The Second Law of Thermodynamics Precludes an Infinite Acting Universe

[Indeependent]

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.

Maybe not.. There was no "periodic table" in existence as we know it.. The timing and energy of the Big Bang DETERMINED the presence and the rarity or abundance of every element that we know today... Also might not have been "light" as we know it prior to the Big Bang..

It will probably carry more weight hearing it from him.

OK -- That's unique and weird.. Can't even weigh in without psychedelics.. So -- what existed was a egg shell with a hard boundary.. Either from gravity so dense that no radiation can penetrate it or built from anti-matter or whatever.. And a "spark of life" caused this distributed LATENT matter/energy to coalesce inward to a tiny point at the center and IGNITED something like the Big Bang..

Maybe Genesis is not that far fetched.. OR we're living in some kind of faulty garbage compactor where the "closed system" simply COMPACTS when a certain shape/distribution of matter/energy equilibrium is reached within it's closed borders -- and causes the garbage to be spewed as far away as possible..

First and only observation would be that would seem to a PERIODIC occurrence in most KNOWN closed systems and by it's nature means the chances for oscillation are pretty high on SOME "universe time scale".,..

In the late 1960s, physicist Andrei Sakharov identified three conditions necessary for baryogenesis, or the creation of more baryons (protons and neutrons) than anti-baryons. They are as follows:

1. The Universe must be an out-of-equilibrium system.
2. It must exhibit C- and CP-violation.
3. There must be baryon-number-violating interactions.

In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe.

The fact that we exist and are made of matter is indisputable; the question of why our Universe contains something (matter) instead of nothing (from an equal mix of matter and antimatter) is one that must have an answer. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. And when it does, one of the greatest mysteries in all of existence will finally have a solution.

You do realize his process is based upon a universe that is spontaneously created, right?

"In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. "

Since the universe is dominated by DARK matter.. Or that's the view today.. And its all moving relatively the same directions as the matter we can see easily, where is the "tunneling leak" that allows this "closed system egg" to charge with "equal parts of matter/anti-matter as the fuel for the ignition? When you consider the mass and joules involved in the ignition, SOMETHING compressed the "tunneling" into ONE minute location?

Quantum tunneling is a QUANTUM LEVEL process.. It's not a bulk mass delivery system...

I'm not convinced of dark matter and even if I were I don't see how it has anything to do with the creation of space and time. At least not with my understanding of how they say dark matter is "created."

The "tunneling leak" was that ONE minute location. Matter and anti matter particles weren't compressed. They came into existence all at once or practically all at once. Whereby the mutual annihilation which was two billion times larger in mass than the remaining matter particles set those particles in motion. At which time they quickly formed hydrogen and helium. That's my understanding.

But back to my point, I have not heard anyone claim that the cosmic background radiation wasn't the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe. Do you know something about CMB that I don't?

Because logically if the CMB was the remnant radiation from the hot early days of the universe and if the time scale of any period/cyclical activity erased all traces of it, doesn't the presence of CMB mean the universe had a beginning because if you are correct all traces of CMB should be erased, right? What am I missing here?

Dark Matter (Choe-Shek) was the default and ultimate destiny of the Big Bang.
God intervened and uttered Light (Ohr) into existence.

I KNEW I should have kept reading the Talmud instead of Carl Sagan...

Where do you think the Jewish scientist got his education from?
By the way, his speech about how large the universe is was lifted directly from mesechta Brachot (Blessings).

 

[zaangalewa]

...
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.

More concrete: The spacetime of the universe is flat. This means it is not closed but also not open. "Flat" means it expands and it will never stop to expand (nearly the same as in an open model) but: the expansion will become slower and slower if so (and will nevertheless never stop).

As far as I know the most scientists in physics accept today the spacetime of the universe is flat (=follows the euclidian geometry) and think the same time it expands accelerated. Both facts seem to be proven - but as far as I heard the idea "dark energy" (=the universe expands accelerated) is perhaps wrong, because of a wrong interpretation of the constant time marks, which are used for this theory (so called "standard candles").

So in the moment it looks like we do not only not know what the acceleration of the expansion of the universe could cause - we are also not totally sure that this accelerated expansion really exists.

And why the English speaking world seems to think natural science ("materialism") and spirituality ("belief in god") exclude each other is in general not understandable. This seems not to be a materialistic or spiritual problem - this seems to be a problem of human societies and political opinions, which have not really basically to do with knowledge in physics or natural science and/or a spiritual belief or spiritual ways to live.

 

[sealybobo]

We don’t know.

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

What a nonsense. I'm sure you know for example whether you have a knee or not.

