OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
The same program, fed the facts about conservation of energy and entropy, would also conclude that the existance of the universe as observed is either a fundamental impossiblity or of probability 0 in light of those facts.

You have an unastounding degree of ignorance about physics and cosmology. Get some education before you attempt to argue the topic.

-- Arryn, who majored in astrophysics

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Arryn:
You have an unastounding degree of ignorance about physics and cosmology. Get some education before you attempt to argue the topic.

-- Arryn, who majored in astrophysics

Rather than just giving an insult, could you instead answer a simple question: which resaonably proven theory is it that either permits energy to come from nowhere or permits order in energy to be reclaimed without dumping disorder into other energy?

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
which resaonably proven theory is it that either permits energy to come from nowhere or permits order in energy to be reclaimed without dumping disorder into other energy?

Perhaps if you explain what you mean by "energy coming from nowhere", I might understand whether you understand the topic.

[Jack Simth]

When I say "energy coming from nowhere" I mean energy that has no source, no past; the true creation of energy. Energy that comes from an unobservable location still comes from somewhere - the unobserveable location. The extra dimensions of string theory allow for the "creation" of energy - but only in that no source was observeable due to 3- (or 4-, depending on how you look at it)-d observations in a supposed 11-d universe; however, that energy still came from somewhere even though that somewhere was neither observed nor observeable.

Sufficent?

[atul]

Hopping in the conversation out of nowhere,

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Rather than just giving an insult, could you instead answer a simple question: which resaonably proven theory is it that either permits energy to come from nowhere or permits order in energy to be reclaimed without dumping disorder into other energy?

Please don't get upset if someone whose education is centered around physics gets a bit frustrated at that kind of questions. The thing being, along with philosophy, physics is one of the most vocally misunderstood sciences. (Last summer I had the joy of following a news conversation where this guy was absolutely sure about world being 6000-year old etc since in a closed system entropy would increase and earth was such a system. Ergo creation etc. Doh)

Boundary conditions. Current laws of physics, as we now formulate them, aren't valid in certain places, such as Big Bang or event horizon. So if you ask what's beoynd them, the answer would be along the lines "Don't know". That doesn't invalidate current theories, just puts limits to where you can use them. (like, Newtonian versus relativistic physics)

And btw, as I've understood it, the stuff commonly called laws of physics are just (mathematical) representation of what we can observe. To call it a true thing would go in the realm of religion, not science. If it turned out that all the forces are actually created by invisible elves the physics, as we practise it, wouldn't change as long as it could be assured that said elves were consistent in their actions. Only the interpretation.

And I'm sure this post is filled with mistakes also. Otoh, I'm just majoring in physics, not too much can be expected.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
When I say "energy coming from nowhere" I mean energy that has no source, no past; the true creation of energy. Energy that comes from an unobservable location still comes from somewhere - the unobserveable location. The extra dimensions of string theory allow for the "creation" of energy - but only in that no source was observeable due to 3- (or 4-, depending on how you look at it)-d observations in a supposed 11-d universe; however, that energy still came from somewhere even though that somewhere was neither observed nor observeable.

Sufficent?

Sufficient? Yes and no. You've now defined "energy coming from nowhere". Next, a definition of "reasonably proven" would help. Except that it's moot because there are no "reasonably proven" theories of cosmology, and those that we have all state you cannot have "energy coming from nowhere" as you've defined it. (The old "Steady State" theory is quite dead.) BTW, the closest thing to "reasonably proven" theories in all of physics are Einstein's General and Special theories, and the jury is still out on his General. I expect we'll see it superseded within my lifetime, as Newton's was superseded by Einstein's. (Newton's isn't wrong, just incomplete. And I don't think Einstein's is complete either.)

I suspect you bring this up because you have a supposition that you wish to cite. Please do so.

[spirokeat]

Arry,

Im not so sure you can use occams razor on the existence of god, in many situations he IS the most simple solution or reason for the apparent illogical existence of the universe as it is.

However, you seem to be getting quite heated in a situation where certainly I am only playing around with some cenceptual theories and most assuredly dont have a knock-down answer to the greater questions that plague philosophy and mankind.

So, that said, I'll bow out of this conversation. Good talking all. Seeya on the next thread.

Spiro.