The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2016, 11:11 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:06 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:38 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Welp, the Johns Hopkins University might differ with your opinion (although they do continue to educate me via the Internet at very low cost, God bless 'em.). I am not questioning your instructors' credentials (was a visiting researcher in the cornfields of UIUC for a couple of years), but I am questioning your ability to understand and appreciate what they tried to teach you.

Do you understand and appreciate the difference between an open system, a closed system, and an isolated system? Have you even heard of them?

Yes. Of course. The 2nd Law is about energy dispersion and how that energy is sometimes converted to forms of energy that cannot be recaptured for work. That process occurs in ALL systems. I have provided an example using a car. Please read it and actually think about it. Also consider the Krebs cycle. That is another example of the 2nd Law in an open system. I'm not going to continue to argue with someone who never studied Thermo. There is nothing to argue. It's cut and dried.

You're equating examples within the universe with the universe. That's not how logic works.

The Kreb's cycle (or your car) needing an input in order to generate energy does not mean that the universe requires an input in order to have started. And even if it is given as a reasonable assumption that the universe had a "first cause," there is nothing to suggest that the first cause was anything other than a non-sentient and non-conscious natural process. In fact, that is a far more reasonable assumption to make (that it was a non-sentient and non-conscious natural process) because everywhere we look in the universe, that's what we find evidence for.

gravity? non-sentient and non-conscious natural process
evolution? non-sentient and non-conscious natural process
relativity? non-sentient and non-conscious natural process

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:13 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are trying to apply a physical law to a singularity where all known physical laws break down.

Maybe you should stop posting until you have a better grasp of physics.

The concentration of energy must have occurred prior to the singularity. It caused it. Think about it.

"The concentration of energy must have occurred prior to the singularity. It caused it. Think about it."

There is no "prior" to the origin of space/time because there is no "time" before time came into existence.

So when you say a cause is required, you're making an unfounded assumption since one can't have a "cause" in the absence of time for the cause to occur.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
01-07-2016, 11:14 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 10:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 09:17 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Yes it can be deduced, and you might convince most people. However, if you can't reproduce it, it will not be unequivocal. Someone will always be able to propose an alternate theory. That is kinda the scientific method. That is why evolution is still being debated. There are valid scientific reasons to deny evolution, so it is not unequivocal. (I do not deny evolution; I am just using that as an example. I am not trying to get off on a tangent of evolution.)

That is the primary concept of the 2nd Law. The energy in any system will disperse as much as possible. (When it disperses some of it is lost (heat, friction, noise), and cannot be recaptured to do work. That lost energy is defined as entropy.) Energy will never spontaneously concentrate; that requires an outside influence.

So yes. Concentrating all of the energy of the universe into a single point would clearly be a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo.

" That is why evolution is still being debated. There are valid scientific reasons to deny evolution, so it is not unequivocal."

Evolution is still being studied and researched in order to be better understood. It is not still being debated as to whether or not it is true or whether or not it accurately describes the diversity of life on Earth. There are no valid scientific reasons I have ever seen to deny evolution as a scientific fact. There are numerous religious reasons to reject it, but religious reasons for rejecting any science does not mean that the validity of the science is still being debated by scientists.

"So yes. Concentrating all of the energy of the universe into a single point would clearly be a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo."

*Clearly* not since all matter/energy of the universe was concentrated at a single point.

*(whenever someone says "clearly" they never mean it is actually clear but that they assume their observations and explanations and beliefs should be accepted without question because it is "clear" to the claimant)

If you believe that all of the energy in the universe was concentrated at a single point and understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you must conclude that an external agent was involved. Consider a refrigeration cycle. That is an open system. The heat would never be concentrated and removed without a compressor performing work on the system. Think about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:17 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:14 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  " That is why evolution is still being debated. There are valid scientific reasons to deny evolution, so it is not unequivocal."

Evolution is still being studied and researched in order to be better understood. It is not still being debated as to whether or not it is true or whether or not it accurately describes the diversity of life on Earth. There are no valid scientific reasons I have ever seen to deny evolution as a scientific fact. There are numerous religious reasons to reject it, but religious reasons for rejecting any science does not mean that the validity of the science is still being debated by scientists.

"So yes. Concentrating all of the energy of the universe into a single point would clearly be a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo."

