Audie
Veteran Member
There's a increliable number of people who know
more than any scientist. Why, WHY dont they
give us the cure for cancer??
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
On Evolution & Creation
- Thread starter READY S W
- Start date
more than any scientist. Why, WHY dont they
give us the cure for cancer??
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
I think some are mistaken, and assume anyone wanting an alternate explanation for BB or evolution makes you a creationist, even if the current theories has conceptual problems. This type of criticism sounds like the dogma of a religion, disguised as science. Not all Physicists assume the BB. Are they all Creationists simply by bucking the bureaucracy? It is all about protecting monopoly research money?
Let me show you the main conceptual problem of the current BB theory. In terms of the current BB theory at time=0+, shortly thereafter the start of the expansion, the current theory says the universe was 1000 trillion degrees Celsius. That is quite impressive, but it has a problem.
If we apply the Gibbs free energy equation G=H-TS, used to calculate changes of state and free energy change, where G is the total free energy, which is compose of H which is enthalpy or internal energy, such as heat of fusion contained in deuterium, T is temperature in degree Kelvin, S is entropy; complexity, and insert T=1000 trillion degrees Kelvin and multiple that by S; change of complexity going from a singularity to umpteen particles we get:
-TS= (1000 trillion) X (S) = ? There would be an immediate loss of enormous amounts of free energy into entropy; -TS. We would get an immediate chill down, unless the startup BB free energy was orders of magnitude, more than current universe's energy. I cannot tell you how large S would be, but each quantum particle that appears, would contain S. Multiple this by zillions to get the summation of S and multiply that by the enormous T. The startup energy need is too high to run that scenario. It is way more than the current universe. As loose analogy is like firing rocket against gravity into space and then measuring the velocity in space. The remaining energy in space is a fraction of the lift off energy. The lift off energy feed the entropy increase. Then what is left is the universe which continues to lose energy into entropy; -TS.
The second law also precludes a perfectly cyclic universe, since energy is lost to increasing entropy. If the universe could cycle, each cycle would lose lift off energy. The long term cyclic universe would be a decaying sine wave.
The BB theory as is, could work at absolute zero, where T=0 and therefore, the 0 multiplier means any amount of atomization into particles will not take away any energy; superconductor effect. Any summation of S, times 0, does not lose free energy. But the theory cannot use absolute zero since particle accelerators data is their basis and that is based on extreme temperature equivalent to get the particles they need.
G=H-TS is a tool in the engineering tool box, so if was building a hypothetical universe, using the current theory, I would need to compensate for the extra needed lift off energy, that I know will disappear in the increasing entropy of atomization expansion. My own theory had to go another way to avoid his pit fall. There are very few laws of science, while theories are a dime a dozen. You cannot break the law and expect a theory not to be challenged.
icant
Member
You hit the nail on the head and drove it home. But nobody will be brothered by facts they just keep on putting their faith in their assumptions that somewhere in the future they will have the answers.
As I mentioned in one of my earlier messages the best answer I have ever got when I asked the question, "what existed at T=0?' was "we don't know, but we are working on it".
That is an honest answer to the question.
But it has been taught as a fact for so long very few are willing to admit they don't know.
Enjoy,
Life produces life.
Non-life produces non-life.
Enjoy,
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Scientifically and mathematically illiterate.I think some are mistaken, and assume anyone wanting an alternate explanation for BB or evolution makes you a creationist, even if the current theories has conceptual problems. This type of criticism sounds like the dogma of a religion, disguised as science. Not all Physicists assume the BB. Are they all Creationists simply by bucking the bureaucracy? It is all about protecting monopoly research money?
Let me show you the main conceptual problem of the current BB theory. In terms of the current BB theory at time=0+, shortly thereafter the start of the expansion, the current theory says the universe was 1000 trillion degrees Celsius. That is quite impressive, but it has a problem.
If we apply the Gibbs free energy equation G=H-TS, used to calculate changes of state and free energy change, where G is the total free energy, which is compose of H which is enthalpy or internal energy, such as heat of fusion contained in deuterium, T is temperature in degree Kelvin, S is entropy; complexity, and insert T=1000 trillion degrees Kelvin and multiple that by S; change of complexity going from a singularity to umpteen particles we get:
-TS= (1000 trillion) X (S) = ? There would be an immediate loss of enormous amounts of free energy into entropy; -TS. We would get an immediate chill down, unless the startup BB free energy was orders of magnitude, more than current universe's energy. I cannot tell you how large S would be, but each quantum particle that appears, would contain S. Multiple this by zillions to get the summation of S and multiply that by the enormous T. The startup energy need is too high to run that scenario. It is way more than the current universe. As loose analogy is like firing rocket against gravity into space and then measuring the velocity in space. The remaining energy in space is a fraction of the lift off energy. The lift off energy feed the entropy increase. Then what is left is the universe which continues to lose energy into entropy; -TS.
