Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

Technically I agree. It allegedly began at the first factor after zero. I hope we can move on avoiding a debate on this picky point.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

It's hardly a "picky point" it is another example of your lack of knowledge of the subject.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

There are numerous messages, especially in pages 2 and 3 relative to my hypothesis and 2LoT.

---

None of that is an answer. Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

Time in the infinite model relates to things & events in the universe, not the universe perse.

---

That doesn't answer the question. All physical processes exist within the universe. Since all physical processes reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time, how can the processes in the universe not be at equilibrium if they had an infinite amount of time? That's a direct violation of the second law.How do you reconcile an enternal universe with the second law?

quote:

---

thereby sustaining energy for perpetuality

---

That's a direct violation of the second law. There is no way to sustain energy indefinitely. All processes go to equilibrium and all processes reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time.How do you reconcile your claims of perpetual energy and non-ending processes with the second law?

quote:

---

The work that Omnipotent god, Jehovah does never renders his energy less than his creation, the recipient of his energy.

---

That's a direct violation of the second law. Some energy is always lost. How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?

quote:

---

This is likely effected via the recycling of energy within the system thus rendering it a perpetual system, nevertheless compatible to 2LoT.

---

No, this is a direct violation of the second law. In all processes, some energy is lost and thus, energy can never be perpetually cycled.

quote:

---

That's all it is, but I'm vehement in claiming that status for it.

---

But it violates physics at every step. You have yet to explain how you can reconcile your claims with everything we have ever measured.Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

My apologies, Dr Jones. I shut down my computer and after thinking came back to it to revise my message but too late. I should have just acknowledged your valid point minus the unkindly remark.That the universe allegedly began an instant after T

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

The universe began at T = 0.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

As I've tried to convey throughout this thread is that my hypothesis is unique in that it involves aspects which conventional science refuses to research for consideration, the possibility of higher dimension of existence in the universe.

---

But that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the energy goes. First law of thermodynamics directly states that everything has to go somewhere. Thus, it doesn't matter where it goes so long as it is accounted for.And combined with the second law, that necessarily means that all physical processes necessarily reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time. There is not an infinite amount of energy. Since all energy must be accounted for and since every physical process results in an irrevocable loss of energy, then all processes eventually reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time.

quote:

---

The conventional BB T<0, implies energy emerging from nothing which defies all LoTs in the temporal BB model,

---

Incorrect. In fact, just the opposite is true. The reason that we have the theories about the inflation of the universe is precisely because we were looking for a model that satisfies the laws of physics.Are you seriously claiming that scientists would develop a model of the universe that directly violates the very laws they use every day?This is part of the reason why I have asked you directly what you think of the Turok-Hawking instanton. As Turok describes it: Are you saying that Turok and Hawking just happened to forget about thermodynamics when they were verifying that the physics still worked?

quote:

---

Imo, neither POV is falsifiable

---

You mean COBE and WMAP and PLANCK were just figments of the imagination?

quote:

---

Imo, mine is the more compatible POV relative to 2LoT.

---

Incorrect. Your violates the laws of thermodynamics at every turn. Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

Both POVs have arguments pro and con as well as corroborative evidence to cite, neither of which constitutes falsifiability.

---

You mean COBE and WMAP and PLANCK were just figments of the imagination? There was no reason why they had to return results in line with big bang cosmology.

quote:

---

Conventional science refuses to even consider mine or allow discussion and debate in media, conventional education, etc so mine is the only one of the two POVs which is not given consideration.

---

That's because it directly contradicts established science without explaining how to reconcile the two. Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Rrhain, I don't know what else to say than what I've already said. You also appear to be ignoring my model which factors in omnipotent ID creator mangement, with relative stable entropy and source of energy always greater; i.e. A always greater than B.None of your education ever considered this model. Imo, you have yet to refute my claim that it is more thermodynamically compatible than your temporal (time related; not eternal) model.As with your model, I'm admitting that mine also has some unknowns. Imo you're requiring more of me than you are of yourself.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

Turok's instanton did not come from virtually nothing. It came from the absence of anything.

​

That I have a problem with.

---

But you haven't read your own source: Now, if you have a problem with it, you're going to have to explain why. "I don't like the implications on a gut level" is not sufficient. You're going to have to explain why the mathematical structure is insufficient because their entire theory rests upon the mathematics aligning with observation.The universe did inflate. We can measure it. Their theory seeks to explain how the inflation happened.

quote:

---

The physics law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.

---

And their theory does not violate that. What part of "the equations of physics work everywhere" are you having trouble with? Are you saying that Tuork and Hawking simply forgot to verify against thermodynamics? It is more likely that they overlooked such a basic concept than it is that you don't understand the physics and thus don't understand why it doesn't violate thermodynamics?

quote:

---

Turok himself said his instanton could not exist.

---

Incorrect. What he said was that you can't have the instanton without everything else. Once again, you're quote-mining. That statement comes after a long setup that describes a range of all possible universes and it just so happens that their model eliminates all of the ones that don't look like ours: The entire point is to develop a theory of cosmogenesis that results in a universe that includes gravity, matter, space, and time. If your theory creates universes that don't have one of those things, you're going to have to explain why we got one that does.

quote:

---

So how could it happen if all four were missing.

