Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

Nobody missed it. Nobody missed it the first time; nobody missed it the twentieth time. When Straggle wrote, "Well if your "hypothesis" involves a beginning . " he was making a conditional statement simply to be thorough.It is you who have missed it.Old habits die hard.If God is part of the system, doing work to reorganize the energy in the system, then he is expending system energy to do so. Work can only be done by expending energy, but energy can be spent without doing work. Therefore, losses are to be expected. However small these losses, an eternities worth of them would account for all of the energy in the Universe. Your ship isn't doing any thing miraculous here. The total amount of energy is not the only consideration. It is taking a more concentrated form of energy and turning it into a less concentrated form of energy. It's increasing entropy via work. Big effing deal.Earlier in this thread I asked: You answered:You missed it while accusing me of having missed it.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

In an attempt to avoid wasting what little is left of this thread I would strongly suggest that you go away and read up on the 2nd law of thermodynamics before you post any further responses. I would also suggest you avoid any creationist specific sites on the subject as they are notoriously misinformed. Wiki is the obvious starting point but do also try and find some laymans explanations elsewhere. Explanations that you understand and that are specific to neither side of the whole science vs creation debate.I am going to try and put as simply but as thoroughly as I possibly can in a step by step analysis the basis for the objections to your hypothesis in terms of the 2nd law of thermodynamics -1) A closed system is one where the total amount of energy remains constant. No energy leaves and no energy enters.
2) In the case of your creator + universe hypothesis you have already stated that the 1st LoT applies. There are no other sources of energy and there is nowhere else for energy to be lost. Thus the total amount of energy remains constant (apparently eternally). In thermodynamic terms your creator + universe is a single closed system.
3) Whenever energy is tranformed from one form to another entropy increases (this is the second law of thermodynamics in highly simplistic and summarised form).
4) Energy is being transformed from one form to another continually within the universe (you are doing it now!!!!!).
5) Therefore entropy is continually increasing within the universe (again - you are doing it now!!!!!)
6) If the creator and the universe are one closed system and entropy is increasing within the universe then entropy is increasing within the system as a whole.
7) The only way to avoid this is for the creator to decrease the entropy of the closed system as a whole.
8) This indisputably violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
9) Entropy increases with time, thus without 'magic' to reverse entropy somehow, a universe that has existed for eternity is necessarily in a state of absolute thermodynamic equilibrium. A state of maximum entropy (as in fact is the creator in your hypothetical scenario!!).
10) No useful work can be done. The universe is a lifeless random mass of dispirate particles (as is the creator!!)Nature seeks equilibrium. That in a nutshell is the 2nd law. In eternity equilibrium will be reached. In practical terms equilibrium is no fun at all. It is lifeless and unpredictable. It certainly is not the universe we actually observe. In fact we could not be here to observe it if it were in this state.I can see why you have problems with the perceived "creation" of energy in the BB logically implied T=0 in terms of the 1st LoT. I personally think these are extremely interesting questions that do genuinely deserve discussion. But this is not nearly so simple or common sense as you would like it to be. Nor does it detract from the wealth of evidence that the the universe as we see it has evolved from a very hot, very small, very dense state.
The thread I keep referring you to should (if it ever kicks off) address issues of T=0.Whatever the case - Replacing the empirically tested conclusions of BB theory regarding the expansion and inflation of the universe (a theory that explains the observed features of the universe as necessary requirements of said theory, and which has passed the scientific test of prediction and verification regarding new observable evidence) with a theory that inherently violates the laws of physics and which fails all of the criteria of valid scientific theory in terms of testability and explanation of observed phenomenon...........
Well it just is never going to happen.Until you understand why this is the case without assuming some sort of philosophical bias from the rest of us, I fear that there is no hope for you in terms of understanding and progress on these issues.
This is why Admin is threatening to dismiss you from all future science forums. This is why you feel the need to tread so carefully in the new T=0 thread depsite the fact it's very purpose is to consider speculative and untested scientific theories.Take this as an opportunity to learn. Take this as an opportunity to, as science does, marvel at our knowledge whilst also acknowledging, and indeed revelling in, our ignorance!!Take it easy.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling etc.

