What is the purpose of the universe?

[zaangalewa]

The universe is about 13.8 billion years old and the size is about 46.6 billion lightyears.

Don't you mean 27.6 billion lightyears across? Otherwise, how did you get to 46.6?

Source: Beobachtbares Universum – Wikipedia
-----
Der Beobachtungshorizont oder auch Partikelhorizont begrenzt den Teil des Universums, von dem uns seit dem Urknall Informationen erreicht haben können.

Die heutige Entfernung bis zum Beobachtungshorizont ist jedoch nicht (wie häufig fälschlicherweise beschrieben) durch das Alter des Universums (13,80 ± 0,04 Milliarden Jahre) multipliziert mit der Lichtgeschwindigkeit gegeben, also nicht 13,8 Milliarden Lichtjahre, sondern ist größer. Sie wird aktuell im Rahmen des Urknall-Standardmodells auf ca. 46,6 Milliarden Lichtjahre beziffert.[1] Es ist nämlich zu berücksichtigen, dass sich das Universum weiter ausgedehnt hat, während sich das Licht vom Beobachtungshorizont zur Erde bewegte, d. h., bereits zurückgelegte Strecken sind nachträglich länger geworden.[2] Die entferntesten Objekte, deren Licht wir heute wahrnehmen können, befanden sich zu der Zeit, als sie dieses Licht aussandten, in einer Entfernung von gerade einmal 40 Millionen Lichtjahren zur Erde – kaum näher als der damalige Ereignishorizont. Heute trennen uns von diesen Objekten die besagten 46,6 Milliarden Lichtjahre. Da sie aber schon seit langer Zeit den Ereignishorizont überschritten haben, gibt es keine Möglichkeit, jemals etwas über die derzeitigen Vorgänge in dieser Entfernung zu erfahren. Das Verhältnis dieser Entfernungen ist der Faktor der Expansion des Universums über diesen Zeitraum und zugleich die Rotverschiebung.

Oft wird auch die gleichwertige, umgekehrte Betrachtung zur Definition benutzt: Der Partikelhorizont ist dann die Kugeloberfläche, bis zu der lichtschnelle Strahlung vorgedrungen wäre, wenn sie an unserem Standpunkt unmittelbar nach dem Urknall ausgesendet worden wäre und sich ungehindert hätte ausbreiten können.
-----

 

[zaangalewa]

(2) We are able to transform every form of energy in every other form of energy.

No. We are not. There is a limit. For every energy to mass transfer and mass to energy transfer there is a cost of that transfer. Heat will be lost.

So take care not to lose heat.

This is why we cannot have perpetual motion machines.

The reason is: We are not able to create energy but only able to transform energy.

So your statement is incorrect

As far as I know the sun produces with "heat" (radiation in the electromagnetic spectum) cheese. And Gustav Theodor Fechner showed with scientific methods:The moon is without any doubt made of cheese.

as there is a limit on the number of exchanges possible within a closed system. Given enough time the usable energy will go to zero.

The universe grows to be cold because of the expansion of the universe.

This is why we know that we do not have an eternal and infinite universe. You are literally arguing against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics says: Negentropie (often also called "information") is not able to grow. I guess the Negentropie in our brains did not grow so one or both of our brains seems to be a closed system. But in this case one or two of us are dead.

I'm arguing never against real laws of physics. I'm arguing from time to time against a wrong use of this laws. Do we really know that our universe was ever, is now and will be always a closed system? You are using a Hypothese, which will be interesting in some billion years, when we will have to move in a parallel universe. I think our children will solve this problem, if we will solve our problems today. Otherwise - in a worst case scenario - they never will have any problem.

 

[ding]

(2) We are able to transform every form of energy in every other form of energy.

No. We are not. There is a limit. For every energy to mass transfer and mass to energy transfer there is a cost of that transfer. Heat will be lost.

So take care not to lose heat.

This is why we cannot have perpetual motion machines.

The reason is: We are not able to create energy but only able to transform energy.

