The Laws of the Universe

[dad]

Well with no reason to assume otherwise, I don't see a problem.

Great. So tell us about mass and charge of particles and why you mention it?

 

[Nabobalis]

Great. So tell us about mass and charge of particles and why you mention it?

They are constants.

 

[dad]

They are constants.

Inside your head maybe. Prove it.

 

[Nabobalis]

Inside your head maybe. Prove it.

I can't, it is an assumption that the mass of a particle is the same everywhere but if you don't assume it then you can't make any attempt at explaining anything going on in the universe. But why would they vary? Do you have any evidence that they do/or a theory that suggests that it varies?

 

[dad]

I can't, it is an assumption that the mass of a particle is the same everywhere

..Oh brother (shakes head)

but if you don't assume it then you can't make any attempt at explaining anything going on in the universe.

Kinda spoils all the fun of making stuff up? One can assume other things, and still explain stuff.

But why would they vary?

Because maybe earth is being punished and in a temporary state?

Do you have any evidence that they do/or a theory that suggests that it varies?

Based on science, as you pointed out, they FIRST assume, and then weave the fables from there. But if we look to the experience of man and history and God's record, we see that there is more than the present physical only at work.

 

[Nabobalis]

..Oh brother (shakes head)



Kinda spoils all the fun of making stuff up? One can assume other things, and still explain stuff.


Because maybe earth is being punished and in a temporary state?
Based on science, as you pointed out, they FIRST assume, and then weave the fables from there. But if we look to the experience of man and history and God's record, we see that there is more than the present physical only at work.

So no evidence I take it?

 

[dad]

So no evidence I take it?

For....what?

 

[Nabobalis]

For....what?

That the assumption is wrong?

 

[dad]

That the assumption is wrong?

Assumptions need reasons to be considered right...not wrong.

 

[Nabobalis]

Assumptions need reasons to be considered right...not wrong.

No, assumptions are just that, an assumption.

 

[mzungu]

For....what?

Since you claim that the laws of the universe were different, then the onus is on you to prove your claim.

What? You have no proof?

Well then that settles it; You are wrong.

Next please.......!

 

[dad]

Since you claim that the laws of the universe were different, then the onus is on you to prove your claim.

What? You have no proof?

Well then that settles it; You are wrong.

Next please.......!

I claim science can't prove what forces and laws were. That is a fact, well demonstrated here.

 

[dad]

No, assumptions are just that, an assumption.

Exactly. You need to do more than assume a godless past state.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Exactly. You need to do more than assume a godless past state.

And what "more" should we assume?

 

[dad]

And what "more" should we assume?

Who really cares what you assume? What is known is all that matters for science claims.

 

[Nabobalis]

Exactly. You need to do more than assume a godless past state.

Why? What evidence do you have that it wasn't godless?

 

[mzungu]

Exactly. You need to do more than assume a godless past state.

It has been proven beyond a doubt that it was a godless past state. You have failed miserably to bring forth ANY evidence to the contrary.

I hereby declare that you have lost the debate on the grounds that you have failed to provide us with any answers nor evidences.

In Short

I WIN!!!!!

​

 

[Nathan Poe]

Who really cares what you assume? What is known is all that matters for science claims.

And what you can blather is all that matters for your claims.

 

[Jazer]

Since you claim that the laws of the universe were different, then the onus is on you to prove your claim.

Didn't they teach us in math class in grade school how to check our answer to see if it is correct or not? Take the expanding universe for example. We have no evidence that it has ever contracted. All the evidence shows that it has expanded from the beginning at a consistent rate. Even though they believe that the universe could or at some time well contract.

 

[mzungu]

Didn't they teach us in math class in grade school how to check our answer to see if it is correct or not? Take the expanding universe for example. We have no evidence that it has ever contracted. All the evidence shows that it has expanded from the beginning at a consistent rate. Even though they believe that the universe could or at some time well contract.

Well not exactly; Here is an excerpt from wikipedia on the various pertaining theories, enjoy the read :

Theories about the end of the universe
​

The fate of the universe is determined by the density of the universe. The preponderance of evidence to date, based on measurements of the rate of expansion and the mass density, favours a universe that will continue to expand indefinitely, resulting in the "big freeze" scenario below.[3] However, new understandings of the nature of dark matter also suggest its interactions with mass and gravity demonstrate the possibility of an oscillating universe.[4]

Big Freeze or heat death
Main articles: Future of an expanding universe and Heat death of the universe
The Big Freeze is a scenario under which continued expansion results in a universe that asymptotically approaches absolute zero temperature. It could, in the absence of dark energy, occur only under a flat or hyperbolic geometry. With a positive cosmological constant, it could also occur in a closed universe. This scenario is currently the most commonly accepted theory within the scientific community. A related scenario is Heat death, which states that the universe goes to a state of maximum entropy in which everything is evenly distributed, and there are no gradients — which are needed to sustain information processing, one form of which is life. The Heat Death scenario is compatible with any of the three spatial models, but requires that the universe reach an eventual temperature minimum.

