The Universe: Eternal or no?

[N4mddissent]

An eternal universe is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics.

You've already pontificated that without proof, parroting it again won't make it any less wrong.
Please explain why it's impossible, according to the SLoT, and without misstating the SLoT or violating the First or Third Laws.
How hard can that be? You seen so sure, so certain.

The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system tends to approach maximum entropy over time. The universe is an isolated system. Therefore, if the universe had always existed, it would have attained maximum entropy an infinite amount of time ago. This isn't very complicated.

It is a closed/isolated system as far as we know. Einstein believed in a static eternal universe for much of his career. He was no fool. Fred Hoyle postulated continuous generation of matter. The idea is not generally accepted now, but these guys were not stupid. Maybe the concept overall is more complicated than you imply.

 

[N4mddissent]

If current understanding holds, the universe will end in the sense that it will possibly experience a "heat death". As far as a beginning, given our understanding of expansion and the original singularity, that could be considered a beginning. Beyond the singularity I think it's pretty much speculation.

 

[edthecynic]

If current understanding holds, the universe will end in the sense that it will possibly experience a "heat death". As far as a beginning, given our understanding of expansion and the original singularity, that could be considered a beginning. Beyond the singularity I think it's pretty much speculation.

This heat death refers to the fact that Kinetic energy, the energy of motion, is the energy that does work, a force through a distance. So as kinetic energy changes heat, entropy, through friction, eventually the universe will run out of useful energy to do work with, the theoretical "heat death" of the universe when all motion stops.

The problem with that is no matter whether the universe contracts in a big crunch or expands forever the universe will still be in motion and so work can always be done. Furthermore the Third Law of Thermodynamics says there is no temp at which all motion stops, Absolute Zero, so again no heat death of the universe.

 

[JohnStOnge]

OK, and one more time for you, too. It was TIME that had a beginning at the Big Bang. The universe is ENERGY in one form or another.

Did you notice the part where he said the universe had a beginning?

Look, I'm not saying he's right. I don't know. But neither do you.

 

[N4mddissent]

If current understanding holds, the universe will end in the sense that it will possibly experience a "heat death". As far as a beginning, given our understanding of expansion and the original singularity, that could be considered a beginning. Beyond the singularity I think it's pretty much speculation.

This heat death refers to the fact that Kinetic energy, the energy of motion, is the energy that does work, a force through a distance. So as kinetic energy changes heat, entropy, through friction, eventually the universe will run out of useful energy to do work with, the theoretical "heat death" of the universe when all motion stops.

The problem with that is no matter whether the universe contracts in a big crunch or expands forever the universe will still be in motion and so work can always be done. Furthermore the Third Law of Thermodynamics says there is no temp at which all motion stops, Absolute Zero, so again no heat death of the universe.

I think the general consensus tends to lean toward heat death. At the very least, the universe will reach a state asymptotically approaching absolute zero. I'm not so certain that expansion of space can be considered motion, especially for the purposes of doing work. I'll have to ask about that one. I don't think it's important to quibble over whether the universe achieves absolute zero or is very close to absolute zero- the effect as far as we're concerned is the same. It will be a boring place to be.

 

[Tor Hershman]

So Gunny, you believe in eternity? Eternal god, eternal damnation, eternal heaven?

What in this world or the universe can you point to that proves 'eternalism'?

Dang, Sky Dancer, I was gonna post
The question should be, ‘Eternity: Yes or No?’ and the answer is – no. but you beat moi to it.

This board done gotz some real smart people like, like really.

 

[Terral]

Hi Gunny:

So Gunny, you believe in eternity? Eternal god, eternal damnation, eternal heaven?

What in this world or the universe can you point to that proves 'eternalism'?

The answer to your question is both simple and complex. The belief itself is based on faith. There is nothing that proves eternalism.

If the universe is infinite but not eternal, then where would it go?

The universe is definitely 'finite' and nowhere near 'infinite.' We know for a 'fact' that the universe is finite, because anything that is truly 'infinite' cannot possibly 'expand.' Since we are definitely looking at an 'expanding' universe (Wiki), then by definition this creation is certainly 'finite.' The Big Bang Theory of Creation is a "MYTH" (my thread) BTW . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[Kalam]

So you are saying science has learned nothing since the time of Clausius!!!

I'm saying that his fundamental definitions of entropy and the second law are still as true as they have always been. You're the one contradicting accepted scientific laws and concepts, man.

