Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

We know the universe had to be eternal for God to have existed eternally.

---

How do you reconcile this with the second law?

quote:

---

We know he has always been creating, destroying and managing the universe because we are told that he never changes and that he's been the same yesterday, today and forever.

---

How do you reconcile this with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

I am really sorry you did not like my embellishment story I put in front of the Turok-Hawking instanton.

---

It isn't a question of like or dislike. It simply isn't science.

quote:

---

I have no idea what Buzsaw thinks about it but I think it is a fairy tale dreamed up in the minds of a couple of great scientist trying to prove there is no need for God.

---

So you understand the math involved, eh? You've actually gone through the differential geometry and can describe the multi-dimensional tensor calculus involved? That's impressive...I had a bear of a time in differential geometry. Never could quite get the hang of twisted tensors.Where is your math?You will note that the instanton of Tuork-Hawking is a way to describe the inflation of the universe, not the origin. You have been paying attention, yes?Since we can directly measure the inflation of the universe, why is it a "story" to come up with a testable, mathematical description of how such an event could occur?Are you saying they got the math wrong?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to Son Goku:

quote:

---

How do you get spacetime when there was only an absence of anything?

---

Um, what makes you think the theory of instantons has anything to do with the origin of the universe? It is a description for the inflation of the universe, not its origin. As your own source says: Is there a reason why you are unhappy with the scientific method?

quote:

---

I was talking about the instanton that Turok was talking about not your mathematical instanton.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?What do you think an instanton is but a mathematical description? When you get to this level of physics, you cannot do anything but use math to describe things.I should point out that your paper has no mathematical descriptions. It's just a talk Turok gave. That's nice, and it is important to help someone understand what he and Hawking were coming up with, but it is no substitute for the actual math.Where's your math?

quote:

---

Was Turok accurate in describing his instanton?

---

Are you saying they got the math wrong? If so, where?

quote:

---

He is talking about one kind of an instanton and you are talking about one that exists in this universe his created this universe.

---

Why do you say that? Where is your math?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

Where do you find that Turok mentioned or even hinted that his instanton was a way to describe the inflation of the universe.

---

Oh, from this statement in the paper you quote-mined: Need more? How about this one: You did actually read your own source, didn't you?

quote:

---

The math said exactly what they wanted it to say.

---

(*chuckle*)Now I know you didn't read your own source: They were working on Feynman's work on the Euclidean Einstein action. Are you now saying Einstein and Feynman didn't know whereof they spoke? Yes, yes, I know that Percy is saying that it is beyond the pale to demand you justify your claims with math, but you're the one saying that they got the math wrong. Therefore, it would seem only appropriate for you to show specifically where they screwed up."The math said exactly what they wanted it to say"? Oh really? What, pray tell, did the math actually say? The paper you quoted only lists the above equation. It provides no analysis of it. If you're going to accuse them of cheating, then you're going to have to show where.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

There are numerous messages, especially in pages 2 and 3 relative to my hypothesis and 2LoT.

---

None of that is an answer. Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

Time in the infinite model relates to things & events in the universe, not the universe perse.

---

That doesn't answer the question. All physical processes exist within the universe. Since all physical processes reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time, how can the processes in the universe not be at equilibrium if they had an infinite amount of time? That's a direct violation of the second law.How do you reconcile an enternal universe with the second law?

quote:

---

thereby sustaining energy for perpetuality

---

That's a direct violation of the second law. There is no way to sustain energy indefinitely. All processes go to equilibrium and all processes reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time.How do you reconcile your claims of perpetual energy and non-ending processes with the second law?

quote:

---

The work that Omnipotent god, Jehovah does never renders his energy less than his creation, the recipient of his energy.

---

That's a direct violation of the second law. Some energy is always lost. How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?

quote:

---

This is likely effected via the recycling of energy within the system thus rendering it a perpetual system, nevertheless compatible to 2LoT.

---

No, this is a direct violation of the second law. In all processes, some energy is lost and thus, energy can never be perpetually cycled.

quote:

---

That's all it is, but I'm vehement in claiming that status for it.

