Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

[JBeukema]

What I meant was, the Universe is expanding, correct?

Spacetime is expanding, yes.

If so, doesn't that mean that Energy (which is a constant amount according to the "rule") is thus spread over a greater area .... thus, less concentrated .... thus weaker?

Basically, yes.

If so, how/why do stars develop enough energy to burn HOTTER.

The stars are systems unto themselves within the universe. Think about it this way:

If I light a match and throw it some gas... The match is burning, right? it's losing energy. However, ti triggers a chemical reaction that releases more energy that the initial raaction. Similarly, the lifecycle of stars invovles various stages (brought about by the nuclear reactions within them, as well as their own gravitational effects on themselves) that cause them to release different amounts of energy depending on the interior conditions. For instance, when a star collapses, the increased densit speeds up the fusion process, causing it to become 'hotter'. Of course, due to the number of factors involved, there is not one single 'life cycle of a star', but a number of developmental paths that can be taken.

(this does require more ENERGY, yes? No?).

It requires that more energy be released from the star. Remember that it is the mass (matter) of the star that is being converted into energy through nuclear fusion (like a hydrogen bomb that just keeps going). If the expansion of the universe caused entropy to increase at a rate faster than even nuclear fusion could convert matter into energy, we would not exist.

When you have the option, here are some links that can hopefully explain it better than I can (I only bothered to ever learn the fundamental aspects of the physics and cosmology of star formation and development)


The Life Cycle Of A Star

NASA - Lifecycle of a Star

HowStuffWorks Videos "Investigating Astronomy: The Lifecycle of a Star"

Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At smaller scales matter has clumped together under the influence of gravitational attraction and these clumps do not individually expand, though they continue to recede from one another.

The Expanding Universe

Big Bang Cosmology: Physics

Expanding Universe

Expanding Universe

 

[JBeukema]

Remember that stars are help together by gravity, and can be individually treated as though space is not expanding, as the effects of cosmic expansion are really only significant on the cosmic scale (when treating multiple 'bunches' of matter in space. It's kinda like using Newtonian physics when figuring out how to aim a mortar: it's less accurate tan relativity, but plenty accurate enough for the matter at hand

 

[G.T.]

I actually understand, and I appreciate the answer. I'm really intrigued by the Universe, I wish I went into the field of study but it's water under the bridge for me, at this point. Thanks!

 

[Liability]

Matter = Engergy

Actually, matter does NOT equal energy, but we have learned that under the right circumstances, matter can be converted into energy.

E=mc2

Yes. We all already knew that you had that in mind. And it does not say that energy equals matter. But it does say that energy can be set free from matter and it preserves a systemic equilibrium.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, matter does NOT equal energy, but we have learned that under the right circumstances, matter can be converted into energy.

E=mc2

Yes. We all already knew that you had that in mind. And it does not say that energy equals matter. But it does say that energy can be set free from matter and it preserves a systemic equilibrium.

What I love most about Scientific Language is that words have one meaning only!!! There is no such thing as "It all depends on what the meaning of IS, is" in Scientific Language. "Is" always means the equal sign, and nothing else but the equal sign. And therefore the equal sign means "is" and nothing else but "is." So that famous equation means absolutely nothing else but matter is energy, and energy is matter.

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh. So "sometime later-on" science might explain everything.

(A) that sounds like a concession that it sure as hell doesn't explain it NOW, and

(B) the very same thing COULD be said of many different theories or explanations (including possibly some religious or God-based explanations) for how "everything" came into existence.

1) I'll make a list of things, that in the past, people thought were caused by God(s), only for science to PROVE what the real cause was.
2) You make a list of things you think are caused by God today and PROVE that these things are caused by God(s)

 

[Dr Grump]

Why do you quote such drivel as though it is insightful? It's just dopey.

If the BIG BANG theory can posit that all space/time and matter/energy can come into existence without having been created by something that existed "prior" to its creation, then why could not a God come into existence from a "vacuum" without Himself "being" a vaccuum?

Because there is a tonne of physical and empirical evidence that backs up the existence of a Big Bang type event. There is no evidence of a God. Only faith..

 

[Kalam]

As long as the universe is expanding or contracting work can therefore be done.

How is that? The universe's expansion seems to be attributable to dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant. Why does this expansion per se preclude the possibility of a heat death?

 

[edthecynic]

As long as the universe is expanding or contracting work can therefore be done.

How is that? The universe's expansion seems to be attributable to dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant. Why does this expansion per se preclude the possibility of a heat death?

Because in Physics, work is defined as a force through a distance. The heat death of the universe is defined as all the energy of the universe existing in the form of heat which can do no work.

From the same "physlink.com" source you used earlier:

"Question

What exactly is the heat death of the universe and where can I find out more?

