Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 301 (464572)
04-27-2008 10:02 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-27-2008 3:06 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2008 2:17 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 7 by Rrhain, posted 04-29-2008 3:46 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 04-29-2008 11:12 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 19 by lyx2no, posted 04-30-2008 10:33 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 22 by Rahvin, posted 04-30-2008 2:37 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 149 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2008 9:20 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 301 (464604)
04-27-2008 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
04-27-2008 10:02 AM


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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 04-27-2008 10:02 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Buzsaw, posted 04-27-2008 8:25 PM Admin has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 301 (464671)
04-27-2008 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
04-27-2008 3:06 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-27-2008 3:06 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 301 (464687)
04-28-2008 8:53 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 301 (464743)
04-28-2008 11:30 PM


Is SUOT Falsifiable?
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Son Goku, posted 04-29-2008 8:10 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 04-30-2008 2:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 301 (464753)
04-29-2008 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
04-27-2008 10:02 AM


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").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 04-27-2008 10:02 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 04-29-2008 9:09 AM PaulK has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 7 of 301 (464757)
04-29-2008 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
04-27-2008 10:02 AM


Multiple problems here:
quote:
Some problematic factors relative to alleged absolute zero are:
1. There was no place/area in which it could have existed.
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:
2. There was no place/area in which it could have expanded into.
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:
3. There was no time in which it could have existed.
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:
4. It satisfies none of the LOTs.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
5. The BBUOH satisfies all of the scientific LoT which is observed in the universe.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 04-27-2008 10:02 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 04-29-2008 8:58 AM Rrhain has replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 301 (464768)
04-29-2008 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Buzsaw
04-28-2008 11:30 PM


Re: Is SUOT Falsifiable?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 04-28-2008 11:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 04-29-2008 8:43 AM Son Goku has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 301 (464770)
04-29-2008 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Son Goku
04-29-2008 8:10 AM


Re: Is SUOT Falsifiable?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Son Goku, posted 04-29-2008 8:10 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Son Goku, posted 04-29-2008 9:22 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 301 (464771)
04-29-2008 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rrhain
04-29-2008 3:46 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rrhain, posted 04-29-2008 3:46 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2008 6:05 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 301 (464774)
04-29-2008 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
04-29-2008 2:17 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2008 2:17 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2008 9:30 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2008 6:27 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 301 (464776)
04-29-2008 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Buzsaw
04-29-2008 8:43 AM


Re: Is SUOT Falsifiable?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 04-29-2008 8:43 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 04-30-2008 9:01 AM Son Goku has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 301 (464778)
04-29-2008 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Buzsaw
04-29-2008 9:09 AM


quote:
1. My understanding of 2LoT there is no time limit for the application of work to entropy.
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:
2. My understanding of 2LoT is that work can decrease entropy
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 04-29-2008 9:09 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2008 10:07 AM PaulK has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 301 (464792)
04-29-2008 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
04-27-2008 10:02 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 04-27-2008 10:02 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 04-30-2008 9:22 AM Taz has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 15 of 301 (464844)
04-30-2008 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw
04-29-2008 8:58 AM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
1. If there was no place/area for the expansion to exist, how could it create itself?
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:
2. If the expansion created itself, where did the energy come from to create itself if there was no before?
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:
3. If the above questions are unanswerable, doesn't that make the expansion unfalsifiable?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 04-29-2008 8:58 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024