Maybie You're a week old...

[SlitheryDee]

edit

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: edro13
I believe the universe is "cooling" down... not "heating" up, therefore, the universe would have been much more chaotic in the early years.

No, it's only 'cooling down' because it's expanding. Heat/entropy is constantly increasing, unless there is some process converting energy back into matter, that we are currently unaware of.

Entropy is increasing because of the RADIATION of that heat which cannot be fully recycled. (Recall that it only applies to closed systems.) I sometimes wonder if the large amount of order in the earth is somehow caused by the extreme entropy in the rest of the universe.

If there was a bank that converted between order and entropy, I can't imagine what the exchange rate would be!

Actually, the 'order' on earth comes directly at the expense of increased entropy; every single energy transaction, from photosynthesis to the internal combustion engine, produces a net result of 'less organized' energy. Most of the eventual byproduct, heat, is radiated into space.

Wth are you talking about, i don't follow. Are you saying niternal combustion engines create energy that isn't there?

No, they turn chemically stored energy into heat plus motion, but mostly heat. Like everything else, the energy transaction creates an outcome which is, on balance, less organized than before the transaction took place. i.e. entropy of the system increases.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: edro13
I believe the universe is "cooling" down... not "heating" up, therefore, the universe would have been much more chaotic in the early years.

No, it's only 'cooling down' because it's expanding. Heat/entropy is constantly increasing, unless there is some process converting energy back into matter, that we are currently unaware of.

Entropy is increasing because of the RADIATION of that heat which cannot be fully recycled. (Recall that it only applies to closed systems.) I sometimes wonder if the large amount of order in the earth is somehow caused by the extreme entropy in the rest of the universe.

If there was a bank that converted between order and entropy, I can't imagine what the exchange rate would be!

Actually, the 'order' on earth comes directly at the expense of increased entropy; every single energy transaction, from photosynthesis to the internal combustion engine, produces a net result of 'less organized' energy. Most of the eventual byproduct, heat, is radiated into space.

Wth are you talking about, i don't follow. Are you saying niternal combustion engines create energy that isn't there?

No, they turn chemically stored energy into heat plus motion, but mostly heat. Like everything else, the energy transaction creates an outcome which is, on balance, less organized than before the transaction took place. i.e. entropy of the system increases.

I agree. Also, mostly what life does is store energy temporarily. Some of the sun's energy remains here on earth in the form of life, whereas it would not have otherwise.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: edro13
I believe the universe is "cooling" down... not "heating" up, therefore, the universe would have been much more chaotic in the early years.

No, it's only 'cooling down' because it's expanding. Heat/entropy is constantly increasing, unless there is some process converting energy back into matter, that we are currently unaware of.

Entropy is increasing because of the RADIATION of that heat which cannot be fully recycled. (Recall that it only applies to closed systems.) I sometimes wonder if the large amount of order in the earth is somehow caused by the extreme entropy in the rest of the universe.

If there was a bank that converted between order and entropy, I can't imagine what the exchange rate would be!

Actually, the 'order' on earth comes directly at the expense of increased entropy; every single energy transaction, from photosynthesis to the internal combustion engine, produces a net result of 'less organized' energy. Most of the eventual byproduct, heat, is radiated into space.

Wth are you talking about, i don't follow. Are you saying niternal combustion engines create energy that isn't there?

No, they turn chemically stored energy into heat plus motion, but mostly heat. Like everything else, the energy transaction creates an outcome which is, on balance, less organized than before the transaction took place. i.e. entropy of the system increases.

And what's your point with this?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Could you explain "infinite and eternal" more? Are you saying the Universe had no beginning? If so, Obler's Paradox pretty much shoots that down. Now it may be meaningless to ask precisely when the Universe began because at high enough densities the concept of time doesn't even exist. Interesting stuff, eh?

You'll pardon me if I think Obler's Paradox is meaningless. Infinity does not negate relativity. The light is still fainter because the star is farther away. Entropy still exists. But energy is always as close as the nearest particle of matter with mass.
And... IMO chaos is a terrible word in these discussions. How about "complex self-organizing systems"?