*Clearly* not since all matter/energy of the universe was concentrated at a single point.

*(whenever someone says "clearly" they never mean it is actually clear but that they assume their observations and explanations and beliefs should be accepted without question because it is "clear" to the claimant)

If you believe that all of the energy in the universe was concentrated at a single point and understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you must conclude that an external agent was involved. Consider a refrigeration cycle. That is an open system. The heat would never be concentrated and removed without a compressor performing work on the system. Think about it.

Your simplistic analogy doesn't satisfactorily explain the the singularity that was the origin of space/time.

Physicists have studied this for their careers and wouldn't agree with your assertions. Think about it. Which is more likely, an engineer (I'll assume you've your "advanced degrees") misunderstands theoretical physics by applying simple engineering concepts to the universe, OR an engineer figured out god and the universe before the theoretical physicists who study it detail for entire careers? Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
01-07-2016, 11:20 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
And given that you don't understand that science isn't still debating evolution and that there aren't any scientific reasons to doubt it, I assume the former possibility in my prior question. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:21 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:13 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  The concentration of energy must have occurred prior to the singularity. It caused it. Think about it.

"The concentration of energy must have occurred prior to the singularity. It caused it. Think about it."

There is no "prior" to the origin of space/time because there is no "time" before time came into existence.

So when you say a cause is required, you're making an unfounded assumption since one can't have a "cause" in the absence of time for the cause to occur.

We have no idea what happened prior to the Big Bang. The data we have only goes back that far, so we assume that was the beginning. We have no way to know. (Which is the basic argument of this thread.)

It depends on your perspective. If you are within this universe looking back, then time started when the universe did. However to an agent outside the universe that predates it, time is a function purely of our universe. It would not apply to or constrain that external agent. The clock on an iPhone doesn't start until it is created. That doesn't affect the kid in China assembling it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:24 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are trying to apply a physical law to a singularity where all known physical laws break down.

Maybe you should stop posting until you have a better grasp of physics.

The concentration of energy must have occurred prior to the singularity. It caused it. Think about it.

There is no "must" there. Particle/anti-particle pairs come into exist in our universe all the time and everywhere. The sum of their energy is zero.
What causes them to come into existence?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-07-2016, 11:26 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:14 AM)u196533 Wrote:  If you believe that all of the energy in the universe was concentrated at a single point and understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you must conclude that an external agent was involved. Consider a refrigeration cycle. That is an open system. The heat would never be concentrated and removed without a compressor performing work on the system. Think about it.

Your simplistic analogy doesn't satisfactorily explain the the singularity that was the origin of space/time.

Physicists have studied this for their careers and wouldn't agree with your assertions. Think about it. Which is more likely, an engineer (I'll assume you've your "advanced degrees") misunderstands theoretical physics by applying simple engineering concepts to the universe, OR an engineer figured out god and the universe before the theoretical physicists who study it detail for entire careers? Drinking Beverage

Since you can't argue yourself you fall back to an appeal to authority. Physicists devote their lives to reducing everything in the universe to math. Their beliefs are based on a PHILOSOPHY of reductionism. If you have peer reviewed data to support your claims, you are using science. If you don't you are in the realm of philosophy. btw-There are theoretical physicists who are theists too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:30 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  The concentration of energy must have occurred prior to the singularity. It caused it. Think about it.

There is no "must" there. Particle/anti-particle pairs come into exist in our universe all the time and everywhere. The sum of their energy is zero.
What causes them to come into existence?

They require space and an energy density field. The 1st Law of Thermo prevents energy from being created from nothing. Therefore something must have created the energy density field.
Kraus' book is actually pretty interesting. However, it is extreme speculation with zero data. Even he states "well almost nothing". His theory is so flawed it is laughable. It is ironic that you mock idiots that believe in Noah's ark , but swallow such obvious bullshit without a critical thought.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:31 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 12:06 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are trying to apply a physical law to a singularity where all known physical laws break down.

Maybe you should stop posting until you have a better grasp of physics.

The concentration of energy must have occurred prior to the singularity. It caused it. Think about it.

That is hard to argue against. God was so goddam bored it just went and blew its' shitup and we are just shrapnel, flotsam and jetsam. ... And all is right with the world.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: