FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Science & Skepticism > Science Discussions
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-30-2004, 04:10 PM   #1
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 114
Default This just in! The universe cannot be infinitely old because if it were...

The universe cannot be infinitely old because if it were, it would have entered into a state of entropy long ago.

:huh:

The full quote-

"Entropy is the second Law of thermodynamics that states that all things are moving toward chaos and no-usable energy. In other words, everything is running down. The universe is not in a state of entropy, therefore it is not infinitely old. Since the universe is not infinitely old, it had a beginning. The universe could not have brought itself into existence. Something before the universe and greater than the universe had to bring the universe into existence."

Those wacky creationists.

http://webx.tennessean.com/cgi-bin/W...@.ee6c4c7/5043
acidphos is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 04:20 PM   #2
RBH
Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 15,407
Default

The phrase "a state of entropy" is a nonsense phrase, meaningless.

I'm going to toss this to S&S.

RBH
E/C Moderator
RBH is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 04:25 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kongsberg, Norway. I'm a: Skeptic
Posts: 7,597
Default

They are assuming that the laws of the universe were the same before the big bang as they are now, this is not necessarily true.
Yggdrasill is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 04:33 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 787
Default

The whole finite universe arguement assumes the rate of entropy is constant.

If it starts off infinitely slowly then it will take an infinite amount of time to reach final solution.

But all they've said is that they support the big bang theory, thrown in some complicated words and just tacked on "btw there's a god who did all this" on the end and called it proof

Also to talk of "before" the big bang and what happened is in the current theory non-sensical

The main support for the big bang theory though is the expansion of the universe, the microwave background radation, and the formation of black holes.
Dark Knight Bob is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 04:35 PM   #5
Seb
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 2,096
Default

Doesn't the OP assertion have a point? To do with the paradox of infinite time? :huh:
Seb is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 04:51 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kongsberg, Norway. I'm a: Skeptic
Posts: 7,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Knight Bob
Also to talk of "before" the big bang and what happened is in the current theory non-sensical
I don't think the current theory accuratly represents reality. Although I don't have any evidence there was a "before the big bang", you don't have any that there weren't, so let me just tack a "if there was a 'before the big bang'" in front of my previous post.
Yggdrasill is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 05:00 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yggdrasill
I don't think the current theory accuratly represents reality. Although I don't have any evidence there was a "before the big bang", you don't have any that there weren't, so let me just tack a "if there was a 'before the big bang'" in front of my previous post.
The theory defines time as being created by the big bang.

This isn't about evidence for whether it's true or not this about using the theory.

If you're using the theory of the big bang then by definition there is no "before" in regards to time. It's more to do with being logically consistant in that sense.
Dark Knight Bob is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 05:04 PM   #8
Seb
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 2,096
Default

Here it is: Zeno's Paradox

After a cursory look I guess the solution makes some sense. I need to read the webpage carefully. :Cheeky:
Seb is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 05:05 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kongsberg, Norway. I'm a: Skeptic
Posts: 7,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Knight Bob
The theory defines time as being created by the big bang.
Yes, one of the theories does, not all agree with that element.
Yggdrasill is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 05:10 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 787
Default

Different people disagree with elements of the theory. That's what makes good science. But the theory is defined as that. You can try and modify relativity to take into account quantum equations but that wouldn't be the theory of relativity. That'd be a modification of it.
Dark Knight Bob is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:40 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.