10 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think you will find that there is serious speculation in QP that the universe is accelerating apart and one projection is that eventually the stars will be so far apart and so burnt out that the universe will descend into darkness. As far as I remember the universe was projected to be cooling in this model. Would I be right to think that it's a lot cooler than it was billions of years ago? I will have to bow to your vastly superior knowledge in this area.....
running out of energy? tsk tsk. Never heard of the first law of thermodynamics either? "energy can neither be created nor destroyed". The universe isn't running out of energy, it's just converting to a different type of energy - heat!
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisteryeah yeah, sure. keep telling yourself that as you rock yourself to sleep at night.
And this is the problem...because you THINK you know where I am going with this argument you are unable to debate objectively and openly. You become far too concerned with 'stopping me' and you end up taking your eye off the ball. You are too emotionally motivated and not clear thinking enough to have just one simple step debated in isolation on it's o ...[text shortened]... biases are serving you well and protecting you from engaging with any meaningful debate.
Look, you really need to get your head around this. THERE WAS NOTHING PRIOR TO THE BIG BANG. THERE WASN'T EVEN A 'PRIOR' FOR ANYTHING [I]TO[/I] HAPPEN IN!
You keep saying 'but that doesn't make the question invalid' - YES IT DOES!!! If something doesn't exist it has no discernable properties.
Now, you can either continue with your tirade on me (actually, please do - i find it quite amusing) or you can actually get back to the question in hand. You might want to learn some basic physics first - laws of thermodynamics and relativity would be good places to start.
10 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt's a lot more diffuse than it was billions of years ago, but the total energy is absolutely, completely, the same.
I think you will find that there is serious speculation in QP that the universe is accelerating apart and one projection is that eventually the stars will be so far apart and so burnt out that the universe will descend into darkness. As far as I remember the universe was projected to be cooling in this model. Would I be right to think that it's a lot ...[text shortened]... s billions of years ago? I will have to bow to your vastly superior knowledge in this area.....
Think of it like a light bulb. As you get farther away then the intensity of the light goes down as a cube of the distance, since it is illuminating a sphere. As the matter got increasingly further away from the start point it would be dissipating energy to the surroundings, and thus slowing down. As it was rushing out in all directions, as time passed the energy would be getting shared over an increasingly larger volume of space. It would still be incredibly hot though - perhaps in the billions of degrees, but I don't really know. I know the energies involved must have been immense to create matter.
Eventually the volume of space will be huge, and the giant gravity powered elemental creation engines that we know as suns will have used up their fuel. At this point, they'll collapse, sucking in all matter, into a number of singularities. Eventually all matter will be pulled into this immeasurably dense blimp, with infinite gravity. The only thing that can escape these black holes is radiation, again, just another form of energy. At the moment it seems unsure whether the universe will be so spread out that it won't get sucked back in by gravity for a "big crunch" or whether the energy in the universe will have become so low order (i.e. heat) to not do any useful work and the universe will remain diffuse for the rest of time. We do know it's a long way off though (unless the young earthers are right, then it's a lot closer than we think 😉 ).
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe first rule deals with conservation of energy in a closed system. The universe (a closed system) would have to be a perpetual motion machine, as there is nothing (known) next to it, from which heat can be added or work provided.
running out of energy? tsk tsk. Never heard of the first law of thermodynamics either? "energy can neither be created nor destroyed". The universe isn't running out of energy, it's just converting to a different type of energy - heat!
10 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzLook, you really need to get your head around this. THERE WAS NOTHING PRIOR TO THE BIG BANG. THERE WASN'T EVEN A 'PRIOR' FOR ANYTHING TO HAPPEN IN!
yeah yeah, sure. keep telling yourself that as you rock yourself to sleep at night.
Look, you really need to get your head around this. THERE WAS NOTHING PRIOR TO THE BIG BANG. THERE WASN'T EVEN A 'PRIOR' FOR ANYTHING [I]TO[/I] HAPPEN IN!
You keep saying 'but that doesn't make the question invalid' - YES IT DOES!!! If something doesn't exist ...[text shortened]... asic physics first - laws of thermodynamics and relativity would be good places to start.
