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

[hobelim]

No, it doesn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If no one knows what 96% of the universe is made up of, no one can know where the universe came from, where it is going, or what reality actually is.

All the confusion and madness, envy and greed, fighting and killing, is all over a vain pursuit for the fleeting possession of a minuscule fraction of a measly 4%.

 

[edthecynic]

No, it doesn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I pointed out, Hawking said that the SLoT is the only Law that can violate itself, are you saying you never heard of Hawking?

While the reason that the matter of the universe is accelerating away from us at the farthest/oldest parts of the universe is at this time speculation, it is not speculation that it IS accelerating in violation of the SLoT, and NOT slowing down due to entropy.
Again how do you explain that, and again don't just pontificate.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear Ding,

Religion is a form of Socialism.

Now you know, why Socialism merely requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

 

[ding]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I pointed out, Hawking said that the SLoT is the only Law that can violate itself, are you saying you never heard of Hawking?

While the reason that the matter of the universe is accelerating away from us at the farthest/oldest parts of the universe is at this time speculation, it is not speculation that it IS accelerating in violation of the SLoT, and NOT slowing down due to entropy.
Again how do you explain that, and again don't just pontificate.

No one knows why it is accelerating which means they do not know that it is violating the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[ding]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I pointed out, Hawking said that the SLoT is the only Law that can violate itself, are you saying you never heard of Hawking?

While the reason that the matter of the universe is accelerating away from us at the farthest/oldest parts of the universe is at this time speculation, it is not speculation that it IS accelerating in violation of the SLoT, and NOT slowing down due to entropy.
Again how do you explain that, and again don't just pontificate.

"Then there’s the place in the text where they explicitly raise the question of whether there are exceptions to the laws of nature (miracles). After reviewing the history of thought on this question they then just simply declare that there are no exceptions"

Stephen Hawking’s Cosmic Slot Machine (Part I)

 

[ding]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I pointed out, Hawking said that the SLoT is the only Law that can violate itself, are you saying you never heard of Hawking?

While the reason that the matter of the universe is accelerating away from us at the farthest/oldest parts of the universe is at this time speculation, it is not speculation that it IS accelerating in violation of the SLoT, and NOT slowing down due to entropy.
Again how do you explain that, and again don't just pontificate.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe tends toward high entropy. If so, what happens when there is nothing left to be disordered? How can matter be constant?

Maybe you misunderstood hawking.

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I pointed out, Hawking said that the SLoT is the only Law that can violate itself, are you saying you never heard of Hawking?

While the reason that the matter of the universe is accelerating away from us at the farthest/oldest parts of the universe is at this time speculation, it is not speculation that it IS accelerating in violation of the SLoT, and NOT slowing down due to entropy.
Again how do you explain that, and again don't just pontificate.

No one knows why it is accelerating which means they do not know that it is violating the second law of thermodynamics.

No it doesn't. You are just pontificating again. The OLDEST matter in the universe accelerating IS a violation of the SLoT if entropy is supposed to be increasing over time, as you have said repeatedly, causing usable energy to decrease over time "approaching zero" as you say.
Again, if the SLoT is the ruling Law of the universe, how can the oldest matter in the universe, which according to you MUST be the most entropy laden matter in the universe, be accelerating rather than slowing down???
The obvious answer is that the SLoT is NOT the ruling Law in the life cycle of the universe!
My money is on GRAVITY being the ruling Law of the universe, but we lack a Quantum Theory of Gravity to prove it at this time.

 

[BreezeWood]

No, it doesn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Cycles had to have a start.

existing laws of nature are required for the solution ... without a beginning.

what exactly will stop a cyclical motion in a vacuum, would be the same as its creation.

 

[RWS]

"and we're all going nowhere"

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

Get over it

I agree! But that would take away all the power and money that these institutions are here for, because religions need followers to believe in an afterlife, to excuse their actions during life. Everyone's afraid to die, so religions have to promise a better world afterwards, in order to get their followers to do their bidding during life, and create armies, power and money for the rulers and their families.

Nobody just wants to die based on some random person's orders. But if they believe it was dictated by "god" and will lead them to the "heaven" of their respective religion, then they'll be a heckuva lot more likely to give up their lives for a ruler that they have never met.

This has been the role of religion throughout history. To create legions of followers willing to donate all they can, and armies of followers willing to die for their leader, in the hopes that it gives them eternal salvation and glory in their "heaven".....

It's just the ultimate scam.

 

[danielpalos]

...or, that the gods help those who help themselves?

 

[ding]

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

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

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

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

As I pointed out, Hawking said that the SLoT is the only Law that can violate itself, are you saying you never heard of Hawking?

While the reason that the matter of the universe is accelerating away from us at the farthest/oldest parts of the universe is at this time speculation, it is not speculation that it IS accelerating in violation of the SLoT, and NOT slowing down due to entropy.
Again how do you explain that, and again don't just pontificate.