---

Because that wasn't what he was saying.You need to stop quote-mining and start reading.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Oh, from this statement in the paper you quote-mined: Instantons were developed in physics. MathTurok said: "But the wonderful property of OUR NEW instanton is that it automatically turns itself into an infinite, inflating open universe.This is not Math it is a physical happening of creating matter out of the absence of anything. You did notice that Turok's instanton could not exist without gravity, matter, space and time. Even if one was missing no instanton.I don't find any of those in an absence of anything.Inflation = dynamite = Big Bang.Turok: "Our instanton = self-lighting fuse that starts inflation.Turok's instanton started inflation not described it.Inflation is what happened to the instanton. I did. But I am not sure you did you?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

Inflation: hard to verify.

​

Inflation: Hard to falsify.

---

"Hard" does not mean "impossible." What do you think the supercollider is for? It is being built so that we might find the predicted Higgs boson which would validate supersymmetry and, by extension, inflationary cosmology.What do you think COBE, WMAP, and PLANCK are about? As the European Space Agency describes it: Your source is from 2001. What makes you think the state of the science has remained stagnant? WMAP only went up in 2001 and we didn't have results until the next year(and it's still up there, looking.)As NASA put it when it released the five-year results from WMAP: Are you saying that WMAP doesn't exist?Why don't you know about these things? You need to stop researching in attempts to quote-mine and start researching to learn the actual state of the science. The reason we go with inflationary models of the big bang is because all the evidence is pointing in that direction.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

I believe non-zero would apply only to math and not (abe: directly) to space, energy, forces or matter, i.e. existing things.

---

Existence is necessarily mathematical. And at this level of physics, the only way you can describe things is mathematically.That's why we use the mathematical "jargon" when doing real physics.Mathematics is reality.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't know what else to say than what I've already said.

---

You could start by actually answering the questions rather than simply making bare assertions. Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

You also appear to be ignoring my model which factors in omnipotent ID creator mangement

---

Incorrect. I have done nothing but respond to it:This "omnipotent ID creator management" is a direct violation of the second law. Why do you think I keep asking, "How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law"?There are no perfect engines. Energy cannot be converted entirely into work. Some energy is always irrevocably lost to entropy. Since there is not an infinite amount of energy, this necessarily means that all reactions will reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time as all energy eventually gets lost to entropy.Your god hypothesis, though, violates that by allowing god to reclaim that energy in direct conflict with the second law.

quote:

---

with relative stable entropy and source of energy always greater; i.e. A always greater than B.

---

That's a violation of the second law. There is no such thing as "stable entropy." There are no perfect engines, some energy is always irrevocably lost to entropy.Why do you think I keep asking what would happen if we hooked your engine up to a refrigerator?

quote:

---

None of your education ever considered this model.

---

Incorrect. The entire basis of thermodynamics has to do with trying to find perpetual motion. As said in BC: Before Carnot. A Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics: Until you understand what is impossible, you cannot understand the limit of the possible.Are you familiar with the work of Laplace and Lavoisier? How they developed "caloric theory"? Why it was discarded? Does the image of a cannon bore being drilled underwater mean anything to you?If not, how on earth do you know what "my" education has considered?

quote:

---

Imo, you have yet to refute my claim that it is more thermodynamically compatible than your temporal (time related; not eternal) model.

---

Incorrect. I have asked you how you reconcile your claims with the second law. Let's try again, shall we?How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

quote:

---

As with your model, I'm admitting that mine also has some unknowns.

---

It isn't a question of unknowns. It's a question of directly violating established physics.How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

1. My first attempt did not directly contradict the 2LoT. Your response required clarification and you got it.

---

Your first reply alleged that overall entropy could be decreased in direct violation of the 2LoT. This is the first time you have actually tried to answer that fact - and your answer is a simple denial of the obvious truth.

quote:

---

2. I did not say entropy remained unchanged. My position was that it is relatively stable with the source of energy always greater

---

If you allow for the REAL 2LoT your only option is to say that entropy remains effectively unchanged for all but a finite period of your infinite past. Any non-infinitesimal change continued over an infinite period adds up to an infinite change.

quote:

---

3. You choose to ignore my contention that my model factors in omnipotent ID, not researched or addressed by conventional science. Nobody has yet substantiated that this model cannot be reconciled with 2LoT.

---

Since this assertion is both unscientific and irrelevant it SHOULD be ignored. If you wish to contend that such an entity permits you to ignore the 2LoT then say so - and stop asserting that your model is compatible with the laws of thermodynamics.

quote:

---

4. How many times do I need to remind you that this is a perpetual model where energy is managed by work of the intelligent source of energy effecting ID?

---

This is essentially a repeat of your 3rd point, and it is irrelevant. The only way it could be relevant is if it permits you to ignore 2LoT - which falsifies your assertion that your "hypothesis" is compatible with it.

quote:

---

Paul, you keep on keeping on ignoring my valid points and repeating your false unsupported arguments.

