philosophy of nature and the Middle Ages. Philosophically it was more or less banished then by Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. But it used to have and still has its revival in modern physical (cid:13)cAsiaMathematika ∗Correspondence: [email protected] 1 AUTHOR and AUTHOR cosmology both in the controversy between the big bang and steady state models some decades ago and in the contemporary attempts to explain the big bang within a quantum cosmological framework. Interestingly, Vaas also noted that Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1787), argued that it is possible to prove both that the world has a beginning and that it is eternal (first antinomy of pure reason, A426f/B454f). As Kant believed he could overcome this self-contradiction of reason“ ( Widerspruch ” ” der Vernunft mit ihr selbst“, A740) by what he called transcendental idealism“, the question whether the ” cosmos exists forever or not has almost vanished in philosophical discussions. [3] Further problems also remain with the Big Bang theories, such as: a) what force was responsible to trigger the first creation of heavy particles out of vacuum?, b) if we take the statistical approach, i.e. the vacuum fluctuation alone was responsible for first creation, then one can ask how much is probability of such statistical chance to create all regularities as we observe of the Universe? (such as Tifft’s quantized redshift data.) InthispaperwewilltakeacloserlookatGenesis1:2toseewhetherthewidely-acceptednotionofcreatio ex-nihilo is supported by Hebrew Bible or not. It turns out that Neutrosophic Logic is in agreement with Kant and Vaas’s position, it offers a resolution to the long standing disputes between beginning and eternity of the Universe. In other words, in this respect we agree with Vaas: “how a conceptual and perhaps physical solution of the temporal aspect of Immanuel Kant’s first antinomy of pure reason“ is possible, i.e. how our universe in ” some respect could have both a beginning and an eternal existence. Therefore, paradoxically, there might have been a time before time or a beginning of time in time.”[3] In the subsequent chapter we will discuss how to answer this question by the lens of hermeneutics of Sherlock Holmes. This is a tool of mind which we think to be a better way compared to critical hermeneutics. 1.1. What is Hermeneutics of Sherlock Holmes? One article suggests: Holmes: “I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” Far too often students of theBible(andcosmologyfolksaswell)twistversestosuitinterpretationsinsteadofformulatinginterpretations to suit what the verses say. Guide: Don’t approach your passage assuming you know what it means. Rather, use the data in the passage – the words that are used and how they fit together – to point you toward the correct interpretation. 2. A closer look at Genesis 1:1-2 implications Oneofthebiggestmysteriesincosmogonyandcosmologystudiesisperhaps: HowtointerpretproperlyGenesis chapter 1:2. Traditionally, philosophers proposed that God created the Universe out of nothingness (from reading“emptyandformless”and“bara”words;thiscontentioniscalled“creatioexnihilo.”). Understandably, such a model can lead to various interpretations, including the notorious “cosmic egg” (primeval atom) model as suggested by Georges Lemaitre, which then led to Big Bang model.[18-20] Subsequently, many cosmologists accept it without asking, that Big Bang stands as the most faithful and nearest theory to Biblical account of creation. But we can ask: Is that primeval atom model the true and faithful reading of Genesis 1:2? Let us start our discussion with examining key biblical words of Hebrew Bible, especially Genesis 1:1-2. It can be shown that the widely accepted creation ex nihilo is a post-biblical invention, rather than as faithful reading of the verses. To quote Ian Barbour: “Creation out of nothing is not a biblical concept.”