|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
 Posted - 04/15/2004 : 11:28:03 [Permalink]
|
| Related to creation88's post: ... and when stars burn out, entropy changes as gravity takes place. Contraction of matter results in heat and, at one point or another after going through the state of black hole, neutron star, etc, enough matter will be gathered to reignite the process or a random (brownian) even will restart the loop. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 02:37:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arcanix_X
Related to creation88's post: ... and when stars burn out, entropy changes as gravity takes place. Contraction of matter results in heat and, at one point or another after going through the state of black hole, neutron star, etc, enough matter will be gathered to reignite the process or a random (brownian) even will restart the loop.
Once a star becomes a neutron star or a black hole there is pretty much no going back. Eventually the neutron star will have gathered enough mass to collaps into black hole too. There is not much else going to happen to white dwarves either. Just like a glowing hot lump of iron it will eventually cool down to a cold lump of iron. There will be no re-ignition. And what loop are you talking about? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 12:02:12 [Permalink]
|
| I'm talking about gravity that will at some point or another bring all matter in our known universe in one point, reigniting a big bang. That's the loop. If we consider the theory that the unvierse is countinuously expanding and matter will become isolated from other matter, then this is false. However, there is no evidence to sustain this theory. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 14:12:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arcanix_X
I'm talking about gravity that will at some point or another bring all matter in our known universe in one point, reigniting a big bang. That's the loop. If we consider the theory that the unvierse is countinuously expanding and matter will become isolated from other matter, then this is false. However, there is no evidence to sustain this theory.
Oh...
There must be some new evidence I haven't seen yet then. As far as I know, the fate of the Universe is yet to be determined.
This link says accelerating expansion of the Universe:
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-1998/pr-21-98.html
This link also says accelerating expansion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant quote:
Observations of distance-redshift relations in the late 1990s can be explained by assuming a positive cosmological constant, or some other version of an accelerating universe.
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/watch/cosmos/quantum.htm
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 04/17/2004 14:13:14 |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 18:14:35 [Permalink]
|
Einstein tried to prove a cosmological constant and later, with quantum physics, discredited it and named it the greatest blunder of his life - therefore your quote is wrong - that is, unless you want to argue with Einstein.
The fate of the universe, on the other hand is 99% told by Big Bang and subsequent expansionist theories.
Also, the fundemental law of the universe is that matter cannot be created or distoyed. Therefore it is cycling. This is the only way Big Bang could have happened. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 18:53:13 [Permalink]
|
Arcanix, Einstein was just a man -- a very smart man, but still prone to error. Nobody worships him, and the doctrine of inerrancy doesn't apply to him (or any scientist).
The current best estimate of the fate of the universe is that it will end in a whimper (accelerating expansion), not a bang (Big Crunch). You may find this distasteful, but that doesn't constitute evidence.
|
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 18:54:30 [Permalink]
|
Arcanix_X wrote:quote:
Einstein tried to prove a cosmological constant and later, with quantum physics, discredited it and named it the greatest blunder of his life - therefore your quote is wrong - that is, unless you want to argue with Einstein.
A blatant argument from authority, and in this case, not necessarily wrong but definitely undecided, as is supported by the links Dr. Mabuse provided.
From the SEED Science Center:The trouble was that there was no other evidence whatsoever for this anti-gravitating stuff, and Einstein probably found it embarrassing that it had been put into the theory just to make it agree with the then-current observations. However the cosmological constant had a right to be there, from a mathematical point of view, and it turns out that the math knew something that no one else did. The ESO:The results take the discovery of the cosmological expansion one step further and challenge recent models of the Universe. If the new measurements are indeed correct, they show that the elusive "cosmological constant" , as proposed by Albert Einstein, contributes significantly to the evolution of the Universe. The existence of a non-zero cosmological constant implies that a repulsive force, counter-acting gravity, currently dominates the universal expansion, and consequently leads to an ever-expanding Universe. (Emphasis in the original.)
And finally, there's the Wikipedia entry:The value of the cosmological constant that would explain current observations is on the order of 10-36s-2. This value of the cosmological constant disturbs theorists who for reasons of symmetry are uncomfortable with an extremely small cosmological constant that is non-zero. Thus the cosmological constant may ironically turn out to be Einstein's greatest prediction. Just goes to show you that even the experts (like Einstein), when they think they are wrong, might turn out to be correct.quote:
The fate of the universe, on the other hand is 99% told by Big Bang and subsequent expansionist theories.
