Originally posted by King Kandy
Just because it expanded doesn't mean it once didn't exist at all. Just that it was very small (but still existed) at some point.
What you are implying is that the universe was small and static albeit eternal, but the evidence is that it is expanding which contradicts your claim. The evidence shows that the universe has been expanding since its inception.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The universe is losing usable energy but not gaining any. If the universe were eternal stars would have already burned out due to the 2nd L.o.T.
The universe is not losing energy. Energy cannot be destroyed.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The universe has never been static which means that it started (i.e. came into being) and continued to expand.
The Universe was static at the very moment before the big bang, however, this moment may have been ultimately small is time.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What you are implying is that the universe was small and static albeit eternal, but the evidence is that it is expanding which contradicts your claim. The evidence shows that the universe has been expanding since its inception.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
True or false: entropy is increasing.True or false: the universe had a beginning.
true in many but not all models
possibly true in SOME models if you consider physical reality outside this universe false if you reject all natural cause and effect outside the universe
stars burning out =/= universe dying, it only= US dying{and even that can be contested considering artificial fusion etc}. and stars ARE burning out all the time, because they havent burnt out YET doesnt mean they wont one day if the cold model is true. again, how does this prove the universe came from nothing?!
Originally posted by leonheartmm
true in many but not all modelspossibly true in SOME models if you consider physical reality outside this universe false if you reject all natural cause and effect outside the universe
stars burning out =/= universe dying, it only= US dying{and even that can be contested considering artificial fusion etc}. and stars ARE burning out all the time, because they havent burnt out YET doesnt mean they wont one day if the cold model is true. again, how does this prove the universe came from nothing?!
I appreciate and respect your candor.
I don't believe that the universe came from nothing (naturally).
Originally posted by King Kandy
You have not explained how "universe is expanding" = "there was a time it did not exist."
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What you are implying is that the universe was small and static albeit eternal, but the evidence is that it is expanding which contradicts your claim. The evidence shows that the universe has been expanding since its inception.
If the universe is expanding--and it is--that means that at one point it was exceedingly small, so small that no space for it existed i.e. that it was nothing.
The 2nd L.o.T. does not allow for an eternal universe. The universe started out at zero entropy and has increased; hence, it is dying. Anything that begins to exist will die. The universe began to exist that is why it is dying. Stars are burning out (evidence of entropy at work).
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
If the universe is expanding--and it is--that means that at one point it was exceedingly small, so small that no space for it existed i.e. that it was nothing.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The 2nd L.o.T. does not allow for an eternal universe. The universe started out at zero entropy and has increased; hence, it is dying. Anything that begins to exist will die. The universe began to exist that is why it is dying. Stars are burning out (evidence of entropy at work).
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The 2nd L.o.T. does not allow for an eternal universe. The universe started out at zero entropy and has increased; hence, it is dying. Anything that begins to exist will die. The universe began to exist that is why it is dying. Stars are burning out (evidence of entropy at work).
sigh... and yet you've never considered the fact that entropy can also be reversed 🙄
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, it does not mean that. The fact is, you don't know if it has expanded from it's beginning or if it simply started at some point during the universe's existence. Furthermore, a singularity exists. It is not nothingness. Black Holes clearly exist and have mass despite taking up no space. This universe is no different, all the mass is preserved though the space is not.Okay... so we reach complete entropy. All the stars have been burned out, everything has reached equal temp, no work can be done... um, there's still a universe here.
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, it does not mean that. The fact is, you don't know if it has expanded from it's beginning or if it simply started at some point during the universe's existence. Furthermore, a singularity exists. It is not nothingness. Black Holes clearly exist and have mass despite taking up no space. This universe is no different, all the mass is preserved though the space is not.
With all due respect if you do your research you will learn that it is common knowledge among the scientific community that the universe started from nothing (naturally).
A quantum vacuum is defined as nothingness for all practical intents and purposes. That is what zero volume denotes.
Okay... so we reach complete entropy. All the stars have been burned out, everything has reached equal temp, no work can be done... um, there's still a universe here.
But there hasn’t always been one so it is not eternal.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Can time be reversed? Neither can entropy.
Last I checked, time is not entropy. You may wanna re-read the 2nd law of thermo. Not to mention, study a carbon atom. Specifically, the number of electrons in its valence shell, and why that is so important in its ability to form so many compounds. Then maybe, you'll realize why you sound like such a moron when you keep spouting off your little thermo argument.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Last I checked, time is not entropy. You may wanna re-read the 2nd law of thermo. Not to mention, study a carbon atom. Specifically, the number of electrons in its valence shell, and why that is so important in its ability to form so many compounds. Then maybe, you'll realize why you sound like such a moron when you keep spouting off your little thermo argument.
I was simply using time as an analogy to show that just as it cannot go back (i.e. be reversed) neither can entropy.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I was simply using time as an analogy to show that just as it cannot go back (i.e. be reversed) neither can entropy.
Still, feel free to pick up a copy of Learn2Chemistry. You obviously don't understand the topic which you're arguing about. But then again, that comes as no surprise.