|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
 Posted - 08/05/2004 : 17:23:09
|
Hello,
My physics book tells me that due to entropy the amount of energy in the universe that can be used for work always diminishes. If the energy of the universe was always here and wasn't created, why hasn't all of it entropied sometime in the infinite past?
Hippy
|
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2004 : 18:36:54 [Permalink]
|
| Cosmologists don't posit an infinite past, but one that only goes back - so far as we can tell - 15 billion years or so. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 16:12:25 [Permalink]
|
| Well either the matter that was present at the moment of the Big Bang had been there before the Big Bang or the matter came out of nowhere. What is it that cosmologists posit? |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 18:10:27 [Permalink]
|
They posit that we don't know anything about what existed (or not) "before" the Big Bang (before in quotes because time started thereabouts, too). Given what I know about cosmology, we cannot know anything about "before" the Big Bang. We've got no idea if "matter" and "energy" as we know them existed. We've got no clue as to whether or not the laws of thermodynamics were in effect.
For all of our intents and purposes, a whole boatload of energy simply came into existence 15 billion years ago. Entropy has been increasing steadily since then. And in another 1080 years or so, entropy will be maxxed out, and there won't be anymore usable energy left. That's the "heat death of the universe" scenario. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2004 : 16:35:41 [Permalink]
|
If science fails at this point, fine; let's use logic instead:
1) Before the Big Bang occured, either something existed or nothing existed. Agreed?
2) If something existed before the Big Bang, we have no reason to believe that it wasn't matter, energy, and light. Agreed?
3) If nothing existed before the Big Bang, then the matter, energy, and light of the Universe came out of nowhere. Agreed?
4) Occam's Razor: All things being equal, the simplest solution is most likely the correct one (let me know if I misquoted that). Which is a simpler solution: that something existed before the Big Bang or that nothing existed before the Big Bang?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2004 : 17:46:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If science fails at this point, fine; let's use logic instead:
1) Before the Big Bang occured, either something existed or nothing existed. Agreed?
2) If something existed before the Big Bang, we have no reason to believe that it wasn't matter, energy, and light. Agreed?
3) If nothing existed before the Big Bang, then the matter, energy, and light of the Universe came out of nowhere. Agreed?
4) Occam's Razor: All things being equal, the simplest solution is most likely the correct one (let me know if I misquoted that). Which is a simpler solution: that something existed before the Big Bang or that nothing existed before the Big Bang?
Let me start by saying that I am unsure of what I am saying... However, I believe that you may be misusing Occam's Razor. You have your two options, I think that there are actually three, but the thrid is a branch off:
1.) Nothing existed.
2.) Something we know of existed (energy or matter).
3.) Something we don't know of existed.
Now it would not be a simpiler solution if something that we know of existed rather than if something that we don't know of existed, right? Or wrong? Not quite sure here.
quote:
My physics book tells me that due to entropy the amount of energy in the universe that can be used for work always diminishes. If the energy of the universe was always here and wasn't created, why hasn't all of it entropied sometime in the infinite past?
That only applies in a closed system. Who says that the universe is a closed system? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2004 : 19:43:21 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote:quote:
Who says that the universe is a closed system?
Physicists.
Hippy wrote:quote:
If science fails at this point, fine; let's use logic instead:
I have a feeling that both science and logic will fail at this point.quote:
1) Before the Big Bang occured, either something existed or nothing existed. Agreed?
Agreed.quote:
2) If something existed before the Big Bang, we have no reason to believe that it wasn't matter, energy, and light. Agreed?
Not agreed. If something existed before the Big Bang, we don't know what it was. Furthermore, my current understanding is that we cannot know what it was. The Big Bang is the ultimate "event horizon," beyond which nothing we know now can be reasonably said to apply.quote:
3) If nothing existed before the Big Bang, then the matter, energy, and light of the Universe came out of nowhere. Agreed?
Sure.quote:
4) Occam's Razor: All things being equal, the simplest solution is most likely the correct one (let me know if I misquoted that). Which is a simpler solution: that something existed before the Big Bang or that nothing existed before the Big Bang?
Okay, logic and science apply to things we have some reasonable expectation of being able to answer at some point in time. If my understanding of cosmology and physics is correct, we have exactly zero expectation of ever being able to answer "what was 'before' the Big Bang?" Let's ignore that for now, but instead simply say that for a question to be 'interesting' in a scientific manner, the answer has to be able to tell us something we didn't know before we asked.
