big bang and thermodynamic laws

This is my first post to this forum. My question is simple, and hopefully I can get a simple answer. I have read several old earth/evolutionists papers on this subject and have heard many people make fun of this argument, but I still believe it is valid.1) First Law of Thermodynamics: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. 2)Second Law of Thermodynamics:The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

• Where is the sun getting its energy?
• Where is the entire universe getting its energy?

Thank you for reading. Please if you can answer or explain you would be a great help.

---

Wizend Endwiz

Ah, a small moment of amusement. You'll get your answers soon enough but why don't you see if you, Google and the internet can enable you to get the answers yourself.The origin of the universe isn't yet, to me, a completely answered question. However, matter and energy does "appear out of nowhere" (in a sense). The Casimir effect is just a demonstration of something that is caused by this behavior.You missed something about the 2nd law. An open system, of course, is not limited by it but a closed system can also have parts that undergo decreased entropy as long as the total doesn't decrease. The "entire universe" doesn't need to "get energy" for local parts to have decreases in entropy.A google can tell you how the sun operates. You mentioned Einstein. Remember E= mc**2? If the mass (the m) is 4 millon tonnes of matter you get one heck of a lot of energy out. If I remember correctly (propably not) 4 megatonnes is the amount of matter converted to energy EVERY SECOND in the sun.

---

Common sense isn't

The sun is getting its energy by the fusion of lighter elements to heavier elements, and the process is well-understood (now that we understand why we see what we see in the neutrino flux from the sun).We don't know for sure where the Universe got its energy from; it's possible that it's just a quantum fluctuation (since mass energy is positive and gravitational energy is negative, the total energy of the Universe is approximately zero and may be exactly zero), and we know those happen because we've seen them many times (although many orders of magnitude smaller than the Universe). The quantum uncertainly principle says that a zero-energy fluctuation, which the universe may be, can last indefinitely.But the question of where the energy came from is still wide open.The second law of thermodynamics (properly formulated) applies to all systems, open or closed. Also, the second law says nothing about any processes (since entropy is a property, a thermodynamical technical term, its value is independent of any considerations of history or how it got that way). However, you're right; there must be some processes that use the sun's energy. And there are plenty of those, from extermely simple chemical reactions up to some of the sophisticated systems of life. There is no known reason why those simple chemical processes could not have evolved into the panoply of life we see today, and there is good reason to believe that the probability of that happening is somewhere between reasonably possible and certain (although nobody knows for sure).

I think this definition you offered is not precisely valid since we're not sure if the universe can be meaningfully spoken of as an isolated, closed, or an open system. Not really. More like you can believe that "something" has always existed. Your statement is based upon faulty premises. It's not clear that all of those were "created" at all.Also, it does not necessarily follow that the universe exists "by accident." I dislike the use of the Casmir effect as a defense against the notion of "something coming from nothing." What it indicates instead is that there is no such thing as "nothing" in reality. Reality is the set of all things, and nothing (or no-thing, if it helps) is not an element of that set. It is important to note again that applying the 2ndLoT to the universe as a whole is not well-defined. Disagree. Processes like photosynthesis or ATP hydrolysis make energy usable for organisms, but no such process is necessary for the sun's energy to work upon the H₂O molecules in my solar water heater hose.Also note that there is no conservation law with regard to information. Hydrogen fusion. It may not be "getting" energy at all. Instead, it likely is all energy. Well, the sun seems to be only about 4.6 billion years old, and the 15-16 billion years is so far the greatest amount of time we can observe into the past, which no more means that the universe began there than the appearance of a runner from behind a hill means that the runner began his run at the moment he became observable.

Welcome aboard. Enjoy you visit here.I am a bit nosy about one thing though, Wizend. Where did you get the thought of asking those questions? Did you study some physics somewhere and realize you wanted an answer to them?Perhaps, instead, you were 'fed' those questions? Someone who suggested that you could "get" those heathen 'evolutionists'? If this is the case I suggest that you consider the source of such stuff. Most of the sources you will find are not very knowledgable about what they are pretending to be experts in. There are some who actually choose to lie to you!If you use that sort of source you will find that you are posting questions that have already been discussed in great detail here before. You might want to use the 'search' funtion (top of topics list screen 'forums nav') and see if you can find them. Just browsing topic titles will work too.Another small note, you may not be aware that the orgin of the universe isn't part of the theory of evolution (ToE) so if that is what you want to discuss you might skip over the next 10 billion years (or, , we will be here awhile).

---

Common sense isn't

I started to write this post going over each of the things said, but decided it was not worth my time.I am 21 years old, and got into the topic of Evolution vs. Creation after watching a copy of Hovind’s tape series about 8 months ago. I laugh at it now, but it sparked my interest none the less. I have since been reading from AiG, All about God, and any other sites I could find. I accept the YEC model because it makes most sense to me. I read the Old earth arguments and they seem to be full of maybes and possiblies (ex Oort Cloud). That just does not sound like science to me.I have tried to read from Talk.Origins, and No Answers in Genesis, and all I see is a bunch of creationists bashing, it is very hard to read. Evolutionists complain about Creationists not reading the other side, but how can you when it is so unkind and unprofessional. If there is a good site that has the facts without all the side notes bashing creationists I would love to see it. I also have tried searching through these forums looking for answers, but like I said a bunch of insults. I am glad everyone from this thread seemed to be professional and I thank you.I thought since so many people laugh at this argument I could get an easy answer by just asking. Still there is a lot of maybes doing the explaining, and still things that just do not add up. I will do more digging, thank you.