No one knows why it is accelerating which means they do not know that it is violating the second law of thermodynamics.

No it doesn't. You are just pontificating again. The OLDEST matter in the universe accelerating IS a violation of the SLoT if entropy is supposed to be increasing over time, as you have said repeatedly, causing usable energy to decrease over time "approaching zero" as you say.
Again, if the SLoT is the ruling Law of the universe, how can the oldest matter in the universe, which according to you MUST be the most entropy laden matter in the universe, be accelerating rather than slowing down???
The obvious answer is that the SLoT is NOT the ruling Law in the life cycle of the universe!
My money is on GRAVITY being the ruling Law of the universe, but we lack a Quantum Theory of Gravity to prove it at this time.

I don't say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is ruling the universe. I say that all of the Laws of Nature govern what has happened since space and time were created. None can be violated. The second law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe. All models agree that space and time started with the universe in a hot dense state which was a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom and then expanding and cooling.

Does it make you uncomfortable that the universe had a beginning?

 

[ding]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If no one knows what 96% of the universe is made up of, no one can know where the universe came from, where it is going, or what reality actually is.

All the confusion and madness, envy and greed, fighting and killing, is all over a vain pursuit for the fleeting possession of a minuscule fraction of a measly 4%.

We have evidence that the universe started in a hot dense state which was a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom and then expanded and cooled.

Does it make you uncomfortable that the universe had a beginning?

 

[hobelim]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If no one knows what 96% of the universe is made up of, no one can know where the universe came from, where it is going, or what reality actually is.

All the confusion and madness, envy and greed, fighting and killing, is all over a vain pursuit for the fleeting possession of a minuscule fraction of a measly 4%.

We have evidence that the universe started in a hot dense state which was a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom and then expanded and cooled.

Does it make you uncomfortable that the universe had a beginning?

Why would the universe having a beginning make me uncomfortable? Thats silly. I'm ready to accept whatever the truth turns out to be, and I'm ok with never knowing. The subject is completely irrelevant to the realities of daily life.

There was a point in my life when I thought that if it could be proven that the universe had a beginning, and all the evidence suggests it did, then that would be the best evidence for proof of God given the absence of anything supernatural since the beginning. My inclination to believe God started this whole mess at that time was based on mostly forgotten childhood indoctrination and a casual reading of genesis.

But then my mind was opened to understand that genesis was not even about the beginning of the universe or solar system so my inquiries went off in another direction, to discover what genesis is actually about, and I decided to leave the question about the beginning of the material universe to scientists and people who could actually do the math.

You should probably do the same.

The beginning of the universe and the beginning that is written about in genesis are two entirely different and unrelated subjects.

Does it make you uncomfortable that the universe that exists only in the minds of those who have failed to comprehend scripture is about to come to an abrupt end?

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I pointed out, Hawking said that the SLoT is the only Law that can violate itself, are you saying you never heard of Hawking?

While the reason that the matter of the universe is accelerating away from us at the farthest/oldest parts of the universe is at this time speculation, it is not speculation that it IS accelerating in violation of the SLoT, and NOT slowing down due to entropy.
Again how do you explain that, and again don't just pontificate.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe tends toward high entropy. If so, what happens when there is nothing left to be disordered? How can matter be constant?

Maybe you misunderstood hawking.

No I didn't.

From A Brief History Of Time:

The second law of thermodynamics has a rather different status than that of other laws of science, such as Newton's law of gravity, for example, because it does not hold always, just in the vast majority of cases.

 

[ding]

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

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

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

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

As I pointed out, Hawking said that the SLoT is the only Law that can violate itself, are you saying you never heard of Hawking?

While the reason that the matter of the universe is accelerating away from us at the farthest/oldest parts of the universe is at this time speculation, it is not speculation that it IS accelerating in violation of the SLoT, and NOT slowing down due to entropy.
Again how do you explain that, and again don't just pontificate.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe tends toward high entropy. If so, what happens when there is nothing left to be disordered? How can matter be constant?

Maybe you misunderstood hawking.

No I didn't.

From A Brief History Of Time:

The second law of thermodynamics has a rather different status than that of other laws of science, such as Newton's law of gravity, for example, because it does not hold always, just in the vast majority of cases.

And it is in the vast majority of cases that entropy increases and usable energy is decreased that precludes an infinite acting universe. So that in a cyclic infinite acting universe as time approaches zero usable energy approaches zero. We don't observe that today.

Getting back to what you wrote earlier, it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself. Alexander Viliken

 

[ding]

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

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

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

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

If no one knows what 96% of the universe is made up of, no one can know where the universe came from, where it is going, or what reality actually is.

All the confusion and madness, envy and greed, fighting and killing, is all over a vain pursuit for the fleeting possession of a minuscule fraction of a measly 4%.

We have evidence that the universe started in a hot dense state which was a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom and then expanded and cooled.

