The Second Law of Thermodynamics Precludes an Infinite Acting Universe

[sealybobo]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Our universe is a new universe started 13 billion years ago. Before that we had yet to become a universe yet. Like a lava lamp. One bubble once it pops is never the same bubble again. It lives out it’s life and when it pops it mixes back in with the goo and one day will become part of a new bubble

Again... if they exist, they each exist in their own space time and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

Yea, just a spark.

It's a lot more than a spark. It literally started with 1 billion times more matter particles and 1 billion times more anti-matter particles than exist in the universe today.

Still started with spa spark. What happened after that we still don’t fully understand. I think we are able to see what happened after the Big Bang like 300,000 years. Before that we don’t know. You could be right. We won’t throw out your hypothesis. Could be a creator. We’ll put that on the paper and go back to it later if you come up with any other evidence.

Actually we do. The matter and anti matter particles mutually annihilated each other releasing tremendous amounts of energy which propelled the remaining matter particles outward.

You do know you can google this shit, right?

Ok so that’s what did it. Matter hitting antimatter

 

[ding]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.

There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.

True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.

You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?

Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?

If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.

 

[ding]

We don’t know.

That's the only thing we do know, for sure.

That ding is always hopelessly lost, circling around in a little universe of his own creation, indeed.

Thanks for that scientific analysis.

Tell me more about me and how that informs your understanding of the science you don't seem interested in discussing.

We’re just trying to show you your theories aren’t even theories. They’re just hypothesis’s at this point. They don’t prove a creator exists. But one might. I was just now trying to contemplate infinity. I can’t. None of us can. You think you can but you’re thinking way too small. Think bigger. You can’t think big enough it’d blow you mind

Ummmm... there are equations that say otherwise.

It really bothers you that the universe was created from nothing, doesn't it?

No it doesn5 bother me. What do you think it proves?

That you just lied about not being bothered by the universe being created from nothing.

 

[ding]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Our universe is a new universe started 13 billion years ago. Before that we had yet to become a universe yet. Like a lava lamp. One bubble once it pops is never the same bubble again. It lives out it’s life and when it pops it mixes back in with the goo and one day will become part of a new bubble

Again... if they exist, they each exist in their own space time and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

Yea, just a spark.

It's a lot more than a spark. It literally started with 1 billion times more matter particles and 1 billion times more anti-matter particles than exist in the universe today.

Still started with spa spark. What happened after that we still don’t fully understand. I think we are able to see what happened after the Big Bang like 300,000 years. Before that we don’t know. You could be right. We won’t throw out your hypothesis. Could be a creator. We’ll put that on the paper and go back to it later if you come up with any other evidence.

Actually we do. The matter and anti matter particles mutually annihilated each other releasing tremendous amounts of energy which propelled the remaining matter particles outward.

You do know you can google this shit, right?

Ok so that’s what did it. Matter hitting antimatter

Which was created from nothing during a quantum tunneling event which did not violate the FLoT.

 

[ding]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Before I read the whole thing consider our universe is just one bubble in a vast lava lamp of bubbles. Each bubble is unique. You know the edge of our universe? It’s expanding right? So it’s fluid. It grows. At one time our universe got started. Science thinks a Big Bang happened 13 billion years ago. But what about before that? Is that beyond your comprehension? We don’t know.

And if they exist, they each exist in their own space time and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

You have got to love people who elevate science to a religion but can't be bothered with learning it.

You’re claiming to know stuff you don’t know for sure. In a lava lamp does any bubble stay in one place?

I'm telling you what the science tells us.

Why does it bother you that the universe was created from nothing and then began to expand and cool?

Nothing? No such thing.

The universe being created from nothing totally disturbs you, bro.

 

[ding]

We don’t know.

That's the only thing we do know, for sure.

Ever hear think outside the box? Well I’m not putting our universe in a box. There must be something outside the box.

For the entire history of Cosmology, we've just been ever expanding the box. Our Universe keeps getting bigger and bigger. It's impossible to say, at this point, where it will end up.

