The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

Thermodynamics gives us equations about the change in entropy. It does not give us a way of determining the entropy of the cosmos as a whole.It has always been my assumption, that if the cosmos is infinite then the total entropy for the cosmos is also infinite. And if it is infinite, then talk of increase in entropy for the cosmos as a whole becomes nonsensical.With BB cosmology, it is always possible that the process of expanding of the cosmos also reduces entropy. Or perhaps it increases, but due to expansion the entropy of a local region is decreasing. Or perhaps, overall, it is in stasis.There really isn't enough known to be able to draw conclusions as to what is happening, in terms of entropy, to the cosmos as a whole.

I haven't looked at recent physics books. However, I can't imagine that it is much different from what I described.I took a peek at the wikipedia entry for entropy. You will note that it defines only the change in entropy (in an equation for "dS"). Then we find That pretty much rules out finding a global (i.e. cosmos wide) value of entropy.

If you look just past that, he says:You can't really quantify entropy for the universe as a whole. Relativity tells us that we can only quantify in local coordinate systems.I can't say much about your second quote, since I can't find the context. It gives the appearance of confusing entropy from thermodynamics with entropy from information theory. But maybe the context would clarify that.

That was not my reading.As I see it, the statement you quoted (about the universe as a whole) was a vague general statement that is impossible to pin down. And it wasn't Miller's original statement, but an acknowledgement of something that came up in a discussion. Miller then quickly jumped to a more precise statement, which is where he started talking about closed local systems. I looked there. I didn't find the original text you were quoting.

That's probably a misunderstanding of what Son Gokum, cavediver, and others are saying.A better way of saying is that our concept of time is something we use to understand our universe. It is specifically connected to aspects of our universe. Thus it makes no sense to apply it to things outside our universe. In particular, it makes no sense to apply it to a "God's eye view" of our universe, as observed from the outside.It has long been a theological view that God is timeless, that God exists outside of time. Why not just take that literally, and recognize that our concept of time is something that only makes sense inside our universe.

Chomsky came up with a wonderful sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."Your statement means about the same thing.

quote:

---

Buz interpretation writes:

​

1. The universe had no origin/never ever originated/had no beginnng.

​

nwr writes:

​

Chomsky came up with a wonderful sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
Your statement means about the same thing.

​

Are you going to yada or are you going to refute the specifics of the statement above?

---

At first glance, your statement (about the universe) looks like a meaningful sentence. But when you examine it closely, you can see that it makes no sense. That's what I was trying to illustrate by quoting the Chomsky sentence.If the statement makes no sense, then there is nothing there to refute.

Actually, I gave a forthright answer. You didn't recognize it as such.I am trying to explain that the problem is with the question.Your question had to do with time.100 years ago, we measured time in terms of the rotation of the earth. What would time have meant when there was no universe and there was no earth to rotate?Currently we measure time with the caesium atomic clock. What can time have meant when there was no universe and there was no caesium?Einstein pointed out the relativity of time. You can have events A and B, and observers X and Y. X sees event A as occurring before event B, while Y sees event B as occurring before event A. This is not just an observation error. There is no answer to the question of which event came first. The order of events is inherently observer dependent.If the order of events depends on which observer in our universe saw the events, then how can you talk of the order of events that are not part of our universe?That's the difficulty with your question. Our concept of time cannot be stretched so as to make it applicable to the type of question you were trying to ask.

You asked me to refute your interpretation (in Message 209). That's different from asking whether I agreed.This was your interpretation: This is what Son Goku actually said: To be clear, no I don't agree with your interpretation.

That does not look at all intelligible on my screen.There is a "latex2html" program (perl script), that works by generating graphics for the equations. But I find it a bit of a pain to use. It is easier to use "pdflatex" that generates a pdf file with decent math typesetting.

You used time-based words that attempt to stretch the concept of time beyond where it makes sense.