Asked by: Richard Hobbs

Answer

The 'heat-death' of the universe is when the universe has reached a state of maximum entropy. This happens when all available energy (such as from a hot source) has moved to places of less energy (such as a colder source). Once this has happened, no more work can be extracted from the universe. Since heat ceases to flow, no more work can be acquired from heat transfer. This same kind of equilibrium state will also happen with all other forms of energy (mechanical, electrical, etc.). Since no more work can be extracted from the universe at that point, it is effectively dead, especially for the purposes of humankind.

This concept is quite different from what is commonly referred to as 'cold death.' 'Cold death' is when the universe continues to expand forever. Because of this expansion, the universe continues to cool down. Eventually, the universe will be too cold to support any life, it will end in a whimper. The opposite of 'cold death,' as you can see, is NOT 'heat death,' but actually the 'big crunch.' The 'big crunch' occurs when the universe has enough matter density to contract back on itself, eventually shrinking to a point. This shrinking will cause the temperature to rise, resulting in a very hot end of the universe."

"The heat death of the universe will only occur if the universe will last for an infinite amount of time (i.e there will be no big crunch)."

"a good book on the subject is called 'The Last Three Minutes' by Paul Davies. He describes how the universe might die a heat death, and also argues that it may be possible that a big crunch will occur instead."

 

[Kalam]

Because in Physics, work is defined as a force through a distance.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

The heat death of the universe is defined as all the energy of the universe existing in the form of heat which can do no work.

I'm also aware of that. How do these definitions address this question?:

Why does this expansion per se preclude the possibility of a heat death?

From the same "physlink.com" source you used earlier:

The sources I linked to were the first results on google. I guess I should have scanned them more closely.

The respondent claims that a heat death can't occur in an expanding universe, which implies that the universe isn't approaching a state of maximum entropy, which, in turn, implies that the maximum value of entropy increases more rapidly than the universe approaches it. These claims have not been shown to be true.

 

[edthecynic]

Because in Physics, work is defined as a force through a distance.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

The heat death of the universe is defined as all the energy of the universe existing in the form of heat which can do no work.

I'm also aware of that. How do these definitions address this question?:

Why does this expansion per se preclude the possibility of a heat death?

From the same "physlink.com" source you used earlier:

The sources I linked to were the first results on google. I guess I should have scanned them more closely.

The respondent claims that a heat death can't occur in an expanding universe, which implies that the universe isn't approaching a state of maximum entropy, which, in turn, implies that the maximum value of entropy increases more rapidly than the universe approaches it. These claims have not been shown to be true.

Well, you should have at least read them before you posted them!!!

I've answered this more than once on this thread and yet again in an older thread and even quoted your own source on this, what more do you want???
I gave you a link to the old thread as well as a quote that answered your question thoroughly, but you dismissed it as being 18 years old, and then you linked to an article based on Newton's outdated "STATIC" universe ignoring Einstein's modern DYNAMIC universe. You just can't accept that science does not support the Creation model. You are desperate for a universe that winds down needing a God to wind it up, and you refuse to accept anything to the contrary even from your own sources.

A "loose metaphor" does not a Law of physics make!!!
But even your loose metaphor admits that entropy can remain CONSTANT, and of course, if entropy remains constant it is NOT increasing, thus violating any so called "law" of INCREASING entropy.

If it is possible for an increase in entropy to occur, the probability of that eventually happening is one. If entropy never decreases - and it doesn't - the universe experiences net gains in entropy and follows what could be described as a law of increasing entropy. This is all very elementary.

You have a short memory. You tried this argument on another thread, remember?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1150525-post242.html

The entropy of the universe remaining constant means the entropy of the universe equals zero.

The role of expansion for the entropy of the universe
Ulrych, Emil; Voracek, Pavel
Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 186, no. 1, Dec. 1991, p. 157, 158.

It is proposed, under the assumption of the closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe, that the cosmological expansion/contraction on its own has an entropy balancing effectively the changing entropy of the cosmic fluid in such a way that at every epoch the total entropy of the universe remains constant. It is argued that, thermodynamically, the universe, as a whole, behaves like a self-gravitating formation of an adiabatic gas, quite regardless of the processes occurring in the cosmic fluid.

You have a short memory. You tried this argument on another thread, remember?

You have an inaccurate memory. A single, 18-year-old postulation is not sufficient if you're attempting to contradict theoretical intuition and challenge the scientific community's consensus.

The entropy of the universe tends toward a maximum (equilibrium.) It will only remain constant after heat death occurs.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe tends toward high entropy. If so, what happens when there is nothing left to be disordered? How can matter be constant?