---

But it violates physics at every step. You have yet to explain how you can reconcile your claims with everything we have ever measured.Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

As I've tried to convey throughout this thread is that my hypothesis is unique in that it involves aspects which conventional science refuses to research for consideration, the possibility of higher dimension of existence in the universe.

---

But that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the energy goes. First law of thermodynamics directly states that everything has to go somewhere. Thus, it doesn't matter where it goes so long as it is accounted for.And combined with the second law, that necessarily means that all physical processes necessarily reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time. There is not an infinite amount of energy. Since all energy must be accounted for and since every physical process results in an irrevocable loss of energy, then all processes eventually reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time.

quote:

---

The conventional BB T<0, implies energy emerging from nothing which defies all LoTs in the temporal BB model,

---

Incorrect. In fact, just the opposite is true. The reason that we have the theories about the inflation of the universe is precisely because we were looking for a model that satisfies the laws of physics.Are you seriously claiming that scientists would develop a model of the universe that directly violates the very laws they use every day?This is part of the reason why I have asked you directly what you think of the Turok-Hawking instanton. As Turok describes it: Are you saying that Turok and Hawking just happened to forget about thermodynamics when they were verifying that the physics still worked?

quote:

---

Imo, neither POV is falsifiable

---

You mean COBE and WMAP and PLANCK were just figments of the imagination?

quote:

---

Imo, mine is the more compatible POV relative to 2LoT.

---

Incorrect. Your violates the laws of thermodynamics at every turn. Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

Both POVs have arguments pro and con as well as corroborative evidence to cite, neither of which constitutes falsifiability.

---

You mean COBE and WMAP and PLANCK were just figments of the imagination? There was no reason why they had to return results in line with big bang cosmology.

quote:

---

Conventional science refuses to even consider mine or allow discussion and debate in media, conventional education, etc so mine is the only one of the two POVs which is not given consideration.

---

That's because it directly contradicts established science without explaining how to reconcile the two. Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

Turok's instanton did not come from virtually nothing. It came from the absence of anything.

​

That I have a problem with.

---

But you haven't read your own source: Now, if you have a problem with it, you're going to have to explain why. "I don't like the implications on a gut level" is not sufficient. You're going to have to explain why the mathematical structure is insufficient because their entire theory rests upon the mathematics aligning with observation.The universe did inflate. We can measure it. Their theory seeks to explain how the inflation happened.

quote:

---

The physics law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.

---

And their theory does not violate that. What part of "the equations of physics work everywhere" are you having trouble with? Are you saying that Tuork and Hawking simply forgot to verify against thermodynamics? It is more likely that they overlooked such a basic concept than it is that you don't understand the physics and thus don't understand why it doesn't violate thermodynamics?

quote:

---

Turok himself said his instanton could not exist.

---

Incorrect. What he said was that you can't have the instanton without everything else. Once again, you're quote-mining. That statement comes after a long setup that describes a range of all possible universes and it just so happens that their model eliminates all of the ones that don't look like ours: The entire point is to develop a theory of cosmogenesis that results in a universe that includes gravity, matter, space, and time. If your theory creates universes that don't have one of those things, you're going to have to explain why we got one that does.

quote:

---

So how could it happen if all four were missing.

---

Because that wasn't what he was saying.You need to stop quote-mining and start reading.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

Inflation: hard to verify.

​

Inflation: Hard to falsify.

---

"Hard" does not mean "impossible." What do you think the supercollider is for? It is being built so that we might find the predicted Higgs boson which would validate supersymmetry and, by extension, inflationary cosmology.What do you think COBE, WMAP, and PLANCK are about? As the European Space Agency describes it: Your source is from 2001. What makes you think the state of the science has remained stagnant? WMAP only went up in 2001 and we didn't have results until the next year(and it's still up there, looking.)As NASA put it when it released the five-year results from WMAP: Are you saying that WMAP doesn't exist?Why don't you know about these things? You need to stop researching in attempts to quote-mine and start researching to learn the actual state of the science. The reason we go with inflationary models of the big bang is because all the evidence is pointing in that direction.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

I believe non-zero would apply only to math and not (abe: directly) to space, energy, forces or matter, i.e. existing things.