No, I didn't miss a thing. I have learned to respect Straggler a lot, but imo there was no needful purpose for this iffy. My position was crystal clear on that count. 1. As I understand it, being a closed system, no energy is ever expended from the system. No system energy losses are to be predicted. There is only varied amounts of equilibrium due to transferred energy within the system. Correct? Though the ship analogy has some differences, the point I was attempting to convey is that the equilibrium may remain stable between the ship and the ocean as long as the ship's voyages continue. It may not be a perfect analogy, but neither is the 2D balloon analogy for a 3D universe.Be ever mindful that my hypothesis has the unique aspect of an ID source of energy within the system having the ability to manage the equilibrium of the energy within the system. As with the ship analogy where intelligence is a factor (in a different way), 2LoT works somewhat differently than if the system were random, restricted to natural processes.You say, "foul - no magic allowed." I respond, what's good for the gander is good for the goose. I can't empirically verify my ID source of energy. You can't empirically verify what happened before T<10-43. Both involve mystery.

---

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

I think I've got a pretty sound handle on the 2nd law. However the way you have layed it out here is helpful for a refresher on it. The debatable aspects of it in this thread is how it may or may not apply to BB theory and the BBUH. Agreed. 1. My system is not creator + universe. It is eternal ID creator source and manager of energy within the eternal universe/system, both A and B being part and parcel of the eternal system. {Perhaps that's what you meant.) The entropy within the system would be affected in an ID managed system. The natural tendency relative to the law would be affected by the work of the designer/creator.A. Planet earth created dark, formless and subject to 2LoT. If left to natural effects of 2LoT, entropy on the increase.B. ID creator sends multipresent spirit to move/work on the formless void. After creation ID creator rests/rejuvenates somewhat as ocean does when ship returns energy to source/ocean.C. Creator managing the whole universe allowing entropy to increase naturally in desired areas while working to lessen it in others.D. Creator/designer allegedly proposes to eventually destroy earth's galaxy/Milky Way to create new heavens and earth at some future time as I understand the proposed plans. Magic, if you will, does manage the entropy and equilibrium of the Biblical unique system. Stars and galaxies are forming and dying. Nobody knows the extent of design, intelligence and complexity within the systems of the universe.Everything is on tract for the new super climate via global warming and short term disasters to effect a transformation of planet earth back into it's pre-flood state, Satan being subjected to the bottomless pit for a thousand years and mesianic millemium to emerge upon the planet, all according to the Biblical record. We're experiencing the emergence into the terrible times prophesied for the latter days. Hang onto your hats! The ride gets much rougher. The youth living now will be caught up in it before they die a normal death. It's that imminent!To go into the above in depth would be off topic. I've not said it to be preachy. I've said the above to say the universe may appear to be loosing entropy but mice and men haven't a clue, outside of the Biblical record/prophecy of how the equilibrium and entropy relative to 2LoT can be managed by the almighty creator, Jehovah! That's all I have time for and that's likely all and more than you care to hear. G'nite/morning. Thanks very much for your input! Gotta hit hay.

---

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

I didn't mean lost from the system. It has been thoroughly established we can not lose energy from the system. But we can lose energy form the process I was talking about. See the repetitive bit below.Sorry you missed that.Look at it this way: You have a huge bank roll, simply huge. On the first day of every century you buy a brand new Maserati for $120,000.00, and on the last day of every century you sell it for $119,999.99. No matter how large your initial bank roll in an eternity you will still go broke.Sorry you missed that.Yes, I know, you have a perpetual buying God that doesn't lose the penny. But that is a direct violation of 2LoT, and doesn't stop being a violation because you insist it isn't.Sorry you missed that. If ones analogy is not perfect in an area where it is not being applied that is acceptable. If ones analogy is entirely wrong in the area where it is being applied that is unacceptable.Sorry you missed that. Well, if that is what you were trying to convey you should have just said so instead of using an erroneous ship analogy. Then you would have been wrong only once.Sorry you missed that. Oh! Okay, I see what you're saying now. Yeah. That's wrong.This is the bit where God is doing work to recover energy. Work requires energy to be expended, which God must do more work on to recover which expends energy, which God must do more work on to recover which expends energy, which God must do more work on to recover which expends energy, which God must do more work on to recover which expends energy, which God must do more work on to recover which expends energy . Sorry you missed that. All well and good, I suppose, except that I didn't say magic wasn't allowed. I don't know what happened before T=10^-43. Could be God's magic. I've no reason to believe so as there is far more of a likelihood that I'm just plain old ignorant. But that's not the case we are talking about. Were talking about the interval 10^-43 T 10^17.64. No magic is required to explain this bit so to suppose it so is just plain wasteful.Sorry you missed that.

