Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

I do understand this. But I don't think it is very helpful in terms of considering the question at hand.It is a matter of perspective. That which we call time is as much a part of our universe as is space. If we think of ourselves as beings on the surface of an expanding balloon then from the perspective of those inhabiting this universe the questions 'what came before the beginning of time' or 'when did time start' have no real meaning (North of the North pole etc. etc. and all those other frequently made analogies)However as humans we are blessed with imagination and abstract thought.So we can consider our expanding universe not from the point of view of a dweller within the universe restricted to considering time within that universe alone. Instead we can consider this from the perspective where we are removed and external from it.We can watch our expanding model expanding in 'time' that is external,as are we, to the model itself much as we might watch a balloon expand in ral time and space. If we consider this perspective with this external 'time' -We can ask ourselves what happened at T=0
We can ask what happened 'before' T=0Whether this abstract way of looking at the universe bears an even vague relation to any sort of reality or not and whether these questions therefore have any meaning even from this perspective is another quetion. Either way we ceratinly don't have any answers at the moment.Most models of the unverse are described from the perspective of an observer exteral to the expanding universe. Theories of a multiverse also rely on this sort of perspective.It therefore seems unfair to me to lambast those who ask questions like 'what was there before T=0' for failing to appreciate that from our limited real life perspective there can exist no such thing. Whilst accurate I dont think it reflects the models and perspective we are asking to be considered.

Buz this just is not true.Why do you think we spend so much time, money and effort mapping the CMB? We do it to test our theories of cosmology.
Why do we spend so much time, money and effort building ever more powerful particle accelorators? We do this to test our theories of space, time and matter.The Big Bang and inflationary variant model both make highly detailed predictions about what should be observed if the model is true.
Observations have been found to match these predictions. To an incerdibly high degree of accuracy. This process is ongoing.These predictions do not require interpretation of existing data. They tell us exactly what new data should reveal. The data that has subsequently been investigated has been found to be perfectly in line with these predictions.What predictions do creationist theories make about new cosmological data? What tests do creationists apply to their ideas of cosmology to test them?This is the difference between a scientifically verified theory and a mere hypothesis. Testing of theories. Verification by detailed and specific prediction. Not simply best guess methods of explaining away known phenomenon based on whatever sounds personally plausible. Since you so readily admit that your POV is unfalsifiable and you must surely recognise that it does not even warrant the term hypothesis? Never mind any serious consideration as a scientific theory.Your POV and the scientific consensus regarding cosmology are utterly incomparable in terms of evidence by any remotely objective standard.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Do you know of any non-creation science where the hypotheses in question are considered inherently impossible to test?A fairly fundamental concept with regard to hypotheses is that they can be tested and further investigated and therefore ultimately either be verified or refuted.
If you are forming 'hypotheses' where you totally acknowledge the impossibility of falsification from the very beginning they don't really even warrent the term 'hypothesis'.Instead you just have highly subjective untestable guesses based on a deeply personal wish fulfilment based extrapoloation of existing evidence.
In the specific case of your proposal it isn't even based on the evidence that does exist. Rather it is a series of implausible 'what ifs' that force the known evidence into a predefined philosophical position.
That is isn't science. It is a recipe for nonsense.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Buz. Force fitting evidence as it is found into a preconceived and unfalsifiable world view and claiming it as supporting evidence for aforementioned world view is not a reliable method of drawing conclusions, is not science and is quite obviously a circular method by which all sorts of nonsense can be justified.Theories have to be tested. Hypotheses have to be refutable.The BB theory and inflation have made very specific predictions about new data. These predictions have been verified. These are tested theories. These are scientific theories.
You have repeatedly failed to adddress this very key difference between your POV and the accepted scientific position in relation to the subject at hand.Simply taking the data that these theories predicted once the data has been discovered and finding alternate explanations that fit a preconceived view of the world is a pointless game that any idiot can play. Simply commandeering the results predicted by other theories when they are verified and describing these as supporting your own philosophical position is pretty outrageous and evidence of nothing but the scientific inferiority of your position.