[4] Let us consider some biblical passages: 2 AUTHOR and AUTHOR 2.1. bereishit The literal meaning of Gen. 1:1, “bareishit bara Elohim.” This very first statement of the book of Genesis literallyreads: ‘first’and‘beginning’arereasonablealternativesfortheHebrewnoun,reishit. Alsonotethatin Hebrew, subjects and verbs are usually ordered verb-first (unlike English in which the subject is written first). If the verb and subject of this verse are reordered according to natural English grammar we read: [1] In, When first, beginning Elohim created... reishit: The noun, reishit, has as its root the letters, (Resh -Aleph-Shin). Wordsderivedfromthisrootoftencarrythemeaningof‘primary’,‘chief’,‘begin’,‘first’or“first-in-line”,“head of”,andsoforth. Harris’sTheologicalWordbookoftheOldTestament(TWOT)ismorespecific,namely,reishit means[1] “...first, beginning, choicest, first or best of a group. [Reishit is] a feminine noun derived from the root [Resh-Aleph-Shin], it appears fifty times in nearly all parts of the [Old Testament]. [Its] primary meaning is “first” or “beginning” of a series.” Accordingly, we can now retranslate breishit bara Elohim as “When first created Elohim”, or as we would render in English,[1] ”When Elohim first created...” 2.2. Gen. 1:2 Gen. 1:2, “And the earth had been.” In English this is easily handled by the past perfect tense (also called the pluperfect or the “flashback” tense). Likewise, if haytah in v 1:2 is translated as a past perfect verb, then verses1:1-2wouldread,[1]WhenElohimfirstcreatedtheheavensandtheearth, theearthhadbeen... Inthis translation the universe, in some form or other, was already in existence when God executed His first creative act, the creation of light. 2.3. Re-reading Gen. 2:7 with Hermeneutics of Sherlock Holmes? If we glance at Gen. 2: 7, we see at a glance that man is made up of the dust of the ground (adamah) which is breathed by the breath of life by God (nephesh). Here we can ask, does this text really support the Cartesian dualism view? We do not think so, because the Hebrew concept of man and life is integral. The bottom line: it is not the spirit trapped in the body (Platonic), but the body is flowing in the ocean of spirit. (check also Eric McKiddie’s article: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/10-tips-on-solving-mysterious-bible- passages-from-sherlock-holmes/) 2.4. Gen. 1:2, formless and void Gen. 1: 2, ”The earth is without form and void, darkness over the deep, and the Spirit of God hovering over the waters.” Patterns such as Adam’s creation can also be encountered in the creation story of the universe. Earth and the oceans already exist (similar to adamah), but still empty and formless. Then the Spirit of God hovered over it, in the original text ”ruach” can be interpreted as a strong wind (storm). So we can imagine there is wind/hurricane, then in the storm that God said, and there was the creation of the universe. See also Amos Yong [6], also Hildebrandt [15]. From a scientific point of view, it is well known in aerodynamics that turbulence can cause sound (turbulence-generated sound). And primordial sound waves are indeed observed by astronomers. 2.5. Psalm 107 Ps. 107: 25, ”He said, he raised up a storm that lifted up his waves.” The relation between the word (sound) andthestorm(turbulence)isinteractive. Whichonecancauseother. Thatis,Godcanspeakandthenstorms, or the Spirit of God causes a storm. Then came the voice. 3 AUTHOR and AUTHOR 2.6. Ezekiel 37 Ezekiel. 37: 7, ”Then I prophesy as I am commanded, and as soon as I prophesy, it sounds, indeed, a crackling sound, and the bones meet with one another.” In Ezekiel it appears that the story of the creation of Adam is repeated, that the Spirit of God is blowing (storm), then the sound of the dead bones arises. 2.7. Conclusion to re-reading the above three verses The conclusion of the three verses above seems to be that man is made up of adamah which is animated by the breath or Spirit of God. He is not matter, more accurately referred to as spirit in matter. In other words, a close reading of Hebrew Bible seems to suggest that creatio ex-nihilo is a post-biblical invention. Other scholarshavesuggestedanalternativeconcept,calledcreatioex-materia,butmanyorthodoxChristianscholars have raised objection to this notion, partly because the term seems to undermine God’s ultimate power and control of the Universe. Besides, the notion of creatio ex-materia has been advocated by Mormon preachers. To overcome this problem, and based on what we learned recently, allow us now to come up with a new term: creatio ex-rotatione (rotatione is a Latin word for rotation). As we shall see in the next chapter, it is possible to come up with a physical model of early Universe with rotation, where the raw materials have been existed for long period of time, but suddenly it burst out into creation. And it seems to fit with Kant’s idea to resolve the dichotomy between finite past or eternal Universe. Furthermore, it can be shown that the model naturally leads to accelerated expansion, without having to invoke ad hoc assumption like dark energy or cosmological constant. 