---

Existence is necessarily mathematical. And at this level of physics, the only way you can describe things is mathematically.That's why we use the mathematical "jargon" when doing real physics.Mathematics is reality.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't know what else to say than what I've already said.

---

You could start by actually answering the questions rather than simply making bare assertions. Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

You also appear to be ignoring my model which factors in omnipotent ID creator mangement

---

Incorrect. I have done nothing but respond to it:This "omnipotent ID creator management" is a direct violation of the second law. Why do you think I keep asking, "How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law"?There are no perfect engines. Energy cannot be converted entirely into work. Some energy is always irrevocably lost to entropy. Since there is not an infinite amount of energy, this necessarily means that all reactions will reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time as all energy eventually gets lost to entropy.Your god hypothesis, though, violates that by allowing god to reclaim that energy in direct conflict with the second law.

quote:

---

with relative stable entropy and source of energy always greater; i.e. A always greater than B.

---

That's a violation of the second law. There is no such thing as "stable entropy." There are no perfect engines, some energy is always irrevocably lost to entropy.Why do you think I keep asking what would happen if we hooked your engine up to a refrigerator?

quote:

---

None of your education ever considered this model.

---

Incorrect. The entire basis of thermodynamics has to do with trying to find perpetual motion. As said in BC: Before Carnot. A Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics: Until you understand what is impossible, you cannot understand the limit of the possible.Are you familiar with the work of Laplace and Lavoisier? How they developed "caloric theory"? Why it was discarded? Does the image of a cannon bore being drilled underwater mean anything to you?If not, how on earth do you know what "my" education has considered?

quote:

---

Imo, you have yet to refute my claim that it is more thermodynamically compatible than your temporal (time related; not eternal) model.

---

Incorrect. I have asked you how you reconcile your claims with the second law. Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

As with your model, I'm admitting that mine also has some unknowns.

---

It isn't a question of unknowns. It's a question of directly violating established physics.How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

Instantons were developed in physics. Math

---

And this is a problem why? At this level of physics, everything is done as math because everything is math.

quote:

---

Turok said: "But the wonderful property of OUR NEW instanton is that it automatically turns itself into an infinite, inflating open universe.

​

This is not Math it is a physical happening of creating matter out of the absence of anything.

---

Huh? You seem to be upset that Turok was following the scientific method: You work with observations, make testable hypotheses, and adjust your work in light of the new outcomes which make new predictions in a never-ending cycle.Physics is applied math. What do you think velocity is? It's the derivative of position with respect to time. Acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time. Impulse is the derivative of acceleration with respect to time.There's a common joke, seen on the t-shirts of thousands of physics geeks: The universe runs on math. There's a reason that there is a discipline of physics called "mathematical physics." Two courses from my own undergrad:Computational Methods in Physics: Typical numerical methods for solving a wide range of problems of current interest in physics. Examples are drawn from mechanics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, solid state, and chemical physics.General Relativity and Cosmology: The principle of equivalence, Riemannian geometry, and the Schwarzschild and cosmological solutions of the field equations.There's a reason that the core curriculum was a year of chemistry (with lab), a year of physics (with lab), and two years of math. You cannot do higher science without a strong foundation in mathematics because the world works because of math. The most interesting problems in physics are exercises in solving differential equations.

quote:

---

You did notice that Turok's instanton could not exist without gravity, matter, space and time.