Is there any conceivable evidence that you could not force to fit this 'hypothesis' of yours? What science aspects?
Who are the many?Are 'the many' by any chance those who share the same Christian creationist world view as yourself? Those happy to accept this untesetd and untestable POV on faith? Is that who you mean?Buz - Science has a method of evaluating rival theories. Thories make predictions regarding new data and if one of the theories makes accurate predictions and the other does not we have a 'winner' theory. The history of science is littered with examples of this. BB and inflation have passed this test. They are 'winners' in the selective process of scientific theories.Science is not the act of collecting facts and then working out how you can arrange these facts to support a predefined philosophical position. This is the very antithesis of scientific investigationHowever this is exactly what you are doing.Your 'hypothesis' remains untested and untestable. It does not even warrant the name hypothesis. It certainly does not deserve to be considered as a meaningful rival to the highly tested theories of established science.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Erm. Science does. An irrefutable "hypothesis" does not warrant the name hypthesis. A hypothesis by it's very nature is something that requires testing and can be refuted as a result. An irrefutable "hypothesis" is like a television without a screen. Yes Buz. Tested. Conclusions tested by prediction. Predictions that have indeed been verified.The existence and the predicted value of the CMB was theoretically predicted based on the logical consequences of the Big Bang model before it was actually discovered or measured.
If the CMB had not been present or the measured value of the CMB had been radically different to that preeicted the BB theory as we know it would have been refuted. It was not refuted. It was verified. By prediction and verification.The findings of WMAP, COBE etc. etc. verify the prediction made by inflation regarding the distribution of the CMB. These CMB experiments and particle accelerator experiments both requiring millions of dollars and the time and effort of some of the keenest minds on the planet are ongoing. Their very purpose is to test the theories, hypotheses and models made by science regarding cosmology and the nature of time, space and matter.
Testable predictions. Refutable predictions. The result of painstaking thought and analysis by some of the greatest minds on the planet after years of training but whose theories we still test by prediction, observation and experimentation before considering them valid. Because that is the nature of science and hypotheses.Why is this so hard for you to understand?What you are doing here is the equivelenet of someone who has never read or considered the bible previously skimming through your holy book for a couple of hours before writing their own version. In this version all the sections of the OT that the author finds distasteful are abondoned and all the parts that rely on the miraculous are also ommitted because they are incompatible with the philosophical bias of the author. We are left with a short story about a nice bloke called Jesus who tells us we should love each other.
You and your church are then asked to abandon the bible as unnecessary and take up this rewritten version in it's place.What would be your reaction to this?
Do you not understand why what you are doing here is directly analogous to this?

Have you considered a zero energy universe?Is this what you are getting at?http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.htmlThis hypothesis is consistent with all observable evidence and the tested theories of expansion and inflation whilst seeming to overcome the problems that your 'theory' is designed to overcome. Although an untested hypothesis this, unlike your "theory" is not in direct violation of the laws of physics as we know them, the observed evidence or the established and tested theories of cosmology.I would be interested in your thoughts.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Off the cuff my thoughts are that eternity is an abstract concept with no empirical evidence to validate it.
And yet you think your "hypthesis" is sensible, logical and scientific? Despite the fact it breaks the known laws of physics and contradicts observation and disagrees with the tested predictions of establlished cosmology? But BB theory says nothing about the issues you insist are it's downfall!! If you want to claim God at T=10^-43 then science will not argue with you.Personally I think you are setting yourself up for a fall should you do such a thing but that remains to be seen.BB theory and inflationary theory say nothing about T<10^-43 secs. Yet your whole argument is based on T=0 and "before". You are not arguing with established science you are inventing strawmen at every turn.The hypothesis I have outlined to you does cover these issues. Therefore it is directly relevant. An eternal universe is by definition a perpetual motion machine. No? If not why not? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Oh for the love of God......You do not have corroborating evidence for anything. You don't even have a hypothesis if by definition you are unable to test any of it.
You simply have some misunderstandings of physics cobbled together to justify your preconceived religious requirement for an eternal universe. Where is your empirical evidence for your key concept of "eternity"?
