Thermodynamics Suggests Creation

[Justatruthseeker]

Inference. We can use observation to infer things we cannot directly observe, just as you can infer that the Earth is larger than the visible horizon.

What have you observed that would lead to the inference, since it isn't part of our "observable" universe?????

For example, we observe that the most distant light appears to be 13.8 billion years old, and we also observe that the universe has been expanding since that time. Therefore we can infer that those galaxies must now be much further away - estimates suggest at least 46.5 billion light-years, which makes the universe a minimum 93 billion light-years across, without assuming space beyond the observable universe.

Which in no way infers there must be other universes.... just that this one is larger in extent than you thought.....

There are other ways of estimating what's out there, such as the curvature of spacetime; GR suggests that it can be positively curved, negatively curved, or flat. Only the first option would imply a closed, spatially finite universe. A number of different observations suggest that the topology of our universe is flat to a precision of 0.25%, which implies it could be spatially infinite - but if it was not infinite, it would have to be at least 250 times bigger than the observable volume (or we'd measure a greater curvature). This makes it at least 23 trillion light years across, containing at least 15 million volumes the size of the observable universe ('Hubble volume'). 15 million isolated Hubble volumes makes it a minimal candidate for a cosmological multiverse.

And? Since those galaxies must be further than observed, the fact it must be larger is logical....... Which again, does not imply multiple universes.....

There are also arguments that imply the universe may be significantly larger, but these depend on hypotheses about the causes of the big bang, e.g. inflation theory, that are somewhat speculative.

Gosh, we wouldn't want to be highly speculative on top of our highly speculative speculations.... But multiverses is of course not highly speculative.... just origins that might contradict the BB....

The observable universe is also much larger than we thought in another sense - the number of galaxies. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field suggested estimates of around 200 billion galaxies, but more recent studies based on Hubble data put it at at least 10 times more than that, i.e. two trillion galaxies; again without assuming space beyond the observable volume.

And some of the furthest are fully evolved, defying the timeframe of the BB.... So perhaps it is infinite and your limit of observation merely limits your view.....

I grew up before Hubble and remember being taught it was only 8 billion lightyears across... Now its 13.7 and yet despite getting bigger, their underlying theory never seems to change, even when the observations falsify the time involved....

After all, before Hubble the universe was theorized to be a lot smaller. I'm waiting on the James Webb telescope so we can see further fully formed galaxies and destroy theory even more..... it's time the Big Bang went Bang and we got a new paradigm that fits reality....

 

[Brightmoon]

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/19421-if-you-can-t-explain-it-to-a-six-year-old


“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein↑

Apparently Albert thought 6 year olds could understand his theory..... or that he couldn't explain it to them and so didn't understand it himself.... Take your pick....

Since he admitted he really didn't understand his theory, that could be interpreted to mean he couldn't explain it to a 6 year old.... but I make no judgement call on this one.....

I tell you what (because I tried it ) , go try to read Jurassic Park to a six year old . Not the movie , the book. I got halfway thru the first chapter and I’ve got 2 kids with IQs over 150. I’ll make a judgment call on this - you haven’t tried to explain a involved scientific concept to a child .

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I tell you what (because I tried it ) , go try to read Jurassic Park to a six year old . Not the movie , the book. I got halfway thru the first chapter and I’ve got 2 kids with IQs over 150. I’ll make a judgment call on this - you haven’t tried to explain a involved scientific concept to a child .

But the movie is an attempt to explain the book to a 6 year old. The book was meant for you, not your 6 year old.... That you and your child both understood and enjoyed the movie just shows we can all understand the six year old explanation...

The movie "IS" the book Jurassic Park as explained to a 6 year old, which they have no problem understanding. It gets the same point across as the book does, just using ideology more suited to their age....

 

[Brightmoon]

But the movie is an attempt to explain the book to a 6 year old. The book was meant for you, not your 6 year old....

The movie "IS" the book Jurassic Park as explained to a 6 year old, which they have no problem understanding. It gets the same point across as the book does, just using ideology more suited to their age....

