God is the only rational explanation for the existence of the universe.

[RWNJ]

What if the Universe has always been? In other words, it has no beginning. A theory states that there wasnt a need for a "singularity." It was "quantum potential" that collapsed.

So, we've got 2 choices, right?

1. The universe has always existed.

2. God has always existed, and God created the universe(s).

Can't imagine how anyone can rule out either option.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Only as long as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is/was in play. Maybe the universe has always existed, before that 2nd law came along.

The second law of thermodynamics, as well as every other physical law, are part of the fabric of the universe. Neither can exist without the other.

 

[ding]

What if the Universe has always been? In other words, it has no beginning. A theory states that there wasnt a need for a "singularity." It was "quantum potential" that collapsed.

So, we've got 2 choices, right?

1. The universe has always existed.

2. God has always existed, and God created the universe(s).

Can't imagine how anyone can rule out either option.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Does it? Does the Universe have boundaries?

Not in the physical sense, but it is considered an isolated system, so entropy can never decrease. It can only increase.

What do you think this has to do with an infinite acting universe approaching thermal equilibrium, TN?

 

[rightwinger]

Think about it. Nothing physical can create itself. This is a scientific fact. So if the universe wasn't created, then why does it exist? The only thing that makes sense is that it was created.

The universe always was

Just like you claim God always was

 

[Czernobog]

What if the Universe has always been? In other words, it has no beginning. A theory states that there wasnt a need for a "singularity." It was "quantum potential" that collapsed.

So, we've got 2 choices, right?

1. The universe has always existed.

2. God has always existed, and God created the universe(s).

Can't imagine how anyone can rule out either option.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Does it? Does the Universe have boundaries?

Not in the physical sense, but it is considered an isolated system, so entropy can never decrease. It can only increase.

What do you think this has to do with an infinite acting universe approaching thermal equilibrium, TN?

It doesn't matter if a system is isolated, or not. Only if the system is reversible. Since expansion can be reversible, entropy can reach zero. Then the process reverses. You are misrepresenting the SLoT.

 

[ding]

What if the Universe has always been? In other words, it has no beginning. A theory states that there wasnt a need for a "singularity." It was "quantum potential" that collapsed.

So, we've got 2 choices, right?

1. The universe has always existed.

2. God has always existed, and God created the universe(s).

Can't imagine how anyone can rule out either option.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Only as long as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is/was in play. Maybe the universe has always existed, before that 2nd law came along.

That would only be possible if the universe had been static in its initial state. But that begs the question what made it start to expand and cool.

The first cause conundrum is unavoidable and only has one solution.

You forget that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does allow for zero entropy in a reversible process.

There are points at which irreversible processes happen. Specifically, when when particles decay or annihilate each other as in the early universe. Do this an infinite number of times and the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

 

[ding]

What if the Universe has always been? In other words, it has no beginning. A theory states that there wasnt a need for a "singularity." It was "quantum potential" that collapsed.

So, we've got 2 choices, right?

1. The universe has always existed.

2. God has always existed, and God created the universe(s).

Can't imagine how anyone can rule out either option.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Does it? Does the Universe have boundaries?

Not in the physical sense, but it is considered an isolated system, so entropy can never decrease. It can only increase.

What do you think this has to do with an infinite acting universe approaching thermal equilibrium, TN?

It doesn't matter if a system is isolated, or not. Only if the system is reversible. Since expansion can be reversible, entropy can reach zero. Then the process reverses. You are misrepresenting the SLoT.

See my last post, Einstein.

 

[ding]

What if the Universe has always been? In other words, it has no beginning. A theory states that there wasnt a need for a "singularity." It was "quantum potential" that collapsed.

So, we've got 2 choices, right?

1. The universe has always existed.

2. God has always existed, and God created the universe(s).

Can't imagine how anyone can rule out either option.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Actually, no it doesn't. It only rules out an eternally expanding universe. In a reversable process, such as expansion/contraction, energy actually can equal zero, at which point the process reverses.

Nope. Entropy can change in other ways besides heat flow. That's why no one takes cyclical models seriously except you.

 

[ding]

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Does not the SLoT allow entropy to equal zero??
Why yes, yes it does.

Does not the Third Law of Thermodynamics say that there is no temperature where all motion stops??
Why yes, yes it does.
So does that not mean the universe will be in motion eternally??
Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

We've been through this before. You are an idiot. No offense intended.

 

[Czernobog]

So, we've got 2 choices, right?

1. The universe has always existed.

2. God has always existed, and God created the universe(s).

Can't imagine how anyone can rule out either option.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Only as long as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is/was in play. Maybe the universe has always existed, before that 2nd law came along.