The Big Bang theory has been tested against it's predicted measurable results.
The Big Bang theory has been verified by the accuracy of these predictions.Your "hypothesis", by your own admission, cannot ever be tested.
You continue to ignore this fundamental and key difference because it is inconvenient for you ro acknowledge.
It pretty much wipes out your whole argument.TALKING AT CROSS PURPOSES
The issues that you have with BB theory do not really relate to BB theory at all.
You seem to want to know what happened at (or more accurately what "caused") T=0
You seem to want to know "what" was "there" at "T<0" and how the energy that you assume the universe has now was initially "created".Is this a fair summary of your position with regard to why the BB theory is inadequate?The problem is that BB theory doesn't claim to say anything about T=0 other than infer it's logical existence.
By the very definition of BB theory TNothing is said of how this small hot dense universe came to "be" or what it was like prior to this point.
I don't think you have graspd this. Hence the frustrations and talking at cross purposes that endlessly occurs on this topic in general.If you want to consider T=0 or "T"<0 you are entering the world of multiverses, branes, quantumly fluctuating universes and like. none these things any scientist worth name would describe as anything but speculation potential hypotheses until we can think a way to test such theories.
if want explain away with god i personally disagree (on basis that is road nowhere) neither us have evidence either way. yet.however definitely do know (by virtue predictions tested results) universe has expanded from very small, hot dense state. it continues expand. this all indisputable based on continue acquire. no matter ow much philosophically object.if claim existed in hot, state for "eternity" "time" external our univere before expanding it's current size so your eternal be happy then find illogical was not actually case.we nothing about t<0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds
we don't t<0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001so if dispute bb theory need claims (and successfully predicted makes t>0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.Any problems you have with BB theory that relate to anything before this point in time are not part of current BB theory and BB theory is not therefore what you are actually disputing with your 2LoT argument.For this argument you do need to consider things like zero energy universes which are indeed unconfirmed and speculative.I hope that this makes things clearer to you and explains why some of us are getting so frustrated at your attacks on BB theory regarding things that BB makes noreal claims about.

Sigh......
These are not tests Buz. Why is this so darn hard for you to understand?
I could analyse each of these in turn and rip them apart individually but the main thing you are missing here is the very concept of scientific 'test'.You have simply listed the dispirate elements that you are basing your nonsense on and relabelling them 'tests'. Most of these boil down to arguments of incredulity on your part with regard to what you mistakenly think BB theory actually is. The rest are interpretations of biblical stories which are about as reliable as a newspaper horoscope entry in any remotely objective terms.To test a conclusion you need to work out the impications of that conclusion (ideally specify an actual measurable quantity or predict the existence of a new physical phenomenon) and then determine whether or not the predictions of your theory are true or not. New and as yet unknown phenomenon and measuremnts are the result. Theories of nature need to be tested against the realities of nature.Your whole argument can be summed up - "I know what the bible tells me. T=0 makes no sense to me. By picking and choosing some misunderstood concepts in physics I can justify to myself an eternal universe just as my bible tells me" QED.BB theory effectively starts at T=10^-43secs
T=0 is logically inferred from BB theory but current cosmological models really say nothing about anything before T=10^-43sec
If you want to discuss perceived problems with BB theory you need to tackle the predictions conclusions and observations that BB theory is based on. Conclusions that have been scientifically verified by means of predicted results. Conclusions that do not say anything about T=0 other than logically infer it's existence.
The expansion of the universe from a very small, very hot, very dense state and it's ongoing expansion have been proved about as conclusively as you get within science.All your problems with BB theory relate to T=0 and TTheories of nature need to be tested against the realities of nature. The scientific testing of theories involves predicting new results that are a direct consequence of the theory in question and then verifying these against nature itself.Have you done this with you "hypothesis"? Quite obviously not. Hence the fact it remains a mish mash of ill understood concepts held together by your overarching desire to make nature fit your personal interpretation of biblical text.The reason we test the conclusions of theories against nature it to avoid such obviously subjective pitfalls.BTW I think Rhain has some questions he wants you to answer......