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

Buz. You are not getting it. You need to go away and read up on the 2nd law of thermodynamics and what this actually means in everyday practical terms. Everything you do every single day increases the entropy of the universe. Entropy increase is not limited to large scale cosmological phenomenon.What you are calling "managing" the energy of the universe is indisputably reducing the entropy of the universe. There are no two ways about it. No matter what words you use to describe your process.In a closed system entropy is a one way process. No matter how much "managing" is done the 2nd law states that entropy will never ever decrease.
Any reduction in entropy is a violation of the 2nd law.
If your creator reduces the entropy of the closed system then you are invoking 'magic' to defy the known laws of physics.
This is not allowed.BUZ - THE WHOLE POINT OF THE 2ND LAW IS THAT NO MATTER HOW ENERGY IS "MANAGED" ENTROPY WILL ALWAYS INCREASE IN A CLOSED SYSTEMEntropy Increase Example
As you read this you are burning calories and producing heat. This heat energy can never ever ever ever all be recycled back to any form of useful energy no matter how it is "managed". This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Overall entropy increases. Overall entropy never decreases. You personally are causing an increase in the overall entropy of the universe (or universe + creator = isolated system if you will). You are directly causing an overall increase in the entropy of the universal system as a whole (don't take it personally so is everything else )Solutions Problems and More Problems
The only way out of this fix is for the creator to reduce entropy in the universe by expending energy to reverse entropy locally. But this results in a whole set of new problems. It will always require more energy to reverse entropy than the useful energy gained back by this local entropy reversal. Thus the creator would need an external energy source. This would result in the following -1) The 1st law of thermodynamics would be broken as additional energy is continually pumped into the universe to reverse entropy locally.
2) The universe would be literally ablaze with all this extra energy. After an eternity the entire universe would be so hot as to be un-inhabitable. Infinitely hot in fact.
3) What would be the source of this extra energy?
4) If there is an external energy source then any local entropy reduction in the universe will increase entropy in this wider system as a whole.ANY REVERSAL OF LOCAL ENTROPY REQUIRES ADDITIONAL ENERGY AND AN OVERRALL INCREASE IN THE ENTROPY OF THE WIDER SYSTEMIn eternal time maximum entropy within a closed system will be reached. This is the 2nd law of thermodynaics as applied to eternity.
Any claims that your creator somehow avoids this is necessarily a violoation of the second law of thermodynamics.Please please please go and read up on this.
Find your own sources but this talks abouit the entropy of the universe No Way Back! The Second Law of Thermodynamics limits the efficiency of power stations and car engines, predicts the fate of the Universe, provides an arrow of time, and sets conditions on the evolution and continued existence of life | New ScientistEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

For the umpteenth time, Buzsaw: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.

I came across this and could not resist. This just seemed so appropriate to this topic -"If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, 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 humilation."Arthur S. Eddington (British Astrophysicist, 18882-1933) in The nature of the Physical World (1928)

1. The BBUH source of energy is alive and intelligent, unlike an inanimate source having no informational or intelligence properties. A living intelligent source of energy would have the working ability to effect a reduced entropy of the system so long as the reduction would not exceed the energy of the source, would it not?2. As I read this I, being a living being with informational amd intelligence properties recycle food and oxygen etc into energetic waste, carbon dioxide and radiate heat etc which will in turn recycle into the plant kingdom thereby allowing the production of more oxygen and food etc. If I died or stopped eating and breathing, the entropy begins to increase as the recycling cycle ends. How does this recycling process in itself increase the total eEntropy of the universe?

---

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

No. The “working” takes energy. More energy than can recovered by that work. You’ve designed an M. C. Escher Universe. The Sun turned a hundred million calories of hydrogen into a million calories of sunlight. A plant converted that million calories of sunlight, CO₂ and H₂O into ten thousand calories of sugar. You ate the plant and combined that sugar with O₂ and converted it into CO₂ and H₂O and one thousand calories of garden work planting a plant that, using a million calories of energy supplied by the Sun, will converted CO₂ and H₂O into ten thousand calories of sugar.The entropy has increased one hundred fold at every step of the process. If it were not for the Sun pumping in energy by the pant load the system would grind to a halt without a second cycle. It is the unintelligent Sun that is doing the lion’s share, not the semi-intelligent agent.Even if the agent were a perfect engine ” a violation of LoT ” he’d not eliminate the entropy. Most of the energy did no useful work at all. It was pissed away as low energy density heat. Your agent has to do much better than being a perfect engine. It has to be able to gather that low energy density heat and concentrate it, while using less energy than it took to disperse it.Try this little experiment: Get a box of pins and disperse the pins over your living room carpet by tossing it into the air. Next, get the pins back into the box using less energy than it took to disperse them. Dispersing is easy, condensing is hard.

