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

[TNHarley]

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.

Lol you have already stated all you do is google and go from there.
I dont have an agenda. I dont need to manopulate science and the lack thereof for persobal gain.
You crack me up. Your pseudo level defies physics.

 

[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

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

OK, I've read it. It doesn't say what you think it says. Do you want me to explain it to you?

 

[ding]

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.

Lol you have already stated all you do is google and go from there.
I dont have an agenda. I dont need to manopulate science and the lack thereof for persobal gain.
You crack me up. Your pseudo level defies physics.

If that is what you need to believe to get through the day, good for you, TN.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

The Third Law of Thermodynamics says in the universe thermal equilibrium, absolute zero, is impossible, therefore "approach" does NOT mean achieve.

 

[Czernobog]

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

OK, I've read it. It doesn't say what you think it says. Do you want me to explain it to you?

It says exactly what I think it does. A direct quote from the paper: "The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe."

 

[edthecynic]

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."

That violates the TLoT.

 

[TNHarley]

Ding, you irritating joke of a human, an isolated systems matter cant interact with anything else besides its own "system". That would mean there is a border of some sort perfect enough enough to stop that.
That part right there contradicts the second law in the context you are using it. Its co tradicts it because you cant prove the universe is isolated. You trashing a THEORY for a THEORY is intellectually dishonest.
You are pathetic. Your collective raped your mind.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Lol you have already stated all you do is google and go from there.
I dont have an agenda. I dont need to manopulate science and the lack thereof for persobal gain.
You crack me up. Your pseudo level defies physics.

If that is what you need to believe to get through the day, good for you, TN.

Thanks for the concession. Its ok though. I am positive you are used to losing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

No you didn't, else you would not have asserted it as fact, as your expert does not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you want me to explain it to you?

Yes, explain it like we're 5.

 

[ding]

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

OK, I've read it. It doesn't say what you think it says. Do you want me to explain it to you?

It says exactly what I think it does. A direct quote from the paper: "The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe."

It presents a big bang model without the singularity. It existed forever as quantum potential before “collapsing” into the hot dense state and then expanding and cooling. It makes no claim that it is cyclical. Or that space and time existed forever. It claims that quantum potential existed forever. It isn't a cyclical model. It is an inflationary model.

 

[ding]

Do you want me to explain it to you?

Yes, explain it like we're 5.

Is there any other way?

Einstein said if you can't explain it to a six year old, then maybe you don't understand it.

 

[ding]

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

No you didn't, else you would not have asserted it as fact, as your expert does not.

What is your scientific background?

 

[ding]

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.

Lol you have already stated all you do is google and go from there.
I dont have an agenda. I dont need to manopulate science and the lack thereof for persobal gain.
You crack me up. Your pseudo level defies physics.

If that is what you need to believe to get through the day, good for you, TN.

Thanks for the concession. Its ok though. I am positive you are used to losing.

I couldn't be happier for you, TN.

 

[ding]

Ding, you irritating joke of a human, an isolated systems matter cant interact with anything else besides its own "system". That would mean there is a border of some sort perfect enough enough to stop that.
That part right there contradicts the second law in the context you are using it. Its co tradicts it because you cant prove the universe is isolated. You trashing a THEORY for a THEORY is intellectually dishonest.
You are pathetic. Your collective raped your mind.

^ he mad

 

[idb]

No it isn't. all you are doing is making a circular argument.

Well, yours is a circular rebuttal....big whoop

But then it begs the question.....who created God ?

All I can say is, there's some really bizarre crap going one and we (humans) have no clue.

I tend to think we're in some kind of "matrix" thingy cause I've had that "dejavu" thing happen more than once.

(with what I just said)

No one created God. I really have to laugh when atheists trot out that tired argument.

How did he come to be then?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

No you didn't, else you would not have asserted it as fact, as your expert does not.

What is your scientific background?

I evolved from other, bipedal mammals.

 

[RWNJ]

No it isn't. all you are doing is making a circular argument.

Well, yours is a circular rebuttal....big whoop

But then it begs the question.....who created God ?

All I can say is, there's some really bizarre crap going one and we (humans) have no clue.

I tend to think we're in some kind of "matrix" thingy cause I've had that "dejavu" thing happen more than once.

(with what I just said)

No one created God. I really have to laugh when atheists trot out that tired argument.

How did he come to be then?

Tell me you honestly don't know, and I might enlighten you. On the other hand, if you really don't know, then you don't even belong in this discussion. Do you?

 

[ding]

"...singularities such as big bang or big crunch are in fact avoided..."

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3093.pdf

 

[idb]

No it isn't. all you are doing is making a circular argument.

Well, yours is a circular rebuttal....big whoop

But then it begs the question.....who created God ?

All I can say is, there's some really bizarre crap going one and we (humans) have no clue.

I tend to think we're in some kind of "matrix" thingy cause I've had that "dejavu" thing happen more than once.

(with what I just said)

No one created God. I really have to laugh when atheists trot out that tired argument.

How did he come to be then?

Tell me you honestly don't know, and I might enlighten you. On the other hand, if you really don't know, then you don't even belong in this discussion. Do you?

I'm not sure I understand the difference between your two options.
Not a good start really.