The fact remains, the SLoT says Entropy CAN equal zero, and when Entropy equals zero there is NO tendency toward a max. There is no tendency in either direction, the "tendency" is to STAY THE SAME.

Your second statement is false. The overall tendency is toward a maximum, that maximum being thermodynamic equilibrium. This has been demonstrated empirically as well as through logical formulae.

So the SLoT says entropy can stay the same OR increase but it can't decrease, get it???

I'm not sure that you get it. Something that can "stay the same OR increase" can not be accurately described as tending to stay the same. We know that entropy can and does increase. Therefore, to tend toward sameness, those increases would have to be met with decreases. We already know that net decreases in entropy do not occur. The tendency, however long it may take, is toward a maximum.

So your burden is to prove that matter can exist when entropy can't equal zero, and you haven't and can't meet that burden.

I've never made that argument. The burden of demonstrating that entropy tends not to increase, or that entropy remains the same, lies with you.

 

[HUGGY]

Hi Gunny:

So Gunny, you believe in eternity? Eternal god, eternal damnation, eternal heaven?

What in this world or the universe can you point to that proves 'eternalism'?

The answer to your question is both simple and complex. The belief itself is based on faith. There is nothing that proves eternalism.

If the universe is infinite but not eternal, then where would it go?

The universe is definitely 'finite' and nowhere near 'infinite.' We know for a 'fact' that the universe is finite, because anything that is truly 'infinite' cannot possibly 'expand.' Since we are definitely looking at an 'expanding' universe (Wiki), then by definition this creation is certainly 'finite.' The Big Bang Theory of Creation is a "MYTH" (my thread) BTW . . .

GL,

Terral

The universe is definitely 'finite' and nowhere near 'infinite.' We know for a 'fact' that the universe is finite, because anything that is truly 'infinite' cannot possibly 'expand.' Since we are definitely looking at an 'expanding' universe (Wiki), then by definition this creation is certainly 'finite.' The Big Bang Theory of Creation is a "MYTH" (my thread) BTW . . .


What utter stupidity. Heres a clue for the clueless. The universe is not JUST the hard stuff. It also includes the spaces within and BEYOND. What a moron.

 

[Terral]

Hi Huggy:

What utter stupidity. Heres a clue for the clueless.

Sticks and stones . . . Huggy can send us three sentences of stupidity, but we already knew that. :0)

The universe is not JUST the hard stuff.

The universes is not nearly as 'hard' as getting Huggy to back up his nonsense with credible third-party evidentiary support.

It also includes the spaces within and BEYOND. What a moron.

Yes. Huggy might be a moron, but we are entertained just the same. My point (again) is that an infinite universe is incapable of 'expanding,' unless a simultaneous 'contraction' is taking place at the very same time. And yet, Hubble's Law says,

Wiki

Hubble's law is the statement in physical cosmology that distant galaxies are receding from us at a velocity proportional to their distance from us.[1] The velocity of these objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured much earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him.[2]. The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble in 1929[3] after nearly a decade of observations. It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang.

Boil all of the related evidence down to realize we are living inside an 'expanding' universe where 'distant galaxies' are moving away in direct proportion to 'their distance from us.' Mr. Huggy should realize that anyone proposing the thesis that the Big Bang Theory Of Creation Is A MYTH (my thread again) is no moron and I welcome his rebuttals to my OP presentation anytime he is ready to begin supporting his foolishness using Science, Scripture or anything else. I would also like to see his advocating or opposing views to my Pressure-Sheath Technology paper (here), if he really feels qualifed to debate me on that topic; or on any of my standing 911Truth/Bible Truth presentations (here) for that matter. Now if we can get back to Hubble’s Law for one minute:

Everyone truly seeking ‘the truth’ on the ‘finite universe’ (this place is really very small) should realize that Hubble’s Law has two possible explanations:

Wiki: Big Bang:

Hubble's law has two possible explanations. Either we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies—which is untenable given the Copernican Principle—or the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. This universal expansion was predicted from general relativity by Alexander Friedman in 1922[7] and Georges Lemaître in 1927,[8] well before Hubble made his 1929 analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson and Walker.