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

How so when the intelligent energy source manages the energy of the system? 1. You have not completed the recycling process relative to production of the plants, heat, waste energy etc.2. If I had never been born, how would the total entropy of the universe be any different than it is now that I am living on the planet?

---

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

What do you mean “how so?” You’ve been told “how so” a hundred times in the last week alone. So you must not mean “how so” in any usual sense of the term. MANAGING ENERGY TAKES WORK. WORK TAKES ENERGY. USING ENERGY INCREASES ENTROPY.Try the pin experiment again but this time pour them down the front of your pants. Then go for a bike ride through the Dakota Bad Lands. I’ll tell you the purpose for this variation of the experiment when you get back. I didn’t read the Magna Carta while playing the French horn either, but when it becomes necessary to do so to make my point I will. As life is a more efficient method of increasing entropy then air, dirt and water I would assume the total entropy of the universe would be very slightly less without you.Intelligence tells us that perpetual motion is impossible. It doesn’t make it possible.

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

An omnipotent creator can do anything it wants. Including violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is exactly what you are suggesting is happening. All of the time. Throughout the universe. Continually. Everything you do requires energy. It also requires energy transfer from one form to another (e.g. chemical energy from food to kinetic energy when you move). Every time energy transforms from one form to another some of the energy is effectively "lost" to a form that cannot ever ever again be used for useful work. Note: Not lost in the sense of less energy in total. Just loss in terms of energy that can be used to do work.
In short entropy increases.Your examples of localised entropy decrease will all without question result in a net increase in the entropy of the closed system as a whole (i.e. the universe). This is the second law of thermodynamics.

If you do not understand this you do not understand entropy.

If you do not understand this you do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

​

Frankly Buz your examples smack of the sort of creationist misunderstandings of the the 2nd law that can be found on numerous creationist websites.
Entropy is about energy first and foremost. Relating this to growth, death, local decreases of entropy at the expense of overrall entropy etc. etc. first requires an understanding of the physics of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in terms of energy and thermodynamics in particular.
You very obviously do not have this understanding.
Do you even know what thermodynamics means?

​

I urge you, once again, to find some objective sources regarding the 2nd law in order to improve your understanding. It is evident that you have no real idea what the law states or how it works in practical terms.

​

The 2nd law has nothing directly to do with the total amount of energy in the universe. That is covered by the first law.

​

The second law tells that entropy increases in a closed system.
No matter which words you use or how you try to explain your way out of this -

​

If entropy does not increase in your model of the universe the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violated

​

It is as simple as that. No interpretation is required. No bias is involved.

​

ABE
Just to be clear here - Can you tell us what you think the second law of thermodynamics actually says in your own words (don't copy paste it from elsewhere, try expresing it as you understand it to be).

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Buz don't be downhearted. Nobody realistically expects you to abandon your beliefs or even radically change your mind regarding the whole issue of cosmological origins.However if you have learnt something about science and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in particular, as a result of this thread that is a good thing.If you have come to realise that nature rarely works as simply or as obviously as we would like it to, then that is an even better thing (such is the frustration and delight of the scientist!!).Whatever we believe fundamentally drives nature, whether it be a benevolent God, an uninterested deity or absolutely nothing at all, we should all be humbled by our inability to explain all that there is to explain.Take it easy and see you elsewhere.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Is our universe a closed system or an open system? If that energy that is lost when it changes forms can not be reclaimed, why is anyone studying string theory? Its a total waste of time.Everyone has pointed out that Buzz's universe could not exist as it would have run down a long time ago.I been doing that crazy thing again 'thinking'. Much has been said about perpetual motion in this thread and it caused me to think about some things.I got to thinking about rain coming down from the sky and watering the ground some soaking into the ground, some flowing down our creaks and rivers into the ocean. From there the sun picks the water up into the sky only to drop it on the earth again. This cycle has been going on a very long time with no loss of total volume.Would that not be perpetual motion?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."