The FLoT stating that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed does not mean matter and energy must have existed forever. It is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever without equilibrating. You just cannot get around this without the added complexity of explaining how energy is added. Which in and of itself leads you to creating energy from somewhere. But all of this can be avoided by creating matter out of nothing from a quantum tunneling event where the positive energy of the matter is balanced perfectly by the negative energy of gravity.

It literally is the only explanation that doesn't violate a law of nature. But for some reason this makes people go bat shit crazy.

 

[sealybobo]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Our universe is a new universe started 13 billion years ago. Before that we had yet to become a universe yet. Like a lava lamp. One bubble once it pops is never the same bubble again. It lives out it’s life and when it pops it mixes back in with the goo and one day will become part of a new bubble

Again... if they exist, they each exist in their own space time and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

Yea, just a spark.

It's a lot more than a spark. It literally started with 1 billion times more matter particles and 1 billion times more anti-matter particles than exist in the universe today.

Still started with spa spark. What happened after that we still don’t fully understand. I think we are able to see what happened after the Big Bang like 300,000 years. Before that we don’t know. You could be right. We won’t throw out your hypothesis. Could be a creator. We’ll put that on the paper and go back to it later if you come up with any other evidence.

Actually we do. The matter and anti matter particles mutually annihilated each other releasing tremendous amounts of energy which propelled the remaining matter particles outward.

You do know you can google this shit, right?

Didn’t they say one had slightly more power than the other one?

Do you know what neutrinos are? Mind blowing stuff we don’t know.

Whats inside a black hole? Another universe? Science doesn’t fully understand and neither do we

 

[ding]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Our universe is a new universe started 13 billion years ago. Before that we had yet to become a universe yet. Like a lava lamp. One bubble once it pops is never the same bubble again. It lives out it’s life and when it pops it mixes back in with the goo and one day will become part of a new bubble

Again... if they exist, they each exist in their own space time and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

Yea, just a spark.

It's a lot more than a spark. It literally started with 1 billion times more matter particles and 1 billion times more anti-matter particles than exist in the universe today.

Still started with spa spark. What happened after that we still don’t fully understand. I think we are able to see what happened after the Big Bang like 300,000 years. Before that we don’t know. You could be right. We won’t throw out your hypothesis. Could be a creator. We’ll put that on the paper and go back to it later if you come up with any other evidence.

Actually we do. The matter and anti matter particles mutually annihilated each other releasing tremendous amounts of energy which propelled the remaining matter particles outward.

You do know you can google this shit, right?

Didn’t they say one had slightly more power than the other one?

Do you know what neutrinos are? Mind blowing stuff we don’t know.

Whats inside a black hole? Another universe? Science doesn’t fully understand and neither do we

No. They are symmetrical.

Yes.

Matter and energy from this universe.

 

[sealybobo]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.

There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.

True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.

You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?

Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?

If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.

But they only know for sure right now from 300,000 years till now. They only assume what you are saying. What happened 7 days before the Big Bang?

 

[ding]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.

There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.

True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.

You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?

Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?

If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.

But they only know for sure right now from 300,000 years till now. They only assume what you are saying. What happened 7 days before the Big Bang?

Red shift, CMB, FLoT, SLoT, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and inflation theory say otherwise.

The laws of nature existed before the universe was created from nothing.

 

[sealybobo]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Our universe is a new universe started 13 billion years ago. Before that we had yet to become a universe yet. Like a lava lamp. One bubble once it pops is never the same bubble again. It lives out it’s life and when it pops it mixes back in with the goo and one day will become part of a new bubble

Again... if they exist, they each exist in their own space time and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

Yea, just a spark.

It's a lot more than a spark. It literally started with 1 billion times more matter particles and 1 billion times more anti-matter particles than exist in the universe today.

Still started with spa spark. What happened after that we still don’t fully understand. I think we are able to see what happened after the Big Bang like 300,000 years. Before that we don’t know. You could be right. We won’t throw out your hypothesis. Could be a creator. We’ll put that on the paper and go back to it later if you come up with any other evidence.

Actually we do. The matter and anti matter particles mutually annihilated each other releasing tremendous amounts of energy which propelled the remaining matter particles outward.

You do know you can google this shit, right?

Dark matter vs dark energy. I always get them confused. Anyways, you know about these things right? We don’t know shit. I don’t care what we know about the laws of thermomumbojumbo

 

[sealybobo]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.

