Entropy Thermodynamics Creation - REFUTED

Does the Universe have a BORDER or an outside ENVIRONMENT? Is there even an "outside" to the Universe?
Does the Universe have a BORDER or an outside ENVIRONMENT? Is there even an "outside" to the Universe?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics necessarily requires a BOUNDED SYSTEM.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics necessarily requires a BOUNDED SYSTEM.

INTRODUCTION


The Religions of “theism” and “atheism” are in total agreement with each other. They claim that the Universe is slated for a so-called “Heat Death”....the end of the Universe as we know it. There is nothing we can do about it. It is the “written word”; a Revelation of sorts. Where the theists and atheists part way is in the fine details. Theists claim that the good Lord will come and take them out of this dreaded world and into Heaven. The atheists are NO different is this regard. Yep, these numbskulls claim that technology will save them. With the help of Pastor Hawking and his Mathematics of spacetime, dimensions and time-travel, they will invent breathtaking technology which will allow them to escape this dreaded world and into another dimension of space and time....aka Heaven!!

According to the folklore from the Mathematicians of contemporary Pop Fyziks, the Universe was self-created from the Big Bang. They first claimed it was a super explosion, but have since retroactively amended their statements and call it an “expansion”. They claim that since our expanding universe is an isolated system, then it follows to reason that, by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, its total entropy is constantly increasing. They have speculated since the 19th Century, that the Universe is fated to a Heat Death; the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the universe will diminish to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain motion or life.

Just what is it that these clowns are talking about? Are they having a bad dream or are they perpetually hung over?




LET’S PUT ENTROPY AND THERMODYNAMICS IN THE PROPER CONTEXT


The Universe (matter + space) is NOT temperature dependent to any external source because there is no external environment to the Universe. The Universe is NOT a system because it is UNBOUNDED. Therefore it is nonsensical and IMPOSSIBLE to qualify it within the context of entropy.

Entropy and Thermodynamics can only be used in the context of at least one BOUNDED system with an external environment.

Fore those who have reading problems (Religionists, Philosophers and Mathematicians) I will repeat it again:

Entropy and Thermodynamics can only be used in the context of at least one BOUNDED system with an external environment.

What? It didn't sink in? Then please do yourself a big favor and take an introductory level course in Science.


The Second “concept” of Thermodynamics is a useful empirical rule/axiom for dealing with sub-universe sized macroscopic systems, like steam engines, for example (its original application).

Well guess what?

The Universe is NOT a steam engine!



The Universe is neither an open, closed nor isolated system since it has no boundaries. What could it possibly be open to, closed or isolated from? Such a statement is contradictory because it necessitates another entity or system that separates the Universe. The Universe cannot even be rationally considered as a “system”. A system with respect to what? Hence motion is necessarily conserved in such an unbounded Universe. Nature doesn't care if that motion is useful or readily apparent to us or even orderly. Besides, entropy is a concept, it has no power (or intelligence) to perform actions such as increasing or moving.

Entropy is nothing more than an OPINION. What is ‘chaos’ or ‘disorder’ to you, is quite ‘harmonious’ and ‘orderly’ to your neighbor. Hence the appearance of increasing or decreasing entropy to one human ape, may be the completely opposite viewpoint to another. The Universe has NO entropy, chaos, order, disorder, or whatever other synonyms or antonyms you want to call these concepts. The Universe is not a system with a boundary.

Like “information”, entropy is an issue which is solely in the eye of the beholder. Chaos or order is like ugliness and beauty: an opinion. There is no such thing as beauty as there is no such thing as chaos or order. A dog does not think that Miss Universe is anymore beautiful than his bone. And the atoms of DNA are just as ordered or grouped as they need to be to interact with other surrounding atoms. There are only conglomerates of atoms. Whatever an observer (Religionist or Mathematical Fyzicist) makes of a particular “arrangement” of atoms is mere opinion. Some people see sheep in the clouds....others see just clouds.


By definition, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a system-specific law. If one cannot draw a boundary around the system (like the whole Universe) then the Second Law does not apply.


A thermodynamic system is a precisely defined macroscopic region of the Universe, often called a "physical system”, and is studied using the principles of thermodynamics.

All matter and space in the Universe outside the thermodynamic system is known as the surroundings, the environment, or a reservoir. A thermodynamic system is separated from its surroundings by a boundary, which by convention delimits a finite volume. Exchanges of work, heat, or matter between the system and the surroundings may take place across this boundary. Thermodynamic systems are often classified by specifying the nature of the exchanges that are allowed to occur across its boundary. The system is the part of the Universe being studied, while the surroundings is the remainder of the Universe that lies outside the boundaries of the system. The environment is ignored in analysis of the system, except in regards to these interactions.


By definition, Thermodynamic Systems are classified as follows:

1. Open systems may exchange any form of energy as well as matter in and of the system boundaries with their environment. A boundary allowing matter exchange is called permeable. The ocean would be an example of an open system.

2. In a closed system, no matter may be transferred in or out of the system boundaries. Closed systems are only able to exchange energy (heat and work) but not matter with their environment. A greenhouse is an example of a closed system exchanging heat but not matter with its environment. The system will always contain the same amount of matter.

3. An isolated system is more restrictive than a closed system as it does not interact with its surroundings in any way. Isolated systems are completely isolated from their environment as they do not exchange heat, work or matter. Matter and energy remains constant within the system, and no energy or matter transfer takes place across the boundary. There is no conceivable example of an isolated system. In reality, a system can never be absolutely isolated from its environment, because there is always a coupling at the boundary with its environment - such as gravitational attraction to objects in the environment.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics is ONLY applicable to Closed or Isolated systems, depending on the context.