And yeah, if the Big Bang did occur, that would be when time began. But what is time, but a relative effect of mass bending space (aka gravity)? Even the speed of light is not the true constant we want to believe it is. So just how long has it been since the Big Bang? 😛

My position is that there is no constant, there was no beginning, and there will be no end.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Could you explain "infinite and eternal" more? Are you saying the Universe had no beginning? If so, Obler's Paradox pretty much shoots that down. Now it may be meaningless to ask precisely when the Universe began because at high enough densities the concept of time doesn't even exist. Interesting stuff, eh?

You'll pardon me if I think Obler's Paradox is meaningless. Infinity does not negate relativity. The light is still fainter because the star is farther away. Entropy still exists. But energy is always as close as the nearest particle of matter with mass.
And... IMO chaos is a terrible word in these discussions. How about "complex self-organizing systems"?

And yeah, if the Big Bang did occur, that would be when time began. But what is time, but a relative effect of mass bending space (aka gravity)? Even the speed of light is not the true constant we want to believe it is. So just how long has it been since the Big Bang? 😛

My position is that there is no constant, there was no beginning, and there will be no end.

I believe that quantum physics allows for the theoretical measureing of particle states at a time previous to the big bang. Thats what Hawking says anyway in "The universe in a nutshell". That means that the big bang wouldn't have been the true beginning anyway, regardless of when it occurred or if "when" has any meaning in this case, right?

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Could you explain "infinite and eternal" more? Are you saying the Universe had no beginning? If so, Obler's Paradox pretty much shoots that down. Now it may be meaningless to ask precisely when the Universe began because at high enough densities the concept of time doesn't even exist. Interesting stuff, eh?

You'll pardon me if I think Obler's Paradox is meaningless. Infinity does not negate relativity. The light is still fainter because the star is farther away. Entropy still exists. But energy is always as close as the nearest particle of matter with mass.
And... IMO chaos is a terrible word in these discussions. How about "complex self-organizing systems"?

And yeah, if the Big Bang did occur, that would be when time began. But what is time, but a relative effect of mass bending space (aka gravity)? Even the speed of light is not the true constant we want to believe it is. So just how long has it been since the Big Bang? 😛

My position is that there is no constant, there was no beginning, and there will be no end.

16billion years ago was the last thing i heard. The big bang was the creation of the universe we inhabit, and therefore the creation of time. Trust me, the big bang happened, or why would soo many scientists believe it to.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
In the case of the big bang theory, I don't really consider it a birth, merely a stage cycle of events. However the creation by god theory is predicated on the belief that there was a definite beginning. My question is ,all other things aside, is it true that statistically the universe is more likely to exist in a state of advanced chaos than in any less advanced state whether that is yeterday or 100 billion years ago. And does that translate into the idea that mathmatically speaking is it more likely that the universe sprang from nothingness to it's current state than to have ever existed in a lower chaotic state. Don't give me anything about common sense or anything like that, either.

Just to point something out, the bolded part is EXTREMELY incorrect. Religion believes that God created the earth, but that the universe is/was forever (Revelation 1:8). If the universe has a beginning that would mean that God has a beginning, as God is the universe (or physical/spirtual embodiment thereof).
It never ceases to amaze me how many AT posters claim to speak for religion without having studied religion.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
In the case of the big bang theory, I don't really consider it a birth, merely a stage cycle of events. However the creation by god theory is predicated on the belief that there was a definite beginning. My question is ,all other things aside, is it true that statistically the universe is more likely to exist in a state of advanced chaos than in any less advanced state whether that is yeterday or 100 billion years ago. And does that translate into the idea that mathmatically speaking is it more likely that the universe sprang from nothingness to it's current state than to have ever existed in a lower chaotic state. Don't give me anything about common sense or anything like that, either.

Just to point something out, the bolded part is EXTREMELY incorrect. Religion believes that God created the earth, but that the universe is/was forever (Revelation 1:8). If the universe has a beginning that would mean that God has a beginning, as God is the universe (or physical/spirtual embodiment thereof).
It never ceases to amaze me how many AT posters claim to speak for religion without having studied religion.

My bad 🙂

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
16billion years ago was the last thing i heard. The big bang was the creation of the universe we inhabit, and therefore the creation of time. Trust me, the big bang happened, or why would soo many scientists believe it to.

