Quote:
On 2002-11-27 17:26, heusdens wrote:
...universes don't cease to exist or come into existence from nothing...
|
You have been asserting this in every thread you've posted in. Are you really unaware that this is not a physical fact, but an assumption? You have defined "universe" to be something that is infinite in extent and across time, and then you use the definition to argue that
the universe must fit into this definition. But that's completely
a priori -- you are trying to make something real, i.e. the universe that we observe, fit into your preconceived concept of an infinite universe. Unfortunately, the observations don't fit your preconceptions.
Quote:
|
Given the fact that there is infinite mass and infinite space,
|
Fact? This is not a fact, it's your belief. The best interpretation of the facts, as currently known, is that the universe is neither infinitely large or infinitely old.
Quote:
|
I think you try to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics out of it's context. It can only be applied to FINITE systems, not to infinite ones
|
Another rule you just made up. The second law applies to any closed system (one not experiencing energy flow in or out). This is very definitely applicable to the universe as a whole. By your definition of 'universe', there is no way for any energy to flow into (or out of) the universe, since it's infinitely large. Thus it meets the condition.
Quote:
|
PS. Same kind of argument of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is used against evolution.
|
Incorrectly. Earth's biosphere is not a closed system; energy flows in (from the Sun and other sources) and out (by radiation into space). But in the case of the universe, the argument is applicable. In fact, you might even say that the existence of the second law is evidence of a finite-in-time universe, because an infinitely-old universe couldn't have a second law to be discovered by its version of a physicist.
(Of course, you could still have a second law in the expansion phase of a cyclical universe, but I get the impression that this is not what you're proposing.)
I find your notion that you can "logically prove" that the universe must be infinite to be totally absurd. The only thing you can prove logically is that a particular conclusion follows from certain assumptions. What you're trying to do is like claiming that water must be a gas because it's made of hydrogen and oxygen. There's nothing wrong with the logic, but the conclusion is worthless because you've missed some critical details.
(Fixed some typos)
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-11-27 21:49 ]</font>