Observations of Great Debate - ID and thermodynamics

1. As per the universe, in your hypothesis/thinking what would be your "A" and what is "B" in your system as to origin of the universe?

2. In the recycling of stars, they explode into great areas and gravitational force implodes them into small areas called black holes which intern may explode into very wide areas, which in turn then may gravitate back into stars. Do I have this right?

...called black holes which intern may explode into very wide areas, which in turn then may gravitate back into stars

I could have missed it in this thread but how does one distinguish between a closed system with an infinite energy source and an open one? If infinite energy already exists inside a system adding more energy from an outside source doesn't change anything, it's still infinite.

Don't new stars form from particles and gases caused by gravitational attraction and not by black holes?To me this whole discussion is about the thermodynamic paradox when thinking the universe is infinite.

"Dr Grote Reber" graduated from the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1933 and for the next ten years, while he pioneered the field of radio astronomy, was employed as an engineer by a Chicago radio corporation. He designed and built the world's first radio telescope and during this period was the only active radio astronomer.
Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe
Time is merely a sequence of events. There is no beginning nor ending. The material universe extends beyond the greatest distances we can observe optically or by radio means. It is boundless. The energy from hot material is recycled by electrodynamic (not thermodynamic) means. The material from dying galaxies is recycled into new galaxies. Details of material and energy distribution change on a small scale. Over any large volume and long time the gross features of the universe remain stable. I am not offering a finished product. I am attempting to instill thinking about the Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe.

It doesn't matter.

The rules are still the same. Energy can ONLY move from a source of higher energy level to one with a lower energy level. It can never move the other way. Further, as the two reach equilibrium, it gets harder and harder for anything to happen. A universe with to objects at an infinite energy level is as dead as one with two objects at zero energy level.

Buz quote: 2. "In the recycling of stars, they explode into great areas and gravitational force implodes them into small areas called black holes which intern may explode into very wide areas, which in turn then may gravitate back into stars. Do I have this right?"Jar quote: No you do not.Stars can explode and then other stars my form from the remnant but that has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Even then, energy can only move from areas of higher energy to lower.Your hypothesis simply cannot exist within the laws of Thermodynamics.

It does so matter.

My universe has the ID factor in it and yours does not.

1. It has a whole lot to do with what we're discussing. You fail to address the gravitational compression of energy into high energy black holes, et al.

Mine has boundless space. I believe yours has bounded space.

Mine has eternally existed. Has yours?

The debate was about my system, not yours.

ID and gravity exist in the relatively stable system, continually recycling things in the system.

Mine has eternally existed.

A problem arises to my mind with a universe that has existed eternally.If there was never a beginning then how did the present ever arrive?In other words if time never began how do we measure its movement?

Do you want to move away from the Laws of Thermodynamics?

This was your cocky, arrogant and condescending attitude in much of the debate and it's inadequate, imo, to make a sufficient case for your position.