3. A physical model of turbulence-generated sound for early Universe Ourdiscussionstartsfromthefundamentalquestion: howcanweincludetherotationinearlyUniversemodel? Afteransweringthatquestion,wewilldiscusshow“turbulence-generatedsound”canbeputintoamathematical model for the early Universe. We are aware that the notion of turbulence-generated sound is not new term at all especially in aerodynamics, but the term is rarely used in cosmology until now. We shall show that 3D Navier-Stokes will lead to non-linear acoustics models, which means that a turbulence/storm can generate sound wave. 3.1. How can we include rotation in early Universe model? It has been known for long time that most of the existing cosmology models have singularity problem. Cosmo- logicalsingularityhasbeenaconsequenceofexcessivesymmetryofflow,suchas“Hubble’slaw”. Morerealistic one is suggested, based on Newtonian cosmology model but here we include the vortical-rotational effect of the whole Universe. In this section, we will derive an Ermakov-type equation following Nurgaliev [8]. Then we will solve it numerically using Mathematica 11. After he proceeds with some initial assumptions, Nurgaliev obtained a new simple local cosmological equation:[8][9] H˙ +H2 =Ω+(4.π.G.ρ)/3 where H˙ =dH/dt. Theangularmomentumconservationlaw Ω.R2 =const=Kandthemassconservationlawmakesequationsolvable: [9] 4 AUTHOR and AUTHOR H˙ +H2 =(K2/R4)−(GM)/R3 or R¨ =(K2/R3)−(GM)/R2 Equation above may be written as Ermakov-type nonlinear equation as follows: R¨+(GM)/R2 =(K2/R3) Nurgaliev tried to integrate equation (3), but now we will solve the above equation with Mathematica 11. First, we will rewrite this equation by replacing GM=A, K2 =B,soweget: R¨+A/R2 =B/R3 AswithwhatNurgalievdidin[8][9],wealsotrieddifferentsetsofAandBvalues,asfollows: a. AandB (cid:54) 0A=−10;B =−10;ODE =x(cid:48)(cid:48)[t]+A/x[t]2−B/x[t]3 ==0;sol=NDSolve[ODE,x[0]==1,x(cid:48)[0]==1,x[t],t,−10,10]Plot[x[t]/.sol,t,−10,10] Figure 1. A sample figure. b. A (cid:62)0,B (cid:54)0A=0B =−10;ODE =x(cid:48)(cid:48)[t]+A/x[t]2−B/x[t]3 ==0;sol=NDSolve[ODE,x[0]==1,x(cid:48)[0]==1,x[t],t,−10,10]Plot[x[t]/.sol,t,−10,10] From the above numerical experiments, we conclude that the evolution of the Universe depends on the constantsinvolved,especiallyontherotational-vortexstructureoftheUniverse. Thisneedstobeinvestigatedin more detailed for sure. One conclusion that we may derive especially from Figure 2, is that our computational simulation suggests that it is possible to consider that the Universe has existed for long time in prolonged stagnation period, then suddenly it burst out from empty and formless (Gen. 1:2), to take its current shape with accelerated expansion. As an implication, we may arrive at a precise model of flattening velocity of galaxieswithouthavingtoinvokead-hocassumptionssuchasdarkmatter. Therefore, itisperhapsnoteworthy to discuss briefly a simple model of galaxies based on a postulate of turbulence vortices which govern the galaxy dynamics. The result of Vatistas’ model equation can yield prediction which is close to observation [14]. Therefore it appears possible to model galaxies without invoking numerous ad hoc assumptions such as dark matter, once we accept the existence of turbulent interstellar medium. The Vatistas model is also governed by Navier-Stokes equations, see for instance [14]. 5 AUTHOR and AUTHOR Figure 2. A sample figure. 