Indeed it is, and many of those theories contain a value called the Cosmological Constant. Those which do not are not "in favor" with today's cosmologists.quote:
Also, the fundemental law of the universe is that matter cannot be created or distoyed.
E=Mc2 says that matter can be converted into energy, and back. There is no law of conservation of matter anymore, except in non-nuclear fields such as chemistry. But, since stars (for just one example) are "nuclear furnaces," a great deal of the matter in the universe is not being acted upon in purely chemical reactions.quote:
Therefore it is cycling.
A conclusion based upon a false premise.quote:
This is the only way Big Bang could have happened.
Not at all. We cannot tell what happened "before" the Big Bang, and thus cannot tell whether or not the various conservation laws were "in effect" at that "time."
Theorists who currently posit an ever-expanding universe claim that the heat death of the universe will occur when it is around 1080 years old. There will still be plenty of matter around at that time, but it'll be cold, dead rocks and other objects so far apart from one another they will never interact again. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 19:16:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave W
I'm affraid I can't argue on the Einstein thing beyond the point that quantum physics says a constant can't be there (since matter in q. physicis can be in multiple places at the same time and is therefore chaotic) - i will post a link a bit later.
However, you are guiding the rest of the argument on a false premise - einsteins theory of relativity says that matter is transformed and not destroyed, which does not contradict the conservationist theory which simply says that matter cannot dissapear. Instead it in itself adds - it can only be transformed.
Your rationing from there on is therefore false. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 19:44:02 [Permalink]
|
Arcanix_X wrote:quote:
I'm affraid I can't argue on the Einstein thing beyond the point that quantum physics says a constant can't be there (since matter in q. physicis can be in multiple places at the same time and is therefore chaotic) - i will post a link a bit later.
Dr. Mabuse has already posted a link. The SEED Science Center link had this to say, also:Second, there is the exciting fact that quantum theory can make a prediction for the size of the cosmological constant, and hence the Omega associated with it. The quantum theory prediction is grotesquely - ludicrously - wrong. But at least it can make a prediction. Resolving the discrepancy is now of Universal importance. Quantum theory, the physics of the very small, of atoms and electrons, has been handed the job of explaining the Universe. Besides which, matter can only be "in multple places at the same time" while it is not interacting with other matter. When it does, the waveform necessarily collapses - this is what is meant by the term "observation" in quantum physics.
And the idea that those sorts of effects have applicability beyond the realm of the very small is not warranted. The odds of a beer can suddenly tipping over due to its atoms all shifting to one side at the same time is so tiny that we can state that it probably won't ever happen prior to the universe ending (one way or another).
You also suggested:quote:
However, you are guiding the rest of the argument on a false premise - einsteins theory of relativity says that matter is transformed and not destroyed, which does not contradict the conservationist theory which simply says that matter cannot dissapear. Instead it in itself adds - it can only be transformed.
Your rationing from there on is therefore false.
Unfortunately, my main argument was that the reasoning you used was incorrect, and I did not base that argument on whether matter could be destroyed, but upon the fact that your argument was based upon assumptions which are not considered facts, like relativity being in effect prior to the Big Bang.
But, if matter is transformed into energy, and never transformed back into matter, can that matter not be considered destroyed? If we convert a carbon atom into energy, the laws of thermodynamics tell us we will never be able to do so with 100% efficiency, and so we cannot reconstruct that same carbon atom from the energy we made. Some energy will be lost as worthless heat, and simply zip off into the universe, possibly never to interact with matter again.
In other words, the transformation of matter into energy and vice-versa does not "save" the hypothesis that the universe must be cycling between Big Bangs and Big Crunches. The two ideas are actually independent of one another, since in a Big Crunch, spacetime itself would get compressed into a point, not just the matter in the universe.