This law is usually stated in physical terms of impossible processes (in isolated systems) or it may be stated in terms of closed systems. The Second Law is usually stated as: The entropy of any closed system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Closed systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium -- the state of maximum entropy of the system -- in a process known as "thermalization".

It is important to note that isolated systems are not equivalent to closed systems. So the Second Law is often confused and misrepresented by most people because it is used INCONSISTENTLY in academia, science....and by Religionists and Mathematical Fyzicists alike!

Closed systems cannot exchange matter with their surroundings, but can exchange energy. Isolated systems can exchange neither matter nor energy with their surroundings, and as such are only conceptual. Not even the Universe can be regarded as an isolated system because it has no boundary! It can’t be isolated from anything. Hence, entropy, as defined by Thermodynamics, is inapplicable to the Universe.




SUMMARY


1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is ONLY applicable to sub-Universe sized macroscopic systems with a definite BORDER and a surrounding ENVIRONMENT.

2. The Universe is neither OPEN, CLOSED nor ISOLATED. Anyone who disagrees will chase their tail in circles attempting to argue otherwise.

3. The Universe has NO 'border' nor ‘surrounding environment'. In fact, the Universe IS the environment; having no outside or back door to “elsewhere”.

4. Anybody who preaches the argument of Entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to support Creation, Big Bang or God, is obviously betting that you will swallow his nonsense due to your ignorance of Science. These preaching fools don't understand the difference between Science and Religion.

5. There was no creation. There was no beginning to the Universe and there will be no end or ridiculous "Heat Death" (an impossibility). The Universe is eternal. But you are welcome to rationally argue otherwise.


It is impossible to apply Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the Universe…..sorry for the wake-up call.....perhaps your Pastor or Mathematician can help you cope!

More by this Author


Comments 54 comments

AKA Winston 4 years ago

Wait a second - if you leave a car outside for 100 years it rusts and falls apart - so planet x must also become less ordered, Amen!

Papa John's has a closed crust pizza that has entropy down pat, though - I guess they don't drive or know about planet x.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

A 100 year old rusted car may be extremely disordered to a connoisseur of luxury Italian sports cars.....but it would be extremely ORDERED to a bunch of field mice looking for a home.

ENTROPY = OPINION.


El Dude 4 years ago

Great article, I had always been confused about thermodynamics; now I know that it was indeed mostly bullshit and vague definitions.

Also, I'm sure the "Fizzy Cists" will just say that, since energy can be "converted" into matter, then whenever they need to, suddenly now matter CAN be exchanged (in "special circumstances) even in closed systems!

Something to do with you know... mass. But you'd have to be an Expert to understand.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

El Dude,

Ever notice that the descriptor word chosen is "mass", which is also performed daily at the matinee and evening shows at the Greatest Con on Earth, i.e., the Catholic Church.

It is mass that converts to energy, which, I guess, explains how transubstantiation is supposed to work?

Meanwhile the Church of Mathematology worships at the science channel nightly at 8:00 p.m, Eastern time. It is still mass but the mathemaphysicalicists leave out the funky robes and oh-so-soft-and-young choirboys.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

"oh-so-soft-and-young choirboys"

We used to call them Mathematical Eggheads when I was in high school.

EGGHEAD OF MATH FYZICS = SOFT CHURCH CHOIR BOY


El Dude 4 years ago

Mass = Stuff

Mass = Energy

Mass = Matter

Mass = Volume

Mass = Math

Mass = Quantity

Mass = Property

Mass = Whatever The Hell The Fizzy Cists Want!


johny 4 years ago

Awesome!


johny 4 years ago

This is the most convincing reasoning on the second law of thermodynamics and its relations to the Universe or God.

Simple and clear!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Thanks for reading and understanding the article, Johny.


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

Excellent Fatty! In the "past" I have heard of people granting a special exception to life- as concerns entropy, because evidence(they assert) shows that life creates, while the rest of the universe destroys; "Schrödinger states that life feeds on negative entropy"..what's your take on the issue?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Jake,

Negative entropy? Oh boy, sounds like that dude Schrodinger is on the crack pipe again. Since entropy is a concept, life (he means "beings") cannot possibly "feed" or "eat" or "interact" with concepts. Yep, this dude is a crackhead if he thinks that metaphorical poetry has anything to do with science. His statements belong in a church setting.

Oh, and one more thing....beings do not "create".....beings can only possibly ASSEMBLE. Everything that we allegedly create, is actually assembled by us from eternal atoms.


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

Avenging Rational science members ASSEMBLE..meanwhile the Catholic legion of entropy..Create, excuses..for big G's mystery!;-P ( I gotchta back "incredable FIST!") But seriously, the concept of entropy, heat death, never made much sense to me...thanks for filling in the gaps, fats! ;-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

You are welcome, Jake. Thanks for commenting.


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

When I visit Bill soonish hopefully, I'll try to incorporate your refutation of entropy, into my counter arguments to his human extinction model..I'm not sure how it might connect yet, but I'll give it a go!! ;-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Jake,

Another visit? Nice. But I don't see how this article can be applied to such arguments. Good luck. If you win, make sure he pays the bar bill ;-)


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 4 years ago from Great Britain

I'm pretty sure that only the bartender is guaranteed to win for sure! ;-)


Anon 4 years ago

The boundary of the universe is where space ends. Physically there is a difference between 'space' and 'nothing'. There is 'nothing' outside of the universe. Therefore the universe has a boundary. Therefore the universe is possible to be a closed or open system.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Anon,

"The boundary of the universe is where space ends."