3.2. How “turbulence-generated sound” can be put into a mathematical model for the early Universe We are aware that the notion of turbulence-generated sound is not new term at all especially in aerodynamics, but the term is rarely used in cosmology until now. We will consider some papers where it can be shown that 3D Navier-Stokes will lead to non-linear acoustics models, which means that a turbulence/storm can generate sound wave. In this section we consider only two approaches: 3.2.1. Shugaev-Cherkasov-Solenaya’s model They investigate acoustic radiation emitted by three-dimensional (3D) vortex rings in air on the basis of the unsteadyNavier–Stokesequations. Powerseriesexpansionsoftheunknownfunctionswithrespecttotheinitial vorticity which is supposed to be small are used. In such a manner the system of the Navier–Stokes equations is reduced to a parabolic system with constant coefficients at high derivatives. [16] 3.2.2. Rozanova-Pierrat’s Kuznetsov equation she analysed the existing derivation of the models of non-linear acoustics such as the Kuznetsov equation, the NPE equation and the KZK equation. The technique of introducing a corrector in the derivation ansatz allows to consider the solutions of these equations as approximations of the solution of the initial system (a compressibleNavier-Stokes/Eulersystem). ThedirectderivationshowsthattheKuznetzovequationisthefirst orderapproximationoftheNavier-Stokessystem,theKZKandNPEequationsarethefirstorderapproximations of the Kuznetzov equation and the second order approximations of the Navier-Stokes system. [17] 4. Neutrosophic Logic perspective and implications In the previous sections we have discussed how closer look at Gen. 1:1-2 leads to different scenario than the widely accepted creation ex-nihilo. This new scenario is quite in agreement with Kant’s idea that it is possible thattheUniversehasbothfinitehistoryinthepastandalsoeternalbackground. Wealsodiscussedhowsucha mixedviewcanbemodelledbyintroducingrotationintheearlyuniverse. Nowthereisanimmediatequestion: IsthisnewlookattheoriginofUniversejustifiablelogically,orisitmerelyacompromisedsolution? So,inthis chapter we will review Neutrosophic Logic, a new theory developed in recent decades by one of these authors 6 AUTHOR and AUTHOR (FS).VernPoythressarguesthatsometimesweneedamodificationofbasicphilosophyofmathematics,inorder tore-definetheredeemedmathematics;see[21]. Inthiscontext,allowustoargueinfavorofNeutrosophiclogic asonebasicpostutale,inlieuoftheAristotlelogicwhichcreatesmanyproblemsinrealworld. InNeutrosophy, wecanconnectanideawithitsoppositeideaandwithitsneutralideaandgetcommonparts,i.e. ¡A¿/¡nonA¿ = nonempty set. The common part of the uncommon things! It is true/real... paradox. From neutrosophy, all started: neutrosophic logic, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability, neutrosophic statistics, neutrosophic measure, neutrosophic physics, neutrosophic algebraic structures etc. It is true in restricted case, i.e. the Hegelian dialectics considers only the dynamics of opposites (¡A¿ and ¡antiA¿), but in our everyday life, not only the opposites interact, but the neutrals ¡neutA¿ between them too. For example: you fight with a man (so you both are the opposites). But neutral people around both of you (especially the police) interfere to reconcile both of you. Neutrosophy considers the dynamics of opposites and their neutrals. So, neutrosophy means that: ¡A¿, ¡antiA¿ (the opposite of ¡A¿), and ¡neutA¿ (the neutrals between ¡A¿ and ¡antiA¿) interact among themselves. A neutrosophic set is characterized by a truth-membership function (T), an indeterminacy- membership function (I), and a falsity-membership function (F), where T, I, F are subsets of the unit interval [0, 1]. As particular cases we have: single-valued neutrosophic set when T, I, F are crisp numbers in [0, 1], and interval-valued neutrosophic set when T, I, F are intervals included in [0, 1]. Neutrosophic Set is a powerful structure in expressing indeterminate, vague, incomplete and inconsistent information. See also [22]-[24]. To summarize,NeutrosophicLogicstudythedynamicsofneutralities. Andfromthisviewpoint,wecanunderstand thatitisindeedarealpossibilitythattheUniversehasbothinitialstart(creation)butwitheternalbackground. This is exactly the picture we got after our closer look at Gen. 1:1-2 as discussed in the above section. In other words, our proposed term of “creatio ex-rotatione” has sufficient logical background. 5. Advantages of “creatio ex-rotatione” concept In the preceding section, we have discussed on how our proposed term of “creatio ex-rotatione” has sufficient logicalbackground. Now,allowustodiscusssomeadvantagesoftheproposed“creatioex-rotatione”cosmology view over the Lemaitre’s primeval atom (which is the basis of Standard Model Cosmology). 