---

More quote mining. I responded to this (and I know you haven't gotten to it, but it only shows just how perfidious your quote-mining is) in Message 233: In short, you're completely missing the point.

quote:

---

Turok's instanton started inflation not described it.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?What on earth do you think "started inflation" means? How on earth do you know you have inflation if you cannot describe it?Besides, you just contradicted yourself. You wrote in Message 215: But now you're saying that the work of Turok and Hawking isn't describing inflation. Well, which is it? Do we have a description of inflation or don't we? When physicists talk about "inflation," they aren't referring to just a vague notion of "really fast expansion." They are talking about a physical process described mathematically.And it becomes even more clear that you haven't read your own source. Turok goes on and on about how he was dissatisfied with various descriptions of inflation: How much more of this paper do I have to quote at you before you sit down and read it?

quote:

---

Inflation is what happened to the instanton.

---

You realize you just contradicted yourself, yes? You wrote just before that:

quote:

---

Turok's instanton started inflation not described it.

---

If the instanton "started" inflation, then inflation can't be "what happened" to it.And once again, you show you haven't read your own source: And even more directly: If that isn't a direct indication that the instanton results in inflation, I shudder to think what more you need.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You did actually read your own source, didn't you?

---

​

I did. But I am not sure you did you?

---

(*chuckle*)I have manually transcribed a quarter of this paper into this thread and somehow I'm the one who hasn't read it. I'm suddenly reminded of the quote from A Fish Called Wanda (to paraphrase a bit):Apes do read philosophy. They just don't understand it.You have to stop reading for gotchas and start reading for content.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

2. What is there to equalize, i.e. an A and B, for a temporal expansion universe having no outside of and a finite past direction (abe: so as to render) it compatible to 2LoT?

---

What makes you think the inflation or the expansion of the universe are thermodynamic acts?There's nothing to "equalize." No thermodynamic activity took place.The inflation and the expansion of the universe are not acts of energy exchange. They are inherent properties of space. The reason the distance between galaxies is increasing is not because they are moving (which would be an act of energy exchange). It is because the space between them is expanding.Back to the balloon analogy. If you have two points on a balloon and the balloon expands, the two points on the balloon become further apart...but they didn't move (not in relation to each other, at any rate). Instead, the space between them expanded.There is nothing to "equalize" with thermodynamics concerning the inflation or expansion of the universe because the inflation and expansion of the universe aren't thermodynamic events.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

The problem I see and have repeatedly posed throughout this thread with your theory, is that the the expansion allegedly came to be from T<0

---

Huh? You seem to be talking about the inflationary period but the word you used was "expansion." You do know that inflation and expansion are completely different things, yes?When you figure out what you're talking about, please let us know.And "T<0"? What on earth does that mean? There is no such thing as "T<0" in standard cosmology.

quote:

---

Your thermodynamic related theory contradicts all of the observed scientific LoTs.

---

Huh? Thermodynamic theory contradicts the laws of thermodynamics? What on earth does that mean?Do you mean that the inflation of the universe violates thermodynamics? Once again, I ask you directly:What makes you think the inflation of the universe was a thermodynamic process? Once again, we go back to the balloon analogy:If you have two spots on the surface of a balloon and it inflates, the two spots move apart. However, no thermodynamic activity has taken place. Work is force through a distance, but neither of the spots have moved any distance. Instead, the space itself has increased.

quote:

---

Such unfalsifiable claims are never tolerated on behalf of creationists positions.

---

Huh? We can measure the inflation of the universe directly. What do you think COBE, WMAP, and PLANCK are about? You claim it is "unfalsifiable," and yet we have hard data concerning it. How does that make it "unfalsifiable"? We ran an experiment that could have falsified it. Isn't that the definition of "falsifiable"?We can measure the expansion of the universe directly. What do you think the red-shift is? You claim it is "unfalsifiable," and yet we have hard data concerning it. How does that make it "unfalsifiable"? We ran an experiment that could have falsified it. Isn't that the definition of "falsifiable"?

quote:

---

On the otherhand my (BBUH/Buzsaw Biblical Universe Hypothesis) of infinite energy

---

Hold on just a parboiled second there."Infinite energy"? Where did that come from? Is this a subtle attempt to move the goalposts?

quote:

---

infinite energy does not contradict observed scientific LoTs

---

Ahem: Infinite energy is most definitely a violation of thermodynamics as well as simple observation. If there were infinite energy, the universe would be naught but plasma......and once again the universe would be at equilibrium. Infinite equilibrium, to be sure, but equilibrium nonetheless. Since the universe is clearly not at equilibrium, then clearly there is not infinite energy.

quote:

---

in that energy is transfered, not created.