. I said try to explain the book not the movie . The movie mostly leaves it out or gets it wrong by conflating chaos theory with Murphy’s law. You’re the one who thinks this can be explained to a six year old . I never said I agreed with that

 

[Justatruthseeker]

. I said try to explain the book not the movie . The movie mostly leaves it out or gets it wrong by conflating chaos theory with Murphy’s law. You’re the one who thinks this can be explained to a six year old . I never said I agreed with that

Chaos theory - equals no chaos - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Depending on the initial state, small differences say in the way a hair lies, depends on which way the water drop moves, the reaction is traceable to the action.... What some think of as unpredictability because not all the variables can be accounted for (by us).

Murphy's Law is that anything that can happen will happen, it just depends on which way those hairs are lying, doesn't it..... On the variables too numerous to keep track of.... what some think of as unpredictability....

If I wanted to explain the book to a child, I'd show them the movie......

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re the one who made the false claim . Not everything can be explained to a child if they don’t have a prior knowledge base to . I just gave you an example where that failed miserably because the child didn’t have that knowledge base

 

[Ophiolite]

The second law of thermodynamics has long been used effectively, it's almost as good as abiogenisis probability arguments.

So, not very good then.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You’re the one who made the false claim . Not everything can be explained to a child if they don’t have a prior knowledge base to . I just gave you an example where that failed miserably because the child didn’t have that knowledge base

No you just showed you didn't understand the 6 year old explanation..... which means you probably don't really understand it yourself.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, not very good then.

He doesn't have a clue what he said. He's just throwing scientific terms together with no understanding of their meaning.

Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies i.e. state of randomness of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.

So what he just agreed to is that abiogenesis would require an increase to randomness, not an increase to order..... i.e. it would become more chaotic and less ordered, exactly as we observe in real life versus fantasies of a natural order from chaos.... We observe order to chaos, not chaos to order.... We observe an increase in randomness, not an increase in order.... Thermodynamics requires that the initial state, of whatever one wants it to start at, become more random, not less, thereby preventing any laws of nature from forming at all... increasing the odds against order minute by minute, day by day......

 

[RealityCheck01]

So if new energy cannot be created and all energy is currently being dispersed, the material world cannot be eternal. If it were eternal, then "heat death" would have occurred a long time ago. This suggests that the material world had a beginning, which is the same thing as suggesting creation.

Not qute right, Tree of Life. All you have lists is that the energy content of the universe is constant (conservation of energy) and that how it is partitioned changes (entropy). Your scenario is that nothing is created, there is not evidence of a beginning or a creation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What have you observed that would lead to the inference, since it isn't part of our "observable" universe?????

Which in no way infers there must be other universes.... just that this one is larger in extent than you thought.....

And? Since those galaxies must be further than observed, the fact it must be larger is logical....... Which again, does not imply multiple universes.....

It's really quite simple - these other Hubble volumes in our universe are forever causally isolated from us and from each other by the expansion of spacetime, so they can be thought of as separate universes.

And some of the furthest are fully evolved, defying the timeframe of the BB....

For example? As I understand it, the Hubble deep field and other studies show the most distant galaxies to be typically bluer and poorer in metals than closer galaxies, as you'd expect from younger stars.

So perhaps it is infinite and your limit of observation merely limits your view.....

It could well be infinite - some big bang models allow for the generation of infinite spacetime in a finite time and within a finite 'external' or originating volume (e.g. the 'bubble' universes of eternal inflation theory and others). An infinite cosmological multiverse has some interesting properties - for example, it's equivalent to the Everettian 'Many Worlds' multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, in that anything that can happen will happen in some Hubble volume, including an infinite number of indistinguishable duplicates of our own Hubble volume - and you

 

[durangodawood]

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein↑

Actually that was Thomas Jefferson.

 

[expos4ever]

If matter and energy are not eternal, then creation must be true. The material exists now but it has not always existed. It therefore arose from something non-material.

I sympathize, but I also think you may be assuming that our concepts of time and cause and effect govern exotic circumstances such as those associated with the Big Bang. I suspect, for example, that you implicitly, and very understandably, think that time enjoys an entirely independent existence from the material world. But this is not really the case.

However, I concede I am speculating about what you believe.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not qute right, Tree of Life. All you have lists is that the energy content of the universe is constant (conservation of energy) and that how it is partitioned changes (entropy). Your scenario is that nothing is created, there is not evidence of a beginning or a creation.

Yes there is. The Cosmos.