5.1. Avoid inflationary scheme It is known that inflationary models were proposed by Alan Guth et al. (see [25][26]), in order to explain certain difficulties in the Big Bang scenario. But some cosmology experts such as Hollands Wald has raised some difficulties with inflationary model, as follows: “We argue that the explanations provided by inflation for the homogeneity, isotropy, and flatness of our universe are not satisfactory, and that a proper explanation of these features will require a much deeper understanding of the initial state of our universe.”[27] In our diagram plot above, it is clear that an early rotation model can explain why the Universe can burst out into creation in a very short period, without invoking ad hoc postulate such as inflation model. 5.2. Explain the observed late accelerated expansion. As far as we know, one of the earliest models which gave prediction of accelerated expanding Universe is Carmeli’s Cosmological General Relativity.[29] But it has been shown by Green Wald that for the large scale structures of the Universe, Newtonian model can give similar results compared to general relativity picture.[28] Furthermore, it seems that there is no quite clear arguments why we should accept Carmeli use of 5D metric 7 AUTHOR and AUTHOR model (space-time-velocity metric). In the meantime, in our rotating Universe model, we do not invoke ad hoc dimension into the metric. 5.3. Explain inhomogeneity, breeding galaxies etc. Astronomershaveknownforlongtime,thattheUniverseisnothomogeneousandisotropicasintheusualmodel. It contains of inhomogeneity, irregularity, clumpiness, voids, filaments etc, which indicate complex structures. Such inhomogeneous structures may be better modelled in terms of turbulence model such as Navier-Stokes equations, see also our early papers [11][12]. Furthermore, observations clearly suggest that matter ejected continuously in galaxy centers, which view is difficult to reconcile with Big Bang scenario of galaxy creation. From our point of view, the Hubble’s law indicates that galaxies move fast from each other were because of continuous matter ejection, which effect seems to be a direct refutation of singularity point in the beginning of the Universe. This is in opposite to mainstream view that Hubble’s law support Big Bang theory. It is also interesting remark that Edwin Hubble himself remained rather refrained from attributing his “law” to support the expanding Universe hypothesis. Remark on his seminal paper: “The features, however, include the phenomena of red-shifts whose significance is still uncertain. Alternative interpretations are possible, and, whiletheyintroduceonlyminordifferencesinthepictureoftheobservableregion, theyleadtototallydifferent conceptions of the universe itself. One conception, at the moment, seems less plausible than the other, but this dubious world, the expanding universe of relativistic cosmology, is derived from the more likely of the two interpretations of red-shifts. Thus the discussion ends in a dilemma, and the resolution must await improved observations or improved theory or both.” See [34][35]. Added note: Moreover, for years, some researchers have developed a novel theory of gravity based on an old theory of Le Sage/Laplace (it is known as Le Sage’s gravitation theory). An interesting remark on impetus to Le Sage gravitation theory can be found in article by the late Prof. Halton Arp on his work with Narlikar: “Nevertheless the ball had started rolling down hill so to speak and in 1991, with Narlikar’s help, I outlined in Apeiron the way in which particle masses growing with time would account for the array of accumulated extragalactic paradoxes. Later Narlikar and Arp (1993) publishedintheAstrophysicalJournalNarlikar’soriginal, 1977solutionofthebasicdynamicalequationsalong withtheApeironapplicationstothequasar/galaxyobservations. ThefirstinsightcamewhenIrealizedthatthe Friedmann solution of 1922 was based on the assumption that the masses of elementary particles were always and forever constant, m = const. He had made an approximation in a differential equation and then solved it. This is an error in mathematical procedure. What Narlikar had done was solve the equations for m = f(x,t). This a more general solution, what Tom Phipps calls a covering theory. ... But Narlikar had overwhelmed me with the beauty of the variable mass solution by showing how the local dynamics could be recovered by the simple conformal transformation from t time (universal) to what we called time (our galaxy) time. The advertisement here was that our solution inherited all the physics triumphs much heralded in general relativity but also accounted for the non-local phenomena like quasar and extragalactic redshifts.”