If something existed before the Big Bang, we must make several - if not dozens - of assumptions which we can't possibly hope to test in order for the "something" answer to tell us anything about the "pre-Big Bang Universe" (PBBU), like what the somethign was, how it interacted, how it spawned our universe, etc. If nothing existed before the Big Bang, we must also make several - if not dozens - of assumptions which we can't possibly hope to test in order for the "nothing" hypothesis to tell us anything about the PBBU, like how nothing suddenly became something, what process or force could acheive that, etc.
I'm not an expert in either physics or cosmology - and it shows through my use of 'etc' - so you tell me, Hippy: which set of assumptions allows for a more parsimonious explanation of the Big Bang?
Unless something fairly radical changes in our understanding of this universe, I believe the PBBU will remain a completely unknowable thing, untouchable by either science or logic. And while I have hopes that my boy will one day pen both his doctoral thesis and Nobel acceptance speech on the subject, it doesn't otherwise affect me, or my loved ones, or the rest of the world, so I'm completely comfortable with a "can't know" kind of answer. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2004 : 15:46:36 [Permalink]
|
As I understand it, the current model of the universe has it expanding after the Big Bang, reaching a peak, and then collapsing in on itself. An alternative is that the universe just keeps on growing and dispersing, but I don't think that it's the current model. I assumed that it was taught that when the universe collapsed in on itself it would then perform another Big Bang, but I could be wrong.
I personally think that it's simpler to believe that matter, energy and light made up the PBBU because we've never observed anything but matter, energy, and light. My #2 point was not saying that we know anything about the PBBU, but that we don't have any reason to believe that it was not made up of matter, energy, and light.
Why is is it thought that a singularity would change the laws of physics, or change matter, energy, and light into something that wasn't matter, energy, or light? Or vice versa? Have we ever observed any of the effects of a singularity? As I understand it, a black hole has such a gravitational effect that it bends space and time (another concept that I dispute) but even granted that, does that give us any reason to believe that the PBBU consisted of something other than MEL? So in short, it is possible that the PBBU consisted of something other than MEL, but I don't see any reason to believe so.
Since we have never observed something other than MEL, nor have we observed something appearing from nothing, I think that it is most logical to assume that the PBBU consisted of MEL. And who says that logic only applies to something that we can answer or could soon answer? The reason why I'm bringing up this whole subject is that if it is most logical to think that MEL as we know it always existed than we also have no explanation for why the energy hasn't entropied, which would be a reason for believing in Intelligent Design.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 08/10/2004 15:50:39 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2004 : 16:29:20 [Permalink]
|
If I may....
quote:
The reason why I'm bringing up this whole subject is that if it is most logical to think that MEL as we know it always existed than we also have no explanation for why the energy hasn't entropied, which would be a reason for believing in Intelligent Design.
I would say that it is a reason to speculate or perhaps even hypothosize intelligent design, rather than to have a belief in it.
This is a subject that I know nothing about (which is why I've kept my nose out of it), but it seems to me that to profess a belief, some evidence in support is required. Intelligent design is merely one possibility among many that have no evidences beyond the imaginations of their various proponents.
Much more study is in order.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2004 : 17:54:53 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
As I understand it, the current model of the universe has it expanding after the Big Bang, reaching a peak, and then collapsing in on itself. An alternative is that the universe just keeps on growing and dispersing, but I don't think that it's the current model. I assumed that it was taught that when the universe collapsed in on itself it would then perform another Big Bang, but I could be wrong.
Actually, the latest measurements show the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate. The "Big Crunch" is - from what I know - not going to happen. We're headed towards heat death, instead.quote:
I personally think that it's simpler to believe that matter, energy and light made up the PBBU because we've never observed anything but matter, energy, and light. My #2 point was not saying that we know anything about the PBBU, but that we don't have any reason to believe that it was not made up of matter, energy, and light.
And my point is that the Big Bang is a recognized "wall" to knowledge, and there really isn't any reason to think that what lies beyond that wall would be at all familiar to us. So far as we know time itself began with the Big Bang, which is mighty friggin' strange.
quote:
Why is is it thought that a singularity would change the laws of physics, or change matter, energy, and light into something that wasn't matter, energy, or light? Or vice versa? Have we ever observed any of the effects of a singularity?
Only the effects on the things nearby. Since light itself cannot escape (and we haven't figured out how to "decode" any of the information which might come back out), we have no way to probe what goes on inside.quote:
As I understand it, a black hole has such a gravitational effect that it bends space and time (another concept that I dispute)...