That was quite the interesting proposal. But to bring your proposal to reality, you must tell the audience what is there after space ends.

Well....what is there?

Space: that which lacks shape. (synonym: nothing, void, vacuum, zip, nada)

"Therefore the universe is possible to be a closed or open system."

Tell the audience what is after space, then you can jump in glee.


Anon 4 years ago

I disagree with your definition of space.

Space, as defined in physics, is not nothing. It can be bent, pushed, and flipped upside down. Nothing is the complete absence of anything, including space.

The universe is currently expanding, I am sure you will agree. More specifically, it is the space within the universe which is expanding. For something to expand, there must be a boundary condition. If there wasn't - then it is incoherent to say that the universe is expanding! The universe would fill entirely everything. It clearly doesn't, as it is expanding, so it logically follows that there must be some point at which space stops.

NB. Rather than jump in glee, I'd prefer a good fist fight (pun intended). Failing that, intellectual discussion would suit fine.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Anon,

“I disagree with your definition of space.”

Nobody cares whether you agree or disagree. You need to stop whining and grab the bull by the horns and DEFINE it for the audience. Only in Religion do people agree or disagree. In Physics we define all our key terms objectively and explain rationally. You have done neither.

“Space, as defined in physics”

Physics does NOT define. Physics is a discipline of study....a concept! It is HUMANS who define. And before a human can even begin to define a word, he needs a brain. If you think that Physics is a God who defines your words in stone tablets, like Yahweh did for Moses, then no wonder you are perpetually lost. Tell me, Anon.....does this God whom you call “Physics”, also talk to you?

“Space, as defined in physics, is not nothing.”

Then you are saying that space is SOMETHING...an object with shape. It’s either something or nothing....there is no other option, and you have eliminated ‘nothing’.

Great! Now please do the following:

1) Illustrate a simple diagram of this object which you call space so the audience can visualize exactly what you are visualizing for your proposal. A link to an online image will do.

2) And please tell the audience what is OUTSIDE of the border of this object you call ‘space’.

“For something to expand, there must be a boundary condition.....so it logically follows that there must be some point at which space stops.”

EXACTLY! This is what questions 1 and 2 are talking about. At least WE are on the same page....thank you, Anon!!!

But you have NOT told the audience what is OUTSIDE of this alleged boundary of ‘space’. What is AFTER space stops? Is it God? Is it water? Is it sand or steel or cement or motor oil? Just what is there? Please tell......don’t keep it a secret.

Anon.....You need to stay on topic and answer the questions the audience has about what YOU are proposing here. You DID NOT answer the question in my previous comment to you: “you must tell the audience what is there after space ends.”

Before you can even begin to bend, flip, expand, throw or bake ‘space’ in the oven, you had better answer questions 1 and 2. Don’t go off-topic or ahead of yourself when you still haven’t resolved these issues which make or break your argument.

I hope you didn’t come here to troll again. I hope you came here with sincerity and respect for yourself. Stand up on your feet and be a man....punch fatfist in the face and knock this idiot down to the floor by answering your 2 questions which “may” validate your proposal that space is an object.

“intellectual discussion would suit fine”

Good! So just answer questions 1 and 2 and don’t talk about anything else until these 2 questions are fully resolved....i.e. until you have established that ‘space’ is indeed an object with shape, has a border, and explain WHAT is outside of this border. Please do not post anything else!!!


El Dude 4 years ago

This should be fun...


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Although I am not fluent in mathematese, I have a working understanding of the language so perhaps I can help with the translation.

“I disagree with your definition of space.”

Loose transaltion: "Is not!"


El Dude 4 years ago

Winston you're just a lowly PLEB who doesn't understand the High Math, which proves things beyond your puny comprehension.

For example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier-Stokes_equation#Derivation_and_description. This is peanuts for braniacs like me! It PROVES that I have a large penis and you DON'T. Unless you take 10+ years of math you're blind to that shameful fact.

Also, this equation, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_differential_equation#The_hypergeometric_differential_equation, PROVES that I sleep with five beautiful women every day, and they all have a great time.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

El Dude,

Do not underestimate me - I am a terrific PLEB.

Oh, I learned math in low places

where the whiskey drowns and the beer chases

my equations away,

but I'll be O.K.

PS: tansaltion=translation in some Mathematese dialects.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

So Anon....you claimed to have come here to have an intellectual discussion. You claimed that spaced is BOUNDED, with a perimeter/border i.e. an object.

But you still didn't tell the audience whether we will find motor oil or condoms if we were to go to the edge of BOUNDED space and drill right through it. I hope you don't take your God-given secret to the grave.


Allen 4 years ago

Fatfist-

I just wanted to say, another good one. One thing that's completely obvious about most of those who attempt refutations: they refuse to define their terms, convey their meaning, or even show that they understand what they are saying well enough for such conveyance. In the very least, you do just that as do some of your other guests (AKA Winsto, El Dude, etc).

Great hub, altogether.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Allen,

People are slowly starting to realize that what we've been taught by Priests for the past 2000 years, is all based on emotion. And the trend continues today with people's "emotional" attachments to their key terms. That's why they get pissed when their emotions get challenged. Seems that religion is alive and well in modern times. Thanks for your comment.


