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

[ding]

The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic 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.

You keep repeating the same thing, which will not explain how the oldest and therefore most entropy laden matter is accelerating away from us.

You need to see the universe as a perpetual commotion machine with an entropy of zero.

Is it your belief that the total entropy of the universe is decreasing? Do you have any credible source for that belief?

Do you believe that the total entropy of the universe never decreases? Do you have any credible source for that belief?

Do you have any credible sources for any of your beliefs?

Well, I already gave you Hawking for the first, and the SLoT covers the second and third questions. Entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO zero.

Entropy increases in some local parts of the universe and decreases at the extremes, as shown by the acceleration of matter at the extremes, giving the total universe an entropy of zero, consistent with the SLOT.

So, then you can't provide a link to anything you claim.

I already did it earlier in this thread, just because you ignored it and are too lazy to go back and read it does not require me to post it again.

The first law of thermodynamics is simply a statement of energy conservation. That is, it states that energy can always be accounted for, that the energy of the universe is a constant - it can be transferred between objects and can change form, but the total doesn't change. But the first law does not preclude things occuring that we know do not occur: A glass of water does not spontaneously separate into ice cubes and warm water even though the energy balance equations used in calorimetry problems would allow it. That is, energy conservation - the first law of thermodynamics - would allow for the possibility that a system in thermal equilibrium could separate into two systems - one at a higher temperature than the other - and that temperature difference could then be used to drive a heat engine to do work. The second law of thermodynamics explains why the universe does not work that way. It articulates the underlying principle that gives the direction of heat flow in any thermal process. The result, of course, fits our everyday experience. The second law states the reason why it is true.

Heat naturally flows from higher temperatures to lower temperatures.

No natural process has as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler to a warmer object.

No process can convert heat absorbed from a reservoir at one temperature directly into work without also rejecting heat to a cooler reservoir. That is, no heat engine is 100% efficient.

SECOND LAW

 

[edthecynic]

Actually you didn't. You haven't explained how the universe started

My argument has never been how the universe started, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and therefore since energy IS something, the premiss of your title, that something came from nothing, is false.

I, in fact, pointed out in my first post that it is the creationists who claim that something comes from nothing, not science.

 

[edthecynic]

no heat engine is 100% efficient.

The engine that drives the electron around the nucleus of a stable atom is 100% efficient and has an entropy of zero.
When we are talking about the universe we are not limited to HEAT engines.

 

[ding]

Actually you didn't. You haven't explained how the universe started

My argument has never been how the universe started, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and therefore since energy IS something, the premiss of your title, that something came from nothing, is false.

I, in fact, pointed out in my first post that it is the creationists who claim that something comes from nothing, not science.

I already explained how energy can pop into existence. Were you too lazy to read it or too ignorant to understand it?

 

[ding]

no heat engine is 100% efficient.

The engine that drives the electron around the nucleus of a stable atom is 100% efficient and has an entropy of zero.
When we are talking about the universe we are not limited to HEAT engines.

Maybe at the quantum level, but it most certainly is not at the cosmic level. Your argument about acceleration affecting entropy is ridiculous. That would be gravity related not heat exchange or thermal equilibrium related.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually you didn't. You haven't explained how the universe started

My argument has never been how the universe started, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and therefore since energy IS something, the premiss of your title, that something came from nothing, is false.

I, in fact, pointed out in my first post that it is the creationists who claim that something comes from nothing, not science.

I already explained how energy can pop into existence. Were you too lazy to read it or too ignorant to understand it?

Now you are just trying to parrot me. Energy can't "pop into existence" FROM NOTHING.

 

[edthecynic]

no heat engine is 100% efficient.

The engine that drives the electron around the nucleus of a stable atom is 100% efficient and has an entropy of zero.
When we are talking about the universe we are not limited to HEAT engines.

Maybe at the quantum level, but it most certainly is not at the cosmic level. Your argument about acceleration affecting entropy is ridiculous. That would be gravity related not heat exchange or thermal equilibrium related.

YOU brought up the fact that oldest most entropy laden matter in the universe IS proven to be accelerating, and now you run from the implications of that very fact.

 

[ding]

Actually you didn't. You haven't explained how the universe started

My argument has never been how the universe started, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and therefore since energy IS something, the premiss of your title, that something came from nothing, is false.

I, in fact, pointed out in my first post that it is the creationists who claim that something comes from nothing, not science.

I already explained how energy can pop into existence. Were you too lazy to read it or too ignorant to understand it?

Now you are just trying to parrot me. Energy can't "pop into existence" FROM NOTHING.

No. I am not parroting you. When you did it you had not properly cited any credible source. I did. See post #235.

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



See? That's how it is done.

 

[ding]

no heat engine is 100% efficient.

The engine that drives the electron around the nucleus of a stable atom is 100% efficient and has an entropy of zero.
When we are talking about the universe we are not limited to HEAT engines.

Maybe at the quantum level, but it most certainly is not at the cosmic level. Your argument about acceleration affecting entropy is ridiculous. That would be gravity related not heat exchange or thermal equilibrium related.