You are seriously telling me that you give less credence to the Oort cloud (with some evidence) than to 'divine miracles' (Noah's flood) with NO evidence.In fact, please tell me WHY you give no credence to the Oort cloud?[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 01-02-2004][This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 01-02-2004]

WizendIn reply to this staement. May I recommend the following site that deals with things in detail.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html#mechconAlso this site for some help in showing the subtleties involved. There are opinions given within here but not in any great extent.http://www.explorepdx.com/feynman.htmlLet me know if it helps.

In re the age of the Earth: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.There's a lot of information, and very little creationist-bashing, at DMD Publishing Co. Home Page; the author was once a prominent YEC who published in their magazines. Be sure to read ABOUT THE AUTHOR. Genesis Panthesis is well worth a look, and don't miss reading the "Inspiration for Genesis Panthesis" page.Also see The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary.

It may be that you are looking for answers that are certain, or 'written in stone' so to speak. Science in general, I believe, looks for answers too, but the scientist goes by a rule of thumb that no theory or hypothesis is absolutely certain, and that what they discover is not necessarilly the way things really are in nature. We theorize that the 2nd Law applies to the earth-sun system because we keep on collecting facts, and making observations which tell us this is so. But if a bunch of scientists one day discovered phenomena in our Solar-system that went against our previous theory, then they may have to do some revision or trashing of that theory. So far, it looks like our earth takes in usable energy from it's environment(sun) to allow for the evolution and continuance of life.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 01-02-2004]

All the sources I have read defending the Oort cloud get very defensive about it, kinda goofy. They say things like this: "Sorry fellas, but if you want to use this comet argument it is up to you to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Oort Cloud and other sources don't exist!" found here (#3)To my knowledge that is not how science works. You have to prove something, not to disprove something. Where is the proof of the cloud? I read they have photos of it, but sadly they did not quote a source.science - n. dictionary.com
That to me is kind of suspicious. Also the fact the Kuiper Belt is just now, 1992 anyway, being popularized. The Kupier Belt is only like 3000 AU away where the Oort cloud is supposed to be 50,000 AU away. Why would Oort more than 50 years ago be able to calculate to find something that far away without also calculating in for the Belt?(source)It just sounds all kinda iffy to me.There is so evidence for a flood, most importantly the bible.

quote:

---

To my knowledge that is not how science works. You have to prove something, not to disprove something. Where is the proof of the cloud?

---

The hypothesis of the Oort cloud explains very well the characteristics of long period comets. In fact, the Oort cloud was originally hypothesized to explain the long period comets. Since then, models of the formation of the Solar System show that the Oort Cloud should exist. So the existence of the Oort cloud is not in doubt: our current theories indicate that it should exist, and its existence explains phenomena that are observed. This is the way science is done.

quote:

---

Why would Oort more than 50 years ago be able to calculate to find something that far away without also calculating in for the Belt?

---

Because the two are formed through different processes; looking at one of the processes will not lead you to believe in the existence of the other. By the way, this is how science works.Edited to add:Here is an article in a recent issue of Science that has some relevance to the formation of the Kuiper Belt.[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 01-02-2004]

well, of course when you want something to exist you can make it exist in your model of the Big Bang. That still does not prove it is there. I am sorry I obviously do not know that much about the subject. I am using simple logic trying to understand it better.How do you come up with a model like that anyway? It is probably really long and complicated, but what do you look at to try to determine how something blew up 16 billion years ago? Where do you get the facts for such theories? How can you test something like that?I am not asking these questions to be smart, I am asking them because I am interested in how you can determine what happened that long ago by observations made in the present. I have seen those models that have it broken down into nano-seconds. How is that possible? How do you determine what has stayed the same or at a constant for billions of years and what has changed? ex. shrinking sun, geologic column, and earth's magnetic field? Then how do you tell that those facts are true, or reliable?Also one more thing, is there somewhere I can find the CORRECT ToE, or Theory of the Big Bang. Everytime I think I have it down I get accused of a strawman. I think it has alot to do with who you are talking to, everyone seems to have their own theory.

quote:

---

How do you come up with a model like that anyway? It is probably really long and complicated, but what do you look at to try to determine how something blew up 16 billion years ago? Where do you get the facts for such theories? How can you test something like that?

---

It is observed that the galaxies are all moving apart, and that the farther apart they are, the faster they are moving away. Conclusion: the universe is expanding.So if the universe is expanding, the universe must have been much denser in the past. Basic thermodynamics says the universe must have been much hotter in the past. Prediction: the universe should be filled with a blackbody radiation from the early, hot universe. Confirmation: the cosmic radiation background was discovered long ago.If the universe was denser and hotter, atomic nuclei could not have existed - at one point there should have been just "free" protons and neutrons. As the universe cooled, the particles were able to combine into atomic nuclei. Prediction: based on reasonable assumptions as to the density of the universe and the rate of cooling/expansion, 25 per cent of the matter (by mass) should be helium and the rest hydrogen (with a very, very minute fraction being anything else). Confirmation: this is what we observe.This is how Big Bang is tested. You make predictions, and then see if the predictions are observed.Edited to add:This is an introduction to the theory of evolution.Here are some misconceptions about what the theory is all about.[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 01-02-2004]

The Kuiper Belt was proposed to exist at about the same time as the Oort Cloud - the difference is, as you say, probably one of popularization. (Maybe because Oort is a cooler sounding Dutch name than Kuiper?) It's very interesting to track what folks like AiG have posted on the Kuiper Belt, too: a few years ago it was, "This is all hand waving! There's no evidence it even exists!" More recently, it's "Well, yeah, there's some stuff out there, but the objects are too big to be comets..." (Ignoring that they're far, far away and less reflective that coal covered with soot, and that earth-based telescopes do have limits.)The gaps of their God of the Gaps are getting smaller and ever smaller.