Atheism is the believe that something came out of nothing and we're all going nowhere

[edthecynic]

I never argued energy was created.

Of course you did!!!

Without matter and energy there is no space time. They were created together.

No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. No one knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before it. But what can say it that the evidence suggests that there was a beginning to our universe and all the matter/energy within it. How it got there no one knows.

What came before it was the Big Crunch. The always existing energy that went bang, went crunch before the bang.

 

[Czernobog]

I never argued energy was created.

Of course you did!!!

Without matter and energy there is no space time. They were created together.

No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. No one knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before it. But what can say it that the evidence suggests that there was a beginning to our universe and all the matter/energy within it. How it got there no one knows.

What came before it was the Big Crunch. The always existing energy that went bang, went crunch before the bang.

It sounds like a cosmic workout. Bang-Crunch! Bang-Crunch1 Work. It. Out!!! LOL Sorry. I couldn't resist.

 

[danielpalos]

Why should we believe Theists, who need more than Ten simple Commandments from a God?

 

[ding]

I never argued energy was created.

Of course you did!!!

Without matter and energy there is no space time. They were created together.

No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. No one knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before it. But what can say it that the evidence suggests that there was a beginning to our universe and all the matter/energy within it. How it got there no one knows.

What came before it was the Big Crunch. The always existing energy that went bang, went crunch before the bang.

And that's where the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics comes into play. Unless of course it was acted on by an outside force that put work into the system.

 

[ding]

I never argued energy was created.

Of course you did!!!

Without matter and energy there is no space time. They were created together.

No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. No one knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before it. But what can say it that the evidence suggests that there was a beginning to our universe and all the matter/energy within it. How it got there no one knows.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. See the 4 minute mark of Alexander Vilenkin's interview.

 

[ding]

No, it doesn't.

What came before it was the Big Crunch. The always existing energy that went bang, went crunch before the bang.

"It was shown many decades ago by the theoretical physicist Richard C. Tolman that in such a bouncing universe the cycles grow longer and longer (because of the increase of entropy). This means that they were shorter and shorter the farther one looks back into the past, and in such a way that the total duration of all past cycles added together was finite. That is, even in the bouncing universe scenario the universe had a beginning. Second, the entropy of the universe increases with each cycle, and from the amount entropy that exists in the present cycle one can conclude that the number of past cycles was finite. Third, it is highly doubtful that a collapsing universe would bounce rather than simply ending in a Crunch. And fourth, it was discovered in 1998 that the expansion of the universe is currently speeding up (the scientists who discovered this were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for 2011), so that it is doubtful that the expansion will reverse and lead to a collapse at all."

Stephen M. Barr, professor of theoretical particle physics at the University of Delaware

 

[edthecynic]

No, it doesn't.

What came before it was the Big Crunch. The always existing energy that went bang, went crunch before the bang.

"It was shown many decades ago by the theoretical physicist Richard C. Tolman that in such a bouncing universe the cycles grow longer and longer (because of the increase of entropy). This means that they were shorter and shorter the farther one looks back into the past, and in such a way that the total duration of all past cycles added together was finite. That is, even in the bouncing universe scenario the universe had a beginning. Second, the entropy of the universe increases with each cycle, and from the amount entropy that exists in the present cycle one can conclude that the number of past cycles was finite. Third, it is highly doubtful that a collapsing universe would bounce rather than simply ending in a Crunch. And fourth, it was discovered in 1998 that the expansion of the universe is currently speeding up (the scientists who discovered this were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for 2011), so that it is doubtful that the expansion will reverse and lead to a collapse at all."

Stephen M. Barr, professor of theoretical particle physics at the University of Delaware

BTW, I have been lying in wait of you bringing up the acceleration of matter away from us at the farthest extremes of the universe, so thank you.

But if entropy was the ruling factor, the matter of the universe farthest from us would be slowing down!!!!! So as far as the universe is concerned the SLoT is meaningless!!! Remember Hawking pointing out that in the universe the SLoT is the only Law that can violate itself when entropy laden matter enters a black hole. I posted that earlier in this thread.

Accelerating motion means MORE kinetic energy, not less. So what is causing the acceleration? There are several thoughts on that, but it could easily be the pull of the supermassive universal black hole of the big crunch. The singularity of the big crunch would be the same singularity of the big bang where for a single unstable moment the universe of already existing energy is neither expanding or contracting, like the ball tossed in the air, that I earlier described, that at its apex for a single unstable moment is neither rising nor falling and hits the ground with the exact same force that it was tossed in the air.

 

[rorgg]

Of course, we've SEEN quantum creation of a particle and its antiparticle from nothing. So, that seems like a valid state. How many omnipotent superbeings have we objectively documented... I mean, outside Marvel Comix?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pinqy]

Of course, we've SEEN quantum creation of a particle and its antiparticle from nothing. So, that seems like a valid state. How many omnipotent superbeings have we objectively documented... I mean, outside Marvel Comix?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't mock...Secret Wars #8 is worth big bucks now. Although I will grant you that the Beyonder was kind of lame in Secret Wars II.