Idiot

 

[zaangalewa]

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

If they have a spacetime at all - or energy - or any form of logic or ... .

and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

The question is wherein such universes could be embedded physically. And perhaps this is indeed "only" a nothing. But there is no way to find this out. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. We do not know. We never will know. Except someone finds a totally new way of and for physics. In the moment we are only connected to such ideas or possible realities with the power of logic and/or mathematics. But what could be for example the mathematics of a universe without any form of logic? A mathematical hell?

 

[zaangalewa]

We don’t know.

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

What a nonsense. I'm sure you know for example whether you have a knee or not.

Idiot

Interesting "argument". You don't know, whether you have a knee or not?

I heard Socrates said once something like "The people accept my authority, because I am able to say valid, what I do not know on what exact reasons". Later this became the stupid anti-philosophical short cut sentence "I know 'I know [only] nothing'" - what's just simple nonsense. We know something - but not everything, what we know, is true. If it is true, what we know, then we do not know this, because we are not able to prove this wrong. But we are able to find out what's wrong. And true is everything what's not wrong.

 

[sealybobo]

We don’t know.

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

What a nonsense. I'm sure you know for example whether you have a knee or not.

Idiot

Interesting "argument". You don't know, whether you have a knee or not?

I heard Socrates said once something like "The people accept my authority, because I am able to say valid, what I do not know on what exact reasons". Later this became the stupid anti-philosophical short cut sentence "I know 'I know [only] nothing'" - what's just simple nonsense.

I know I have a knee. What does that prove?

 

[Flash]

If there is a finite universe then there will be unique things in it. Life may be an unique thing only found on earth.

 

[zaangalewa]

We don’t know.

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

What a nonsense. I'm sure you know for example whether you have a knee or not.

Idiot

Interesting "argument". You don't know, whether you have a knee or not?

I heard Socrates said once something like "The people accept my authority, because I am able to say valid, what I do not know on what exact reasons". Later this became the stupid anti-philosophical short cut sentence "I know 'I know [only] nothing'" - what's just simple nonsense.

I know I have a knee. What does that prove?

That you know something. And if it is true, what you know, then nihilism or whateverism is an obsolete way of philosophy.

 

[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

If they have a spacetime at all - or energy - or any form of logic or ... .

and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

The question is wherein such universes could be embedded physically. And perhaps this is indeed "only" a nothing. But there is no way to find this out. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. We do not know. We never will know. Except someone finds a totally new way of and for physics. In the moment we are only connected to such ideas or possible realities with the power of logic and/or mathematics. But what could be for example the mathematics of a universe without any form of logic? A mathematical hell?

If they have energy then they have space time. Otherwise, they would only have radiation... if they exist.

 

[flacaltenn]

Therefore, Gawd. Got it.

I didn't see God in that either.. What part of his assertions were "super"Natural???

 

[ding]

I've been trying to keep God out of it.

 

[zaangalewa]

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

If they have a spacetime at all - or energy - or any form of logic or ... .

and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

The question is wherein such universes could be embedded physically. And perhaps this is indeed "only" a nothing. But there is no way to find this out. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. We do not know. We never will know. Except someone finds a totally new way of and for physics. In the moment we are only connected to such ideas or possible realities with the power of logic and/or mathematics. But what could be for example the mathematics of a universe without any form of logic? A mathematical hell?

If they have energy then they have space time.

Why?

Otherwise, they would only have radiation... if they exist.

Radiation? But they have srqtqlqs so they don't need radiation. And here in our own universe I don't see any sense to say without spacetime energy is radiation.

 

[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

If they have a spacetime at all - or energy - or any form of logic or ... .

and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

The question is wherein such universes could be embedded physically. And perhaps this is indeed "only" a nothing. But there is no way to find this out. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. We do not know. We never will know. Except someone finds a totally new way of and for physics. In the moment we are only connected to such ideas or possible realities with the power of logic and/or mathematics. But what could be for example the mathematics of a universe without any form of logic? A mathematical hell?

If they have energy then they have space time.

Why?

Otherwise, they would only have radiation... if they exist.

Radiation? But they have srqtqlqs so they don't need radiation. And here in our own universe I don't see any sense to say without spacetime energy is radiation.

Probably because you haven't thought about universes created withe equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

 

[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

If they have a spacetime at all - or energy - or any form of logic or ... .

and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

The question is wherein such universes could be embedded physically. And perhaps this is indeed "only" a nothing. But there is no way to find this out. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. We do not know. We never will know. Except someone finds a totally new way of and for physics. In the moment we are only connected to such ideas or possible realities with the power of logic and/or mathematics. But what could be for example the mathematics of a universe without any form of logic? A mathematical hell?