That would only be possible if the universe had been static in its initial state. But that begs the question what made it start to expand and cool.

The first cause conundrum is unavoidable and only has one solution.

You forget that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does allow for zero entropy in a reversible process.

There are points at which irreversible processes happen. Specifically, when when particles decay or annihilate each other as in the early universe. Do this an infinite number of times and the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

However, that assumes that the universe will expand infinitely. You have evidence to support that assertion? Newton's third law dictates that, at some point, the universe will reach its apex position, and the process will reverse.

 

[ding]

So, we've got 2 choices, right?

1. The universe has always existed.

2. God has always existed, and God created the universe(s).

Can't imagine how anyone can rule out either option.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Only as long as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is/was in play. Maybe the universe has always existed, before that 2nd law came along.

That would only be possible if the universe had been static in its initial state. But that begs the question what made it start to expand and cool.

The first cause conundrum is unavoidable and only has one solution.

You keep trying to impose our laws of physics without considering the possibility that those laws may not have existed prior to the big bang. There's no telling what is/was possible then.

He isnt even applying them right IMO. The second law is extremely specific. Entropy happens in a closed system. I believe there are no boundaries in the universe..

Dude, you are arguing with Dr. Alexander Vilinken, famed cosmologist, not me.

"If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. 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. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. 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 Vilinken

 

[Czernobog]

What if the Universe has always been? In other words, it has no beginning. A theory states that there wasnt a need for a "singularity." It was "quantum potential" that collapsed.

So, we've got 2 choices, right?

1. The universe has always existed.

2. God has always existed, and God created the universe(s).

Can't imagine how anyone can rule out either option.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Actually, no it doesn't. It only rules out an eternally expanding universe. In a reversable process, such as expansion/contraction, energy actually can equal zero, at which point the process reverses.

Nope. Entropy can change in other ways besides heat flow. That's why no one takes cyclical models seriously except you.

Actually a lot of physicists takes the cyclical universe seriously except.

 

[ding]

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Only as long as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is/was in play. Maybe the universe has always existed, before that 2nd law came along.

That would only be possible if the universe had been static in its initial state. But that begs the question what made it start to expand and cool.

The first cause conundrum is unavoidable and only has one solution.

You forget that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does allow for zero entropy in a reversible process.

There are points at which irreversible processes happen. Specifically, when when particles decay or annihilate each other as in the early universe. Do this an infinite number of times and the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

However, that assumes that the universe will expand infinitely. You have evidence to support that assertion? Newton's third law dictates that, at some point, the universe will reach its apex position, and the process will reverse.

Actually it does not assume that the universe will expand infinitely. It assumes that the universe reverses itself. Which is why I wrote, "There are points at which irreversible processes happen. Specifically, when when particles decay or annihilate each other as in the early universe. Do this an infinite number of times and the universe will reach thermal equilibrium."

 

[Czernobog]

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Only as long as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is/was in play. Maybe the universe has always existed, before that 2nd law came along.

That would only be possible if the universe had been static in its initial state. But that begs the question what made it start to expand and cool.

The first cause conundrum is unavoidable and only has one solution.

You keep trying to impose our laws of physics without considering the possibility that those laws may not have existed prior to the big bang. There's no telling what is/was possible then.

He isnt even applying them right IMO. The second law is extremely specific. Entropy happens in a closed system. I believe there are no boundaries in the universe..

Dude, you are arguing with Dr. Alexander Vilinken, famed cosmologist, not me.

FLAG ON THE PLAY:

​

 

[TNHarley]

What if the Universe has always been? In other words, it has no beginning. A theory states that there wasnt a need for a "singularity." It was "quantum potential" that collapsed.

So, we've got 2 choices, right?

1. The universe has always existed.

2. God has always existed, and God created the universe(s).

Can't imagine how anyone can rule out either option.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Does it? Does the Universe have boundaries?

Not in the physical sense, but it is considered an isolated system, so entropy can never decrease. It can only increase.

What do you think this has to do with an infinite acting universe approaching thermal equilibrium, TN?

This is why i asked you what the borders are. Try answering that question first

 

[ding]

What if the Universe has always been? In other words, it has no beginning. A theory states that there wasnt a need for a "singularity." It was "quantum potential" that collapsed.

So, we've got 2 choices, right?

1. The universe has always existed.

2. God has always existed, and God created the universe(s).

Can't imagine how anyone can rule out either option.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Actually, no it doesn't. It only rules out an eternally expanding universe. In a reversable process, such as expansion/contraction, energy actually can equal zero, at which point the process reverses.

