0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

maybe the first law of thermodynamics just doesn't deal with things outside of whatever time is.

4. Since it can't be created or destroyed, the energy in the universe does not have a cause. It was not caused by anything; it just exists here forever and ever in some form.

Quote from: flr4. Since it can't be created or destroyed, the energy in the universe does not have a cause. It was not caused by anything; it just exists here forever and ever in some form.From my previous post it will be obvious that I am not arguing against something being eternal. What I have to take issue with though is the idea of change in eternity.I am going to use the term “cosmos” to avoid the finite/infinite Universe debate.If the cosmos is infinite, everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times.If the cosmos is infinite, it has already existed for infinite time; therefore, everything that can happen has happened, an infinite number of times.If that is the case, what else is there that can happen? Why are we still experiencing change?

From my previous post it will be obvious that I am not arguing against something being eternal. What I have to take issue with though is the idea of change in eternity.I am going to use the term “cosmos” to avoid the finite/infinite Universe debate.If the cosmos is infinite, everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times.If the cosmos is infinite, it has already existed for infinite time; therefore, everything that can happen has happened, an infinite number of times.If that is the case, what else is there that can happen? Why are we still experiencing change?

All matter in the universe was created at the same time and from every conceivable coordinate.

Bill I really like your logic. You are an excellent philosopher.

Because "everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times."(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)

Quote from: flrBecause "everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times."(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".) You must be either a scientist or a mathematician. It seems impossible to separate scientists and mathematicians from mathematical infinities, which are only approximations. The following thought scenario links this discussion with that of another thread.There is a road of infinite length, in the middle of which there is a bridge.How do I know the bridge is in the middle? I know that because the road must extend to infinity on either side.Of course, we all know that, physically, there cannot be a road of infinite length because, as far as we know, the only places where a road could be built are finite, but this is a "thought scenario".One night the Finite Defence League blow up the bridge, so no one can cross from one side to the other. We know that the road extends to infinity in both directions, but can each section really be considered infinite?What do we have? Is it two halves of infinity, two infinite roads or two finite roads?Intuitively, one might say that, as each half goes to infinity, we must have two infinite roads. That seems more reasonable than "two halves of infinity". Moreover, we know that intuition does not necessarily equal good science.However, consider that if you are at a point (eg 1km from the bridge site) along the road, and you travel towards the break; in 1km you come to the end of "infinity". Does this make sense?Because we reach an end, whichever side we approach from, it is tempting to argue that the road segments are finite. However, if members of the People’s Infinite Front decide to repair the bridge, but they are infinitely far away along the road; can they ever reach the bridge? The answer must surely be “no”.We were able to reach the end, so in our frame of reference, the road is finite; but the PIF, who were infinitely far away could never reach the bridge, so in their frame of reference it must be infinitely far away. For them, the road segments go on infinitely in both directions.Does this mean that infinity is relative? It would seem to suggest that.If infinity is relative, so must eternity be. This must raise the question: Could there be a frame of reference in which there might have been absolutely nothing, yet there might still be something now?Perhaps it would save crossed wires if I say that I think there would not be, but I could have missed something.It might be argued that we cannot, with justification, extrapolate from what we observe in the Universe to what might be the conditions outside, and that we cannot say with certainty that, outside the Universe causality could not be such that something could be "spawned" by absolutely nothing.Personally, I think that's "a bridge too far", but that is just a non-expert opinion.

(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)

The BB as traditionally explained by science certainly violates the first law of thermodynamics. And what about the third law? It says that the Unirverse eventually will end up in a state where no mechanical energy can be produced. So, if masses exist at that point they must be either be collected in one point, a huge black hole, or be outside each others observation horizon. Otherwise it would be possible to create mechanical energy by mutual interaction between masses. But a black hole would be radiating as shown by Hawking and that could in principle be utilized for mechanical energy. Same goes for any mass even the slightest above absolute zero temperature.So, the only way to preserve the third law would be to imagine an end scenario somewhat in line with that proposed by ScientificSorcerer

Another infinity thread?

This practice has allowed scientists to see what the universe looked like along time ago.This combined with noting the temperature of space that long ago allowed use to paint a picture of the rebirth of the universe.

...you can't just take someone's word for it just because they are a leader, or in this case a leader of the scientific community.

because the curvature of space directly correlates to the condenseness of matter that too appears to be infinity curved. I hope this makes sense.