Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

quote:

---

I suppose that would be so if you used the Wikipeda definition of finite.

---

I don't need any special meaning of "finite". It is clearly true that the obvious place to set the zero point of the scale is at the very beginning.

quote:

---

So would you please explain to me how time could be non-zero and not reach eternally into the past and future.

---

So your number system includes only zero and plus or minus infinity ? That must make doing your taxes very difficult.

quote:

---

If there was something it had to exist in some form eternally into the past.

---

Since we are discussing the case where the past is NOT infinite, that is necessarily false. Nothing can stretch eternally into the past when the past itself is finite.It would be simpler to state that at the beginning point there must be either something or nothing. Buz asserts (without giving any reason) that it must be nothing.

quote:

---

Anything past T=10-43 requires faith. Because all science can say is we don't know.

---

Which confirms my point that it is possible that there was "something".

quote:

---

1. Any temporal (not eternal) universe must have a beginning point. Right?

---

It's still not clear what you mean by "temporal". You are going to have to actually explain it.

quote:

---

2. Since a temporal (not eternal) universe MUST have a beginning, all forces, energy, matter and spacetime had to have began to exist, i.e. had a point of beginning. Right?

---

Wrong. If there is no point in time when they did NOT exist, then they did not have a beginning in any sense that would concern the laws of thermodynamics. As I already pointed out.

quote:

---

3. How does the above temporal (not eternal) universe comply with any of the observed laws of science?

---

Very easily, as shown above. It's your universe that has the problem. Are you ready to deal with that point other than by asserting otherwise in the teeth of the facts ?

I'll be away for a week so I expect this thread to be over (with no real progress to show for it) by the time I get back

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?

---

So far as I can tell this seems to assume that all expansion is the equalisation of external and internal pressure (ignoring the role of internal forces- which, for instance, dominate the expansion of a star as it enters the Red Giant stage) - and state that as the 2LoT. While expansion to equalise external and internal pressure can be taken as an example of the 2LoT in action it would be utterly wrong to say that there is a law that all expansion must be due to the equalisation of internal and external pressure - let alone to confuse that bogus "law" with the 2LoT. Here's a text on the 2LoT. Note the 3rd statement carefully, since it is the one that you have contradicted - and need to deal with if you wish to honestly claim that your "hypothesis" is consistent with the 2LoT. (Fully reversible processes are rare, so you cannot validly appeal to that as an escape. Any universe with an infinite past must either be radically different from ours, and be restricted to fully reversible processes for all but a finite period of the infinite past, or entropy will be maximised).