---

As usual, a complete falsehood.

quote:

---

1. Any temporal universe model must have a beginning point, i.e. T<0. Right?

---

Your use of "temporal" is completely unclear. If it includes any universe in which time passes (as seems to be the case) your assertion is absolutely false. If it refers to universes with a finite past then your "i.e." is false for the reasons I have already stated. Such a model would almost certainly DEFINE T = 0 to be the beginning with NO T < 0. Since I already explained this fact in the post you are replying to it seems that you are ignoring MY valid points.

quote:

---

2. Since a temporal universe MUST have a beginning, all forces, energy, matter and space had to have come into existence from nothing. Right?

---

Wrong. If there is no prior state where these things did not exist (i.e. they existed at T = 0) then they cannot have come into existence out of nothing.

quote:

---

3. Pray tell, how does the above temporal model comply with any of the observed laws of science?

---

You haven't cited any model. Rather you have just made two obviously false assertions. Indeed both points have already come up in this discussion.

quote:

---

You keep eating up the thread, alleging "False" as you skirt around my valid points.

---

No, YOU are eating up the thread evading MY valid points. Need I point out that your "reply" to Message 13 came very late and completely failed to address the content. And as can easily be seen, I had already explained why point 1 in your second list had already been refuted IN THE POST YOU WERE REPLYING TO.

quote:

---

I suppose that would be so if you used the Wikipeda definition of finite.

---

I don't need any special meaning of "finite". It is clearly true that the obvious place to set the zero point of the scale is at the very beginning.

quote:

---

So would you please explain to me how time could be non-zero and not reach eternally into the past and future.

---

So your number system includes only zero and plus or minus infinity ? That must make doing your taxes very difficult.

quote:

---

If there was something it had to exist in some form eternally into the past.

---

Since we are discussing the case where the past is NOT infinite, that is necessarily false. Nothing can stretch eternally into the past when the past itself is finite.It would be simpler to state that at the beginning point there must be either something or nothing. Buz asserts (without giving any reason) that it must be nothing.

quote:

---

Anything past T=10-43 requires faith. Because all science can say is we don't know.

---

Which confirms my point that it is possible that there was "something".

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

Instantons were developed in physics. Math

---

And this is a problem why? At this level of physics, everything is done as math because everything is math.

quote:

---

Turok said: "But the wonderful property of OUR NEW instanton is that it automatically turns itself into an infinite, inflating open universe.

​

This is not Math it is a physical happening of creating matter out of the absence of anything.

---

Huh? You seem to be upset that Turok was following the scientific method: You work with observations, make testable hypotheses, and adjust your work in light of the new outcomes which make new predictions in a never-ending cycle.Physics is applied math. What do you think velocity is? It's the derivative of position with respect to time. Acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time. Impulse is the derivative of acceleration with respect to time.There's a common joke, seen on the t-shirts of thousands of physics geeks: The universe runs on math. There's a reason that there is a discipline of physics called "mathematical physics." Two courses from my own undergrad:Computational Methods in Physics: Typical numerical methods for solving a wide range of problems of current interest in physics. Examples are drawn from mechanics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, solid state, and chemical physics.General Relativity and Cosmology: The principle of equivalence, Riemannian geometry, and the Schwarzschild and cosmological solutions of the field equations.There's a reason that the core curriculum was a year of chemistry (with lab), a year of physics (with lab), and two years of math. You cannot do higher science without a strong foundation in mathematics because the world works because of math. The most interesting problems in physics are exercises in solving differential equations.

quote:

---

You did notice that Turok's instanton could not exist without gravity, matter, space and time.

---

More quote mining. I responded to this (and I know you haven't gotten to it, but it only shows just how perfidious your quote-mining is) in Message 233: In short, you're completely missing the point.

quote:

---

Turok's instanton started inflation not described it.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?What on earth do you think "started inflation" means? How on earth do you know you have inflation if you cannot describe it?Besides, you just contradicted yourself. You wrote in Message 215: But now you're saying that the work of Turok and Hawking isn't describing inflation. Well, which is it? Do we have a description of inflation or don't we? When physicists talk about "inflation," they aren't referring to just a vague notion of "really fast expansion." They are talking about a physical process described mathematically.And it becomes even more clear that you haven't read your own source. Turok goes on and on about how he was dissatisfied with various descriptions of inflation: How much more of this paper do I have to quote at you before you sit down and read it?

quote:

---

Inflation is what happened to the instanton.

---

You realize you just contradicted yourself, yes? You wrote just before that:

quote:

---

Turok's instanton started inflation not described it.

---

If the instanton "started" inflation, then inflation can't be "what happened" to it.And once again, you show you haven't read your own source: And even more directly: If that isn't a direct indication that the instanton results in inflation, I shudder to think what more you need.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You did actually read your own source, didn't you?

---

​

I did. But I am not sure you did you?

---

(*chuckle*)I have manually transcribed a quarter of this paper into this thread and somehow I'm the one who hasn't read it. I'm suddenly reminded of the quote from A Fish Called Wanda (to paraphrase a bit):Apes do read philosophy. They just don't understand it.You have to stop reading for gotchas and start reading for content.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.