real life wrote:Where did I say it did? This is something you are simply making up as you go along.
I didn't say that you had said that, i'm pointing out that by hammering on the second law of thermodynamics, and misrepresenting the first law of thermodynamics, you are avoiding the core question of whether or not this is a closed universe, which is whether or not there is sufficient matter to end expansion and lead to a collapse.
Quote:But it does matter very much, which is apparently why you'd like to ignore it.
Once again, you indulge your penchant for editing other people's remarks. It does not matter at all in the issue of whether or not there is sufficient mass of matter to lead to the end of expansion and eventual collapse. You have said that matter and energy are interchangeable (which is a distortion of mass being converted to energy, and energy forms such as photons being absorbed by mass), and if you assert that this is so, and you are relying upon the concept of "heat death," then the process of entropy will result into the conversion of all energy to matter. In which case, the core question remains whether or not there is sufficient mass of matter to end expansion and result in collapse. Have the courtesy not to completely discard portions of my statements in order to attempt to found your idiotic and ignorance-based arguments.
Quote:from
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.html
Quote:First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:
E = mc2
In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (m) times the square of a constant (c). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.
Note the use of "suggests." I well understand that you are limping along on a crutch of the law of the conservation of energy, but you constantly imply that energy will be somehow "lost," as in disappeared, and that all the matter which will be left will be "disordered" (which is based upon your selective application of the second law of thermodynamics), and that this somehow mitigates against a closed universe.
In the first place, even if the suggestions implicit in special relativity are correct, this does not mean that there won't be (or will be) sufficient mass of matter in the universe to end expansion and lead to collapse, which is what will occur if there is sufficient matter to indicate a closed universe. I suppose it must be poofism which leads you to read a statement that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, and from that to attempt to argue that a closed universe is impossible. That is one of the worst forms of begging a question.
The laws of thermodynamics are completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is sufficient mass of matter in the universe to end expansion and result in collapse. Your attempt to offer those thermodynamic laws in an argument against a closed universe are meaningless. They don't apply.
From
Superstringtheory-dot-com
Quote:Positive: The unique N-dimensional space with constant positive curvature is an N-dimensional sphere. The cosmological scenario where space has positive constant curvature is called a closed Universe. In this spacetime, space expands from zero volume in a Big Bang but then reaches a maximum volume and starts to contract back to zero volume in a Big Crunch.
It should be noted that the author of that pages holds out for a "flat" universe, which will expand forever. Another problem of your feeble attempts to discuss cosmology is your insistence on the "what about before that" attitude. You seem unable to grasp the concept that space/
time was created in the Big Bang (if it occurred), and that there was no "before," because there was no time. That this is a concept which is counterintuitive for human beings does not make the concept false.
Your reliance upon the laws of thermodynamics as a crutch for your argument provides more than abundant evidence that you have not devoted sufficient time to the study of contemporary theories of cosmology to hold your own in this discussion.
Neither entropy nor the law of the conservation of energy have any relevance to the question of whether or not we live in a closed or open universe. In either case, your arguments are meaningless, and provide no evidence for a creation.
*************************************
What evidence do you have that a creation took place?
