|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
In msg 50 of the Big Bang & Absolute Zero thread I cited what I see as four problematic factors relative to what we will call for the purpose of this thread Singularity Universe Origin Theory (SUOT).
Percy suggested I open a new proposed topic for discussion and debate relative to these cited factors. I decided the best approach would be to pit the SUOT vs what we will call the Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis BBUOH for the purpose of this thread. The BBUOH is as follows: 1. The universe (everything existing) including it's designer, Jehovah, the Biblical god have eternally existed, Jehovah being the omnipotent source, manager and supreme majesty of all of the universe and the energy of it. 2. As per 1LoT the amount of the universe's energy has never increased or decreased. The amount of the universe's energy has always been the same, in, by and through Jehovah the Biblical god. 3. Jehovah has forever been creating, destroying and managing things in the universe according to his own plan and purpose effecting variable states of equilibrium between himself and creation through work. Energy emits from him and sustains his omnipotency as it is emitted from him through work and as it returns to him from what he has created in manifold ways. 4. What Jehovah has created in the universe tends to run down without energy to sustain/empower it as effected through varied means by Jehovah. 5. The BBUOH satisfies all of the scientific LoT which is observed in the universe. Buzsaw's msg 50 of the Big Bang & Absolute Zero thread :
Some problematic factors relative to alleged absolute zero are: 1. There was no place/area in which it could have existed. 2. There was no place/area in which it could have expanded into. 3. There was no time in which it could have existed. 4. It satisfies none of the LOTs. Abe: For the purpose of this thread designate SUOT in place of absolute zero. Perhaps BB & The Cosmos or Biblical Accuracy & Inerrancy forums for this thread? Any other suggestions? Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted in context. Edited by Buzsaw, : change wording BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Buzsaw writes: Perhaps BB & The Cosmos or Biblical Accuracy & Inerrancy forums for this thread? Any other suggestions? The proposal would only be suitable for the religious threads unless the religious content was removed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
How about Social Issues and Creation/Evolution or Faith and Belief?
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Is SUOT falsifiable. If it is, I see these problems as falsifying the SUOT model according to observable science laws.
If it is not falsifiable I see it no more [abe: scientific] than the BBUOH Model.
1. There was no place/area in which it could have existed. 2. There was no place/area in which it could have expanded into. 3. There was no time in which it could have existed. 4. It satisfies none of the LOTs. Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted in context BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
This post has numerous problems.
Firstly is is completely unclear what "SUOT" is meant to refer to. Identifying which mainstream cosmologies are included would be a good start. Secondly the list of alleged problems with "SUOT" is hideously wrong. The only positive point I can get out of it is that you reject the expansion of space and presumably General Relativity. Which would be a problem with the "BBUOH". Finally BBUOH seems to contradict the 2LoT. (Given infinite past time, continuous work being carried out throughout that time, and things "running down" entropy should have been maximised). (We can forget minor errors like the fact that the God of the Bible is not named "Jehovah").
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Multiple problems here:
quote: But the math doesn't show there needs to be a place for it to have existed. The Big Bang did not happen in space. It created space.
quote: Again, the math doesn't show there needs to be a place for it to have expanded into. The Big Bang did not expand into space. It created space.
quote: Again, the math doesn't show there needs to be a time for it to have happened in. The Big Bang did not happen in time. It created time.
quote: Again, the math says differently. Methinks you don't really know anything about thermodynamics. Without looking up the primer I wrote, write out equational examples of the various laws of thermodynamics. Can you derive the Second Law from first principles? Can you then indicate how those laws connect to quantum cosmology? What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton? There is also a problem with your own description of your version:
quote: This would mean that the universe should already be at thermal equilibrium. That's what "eternal" means. All thermodynamic processes achieve equilibrium within a finite amount of time. If the universe is "eternal," then it has existed for an infinite amount of time and no thermodynamic reactions would be possible.
quote: This is a direct violation of the Second Law. Can you think why? Without looking anything up, can you think why? Here, let me help you refresh your memory: Suppose I have an engine running a refrigerator. What would that mean?
quote: So you're saying that the Second Law is actually the hand of god? Would you mind showing us any math to actually support your claims? I am a mathematician. If I can't figure it out directly, I will speak to my astrophysicist friends.
quote: Incorrect. By the description you have proferred, it directly violates the 2LOT as well as drastically ignores what we know from quantum cosmology. Again, would you please provide us with actual math to describe your claims? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Is SUOT falsifiable.