Either our Milky Way Galaxy is near the center of an explosion of galaxy chains, or the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere; according to this verifiable third-party resource. The problem is that the universe is not uniformly expanding everywhere, or the distant galaxies would be traveling at the same rate as those near our Milky Way Galaxy; and we just saw that those far-away galaxies are traveling at speeds proportionate to their distances. The truth (from my thesis) says that our earth is the universal body representing the very center of this universe ‘and’ that every particle of matter (visible and invisible) was once part of a Singularity Expression ‘Eth ‘Erets (The Earth) creation that was ‘destroyed’ about 14 billion years ago with the Big Bang (broken into trinities). That means the exterior matter on the perimeter of the preexisting universe was thrown in all directions with no resistance ‘and’ the matter inside near the ‘center’ (like us) is moving slowly because of the outward mass resistance.

This little planet (bottom of Fig 3) was chosen by the Lord God (Christ) to become the location for his incarnate “son of God” (Luke 3:38 = Adam), because everyone in this universe (seen and unseen) is a member of his currently broken body (1Cor. 15:22). Therefore, everything in this broken universe is moving away from ‘us’ at speeds relative to their distance ‘and’ we are very near the ‘center’ of the universe at the very same time. :0)

If all you can do is call people names using three of four sentences of nonsense, then even the fool knows enough to close his lips and appear wise to somebody. Proverbs 17:28.

GL,

Terral

 

[edthecynic]

So you are saying science has learned nothing since the time of Clausius!!!

I'm saying that his fundamental definitions of entropy and the second law are still as true as they have always been. You're the one contradicting accepted scientific laws and concepts, man.

The fact remains, the SLoT says Entropy CAN equal zero, and when Entropy equals zero there is NO tendency toward a max. There is no tendency in either direction, the "tendency" is to STAY THE SAME.

Your second statement is false. The overall tendency is toward a maximum, that maximum being thermodynamic equilibrium. This has been demonstrated empirically as well as through logical formulae.

So the SLoT says entropy can stay the same OR increase but it can't decrease, get it???

I'm not sure that you get it. Something that can "stay the same OR increase" can not be accurately described as tending to stay the same. We know that entropy can and does increase. Therefore, to tend toward sameness, those increases would have to be met with decreases. We already know that net decreases in entropy do not occur. The tendency, however long it may take, is toward a maximum.

So your burden is to prove that matter can exist when entropy can't equal zero, and you haven't and can't meet that burden.

I've never made that argument. The burden of demonstrating that entropy tends not to increase, or that entropy remains the same, lies with you.

No, the SLoT says entropy NEVER DECREASES and never decreases means entropy can and does equal zero. It's up to you to prove your law that eliminated the zero is mathematically equal to the actual SLoT. As I said before, you can't, so you resort to semantics to get rid of that pesky zero. And I remind you if entropy can't equal zero no matter would be able to exist.

 

[Kalam]

No, the SLoT says entropy NEVER DECREASES and never decreases means entropy can and does equal zero. It's up to you to prove your law that eliminated the zero is mathematically equal to the actual SLoT. As I said before, you can't, so you resort to semantics to get rid of that pesky zero. And I remind you if entropy can't equal zero no matter would be able to exist.

Once again, I've never argued that chnages in entropy cannot equal zero. You, however, are suggesting that "doesn't decrease" = "remains the same."

 

[edthecynic]

No, the SLoT says entropy NEVER DECREASES and never decreases means entropy can and does equal zero. It's up to you to prove your law that eliminated the zero is mathematically equal to the actual SLoT. As I said before, you can't, so you resort to semantics to get rid of that pesky zero. And I remind you if entropy can't equal zero no matter would be able to exist.

Once again, I've never argued that chnages in entropy cannot equal zero. You, however, are suggesting that "doesn't decrease" = "remains the same."

No, I clearly said "never decreases" means "greater than OR equal to zero" and when entropy equals zero it remains the same. So entropy can tend to increase in one closed system but stay the same in another. I said the universe was a perpetual commotion machine with an entropy of zero.

 

[Kalam]

No, the SLoT says entropy NEVER DECREASES and never decreases means entropy can and does equal zero. It's up to you to prove your law that eliminated the zero is mathematically equal to the actual SLoT. As I said before, you can't, so you resort to semantics to get rid of that pesky zero. And I remind you if entropy can't equal zero no matter would be able to exist.

Once again, I've never argued that chnages in entropy cannot equal zero. You, however, are suggesting that "doesn't decrease" = "remains the same."

No, I clearly said "never decreases" means "greater than OR equal to zero" and when entropy equals zero it remains the same. So entropy can tend to increase in one closed system but stay the same in another. I said the universe was a perpetual commotion machine with an entropy of zero.