Jonas James profile image

Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

Apparently the fate of the universe is one of the great unanswered questions of modern physics, meaning those idiots running the circus haven’t been able to figure that the fate of the universe is the first law – energy conservation.

Recently I figured that the second and third laws can’t possibly apply to the universe because in that context it contradicts the first law. Increasing entropy and absolute zero are irrelevant when applying the first law to the environment (universe). I had approximately figured this out, but your article has helped me consolidate my thinking and get the story straight in a very short period of time.

Thank you for making the effort to explain the second law in such unambiguous language.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Jonas,

That's what happens when humans extrapolate the terms "entropy", "open system" and "closed system" into reality. The Universe is not a system. There is no outside environment to space. Laws are invented by humans to push forward their religions. Let's just leave thermodynamics where it belongs.....in the context of systems like steam engines, greenhouses, oceans, etc.

Thanks for dropping by and reading the hub, Jonas.


Jonas James profile image

Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

Yeah, fair enough. Then the fate of the universe is atoms in space eternally - no fate!


David Aiken 4 years ago

So, I’ve read a portion of Fatfish Fattie’s article and have the following comments:

“The Religions of “theism” and “atheism” are in total agreement with each other”

Neither atheism nor theism meet the requirements to be considered a religion.

Neither atheism nor theism claim that the universe is slated for a heat death. Nor, I would put is there any such consensus amongst atheists or theists. Physicists who actually investigate various endings for the universe have just that – various alternatives including heat death, big rip, ekypyrotic universe, colliding universe, big crunch, big bounce, eternal inflation, etc.

“”Theists claim that the good Lord will come and take them out of this dreaded world and into Heaven””

Some do, not all

“”The atheists are NO different is this regard. Yep, these numbskulls claim that technology will save them””

That’s blatantly false.

“According to the folklore from the Mathematicians of contemporary Pop Fyziks, the Universe was self-created from the Big Bang.”

There are alternative theories – the Big bang theory provides an excellent model of how our universe came to be and makes numerous predictions which have subsequently been confirmed. There is ongoing work to ascertain what came before the big bang and what banged in the big bang. The big bang theory is well supported by the evidence.

“They first claimed it was a super explosion”

References please. Pretty sure they always recognized it as an expansion.

“The Universe is NOT a system because it is UNBOUNDED”

The observable universe is bounded but expanding. The universe as a whole may or may not be finite but there is a consensus that it is unbounded. Here’s a quote from Wikipedia: “Truly isolated physical systems do not exist in reality (except perhaps for the universe as a whole)”

“Entropy and Thermodynamics can only be used in the context of at least one BOUNDED system with an external environment.”

That would appear to be false.

“The Universe is neither an open, closed nor isolated system since it has no boundaries. What could it possibly be open to, closed or isolated from?”

The meaning of the term “isolated” would not require that it be isolated from something else in the context of the universe as a whole. Alternatively, the universe could be isolated from other universes.

“The Second “concept” of Thermodynamics is a useful empirical rule/axiom for dealing with sub-universe sized macroscopic systems, like steam engines,”

It’s not an axiom, it’s a well supported theory.

“The Universe cannot even be rationally considered as a “system”. A system with respect to what?”

With respect to itself.

“Hence motion is necessarily conserved in such an unbounded Universe”

It’s a scientific theory – so while the claim that motion is conserved, it is not necessarily conserved. It’s a contingent claim, not a logical necessity. I doubt that motion is in fact conserved – energy is conserved – not motion.

“Nature doesn't care if that motion is useful or readily apparent to us or even orderly.”

That was never in dispute.

“Besides, entropy is a concept, it has no power (or intelligence) to perform actions such as increasing or moving”

“Entropy” is a word that is used to describe a property of systems over time that changes systematically. “Entropy” is the label for the concept whereas entropy is the label for the property.

Entropy is nothing more than an OPINION.”

That would be false. It’s either a concept or a referent, depending how you are using the word. I assume what you intended to say is that the belief in the 2nd law of thermodynamics is nothing more than an opinion. That too would be false. If the 2nd law of thermodynamics turns out to be true, than those individuals who currently believe it to be true and are justified in believing it to be true can legitimately claim that they know it to be true.

“What is ‘chaos’ or ‘disorder’ to you, is quite ‘harmonious’ and ‘orderly’ to your neighbor”

That may be true. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

“Hence the appearance of increasing or decreasing entropy to one human ape, may be the completely opposite viewpoint to another”

That would be the fallacy of equivocation.

“The Universe has NO entropy, chaos, order, disorder, or whatever other synonyms or antonyms you want to call these concepts.”

You have not made any significant progress towards establishing the truth of this claim and it would be false in any event. I stopped here. Surely that’s sufficient to win.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"Neither atheism nor theism meet the requirements to be considered a religion."

Really?

Atheism is a religion, according to the Supreme Court and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.

See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003)

(Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)

Atheism is a religion according to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”

Atheism is a religion according to the Seven Dimensions of Ninian Smart. (Anthropologists determine religion by considering The Seven Dimensions of Ninian Smart.)

Atheism is a religion according to the Military:

The Defense Department reports that in 2008 those identifying themselves specifically as "Atheist" composed the 18th largest group of 43 possible categories of "self-described religious identification.

