Cosmogenesis .

[unbeliever]

The black hole would eventually release everything back into the universe.

 

 

 

 

The universe changes state, no new energy is required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't say anything about butting anything into a vacuum fluctuation.

 

You still haven't answered the question of how non existence turned into existence.

 

---------- Post added 11-05-2016 at 15:13 ----------

 

 

No it wouldn't, it would carry on doing what it as been doing for ever, making new hot objects.

 

An eternal universe would be in thermal equilibrium.

This has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

[sutty27]

An eternal universe would be in thermal equilibrium.

This has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

 

The majority once thought God made it and probably still do, I think they are wrong for the same reason I think you are wrong.

 

An infinite universe could just continue recycling the stuff it is made of.

Edited May 11, 2016 by sutty27

[unbeliever]

The majority once thought God made it and probably still do, I think they are wrong for the same reason I think you are wrong.

 

An infinite universe could just continue recycling the stuff it is made of.

 

No it can't. Second law of thermodynamics.

 

Some physics from 150 years ago or longer is still valid. In fact rather a lot until you get down to individual interactions on the quantum level.

 

The eventual heat death of the universe is still mainstream physics. The laws of physics require it. The only reason the paradox (why hasn't it already happened) no longer applies is because of the big bang model which you dispute, which tells us that the universe is not old enough for this to have occurred.

 

An eternal universe would be in thermal equilibrium.

This has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

You only have to learn a little bit of 19th century physics to understand this.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are irrelevant.

[sutty27]

No it can't. Second law of thermodynamics.

 

Some physics from 150 years ago or longer is still valid. In fact rather a lot until you get down to individual interactions on the quantum level.

 

The eventual heat death of the universe is still mainstream physics. The laws of physics require it. The only reason the paradox (why hasn't it already happened) no longer applies is because of the big bang model which you dispute.

 

An eternal universe would be in thermal equilibrium.

This has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

You only have to learn a little bit of 19th century physics to understand this.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are irrelevant.

 

Continuing to make the same statement doesn't change that fact that it is unproven assumption based on other assumptions.

 

Does the Second law of thermodynamics allow for non existence?

 

Would it allow non existence to turn into existence?

 

What non existent mechanism caused the universe to pop into existence from nothing? and no its not quantum fluctuations because they don't exist if the universe doesn't exist.

[unbeliever]

Continuing to make the same statement doesn't change that fact that it is unproven assumption based on other assumptions.

 

Does the Second law of thermodynamics allow for non existence?

 

Would it allow non existence to turn into existence?

 

What non existent mechanism caused the universe to pop into existence from nothing? and no its not quantum fluctuations because they don't exist if the universe doesn't exist.

 

You clearly don't understand how vacuum fluctuations work. If you did you wouldn't make these false statements.

 

The second law of thermodynamics is not remotely in conflict with the big bang model.

It does however have a lot to say about the eternal universe.

 

I can't tell whether you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics or you're just being awkward.

The fact that you refer to it as an "assumption" suggests the former.

 

You're still well inside "not even wrong" territory and you show no sign of peeking out.

 

I'm going to keep repeating this until you stop denying it:

 

An eternal universe would be in thermal equilibrium.

This has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

You only have to learn a little bit of 19th century physics to understand this.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are irrelevant.

Edited May 11, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

You clearly don't understand how vacuum fluctuations work. If you did you wouldn't make these false statements.

I know they can't work when they don't exist and they only exist because of the universe, they need a vacuum and there wasn't a vacuum when nothing existed, it was apparently created at the same time as the universe.

 

 

The second law of thermodynamics is not remotely in conflict with the big bang model.

How did everything that exist appear out of non existence, remember that before existence the law of thermodynamics also didn't exist, they apparently cam into existence at the same time as the universe.

 

It does however have a lot to say about the eternal universe.

It might have a lot to say but it doesn't remotely prove that the universe had a start point or that it is finite or that is will one day disappear back to the non existence realm from which it apparently emerged.

 

 

 

 

I can't tell whether you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics or you're just being awkward.

I understand it but it doesn't apply.

 

The fact that you refer to it as an "assumption" suggests the former.

It isn't an assumption but does it discount the possibility of an infinite universe with no start.

[unbeliever]

It isn't an assumption but does it discount the possibility of an infinite universe with no start.

 

Sorry, are you now conceding that the universe is not infinite and did have a start?

In which case why are we still talking?

[sutty27]

Sorry, are you now conceding that the universe is not infinite and did have a start?

In which case why are we still talking?

 

Sorry to disappoint you but that was just a typing error, should have said doesn't but you new that already.

[unbeliever]

Sorry to disappoint you but that was just a typing error, should have said doesn't but you new that already.

 

Really didn't.

 

Anyway:

An eternal universe would be in thermal equilibrium.

This has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

You only have to learn a little bit of 19th century physics to understand this.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are irrelevant.

[sutty27]

Really didn't.

 

 

Now you do.