Does it make you uncomfortable that the universe had a beginning?

Why would the universe having a beginning make me uncomfortable? Thats silly. I'm ready to accept whatever the truth turns out to be, and I'm ok with never knowing. The subject is completely irrelevant to the realities of daily life.

There was a point in my life when I thought that if it could be proven that the universe had a beginning, and all the evidence suggests it did, then that would be the best evidence for proof of God given the absence of anything supernatural since the beginning. My inclination to believe God started this whole mess at that time was based on mostly forgotten childhood indoctrination and a casual reading of genesis.

But then my mind was opened to understand that genesis was not even about the beginning of the universe or solar system so my inquiries went off in another direction, to discover what genesis is actually about, and I decided to leave the question about the beginning of the material universe to scientists and people who could actually do the math.

You should probably do the same.

The beginning of the universe and the beginning that is written about in genesis are two entirely different and unrelated subjects.

Does it make you uncomfortable that the universe that exists only in the minds of those who have failed to comprehend scripture is about to come to an abrupt end?

I don't believe this subject is irrelevant to the realities of daily life as the creation of space and time is reality itself. Furthermore, the study of the evolution of space and time is relevant to our existence in that it shows us that cause and effect means that everything is connected. The application of this concept is relevant to the evolution of consciousness where cause and effect may not be readily apparent but is certain nonetheless.

I am content with you following your own path, I don't understand why you would not feel the same way about me doing the same.

I disagree that Genesis does not describe the beginning of Creation. I believe that Genesis describes many things. The account of Creation being one of them.

I don't know if you do or don't understand scripture better than me. I don't believe that the universe only exists in the minds of those who have failed to comprehend scripture. Many people have never read scripture and they experience the reality of existence just as you or I do. It seems to me that you must believe you experience reality different than others to make this statement. I find that hard to believe. As to my comfort or uncomfort that the universe will come to an abrupt end, I don't know that the universe will come to an abrupt end. What do you know that I don't? I do know that I am comfortable with my own end. It is inevitable. Why am I comfortable with that? Because I have existed since the beginning of space and time. So have you and everyone else and we will all continue to exist after we have taken our last breath. How do I know this? Because the conservation of energy and matter say so.

 

[edthecynic]

You keep avoiding this

The OLDEST matter in the universe accelerating IS a violation of the SLoT if entropy is supposed to be increasing over time, as you have said repeatedly, causing usable energy to decrease over time "approaching zero" as you say.
Again, if the SLoT is the ruling Law of the universe, how can the oldest matter in the universe, which according to you MUST be the most entropy laden matter in the universe, be accelerating rather than slowing down???
The obvious answer is that the SLoT is NOT the ruling Law in the life cycle of the universe!
My money is on GRAVITY being the ruling Law of the universe, but we lack a Quantum Theory of Gravity to prove it at this time.

 

[ding]

You keep avoiding this

The OLDEST matter in the universe accelerating IS a violation of the SLoT if entropy is supposed to be increasing over time, as you have said repeatedly, causing usable energy to decrease over time "approaching zero" as you say.
Again, if the SLoT is the ruling Law of the universe, how can the oldest matter in the universe, which according to you MUST be the most entropy laden matter in the universe, be accelerating rather than slowing down???
The obvious answer is that the SLoT is NOT the ruling Law in the life cycle of the universe!
My money is on GRAVITY being the ruling Law of the universe, but we lack a Quantum Theory of Gravity to prove it at this time.

I didn't avoid it. I already explained to you that since no one understands why it is accelerating that they don't know that it is violating the second law of thermodynamics. You have already admitted that in the vast majority of cases that entropy increases and usable energy is decreased. This precludes an infinite acting universe. So that in a cyclic infinite acting universe as time approaches zero usable energy approaches zero. Furthermore, it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Why are you avoiding this?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the cycle is matter to energy to matter.

 

[edthecynic]

You keep avoiding this

The OLDEST matter in the universe accelerating IS a violation of the SLoT if entropy is supposed to be increasing over time, as you have said repeatedly, causing usable energy to decrease over time "approaching zero" as you say.
Again, if the SLoT is the ruling Law of the universe, how can the oldest matter in the universe, which according to you MUST be the most entropy laden matter in the universe, be accelerating rather than slowing down???
The obvious answer is that the SLoT is NOT the ruling Law in the life cycle of the universe!
My money is on GRAVITY being the ruling Law of the universe, but we lack a Quantum Theory of Gravity to prove it at this time.

I didn't avoid it. I already explained to you that since no one understands why it is accelerating that they don't know that it is violating the second law of thermodynamics. You have already admitted that in the vast majority of cases that entropy increases and usable energy is decreased. This precludes an infinite acting universe. So that in a cyclic infinite acting universe as time approaches zero usable energy approaches zero. Furthermore, it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Why are you avoiding this?

Again, all you do is pontificate.