There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.

True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.

You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?

Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?

If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.

But they only know for sure right now from 300,000 years till now. They only assume what you are saying. What happened 7 days before the Big Bang?

Red shift, CMB, FLoT, SLoT, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and inflation theory say otherwise.

The laws of nature existed before the universe was created from nothing.

Ok

 

[ding]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Our universe is a new universe started 13 billion years ago. Before that we had yet to become a universe yet. Like a lava lamp. One bubble once it pops is never the same bubble again. It lives out it’s life and when it pops it mixes back in with the goo and one day will become part of a new bubble

Again... if they exist, they each exist in their own space time and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

Yea, just a spark.

It's a lot more than a spark. It literally started with 1 billion times more matter particles and 1 billion times more anti-matter particles than exist in the universe today.

Still started with spa spark. What happened after that we still don’t fully understand. I think we are able to see what happened after the Big Bang like 300,000 years. Before that we don’t know. You could be right. We won’t throw out your hypothesis. Could be a creator. We’ll put that on the paper and go back to it later if you come up with any other evidence.

Actually we do. The matter and anti matter particles mutually annihilated each other releasing tremendous amounts of energy which propelled the remaining matter particles outward.

You do know you can google this shit, right?

Dark matter vs dark energy. I always get them confused. Anyways, you know about these things right? We don’t know shit. I don’t care what we know about the laws of thermomumbojumbo

Dark Matter; Real? Or Imagined?

What type of matter is dark matter? Of which particles consist dark matter? How does dark matter arise? What are the evidences of dark matter?

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[sealybobo]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.

There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.

True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.

You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?

Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?

If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.

No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.

 

[ding]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.

There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.

True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.

You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?

Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?

If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.

No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.

What is it that you think is my hypothesis?

 

[Indeependent]

It's way too early to jump to any conclusions. The Laws of Thermodynamics, classical non-Quantum Newtonian Physics, are based on a closed system and as we keep learning, The Universe is less and less 'closed' as we previously believed.

Until the early part of the 20th Century, it was believed that the entirety of the Universe was contained in the Milky Way. Hubble's dual discoveries of the actual distance between galaxies and the red-shift of the expanding universe changed that picture completely and caused Einstein to reject his Cosmological Constant.

The idea that The Universe consists mainly of unobservable (dark) matter and energy means that our ability to understand cosmological destiny is severely handicapped until we can learn how to observe and measure them.

The relatively recent discovery that the rate of expansion is increasing due to ever increasing power of Dark Energy means that, fundamentally, we can only begin to speculate on how The Universe will die or prosper.

I'm afraid that any certain proclamation made today, with our infinitesimal knowledge of The Universe, will seem as quaint and silly as Kepler's concept of crystal spheres or Ptolemy's Sun Centered Universe does to us now.

red-shift of the expanding universe
It's a theory, not fact.

 

[sealybobo]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.

There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.

True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.

You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?

Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?

If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.

No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.

What is it that you think is my hypothesis?

I don’t know. It’s why I asked.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's way too early to jump to any conclusions. The Laws of Thermodynamics, classical non-Quantum Newtonian Physics, are based on a closed system and as we keep learning, The Universe is less and less 'closed' as we previously believed.

Until the early part of the 20th Century, it was believed that the entirety of the Universe was contained in the Milky Way. Hubble's dual discoveries of the actually distance between galaxies and the red-shift of the expanding universe changed that picture completely and caused Einstein to reject his Cosmological Constant.

The idea that The Universe consists mainly of unobservable (dark) matter and energy means that our ability to understand cosmological destiny is severely handicapped until we can learn how to observe and measure them.

The relatively recent discovery that the rate of expansion is increasing due to ever increasing power of Dark Energy means that, fundamentally, we can only begin to speculate on how The Universe will die or prosper.

I'm afraid that any certain proclamation made today, with our infinitesimal knowledge of The Universe, will seem as quaint and silly as Kepler's concept of crystal spheres or Ptolemy's Sun Centered Universe does to us now.

Do you believe that two objects placed next to each other won't equilibrate to the same temperature?