[2] Summarizing, it is very significant to consider matter creation process in nature. For instance, one can begin by considering the correct presentation of Newton’s third law is not F=ma, but F=d(mv)/dt=v(dm/dt) + m(dv/dt). In other words, it is possible of matter creation (dm/dt), and this is consistent with Narlikar’s work. We will explore this effect of receding Moon from Earth, in calculations to be presented in a forthcoming paper. 8 AUTHOR and AUTHOR 6. Note on Methods Inthispaper, basicallyweusetwomethods: (a)anewmaterialpointforfluidmodel; (b)logically, weuseNeu- trosophiclogic. Aswiththematerialpointassumption,allowustoquotefromNurgaliev: [30][31]“Themethod used in this article is nonlinear mathematical modeling. The concept of the nonlinear reaction-advection- diffusion equation along with the second type material point harmoniously provides a bridge between classical andquantumphysicsandexplainswhymatterisorganizeddiscretelywithdifferentlevelsoforganization(from clusters of galaxies to atoms and elementary particles). We may expect that system of evolutionary equations (calledadvection-diffusion-reactionequations)... describearbitraryamountofmaterialcomponentswithdensi- ties ρi,HubbleparametersHiandcoefficientsoftheeffectivediffusionDi,generalizedandadoptedwhenneeded.Itmayalsoprovidenonlinearevolutionscenariosforevolutionofthecosmologicalperturbationsinthemulti− componentcosmologicalreactingmedia.Thenonlineartermfstandsformutationofthecomponents(i.e.,nuclearandchemicalreactions,gravitationalclustering,andcosmologicalmorphogenesis).AlinearconsiderationofthecosmologicalperturbationswithindemonstratedmethodforthearbitraryamountofcomponentsdoneintheformofexactanalyticalsolutionsintermsofhighertranscendentalG− functionsofMaijer.ThismethodintheframeEinstein−Cartantheorygavestaticcosmologicalsolution.Thelastremarkis: so,sometimes,morecomplicatedtheorieshelpunderstandsimplerones.” 7. Concluding remarks In this paper we argue that Neutrosophic Logic offers a resolution to the long standing disputes between beginningandeternityoftheUniverse. Inotherwords, inthisrespectweagreewithVaas, i.e. itcanbeshown: “how a conceptual and perhaps physical solution of the temporal aspect of Immanuel Kant’s first antinomy ” of pure reason“ is possible, i.e. how our universe in some respect could have both a beginning and an eternal existence. Therefore, paradoxically, there might have been a time before time or a beginning of time in time.” We argue that a re-reading of Genesis 1:2 will lead us to another viable story, albeit the alternative has not beendevelopedrigorouslyasLCDMtheories. Ittookaroundthreeyearsbeforenowwehavebeenthinkingthis problem out loud, and here our answer can be summarized as follows: “The relic sound wave in early creation is a faithful interpretation of John 1:1, but we can come up with a more complete picture if we combine it with Gen. 1:2, that is the Holy Spirit came to hovering over the primordial fluid, then a kind of hurricane/storm started which created perfect medium where God spoke (Logos).” And one conclusion that we may derive especially from Figure 2, is that our computational simulation suggests that it is possible to consider that the Universe has existed for long time in prolonged stagnation period, then suddenly it burst out from empty and formless(Gen. 1:2),totakeitscurrentshapewhichisaccelerating. Suchapossibilityhasneverbeenconsidered before in cosmology literature. It is our hope that our exploration will lead to nonlinear cosmology theories which are better in terms of observations, and also more faithful to Biblical account of creation. Acknowledgment One of these authors (VC) would like to express his gratitude to Dr. Joas Adiprasetya, Dr. Yonky Karman, andDr. WonsukMafordiscussionsonearlycreationoftheUniverse. VCalsothankstoanumberofprofessors in physics, including Prof. Bambang Hidayat, Prof. Liek Wilardjo. And special thanks to Prof. Thee Houw Liong for suggesting VC to look to J. Narlikar’s works. May God be with you. The authors’s contributions are