Right... and before Pasteur, almost every single scientist on earth believed in spontaneous generation. Their consensus still didn't make them right.


edit: SlitheryDee, np 🙂

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
In the case of the big bang theory, I don't really consider it a birth, merely a stage cycle of events. However the creation by god theory is predicated on the belief that there was a definite beginning. My question is ,all other things aside, is it true that statistically the universe is more likely to exist in a state of advanced chaos than in any less advanced state whether that is yeterday or 100 billion years ago. And does that translate into the idea that mathmatically speaking is it more likely that the universe sprang from nothingness to it's current state than to have ever existed in a lower chaotic state. Don't give me anything about common sense or anything like that, either.

Just to point something out, the bolded part is EXTREMELY incorrect. Religion believes that God created the earth, but that the universe is/was forever (Revelation 1:8). If the universe has a beginning that would mean that God has a beginning, as God is the universe (or physical/spirtual embodiment thereof).
It never ceases to amaze me how many AT posters claim to speak for religion without having studied religion.

Well, the three western religions generally believe that. Or did anyways, but they've prolly changed since everyone but them became smarter. The buddhists are a bit more confusing that that though. Not as straight forward as us people.

 

[BudAshes]

Chaos is just more complicated order.

 

[KoolAidKid]

Originally posted by: Vic
It never ceases to amaze me how many AT posters claim to speak for religion without having studied religion.

This shouldn't surprise you... In any given thread the amount of BS passed off as fact is waist-high.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
16billion years ago was the last thing i heard. The big bang was the creation of the universe we inhabit, and therefore the creation of time. Trust me, the big bang happened, or why would soo many scientists believe it to.

Right... and before Pasteur, almost every single scientist on earth believed in spontaneous generation. Their consensus still didn't make them right.


edit: SlitheryDee, np 🙂

Lets just go over this.
When you measure the movements of stars they all look like they're running away from a certain point in space. One, point. THat's how the theory was born. That's where we come in trying to explain nature, trying to find the laws of nature. I agree, there might be a chance they are wrong, but i still feel i can safely say, trust me, the big bang happened. What happened before that you'd need lsd to understand.

 

[Kadarin]

There is no correlation, positive or negative, between the accuracy of the Big Bang theory and the question of the existence of God. Anyone who assumes such a thing is stupid. Even if the Big Bang theory is completely and utterly disproven/discredited, the question of God's existence will remain a matter of religious belief and faith. God's existence will remain a matter of religious belief until such time as measurable, quantifiable evidence is found that supports that existence, and repeatable controlled scientific experimentation can establish a case that supports that existence.

As a corollary, no amount of belief in God, positive or negative, can possibly have any bearing on the question of whether God exists. God either exists, or does not.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
There is no correlation, positive or negative, between the accuracy of the Big Bang theory and the question of the existence of God. Anyone who assumes such a thing is stupid. Even if the Big Bang theory is completely and utterly disproven/discredited, the question of God's existence will remain a matter of religious belief and faith. God's existence will remain a matter of religious belief until such time as measurable, quantifiable evidence is found that supports that existence, and repeatable controlled scientific experimentation can establish a case that supports that existence.

As a corollary, no amount of belief in God, positive or negative, can possibly have any bearing on the question of whether God exists. God either exists, or does not.

Once again I was only presenting the argument in the context in which i first heard it. I was not seeking to gain any enlightenment regarding the existence of god. I don't want to discuss theology here.

 

[meltdown75]

I highly recommend "Religion In An Age of Science" by Ian Barbour (HarperCollins, 1990) to anyone interested in reading on this subject!

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
There is no correlation, positive or negative, between the accuracy of the Big Bang theory and the question of the existence of God. Anyone who assumes such a thing is stupid. Even if the Big Bang theory is completely and utterly disproven/discredited, the question of God's existence will remain a matter of religious belief and faith. God's existence will remain a matter of religious belief until such time as measurable, quantifiable evidence is found that supports that existence, and repeatable controlled scientific experimentation can establish a case that supports that existence.

As a corollary, no amount of belief in God, positive or negative, can possibly have any bearing on the question of whether God exists. God either exists, or does not.