Probably not, because it doesn't exist. There is no scientific theory of the origins of the universe. Any theory that might have a hope would involve quantum gravity, which has yet to be invented/discovered. The Big Bang is a theory of the ancient expansion of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. It develops a mathematical singularity whenever you attempt to push it further back than it can go. It's as simple as that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi Son Goku. Thanks for weighing in here.
Son Goku writes: Probably not, because it doesn't exist. There is no scientific theory of the origins of the universe. Any theory that might have a hope would involve quantum gravity, which has yet to be invented/discovered. The Big Bang is a theory of the ancient expansion of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. It develops a mathematical singularity whenever you attempt to push it further back than it can go. It's as simple as that. 1. Why do you use the term/word origins/plural? Did the expansion have an origin by definition? 2. If the expansion originated but the origin is unknown can the origination of the expansion be falsified?
Online Dictionary: Origin writes:
The point at which something comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Rrhain:
1. If there was no place/area for the expansion to exist, how could it create itself? 2. If the expansion created itself, where did the energy come from to create itself if there was no before? 3. If the above questions are unanswerable, doesn't that make the expansion unfalsifiable? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: Finally BBUOH seems to contradict the 2LoT. (Given infinite past time, continuous work being carried out throughout that time, and things "running down" entropy should have been maximised). 1. My understanding of 2LoT there is no time limit for the application of work to entropy. 2. My understanding of 2LoT is that work can decrease entropy. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Hey, Buz.
Why do you use the term/word origins/plural?
Bad grammar. The universe is a single object so I should just say origin. Just the way I speak.
Did the expansion have an origin by definition?
Good question. It's a bit like starting of a story with an object in mid-air falling to the ground. A object falling to the ground is perfectly consistent with the laws of gravity and motion. However the story leaves it open as to how it all started. Similarly the Big Bang theory begins with the universe going through an expansion. This expansion is consistent with (and required by) General Relativity. However it is left open as to how it began.We know that this expansion itself occured thanks to confirmed predictions from General Relativity and Cosmology, but there is currently no information on: (a)Was it expanding before then? (b)From what? (c)For how long? If that question makes sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: This makes no sense. My point was that if entropy is continuously increasing (at a non-infinitesimal rate) over an infinite time then entropy must reach the maximum possible. Nothing about "time limits" or the "application of work to entropy".
quote: The 2LoT forbids an overall decrease in entropy. That's what it SAYS. It only allows local decreases in entropy at the cost of an equal or greater increase in entropy elsewhere (so overall entropy stays the same or increases).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Buzsaw, lately you seem to have been flinging around the laws of thermodynamics a lot. Would you like to write out for us the mathematical expressions to show us just how exactly do the laws of thermodynamics support your proposed hypothesis? Feel free to spend as much time as you need looking up the laws themselves.
Just so you know, you need calculus to even understand the mathematical expressions of the laws of thermodynamics, let alone applying them. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote: Because there's nothing to stop it. You really don't understand the math and physics involved, do you? You're thinking linearly and anybody who has done any real work in physics would know that the universe is not linear. You have to stop thinking of "anywhere" and "anywhen." The universe does not function that way.
quote: No energy was required. Again, you don't understand the physics and math, do you? The inflation of the universe, the expansion that is still happening (and no, those two things are not the same thing), they do not require energy but are consequences of the physical structure of the universe itself.
quote: False assumption. The above questions are quite answerable and have, indeed, been answered. You simply haven't bothered to learn what they are. I have asked this of you previously (Message 76) and you blew me off. I would like an answer. If you bother to respond to this message, this is the only thing I truly want an answer to: Have you ever had any formal training in physics? I mean real physics that you need calculus to figure out where you did the experiment of suspending a pendulum from the ceiling so you could directly calculate G (the constant of universal gravitation), where you recreated the Millikin experiment to directly measure the charge on an electron, where you measured the spectral lines of hydrogen, that sort of physics. Again, that's high school level stuff. How much physics do you know? Cosmology, on the other hand, is well beyond high school. Have you ever done any work in quatum physics? Calculated the wave-form of an electron? Run the two-slit experiment? When was the last time you had to deal with the calculations involved in a twisted tensor? I asked you this in my message, but apparently you decided to blow it off, too: What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton? The reason I ask these questions is because the questions you are asking show a severe ignorance of how physics works. This isn't something you can "common sense" your way through because the universe does not work the way you think it works. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024