The Second Law of Thermodynamics Precludes an Infinite Acting Universe

[edthecynic]

Actually it depends upon paired production, dummy. And no, you have not refuted anything.

I have debunked everything you've posted using your own sources, you are just too dishonest to admit the truth that ENERGY, which can be measured, is not a nothing! Can you measure nothing? Can there be more nothing here and less nothing there, DUMMY?

From your infallible God Vilenkin:
“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, No.

 

[edthecynic]

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero.

But NEVER nothing!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Why don't you pick the one you believe is most viable and tell me what it says about the origin of the universe. Specifically, did it begin?

Again your own source says you are full of shit!

“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, No.

 

[edthecynic]

Incorrect. I got my beliefs about the universe not being eternal into the past from the work of Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin. So you are arguing with them. I didn't discover it. They did.

No, you misrepresented what they found as proof the universe had a beginning, which even they say is PURE BULLSHIT!

“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, No.

 

[ding]

I have debunked everything you've posted using your own sources, you are just too dishonest to admit the truth that ENERGY, which can be measured, is not a nothing! Can you measure nothing? Can there be more nothing here and less nothing there, DUMMY?

From your infallible God Vilenkin:
“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, No.

What was that time mark again, Ed?

Wuwei may not care to check it but I have. You are lying.

 

[ding]

But NEVER nothing!!!!

Paired particles popping into and out of existence is effectively nothing. Whereas a run away paired production tunneling event of 2 billion times the mass of the universe would be considered something being created from nothing. But it's cool that you and wuwei want to argue against the widely accepted theory of how the universe was created. What's next? You and wuwei going to argue against evolution too?

 

[ding]

Again your own source says you are full of shit!

“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, No.

Nope. That's you lying again, Ed.

Post the time mark.

 

[ding]

No, you misrepresented what they found as proof the universe had a beginning, which even they say is PURE BULLSHIT!

“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, No.

It's a mathematical proof, dummy.

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p = −2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

 

[edthecynic]

Two of the authors disagree with you. This is from Wikipedia, not the creationist site you cited. (My bold face)

However, Vilenkin and co-author Delia Perlov have also stated that, in their view, the theorem tells us only that inflation had a beginning and not that the universe had a beginning.​

It doesn't matter to ding-dong what his own sources actually say, ding needs only to pontificate what they mean and it suddenly becomes gospel.

“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, No.

 

[edthecynic]

Nope. That's you lying again, Ed.

Post the time mark.

I never said the quote was from your video, that is a straw man YOU created because you know you are wrong, it clearly is an interview he gave to Stenger. Here is another Vilenkin quote you won't like:

I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

Again energy is not listed among the "nothings."

 

[edthecynic]

Ed's a massive troll.

Pure projection!

 

[edthecynic]

You are lying

Pure projection!

 

[ding]

I never said the quote was from your video, that is a straw man YOU created because you know you are wrong, it clearly is an interview he gave to Stenger. Here is another Vilenkin quote you won't like:

I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

Again energy is not listed among the "nothings."

You actually did imply it was from the video. You said it was from a source I provided. Which source was it? I notice you don't provide any links. Why is that? Given Vilenkin's positions you are absolutely taking quotes out of context. Are you calling Vilenkin a liar?

 

[ding]

It doesn't matter to ding-dong what his own sources actually say, ding needs only to pontificate what they mean and it suddenly becomes gospel.

“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, No.

Where are those links again?

 

[Wuwei]

I never said the quote was from your video, that is a straw man YOU created because you know you are wrong, it clearly is an interview he gave to Stenger. Here is another Vilenkin quote you won't like:

I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

Again energy is not listed among the "nothings."

ding and edthecynic who is right to be cynical.

When Vilenkin says "laws of physics" that is an implication that he is referring to the vacuum fluctuation which says

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are tiny random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, ​

Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia

All the vacuum in our universe is thriving with activity. These fluctuations have been experimentally observed. It is not just constrained to a vacuum; it is also among the atoms of matter.

From Wikipedia:
3D visualization of quantum fluctuations of the QCD vacuum [1]

.

 

[edthecynic]

You actually did imply it was from the video. You said it was from a source I provided. Which source was it?

No I didn't, you worthless LYING POS, The source was Vilenkin HIMSELF

 

[edthecynic]

Where are those links again?

Look them up yourself, you lazy fuck, google is your friend! I could post them, but you will just ignore them.
If I do post the source of the Vilenkin quote, will you finally admit you are full of shit? Anyone who has been on this board knows I ALWAYS have the links!!!!

 

[ding]

ding and edthecynic who is right to be cynical.

When Vilenkin says "laws of physics" that is an implication that he is referring to the vacuum fluctuation which says

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are tiny random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, ​

Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia

All the vacuum in our universe is thriving with activity. These fluctuations have been experimentally observed. It is not just constrained to a vacuum; it is also among the atoms of matter.

From Wikipedia:
3D visualization of quantum fluctuations of the QCD vacuum [1]

.

Right. Pairs pop into and out of existence leaving radiation behind. The key wording in your quote is "tiny random fluctuations." Tiny random fluctuations are a far cry from a runaway quantum event creating a universe where 2 billion times the mass of the universe annihilates itself leaving behind radiation - which is the cosmic MICROWAVE background radiation that we observe - and the remaining matter particles that were not annihilated. It is the CMB that is the evidence for the universe being created from nothing. And by nothing I mean nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which literally popped into existence.

 

[edthecynic]

It is the CMB that is the evidence for the universe being created from nothing. And by nothing I mean nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which literally popped into existence.

BULLSHIT!
EVEN VILENKIN DOESN'T BUY YOUR BULLSHIT!

I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

 

[ding]

BULLSHIT!
EVEN VILENKIN DOESN'T BUY YOUR BULLSHIT!

I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

How do you believe the CMB was created then, Ed, if not through paired production annihilation?