The second law also precludes a perfectly cyclic universe, since energy is lost to increasing entropy. If the universe could cycle, each cycle would lose lift off energy. The long term cyclic universe would be a decaying sine wave.
The BB theory as is, could work at absolute zero, where T=0 and therefore, the 0 multiplier means any amount of atomization into particles will not take away any energy; superconductor effect. Any summation of S, times 0, does not lose free energy. But the theory cannot use absolute zero since particle accelerators data is their basis and that is based on extreme temperature equivalent to get the particles they need.
G=H-TS is a tool in the engineering tool box, so if was building a hypothetical universe, using the current theory, I would need to compensate for the extra needed lift off energy, that I know will disappear in the increasing entropy of atomization expansion. My own theory had to go another way to avoid his pit fall. There are very few laws of science, while theories are a dime a dozen. You cannot break the law and expect a theory not to be challenged.
Take an inappropriate equation, then try to draw a conclusion from one single term in it, without, apparently, even understanding how you could apply it or what it would mean if you did.
More generally, applying entropy to the universe is difficult at best, and some cosmologists regard it as totally inappropriate (see, for example, The Janus Point by Julian Barbour).
Entropy is also a statistical law. Given enough time it will reverse to any degree you care to specify.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
We don't know that time had a start. That isn't what the BBT is about. Nobody who knows about the subject will tell you we know what happened at the apparent 'start'.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
We live in space-time where time and space act together, tethered like two people in a three legged race. Photons have wavelength tethered to frequency; space=d tethered to 1/time=frequency.
Say we could remove the tether, so both space and time could both act as independent variables. Like the three legged race, if we removed the tether both competitors now have more freedom, since they do not have to run as one, but can be out of synch and still faster those who retain the tether.
Hypothetically, if we untethered space-time, we would not have energy, which needs the tether. Rather we would have only wavelengths without frequency and frequency without wavelength. Both are able, to move to the beat of their own drum, and even exceed energy in any race. This is how I can build the universe for nothing. I have starting material that can exceed the limits of space-time. Based on the rules of the three legged race, this will appear alien, since it plays by different set of rules, that cannot be easily narrowed down to just space-time arguments,
Since separated space and time, have more potential than space-time, space-time is a subset. In theory, all we need to do to make energy appear is tether some independent space and time, suddenly space-time appears from the void of understanding (different set of rules). Since we are going from a more complex state, to a lower complexity state due to the added tether, there is a loss of entropy and a release of free energy. We have space-time plus free energy; BB.
The question is what is there scientific proof of independent space and time. The answer is yes, It first appeared from the experiments of Heisenberg, and the anomaly call the Uncertainty Principle.
If we assume space-time was all there is, this uncertainty should not be the case, since they are tethered and have to obey certain rules as one. But these experiment show both space and time, at the quantum state, are acting as though they are not tethered, but acting as though they are separated by an inverse relationship.
In a three legged race, if one person goes faster, the other does not slow down, but should be dragged along. Or of one goes slower, he will act like an anchor and slow the other down. But if the tether was removed and one person was much faster, the slower runner may give up or give a half hearted effort.
Physics took the wrong detour, with those experiment and the golden age of physics came to a close in the 1920's. My model is here to restore the golden age, based on logic instead of dice; Heisenberg Certainty Principle. Einstein, who was part of the golden age did not believe God played dice with the universe. He always felt we had a deterministic universe, that should be based on logic and reason and not dice and cards and indeterminacy.
There was also an invention in 1826 that should showed how to model this. It was called photography and an early effect called motion blur. Motion blur occurs when the shuttle speed is slower than the action speed. Since time has stopped in the still photon, below, the delta speed, with time stopped; ∆V=∆d/∆t=0, appears as uncertainty in distance.
It appears independent space and time are interchangeable. For example, the inflation period of the universe could be modeled as distance potential acting, but with time stopped; t=0, adding up as uncertainty in position, faster than the speed of light. This means time=0, lingers in space-time with some space-time displacement; still picture. Or , delta speed at t=0, so there is d=uncertainty in space-time. This takes the place of lift off energy,
Say we could remove the tether, so both space and time could both act as independent variables. Like the three legged race, if we removed the tether both competitors now have more freedom, since they do not have to run as one, but can be out of synch and still faster those who retain the tether.