Big Rip
Main article: Big Rip
In the special case of phantom dark energy, which has even more negative pressure than a simple cosmological constant, the density of dark energy increases with time, causing the rate of acceleration to increase, leading to a steady increase in the Hubble constant. As a result, all material objects in the universe, starting with galaxies and eventually (in a finite time) all forms, no matter how small, will disintegrate into unbound elementary particles and radiation, ripped apart by the phantom energy force and shooting apart from each other. The end state of the universe is a singularity, as the dark energy density and expansion rate becomes infinite. For a possible timeline based on current physical theories, see 1 E19 s and more.

Big Crunch


The Big Crunch. The vertical axis can be considered as either plus or minus time.


Main article: Big Crunch
The Big Crunch theory is a symmetric view of the ultimate fate of the Universe. Just as the Big Bang started a cosmological expansion, this theory postulates that the average density of the universe is enough to stop its expansion and begin contracting. The end result is unknown; a simple extrapolation would have all the matter and space-time in the universe collapse into a dimensionless singularity, but at these scales unknown quantum effects need to be considered (See Quantum gravity).
This scenario allows the Big Bang to have been immediately preceded by the Big Crunch of a preceding universe. If this occurs repeatedly, we have an oscillatory universe. The universe could then consist of an infinite sequence of finite universes, each finite universe ending with a Big Crunch that is also the Big Bang of the next universe. Theoretically, the oscillating universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model. A somewhat similar idea is embraced by the cyclic model, but this idea evades heat death, because of an expansion of the branes that dilutes entropy accumulated in the previous cycle.

Big Bounce
Main article: Big Bounce
The Big Bounce is a theorised scientific model related to the beginning of the known Universe. It derives from the oscillatory universe or cyclic repetition interpretation of the Big Bang where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe.
According to one version of the Big Bang theory of cosmology, in the beginning the universe had infinite density. Such a description seems to be at odds with everything else in physics, and especially quantum mechanics and its uncertainty principle.[citation needed] It is not surprising, therefore, that quantum mechanics has given rise to an alternative version of the Big Bang theory. Also, if the universe is closed, this theory would predict that once this universe collapses it will spawn another universe in an event similar to the Big Bang after a universal singularity is reached or a repulsive quantum force causes re-expansion.

Multiverse: no complete end
Main article: Multiverse
One multiverse hypothesis states that our uni-"verse" is merely one Big Bang among an infinite number of simultaneously expanding Big Bangs that are spread out over endless distances (open space).
Each "verse" may be either matter or antimatter, with an equal number in existence at any given time. As the "verses" expand they collide and matter and antimatter annihilate, releasing energy. Heat death of a finite universe would be predicted as entropy increases, however, the infinite size of the multiverse and the infinite number of "verses" could mean that new "verses" would be formed as old "verses" were annihilated.
A chain reaction multiverse would be analogous to a fireworks display (each explosion representing a Big Bang) that starts in one neighbourhood and is followed by fireworks displays in surrounding neighbourhoods and then in neighbourhoods further out. The chain reaction of Big Bangs would continue to expand as Big Bang fuel is consumed. If the multiverse is open and the fuel is infinite then the chain reaction would expand forever. Of course, it is not known what the "fuel" is, but it is logical to assume that matter and energy are the product of a transformation from a real reactant, possibly the Higgs boson[citation needed].
The multiverse as a whole may never end completely.[citation needed]

False vacuum
If the vacuum is not in its lowest energy state (a false vacuum), it could tunnel into a lower energy state.[5] This is called the vacuum metastability event. This has the potential to fundamentally alter our universe; in more audacious scenarios even the various physical constants could have different values, severely affecting the foundations of matter, energy, and spacetime. It is also possible that all structures will be destroyed instantaneously, without any forewarning.[6]
According to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe will not end this way. Instead, each time a quantum event happens that causes the universe to decay from a false vacuum to a true vacuum state, the universe splits into several new worlds. In some of the new worlds the universe decays; in some others the universe continues as before.

Cosmic uncertainty
Each possibility described so far is based on a very simple form for the dark energy equation of state. But as the name is meant to imply, we know almost nothing of the real physics of the dark energy. If the theory of inflation is true, the universe went through an episode dominated by a different form of dark energy in the first moments of the big bang; but inflation ended, indicating an equation of state much more complicated than those assumed so far for present-day dark energy. It is possible that the dark energy equation of state could change again resulting in an event that would have consequences which are extremely difficult to parametrize or predict. It is also possible the universe may never have an end and continue in its present state forever.