Science Proves Creation

[Shemjaza]

How so?

You are comfortable with space being in infinite supply, but have asserted that matter or energy can not.

There isn't a justification aside from an appeal to your personal credulity about how you think these substances behave. (Particularly in a situation alien to any circumstance we commonly encounter).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are comfortable with space being in infinite supply, but have asserted that matter or energy can not.

It's also worth bearing in mind that space has energy associated.

 

[Ophiolite]

What other definition do you guys know of, for the Universe?

Others have answered this. I post this out of politeness, since you asked me directly. I draw your attention, in particular, to post #121, from @FrumiousBandersnatch . He mentions island universes, the example I would have offered. Note the plural.

The problem appears to be that you are using a dictionary definition for a word that is used in a scientific context. This is rarely a good idea, as it could open you to unflattering charges. Astronomers and cosmologists were happy to refer to "island universes" in a scientific context. It is then rather fanciful for a layman to object to that usage.

 

[HARK!]

You are comfortable with space being in infinite supply, but have asserted that matter or energy can not.

There isn't a justification aside from an appeal to your personal credulity about how you think these substances behave. (Particularly in a situation alien to any circumstance we commonly encounter).

If there was an infinite amount of matter; there wouldn't be any space between the earth and the moon.

If there was an infinite amount of energy; there would be an infinite amount of heat.

space
/spās/
noun

• 1. a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied: "a table took up much of the space" synonyms room, expanse, extent, capacity, area, ... more
• 2. the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move:

 

[Ophiolite]

If there was an infinite amount of matter; there wouldn't be any space between the earth and the moon.

Nonsense. That is equivalent to saying:
If there were an infinite number of odd numbers there would be no room for the even numbers to fit between them. You seem to have a profound misunderstanding of the mathematical concept of infinity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If there was an infinite amount of energy; there would be an infinite amount of heat.

True; and if the energy density was low enough, it might barely be measurable.

 

[Ken-1122]

Others have answered this. I post this out of politeness, since you asked me directly. I draw your attention, in particular, to post #121, from @FrumiousBandersnatch . He mentions island universes, the example I would have offered. Note the plural.

The problem appears to be that you are using a dictionary definition for a word that is used in a scientific context. This is rarely a good idea, as it could open you to unflattering charges. Astronomers and cosmologists were happy to refer to "island universes" in a scientific context. It is then rather fanciful for a layman to object to that usage.

Yes you used the term “multiple Universes” in a hypothetical; I was just pointing out what I saw as a contradiction in terms, you could have just as easily used multiple galaxies, or something with limits but for whatever reason you used multiverse. To me this is akin to using a term “multiple infinities” in a hypothetical; the way I see it if your hypothetical is about something with boundaries, or limits, don’t use infinity, and if your hypothetical is about something less than all that exists, don’t use Universe. However it is your hypothetical and contradictory or not you are free to use whatever language you choose to make your point; and I as an observer is free to point out what I see as contradictions.

 

[HARK!]

Nonsense. That is equivalent to saying:
If there were an infinite number of odd numbers there would be no room for the even numbers to fit between them. You seem to have a profound misunderstanding of the mathematical concept of infinity.

Nonsense! Whole numbers are defined (like the Earth and Moon) , therefore the quantity between any two whole numbers is finite.

 

[MissRowy]

Nonsense! Whole numbers are defined (like the Earth and Moon) , therefore the quantity between any two whole numbers is finite.

And your proof of that is???

 

[Ophiolite]

Nonsense! Whole numbers are defined (like the Earth and Moon) , therefore the quantity between any two whole numbers is finite.

If you are deliberately going to miss the point, there is no point in continuing.
If you choose not to do the requisite study in order to understand your error, there is no point in continuing.
Either way, there is no point in continuing.

 

[Yttrium]

If there was an infinite amount of matter; there wouldn't be any space between the earth and the moon.

If there was an infinite amount of energy; there would be an infinite amount of heat.

Uh oh, now you've got me considering a hypothetical case. Dagnabbit.