Sure.. But communication of Temperature in space is by Radiative Physics, not conduction or convection.. It's as you said, more about energy/matter in NUMEROUS forms... Some of which we still don't have great explanations for...

The second law of thermo DOES apply to radiative transfers.. But it ACTS differently and is transmitted differently than it is for "heat transfers"...

 

[ding]

Since the beginning of man the question of the origin of the universe has been hotly contested. Specifically, was it created or has it always existed. It was the position of Judaeo-Christian religion that the universe was created from nothing or creatio ex nihilo. Ancient philosophers believed the universe was eternal in that it had existed forever. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

But if the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

That the universe began has been proven a myriad of ways. Red shift shows that everything is moving away from everything else due to an expanding universe. An expansion that began when vast amounts of energy were released through matter anti matter annihilation during the creation of the universe. Cosmic background radiation shows the residue radiation left over from the matter and anti-matter mutual annihilation which occurred when the universe was filled with energy during the quantum tunneling event which is how the universe was created from nothing.

The problem with a universe that has existed forever (i.e. a cyclical universe) is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Think of it this way. Something lit a fire inside our universe and it is alive and growing. But we know stars don’t live forever. But what about black holes and gasses that are creating new stars as we speak? Maybe new solar systems and galaxies for forever and the universe will live on forever? But I think one day the last star will burn out and then dark matter or whateve4 is at the edge of our universe will close in and Osborn us back into the dark matter but somewhere else in the infinite universe, no just the one we see but the real universe, another Big Bang or an almost infinite number of universes are just now getting started.

There have been zero observations or models that support this. It sounds like science fiction.

True. That’s how big infinity is. It would seem unbelievable to one of us.

You misspelled "unsupported with evidence."

I thought you were really big on evidence. Why are you dismissing the evidence that the universe was created from nothing in favor of a belief that has zero evidence?

Because I’ve watched enough shows on this subject that explain what science thinks. It’s way beyond my pay grade. I’m not that smart. But neither are you with your hypothesis’s beyond or based on the fact that science says the universe started from nothing.

What do you think this proves? I just want to do my own research on what you’re claiming.

What are you claiming anyways?

If you have watched enough science then you would know that this is what science believes. That the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

It's not my hypothesis. This is exactly what science is telling us.

So maybe there's another reason you are denying science.

No it’s that you go beyond what science thinks with your wild hypothesis’s on things currently science says we don’t know.

You claim to know something the rest of us don’t.

What is your conclusion with all this? What do you think this proves?

You act like a lawyer who found the smoking gun.

What is it that you think is my hypothesis?

I don’t know. It’s why I asked.

You said it was my wild hypothesis. It's not my hypothesis. This is what is believed. This isn't something I made up on my own. The universe has not existed forever. It was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.

 

[ding]

It's way too early to jump to any conclusions. The Laws of Thermodynamics, classical non-Quantum Newtonian Physics, are based on a closed system and as we keep learning, The Universe is less and less 'closed' as we previously believed.

Until the early part of the 20th Century, it was believed that the entirety of the Universe was contained in the Milky Way. Hubble's dual discoveries of the actually distance between galaxies and the red-shift of the expanding universe changed that picture completely and caused Einstein to reject his Cosmological Constant.

The idea that The Universe consists mainly of unobservable (dark) matter and energy means that our ability to understand cosmological destiny is severely handicapped until we can learn how to observe and measure them.

The relatively recent discovery that the rate of expansion is increasing due to ever increasing power of Dark Energy means that, fundamentally, we can only begin to speculate on how The Universe will die or prosper.

I'm afraid that any certain proclamation made today, with our infinitesimal knowledge of The Universe, will seem as quaint and silly as Kepler's concept of crystal spheres or Ptolemy's Sun Centered Universe does to us now.

Do you believe that two objects placed next to each other won't equilibrate to the same temperature?

Sure.. But communication of Temperature in space is by Radiative Physics, not conduction or convection.. It's as you said, more about energy/matter in NUMEROUS forms... Some of which we still don't have great explanations for...

The second law of thermo DOES apply to radiative transfers.. But it ACTS differently and is transmitted differently than it is for "heat transfers"...

Hypothetically speaking, what do you believe would happen given an infinite number of big bang / big crunch cycles?