Summations Only

Buz your link doesn't even mention thermodynamics. The problem with the current Big Bang model is that we don't have a quantum theory of gravity. This is well documented and the subject of a great deal of active research. From your own link:

quote:

---

The most obvious solution to the singularity problem is to realise that when one is considering an extremely young universe (i.e. a universe of atomic dimensions), quantum effects will become important. However, these cannot be described as we do not have a quantum theory of gravity (i.e. we do not yet have a version of general relativity that takes quantum physics into account, hence the name classical general relativity). Until we do, we can say little of the universe in the time when it was of atomic dimensions or smaller.

​

In other words, the prediction of an initial singularity may well be a limitation of current theoretical physics, rather than a facet of reality.

---

But the problem with your model is not that it requires further research. The problem with your model is that it fundamentally disagrees with reality in that it necessarily predicts reductions in the overall entropy of a closed system.

The problem with your model is just that; that you think it requires no further researching of the evidence of such an entity existing, capable of effecting the reduction of entropy, managing the system. Conventional science has no interest in whether a metaphysical realm of existence exists in the Universe. It is a narrow minded approach to science as if the level of intelligence experienced on this itty bitty spot in the Universe called Planet Earth can be the only possible level of intelligence.There are plenty of ways in which science could study metaphysical data just related to the Biblical record itself, as to whether it has any credibility or not. At least Lennart Moller was objective in his science to determine that and report the evidence which he researched. If conventional science had an objective mindset, it would set out to falsify Moller's claims. They have a vested interest in remaining ignorant themselves and keeping mainstream academia ignorant regarding such evidence. Students could even do studies to determine whether evidence exists showing whether the prophecies of Biblical prophets reached the status of supporting the existence of metaphysical knowledge, i.e. falsifying the prophets. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Perhaps you coulld start a thread on verifiable ways to test for the metaphysical? I'd LOVE to see/perform some of the tests.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

I'm sorry but that is simply nonsense and not true.Lennart Moller presented NO scientific evidence at all.To claim he did is to simply show that you have no idea what "evidence" really is.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy only ever increases overall. No violations of this have ever been observed. If the universe has existed for eternity (as you tell us it has) then according to the second law of thermodynamics the universe would necessarily be in a state of maximum entropy (i.e. heat death)Now you posit the reason for the universe NOT being in a state of maximum entropy to be that some supernatural entity is constantly "managing" the energy within the closed system that is the universe. In other words this supernatural entity is necessarily reversing entropy at will to avoid the otherwise inevitable state of heat death. This entity as you have described it would necessitate continual violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Your model necessitates that such violations occur and thus predicts that we should be able to observe them. This does not match reality. This, aside from anything else, is why no scientist will ever take your model seriously.Or to put it in the words of Arthur Eddington:

quote:

---

If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equationsthen so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observationwell these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington

---

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

What I propose is that all of the energy of the system relates to the system's intelligent manager of the energy.

---

Which is a violation of the Second Law. There is no way to "manage" it. That's the point.

quote:

---

All energy has infinitely existed in conjunction with that entity.

---

Which is a violation of the second law. In a closed system, an infinitely existing amount of energy would reach maximum entropy making absolutely none of it available to do any work.

quote:

---

There is an ebb and flow of the energy from the entity, flowing from the entity by design and ebbing from the system to the entity by design.

---

Which is a violation of either the First Law or the Second Law...you get to take your pick. Either you are generating energy out of nothing or you are saying that entropy gets to undo itself.

quote:

---

Thus the need for rest by the entity following creative work.

---

Which is a violation of the First Law. You are generating energy out of nothing.

quote:

---

What is unknown by either camp is how big the universe is.

---

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter how large the universe is. Whatever energy is there must obey the laws of thermodynamics and you are proposing violations of the First and Second Laws. You want energy to be created from nothing and for entropy to reverse itself.

quote:

---

Whether the absolute zero event is referred to as a singularity or whatever

---

Thus showing that you don't understand what "absolute zero" and "singularity" mean. They are not synonymous and have no connection to each other.

quote:

---

the current model of cosmology relative to thermodynamics is problematic regarding the origin of a temporal universe.

---

How can that be when the current model of cosmology is a gigantic exercise in thermodynamics? You still haven't answered the question I put to you, so let me ask for a fourth time:Surely you're not suggesting that cosmologists forgot their basic training, are you? That in investigating the largest thermodynamic reaction every witnessed, they never bothered to look at the thermodynamics of it?You have yet to give any actual reason why there is a thermodynamic problem in cosmology. You've just asserted it to be so. Can you be more specific?

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

evidence of such an entity existing, capable of effecting the reduction of entropy, managing the system.

---

That would be a violation of the Second Law. Since we have never seen a violation of the Second Law, why would we investigate the existence of an entity that violates it?For the fifth time: Are you suggesting cosmologists forgot their basic training in physics? That in investigating the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to look into the thermodynamic implications?

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Of course there isn't by the standards of conventional science. I'm not talking about that. My hypothesis is not based on your theory.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Too frikin funny, Buz...Is the topic "Which More 3LoT Compatible, Cavediver's Temp.Non-ID Or Buzsaw's Infinite ID Universe"?If so, if you violate even one of the Laws of Thermodynamics then you are not compatible.Once again you yourself refute your premise.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The same applies to both camps. The question remains, which is the most compatible..

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

So you concede that your bullshit "theory" requires a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and thus is not compatible with the three laws of thermo.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
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

Yours is not compatible at all with the laws and in fact violates them.Yours is simply bullshit.It really is that simple.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Which is a violation of the Second Law. There is no way to "manage" it. That's the point.

---

​

Of course there isn't by the standards of conventional science. I'm not talking about that. My hypothesis is not based on your theory.

---

If your claim requires violation of the laws of thermodynamics, why do you care which one is more in accordance with them? Do you seriously not see it? This thread is about which claim is more in accordance with thermodynamics and now you come along and say that yours directly violates them. So if that's the case, why do you care?If you're going to invoke magic, just come right out and say it. Stop pretending that you are basing your claims in science.Fifth time: Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists have forgotten their basic training in physics? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they didn't bother to consider the thermodynamics of it?

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

The same applies to both camps.

---

Indeed.Where is your evidence that current cosmology violates thermodynamics?

quote:

---

The question remains, which is the most compatible.

---

Sixth time:Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics?

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Why would one be concerned with "breaking" thermodynamic laws without first questioning whether these laws are applicable? The 2LoT has no applicability to a single reversible quantum interaction. Are you sure it is applicable to the BBT?