|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Instantons were developed in physics. Math I cannot believe that you are trying to discuss Quantum Cosmology, while talking about standing on the surface of the Universe and looking up. I have never seen such a huge degree of disconnect - you are trying to argue about the finer points of neurosurgery becasue you've read a book on first aid. It is truly pathetic and embarrassing. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
ICANT in message 199 writes:
I was talking about the instanton that Turok was talking about not your mathematical instanton. His was a physical thing that existed for only an instant.ICANT in message 234 writes:
Instantons are all the same kind of thing, a physical thing, which is why they all have one name "Instantons". There are no "math" instantons or "physical" instantons. Instantons were developed in physics. Math In Turok and Hawking's model, there isn't an "absence of anything". The fields are already there, they are simply in their ground state, which for spacetime means no actual space and time for stuff to exist in. However the fields are there, otherwise whose paths would you be summing over in Feynman's "sum over paths". I appreciate that in most of the links this isn't even vaguely explained and it is quite difficult to grasp with familiarity. Edited by Son Goku, : Small addition Edited by Son Goku, : Funny mental mix up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: Your use of "temporal" is completely unclear. If it includes any universe in which time passes (as seems to be the case) your assertion is absolutely false. If it refers to universes with a finite past then your "i.e." is false for the reasons I have already stated. Such a model would almost certainly DEFINE T = 0 to be the beginning with NO T < 0. Since I already explained this fact in the post you are replying to it seems that you are ignoring MY valid points. I'll rephrase my questions to simplify and clarify: 1. Any temporal (not eternal) universe must have a beginning point. Right? 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? 3. How does the above temporal (not eternal) universe comply with any of the observed laws of science? 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 |
Hi Son Goku. I'm Buzsaw. I believe you intended to address ICant, not Isaw, or were you being facetious?
Would you please address the questions above which I asked PaulK? I believe I asked similar questions to you at one time which you did not respond to unless I missed it. Thanks. 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: 2.3 |
quote: It's still not clear what you mean by "temporal". You are going to have to actually explain it.
quote: 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: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Heh, that's funny. ISAW is Irish Science Awareness, a group that brings science to secondary level students. I was recently reading something of theirs.
1. Any temporal (not eternal) universe must have a beginning point. Right?
If by temporal you mean a universe where there is a finite amount of time in the past direction, then yes. If there was an accepted model which addresses the universe's creation then I could assess the other two. Even in proposed models you don't start from literally nothing and these models definitely obey known physical principles.
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? 3. How does the above temporal (not eternal) universe comply with any of the observed laws of science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Son Goku writes: If by temporal you mean a universe where there is a finite amount of time in the past direction, then yes. If there was an accepted model which addresses the universe's creation then I could assess the other two. Even in proposed models you don't start from literally nothing and these models definitely obey known physical principles. Thanks for weighing in on this. 1. Yes, I meant a universe where there is a finite amount of time in the past direction. So on that basis I assume your answer would be "yes" to my points one and two. Correct me if mistaken. 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? Edited by Buzsaw, : Change wording for clarification. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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: 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.
The entropy change of any system and its surroundings, considered together, is positive and approaches zero for any process which approaches reversibility.
(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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes: 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. 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, a state (abe: of) no energy, space, forces or matter to a state of the existence of all of these. Your thermodynamic related theory contradicts all of the observed scientific LoTs. Such unfalsifiable claims are never tolerated on behalf of creationists positions. On the otherhand my (BBUH/Buzsaw Biblical Universe Hypothesis) of infinite energy does not contradict observed scientific LoTs, in that energy is transfered, not created. Edited by Buzsaw, : Indicated 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Have you considered a zero energy universe?
Is this what you are getting at? http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html This 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
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, a state (abe: of) no energy, space, forces or matter to a state of the existence of all of these. As you have been repeatedly told, there is no point in time in the Big Bang model that has an absence of "energy, space, forces or matter." There never was nothing. Everything that exists has existed at every point in time in one state or another at every single point of time. You can't "create" something if that something always existed (note that "always existed" means "existed at all points of time;" time being a finite dimension means I am not discussing anything "eternal"). You've been told this multiple times. Why are you being dishonest?
Your thermodynamic related theory contradicts all of the observed scientific LoTs. Such unfalsifiable claims are never tolerated on behalf of creationists positions. The Big Bang model contradicts none of the lws of Thermodynamics. The fact that you are incapable of comprehending either the Big Bang model or the Laws of Thermodynamics is irrelevant. You're wrong, Buz. As usual, you're talking out of the wrong orifice about topics you don't understand.
On the otherhand my (BBUH/Buzsaw Biblical Universe Hypothesis) of infinite energy does not contradict observed scientific LoTs, in that energy is transfered, not created. Your "model," if it can be called such, is nothing more than a gigantic perpetual motion machine - which is a direct violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. You've been told this, as well. So at what point are you doing to stop covering your ears and repeating the same refuted arguments over and over again? Or is this actually the "Buzsaw Broken Record Model?"
quote: Rinse and repeat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: I would be interested in your thoughts. 1. My thoughts are off the cuff, that you don't get a free lunch. Imo, it's nonsensical, illogical and unscientific. 2. I've got my plate full with the topic which is about my hypothesis and the conventional BB theory. I don't have the time to delve into feasibilities of things as this. 3. Where has it has been empirically established that my hypothesis does not comply with all of the LoTs? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
My thoughts are off the cuff, that you don't get a free lunch. Imo, it's nonsensical, illogical and unscientific.
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? I've got my plate full with the topic which is about my hypothesis and the conventional BB theory. I don't have the time to delve into feasibilities of things as this.
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.
Where has it has been empirically established that my hypothesis does not comply with all of the LoTs? An eternal universe is by definition a perpetual motion machine. No? If not why not? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I've been hoping I wouldn't have to intervene as moderator, but I'm beginning to detect rising frustration levels. This thread's about 85% done, so even if anything were to change that would make possible more productive discussion, there's too little time left for any great moderator effort.
So I won't try to influence the course of discussion in this thread too much. I'll just mention one thing and say that it will be very disappointing if you continue misrepresenting the views of your opponents by associating T
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024