I agree, logically, there's allways a chance god would exist.
However, if you look at all the attempts of creating a deity that lasts it's fairly obvious that it's just something peolpe would like to believe, which i find sad. The only thing that can disprove the existence of god is if we examine the brain on religious people and somehow understand why they believe.I suggest we take the christians first.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
There is no correlation, positive or negative, between the accuracy of the Big Bang theory and the question of the existence of God. Anyone who assumes such a thing is stupid. Even if the Big Bang theory is completely and utterly disproven/discredited, the question of God's existence will remain a matter of religious belief and faith. God's existence will remain a matter of religious belief until such time as measurable, quantifiable evidence is found that supports that existence, and repeatable controlled scientific experimentation can establish a case that supports that existence.

As a corollary, no amount of belief in God, positive or negative, can possibly have any bearing on the question of whether God exists. God either exists, or does not.

Once again I was only presenting the argument in the context in which i first heard it. I was not seeking to gain any enlightenment regarding the existence of god. I don't want to discuss theology here.

Ok.. Then in that case, let's just say that if evidence comes to light that discredits/disproves the Big Bang theory, then that theory should be modified if possible to account for the new evidence, or scrapped altogether in favor of a new theory if evidence comes to light that supports a new theory. That's all. The concept of God's existence is entirely superfluous to that.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
16billion years ago was the last thing i heard. The big bang was the creation of the universe we inhabit, and therefore the creation of time. Trust me, the big bang happened, or why would soo many scientists believe it to.

Right... and before Pasteur, almost every single scientist on earth believed in spontaneous generation. Their consensus still didn't make them right.


edit: SlitheryDee, np 🙂

Lets just go over this.
When you measure the movements of stars they all look like they're running away from a certain point in space. One, point. THat's how the theory was born. That's where we come in trying to explain nature, trying to find the laws of nature. I agree, there might be a chance they are wrong, but i still feel i can safely say, trust me, the big bang happened. What happened before that you'd need lsd to understand.

Not quite.

The age of the universe is 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years. The idea for the big bang was put forth after Edwin Hubble found that all galaxies are rushing away from each other as if the universe was expanding. There is no single starting point everything is rushing away from. There was no explosion. The universe was always infinite (as far as we know), but 13.7 billion years ago the distance between all of those points was 0.

You can look back and see the afterglow from the big bang. It was predicted that if the universe was expanding, then it must have been more compact and hotter in the past. It therefore must have radiated as a black body. This is the afterglow we see today as the cosmic microwave background. It fills the entire sky in every direction and is nearly perfectly uniform (save for some small anisotropies which carry a ton of information). The spectrum you get from plotting the CMB power is perfect. The error bars on the values are so small they are usually smaller than the thickness of the line used to draw the fit.

Using powerful telescopes you can see back in time to various points in the universe's lifetime. There was a starting point for the universe as we know it. Anyone can see it after spending a few bucks at Radio Shack. In fact, a few % of the "snow" you see on your tv if you tune to a channel you don't actually get is due to CMB photons.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: edro13
I believe the universe is "cooling" down... not "heating" up, therefore, the universe would have been much more chaotic in the early years.

No, it's only 'cooling down' because it's expanding. Heat/entropy is constantly increasing, unless there is some process converting energy back into matter, that we are currently unaware of.

Entropy is increasing because of the RADIATION of that heat which cannot be fully recycled. (Recall that it only applies to closed systems.) I sometimes wonder if the large amount of order in the earth is somehow caused by the extreme entropy in the rest of the universe.

If there was a bank that converted between order and entropy, I can't imagine what the exchange rate would be!

Actually, the 'order' on earth comes directly at the expense of increased entropy; every single energy transaction, from photosynthesis to the internal combustion engine, produces a net result of 'less organized' energy. Most of the eventual byproduct, heat, is radiated into space.

Wth are you talking about, i don't follow. Are you saying niternal combustion engines create energy that isn't there?

No, they turn chemically stored energy into heat plus motion, but mostly heat. Like everything else, the energy transaction creates an outcome which is, on balance, less organized than before the transaction took place. i.e. entropy of the system increases.

And what's your point with this?

??