Buz
It seems to me that you are not actually interested in the BB theory at all.
You are only really interested in T=0 and "before". About which BB theory says little or nothing.The conclusions, predictions and verified results of current BB cosmological theory irrefutably (with a quick nod to the necessary tentativity of all science) tell us that the universe expanded to it's present state from a very small, very hot and very dense previous state billions of years ago. The same forms of evidence and tested results also tell us that the universe continues to expand.
Nothing you have said addresses this evidence or these conclusions.Nor has any of the above much of anything to do with T=0, 2LoT or any of the objections you have raised.I have started a thread to explore the T=0 and "before" issue -
http://EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe -->EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe
Feel free to join in there.I suggest that the remainder of this thread we spend concentrating on the validity of your own hypothesis on it's own merits rather than further pointlessly comparing it to your misapprehensions of BB theory.There are only 30 or so posts left so giving expliict and detailed answers to Rrhain's repeated questions regarding your "hypotheis" would seem the obvious way to progress. I also have a couple of questions of my own -1) How does your model explain the CMB?
2) What value for the CMB does your model predict and on what basis is this calculated?
3) How does your model explain the abundance of light elements?
3) How does your model explain the apparent lumpiness of the universe?
4) What are black holes and how do they form according to the BBUH? (or if there are no black holes according to BBUH what are the sources of such observed apparently massive gravitational effects)
5) What is the ultimate fate of the universe given that gravity is slowly attracting all matter to all other matter?
6) What is the ultimate fate of the universe given that entropy is forever increasing?I look forward to your answers.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

ICANT
It seems to me that you are not actually interested in the BB theory at all.
You are only really interested in T=0 and "before". About which BB theory says little or nothing.The conclusions, predictions and verified results of current BB cosmological theory irrefutably (with a quick nod to the necessary tentativity of all science) tell us that the universe expanded to it's present state from a very small, very hot and very dense previous state billions of years ago. The same forms of evidence and tested results also tell us that the universe continues to expand.
Nothing you have said addresses this evidence or these conclusions.Nor has any of the above much of anything to do with T=0, 2LoT or any of the objections you have raised.I have started a thread to explore the T=0 and "before" issue -
http://EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe -->EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe
Feel free to join in there.I suggest that the remainder of this thread we spend concentrating on the validity of Buz's hypothesis on it's own merits rather than further pointlessly comparing it to various misapprehensions of BB theory.

You are utterly confusing an empirically verified theory of cosmological evolution with a theory of cosmological origins. I started the second thread on cosmological origins because that seems to be what you and ICANT are actually interested in. It is indeed an interesting subject. But not one that BB theory makes any real claims to answer.
The expansion of the universe and it's prior very hot, very small, very dense state are all but indisputable based on observational evidence and verified prediction.Anyway........ To the best of my ability I will try and thoroughly answer your questions (I am happy to be corrected on anything by our resident experts). Not really no. Time is a dimension. Time is part of space-time. Strictly speaking time starts with the Big Bang so there can be no T<0. Purely in terms of the Big Bang theory the question you ask makes no sense.
There are however some highly speculative theories of cosmological origins involving the multiverse, branes, instantons and other such things in which you might consider a sort of "time" external to the universe. In that sense you could conceivably talk about a "before" the Big Bang. There are also highly speculative theories about the universe being the result of a "previous" 'Big Crunch in which case again you could conceivably talk about an abstract "before" I suppose.
But none of these are part of BB theory. Nobody claims to have any empirical evidence of such things as yet and nobody claims to have any answers as yet.
By objecting to evidence based BB theories of cosmological evolution with continual reference to TCurrent evidence based cosmological models make no real claims whatsoever about any time prior to the Planck time. Including T=0.
In terms of current evidence based cosmological models the very term T<0 makes no sense at all.
