Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Sounds like a black hole. I thought even light couldn't escape a black hole.

Oh yeah. Selectivity.....I forgot.

ok, light and matter cannot escape a black hole, except when it can.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Sounds like a black hole. I thought even light couldn't escape a black hole.

Oh yeah. Selectivity.....I forgot.

Can we call it "selectivity" when you ignore posts that point out your errors?

Quote:

ok, light and matter cannot escape a black hole, except when it can.

Yes, and you can claim entropy applies to eternity until you say it doesn't apply.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Sounds like a black hole. I thought even light couldn't escape a black hole.

It may sound like a black hole (to you), but it's not a black hole. It's completely different.

real life wrote:

ok, light and matter cannot escape a black hole, except when it can.

Get a clue RL. The BB and Black Holes are totally different things.

You're making yourself look like a total idiot. I can't wait to read your next post.

0 Replies

...didn't you know?

Black holes are just full to the brim with big bangs! It's the only place God can store them. In fact God eats Big Bangs for breakfast... with syrup... and waffles.

Hell to pay if his waffles aren't there.

T
K
O

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Sounds like a black hole. I thought even light couldn't escape a black hole.

It may sound like a black hole (to you), but it's not a black hole. It's completely different.

real life wrote:
ok, light and matter cannot escape a black hole, except when it can.

Get a clue RL. The BB and Black Holes are totally different things.

You're making yourself look like a total idiot. I can't wait to read your next post.

Definition of a Black Hole:

Quote:

A region of space containing a huge amount of mass compacted into an extremely small volume. A black hole's gravitational influence is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape its grasp.

from http://jwstsite.stsci.edu/reference_desk/glossary.shtml

Anton had said, in reference to BB:

Quote:

You forgot to stress that all the matter in the universe was compressed into a single point of infinitessimal size by the side of which a pinhead is astronomical.

I noted that these were similar concepts. You want to make a case that these are

rosborne979 wrote:

completely different

in fact

rosborne979 wrote:

totally different

Go ahead, make your case.

0 Replies

It's right there in the definitions...

Black hole is a "region of space." so it can't be the entire universe.

But what about that entropy statement of yours real life? Are you going to clarify that for us or continue to pretend you didn't say it?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

It's right there in the definitions...

Black hole is a "region of space." so it can't be the entire universe.

Yes obviously there is a difference in size. Even comparing various black holes, some are said to be more massive than others.

from http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/heavy_blazar_040628.html

Quote:

..........A supermassive black hole a few million times the mass of the Sun is thought to sit at the center of our own Milky Way galaxy, and some of the largest supermassives seen date have reached up to two billion solar masses, researchers said........

As you know, I was addressing the concept, not the size.

So, how are the concepts (BB vs. Black hole) different?

parados wrote:

But what about that entropy statement of yours real life? Are you going to clarify that for us or continue to pretend you didn't say it?

Specify please. What is it you want to discuss? What specific statement are you referring to , and to exactly what do you take exception?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I noted that these were similar concepts. You want to make a case that these are

rosborne979 wrote:
completely different

in fact

rosborne979 wrote:
totally different

Go ahead, make your case.

The case is already made. You are talking about standard concepts of cosmology which have different definitions.

If you want to know why they are different, learn something about cosmology. Normally when people ask questions about such things, I am more than happy to help them, but you're not really listening, you just waste my time.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

An eternal universe runs you smack into the problem with entropy.

Quotiong my physics professor Ronald Bienik(Magna Cum Laude - Harvard)

"Nature always wins."

Entropy has not problems. No problem with an eternal universe in terms of time. Try as you may to disagree, nature will continue as it was. As time aproaches infinity, the amount of useable energy aproaches zero. It get's annoying to hear the 2nd law misquoted and misused by individuals with no training or real understanding.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
An eternal universe runs you smack into the problem with entropy.

Quotiong my physics professor Ronald Bienik(Magna Cum Laude - Harvard)

"Nature always wins."

Entropy has not problems. No problem with an eternal universe in terms of time. Try as you may to disagree, nature will continue as it was. As time aproaches infinity, the amount of useable energy aproaches zero. It get's annoying to hear the 2nd law misquoted and misused by individuals with no training or real understanding.

T
K
O

If the universe (i.e. matter/energy) has a beginning point (and I agree that it does), this position works.

Several of our friends here were arguing that , in keeping with the 1st Law , matter/energy had NO beginning point (i.e. it was eternally existent) .

The point I made was that if matter has existed eternally (not just for a few billion years), the zero point you refer to should have been reached already, yes?

0 Replies

TKO Wrote:

Quote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
An eternal universe runs you smack into the problem with entropy.

Quote:

It get's annoying to hear the 2nd law misquoted and misused by individuals with no training or real understanding.

For the record I was quoting Real Life. Its funny that my clients and several universities that I have taught as an adjunct have no problem with my understanding of these basic science concepts. I let you all get back to the endless arguements.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Anton had said, in reference to BB:

Quote:
You forgot to stress that all the matter in the universe was compressed into a single point of infinitessimal size by the side of which a pinhead is astronomical.