Hypothetically, if we untethered space-time, we would not have energy, which needs the tether. Rather we would have only wavelengths without frequency and frequency without wavelength. Both are able, to move to the beat of their own drum, and even exceed energy in any race. This is how I can build the universe for nothing. I have starting material that can exceed the limits of space-time. Based on the rules of the three legged race, this will appear alien, since it plays by different set of rules, that cannot be easily narrowed down to just space-time arguments,
Since separated space and time, have more potential than space-time, space-time is a subset. In theory, all we need to do to make energy appear is tether some independent space and time, suddenly space-time appears from the void of understanding (different set of rules). Since we are going from a more complex state, to a lower complexity state due to the added tether, there is a loss of entropy and a release of free energy. We have space-time plus free energy; BB.
The question is what is there scientific proof of independent space and time. The answer is yes, It first appeared from the experiments of Heisenberg, and the anomaly call the Uncertainty Principle.
If we assume space-time was all there is, this uncertainty should not be the case, since they are tethered and have to obey certain rules as one. But these experiment show both space and time, at the quantum state, are acting as though they are not tethered, but acting as though they are separated by an inverse relationship.
In a three legged race, if one person goes faster, the other does not slow down, but should be dragged along. Or of one goes slower, he will act like an anchor and slow the other down. But if the tether was removed and one person was much faster, the slower runner may give up or give a half hearted effort.
Physics took the wrong detour, with those experiment and the golden age of physics came to a close in the 1920's. My model is here to restore the golden age, based on logic instead of dice; Heisenberg Certainty Principle. Einstein, who was part of the golden age did not believe God played dice with the universe. He always felt we had a deterministic universe, that should be based on logic and reason and not dice and cards and indeterminacy.
There was also an invention in 1826 that should showed how to model this. It was called photography and an early effect called motion blur. Motion blur occurs when the shuttle speed is slower than the action speed. Since time has stopped in the still photon, below, the delta speed, with time stopped; ∆V=∆d/∆t=0, appears as uncertainty in distance.
It appears independent space and time are interchangeable. For example, the inflation period of the universe could be modeled as distance potential acting, but with time stopped; t=0, adding up as uncertainty in position, faster than the speed of light. This means time=0, lingers in space-time with some space-time displacement; still picture. Or , delta speed at t=0, so there is d=uncertainty in space-time. This takes the place of lift off energy,
icant
Member
If the universe were to reach equilibrium, it would mean that all energy is evenly distributed, and no thermodynamic free energy would be available to sustain processes that increase entropy. This state is often referred to as the heat death or Big Freeze of the universe.
That was not my idea, Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) proposed it in the 1850s, he extrapolated the principles of thermodynamics of the second law to the entire universe.
Enjoy
icant
Member
How would anyone know anything about the first 380,000 years as there was nothing but a soup and the universe was opaque?
Enjoy,
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Not this fantasy again!
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes. That's a simplistic application of entropy and might well be the outcome for the future. However, there are multiple hypotheses that allow for a universe with no start. There are cyclical models, there are models in which time is continuous through the BB but that change its direction, so it towards the future in both directions.
There are some good documentaries on YouTube about them, many have interviews with the scientists actually involved:
Before the Big Bang 1 - Loop Quantum Cosmology Explained
Before the big bang 2 - Conformal Cyclic Cosmology explained (part 7 is an update of this)
Before the Big Bang 3: String Theory Cosmology (unfortunately there's no sound for about the first minute)
Before the Big Bang 4: Eternal Inflation & The Multiverse
Before the Big Bang 5: The No Boundary Proposal
Before the Big Bang 6: Can the Universe Create Itself?
Before the Big Bang 7: An Eternal Cyclic Universe, CCC revisited & Twistor Theory
Before the Big Bang 8: Varying Speed Of Light Cosmology (VSL)
Before the Big Bang 9: A Multiverse from "Nothing"
Before the Big Bang 1O : Black Hole Genesis
Before the Big Bang 11: Did the Universe Create itself ? The PTC model
As you are wont to say: enjoy.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The problem is math can be used to model anything, such as infinite lives in computer games. Conceptual logic, before any math is more fundamental, since it cannot use trick math, but has to add up with simple logical terms consistent with reality.
The term entropy was invented by applied scientists and not theorists. It is a measurable variable. Entropy exists and there are books with many experimental entropy values. Theorists try to explain it, but since it can be measured and is related to the free energy equation, I assume if we measured the entropy change, even in a qualitative way; x to 2x, the extreme temperature assumption, to parallel particle accelerator data, creates a start up energy problem. This is a practical engineering design problem.