If they have energy then they have space time.

Why?

Otherwise, they would only have radiation... if they exist.

Radiation? But they have srqtqlqs so they don't need radiation. And here in our own universe I don't see any sense to say without spacetime energy is radiation.

Probably because you haven't thought about universes created withe equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

You mean almost equal amounts.

 

[zaangalewa]

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

If they have a spacetime at all - or energy - or any form of logic or ... .

and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

The question is wherein such universes could be embedded physically. And perhaps this is indeed "only" a nothing. But there is no way to find this out. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. We do not know. We never will know. Except someone finds a totally new way of and for physics. In the moment we are only connected to such ideas or possible realities with the power of logic and/or mathematics. But what could be for example the mathematics of a universe without any form of logic? A mathematical hell?

If they have energy then they have space time.

Why?

Otherwise, they would only have radiation... if they exist.

Radiation? But they have srqtqlqs so they don't need radiation. And here in our own universe I don't see any sense to say without spacetime energy is radiation.

Probably because you haven't thought about universes created withe equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

True. I never think about real universes in this context. I don't know what kind of natural laws are possible and what of this spectrum a human mind could be able to understand. What do you do for example if you come in a universe without natural klaws or with a total chaos so never two things happen there in a comparable way? What about a universe where never two atoms are the same? The only thing I tried to find out was how big a chance could be to meet an intelligent life form in another universe.

I heard that our natural constants are so in harmony (=anthropic principle) that a change in the 16th position of a natural constant makes impossible life as we know it (with a body made of water) in our universe. Then I imagined a kind of book with all thinkable universes with this natural constant and imagined I would need a second to find out whether life is possible at any page in this universe or not. The problem: I could browse through this book longer than our universe exists and find not any form of life.

Perhaps I will do so after my life - but for sure not during my current life. I'm satisfied with the Winnetou universe from Karl May and the millions of universes of other professional writers. I would be astonished if I would come to heaven at all after my death - but why not? - God's ways are wonderful. But I would for sure not be astonished to meet Winnetou there. Better to say: I would be disappointed not to meet Winnetou there. The German heaven - the German universe - needs the worlds of Winnetous.

 

[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

If they have a spacetime at all - or energy - or any form of logic or ... .

and had a beginning which meant they too were created from nothing.

The question is wherein such universes could be embedded physically. And perhaps this is indeed "only" a nothing. But there is no way to find this out. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. We do not know. We never will know. Except someone finds a totally new way of and for physics. In the moment we are only connected to such ideas or possible realities with the power of logic and/or mathematics. But what could be for example the mathematics of a universe without any form of logic? A mathematical hell?

If they have energy then they have space time.

Why?

Otherwise, they would only have radiation... if they exist.

Radiation? But they have srqtqlqs so they don't need radiation. And here in our own universe I don't see any sense to say without spacetime energy is radiation.

Probably because you haven't thought about universes created withe equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

You mean almost equal amounts.

Assuming that nearly equal amounts don't have a preference for leaving matter which some are arguing there is a preference, the a universe being created with equal amounts would not create space and time because all it would be filled with was radiation from the annihilation of anti matter and matter.

 

[Iamartiewhitefox]

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.

Thermodynamics sounds impressive. That did not exist before death. All things will change when God makes all things new.​

 

[abu afak]

Jamies 1:26 - 27 is not a religious belief system. It is how a person should be. Jesus did what is described. Jesus had religon that is not vain.

Religion section Pilgrim
**** off.
You bumped up a 15 month OLD thread in the SCIENCE section to preach.
**** off.
`

 

[BackAgain]

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

Professor: we cannot be certain about anything!

Student: are you sure about that?

Professor: oh yes. Of that I am certain.

 

[fncceo]

Professor: we cannot be certain about anything!

Student: are you sure about that?

Professor: oh yes. Of that I am certain.

There are certain things about which we can be certain. For example, we can be reasonably certain that our predictions made about the effects of force and gravity can be extremely accurate, even at vast astronomical distance.

What we can't be certain of, in fact what we do not actually understand is, how those forces actually work.

We live in a mulitdimensional universe, as many as 10 some theorize, but we are only capable of perceiving and experiencing three of those. Which means our ability to observe the universe is strictly curtailed. We can observe and accurately measure electromagnetic radiation, but we cannot perceive or measure what we refer to as "dark energy". We can only theorize its existence based on how it perturbs what we can perceive.

While it may seem paradoxical, the only thing we can truly know, is that we don't know everything.