So your statement is incorrect

As far as I know the sun produces with "heat" (radiation in the electromagnetic spectum) cheese. And Gustav Theodor Fechner showed with scientific methods:The moon is without any doubt made of cheese.

as there is a limit on the number of exchanges possible within a closed system. Given enough time the usable energy will go to zero.

The universe grows to be cold because of the expansion of the universe.

This is why we know that we do not have an eternal and infinite universe. You are literally arguing against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics says: Negentropie (often also called "information") is not able to grow. I guess the Negentropie in our brains did not grow so one or both of our brains seems to be a closed system. But in this case one or two of us are dead.

I'm arguing never against real laws of physics. I'm arguing from time to time against a wrong use of this laws. Do we really know that our universe was ever, is now and will be always a closed system? You are using a Hypothese, which will be interesting in some billion years, when we will have to move in a parallel universe. I think our children will solve this problem, if we will solve our problems today. Otherwise - in a worst case scenario - they never will have any problem.

No offense, but I believe you are a better philosopher than you are an engineer.

 

[zaangalewa]

(2) We are able to transform every form of energy in every other form of energy.

No. We are not. There is a limit. For every energy to mass transfer and mass to energy transfer there is a cost of that transfer. Heat will be lost.

So take care not to lose heat.

This is why we cannot have perpetual motion machines.

The reason is: We are not able to create energy but only able to transform energy.

So your statement is incorrect

As far as I know the sun produces with "heat" (radiation in the electromagnetic spectum) cheese. And Gustav Theodor Fechner showed with scientific methods:The moon is without any doubt made of cheese.

as there is a limit on the number of exchanges possible within a closed system. Given enough time the usable energy will go to zero.

The universe grows to be cold because of the expansion of the universe.

This is why we know that we do not have an eternal and infinite universe. You are literally arguing against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics says: Negentropie (often also called "information") is not able to grow. I guess the Negentropie in our brains did not grow so one or both of our brains seems to be a closed system. But in this case one or two of us are dead.

I'm arguing never against real laws of physics. I'm arguing from time to time against a wrong use of this laws. Do we really know that our universe was ever, is now and will be always a closed system? You are using a Hypothese, which will be interesting in some billion years, when we will have to move in a parallel universe. I think our children will solve this problem, if we will solve our problems today. Otherwise - in a worst case scenario - they never will have any problem.

No offense, but I believe you are a better philosopher than you are an engineer.

No engineer has any of the problems you try to speak about. Again: We have enough matter and energy everywhere all around us. Engineers may not waste energy, because otherwise they will destroy the biosphere of our planet. An example: If the use of energy continues the same way as it was in the last 200 years then about 2600 AD - maybe a little later - our planet will glow because of the heat, we would produce, if we would be able to survive our own idiotic behavior. A possible solution? We could for example produce goods in the free space over our heads. Oh by the way: Did not Stephen Hawking say something similiar some weeks ago? He said we will not survive the next 1000 years, if we ...

 

[ding]

(2) We are able to transform every form of energy in every other form of energy.

No. We are not. There is a limit. For every energy to mass transfer and mass to energy transfer there is a cost of that transfer. Heat will be lost.

So take care not to lose heat.

This is why we cannot have perpetual motion machines.

The reason is: We are not able to create energy but only able to transform energy.

So your statement is incorrect

As far as I know the sun produces with "heat" (radiation in the electromagnetic spectum) cheese. And Gustav Theodor Fechner showed with scientific methods:The moon is without any doubt made of cheese.

as there is a limit on the number of exchanges possible within a closed system. Given enough time the usable energy will go to zero.

The universe grows to be cold because of the expansion of the universe.

This is why we know that we do not have an eternal and infinite universe. You are literally arguing against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics says: Negentropie (often also called "information") is not able to grow. I guess the Negentropie in our brains did not grow so one or both of our brains seems to be a closed system. But in this case one or two of us are dead.

