The Universe: Eternal or no?

[manu1959]

Believing the universe has a beginning, i would posit that without the introduction of additional energy/information, it will eventually end

maybe the universe just is......

 

[ABikerSailor]

Always ask "why", and you'll never run out of questions.

Never run out of questions, and then you'll understand that there is always something new.

How do you think brainstorming works?

Nope...........entropy is a myth.

 

[edthecynic]

The Big Bang occurred, and the Universe was formed. The Universe had a beginning, and something that has a beginning is not eternal.

However......it IS forever.

It is TIME that has a beginning!
The Energy of the universe has always existed and will always exist in exactly the same total quantity according to the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[edthecynic]

Believing the universe has a beginning, i would posit that without the introduction of additional energy/information, it will eventually end

The universe is a perpetual "commotion" machine with an Entropy of ZERO. It will never run out of energy.

 

[HUGGY]

OK. Where I'm coming from in this discussion is observing in nature that everything is impermanent.

Ourselves, as human beings, the universe and its contents and all beings therein are impermanent.

You cannot believe in a created universe without presuming the universe once did not exist. The universe is not eternal.

Even God folks think God created the universe, which means it did not exist eternally.

Most people are not "wired" to think in terms of always has been and forever without defaulting to god for the cover answer.

If there was a start of the universe where did everything come from?

That alone is enough information to only allow that everthing always was and always will be which also by the way dissalows the need or existance of a god.

 

[JohnStOnge]

I watched a documentary about theories on the universe...I think it was on the Discover Science Channel...probably within the last month. The idea is that the dominant belief among astronomers now is that the Univerise is not eternal. The Big Bang theory is part of that. There was one guy who never bought the Big Bang theory because it wasn't consistent with his belief that the Universe is eternal. I guess I should've taken notes so I could be more specific. But I remember it all started with Catholic Priest Georges Lemaitre, who came up with the Big Bang theory. So I Googled him and found the piece at 'A Day Without Yesterday': Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang . I think you can see from that article that, before Lemaitre's theory, most scientists believed the universe is eternal and that acceptance of that theory changed that. I think it kind of swung back the other way with the Oscillating Unvierse theory, but my understanding is that that theory has now come under question. There's a reference to that in the linked article.

A quote:

"Lemaitre believed that the universe would keep expanding. He argued that the Big Bang was a unique event, while other scientists believed that the universe would shrink to the point of another Big Bang, and so on. The observations made in Berkeley supported Lemaitre's contention that the Big Bang was in fact 'a day without yesterday." '

 

[JohnStOnge]

If there was a start of the universe where did everything come from?

That alone is enough information to only allow that everthing always was and always will be which also by the way dissalows the need or existance of a god.

I think you've kind of got it backwards. A very prevalent belief in Astronomy right now is that the universe did have a beginning in the form of the Big Bang and that it's not going to contract again in a manner consistent with the idea of an eternal, oscillating existence. In fact it might be the dominant belief. The question you pose does not provide an argument against the existence of God at all. You just choose to assume that the physical universe is eternal because you start off wanting to rule the existence of God out. A universe with a beginning, it seems, must be problematic for you.

Believe me, the belief that the Universe did indeed have a "start" is not limited to religous people. There are a lot of people in astronomy who believe it purely because that's what they think the observations suggest.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Big Bang occurred, and the Universe was formed. The Universe had a beginning, and something that has a beginning is not eternal.

However......it IS forever.

It is TIME that has a beginning!
The Energy of the universe has always existed and will always exist in exactly the same total quantity according to the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Time and space are combined together in the form of the space-time continium.

Neither has a beginning or end.

 

[HUGGY]

If there was a start of the universe where did everything come from?

That alone is enough information to only allow that everthing always was and always will be which also by the way dissalows the need or existance of a god.

I think you've kind of got it backwards. A very prevalent belief in Astronomy right now is that the universe did have a beginning in the form of the Big Bang and that it's not going to contract again in a manner consistent with the idea of an eternal, oscillating existence. In fact it might be the dominant belief. The question you pose does not provide an argument against the existence of God at all. You just choose to assume that the physical universe is eternal because you start off wanting to rule the existence of God out. A universe with a beginning, it seems, must be problematic for you.

Believe me, the belief that the Universe did indeed have a "start" is not limited to religous people. There are a lot of people in astronomy who believe it purely because that's what they think the observations suggest.

I think you get your science 411 from the back of your co co puffs box. The big bang was obviously not "the beginning" moron. Nothing new was "created" from the bang. Do a little research and get back to me.

