01 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIF we have a bouncy universe (a big IF, I think, but that is just my opinion) then I presume each “bounce back” would just have to be an exception to the second law of thermodynamics.
The problem with the bouncing universe theory is that it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Those laws are just empirical laws, but still.
If the bouncy universe theory was one day proved, then we would just have to redefine the second law of thermodynamics as:
“Except when the universe re-bounces, …(insert the old definition of the second law of thermodynamics here)…”
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOh, but physicists hate exceptions to the rule!
IF we have a bouncy universe (a big IF, I think, but that is just my opinion) then I presume each “bounce back” would just have to be an exception to the second law of thermodynamics.
If the bouncy universe theory was one day proved, then we would just have to redefine the second law of thermodynamics as:
“Except when the universe re-bounces, …(insert the old definition of the second law of thermodynamics here)…”
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe most recent Big Bang, wow! That an article of faith,
The age of the Universe... If we have a bouncing universe, then we have to redefine either 'universe' or 'time' to make the question meaningful.
I say we define universe as "that universe from the most recent BigBang". Most of the cosmologists say today that the age of the Universe is 13.7 billion of years ( +/- 200 million of yeas). If we believe in t ...[text shortened]... measure the age of the preceding universe, we are just speculating, nothing more.
or you going to present some data to show that is actually
what has been occurring?
Kelly
01 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou ever watch those little balls on strings that when swings it hits
IF we have a bouncy universe (a big IF, I think, but that is just my opinion) then I presume each “bounce back” would just have to be an exception to the second law of thermodynamics.
If the bouncy universe theory was one day proved, then we would just have to redefine the second law of thermodynamics as:
“Except when the universe re-bounces, …(insert the old definition of the second law of thermodynamics here)…”
the one next to it, and the one on the other side flies away and the
process continues? You realize don't you that process is not eternal
its energy diminishes and the process comes to a halt? Unless this
is like one of your straight line process that also defies all logic
except the kind that is faith based.
Kelly
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWe know there was a most recent BigBang. We just don't know that this BigBang is the first one, or even the last one.
The most recent Big Bang, wow! That an article of faith,
or you going to present some data to show that is actually
what has been occurring?
Kelly
This has nothing to do with a religious faith. If it were, I wouldn't post it here in Science Forum but in Spiritual Forum where it belongs.
Do I really need to present data that the BigBang has occurred? There are plenty of documentation of observations that support the BigBang theory. "The First Few Microseconds". Scientific American (May 2006) is one.
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThe bouncy universe theory doesn’t say that the universe is bouncing around sideways and all over the place 😀
You ever watch those little balls on strings that when swings it hits
the one next to it, and the one on the other side flies away and the
process continues? You realize don't you that process is not eternal
its energy diminishes and the process comes to a halt? Unless this
is like one of your straight line process that also defies all logic
except the kind that is faith based.
Kelly
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasWe (you) know about the most recent Big Bang? I think you believe
We know there was a most recent BigBang. We just don't know that this BigBang is the first one, or even the last one.
This has nothing to do with a religious faith. If it were, I wouldn't post it here in Science Forum but in Spiritual Forum where it belongs.
Do I really need to present data that the BigBang has occurred? There are plenty of documentat ...[text shortened]... ort the BigBang theory. "The First Few Microseconds". Scientific American (May 2006) is one.
it occurred, and you are adding that belief to your other beliefs about
the universe. You are speaking about things you have not seen and
cannot reproduce as if they were real, recordable, and repeatable on
demand. Which means your beliefs and the way religion speaks
about things that religion cannot show as real, recordable, and
repeatable on demand are being done the same way. It is truth only
in one place and that is between your ears or in your heart depending
on where you think truth resides within the human body. 🙂
Kelly
02 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayYou don't much about science, and scientific methods. Therefore your reasoning is faulty from the beginning.
We (you) know about the most recent Big Bang? I think you believe
it occurred, and you are adding that belief to your other beliefs about
the universe. You are speaking about things you have not seen and
cannot reproduce as if they were real, recordable, and repeatable on
demand. Which means your beliefs and the way religion speaks
about things that re ...[text shortened]... s or in your heart depending
on where you think truth resides within the human body. 🙂
Kelly
Science is not religion, therefore faith is not involved here. Backgorund radiation is, of course, a very strong evidence for BigBang, you should know this. Tell me any other theory that can as elegantly as the BigBang theory explain the background radiation? There is no room for faith here.
Faith is a religious idea. I have opened a thread in the Spiritual Forum and invited you to discuss faith there. There is room for religious faith in science.
02 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI've joined that thread already.
You don't much about science, and scientific methods. Therefore your reasoning is faulty from the beginning.
Science is not religion, therefore faith is not involved here. Backgorund radiation is, of course, a very strong evidence for BigBang, you should know this. Tell me any other theory that can as elegantly as the BigBang theory explain the backgro ...[text shortened]... ual Forum and invited you to discuss faith there. There is room for religious faith in science.
Kelly
02 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnas🙂 You honestly believe the Big Bang is the most sound reason there
You don't much about science, and scientific methods. Therefore your reasoning is faulty from the beginning.
Science is not religion, therefore faith is not involved here. Backgorund radiation is, of course, a very strong evidence for BigBang, you should know this. Tell me any other theory that can as elegantly as the BigBang theory explain the backgro ...[text shortened]... ual Forum and invited you to discuss faith there. There is room for religious faith in science.
is for background radiation?
Kelly