And finally:

"The degree to which one can be considered an Atheist while simultaneously being an adherent of a sect of a traditionally monotheistic, polytheistic, or non-theistic religion is the subject of ongoing theological debate. Some people with what would be considered religious or spiritual beliefs call themselves Atheists; others argue that this is a contradiction in terms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion

Theism:

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Religion:

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Note the qualifier here: belief

Of course, these are all claims from authority and popular opinions.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

David Aiken,

“Neither atheism nor theism meet the requirements to be considered a religion.”

Both theism & atheism meet the requirements of religion because they both use irrational & supernatural mediators to explain natural phenomena: God, black holes, white holes, 0D particles, waves, force, energy, time, field, mass, warped space, dilated time, etc. In Science, we are not atheists. It is in religion where we find atheists. Atheism is the opium of the mathematicians, the religion of Mathematical Physics.

An atheist is an individual who is still stuck to the 17th C version of the Scientific Method. An atheist still does not understand what Science is about. The reason theists and atheists are still debating to this day is because atheists have not resolved their contradictions.

Atheism, theism and agnosticism are unscientific! In Science, we believe neither in existence nor in non-existence. Only an idiot would say that he doesn't BELIEVE or have LACK of BELIEF that God exists!

In Science, if God exists, belief or lack thereof, will not make the Almighty disappear. And if God doesn't exist, belief will not make 'Him' appear! Belief has NOTHING to do with existence! Whether you 'believe' that your hand exists has no bearing on its independent existence.

There is no difference between a theist, an atheist and an agnostic. All three are idiots. The three believe in the existence, nonexistence, or that it’s not possible to know the existence/nonexistence of X. Some go even as far as saying that they can prove or disprove the existence of X.

“Neither atheism nor theism claim that the universe is slated for a heat death. Nor, I would put is there any such consensus amongst atheists or theists.”

Google is your friend!!! Learn how to use it so you can educate yourself.

“various alternatives including heat death, big rip, ekypyrotic universe, colliding universe, big crunch, big bounce, eternal inflation, etc.”

Indeed, this is a supernatural Religion. You cannot rationally explain any of the above nonsense you posted. I double-dog dare ya!

Fat: “”The atheists are NO different is this regard. Yep, these numbskulls claim that technology will save them””

David: “That’s blatantly false.”

Again, Google is your friend. The moronic atheists, Hawking included, believe that they will build machines to time travel to another Universe (i.e. Heaven) and save themselves from Revelation (i.e. Big Crunch). Go read their articles & posts online and educate yourself, ok?

“There are alternative theories – the Big bang theory provides an excellent model”

There is NOT a single Theory on creation of space & matter. All the mathematicians have is Belief System...a dogma which was inherited from Priest Georges Lemaintre of the Catholic Church. See....I told you that ATHEISM = THEISM = RELIGION!!

A theory is a rational explanation of a consummated event. Please explain to the audience how space & matter are created. I double-dog dare ya!!

Fat: “They first claimed it was a super explosion”

David: “References please. Pretty sure they always recognized it as an expansion.”

Pretty sure? Pretty sure????? Is this your rational response??

Again....Google is your friend. There are tons of articles and youtube videos showing BB as an explosion, like a bomb going off. Educate yourself.

“The observable universe is bounded”

Oh, WHAT is on the other side of this alleged boundary....your God perhaps?? If you cannot answer this Q by your next post, then you were lying all along!

But the kicker is....that YOUR Priest Hawking REFUTES your statement:

“...neither does space have any boundary.” -- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Wiki also states space is boundless:

“Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.” -- wiki

There is NO boundary to the Universe!!

Fat: “Entropy and Thermodynamics can only be used in the context of at least one BOUNDED system with an external environment.”

David: “That would appear to be false.”

Appear? To whom?? Why can’t you justify your statement?

Thermodynamics and heat transfer can ONLY happen between at least 2 systems separated by a boundary. Learn that well before spewing nonsense, ok? The universe has no boundary, for it did, WHAT is on the other side??? You can’t even answer this question because any answer would be a Religious one. Ergo, there is NO heat transfer or heat death in the universe as a whole. Heat transfer only happens between objects....not between concepts, like ‘the’ Universe, got it?

“The meaning of the term “isolated” would not require that it be isolated from something else”

Do you even understand English?

Isolated NECESSARILY means to be separated from something else. When you are put in isolation in prison you are separated from other inmates. You cannot give a single example of an isolation which is not RELATIVE to something else.

David....please educate yourself in CONCEPTS. All concepts are NECESSARILY in RELATION to something else. All syntactical words are relations. It is impossible to have a concept which is isolated or absolute from anything else. How can you come here to argue Physics when you don’t even understand what a concept is??

Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

Put down your Bible & Scriptures and learn what a concept is!!! Education is your friend.

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

David Aiken,

“Alternatively, the universe could be isolated from other universes.”

Are you on 30 lbs of crack cocaine??

How can a universe be isolated from other alleged universes when a universe has NO border/boundary/edge??? Even your Priest Hawking agrees with this.

How? Can you explain?

There is only ONE universe: space & matter

You are no different than a Christian who believes in multiple gods: father, son, spirit, etc. See....that’s why your Atheism = Religion.

“It’s not an axiom, it’s a well supported theory.”

LOL, this will be good. If it is a THEORY as you claim, then please explain this alleged Theory. Let’s see if you can put your money where your mouth is. I am willing to bet that you will dodge this question.

Fat: “The Universe cannot even be rationally considered as a “system”. A system with respect to what?”

David: “With respect to itself.”