Current evidence based cosmological models tell us how the universe evolved from a very small, very hot, very dense prior state. It seems that you think that there is a great anti-religious philosophical conspiracy at the source of BB theory. A conspiracy so huge that every physicist in the world is willing to forego one of the most basic principles of their discipline in order to advocate a theory that so obviously violates this principle in an immense and ongoing anti-God cover-up. This is quite evidently not the case but I doubt that anything anyone says is going to convince you otherwise. However I will try and answer your question at face value as best I can.The expansion of space-time is itself not a thermodynaic event. No work is being done. No energy is being expended. The expansion of space-time is the expansion of space and time not the creation of energy as you seem to be implying. BB theory is a theory of the universe and it's expansion from a very small, very hot, very dense state. BB theory is perfectly consistent with the 1st LoT in that the total amount of energy within the universe remains constant (i.e. the equations of GR are time symmetric thus energy is conserved) at all times as the universe expands.
Again I suspect your objection to all of this is more to do with T=0 and the question of where any overall energy in the universe might have originated from. Again I refer you to the alternate thread setup to discuss such speculations regarding the origin of the universe and related subjects. Again I state that current, evidence based and scientifically verified, BB cosmological models make no claims about the origins of the universe.
However you do need to realise that -The (ongoing) expansion of the universe from a prior very hot, very small, very dense state is completely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. 1st Law
Well if your "hypothesis" involves a beginning to the universe you break the 1st law in exactly all the ways that you seem to be accusing naturalistic theories of cosmological origins doing. Does the universe have energy overall? If so where did this energy come from? etc. etc. All you are presumably doing is invoking God as the source of any energy creation? But any sort of energy creation violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. You could just as well state that God started the Big Bang.
If you are claiming that the universe had no beginning because it is literally eternal (has always been and always will be) then you do (sort of) circumvent any problems with the 1st law but you definitely fall foul of the 2nd law.2nd Law
In a closed system entropy increases over time. Therefore a universe that has existed for eternity will by definition be in a state of maximum entropy. In terms of the universe this would mean complete cosmological equilibrium. No stars, no galaxies, no planets, no life. Just space time and random particles in the complete thermodynamic equilibrium of absolute zero (or actually slightly above AZ).
Unless God is providing energy from "outside" (in which case the 1st LoT would be being broken and energy within the universe would not be conserved) the second law tells us what the universe would most definitely not be in the state we observe it to be.
Your claims of an eternal universe in a non-maximum entropy state are effectively claims of a perpetual motion machine. Perpetual motion machines are an impossibility according to the 2nd LoT (Don't confuse perpetual motion machines with "perpetual" motion machines which ultimately require an external energy source)3rd Law
The 3rd LoT tells us that we will never actually reach absolute zero. As described above in an eternal universe of maximum entropy things would be as infitesimally close to AZ as possible. This is quite evidently not what we observe to be the case. This question has no meaning in terms of BB theory where Toutside the remit of that which has been empirically tested. The ongoing expansion of the universe from a prior very hot, very small, very dense state billions of years ago has been empiriaclly verified beyond all reasonable doubt.
How that very hot, very dense, very small state came to exist in the first place nobody knows and no scientist claims to know.Summary
Either your "hypothesis" breaks the laws of thermodynaics or you invoke God at every turn to overcome your violations of the laws of thermodynamics. If you are going to do this you might as well invoke God as the creator of the Big Bang (which of course many do). This, unlike your hypothesis, would at least be consistent with the observed evidence of an expanding universe that has evolved from a very hot, very small, very dense prior state.
BB theory itself is a theory of cosmological evolution not cosmological origins as such. Nothing BB theory claims regarding the present or past states of the universe is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics. BB theory makes no claims about "where" energy, matter, space or time "came from". BB theory makes no real claims about T=0. In terms of BB theory the question of T<0 is literally meaningless. Any such questions are outside the scope of BB theory and are the subject of theories that are highly speculative at best.Final Remarks
I can see why you might think this is a cop-out. It isn't. It is an admission of ignorance. An admission of (hopefully temporary) defeat on the part of science to answer the ultimate question of the origin of the universe. Unlike religion this is how science works. We admit when we don't have an evidence based and empirically tested answer to a given question. The mistake I think people like you make is to think this a weakness of scientific investigation rather than the basis of it's strength.In terms of empirical evidence and prediction BB theory is all but indisputable.