I work with facts. You are just here to appologise for you stupid fantasy religion.

 

[edthecynic]

The Big Bang occurred, and the Universe was formed. The Universe had a beginning, and something that has a beginning is not eternal.

However......it IS forever.

It is TIME that has a beginning!
The Energy of the universe has always existed and will always exist in exactly the same total quantity according to the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Time and space are combined together in the form of the space-time continium.

Neither has a beginning or end.

Time exists only in terms of motion. Space/time began at the Big Bang and ends at a Black Hole.

 

[JohnStOnge]

I think you get your science 411 from the back of your co co puffs box. The big bang was obviously not "the beginning" moron. Nothing new was "created" from the bang. Do a little research and get back to me.

I work with facts. You are just here to appologise for you stupid fantasy religion.

Not from the back of a Kocoa Puffs box at all. It's clear that there is question as to whether or not the universe had a beginning. Here is an article on something Stephen Hawking had to say about it in 2006:

Hawking Floats Genesis Bubble in Beijing

A quote:

"He described -- through his electronic speech synthesizer -- how the general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe provoked conceptual changes, which meant that the idea of an ever-existing, ever-lasting universe was no longer tenable. "

 

[KittenKoder]

I think you get your science 411 from the back of your co co puffs box. The big bang was obviously not "the beginning" moron. Nothing new was "created" from the bang. Do a little research and get back to me.

I work with facts. You are just here to appologise for you stupid fantasy religion.

Not from the back of a Kocoa Puffs box at all. It's clear that there is question as to whether or not the universe had a beginning. Here is an article on something Stephen Hawking had to say about it in 2006:

Hawking Floats Genesis Bubble in Beijing

A quote:

"He described -- through his electronic speech synthesizer -- how the general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe provoked conceptual changes, which meant that the idea of an ever-existing, ever-lasting universe was no longer tenable. "

Um ... stop trying to re-interpret science, you really suck at it most times.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Um ... stop trying to re-interpret science, you really suck at it most times.

Kitten, it is clear that there is a question as to whether or not the universe is eternal that has nothing to do with religion. What is it that you think I'm "re-interpreting" about what Hawkins is reported to have said? Here it is again:

"He described -- through his electronic speech synthesizer -- how the general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe provoked conceptual changes, which meant that the idea of an ever-existing, ever-lasting universe was no longer tenable. "

Now, explain to me how that can be interpreted in any way other than noting that Hawkins said that the idea of an eternal universe is not tenable? If the article falsely represented what he said, that's another issue. But I have no reason to believe that it did.

 

[edthecynic]

Um ... stop trying to re-interpret science, you really suck at it most times.

Kitten, it is clear that there is a question as to whether or not the universe is eternal that has nothing to do with religion. What is it that you think I'm "re-interpreting" about what Hawkins is reported to have said? Here it is again:

"He described -- through his electronic speech synthesizer -- how the general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe provoked conceptual changes, which meant that the idea of an ever-existing, ever-lasting universe was no longer tenable. "

Now, explain to me how that can be interpreted in any way other than noting that Hawkins said that the idea of an eternal universe is not tenable? If the article falsely represented what he said, that's another issue. But I have no reason to believe that it did.

How about it is "Hearsay." Can you produce anything Hawking has PUBLISHED that says that??? A Cynic likes to know such things first before he decides since I would have expected Hawking to explain these UNSPECIFIED "conceptual changes" or at least list them. I'm not aware of Hawking ever PONTIFICATING before, so the Cynic in me is suspicious, to say the least.

 

[JohnStOnge]

How about it is "Hearsay." Can you produce anything Hawking has PUBLISHED that says that??? A Cynic likes to know such things first before he decides since I would have expected Hawking to explain these UNSPECIFIED "conceptual changes" or at least list them. I'm not aware of Hawking ever PONTIFICATING before, so the Cynic in me is suspicious, to say the least.

Ed, I am not even going to attempt to look at all the things Hawking has published. All I can suggest to you is that you look on your own into the question of an eternal universe. I am confident that you will find that there is doubt about it.

Look, there is no way we can know whether or not the universe is eternal or not anyway. All I'm talking about is what's believed. And I think that if you look on your own in any way you wish into the question of what's believed about the concept of an eternal universe you will find that there's a lot of doubt about it.

 

[edthecynic]

How about it is "Hearsay." Can you produce anything Hawking has PUBLISHED that says that??? A Cynic likes to know such things first before he decides since I would have expected Hawking to explain these UNSPECIFIED "conceptual changes" or at least list them. I'm not aware of Hawking ever PONTIFICATING before, so the Cynic in me is suspicious, to say the least.