Nope. Your understanding is halfway. All matter bends time and space. We feel the effects of the Earth bending time and space as "gravity." We can see the effects of the Sun's mass bending time and space as starlight gets bent around it. This is the nub of Einstein's general relativity, and it's been demonstrated many, many times. Even you, Hippy, bend space and time, although only to a tiny extent. In this way, a black hole's bending of time and space is simply a difference in degree of effect, and not some effect which smaller masses don't exhibit at all.quote:
...but even granted that, does that give us any reason to believe that the PBBU consisted of something other than MEL? So in short, it is possible that the PBBU consisted of something other than MEL, but I don't see any reason to believe so.
We have no reason to think that it did consist of MEL, either.quote:
Since we have never observed something other than MEL, nor have we observed something appearing from nothing, I think that it is most logical to assume that the PBBU consisted of MEL. And who says that logic only applies to something that we can answer or could soon answer? The reason why I'm bringing up this whole subject is that if it is most logical to think that MEL as we know it always existed than we also have no explanation for why the energy hasn't entropied, which would be a reason for believing in Intelligent Design.
No, "ID" just raises a whole new slew of questions, and provides no answers. There is no evidence supporting the ID speculations, nor do ID theorists make any predictions which can be tested. The "Design Inference" fails on many levels. "Complex Specified Information" has been shown to be an overly-vague and thus useless concept. I won't go on.
"Intelligent Design," in its current incarnation, is nothing more than a political invention by those attempting to use "the Wedge Strategy" to get religion taught as science in public schools in the U.S.. And as a political invention, it fails both as a science and as a religion.
Here's a question for you: if the universe has been cycling from Big Bang to Big Crunch zillions of times, where was the "intelligence" located? If it is a part of the universe, it would have been crunched, also. If it's not a part of this universe, then through what mechanism does it interact with this one? Either way, it would have had to be able to "reset" the entropy of the universe, something which we can't do to a closed system without opening it. How does one open the universe? Those are the extra assumptions which Occam's Razor can trim away, since we've got no evidence of that sort of intelligence in the first place. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2004 : 20:59:33 [Permalink]
|
Assuming, of course, that you don't prefer the membrane theory over the big-bang theory.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 05:44:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nope. Your understanding is halfway. All matter bends time and space. We feel the effects of the Earth bending time and space as "gravity." We can see the effects of the Sun's mass bending time and space as starlight gets bent around it. This is the nub of Einstein's general relativity, and it's been demonstrated many, many times. Even you, Hippy, bend space and time, although only to a tiny extent. In this way, a black hole's bending of time and space is simply a difference in degree of effect, and not some effect which smaller masses don't exhibit at all.
I have just recently come to an understanding of this, and I just wanted to maybe explain this in a bit more detail. All matter in space, when no forces are acting upon it travel in striaght lines. Even when you see something bend due to gravitational forces, it is in fact traveling in a striaght line, but not on a striaght plane. Mass bends the spacetime, resulting in what would appear to be a curved path is actually striaght. Heres a good website:
http://nrumiano.free.fr/Estars/b_holes.html
about 1/2 way down there is a really good picture showing this. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 14:34:39 [Permalink]
|
If it appears that the universe is just going to expand and disperse, then my entire premise for this thread is inaccurate. That being the case, I'm going to start a new thread about time and space distortion.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 08/11/2004 15:04:49 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 14:47:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Filthy:
Good point. Let me say instead that my idea of entropy and the infinite past would be an objection to the current model of the universe.
So then, if it appears that the universe is just going to expand and disperse, then my entire premise for this thread is inaccurate. That being the case, I'm going to start a new thread about time and space distortion.
Hippy
Again, it's a topic I'm not educated in beyond the teachings of Red Dwarf and The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. But do start one up; I'm interested in the take of others on it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 16:31:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude Posted - 08/10/2004 : 20:59:33
Assuming, of course, that you don't prefer the membrane theory over the big-bang theory.
Hippy, I strongly suggest you discard your tracts , and for the second time, I urge you to read 'The universe in a nutshell' by Hawkin. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/055380202X/002-2553825-8124037?v=glance
It is critically acclaimed, very easy to read and is a definitive account of how we understand the universe today!
I kid you not, he will answer your questions.
|
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 17:16:11 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
If it appears that the universe is just going to expand and disperse, then my entire premise for this thread is inaccurate. That being the case, I'm going to start a new thread about time and space distortion.
Well, I just read this morning that because we've got no clue as to what's causing the acceleration of the expansion of space, then we can't say for sure what'll happen to it. If it continues as it is, heat death. If it stops, maybe not. If it reverses, definitely not. The author even suggested that it could "hyperaccelerate," and individual atoms would get ripped apart. Fun stuff.
The point is, however, that I was wrong about what cosmologists are currently saying. They're now saying that they've got no idea what the ultimate fate of the universe will be. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