Issues of T=0 and "before" on the other hand are deeply disputable. They are also highly speculative, and have had some of the finest minds on the planet completely perplexed, baffled and bamboozled.
Confusing and conflating empirically tested and verified issues of universe expansion with issues of universe origins does neither your case nor your understanding of the issues involved any good at all.It remains the case that your "hypothesis" makes no predictions, is inherently untestable and explains none of the features of the observed universe (CMB, lumpiness, abundance of light elements etc. etc.) On it's own merits it is about as poor a theory of anything as one could hope to find.I created a thread relating purely to T=0 and cosmological origins so that these isues can be discussed without conflating them with current empirically teetd and verified Big Bang cosmolological models.
http://EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe -->EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy UniverseI again suggest that the remainder of this thread is spent examining your "hypothesis" on it's own merits. Without comparison to continual misapprehensions of BB theory and without any further talk of cosmological origins (which I suggest are speculated upon in the new thread).Any credible theory must, after all, stand on it's own two feet without reference to any other theory. Does BBUH do that? I don't think so. It is up to you to show otherwise.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add linkEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Your whole theory still relies on energy transfer in a closed system (incorporating both your creator and the universe) with no increase in entropy.
This is a clear violoation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
How can you possibly claim otherwise?If you are going to invoke God to explain unknowns or circumvent the laws of physics when inconvenient you might as well at least invoke God in such a way as to be consistent with the observed phenomenon of the universe and the currently known laws of the universe.Your "hypotheis" does neitherYour "hypothesis" violoates the laws of physics.
Your "hypotheis" explains none of the observed phenomenon of the universe.
Your "hypotheis" makes no predictions.
Your "hypotheis" is inherently untestable.
Your "hypotheis" has been formed from a preconceived view of the universe derived from ideology rather than nature.It is hard to think of a worse basis for a theory..............?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In an attempt to avoid wasting what little is left of this thread I would strongly suggest that you go away and read up on the 2nd law of thermodynamics before you post any further responses. I would also suggest you avoid any creationist specific sites on the subject as they are notoriously misinformed. Wiki is the obvious starting point but do also try and find some laymans explanations elsewhere. Explanations that you understand and that are specific to neither side of the whole science vs creation debate.I am going to try and put as simply but as thoroughly as I possibly can in a step by step analysis the basis for the objections to your hypothesis in terms of the 2nd law of thermodynamics -1) A closed system is one where the total amount of energy remains constant. No energy leaves and no energy enters.
2) In the case of your creator + universe hypothesis you have already stated that the 1st LoT applies. There are no other sources of energy and there is nowhere else for energy to be lost. Thus the total amount of energy remains constant (apparently eternally). In thermodynamic terms your creator + universe is a single closed system.
3) Whenever energy is tranformed from one form to another entropy increases (this is the second law of thermodynamics in highly simplistic and summarised form).
4) Energy is being transformed from one form to another continually within the universe (you are doing it now!!!!!).
5) Therefore entropy is continually increasing within the universe (again - you are doing it now!!!!!)
6) If the creator and the universe are one closed system and entropy is increasing within the universe then entropy is increasing within the system as a whole.
7) The only way to avoid this is for the creator to decrease the entropy of the closed system as a whole.
8) This indisputably violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
9) Entropy increases with time, thus without 'magic' to reverse entropy somehow, a universe that has existed for eternity is necessarily in a state of absolute thermodynamic equilibrium. A state of maximum entropy (as in fact is the creator in your hypothetical scenario!!).