Ed, I am not even going to attempt to look at all the things Hawking has published. All I can suggest to you is that you look on your own into the question of an eternal universe. I am confident that you will find that there is doubt about it.

Look, there is no way we can know whether or not the universe is eternal or not anyway. All I'm talking about is what's believed. And I think that if you look on your own in any way you wish into the question of what's believed about the concept of an eternal universe you will find that there's a lot of doubt about it.

We know the energy of the universe cannot be created or destroyed, so energy is a constant according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy. How is that not eternal enough?

 

[JohnStOnge]

We know the energy of the universe cannot be created or destroyed, so energy is a constant according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy. How is that not eternal enough?

We know that is true given that the Universe exists. The problem is that the "Big Bang" theory has been largely accepted and things have happened to cast doubt on the "Oscillating Universe" theory. It's all based on observations causing astronmers to believe that the Universe as it is now started with a "Big Bang." There was an idea that the universe is enternal and goes through a series of "Bangs" and "Contractions." But observations have been interpreted as making that seem unlikely. Seriously, ed, if you start looking for discussions of that among astronomers you will see that I'm telling you the truth.

Actually, though, I don't know what to do when you won't accept a report on what somebody like Hawkins said. Hawkins was a champion of the idea of an eternal universe in oscillation and now he's reported as saying tha idea is not tenable. But you say someone has to provide you with a published paper on his part saying what he's reported to have said.

 

[edthecynic]

We know the energy of the universe cannot be created or destroyed, so energy is a constant according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy. How is that not eternal enough?

We know that is true given that the Universe exists. The problem is that the "Big Bang" theory has been largely accepted and things have happened to cast doubt on the "Oscillating Universe" theory. It's all based on observations causing astronmers to believe that the Universe as it is now started with a "Big Bang." There was an idea that the universe is enternal and goes through a series of "Bangs" and "Contractions." But observations have been interpreted as making that seem unlikely. Seriously, ed, if you start looking for discussions of that among astronomers you will see that I'm telling you the truth.

Actually, though, I don't know what to do when you won't accept a report on what somebody like Hawkins said. Hawkins was a champion of the idea of an eternal universe in oscillation and now he's reported as saying tha idea is not tenable. But you say someone has to provide you with a published paper on his part saying what he's reported to have said.

Again, hearsay does not have the weight of of a published document, which would list the observations, which you didn't, and explain the INTERPRETATION.

 

[Kalam]

How about it is "Hearsay." Can you produce anything Hawking has PUBLISHED that says that??? A Cynic likes to know such things first before he decides since I would have expected Hawking to explain these UNSPECIFIED "conceptual changes" or at least list them. I'm not aware of Hawking ever PONTIFICATING before, so the Cynic in me is suspicious, to say the least.

Ed, I am not even going to attempt to look at all the things Hawking has published. All I can suggest to you is that you look on your own into the question of an eternal universe. I am confident that you will find that there is doubt about it.

Look, there is no way we can know whether or not the universe is eternal or not anyway. All I'm talking about is what's believed. And I think that if you look on your own in any way you wish into the question of what's believed about the concept of an eternal universe you will find that there's a lot of doubt about it.

We know the energy of the universe cannot be created or destroyed, so energy is a constant according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy. How is that not eternal enough?

You may want to read up on the second law if you believe that the universe is eternal.

 

[edthecynic]

Ed, I am not even going to attempt to look at all the things Hawking has published. All I can suggest to you is that you look on your own into the question of an eternal universe. I am confident that you will find that there is doubt about it.

Look, there is no way we can know whether or not the universe is eternal or not anyway. All I'm talking about is what's believed. And I think that if you look on your own in any way you wish into the question of what's believed about the concept of an eternal universe you will find that there's a lot of doubt about it.

We know the energy of the universe cannot be created or destroyed, so energy is a constant according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, AKA the Law of Conservation of Energy. How is that not eternal enough?

You may want to read up on the second law if you believe that the universe is eternal.

I'm quite familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Familiar enough to assume you are going to try to twist the Law stated as, "In a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy NEVER DECREASES" since all other expressions of the SLoT involve the transfer of heat. Now the two words I emphasized should warn you I am aware of the word games and semantics played with the SLoT, but I'm sure that won't stop you from trying anyway. Will it?
So please tell me why the SLoT prevents the universe of energy from being eternal.