My point was to answer a point/specualtion above. Earth's order isn't 'paid for' by higher entropy elsewhere; earth itself is a system with increasing entropy; the appearance of order comes from teh constant input of high-order energy from the un. But the system itself is just as 'entropy-increasing' as any other.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
16billion years ago was the last thing i heard. The big bang was the creation of the universe we inhabit, and therefore the creation of time. Trust me, the big bang happened, or why would soo many scientists believe it to.

Right... and before Pasteur, almost every single scientist on earth believed in spontaneous generation. Their consensus still didn't make them right.


edit: SlitheryDee, np 🙂

Lets just go over this.
When you measure the movements of stars they all look like they're running away from a certain point in space. One, point. THat's how the theory was born. That's where we come in trying to explain nature, trying to find the laws of nature. I agree, there might be a chance they are wrong, but i still feel i can safely say, trust me, the big bang happened. What happened before that you'd need lsd to understand.

Not quite.

The age of the universe is 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years. The idea for the big bang was put forth after Edwin Hubble found that all galaxies are rushing away from each other as if the universe was expanding. There is no single starting point everything is rushing away from. There was no explosion. The universe was always infinite (as far as we know), but 13.7 billion years ago the distance between all of those points was 0.

You can look back and see the afterglow from the big bang. It was predicted that if the universe was expanding, then it must have been more compact and hotter in the past. It therefore must have radiated as a black body. This is the afterglow we see today as the cosmic microwave background. It fills the entire sky in every direction and is nearly perfectly uniform (save for some small anisotropies which carry a ton of information). The spectrum you get from plotting the CMB power is perfect. The error bars on the values are so small they are usually smaller than the thickness of the line used to draw the fit.

Using powerful telescopes you can see back in time to various points in the universe's lifetime. There was a starting point for the universe as we know it. Anyone can see it after spending a few bucks at Radio Shack. In fact, a few % of the "snow" you see on your tv if you tune to a channel you don't actually get is due to CMB photons.

Everything except for the first paragraph is routine knowledge 😛.

As far as i am aware most theories include the fact that the big bang created time and that we live in some sort of string of several universes. However i dare not express my self too sure on this field as i, well, don't have a clue. Let's leave that to the scientists (one of which i hope to be one day 😀).

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: edro13
I believe the universe is "cooling" down... not "heating" up, therefore, the universe would have been much more chaotic in the early years.

No, it's only 'cooling down' because it's expanding. Heat/entropy is constantly increasing, unless there is some process converting energy back into matter, that we are currently unaware of.

Entropy is increasing because of the RADIATION of that heat which cannot be fully recycled. (Recall that it only applies to closed systems.) I sometimes wonder if the large amount of order in the earth is somehow caused by the extreme entropy in the rest of the universe.

If there was a bank that converted between order and entropy, I can't imagine what the exchange rate would be!

Actually, the 'order' on earth comes directly at the expense of increased entropy; every single energy transaction, from photosynthesis to the internal combustion engine, produces a net result of 'less organized' energy. Most of the eventual byproduct, heat, is radiated into space.

Wth are you talking about, i don't follow. Are you saying niternal combustion engines create energy that isn't there?

No, they turn chemically stored energy into heat plus motion, but mostly heat. Like everything else, the energy transaction creates an outcome which is, on balance, less organized than before the transaction took place. i.e. entropy of the system increases.

And what's your point with this?

??

My point was to answer a point/specualtion above. Earth's order isn't 'paid for' by higher entropy elsewhere; earth itself is a system with increasing entropy; the appearance of order comes from teh constant input of high-order energy from the un. But the system itself is just as 'entropy-increasing' as any other.

Yes, that i understood, what's your point with that? Are you saying that energy is constantly created that goes nowhere but space and that someday we'll all be hot because all mass is converted to enrgy?

 

[Random Variable]

Associating "disorder" with entropy creates a lot of misconceptions.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Yes, that i understood, what's your point with that? Are you saying that energy is constantly created that goes nowhere but space and that someday we'll all be hot because all mass is converted to enrgy?

No, because only a small part of the matter contained in stars is actually undergoing fusion, and from all calculations, the uniiverse is expanding faster than this fusion is supplying new energy, so the net effect is colder average temperatures.