as follows: V.C. gave the idea and wrote the paper, F.S provided background theory of Neutrosophic Logic and proofread the manuscript. References [1] http://learn-biblical-hebrew.com/hebrew-scripture/beginning-genesis-11-24a/appendix/creatio-ex-materia-genesis- 11-2/ 9 AUTHOR and AUTHOR [2] HaltonArp.TheObservationalImpetusForLeSageGravity.url: http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/the bservational mpetus ore age ravity.RudigerVaas.TimebeforeTime: o i f l s g Classificationsofuniversesincontemporarycosmology,andhowtoavoidtheantinomyofthebeginningandeternityoftheworld.arXiv: 0408111. [[43]] Paul Copan. IS CREATIO EX NIHILO A POST-BIBLICAL INVENTION? AN EXAMINATION OF GERHARD MAY’S PROPOSAL. TRINJ 17NS (1996) [5] Helge Kragh. Cosmology and the Origin of the Universe: Historical and Conceptual Perspectives. arXiv: 1706.00726 [6] Amos Yong. The Spirit in Creation. Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 2011 [7] Gerhard F. Hasel. The polemic nature of the Genesis Cosmology. The Evangelical Quarterly. [8] IldusS.Nurgaliev.Epursimuove! arXiv: 1210.4091.[8a]seealsoSingularitiesareavertedbyvortices.13thGravitational Conference–InternationalConferenceonGravitation,CosmologyandAstrophysics.June23-28,2008.PeoplesFriendship University of Russia (PFUR), Moscow, Russia. Abstracts. Published by PFUR, ISBN 978-5-209-03274-8, pp. 117–118; [8b] Also in Gravitation and Cosmology vol. 16 no. 4 (2010) pp. 313-315. [9] VictorChristianto FlorentinSmarandache YunitaUmniyati.SolvingNumericallyErmakov-typeEquationforNewtonian Cosmology Model with Vortex. Prespacetime Journal, Oct. 2017. www.prespacetime.com [10] V. Christianto ”An Outline of Cosmology Based on Interpretation of the Johannine Prologue”, The Bulletin of Society for Mathematical Services and Standards, Vol. 11, pp. 4-12, 2014. url: https://www.scipress.com/BSMaSS.11.4 [11] V.Christianto.FourPossibleApplicationsofaNavier-StokesCosmology.PrespacetimeJournalVol.6No.11(2015)url: http://www.prespacetime.com [12] V.Christianto.APossibleRoutetoNavier-StokesCosmologyonCantorSets.PrespacetimeJournalVol.6No.8(2015). url: http://www.prespacetime.com [13] V. Christianto. A Theo-Cymatic Reading of Prolegomena of St. John’s Gospel. Scientific GOD Journal, Vol. 8 no. 4 (2017), url: http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/544/595 [14] Georgios Vatistas. The presence of interstellar turbulence could explain the velocity flattening in galaxies. arXiv: 1012.1384 [15] Wilf Hildebrandt. An Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of God. Peabody: Hendrickson Publisher, Inc., 1995 [16] FedorV.Shugaev,DmitriY.CherkasovandOxanaA.Solenaya.Acousticradiationby3Dvortexringsinair.Aerospace 2015, 2, 627-636; doi:10.3390/aerospace2040627 [17] Anna Rozanova-Pierrat. Approximation of a compressible Navier-Stokes system by non-linear acoustical models. arXiv: 1601.0558 (2016) [18] J-P. Luminet. Editorial note to: Georges Lemaˆıtre, A homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extra-galactic nebulae. Gen. Rel. Grav. (2013) 45. url: http://www.physics.umd.edu/grt/taj/675e/Luminet n emaitre istory.pdfJ − o L h P.Luminet.Lemaitre(cid:48)sBigBang.FrontiersofFundamentalPhysics14.url : https : //arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1503/1503.08304.pdf [[2109]] SimonMitton.GeorgesLemaitre: Life,science,andlegacy.url: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1612/1612.03003.pdf [21] Vern Poythress. Redeeming Mathematics: A God-centered approach. Wheaton: Crossway, 2015. [22] Florentin Smarandache, Neutrosophy. Neutrosophic Probability, Set, and Logic, ProQuest Information Learning, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 105 p., 1998; http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/eBook-neutrosophics6.pdf (edition online). [23] Florentin Smarandache, n-Valued Refined Neutrosophic Logic and Its Applications in Physics, Progress in Physics, 143-146, Vol. 4, 2013; http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/n-ValuedNeutrosophicLogic-PiP.pdf [24] F. Smarandache, Neutrosophic Overset, Neutrosophic Underset, and Neutrosophic Offset. Similarly for Neutrosophic Over-/Under-/Off-Logic,Probability,andStatistics,168p.,PonsEditions,Brussels,Belgium,2016,onCornellUniver- sity’s website: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1607/1607.00234.pdf 10