Impossible! There is no system wrt itself. System is a concept. All concepts are in RELATION to something else, otherwise it wouldn’t be a system. Please educate yourself on concepts because you are making a fool of yourself.

Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

Put down your Bible & Scriptures and learn what a concept is!!! Education is your friend.

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...

“It’s a contingent claim, not a logical necessity.”

Logic has nothing to do with reality. Reality is not a tautological system of inference which was put there by your God.

And that motion is conserved & perpetual is not a claim. It is reasoned. If you disagree, please explain how the atoms in the universe can possibly slow down and cease to move. How it is possible to stop motion?

“energy is conserved “

You cannot conserve concepts, like energy. You can only conserve objects, like gold. Concepts do not exist!!

------BEGIN PHYSICS LESSON 101 FOR David Aiken

Energy is a verb (origin: Greek “energia”, which means ACTIVITY and nothing else). Energy is what an object DOES, not what an object IS. For example....an object A weighing ‘w’ kilograms moves ‘d’ meters with respect to object B, in a time of ‘t’ seconds, as measured by an observer. This is the relational ACTIVITY (i.e. energy) object A performed with respect to object B. We give a unit of measure, Joules (J = kg x m^2/s^2), to this “activity”. Without a minimum of 2 objects and an observer to establish this abstract relation between objects A and B, there is NO energy!

The litmus test for this energy nonsense is to imagine the universe consisting of a single lone object. This single object has NO energy because it cannot even move from one location to another. It cannot move a distance of ‘d’ meters. It doesn’t even have any weight ‘w’ kilograms because there is no gravitational pull to it. Also, in this scenario, there is no time ‘t’ seconds because time is a concept that requires a minimum of 3 objects to be realized. For example, 2 objects could be the Earth and the Sun, where one moves relative to the other. The third object must be an observer with MEMORY......like a human who counts, or a computer that keeps a running total (i.e. memory) of the “ticks” from an arbitrarily-defined unit we call the second.

As you can see, energy is NOT something that can exist. Energy is a concept, more succinctly, a verb! Energy is a concept that necessarily requires at least 2 objects to be defined.

------END PHYSICS LESSON 101 FOR David Aiken

““Entropy” is a word that is used to describe a property of systems over time that changes systematically.”

Yes, entropy is a CONCEPT!!!

“entropy is the label for the property.”

Yes, entropy is a CONCEPT!!!

Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

Put down your Bible & Scriptures and learn what a concept is!!! Education is your friend.

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...

“entropy... It’s either a concept or a referent, depending how you are using the word.”

The Universe has NO entropy, chaos, order, disorder, or whatever other synonyms or antonyms you want to call these concepts. These are ALL opinions. You cannot define ENTROPY objectively without necessarily invoking an observer!!! ENTROPY = TRUTH = OPINION.

“It has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”

Furthermore.....entropy has NOTHING to do with reality. There is NO entropy in the universe. Entropy does not exist!! Entropy is the OPINION of an individual.

Fat: “Hence the appearance of increasing or decreasing entropy to one human ape, may be the completely opposite viewpoint to another”

David: “That would be the fallacy of equivocation.”

LOL...How so? Please explain where the ambiguity is. What you view as chaos or disorder, your neighbor can view it as order. Where is the equivocation? Do you just post fancy words in order to look intelligent?

“establishing the truth”

Ask YOUR Priest to establish truth for you while you kneel down before him in the confession box. Truth is the Hallmark of Religion i.e. Atheism & Theism. There is NO provision for truth in the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory).

TRUTH = OPINION!!

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-N...

“Surely that’s sufficient to win.”

Win?? What did you win???


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

David Aiken........listen to the monkey.....ATHEISM = RELIGION!!!

Repeat it until your memorize it for the test next week, ok?


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Win?? What did you win???

Religious Fanatic of the Year Award?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Yeah, I remember Joegen Baclor and Bill Allen said that they have a Crackpot Index award for idiots who declare themselves as winners. David Aiken is another winner for sure!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

David Aiken.......Heloooooooooooo! Are you there??

Maybe Joegen Baclor can come and rescue you.

JOEGEN BACLOR......are you there? Please help out poor Aiken....he's achin'.


Serge Kim profile image

Serge Kim 4 years ago from London, United Kingdom

David and his attachment to bigbangism must be used to illustrate the concept of loyalty. As long as David is around indeed, Bigbangism has a friend in need


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

LOL!

Well, if David can't answer basic questions, it's best he stays under his Pastor's robe.


4 years ago

Admittedly I don't know loads about physics, but just because someone can't answer the question of what lies beyond the boundary of the universe doesn't mean that there no possibility of their being a boundary. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, I don't think anyone can prove it either way. I could belief there was something in a box, but just because I couldn't tell you what it was, doesn't mean its not there. An until someone comes up with some proof either way, the belief in a boundary is as much of a belief as a belief in god.

I'd describe myself as an atheist. But that doesn't mean I just believe everything that Hawkins or whoever says. I think the main difference between atheism and theism (at least in my case) is that theism's views are set, whereas atheism to me is less a set of beliefs and more a mind set. I'll adjust my beliefs as and when new evidence using my own personal judgment. At the moment that judgement points me in the direction that there is no god, but i'm more than willing to review and change that judgement if evidence against it came to light


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

W,

‘ Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, I don't think anyone can prove it either way.’

No, you really don’t understand the issue here. This is NOT an issue of PROOF. Proof is an OPINION. What is PROOF to you....is a LIE to your neighbor. Here, educate yourself on truth & proof, please!

