Science Proves Creation

[HARK!]

Your first axiom is unsound, containing as it does a false statement. Matter and energy can both be infinite in an infinite universe. This does not require, as you think, that this would require an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, solid mass. That is an egregious error on your part.

Your conjecture could be a possibility, if it weren't for the Second (fixed) Law of Thermodynamics eroding that supposition, over infinite time.

Again, I go with the empirical evidence.

 

[Ophiolite]

Your conjecture could be a possibility, if it weren't for the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics eroding that supposition, over infinite time.

Again, I go with the empirical evidence.

Provide the mathematical details.
Provide the empirical evidence.
Unsupported assertions do not require technical refutation.

 

[HARK!]

Provide the mathematical details.

Your conjecture could be a possibility, if it weren't for the Second (fixed) Law of Thermodynamics eroding that supposition, over infinite time.

Ooops! That's what I get for working off of memory from classes I took. 40 years ago.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ooops! That's what I get for working off of memory from classes I took. 40 years ago.

So, nothing then. No evidence, no reasoned argument. Just an empty mention of a scientific concept and an excuse.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Because once something is given a name, as long as it exist; it must always have a name.

Another of your unsupported assertions is not a reason.

As another example, what is the current word for what used to be called "unique"?

 

[Ken-1122]

Most nouns have multiple meanings. Context typically points to which is applicable. "Universe" works fine, in everyday conversations, for "all that exists".

If I recall correctly, the previous definitions you provided was basically the same thing; (all that exists) except it also included the Milky Way Galaxy. I've never heard of a Galaxy called the Universe. Perhaps multi galaxies should have been used rather than multiverse.

You really do seem to have got, unnecessarily, your undergarments in a topological extravaganza over this.

If you are under the impression that this is a big deal for me, you are reading waaay too

 

[Ken-1122]

Another of your unsupported assertions is not a reason.

As another example, what is the current word for what used to be called "unique"?

Definition of unique | Dictionary.com
This is the only definition of the word I have ever known, and it is still used this way. If you know of a different word used this way, feel free to provide it.

 

[Kylie]

I read about that example nearly 30 years ago.

Here's another one: Quantum Destabilization of a Water Sandwich – Laws of Classical Physics Break Down

And the article clearly states that it because of quantum mechanics that this happens. However, QM only operates at these small scales. It does not work on the scale of our everyday lives.

Let me try explaining it another way. Newton came up with his ideas about how the world worked, and people developed on them. These laws described things like how objects move when you throw them, how much force water applies when it flows, all that sort of thing. It dealt with the stuff that people experienced in their everyday lives.

These laws were very accurate, but not precisely so. There were some errors that people couldn't account for, such as planets not being in quite the position that was predicted. It wasn't until Einstein developed relativity and understood that the errors had occurred because they had treated gravity as acting instantaneously, and gravitational effects moved at the speed of light instead. Einstein's new equations were extremely accurate and gave the correct predictions, but they were also very complicated to figure out. Since the old equations were much easier and gave results that were accurate enough for most purposes, we held on to them, even though we know about the errors.

But still, Relativity and Newtonian laws only apply to the everyday world. When it comes to other things, the very small like subatomic scales, or the very massive, like singularities, Relativity breaks down and gives nonsensical answers, like saying something has infinite speed, or an infinite amount of gravity. It is at this point we need to turn to quantum mechanics. But QM has not replaced relativity. They are two different things, each explaining a different aspect of the world.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Definition of unique | Dictionary.com
This is the only definition of the word I have ever known, and it is still used this way. If you know of a different word used this way, feel free to provide it.

You need to get out more and listen to how the word is used. Can you honestly tell me you've never heard the expression "very unique"? The meaning of "unique" is no longer as simple as "the only one of its kind". So, since you insist there needs to be a new word for universe rather than it having multiple meanings, what word should we now use for unique?

 

[Ken-1122]

You need to get out more and listen to how the word is used. Can you honestly tell me you've never heard the expression "very unique"?

Very unique means the only one of it's kind. Care to try again?

The meaning of "unique" is no longer as simple as "the only one of its kind".

What else does it mean then? Your previous example failed.

So, since you insist there needs to be a new word for universe rather than it having multiple meanings, what word should we now use for unique?

You haven't made the case of a different meaning for "Unique" yet.

 

[Ophiolite]

You need to get out more and listen to how the word is used. Can you honestly tell me you've never heard the expression "very unique"? The meaning of "unique" is no longer as simple as "the only one of its kind". So, since you insist there needs to be a new word for universe rather than it having multiple meanings, what word should we now use for unique?