10) No useful work can be done. The universe is a lifeless random mass of dispirate particles (as is the creator!!)Nature seeks equilibrium. That in a nutshell is the 2nd law. In eternity equilibrium will be reached. In practical terms equilibrium is no fun at all. It is lifeless and unpredictable. It certainly is not the universe we actually observe. In fact we could not be here to observe it if it were in this state.I can see why you have problems with the perceived "creation" of energy in the BB logically implied T=0 in terms of the 1st LoT. I personally think these are extremely interesting questions that do genuinely deserve discussion. But this is not nearly so simple or common sense as you would like it to be. Nor does it detract from the wealth of evidence that the the universe as we see it has evolved from a very hot, very small, very dense state.
The thread I keep referring you to should (if it ever kicks off) address issues of T=0.Whatever the case - Replacing the empirically tested conclusions of BB theory regarding the expansion and inflation of the universe (a theory that explains the observed features of the universe as necessary requirements of said theory, and which has passed the scientific test of prediction and verification regarding new observable evidence) with a theory that inherently violates the laws of physics and which fails all of the criteria of valid scientific theory in terms of testability and explanation of observed phenomenon...........
Well it just is never going to happen.Until you understand why this is the case without assuming some sort of philosophical bias from the rest of us, I fear that there is no hope for you in terms of understanding and progress on these issues.
This is why Admin is threatening to dismiss you from all future science forums. This is why you feel the need to tread so carefully in the new T=0 thread depsite the fact it's very purpose is to consider speculative and untested scientific theories.Take this as an opportunity to learn. Take this as an opportunity to, as science does, marvel at our knowledge whilst also acknowledging, and indeed revelling in, our ignorance!!Take it easy.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling etc.

Buz. You are not getting it. You need to go away and read up on the 2nd law of thermodynamics and what this actually means in everyday practical terms. Everything you do every single day increases the entropy of the universe. Entropy increase is not limited to large scale cosmological phenomenon.What you are calling "managing" the energy of the universe is indisputably reducing the entropy of the universe. There are no two ways about it. No matter what words you use to describe your process.In a closed system entropy is a one way process. No matter how much "managing" is done the 2nd law states that entropy will never ever decrease.
Any reduction in entropy is a violation of the 2nd law.
If your creator reduces the entropy of the closed system then you are invoking 'magic' to defy the known laws of physics.
This is not allowed.BUZ - THE WHOLE POINT OF THE 2ND LAW IS THAT NO MATTER HOW ENERGY IS "MANAGED" ENTROPY WILL ALWAYS INCREASE IN A CLOSED SYSTEMEntropy Increase Example
As you read this you are burning calories and producing heat. This heat energy can never ever ever ever all be recycled back to any form of useful energy no matter how it is "managed". This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Overall entropy increases. Overall entropy never decreases. You personally are causing an increase in the overall entropy of the universe (or universe + creator = isolated system if you will). You are directly causing an overall increase in the entropy of the universal system as a whole (don't take it personally so is everything else )Solutions Problems and More Problems
The only way out of this fix is for the creator to reduce entropy in the universe by expending energy to reverse entropy locally. But this results in a whole set of new problems. It will always require more energy to reverse entropy than the useful energy gained back by this local entropy reversal. Thus the creator would need an external energy source. This would result in the following -1) The 1st law of thermodynamics would be broken as additional energy is continually pumped into the universe to reverse entropy locally.
2) The universe would be literally ablaze with all this extra energy. After an eternity the entire universe would be so hot as to be un-inhabitable. Infinitely hot in fact.
3) What would be the source of this extra energy?
4) If there is an external energy source then any local entropy reduction in the universe will increase entropy in this wider system as a whole.ANY REVERSAL OF LOCAL ENTROPY REQUIRES ADDITIONAL ENERGY AND AN OVERRALL INCREASE IN THE ENTROPY OF THE WIDER SYSTEMIn eternal time maximum entropy within a closed system will be reached. This is the 2nd law of thermodynaics as applied to eternity.
Any claims that your creator somehow avoids this is necessarily a violoation of the second law of thermodynamics.Please please please go and read up on this.
Find your own sources but this talks abouit the entropy of the universe No Way Back! The Second Law of Thermodynamics limits the efficiency of power stations and car engines, predicts the fate of the Universe, provides an arrow of time, and sets conditions on the evolution and continued existence of life | New ScientistEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.