---

That's a direct violation of the second law.There are no perfect engines.Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Where has it has been empirically established that my hypothesis does not comply with all of the LoTs?

---

In every single one of my posts to you.Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

'm questioning the falsifiability of BB conventional theory which is prevalently tolerated.

---

We have run multiple experiments to measure the inflation of the universe. How does that result in a claim of "unfalsifiable"?What do you think the cosmic background radiation is? Are you claiming that COBE and WMAP were frauds? That PLANCK is a figment?

quote:

---

The BBUH involves transferred energy.

---

Direct violation of the second law. There are no perfect engines as your claims require.Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

If you think that is the case then you need to empirically refute my argument. You haven't done that yet.

---

COBE, WMAP, PLANCK, and the red-shift all empirically refute your argument. The laws of thermodynamics empirically refute your argument.When are you going to respond to that?Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

I don't buy all that I've been told just as you don't.

---

So help us out by giving us your description of what the second law says. I've given my description. Where is yours? Clearly we don't think the second law says the same thing. I think it means that entropy always increases in real physical processes. I think it means there are no perfect engines. I think it means there are no perfect refrigerators. I think it means that S = Q/T.What do you think it means?Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

I've done some research on the perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind such as
this

​

Could a machine have 100% efficiency?

---

No. There are no perfect engines. That's what the second law says.

quote:

---

Perpetual motion machines of the second kind operate by extracting energy at some point in their cycle, use it for work, yet have everything return to an original state unchanged at the end of the cycle.

---

Direct violation of the second law. In every physical process, some energy is always and irrevocably lost to entropy.Don't believe me? Then here's a simple test:What would happen if we hooked up your engine to a refrigerator?I've asked you that question at least half a dozen times and so far, you have never answered. It's time to put up or shut up.What would happen if we hooked up your engine to a refrigerator?

quote:

---

The source of energy would be the supreme designer/creator who would be the ocean full of energy and creation, the ship.

---

Direct violation of the second law. There are no perfect engines.What would happen if we hooked up your engine to a refrigerator?

quote:

---

Note the word, usually. The BBUH is unusual such as a perpetual machine of the 2nd time.

---

Didn't you read your own source? Note the word "supposedly." That's because even this type of perpetual motion machine is a direct violation of the second law. There is no way to sustain motion while losing energy. There are no perfect engines.

quote:

---

The BBUH is hypothetical since it factors in the LoTs

---

Incorrect. It is a direct violation of both the first and second laws.Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

mathematical probabilities

---

Incorrect. You haven't provided any math at all.

quote:

---

observance of complex design

---

What does that have to do with anything, Franklin? [bonus points if you catch the reference.]We're talking about cosmology. If you're talking about the superstructure of the universe, that's what quantum cosmology is all about and what was directly measured by COBE and WMAP and will be even more closely studied by PLANCK.

quote:

---

since there is a reasonable amount of corroborative evidence for the credibility of the Biblical record

---

Incorrect. The Bible is actually a pretty piss poor guide to history. By your logic, we should accept the Greek myths regarding creation since "there is a reasonable amount of corroborative evidence for the credibility of the Iliad and the Odyssey whether antagonists want to admit that or not."

quote:

---

I have been often obligated to answer repetitive responses to my messages.

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!Well, to be fair, you have, indeed, been obligated to answer repetitive responses to your messages.But the reason why they're repetititive is because you have failed to live up to your obligations. You have yet to answer a single direct question put to you.Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

Though my time is limited I do the best I can in that regard.

---

Why is it you have the time to respond to dozens of posts but no time to answer direct questions put to you? If you respond to nothing else in this post, respond to these direct questions:How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.