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-N...

The Universe is a concept....not an object.

Universe: a concept that embodies matter (atoms) and space (nothing).

Only objects have borders. Besides, if the universe was an object, it necessarily MUST have a border. But if it has a border, it necessarily must have more universe after the border. This is CONTRADICTORY, understand?

This is why it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to have a border!

‘At the moment that judgement points me in the direction that there is no god’

God is a hypothesis. God is not based on evidence or direction, like the Religion of atheism claims. God is IMPOSSIBLE. Here, do yourself a favor and understand the issue before you continue to waste your life with religious ideas:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Does-N...


eric 3 years ago

my philosophy teacher tried to use the entropy argument to make a case against a universe that is self maintaining. i told him that since the universe doesn't have boundaries it can't really "die" and to call it self maintaining would imply that the universe has boundaries. he told me that there has to be a way for the universe to not reach a state of "sameness". he means same temperature. and because if the universe was eternal it would of had an infinite amount of time to reach this sameness and because the universe is not the same temperature it means that the universe is not eternal. can you please explain to me why his reasoning is flawed. i know his use of infinite is wrong but i still feel like this argument has some basis and i would like to understand what i am missing.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Eric,

“ to make a case against a universe that is self maintaining”

Self-maintaining in this context means “perpetual”….that matter is eternal, cannot be created or destroyed and all entities are recycled.

“to call it self maintaining would imply that the universe has boundaries”

Not in the proper context specified above.

“ he told me that there has to be a way for the universe to not reach a state of "sameness". he means same temperature.”

This is contradictory and has nothing to do with an alleged “ending” to the universe. Temperature is a concept alluding to the motion of atoms, and it stems directly from LIGHT. Specifically, when an object emits light from the infrared (low frequency) to the ultraviolet (high frequency) of the EM spectrum, an object feels hotter, right? I mean, we did learn this stuff way back in school, didn’t we? But everybody misinterpreted it because they now use the word HEAT or ENERGY which they treat like a noun i.e. a fictitious object…and committing the Fallacy of Reification. Heat is not a thing….heat is what a thing DOES; a verb in the proper context.

So the ‘hotness” of an object is directly related to the range of the EM spectrum “emanating” from the object, which our body senses, and our brain interprets. The more to the ultraviolet, the more ‘hot’. The more to the infrared, the more ‘cold’.

It is impossible for all the atoms in the universe to torque at the same rate and emit the EXACT SAME frequency of light in order for all objects to be at the SAME temperature. Why? Because ….

1) All atoms are perpetually attracted to each other via gravitation. A change of distance between atoms will affect the angle at which each atom is physically pulled by all the rest, and thus affect rate at which an atom pumps light signals (i.e. frequency).

2) The distance between atoms also affects their “temperature” via a process called Tired Light.

3) Atoms also interact via magnetism and ionization.

The perpetual static tension between atoms (i.e. gravitation) and Electro-Magnetic behavior of atoms prohibits atoms from ever reaching the same temperature, or stopping their motion altogether. Motion is perpetual….had no start and will have no end. Matter is perpetually dynamic. You cannot place matter in a vault and prohibit it from moving and exhibiting its natural properties. You can’t even force it to stay at a constant temperature…impossible! Gravity and EM effects cannot be blocked inside any vault. When an atom 5000 quadrillion light years away moves, it instantaneously is affecting your atoms inside your vault via Instantaneous Action-At-A-Distance (IAAAD). Just because your extremely limited technology can’t detect a temperature variation, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t occurring.

“if the universe was eternal it would have had an infinite amount of time”

There is no such thing as ‘time’. Time is a concept invented by man to memorize the previous locations during the motion of an object. Time necessarily requires a human observer with memory.

Time is a man-invented concept that necessarily requires an observer to “account” for it. Is God the Universal Accountant? Is He “certified” to keep track of time? By whom….His wife?

time = relative motion of objects + memory of locations

Time: A scalar quantity established by an observer to relate the relative motion between two objects, where one object’s motion is referenced as a pre-established agreed-upon standard (i.e seconds, days, years).

For example, when the hand (object 1) on your watch moves a second, the Earth (object 2) moved approximately 30 km on its orbit, and a cesium atom waved (i.e. oscillated) 9 billion times. You are comparing the distance traveled by the hand on your watch (or the oscillation of an atom) against a distance traveled by another object.

Time is artificial. We invented time like we invented virtue and beauty. Without humans, lonely brainless bacteria moving on a planet are not dependent on any such human-invented nonsense as ‘time’.

And people who use the term ‘infinite’ in a Scientific context, have no clue what they are talking about. There are no infinities in reality….so POOF goes their argument. Hear it from the experts who invented the term ‘infinity’:

“The infinite divisibility of a continuum is an operation which exists only in thought. Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” -- David Hilbert (Mathematician Extraordinaire), On The Infinite

The Infinite Regress argument is also contradicted here:

http://hubpages.com/education/INFINITE-REGRESS-Arg...


Jonas James profile image

Jonas James 3 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

An excellent response Fat. Thanks for posing the questions eric.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

When the clowns of Mathematics can't define LIFE, it's no wonder they Religiously believe that concepts such as Universe, love, justice, spirit, mind......AND.....objects such as atoms, rocks, stars, chairs, etc. are ALIVE.

Their next breathtaking conclusion is that the concept Universe will die...and so will that chair.