YOU brought up the fact that oldest most entropy laden matter in the universe IS proven to be accelerating, and now you run from the implications of that very fact.

No. I brought up the fact that the universe is accelerating faster than previously believed. I didn't make any distinction other than that. You were the idiot that made that leap in logic. Acceleration is unrelated to entropy.

 

[G.T.]

super poorly reasoned OP

 

[BreezeWood]

.
where is the proof the 4th century christian rendering for the beginning of the universe is accurate, just their acknowledgement of the celestial trajectory from a single location as a cyclical event will be helpful.

 

[edthecynic]

I brought up the fact that the universe is accelerating faster than previously believed. I didn't make any distinction other than that. You were the idiot that made that leap in logic. Acceleration is unrelated to entropy.

Actually, due to entropy it was previously believed the universe was SLOWING DOWN.
Acceleration is directly related to entropy and the available energy to do work.

 

[ding]

I brought up the fact that the universe is accelerating faster than previously believed. I didn't make any distinction other than that. You were the idiot that made that leap in logic. Acceleration is unrelated to entropy.

Actually, due to entropy it was previously believed the universe was SLOWING DOWN.
Acceleration is directly related to entropy and the available energy to do work.

Source? Link?

"Whether or not the expansion is slowing down or speeding up depends on a battle between two titans: the attractive gravitational pull of matter and the repulsive gravitational push of dark energy. What counts in this contest is the density of each. The density of matter decreases as the universe expands because the volume of space increases."

The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up

See? No mention of entropy or available energy to do work.

 

[edthecynic]

I brought up the fact that the universe is accelerating faster than previously believed. I didn't make any distinction other than that. You were the idiot that made that leap in logic. Acceleration is unrelated to entropy.

Actually, due to entropy it was previously believed the universe was SLOWING DOWN.
Acceleration is directly related to entropy and the available energy to do work.

Source? Link?

"Whether or not the expansion is slowing down or speeding up depends on a battle between two titans: the attractive gravitational pull of matter and the repulsive gravitational push of dark energy. What counts in this contest is the density of each. The density of matter decreases as the universe expands because the volume of space increases."

The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up

See? No mention of entropy or available energy to do work.

Gravity was draining the usable kinetic energy needed to do the work of expanding the universe, thus increasing entropy. If gravity was not reducing the available useful kinetic energy then the universe would have never slowed down. Just because entropy is not directly mentioned does not mean it was not understood to be in effect.

In any case your argument that the universe was accelerating FASTER than EXPECTED rather than being expected to be slowing down is shot to hell. In fact, the 3 nobel prize winning scientists you previously mentioned who discovered the universe was accelerating had actually set out to find out how much the expansion of the universe was slowing down.

 

[ding]

I brought up the fact that the universe is accelerating faster than previously believed. I didn't make any distinction other than that. You were the idiot that made that leap in logic. Acceleration is unrelated to entropy.

Actually, due to entropy it was previously believed the universe was SLOWING DOWN.
Acceleration is directly related to entropy and the available energy to do work.

I brought up the fact that the universe is accelerating faster than previously believed. I didn't make any distinction other than that. You were the idiot that made that leap in logic. Acceleration is unrelated to entropy.

Actually, due to entropy it was previously believed the universe was SLOWING DOWN.
Acceleration is directly related to entropy and the available energy to do work.

Source? Link?

"Whether or not the expansion is slowing down or speeding up depends on a battle between two titans: the attractive gravitational pull of matter and the repulsive gravitational push of dark energy. What counts in this contest is the density of each. The density of matter decreases as the universe expands because the volume of space increases."

The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up

See? No mention of entropy or available energy to do work.

Gravity was draining the usable kinetic energy needed to do the work of expanding the universe, thus increasing entropy. If gravity was not reducing the available useful kinetic energy then the universe would have never slowed down. Just because entropy is not directly mentioned does not mean it was not understood to be in effect.

In any case your argument that the universe was accelerating FASTER than EXPECTED rather than being expected to be slowing down is shot to hell. In fact, the 3 nobel prize winning scientists you previously mentioned who discovered the universe was accelerating had actually set out to find out how much the expansion of the universe was slowing down.

Ummmm... no. That is bullshit. In fact, it is the stupidest thing I have read today. Do you have a link that backs up what you just claimed or did you pull that out of your ass?

Maybe if you had actually read what I have been posting or watched the video's I linked, you wouldn't look like such a dumb ass right now.

"Whether or not the expansion is slowing down or speeding up depends on a battle between two titans: the attractive gravitational pull of matter and the repulsive gravitational push of dark energy. What counts in this contest is the density of each. The density of matter decreases as the universe expands because the volume of space increases."

The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up

See? No mention of entropy or available energy to do work.

 

[ding]

Actually you didn't. You haven't explained how the universe started

My argument has never been how the universe started, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and therefore since energy IS something, the premiss of your title, that something came from nothing, is false.

I, in fact, pointed out in my first post that it is the creationists who claim that something comes from nothing, not science.