I don't know where the hell you come up with that as a statement by Anton Bonnier. He was quoting Spurious, as you will see by visiting Post #2967239.

As truly incredible as this will strike anyone who has followed your silliness for several years, it is a fair statement that Spurious knows even less about science than you do. Anton simply quoted Spurious in order to take the opportunity to ridicule theistic crap which is peddled about the singularity.

Try to pay attention, 'K, "real life?"

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The point I made was that if matter has existed eternally (not just for a few billion years), the zero point you refer to should have been reached already, yes?

No.

Here is a riddle.

If you are 100 ft away from a door, and for every second you move half the distance between you and the door, do you ever reach the door? The distance is absolute, and you move relative to it as a function of time and current location.

Your first step you move 50 ft, then 25ft, then 12.5ft... only at infinite time do you actually reach the door.

We are very far (relatively speaking in regaurds to a human life or even the length of all human history) from reaching absolute entropy.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
The point I made was that if matter has existed eternally (not just for a few billion years), the zero point you refer to should have been reached already, yes?

No.

Here is a riddle.

If you are 100 ft away from a door, and for every second you move half the distance between you and the door, do you ever reach the door? The distance is absolute, and you move relative to it as a function of time and current location.

Your first step you move 50 ft, then 25ft, then 12.5ft... only at infinite time do you actually reach the door.

We are very far (relatively speaking in regaurds to a human life or even the length of all human history) from reaching absolute entropy.

T
K
O

i think it would make more sense to him if you just said that it is "slowing down" - but then, i'm sure he'll find some way to argue that.... perhaps he'll ask you what the definition of "down" is.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
The point I made was that if matter has existed eternally (not just for a few billion years), the zero point you refer to should have been reached already, yes?

...only at infinite time do you actually reach the door.

We are very far (relatively speaking in regaurds to a human life or even the length of all human history) from reaching absolute entropy.

T
K
O

And that is what I was referring to --

Everyone has a date, depending on who you talk to, for the 'heat death' of the universe.

The dates quoted are all llllllllllllllllooooooooooooonnnnnnnngggggggggggggg, but not infinite.

This article

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9701/15/end.universe/

sets the date as 1 with 200 zeros. That's a long time.

But it's not eternity. When you reach 1 with 200 zeros, eternity is just begun.

So, the folks who postulate that matter is 'eternal', (i.e. that it had NO beginning, in keeping with the 1st Law) must then face the problem of the 2nd Law.

If matter is 'eternal', then entropy hasn't taken the expected toll and the question is why not?

'Well, ' they fudge , 'we are just not far enough into it yet. Not enough time has passed.'

Which means they really AREN'T talking about eternal matter after all. They are talking about VERY OLD matter. So , back to the 1st Law: How did the VERY OLD matter get created?

0 Replies

It is too difficult to explain in layman's terms the inaccuracy of your last post RL.

An enternal universe doesn't require open bounds at both ends in terms of space/time.

Remember, that even when absolute entropy is reached the net sum of energy and matter are unchanged.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If the universe (i.e. matter/energy) has a beginning point (and I agree that it does), this position works.

Several of our friends here were arguing that , in keeping with the 1st Law , matter/energy had NO beginning point (i.e. it was eternally existent) .

The point I made was that if matter has existed eternally (not just for a few billion years), the zero point you refer to should have been reached already, yes?

Yes, that was the point you made real life. But when asked to show how it could be true based on an eternal universe you failed.

You have ducked the question. You have claimed others were "misusing" the 2nd law yet it was you that claimed an eternal universe violates the 2nd law. You have failed to show any basis for your claim. You do what you always do. You run around in circles. You dodge. You play to the ignorant. You change the subject when it looks like someone has cornered you.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

.......An enternal universe doesn't require open bounds at both ends in terms of space/time.

You need to look at the context and what I was responding to, Deist.

My specific question was regarding whether matter had been created (in violation of the 1st Law) or whether it had always existed (i.e. it is eternally existent).

The ones I was replying to had stated their belief that matter had NO beginning (i.e. an open boundary in 'eternity past').

If matter had a beginning (no matter how long ago one supposes it was), then we must deal with a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Diest TKO wrote:

.......Remember, that even when absolute entropy is reached the net sum of energy and matter are unchanged.

Consistent with the 1st Law, no prob.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You need to look at the context and what I was responding to, Deist.

My specific question was regarding whether matter had been created (in violation of the 1st Law) or whether it had always existed (i.e. it is eternally existent).

The ones I was replying to had stated their belief that matter had NO beginning (i.e. an open boundary in 'eternity past').

If matter had a beginning (no matter how long ago one supposes it was), then we must deal with a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Not nessisarily. The theory that all the mass and energy in the universe comes from outside the universe would actually be supported by the first law. If the all matter in the universe could not be created here, yet it is here, it must able to be created, just not here.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know