I'm arguing never against real laws of physics. I'm arguing from time to time against a wrong use of this laws. Do we really know that our universe was ever, is now and will be always a closed system? You are using a Hypothese, which will be interesting in some billion years, when we will have to move in a parallel universe. I think our children will solve this problem, if we will solve our problems today. Otherwise - in a worst case scenario - they never will have any problem.

No offense, but I believe you are a better philosopher than you are an engineer.

No real engineer has any of the problems you are speaking about.

Well... I must not be a real engineer then. But let's not tell my boss, he has been paying like one for the last 30 years.

 

[there4eyeM]

Wrong and right exist purely in the human mind and are, thus, just as relative as everything else perceived and/or imagined to be perceived.

 

[ding]

Wrong and right exist purely in the human mind and are, thus, just as relative as everything else perceived and/or imagined to be perceived.

Great so tell me how slavery is right.

 

[ding]

Engineers may not waste energy, because otherwise they will destroy the biosphere of our planet. An example: If the use of energy continues the same way as it was in the last 200 years then about 2600 AD - maybe a little later - our planet will glow because of the heat, we would produce, if we would be able to survive our own idiotic behavior. A possible solution? We could for example produce goods in the free space over our heads. Oh by the way: Did not Stephen Hawking say something similiar some weeks ago? He said we will not survive the next 1000 years, if we ...

Wrong thread. Try the environmental forum. I have one going over there you can post on.

 

[idb]

It has no purpose.

Then you most likely won't learn anything from it.

I don't understand.
How does the universe having no purpose mean that I can't learn anything from it?

 

[idb]

It has no purpose.

Why do you think so? More concrete: How do you explain "existance"? The universe is the background of our existance. Somehow we are the universe on our own. We could not exist without this extremly gigantic universe.

You're right, we probably couldn't exist without this universe.
Why does that mean that the universe has purpose?

Are you suggesting that the universe exists to support us?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

What's a mudda?

It's a misspelling of the Japanese word for "Useless".

 

[ding]

It has no purpose.

Then you most likely won't learn anything from it.

I don't understand.
How does the universe having no purpose mean that I can't learn anything from it?

If you don't believe it has a purpose you won't be able to see how it is all connected and the significance of the connection.

 

[ding]

It has no purpose.

Why do you think so? More concrete: How do you explain "existance"? The universe is the background of our existance. Somehow we are the universe on our own. We could not exist without this extremly gigantic universe.

You're right, we probably couldn't exist without this universe.
Why does that mean that the universe has purpose?

Are you suggesting that the universe exists to support us?

Beings that know and create are the pinnacle of creation. What else would it have been created for?

 

[there4eyeM]

A vocabulary of metaphors leads to confusion when taken for literal.

 

[idb]

It has no purpose.

Then you most likely won't learn anything from it.

I don't understand.
How does the universe having no purpose mean that I can't learn anything from it?

If you don't believe it has a purpose you won't be able to see how it is all connected and the significance of the connection.

I disagree.
The universe is a fascinating place.
Most worthy of being studied.

 

[idb]

It has no purpose.

Why do you think so? More concrete: How do you explain "existance"? The universe is the background of our existance. Somehow we are the universe on our own. We could not exist without this extremly gigantic universe.

You're right, we probably couldn't exist without this universe.
Why does that mean that the universe has purpose?

Are you suggesting that the universe exists to support us?

Beings that know and create are the pinnacle of creation. What else would it have been created for?

The arrogance of humans assuming that the universe exists to support them makes no difference to the universe...it doesn't care.

 

[there4eyeM]

It could be said that humans bring 'difference' into the universe.

 

[idb]

It could be said that humans bring 'difference' into the universe.

That could be said of anything.

 

[there4eyeM]

It could be said that humans bring 'difference' into the universe.

That could be said of anything.

...and probably should.

 

[ding]

It has no purpose.

Then you most likely won't learn anything from it.

I don't understand.
How does the universe having no purpose mean that I can't learn anything from it?

If you don't believe it has a purpose you won't be able to see how it is all connected and the significance of the connection.

I disagree.
The universe is a fascinating place.
Most worthy of being studied.

Oh... and what have you learned from your studies?