I cannot go with you on this one. Fundamental English language principle: you cannot qualify an absolute. Unfortunately, celebrities, the great unwashed and even BBC journalists routinely commit the offence.
In short, the word is not being used that way, it is being misused that way. In a decade or so such misuse will be wholly acceptable and we will have lost the valuable clarity that proper usage delivers.

 

[SLP]

NASA - The Solar System
www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_The_Solar_System_prt.htm
The sun's gravity creates extreme pressures and temperatures within itself, sustaining a thermonuclear reaction fusing hydrogen nuclei and producing ...

Ah, so the sun created life on earth.
Cool.

 

[Kylie]

I cannot go with you on this one. Fundamental English language principle: you cannot qualify an absolute. Unfortunately, celebrities, the great unwashed and even BBC journalists routinely commit the offence.
In short, the word is not being used that way, it is being misused that way. In a decade or so such misuse will be wholly acceptable and we will have lost the valuable clarity that proper usage delivers.

While I understand your point, and I even agree with you to quite a large degree (the phrase "very unique" really bugs me - is there such a thing as only a little bit unique? I don't think so!), the fact is that English does change over time. Decimate once meant to reduce by one tenth, now it means to destroy the majority. Gay once used to mean happy, but now if you say you're gay people will think you mean something else. The word "unique" is going through a similar change.

 

[SLP]

It took me about 30 years of intense study, excelling in my career, and teaching engineers,

'Nuff said.

 

[Ken-1122]

While I understand your point, and I even agree with you to quite a large degree (the phrase "very unique" really bugs me - is there such a thing as only a little bit unique? I don't think so!), the fact is that English does change over time. Decimate once meant to reduce by one tenth, now it means to destroy the majority. Gay once used to mean happy, but now if you say you're gay people will think you mean something else. The word "unique" is going through a similar change.

So what is this new change for "unique" everyone's talking about?

 

[SLP]

In my decades of work, I've witnessed too many examples, which defy the Laws of Physics, to claim that the laws always apply.

Can you name 5?

 

[SLP]

The cases I speak of ARE anecdotes; but that's irrelevant.

That explains that.

Never mind.

 

[Kylie]

So what is this new change for "unique" everyone's talking about?

It seems to me that its meaning is drifting towards, "Being unlike other things."

So "very unique" means "very unlike other things," and "a bit unique" means "a bit unlike other things." Its meaning is moving away from the binary definition it once had and is moving towards more of a spectrum, where it can be referred to in degrees.

But that's just my opinion. I don't claim to be an expert on the way English changes over time.

 

[Kylie]

Again, the empirical evidence. Have you ever looked at the night sky? There are a limited number of stars. This limits the amount of visible light. Again EMR radiates in three dimensions. Stars have a limited life span. If there were unlimited stars stars; there would be unlimited light, therefore light gain; until all of the stars had reached their lifespan. Even then, visible light would continue to travel through the entirety of infinite space. This is not the case. EMR cannot be infinite, while simultaneously finite; as it would violate the LNC.

Of course, since the universe is expanding, and the farther away an object is from us, the faster the universe expands, any stars far enough away will have the spectra shifted out of visible light, thus explaining why we can't see them.

Indeed, while nothing can move through the universe faster than light, nothing is preventing the universe expanding at light speed or even faster. SOURCE So, there could well be parts of the universe that are being carried away from us by the universe's expansion so fast that light emitted from those stars can never reach us. So even if there were unlimited stars, the vast majority of them could never be detected by us.

Just something to think about.

 

[HARK!]

And the article clearly states that it because of quantum mechanics that this happens.

No it doesn't. We're getting off to a bad start/

However, QM only operates at these small scales. It does not work on the scale of our everyday lives.

Nonsense. You can find my rebuttal beginning at the 9 minute mark:

Let me try explaining it another way. Newton came up with his ideas about how the world worked, and people developed on them. These laws described things like how objects move when you throw them, how much force water applies when it flows, all that sort of thing. It dealt with the stuff that people experienced in their everyday lives

That's what QM does. Newtonian Physics is flawed. That's why we now study reality through QM.

These laws were very accurate, but not precisely so

Why do you seem to be contradicting yourself?

There were some errors

Science calls for reproducible results. Again, a law isn't a law if it only holds true sometimes.

I stopped reading after this.