Ah... the old caveman routine -- jumping up and down, beating your chest and thinking that because you are yelling the loudest... you must be right.
I find this seriously dogmatic from one who is so quick to point the finger at the other distinguished members of this forum whenever there they resort to it. 😴
Did I say, "point the finger"? Actually it's much more than that; you resort to ridicule, insults and derision whenever a creationist makes a claim to any (in your view) laughable dogma.
So forgive me if it is with great reluctance and mirth that I have to ask for your peer-reviewed empirical evidence for this utterly brainwashed and narrow-minded stance. 😏
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderPrecisely.
It would be more accurate to say that there is nothing that can be measured (even in theory) before the Big Bang, so that the concept of what happened "prior" (assuming that concept has any meaning in a pre-Big Bang) to the Big Bang is the realm of metaphysics, not science.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI would love to return to the question at hand but you won't join me.
yeah yeah, sure. keep telling yourself that as you rock yourself to sleep at night.
Look, you really need to get your head around this. THERE WAS NOTHING PRIOR TO THE BIG BANG. THERE WASN'T EVEN A 'PRIOR' FOR ANYTHING [I]TO[/I] HAPPEN IN!
You keep saying 'but that doesn't make the question invalid' - YES IT DOES!!! If something doesn't exist ...[text shortened]... asic physics first - laws of thermodynamics and relativity would be good places to start.
If ,as you say, 'there wasn't even a 'prior' for anything to happen in ' how did the universe happen then?
The question of how can something come out of absolutely nothing with no cause (rather than just carry on being nothing) is a paradox that defies rational explanation. The question is a philosophical one rather than purely a scientific one. Your way of dealing with this philosophical challenge seems to be to resort to a kind of 'opting out' of the question in the first place by using scientific wordplay to discredit the question. This is too easy and convenient.
I'm sorry if I sound like I'm getting at you but after a while it does become irritating if someone comes up with an argument that is basically paradoxical but still seems to think there is no case to answer. If you would like to have a philosophical disccusion about causality and rationality let me know...but if you want to continue opting out then I'm afraid you will have to find your entertainment somewhere else. for further discussion see www.origins.org / craig_causedbeginning.html
By the way if anyone else is out there reading this please give me a hand here...either this guy hasn't got a single philosophical bone in his body or he's being deliberately playful and mischievious. Does anyone know which one it is?
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterBy the way if anyone else is out there reading this please give me a hand here...either this guy hasn't got a single philosophical bone in his body or he's being deliberately playful and mischievious. Does anyone know which one it is?
I would love to return to the question at hand but you won't join me.
If ,as you say, 'there wasn't even a 'prior' for anything to happen in ' how did the universe happen then?
The question of how can something come out of absolutely nothing with no cause (rather than just carry on being nothing) is a paradox that defies rational explanation. ...[text shortened]... he's being deliberately playful and mischievious. Does anyone know which one it is?
See my post above: deliberately dogmatic IMO.
10 Apr 06
KM: The question of how can something come out of absolutely nothing with no cause (rather than just carry on being nothing) is a paradox that defies rational explanation.
It's been pointed out many times on this forum, that this "paradox" is not resolved by kicking the can down the road from the universe to "God".
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAlthough it is one of the philosophical solutions to the problem.
KM: The question of how can something come out of absolutely nothing with no cause (rather than just carry on being nothing) is a paradox that defies rational explanation.
It's been pointed out many times on this forum, that this "paradox" is not resolved by kicking the can down the road from the universe to "God".
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by HalitoseStating that a thing is eternal solves the problem by definition, but one could simply say that the universe is eternal instead (or perhaps more precisely that the "stuff" that composes the universe is eternal since this "stuff" was existing at the singularity "prior" to the Big Bang).
Although it is one of the philosophical solutions to the problem.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYes. As I said: solutions. The problem with an eternal universe is that it needs some cause for its bangingness. 😏
Stating that a thing is eternal solves the problem by definition, but one could simply say that the universe is eternal instead (or perhaps more precisely that the "stuff" that composes the universe is eternal since this "stuff" was existing at the singularity "prior" to the Big Bang).