If entropy can increase, it eventually will, tending toward a maximum at equilibrium. If there are two possibilities, ie: remaining the same or increasing, it is illogical to assume that a system will always experience one or the other. Since decreasing isn't possible, every isolated system will experience both positive changes in entropy and instances in which entropy does not increase or decrease. This is still a net increase and an overall tendency towards maximum equilibrium.

 

[edthecynic]

Once again, I've never argued that chnages in entropy cannot equal zero. You, however, are suggesting that "doesn't decrease" = "remains the same."

No, I clearly said "never decreases" means "greater than OR equal to zero" and when entropy equals zero it remains the same. So entropy can tend to increase in one closed system but stay the same in another. I said the universe was a perpetual commotion machine with an entropy of zero.

If entropy can increase, it eventually will, tending toward a maximum at equilibrium. If there are two possibilities, ie: remaining the same or increasing, it is illogical to assume that a system will always experience one or the other. Since decreasing isn't possible, every isolated system will experience both positive changes in entropy and instances in which entropy does not increase or decrease. This is still a net increase and an overall tendency towards maximum equilibrium.

No, it's one or the other. If every isolated system experienced BOTH, again, no matter would be able to exist.

 

[Kalam]

No, I clearly said "never decreases" means "greater than OR equal to zero" and when entropy equals zero it remains the same. So entropy can tend to increase in one closed system but stay the same in another. I said the universe was a perpetual commotion machine with an entropy of zero.

If entropy can increase, it eventually will, tending toward a maximum at equilibrium. If there are two possibilities, ie: remaining the same or increasing, it is illogical to assume that a system will always experience one or the other. Since decreasing isn't possible, every isolated system will experience both positive changes in entropy and instances in which entropy does not increase or decrease. This is still a net increase and an overall tendency towards maximum equilibrium.

No, it's one or the other. If every isolated system experienced BOTH, again, no matter would be able to exist.

I'm only concerned with one isolated system.

 

[edthecynic]

If entropy can increase, it eventually will, tending toward a maximum at equilibrium. If there are two possibilities, ie: remaining the same or increasing, it is illogical to assume that a system will always experience one or the other. Since decreasing isn't possible, every isolated system will experience both positive changes in entropy and instances in which entropy does not increase or decrease. This is still a net increase and an overall tendency towards maximum equilibrium.

No, it's one or the other. If every isolated system experienced BOTH, again, no matter would be able to exist.

I'm only concerned with one isolated system.

Do you even read what you post?

 

[Kalam]

No, it's one or the other. If every isolated system experienced BOTH, again, no matter would be able to exist.

I'm only concerned with one isolated system.

Do you even read what you post?

Nice attempt to divert attention away from the discussion at hand. You know very well that the isolated system referred to in my last post contains all other isolated systems.

So, why do you erroneously believe that the universe does not experience net increases in entropy?

 

[Terral]

Hi Ed:

No, it's one or the other. If every isolated system experienced BOTH, again, no matter would be able to exist.

I'm only concerned with one isolated system.

Do you even read what you post?

If all you guys can muster is one line of 'isolated system' nonsense, then a good idea might be to wait a day or two until something 'more' comes to mind. The Topic appears to be about whether the universe is eternal 'or' something else and the quantitative measure of disorder in an isolated system has nothing to do with anything; unless one of you guys have reconciled Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

This creation will be remade more than a 1000 times (like Rev. 21:1), before the microcosmic mirrors the macrocosmic; because the visible 'and' invisible universes (and the soul-like realm joining them) are currently BROKEN. This current universe is nothing more than a tiny watermelon seed in comparison to the sun, when compared to the visible universe coming to exist at the end of all the ages to come.

GL,

Terral

 

[edthecynic]

I'm only concerned with one isolated system.

Do you even read what you post?

Nice attempt to divert attention away from the discussion at hand. You know very well that the isolated system referred to in my last post contains all other isolated systems.

So, why do you erroneously believe that the universe does not experience net increases in entropy?

Because the Entropy of the universe CAN equal zero.

"In concise form, the second law, as formulated mathematically in 1862 by German physicist Rudolf Clausius, states that in a cyclical heat-driven process which is in any way possible the following relation will always hold:

where dQ is an element of the heat given up by a body to any reservoir of heat during its own changes, heat which it may absorb from a reservoir being here reckoned as negative, and T is the absolute temperature of the body at the moment of giving up this heat. [1] The quantity "dQ/T" is called entropy."