"By Law" it is the result of a some initial cause.
The only alternative is that Wooo-wooo matter has always existed.
Or
Matter is God.
Or energy is God.

And we find many of the properties of a God missing in energy.
Energy is pretty stuu-pid.

 

[sjastro]

Expression 9 in Swartzchilds paper, your confused...



Apparently just beyond yours since you confused line elements in Swartzchilds original paper to be the Einstein equations....

You are justifying Einstein’s work based on the calculations from a paper written about 20 years earlier using a coordinate system that has nothing in common with the system used by Einstein.
This makes as much sense as describing a procedure to change a tyre by referring to a process on how to bake a potato.
It simply confirms you are out of your depth and your understanding of the supplied links is zero.

In equation (7) of that paper Schwarzschild uses the general isotropic transformation of the format
rⁿₙ → rⁿ - 2m for the case n=3 which is not the same as Einstein’s isotropic transformation
r → r(1+m/2r)².
To put it in a language which you can understand you are not comparing apples with apples by trying to concatenate both papers.

Unbeknownst to you apparently, there exists no singularity in the solar system..... so why the straw man?

All tests confirmed in the solar system without additional ad-hoc theory added. But the second one applies it to the rest of the universe one needs add 96% ad-hoc theory that was just tested to a 99.8% accuracy without them. Including mathematical singularities......

I would suggest you simply try to deduce what laws of physics is missing in the theory in a universe 99.9% plasma. You might want to study plasma physics for that answer.....

Your response is a clear indication you do not possess the intellectual capacity for comprehending Crothers’ paper (which is considerably easier to fathom than the Einstein and Schwarzschild papers) let alone the flaws in it despite my attempts in trying to make it as simple as possible for you.
As I have stated Hilbert’s version of the Schwarzschild metric with its “singularities” does work in the solar system as it explains the perihelion advance in Mercury’s orbit.

Except that has already been demonstrated to be incorrect.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind

“We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level."

This is a classic circular argument.

How does your conclusion “Except that has already been demonstrated to be incorrect”, which is assumed to be true without being based on any deductive reasoning or facts to support it, offer alternative explanations to how energy is released in a thermonuclear bomb, the fusion reactions in the Sun’s core, or the energy carried by gravitational waves corresponding to the “missing mass” in black hole and neutron star mergers?

Then you need to explain why you want me to solve a three body problem when gravitational theories can't either?????

http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-what-is-the-three-body-problem/

"The three body problem is to exactly solve for the motions of three (or more) bodies interacting through an inverse square force (which includes gravitational and electrical attraction).

The problem with the 3-body problem is that it can’t be done, except in a very small set of frankly goofy scenarios (like identical planets following identical orbits)."

And here we have the case of your inability to grasp the meaning of the stability of the three body problem and using the false dichotomy fallacy.

Once again you demonstrate limited comprehension skills given your link relates to orbits not being repeatable making accurate predictions impossible while I am referring to the stability or longevity of the orbits and ultimately whether such orbits can exist in the first place.

For gravity only forces there are no such problems as ternary star systems exist as do triple gravitationally bound galaxies.
In the case of a three body system involving electromagnetic forces it doesn’t take much insight to realise that at least two of the three bodies will carry the same charge and the electromagnetic force between the pair will be repulsive.
Needless to say forming a three body system composed of electromagnetic forces is impossible let alone being stable.

While you go around lecturing individuals on studying plasma physics you are blissfully unaware the range of the electromagnetic force is extremely limited due to Debye shielding.

Who said only electromagnetism was involved. Apparently you missed the part about “dominant” forces.

So first you need to explain why you decided to try to twist what I said "dominating force" into the "only force"?

You see, I just understand that the theories for large bodies of matter don’t apply to small particles...... The dominating force is different in the different states of matter. Being dominant does not mean all other forces are non-existent.

But then I’m not the one here suggesting we ignore plasma physics in a universe 99.9% plasma and consider only the theory that correctly predicts large bodies of matter behavior. Even when you should know that theory can not be used to correctly predict the charge or behavior of those single particles....

Here we have the goalposts being changed accompanied by word salad with classic Dunning Kruger behaviour thrown in for good measure.

The fact is you have zero understanding particularly when you repeatably make the ludicrous comment that while our solar system is correctly modelled by gravity the failure of mainstream science is not considering plasma at intergalactic and cosmological scales.

