promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 4:11 pm
Then u guys don't understand the elagance of this problem. If the universe never began and has existed for an 'infinite amount of time' (a nonsensical phrase btw),
Well considering that you are the only one here using that phrase, and that you also know that that phrase is nonsensical, then why do you use it?
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 4:11 pm
and, entropy always happens in a thermodynamic system, then maxium entropy in our observable universe should have already have happened becuz enough time has passed for it to have happened. See what i mean?
Yes. What you have said here, again for a number of times, was understood the first time you said it here.
What you are essentially saying is that the whole Universe, Itself, is a 'thermodynamic system' and 'has to work', exactly like, any and all 'thermodynamic systems' that you human beings have known of, since this theory has been known about for just a few hundred or so years, right?
Is there absolutely any possibility at all that the Universe, Itself, does not work how you ones who think or believe that the Universe began, and/or is expanding, think or believe it does?
Could it be a possibility that that the Universe did not begin, and/nor is not expanding, and thus does not work like the 'thermodynamic systems' that are known of and about? Or, is this just an absolute impossibility, to you "promthean75"?
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 4:11 pm
Either entropy was produced at the creation event of a finite universe and is an infallible 'law' of physics, or entropy is paradoxically a law of the observable universe but not a law of a larger mysterious system that the universe happened in.
Why would any sane person base what the parts are, exactly, and how they work, exactly, of what are unobservant, on what is able to be observed?
Also, why do you persist with the idea that there was or even had to be a 'creation event', and a so-called 'finite universe'?
If absolutely any only thinks or believes that there was a 'creation event' and/or a 'finite universe', then just explain how 'that event' could even be a 'logical possibility', let alone then moving onto explaining how 'it' could then be a 'physically possibility', let alone ever getting to explaining how 'it' could have been a 'logical and physical actuality and reality'.
Once one can start doing these things, then 'we' will have something to 'look at', and consider. But, until then anyone who thinks or believes that there was a so-called 'creation event' has been fooled and deceived, religiously, by either 'theology' and/or 'science'.
These people have also put their faith, and/or belief, in those that they 'trust', that is; the "preachers" or "teachers" of 'science' and/or 'theology". These people believe in the 'religious texts' within 'scriptures' or 'science' books, which are based not on 'actual irrefutable Facts' but rather on what is just 'theory' or 'presumptions' and what is just 'taught' to be true.
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 4:11 pm
If it was the latter and entropy is consistent throughout all conceivable quantum-to-cosmological systems, maximum entropy would have been reached at every and any point in history
if the universe had no beginning and time is infinite.
That is; Only IF 'entropy' exists in regards to the actual whole Universe, Itself.
Is 'entropy' consistent and/or apply to the Universe, Itself?
If yes, then where is the actual proof for this claim?
Now, 'we' could go on for ages and ages talking about 'IF's' or 'what might or could be's'. Or, 'we' could just 'look at' and 'discuss' what actually happens and occurs here, only, and so keep moving along here, and eventually come to what is irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.
The choice is 'yours' alone here.
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 4:11 pm
How to resolve the two conflicting laws of thermodynamics. The entropy one and conservation of energy one. If no energy is ever lost, entropy wouldn't be what we describe it as, an inability to perform work.
But 'entropy' works, exists, or is consistent within a 'closed thermodynamic system'. Which means in just 'one system' alone. However, when and if within 'one system' there are other 'systems', which when one system is 'dying out' is helping in the creation of 'another system', and the 'starting/ending, or being born/dying, systems' is how each new one is being created, or when 'energy', itself, is neither being created nor destroyed, but is just changing in form, that is; changing in the sense of forming 'newer or more systems' when other systems' are ending or dying out, then 'the system' that this action/reaction, causation, process is happening in can be, and is, one that never actual began nor will end, Itself.
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 4:11 pm
Things ultimately cease to exist by a slow radiating death. Literally the heat lost at subatomic levels in your body is the effect of your particles dyin.
But 'matter', itself, does not 'die'. It just changes in way, shape, or form. Like 'energy' 'matter' does not disappear, they both just get transferred or changed from one form to another form.
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 4:11 pm
Entropy is everywhere.
If so, then what actual proof do you have that entropy is at, or applies to, the Universe, Itself?
Also, did you explain above already how the Universe, Itself, could have 'logically' began, and be finite'?
If no, then you have three things here to explain, 'now'.
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 4:11 pm
S'gotta be. And when you're talking about infinite universes with no beginning, u can't explain why our universe hasn't already died a heat death or entered Self-Lightening's Big Chill stage.
Here is another prime example of 'blindness' occurring because of a 'currently' held onto belief/s.
1. It does not 'gotta be'.
2. There cannot be infinite universes, with no beginning. That is just self-contradictory and thus self-refuting.
3. There is no 'our universe'.
4. I can, very easily and very simply, explain why 'the Universe', Itself, has not already so-called 'died a heat death'.
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 4:11 pm
That's a simple but elegant problem, gentlemen.
you seem to not have grasped and understand what 'a problem' actually is, yet.
Yes. I also fully understand how and why 'your confusion' here.