In the free energy equation G=H-TS, TS is free energy, with temperature T, the statistical variable; translation, vibration, bending, rotation, etc. Entropy, by itself S, is a state variable, that is measured to be constant for any given state. It does not fluctuate in a random way. Physic appears to have confused TS for entropy S. TS, combined is statistical, but entropy, by itself, in any TS energy state, is a constant. T is the dice and cards, but for any state, we have constant entropy. It is like a finger print. As the universe cools; <T and entropy S increase >S, -TS stays tighter to constant loss of free energy
We have a trillion or so galaxies, each with 100 billion stars or times all the atoms and sub particles in stars and planets. That is a lot of entropy increase from a singularity; jump from one state=K1 to another state=K2. If we only assume the current universe energy, the singularity would try, but freeze out. It needs much more start energy to expand. This is an applied science fact. Theory can pretend but applied science has reality constraints since there is liability for a screw up. Theory has no liability. This allows many theory to preach.
BB theory goes from the present backwards tries to reverse engineer the beginning, which gets fuzzier and fuzzier. Sometime you need to go the other way, when the Reverse approach hits snags like entropy and start up energy; before the BB.
Evolution gets stuck at replicators, using that approach. What came before is less connected to the theory. But common sense says that should be part off an even deeper foundation. If you leave it out, maybe the building will collapse, or need constant repair and dogmatic persecution to stay alive.
I suppose it would depend on the context. In biology, they are not the same. Creation deals with the origin of life. Evolution deals with the change in living things over time, the diversity of living organisms and the relationships between organisms, past and present.
A different context that I don't know that I can speak on with any serious expertise.
In art, yes. In biology, there is no evidence of a thinker in action. What I believe in that regard, I cannot demonstrate and science cannot be used to claim.
This is a belief. One I hold, but, being belief based on faith, it offers no evidence for use in science and the establishment in the origin and evolution of living things.
Audie
Veteran Member
Learn and understand before you try to instruct.
Is this some sort of drive by or do you intend to participate along whatever length this thread achieves?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You really don't have the first clue what you're talking about, do you? This is pure gibberish.
In your previous post, you tried to apply the free energy equation. The free energy equation will, as the name implies, give you the free energy of a closed system if you input the internal energy, pressure, volume, temperature, and entropy. You tried to tell us that we could somehow deduce a large increase in entropy from it in the early part of the BB, without using anything but the temperature. It wouldn't tell you how the entropy will increase, even if you had all the parameters.
I'm trying to cease being amazed by that. I know enough to know that I don't know enough to make the kinds of pronouncements that are regularly made here. I can only suppose that those who make such faux-science pronouncements know even less -- i.e., they don't know enough to know that they can't possibly know.
And that is a statement that you cannot prove.
But if you'd like to try, begin by defining, precisely: "life." (Hint: you could do worse than starting with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The free energy equation, used by applied science to build things in reality, and not just theory, is G=H-TS, where G is the free energy, H is enthalpy or internal energy such as the energy in ethanol, T is temperature in degree K, and S is entropy. The physics approach to entropy is out of touch with reality, since entropy S, is a state variable meaning for any give state entropy is a constant. This is based on applied science that has to build in reality and not in just theory.
What appears to have happened is Physics appears to be modeling TS and calling that entropy. T or temperature is the statistical variable. It is an average of local fluctuations. They are not modeling entropy S all by itself, but define it by T via TS. This gives an energy connection, which can be useful but is misleading if the goal is entropy, which is not energy.
If we take a state, like liquid water at 25C and 1 atmosphere of pressure, there is a lot going on at the atomic nanoscale and the quantum level, but it all adds up to a constant entropy. This makes it so much easier to apply to changes of state. The new state also adds to a constant, regardless of how you wish to model all the details. Physics due to TS gets bogged in the weeds of uncertainty, when this is not needed to define reality of entropy.
In evolution, cells move into more complex states, over time, with each constant, but increasing entropy. Knowing that these steps have to be constant, we know quite a bit about where it is going. In the case of water and protein, when water packs protein, this causes a loss of protein entropy into a stable but less complex state. It appears these states are quantified and not random; same enzyme state each time. Logically, change can occur but stable states of entropy had to add a given way to useful to life.
On way to visualize this is say I fill up a bottle with all types of inert things that mix and don't mix. I seal the bottle. What is inside the bottle is constant no matter how much I shake or not shake it. Getting bogged in the weeds of all the possible ways it cans mix or not mix does not change that fact. This is an engineer tool that can be applied to science that gets too fancy for its own good.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Utter nonsense.
You seem to have misunderstood. The second law (increase in entropy) is a statistical law.
More gibberish.
icant
Member
Which one of those hypotheses has reached the level of a theory in the scientific community?