bogie_blogger

It seems nonsensical to many BBT advocates but you must admit that BBT does not eliminate the possibility that there was some universe before the big bang or that there is some universe beyond the known universe.

Please refer to the ISU theory posted at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...70#post2035970

However, the argument that the universe cannot be infinitely old because of the second law of thermodynamics is like saying my theory is better than your theory; neither of which can be proven.

To observe that the universe has not reached zero useable energy and conclude therefore that time is not infinite backward, and so there must have been a beginning is fallacious reasoning. If there is a process by which energy is converted into matter, entropy fails and then time can be infinite backwards, waalaa, no beginning and a universe that has always existed.

Chandra has discovered massive black holes out there in all directions that are ten billion years old and that draw in everything in their vicinity including light. Are these the missing matter-factories out of which might shoot jets of hot compressed gas to fuel the generation of new stars which contain fusion engines? Are there a sufficient number of them, or are they a natural phenomenon in the area of young galaxies that could perpetuate themselves.

I would weigh those questions and other possibilities too before I would conclude that there was a creation or even a beginning.

Dark Knight Bob

I'm not advocating what they claimed is true. In fact i'm stating the opposite, in that they are merely tacking on the words "and god is responsible" onto a sound theory and thus leeching off the respectability of a theory that doesn't include God. But i'd rather people understood what they're talking about when refering to the big bang theory.

No the theory does not allow it. But I never said the theory was right. It merely is a best fit to what the evidence is showing us.

What you are talking about are OTHER theories that fit everything the big bang explains and also the other ideas that the big bang theory does NOT explain.

Also I have already given a somewhat simplistic explanation of how you can have an infinite universe without a beginning or end.

Landy

This is a little more than simply tacking on Godditit to a good scientific theory.

The basic format is the same as Aquinas' arguments from movement etc. Just instead of just assuming that an infinitely-timed universe is impossible they throw in some scientific reasoning.

There's still problems with it. Mainly it assumes a finite chain of cause and effect, which conveniently started with God, as well as assuming that something can NOT come from nothing.

Landy

bogie_blogger

BBT is a huge body of knowledge made up of many proven facts, much prediction, and various theories. There are various versions and schools of thought that appeal to various segments of the scientific community.

The statement, “No the theory does not allow it�?, is bold and final, but still you are talking theory. You cannot back up your statement any more than I can back up the statement that says, "Any finite universe theory, BBT or otherwise, that does not allow for the ISU is flawed".

I noted that explanation in your earlier post and agree with you that it is a possibility.

I think we have the same view of the OP. I don't mean to challenge BBT in any way, accept the part that you have put forth that denies any possibility of the ISU.

Dark Knight Bob

I'm just saying the theory itself says that.

Your mistaking me backing my theory up with merely defining what the theory is.

If i define some random statement as "ghytu = 1 + 2" then I don't need to back it up i'm merely stating it.

It's a semantical point and you might think it trivial i suppose but seeing how we're talking about the coloquial version of BBT as proposed by the creationists and the scientific version it's essential. That's what creationsism loves to feed on. Stupid minor points that aren't actually important but their rehtoric picks it up and won't let it go.

I mean you could refer variations as like BBT ver. 1.10 but version 1.0 is still version 1.0

Ion

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems, systems that are stale in domain.

The universe is not a closed system, is not stale in domain, it expands its domain.

What causes this expansion of the universe, I don't know, but the universe is an open system and the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to open systems.

Dark Knight Bob

What's your justification for stating that the universe is an open system?

Ion

The universe expands.

Dark Knight Bob

You can have a closed universe with expansion. If everything is expnding then by going in reverse at some point it can reach infinite density. i.e origin of big bang theory.

Ion

No, by definition of open and closed.

Closed means: nothing in, nothing out.

Open is opposite to close.

When the universe expands, there is new matter in the universe.

New mattter in the universe means there is something new in.

Something new in, means the universe is an open system.