Nope. Entropy can change in other ways besides heat flow. That's why no one takes cyclical models seriously except you.

Actually a lot of physicists takes the cyclical universe seriously except.

No. They don't. If you are talking about Steinhardt /Turok's model, it isn't infinite acting. I already explained that.

Whose model are you arguing for exactly?

 

[Czernobog]

Only as long as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is/was in play. Maybe the universe has always existed, before that 2nd law came along.

That would only be possible if the universe had been static in its initial state. But that begs the question what made it start to expand and cool.

The first cause conundrum is unavoidable and only has one solution.

You forget that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does allow for zero entropy in a reversible process.

There are points at which irreversible processes happen. Specifically, when when particles decay or annihilate each other as in the early universe. Do this an infinite number of times and the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

However, that assumes that the universe will expand infinitely. You have evidence to support that assertion? Newton's third law dictates that, at some point, the universe will reach its apex position, and the process will reverse.

Actually it does not assume that the universe will expand infinitely. It assumes that the universe reverses itself. Which is why I wrote, "There are points at which irreversible processes happen. Specifically, when when particles decay or annihilate each other as in the early universe. Do this an infinite number of times and the universe will reach thermal equilibrium."

...and will contract until it reaches critical mass, and will explosively expand. You insist that the cyclical universe cannot occur, then proceed to present the mechanism by which it does.

 

[ding]

What if the Universe has always been? In other words, it has no beginning. A theory states that there wasnt a need for a "singularity." It was "quantum potential" that collapsed.

So, we've got 2 choices, right?

1. The universe has always existed.

2. God has always existed, and God created the universe(s).

Can't imagine how anyone can rule out either option.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Does it? Does the Universe have boundaries?

Not in the physical sense, but it is considered an isolated system, so entropy can never decrease. It can only increase.

What do you think this has to do with an infinite acting universe approaching thermal equilibrium, TN?

This is why i asked you what the borders are. Try answering that question first

I can see how you missed it. My answer was the first sentence in my response.

 

[Czernobog]

So, we've got 2 choices, right?

1. The universe has always existed.

2. God has always existed, and God created the universe(s).

Can't imagine how anyone can rule out either option.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Actually, no it doesn't. It only rules out an eternally expanding universe. In a reversable process, such as expansion/contraction, energy actually can equal zero, at which point the process reverses.

Nope. Entropy can change in other ways besides heat flow. That's why no one takes cyclical models seriously except you.

Actually a lot of physicists takes the cyclical universe seriously except.

No. They don't. If you are talking about Steinhardt /Turok's model, it isn't infinite acting. I already explained that.

Whose model are you arguing for exactly?

Actually, I'm not talking about the Steinhardt/Turok model. I'm referring to the Ali/Das model. Which is infinitely acting. As I have pointed out on several occasions.

 

[ding]

That would only be possible if the universe had been static in its initial state. But that begs the question what made it start to expand and cool.

The first cause conundrum is unavoidable and only has one solution.

You forget that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does allow for zero entropy in a reversible process.

There are points at which irreversible processes happen. Specifically, when when particles decay or annihilate each other as in the early universe. Do this an infinite number of times and the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

However, that assumes that the universe will expand infinitely. You have evidence to support that assertion? Newton's third law dictates that, at some point, the universe will reach its apex position, and the process will reverse.

Actually it does not assume that the universe will expand infinitely. It assumes that the universe reverses itself. Which is why I wrote, "There are points at which irreversible processes happen. Specifically, when when particles decay or annihilate each other as in the early universe. Do this an infinite number of times and the universe will reach thermal equilibrium."

...and will contract until it reaches critical mass, and will explosively expand. You insist that the cyclical universe cannot occur, then proceed to present the mechanism by which it does.

And will experience irreversible processes such as particle decay and annihilation when it does. Do this an infinite number of times and it will reach thermal equilibrium.

I don't think you understand what you are discussing.

 

[ding]

2nd Law of Thermodynamics rules out an eternal or infinite acting universe.

Actually, no it doesn't. It only rules out an eternally expanding universe. In a reversable process, such as expansion/contraction, energy actually can equal zero, at which point the process reverses.

Nope. Entropy can change in other ways besides heat flow. That's why no one takes cyclical models seriously except you.

Actually a lot of physicists takes the cyclical universe seriously except.

No. They don't. If you are talking about Steinhardt /Turok's model, it isn't infinite acting. I already explained that.

Whose model are you arguing for exactly?

Actually, I'm not talking about the Steinhardt/Turok model. I'm referring to the Ali/Das model. Which is infinitely acting. As I have pointed out on several occasions.

Do you have a link for that that you are using?