Okay, let's say space is infinite. No matter how far you go out, there's always more space. Now let's put a star 10 light years away in one direction. keep going out in that same direction, and keep putting a star every 10 light years. Forever. So you end up with a single line of stars that is infinite in number.

Thanks to those infinite stars, you have a universe that has infinite matter and infinite energy.

Is that going to fill the sky with stars? Will it cook everything with heat? Will it fill all space in the solar system?

Well, no.

Now, if space if finite, then we have a problem packing infinity inside.

 

[HARK!]

Uh oh, now you've got me considering a hypothetical case. Dagnabbit.

Okay, let's say space is infinite. No matter how far you go out, there's always more space. Now let's put a star 10 light years away in one direction. keep going out in that same direction, and keep putting a star every 10 light years. Forever. So you end up with a single line of stars that is infinite in number.

Thanks to those infinite stars, you have a universe that has infinite matter and infinite energy.

Is that going to fill the sky with stars? Will it cook everything with heat? Will it fill all space in the solar system?

Well, no.

Now, if space if finite, then we have a problem packing infinity inside.

That's an interesting perspective; but it has at least one flaw.

What you have described is a line. Space is a three dimensional expression. Although your line has no limits in one dimension; it is limited to one dimension.

If your line was carried out in three dimensions, evenly distributed within infinite space, the radiant heat of the stars would compound on itself, infinitely.

 

[HARK!]

And your proof of that is???

Really? It's called math, you know, like 2+2=4. Otherwise you could end with with 2+2= ADoubleSuperKaJillion; and that's just plain old greedy.

 

[Yttrium]

If your line was carried out in three dimensions, evenly distributed within infinite space, the radiant heat of the stars would compound on itself, infinitely.

Indeed it would. However, that one line meets the conditions of infinite matter and energy. There's no need to carry it out in three dimensions.

 

[HARK!]

Indeed it would. However, that one line meets the conditions of infinite matter and energy. There's no need to carry it out in three dimensions.

But there is a need to carry it out in three dimensions.

The radiant energy from your hypothetical stars is dispersed in three dimensions. If that EMR, from each star, was limited to being dispersed linearly, in sequence with the other stars; then that "line of light" might hypothetically stand in endurance to entropy, even after all of the stars had expended their radiation. I could go on with this hypothetical; but this is simply not the nature of EMR.

In your hypothetical model, the stars would eventually die; and their one dimensional "line of light" would dissipate into the cold darkness of infinite three dimensional space.

 

[Yttrium]

But there is a need to carry it out in three dimensions.

The radiant energy from your hypothetical stars is dispersed in three dimensions. If that EMR, from each star, was limited to being dispersed linearly, in sequence with the other stars; then that "line of light" might hypothetically stand in endurance to entropy, even after all of the stars had expended their radiation. I could go on with this hypothetical; but this is simply not the nature of EMR.

In your hypothetical model, the stars would eventually die; and their one dimensional "line of light" would dissipate into the cold darkness of infinite three dimensional space.

I'm not quite grasping the problem here.

 

[Kylie]

Some would argue that the Singularity preexisted the current universe eternally, before the Big Bang.

Nonsense! The same laws would apply to the Singularity...

My understanding is that the laws we understand break down in a singularity, so I don't know how you can justify this claim.

 

[HARK!]

I'm not quite grasping the problem here.

OK, I'll move on to the root of that flaw, which is easier to covey.

When all of those stars eventually die out, that sets a limit on their radiant energy.

 

[HARK!]

My understanding is that the laws we understand break down in a singularity, so I don't know how you can justify this claim.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is what breaks down in a singularity; but if a Scientific Law doesn't hold true at all times; it isn't a Law. It gets downgraded to, at best, a really, really really, good guess.

 

[Kylie]

The First Law of Thermodynamics is what breaks down in a singularity; but if a Scientific Law doesn't hold true at all times; it isn't a Law. It gets downgraded to, at best, a really, really really, good guess.

I'm guessing you don't actually understand science.