In still other words, no energy escapes the conservation or thermodynamic laws whether we posit a cycling or expanding universe. The fate of the universe does not depend on any conservation law. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2004 : 11:13:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
my main argument was that the reasoning you used was incorrect, and I did not base that argument on whether matter could be destroyed, but upon the fact that your argument was based upon assumptions which are not considered facts, like relativity being in effect prior to the Big Bang
i'm affraid we are at a stale mate here since you are basing your attack on my assumption with another assumption - that relativity was not in effect before the big bang, therefore nullifying your argument
quote:
my main argument was that the reasoning you used was incorrect, and I did not base that argument on whether matter could be destroyed, but upon the fact that your argument was based upon assumptions which are not considered facts, like relativity being in effect prior to the Big Bang
the process does not have to be reversible, simply to keep the quantity of electrons, neutrons and protons that went in it (or quarks if you want to be technical) equal to that tha results from it
All energy is made up of matter (or it was last time i checked :) ). The carbon atom when it transforms, it does not fully transform into energy (carbon nuclear reaction) but in a heavier atom that eventualy will no longer fission because the energy resulted from fission would be smaller then the energy put into it - energetic equilibrum.
quote:
The two ideas are actually independent of one another, since in a Big Crunch, spacetime itself would get compressed into a point, not just the matter in the universe.
By the way, i think we had a discussion already on this but considering the elemental truth that the universe is infinite in distance and age it is just as realistic to consider that at a remote distance of astronomical values another universe exists and another and another (so on...).
By saying this, the universe gains continuity in both space and time even when our macrocosmos colapses in a new big crunch. It depends on which side of the baricade you're on. |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2004 : 11:15:57 [Permalink]
|
The second quote on the post above was actualy: If we convert a carbon atom into energy, the laws of thermodynamics tell us we will never be able to do so with 100% efficiency, and so we cannot reconstruct that same carbon atom from the energy we made.
Sorry for the confusion. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2004 : 12:11:24 [Permalink]
|
Arcanix_X wrote:quote:
i'm affraid we are at a stale mate here since you are basing your attack on my assumption with another assumption - that relativity was not in effect before the big bang, therefore nullifying your argument
Where did I ever assume such a thing? I only assume - and cosmologists agree - that we cannot know what happened "before" the Big Bang. Your assumption that some conservation laws existed prior to the Big Bang contradicts the professional assumptions.quote:
the process does not have to be reversible, simply to keep the quantity of electrons, neutrons and protons that went in it (or quarks if you want to be technical) equal to that tha results from it
I would like for you to provide a citation which shows that the quantity of subatomic particles is conserved. It is not. A high-energy collision between a proton and an antiproton results in hundreds of particles.quote:
All energy is made up of matter (or it was last time i checked :) ).
You're apparently confused. Define 'matter' and 'energy'. Is a massless particle, like a photon, 'matter' or not? You do understand that two billiard balls, with identical masses, can have drastically different kinetic and potential energies, right?quote:
The carbon atom when it transforms, it does not fully transform into energy (carbon nuclear reaction) but in a heavier atom that eventualy will no longer fission because the energy resulted from fission would be smaller then the energy put into it - energetic equilibrum.
I'm so glad you corrected this. I can't even parse it.quote:
By the way, i think we had a discussion already on this but considering the elemental truth that the universe is infinite in distance and age it is just as realistic to consider that at a remote distance of astronomical values another universe exists and another and another (so on...).
Yes, we did have a discussion about it, and you still don't apparently understand that other universes, if they exist, do not share any spacetime with our universe. Talking about them being at "remote distances" makes no sense, since if our universe is infinite in size, there would be no "room" for another universe. And our universe is not infinite in age, because we know about when the Big Bang occured.quote:
By saying this, the universe gains continuity in both space and time even when our macrocosmos colapses in a new big crunch. It depends on which side of the baricade you're on.
Now you're not making sense any more, again. Define these terms: macrocosmos, collapse, big crunch, barricade, continuity. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 06:21:25 [Permalink]
|
In response to the original poster: I believe the increased order imposed by life and by extension, evolution, is only localized. The processes involved use more energy - i.e. generate more disorder - overall than the order achieved. It's a net loss of order to the universe.
Note: I have not taken the time to read this entire thread so I apologize if I've repeated someone's already posted thoughts.
Note: post was edited for clarification. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 04/20/2004 10:24:02 |
|
|
|
dominic_dice
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
53 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 08:15:24 [Permalink]
|
| But evolution doesn't get somthing from nothing. The chemicals required were already there. You obviously don't understand what they said. |
"Are you THE dominic_dice"
"No, a dominic_dice. I come in six packs now" |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 10:21:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dominic_dice
But evolution doesn't get somthing from nothing. The chemicals required were already there. You obviously don't understand what they said.
Were you responding to me? I'm not sure as your answer's a bit vague. In any case, it made me think that prior posters might think I was responding - above - to them rather than to the original poster. So I'm editing mine. . . . |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