 

[badger2]

The forthcoming Trump-Putin meeting in Slovakia will link to Zizek's "less than nothing" in Absolute Recoil. For comparing the accelerationist approach by Theo and the State Agent, we suggest
www. for Critical Legal Thinking, Deleuze and the Accelerationists, reference #5: Dark Trajectories.

 

[BreezeWood]

... so that it is doubtful that the expansion will reverse and lead to a collapse at all.

there is no reversal - BB is a cyclical loop.

all matter in unison is projecting at an angular trajectory that in time will return the composite to its origin and recreate the compaction for the next Singularity ... matter to energy to matter.

 

[badger2]

#194: Authoring the code links to dark trajectories, those of divination. Yang Hsiung's Taixuanjing (Tai Hsuan Ching) 'Mystery of the Great Dark, 18 B.C. is exemplary as a companion text to the I Ching. While the latter are hexagrams, the former are tetragrams, and we believe Yang's approach superior in defining subjectivity. A Jungian author exploits the darkness in A Blue Fire: '....getting to know the darkness,' rather than the obstruse injection of photons. The 9x9x9 magic cube of the Tai Hsuan Ching has been aptly shown on Tony Smith's Physics page.

The first amino acids of life were shown in the 1959 Miller-Urey volcanic spark experiments, and Carlos Guttierez has already shown the event when photographing Chaitan in 2008.

'I won't go to Heaven when I die. Just let me walk the green of Shilelagh.' (Helen Waddell)

 

[Onyx]

Atheism is the believe that something came out of nothing and we're all going nowhere

False. It is the belief that something did not come out of a divine god.

 

[rightwinger]

And there's no point, really, to any of it, so life has no meaning or purpose.

It has purpose to you

Why does it have to "mean" something?

 

[ding]

No, it doesn't.

What came before it was the Big Crunch. The always existing energy that went bang, went crunch before the bang.

"It was shown many decades ago by the theoretical physicist Richard C. Tolman that in such a bouncing universe the cycles grow longer and longer (because of the increase of entropy). This means that they were shorter and shorter the farther one looks back into the past, and in such a way that the total duration of all past cycles added together was finite. That is, even in the bouncing universe scenario the universe had a beginning. Second, the entropy of the universe increases with each cycle, and from the amount entropy that exists in the present cycle one can conclude that the number of past cycles was finite. Third, it is highly doubtful that a collapsing universe would bounce rather than simply ending in a Crunch. And fourth, it was discovered in 1998 that the expansion of the universe is currently speeding up (the scientists who discovered this were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for 2011), so that it is doubtful that the expansion will reverse and lead to a collapse at all."

Stephen M. Barr, professor of theoretical particle physics at the University of Delaware

BTW, I have been lying in wait of you bringing up the acceleration of matter away from us at the farthest extremes of the universe, so thank you.

But if entropy was the ruling factor, the matter of the universe farthest from us would be slowing down!!!!! So as far as the universe is concerned the SLoT is meaningless!!! Remember Hawking pointing out that in the universe the SLoT is the only Law that can violate itself when entropy laden matter enters a black hole. I posted that earlier in this thread.

Accelerating motion means MORE kinetic energy, not less. So what is causing the acceleration? There are several thoughts on that, but it could easily be the pull of the supermassive universal black hole of the big crunch. The singularity of the big crunch would be the same singularity of the big bang where for a single unstable moment the universe of already existing energy is neither expanding or contracting, like the ball tossed in the air, that I earlier described, that at its apex for a single unstable moment is neither rising nor falling and hits the ground with the exact same force that it was tossed in the air.

It does not render the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics meaningless. Usable energy energy is still decreasing. That has not changed. As time approaches infinity usable energy will still approache zero. The cycles grow longer and longer because of the increase in entropy. The total of all past cycles is still finite. The universe had a beginning.

 

[edthecynic]

No, it doesn't.

What came before it was the Big Crunch. The always existing energy that went bang, went crunch before the bang.

"It was shown many decades ago by the theoretical physicist Richard C. Tolman that in such a bouncing universe the cycles grow longer and longer (because of the increase of entropy). This means that they were shorter and shorter the farther one looks back into the past, and in such a way that the total duration of all past cycles added together was finite. That is, even in the bouncing universe scenario the universe had a beginning. Second, the entropy of the universe increases with each cycle, and from the amount entropy that exists in the present cycle one can conclude that the number of past cycles was finite. Third, it is highly doubtful that a collapsing universe would bounce rather than simply ending in a Crunch. And fourth, it was discovered in 1998 that the expansion of the universe is currently speeding up (the scientists who discovered this were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for 2011), so that it is doubtful that the expansion will reverse and lead to a collapse at all."

Stephen M. Barr, professor of theoretical particle physics at the University of Delaware

BTW, I have been lying in wait of you bringing up the acceleration of matter away from us at the farthest extremes of the universe, so thank you.

But if entropy was the ruling factor, the matter of the universe farthest from us would be slowing down!!!!! So as far as the universe is concerned the SLoT is meaningless!!! Remember Hawking pointing out that in the universe the SLoT is the only Law that can violate itself when entropy laden matter enters a black hole. I posted that earlier in this thread.

Accelerating motion means MORE kinetic energy, not less. So what is causing the acceleration? There are several thoughts on that, but it could easily be the pull of the supermassive universal black hole of the big crunch. The singularity of the big crunch would be the same singularity of the big bang where for a single unstable moment the universe of already existing energy is neither expanding or contracting, like the ball tossed in the air, that I earlier described, that at its apex for a single unstable moment is neither rising nor falling and hits the ground with the exact same force that it was tossed in the air.

It does not render the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics meaningless. Usable energy energy is still decreasing. That has not changed. As time approaches infinity usable energy will still approache zero. The cycles grow longer and longer because of the increase in entropy. The total of all past cycles is still finite. The universe had a beginning.

If entropy is increasing, how could the matter at the farthest parts of the universe be accelerating away from us?
And don't just parrot your same hogwash, if the universe is losing usable energy then all matter should be slowing down like the matter near us. You can't have it both ways.

 

[RWS]

Well, actually, life has a LOT of meaning..... It actually has ALL the meaning.

It's the people who spend their lives following religious dogmas, that have lost their meaning of life. Since they simply follow imaginary things they were told from birth, and then expect them to be real when they die. Religions only care about the fruits AFTER life, and allow themselves to ignore reality DURING life.

And as long as they follow their leader, they believe they will reap the fruits of life, upon death....

 

[hobelim]

Well, actually, life has a LOT of meaning..... It actually has ALL the meaning.

It's the people who spend their lives following religious dogmas, that have lost their meaning of life. Since they simply follow imaginary things they were told from birth, and then expect them to be real when they die. Religions only care about the fruits AFTER life, and allow themselves to ignore reality DURING life.

And as long as they follow their leader, they believe they will reap the fruits of life, upon death....

Its a travesty and a tragedy. Somehow the example Jesus set to escape the tomb of false religion, abandon its teachings and degrading practices and then accept reality, speak truth, walk upright, and embrace life before you die at some point in time became the exact opposite.

Seems like the work of the devil if you ask me....His fingerprints are all over the scene of the crime and when he tried to escape unnoticed with his legions of captives in tow he carelessly left a trail of droppings that lead right into hell.

 

[rightwinger]

"and we're all going nowhere"

Why are the religious so obsessed that they have to "go somewhere"?
Why can't you just die? There is a beginning and an end to everything

Get over it

 

[ding]

No, it doesn't.

What came before it was the Big Crunch. The always existing energy that went bang, went crunch before the bang.

"It was shown many decades ago by the theoretical physicist Richard C. Tolman that in such a bouncing universe the cycles grow longer and longer (because of the increase of entropy). This means that they were shorter and shorter the farther one looks back into the past, and in such a way that the total duration of all past cycles added together was finite. That is, even in the bouncing universe scenario the universe had a beginning. Second, the entropy of the universe increases with each cycle, and from the amount entropy that exists in the present cycle one can conclude that the number of past cycles was finite. Third, it is highly doubtful that a collapsing universe would bounce rather than simply ending in a Crunch. And fourth, it was discovered in 1998 that the expansion of the universe is currently speeding up (the scientists who discovered this were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for 2011), so that it is doubtful that the expansion will reverse and lead to a collapse at all."

Stephen M. Barr, professor of theoretical particle physics at the University of Delaware

BTW, I have been lying in wait of you bringing up the acceleration of matter away from us at the farthest extremes of the universe, so thank you.

But if entropy was the ruling factor, the matter of the universe farthest from us would be slowing down!!!!! So as far as the universe is concerned the SLoT is meaningless!!! Remember Hawking pointing out that in the universe the SLoT is the only Law that can violate itself when entropy laden matter enters a black hole. I posted that earlier in this thread.

Accelerating motion means MORE kinetic energy, not less. So what is causing the acceleration? There are several thoughts on that, but it could easily be the pull of the supermassive universal black hole of the big crunch. The singularity of the big crunch would be the same singularity of the big bang where for a single unstable moment the universe of already existing energy is neither expanding or contracting, like the ball tossed in the air, that I earlier described, that at its apex for a single unstable moment is neither rising nor falling and hits the ground with the exact same force that it was tossed in the air.

It does not render the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics meaningless. Usable energy energy is still decreasing. That has not changed. As time approaches infinity usable energy will still approache zero. The cycles grow longer and longer because of the increase in entropy. The total of all past cycles is still finite. The universe had a beginning.

If entropy is increasing, how could the matter at the farthest parts of the universe be accelerating away from us?
And don't just parrot your same hogwash, if the universe is losing usable energy then all matter should be slowing down like the matter near us. You can't have it both ways.

Parroting? Yes, I am parroting Vilenken, Barr, et al. If the universe is expanding then it must have had a beginning. A cyclical universe will eventually reach maximum thermal equilibrium. It is unavoidable. Cycles had to have a start.

If entropy is increasing, how could the matter at the farthest parts of the universe be accelerating away from us? No one knows, but I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is invalid. Are you?