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

[ding]

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:

​

Yes, guilty. I relied on an expert to form my opinion.

 

[Czernobog]

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?

What? Now I need to do your homework for you? As arrogantly as you have been insisting that you know everything, I would expect you do be able to use Google.

 

[Czernobog]

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:

​

Yes, guilty. I relied on an expert to form my opinion.

And even experts can be wrong. Newton was.

 

[TNHarley]

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

Of course im not arguimg with dingbat

 

[ding]

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?

What? Now I need to do your homework for you? As arrogantly as you have been insisting that you know everything, I would expect you do be able to use Google.

I'd like to see what the experts YOU relied upon have to say.

You did rely on something, right?

 

[ding]

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

Of course im not arguimg with dingbat

I agree. You are literally arguing with a world renowned cosmologist/physicist. That's why this exchange is so funny.

 

[ding]

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:

​

Yes, guilty. I relied on an expert to form my opinion.

And even experts can be wrong. Newton was.

Sure they can. I have provided Vilinken's positon so that it can be examined.

You have provided diddly squat.

 

[ding]

You guys are cracking me up.

 

[Czernobog]

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:

​

Yes, guilty. I relied on an expert to form my opinion.

And even experts can be wrong. Newton was.

Sure they can. I have provided Vilinken's positon so that it can be examined.

You have provided diddly squat.

Well, that's just because I expectedx you to know how to Google. Sorry I expected to much of you.

Here you go: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3093.pdf

Now, not being a physicist myself, some of the math is a bit above me. However, here is a nice article that dumbs it down a bit: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

 

[ding]

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

FLAG ON THE PLAY:

​

Yes, guilty. I relied on an expert to form my opinion.

And even experts can be wrong. Newton was.

Sure they can. I have provided Vilinken's positon so that it can be examined.

You have provided diddly squat.

Well, that's just because I expectedx you to know how to Google. Sorry I expected to much of you.

Here you go: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3093.pdf

I do know how, but I wanted to see what YOU relied upon. Is this concept beyond your capability to understand?

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Lol you idiot.
If it is isolated, that would mean there are boundaries of some sort. What are those?
The fact is, it isnt and cannot be proven yet. So, it is unreasonable to apply this discussion to the second law. Unless you have an agenda..

 

[TNHarley]

Ding, you suck at everything you discuss.

 

[edthecynic]

entropy can never decrease. It can only increase.

No, entropy can also stay the same!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No one created God

Yes they did. Duh.

 

[ding]

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.

Lol you idiot.
If it is isolated, that would mean there are boundaries of some sort. What are those?
The fact is, it isnt and cannot be proven yet. So, it is unreasonable to apply this discussion to the second law. Unless you have an agenda..

Look up what an isolated system means in thermodynamics, TN.

You don't have clue what you are discussing.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

From you that is a compliment.

 

[ding]

entropy can never decrease. It can only increase.

No, entropy can also stay the same!

But never decrease. Therefore, given enough time, the universe will approach thermal equilibrium unless energy is added to the system like it is for all reversible processes.

 

[edthecynic]

Dude, you are arguing with Dr. Alexander Vilinken, famed cosmologist, not me.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same.

Well what do you know, Vilinken agrees with me!

 

[ding]

Ding, you suck at everything you discuss.

I don't suffer fools lightly. Get thicker skin. Or take smarter positions.

 

[ding]

Dude, you are arguing with Dr. Alexander Vilinken, famed cosmologist, not me.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same.

Well what do you know, Vilinken agrees with me!

Maybe you should read everything that was written before you get too excited.