Entropy and the Universe

From your OWN physlink site yet again:

"So the question is, what happens when all the usable energy is converted into heat?

That's a famous question that people thought a lot about in the nineteenth century. It goes under the name of the 'Heat Death of the Universe.' In short, once all of the energy in the universe is converted to heat then the universe will be in equilibrium -- everything will be of the same temperature and entropy will remain constant forever. This is complicated a bit by the fact that the universe is expanding. In an expanding universe you can never really reach equilibrium -- but the scientists of the 1800s didn't know about the expanding universe so let's just assume that the universe is static."

 

[Kalam]

I've answered this more than once on this thread and yet again in an older thread and even quoted your own source on this, what more do you want???

You did not address that in any of your older posts and I've explained why the quoted text was inaccurate. To prove me wrong, you'll need exactly what I specified in my last post: evidence that the value of maximum entropy increases (due to expansion) more rapidly than the universe's entropy approaches that value. Quoted text that merely claims something to be the case - what you've provided so far - is useless unless it's backed up with actual evidence.

You just can't accept that science does not support the Creation model. You are desperate for a universe that winds down needing a God to wind it up, and you refuse to accept anything to the contrary even from your own sources.

Failure of a strawman. This has absolutely nothing to do with the universe's cosmological origins, and the universe ending in a heat death would in no way imply the existence of a supernatural creator. This is a separate discussion.

 

[edthecynic]

To prove me wrong, you'll need exactly what I specified in my last post: evidence that the value of maximum entropy increases (due to expansion) more rapidly than the universe's entropy approaches that value.

No, that's what you pontificate I need to prove you wrong.!!!

As long as KINETIC energy exists there can be no "heat death" of the universe and kinetic energy exists as long as movement exists, and movement exists as long as the universe is expanding or contracting.

 

[JBeukema]

I was under the impression that the accepted mathematical model predicted a 'cold death', as opposed to a Big Crunch?

 

[Kalam]

As long as KINETIC energy exists there can be no "heat death" of the universe and kinetic energy exists as long as movement exists, and movement exists as long as the universe is expanding or contracting.

You're fundamentally incorrect about what you believe to be the source of the universe's expansion. The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate most likely due to some form of dark energy.

 

[edthecynic]

As long as KINETIC energy exists there can be no "heat death" of the universe and kinetic energy exists as long as movement exists, and movement exists as long as the universe is expanding or contracting.

You're fundamentally incorrect about what you believe to be the source of the universe's expansion. The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate most likely due to some form of dark energy.

First of all, I didn't give a reason for the expansion in this thread and we went over this in the old thread when you bailed.
And second, for whatever reason the universe is accelerating, it is MOVING and therefore kinetic energy still exists and there is no heat death possible while kinetic energy exists, which is why you want to change the subject from the heat death to dark matter.

 

[Liability]

Why do you quote such drivel as though it is insightful? It's just dopey.

If the BIG BANG theory can posit that all space/time and matter/energy can come into existence without having been created by something that existed "prior" to its creation, then why could not a God come into existence from a "vacuum" without Himself "being" a vaccuum?

Because there is a tonne of physical and empirical evidence that backs up the existence of a Big Bang type event. There is no evidence of a God. Only faith..

You misread the question. What I asked doesn't even question the Big Bang theory. There may have been a Big Bang. Maybe it's a repeating event, in fact, according to some physicists' theories. But if there was a Big Bang and that theory does not explain where all the stuff CAME from, then you are merely evading it. Your answer continues to be that "it" was always there. That's not an answer, really. It's more like an article of

faith.

 

[eagleseven]

Physicists often ignore the question "Where did everything come from?"

Creationists answer the question with God. Only, creationist ignore the follow-up question "Where did God come from?"

 

[Liability]

Physicists often ignore the question "Where did everything come from?"

Creationists answer the question with God. Only, creationist ignore the follow-up question "Where did God come from?"

I am not particularly religious myself. But on balance, I do believe that there is so much order in the Universe, that it looks like it was the product of a very high design. I believe in God. I am not in the slightest bit convinced that God believes in "religion."

As for physicists, I am most impressed with those who acknowledge that the question of "where did all the 'stuff' come from?" is a legitimate question. And when they feel duty bound, as scientists, to admit that they do not know because it is one of the questions that Science has not answered and cannot answer (yet) and may never be able TO answer, I am even more impressed with them.

 

[Father Time]

Physicists often ignore the question "Where did everything come from?"

Creationists answer the question with God. Only, creationist ignore the follow-up question "Where did God come from?"

I always find it funny when creationists insist that everything complex HAS to have an origin due to their complexity and yet God has no origin despite being able to wish things into existence, living forever, and being all knowing (far more impressive than anything a living creature can do here on Earth).