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Scientific-Defin...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

@Shoestring Democritus,

Hmmmmm.......someone isn't answering a very simple question posed to him:

"Please, tell me how the whole house relates to any individual brick comprising it. I honestly wonder if it’s even possible to establish a conceptual relationship between a whole house itself and a brick comprising it, since the house already embodies the brick in question. Perhaps I am wrong….please explain to me how you will discern house (already embodying the brick) with the brick, since it’s obviously self-referentially circular." - Fist-o-Fury

You know, Mr. Democritus…..when people go out of their way to answer your questions, the least you can do is return the courtesy and answer theirs. Don’t you think?

I mean….what will you report back to Sherwood Forest….that it’s impossible to relate a thing to itself due to the obvious circularity? Or….will you not report it because it destroys the delicate Religion they’ve built for themselves after their segregation from reality?

You don’t want to hurt their feelings, huh?


kaufmanat1 2 years ago

Sorry if im late to the game here. I see this article is about 2 years old. I was wondering though, in order for the laws of entropy to not apply doesn't there have to be something in this universe, or outside it adding input, effecting a change to some sort of limitless or infinite capacity? I don't know much about this stuff, I'm a physical therapist, not a physicist or mathematician, so explaining the math to me is like me explaining to you how bending your neck temporarily increases hamstring flexibility, at some point we just have to take each other at our word.

But I think about this stuff from time to time because, well, it is interesting. But I wonder if the universe is eternal, how come we aren't just one giant black hole. How does the universe not run out of "energy", does the term "potential energy" not apply? Im not being smart, I really don't know. How do stars come together fuse all the atoms in one giant nuclear reaction, explode, and then do it over and over again. What happens to the neutron stars and white dwarfs? How do these examples of dead stars or remnants of giant balls of mass and energy grt "recycled"? Obviously the univrrse wont just be one giant blah of at a lukewarm temperature, it doesn't have an atmosphere, it can't be the same temperature (unless all the atoms were moving at a uniform speed, equidistant from each other thriughout the entire universe, of course I feel like that woukd be the opposite of entropy, in fact that would be an example of perfect order and show massive potential for particles to react with each other), but isn't it possible for all the matter to eventually become


Kid Kane 2 years ago

Hi Fatfist!

What do you think about physicist saying matter can be created or destroyed by energy?

I've seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLLW9VlinAQ

He makes no sense. Matter came from pure energy? But isn't matter not possible to destroy or create?

And how could matter come from energy? Isn't energy the state of an object (i.e. a construct)?

This physicist confuses me a lot.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Energy is a concept. Energy doesn't exist.

Energy = The Religion of Math Fizzics

Matter can't come from a concept....it can only be chiseled from another chunk of matter. Matter is eternal.


Bernie Rubble 2 years ago

I get that time and motion don't exist, but I don't get the diff between humans inventing a concept and discovering a concept. Like, it seems we discovered shape (concept) and motion (concept), but we can't say they 'exist', only that they 'occur', right?

So what about time; does the Universe acknowledge time? Is time an objective concept? How do we distinguish between human concepts and "objective" concepts that "happen"... "out there" but don't exist, yet still precede humans?

Are there two levels/types of concept, like primary and secondary, or something?

Thanks in advance!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“inventing a concept and discovering a concept”

We invented the concept of justice. This artificial concept necessarily requires an observer to invent it for some useful purpose.

Planets, stars, moons, comets, etc. were separated before humans came along. Humans discovered this and named this relational aspect between entities: distance.

“we discovered shape (concept) and motion (concept), but we can't say they 'exist', only that they 'occur', right?”

Concepts don’t exist. Only the entities may or may not exist….the very entities we use to form a relation between them and give it a name, like distance or shape. Concepts are necessitated by and are contingent on objecthood, not on existence. And since concepts are not contingent on existence, concepts do not “occur”.

It is an ontological contradiction to ascribe verbs or motion to concepts. It is impossible for any concept to move…..only objects that exist can possibly move. Motion/verbs/change is directly contingent on existence, not on objecthood or concepts.

“So what about time; does the Universe acknowledge time?”

Time is another very useful artificial concept we invented to serve the purpose of quantifying motion. This concept is artificial in that it requires a living entity to perform the action of counting and tracking this number with memory.


Nick 2 years ago

You're confusing atheism with trans-humanism in your intro. Most of the atheists I know don't buy into that. All the arguments that you can come up with that atheism is a religion are arguments from authority that do not matter. What matters is the way the word is used today and the usage of the word has changed over time. According to the way we use the word today, you are an atheist too. You can insist on using outdated definitions if you want, but the rest of us have moved on. Secular humanism and atheism are not the same thing either. I don't know why you are so confused about this. I think you attach a lot of extra baggage to atheism that isn't really necessary. It's an "old atheist" way of looking at it I guess, but like I said, we've moved on from that.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Nick,

“You're confusing atheism with trans-humanism in your intro“

Atheism, trans-humanism, Judaism, Nihilism, Feminism, Fascism…any “-ism”….they are all Religions predicated on subjectivity, emotion, belief, irrationality and various contradictions.

Reality recognizes no authoritative “-isms” invented by the human ape. Reality only has objects in motion.

“ All the arguments that you can come up with that atheism is a religion are arguments from authority”

You obviously didn’t understand the argument. Let’s start from the basics so you can understand what's going on….

Does God (the creator of space and matter) exist….YES or NO? Either He does or He doesn’t….ain’t no other option. Which is it? Please use the powers of your Atheism or any “ism” to answer this ridiculously simple question.

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working