This makes no sense at all given the plasma number density of interplanetary space in the solar system is over 100000 – 1000000X greater than the plasma number density at intergalactic and cosmological scales.
The obvious question that arises if the plasma density does not play a factor in our solar system than why does it become important elsewhere at considerably lower densities?

Your ultimate nonsense however is you have never demonstrated why your pet theory works as it is based on the false dichotomy that if the mainstream theory is wrong it automatically makes your pet theory correct.
It reflects the intellectual level you operate at.

 

[SkyWriting]

For example? As I understand it, the Hubble deep field and other studies show the most distant galaxies to be typically bluer and poorer in metals than closer galaxies, as you'd expect from younger stars.

I check for color differences first.

 

[durangodawood]

....It reflects the intellectual level you operate at.

Not entirely sure what my intellectual level qualifies me for.

But my education level is certainly insufficient for the discussion you guys are having.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's really quite simple - these other Hubble volumes in our universe are forever causally isolated from us and from each other by the expansion of spacetime, so they can be thought of as separate universes.

What other Hubble volumes?????? It's the same galaxies we see right now, just at a greater distance......

For example? As I understand it, the Hubble deep field and other studies show the most distant galaxies to be typically bluer and poorer in metals than closer galaxies, as you'd expect from younger stars.

How would they know? It's all systematically redshifted. Once again..... Show me one single correlation that correlates expanding spacetime to redshift? One single laboratory experiment? Just one?

On the other hand we have only experimental evidence of velocity correlated with redshift in the lab. But they claim it's space expansion, not recessional velocity that is causing redshift. Since Hubble's law demands recessional velocity be directly correlated to redshift, then distances can not be known, since it is not recessional velocity, but space expansion that causes redshift.....

Did it ever occur to you their methods may be flawed? Think about it. How do you "see" objects? How do you "see" a red car? Do you see the spectragram of the original light, or from the car? So what do you really think we see when we look at light that has passed through cloud after molecular cloud, particle field after particle field in a trillion billion contacts before reaching earth???? What do you actually think we are measuring, the original starlight??????

Besides, I think their entire interpretation of redshift is flawed in and of itself....

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

It could well be infinite - some big bang models allow for the generation of infinite spacetime in a finite time and within a finite 'external' or originating volume (e.g. the 'bubble' universes of eternal inflation theory and others). An infinite cosmological multiverse has some interesting properties - for example, it's equivalent to the Everettian 'Many Worlds' multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, in that anything that can happen will happen in some Hubble volume, including an infinite number of indistinguishable duplicates of our own Hubble volume - and you

So if it's infinite then we don't need other multiverses..... It would just be one giant universe. Now the other me may also be limited in sight to only 13.7 billion lightyears, but we would still occupy the same universe.

Yah I know, anything is possible in Wonderland. That's how we got Black holes, Neutron stars, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Strange Matter and the list goes on and on...... When theory is falsified, make up undetectable Fairie Dust and repeat it often and Fairie Dust becomes fact in the minds of the multitude and theory is saved instead.... never mind none of it can be tested in the laboratory......

 

[durangodawood]

.... never mind none of it can be tested in the laboratory......

....still waiting for heliocentrism to be laboratory verified.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What other Hubble volumes?????? It's the same galaxies we see right now, just at a greater distance......

A Hubble volume is the volume of the observable universe (roughly 10^31 cubic light years). 'Hubble volume' is commonly used to refer to volumes of this size beyond the observable universe.

How would they know? It's all systematically redshifted.

The spectrum of young stars is not uniformly blue-shifted, but peaks at the blue end. The absorption spectrum provides confirming evidence (i.e.low metal content).

But they claim it's space expansion, not recessional velocity that is causing redshift. Since Hubble's law demands recessional velocity be directly correlated to redshift, then distances can not be known, since it is not recessional velocity, but space expansion that causes redshift.....

No; they don't claim it's not recessional velocity. Recessional velocity is the rate at which the distance of some object increases relative to us, whatever the cause, and the associated redshift is a Doppler effect.

So if it's infinite then we don't need other multiverses..... It would just be one giant universe. Now the other me may also be limited in sight to only 13.7 billion lightyears, but we would still occupy the same universe.

I already explained this.