I already explained how energy can pop into existence. Were you too lazy to read it or too ignorant to understand it?

Now you are just trying to parrot me. Energy can't "pop into existence" FROM NOTHING.

In post # 268 (actually this was the third time) I just gave you the explanation how it is possible for energy to pop into existence, showed that no laws of nature were violated for energy to pop into existence and provided expert testimony. Well, Einstein... what do you have to say now?

 

[edthecynic]

Actually you didn't. You haven't explained how the universe started

My argument has never been how the universe started, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and therefore since energy IS something, the premiss of your title, that something came from nothing, is false.

I, in fact, pointed out in my first post that it is the creationists who claim that something comes from nothing, not science.

I already explained how energy can pop into existence. Were you too lazy to read it or too ignorant to understand it?

Now you are just trying to parrot me. Energy can't "pop into existence" FROM NOTHING.

In post # 268 (actually this was the third time) I just gave you the explanation how it is possible for energy to pop into existence, showed that no laws of nature were violated for energy to pop into existence and provided expert testimony. Well, Einstein... what do you have to say now?

Actually if you read your own link, it talks about 2 (TWO) energies, positive and negative. Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is also SOMETHING, neither is nothing. There are equal amounts of both THINGS fluctuating for eternity.

 

[ding]

Actually you didn't. You haven't explained how the universe started

My argument has never been how the universe started, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and therefore since energy IS something, the premiss of your title, that something came from nothing, is false.

I, in fact, pointed out in my first post that it is the creationists who claim that something comes from nothing, not science.

I already explained how energy can pop into existence. Were you too lazy to read it or too ignorant to understand it?

Now you are just trying to parrot me. Energy can't "pop into existence" FROM NOTHING.

In post # 268 (actually this was the third time) I just gave you the explanation how it is possible for energy to pop into existence, showed that no laws of nature were violated for energy to pop into existence and provided expert testimony. Well, Einstein... what do you have to say now?

Actually if you read your own link, it talks about 2 (TWO) energies, positive and negative. Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is also SOMETHING, neither is nothing. There are equal amounts of both THINGS fluctuating for eternity.

You are a moron. Those two forces are the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of gravitational energy. The positive energy of matter which popped into existence through quantum mechanic is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which which popped into existence. It didn't exist before that, dumbass. So you are wrong again.

Furthermore, 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.

Additionally, Professor Vilenkin explains that the problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic 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. So this is another thing you are wrong about.

Tell me... were you born a dumbass or did you have to train for it.

 

[ding]

Actually you didn't. You haven't explained how the universe started

My argument has never been how the universe started, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and therefore since energy IS something, the premiss of your title, that something came from nothing, is false.

I, in fact, pointed out in my first post that it is the creationists who claim that something comes from nothing, not science.

I already explained how energy can pop into existence. Were you too lazy to read it or too ignorant to understand it?

Now you are just trying to parrot me. Energy can't "pop into existence" FROM NOTHING.

In post # 268 (actually this was the third time) I just gave you the explanation how it is possible for energy to pop into existence, showed that no laws of nature were violated for energy to pop into existence and provided expert testimony. Well, Einstein... what do you have to say now?

Actually if you read your own link, it talks about 2 (TWO) energies, positive and negative. Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is also SOMETHING, neither is nothing. There are equal amounts of both THINGS fluctuating for eternity.

Are you done pulling things out of your ass? Because I have all the time in the world to keep making you look stupid. Your call.

 

[edthecynic]

My argument has never been how the universe started, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and therefore since energy IS something, the premiss of your title, that something came from nothing, is false.

I, in fact, pointed out in my first post that it is the creationists who claim that something comes from nothing, not science.

I already explained how energy can pop into existence. Were you too lazy to read it or too ignorant to understand it?

Now you are just trying to parrot me. Energy can't "pop into existence" FROM NOTHING.

In post # 268 (actually this was the third time) I just gave you the explanation how it is possible for energy to pop into existence, showed that no laws of nature were violated for energy to pop into existence and provided expert testimony. Well, Einstein... what do you have to say now?

Actually if you read your own link, it talks about 2 (TWO) energies, positive and negative. Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is also SOMETHING, neither is nothing. There are equal amounts of both THINGS fluctuating for eternity.

You are a moron. Those two forces are the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of gravitational energy. 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. Furthermore, 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.

Additionally, Professor Vilenkin explains that the problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic 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.

Tell me... were you born a dumbass or did you have to train for it.

So you admit positive energy and negative energy are something and not nothing.
Vilenkin is entitled to his unproven OPINION, and you repeatedly pontificating it does not prove it.

Others have other opinions, and some are actually based on repeatable experiments!

"Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called 'virtual particle' pairs are known as 'quantum fluctuations.' Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time."

Cosmologists have constructed a theory called inflation that accounts for the way in which a small volume of space occupied by a virtual particle pair could have ballooned to become the vast universe we see today. Alan Guth, one of the main brains behind inflationary cosmology, thus described the universe as "the ultimate free lunch."

A virtual particle pair is something and not nothing.