Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

My hypothesis

SweetBabycakes
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 10:31:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My hypothesis:

According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy, in particular[1]), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed.

Scientists have hypothesized that Dark matter[2] slows down the growth of the Universe. Anyways...

If that is so, energy must be finite.

If the Universe is metrically expanding, at one point, wouldn't there be areas in the Universe without energy?

Conclusion:

Bear with me, please. I registered the date this thread was added.

Also, thank you for taking your time out of your day to read my theory.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 10:42:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2013 10:31:34 PM, SweetBabycakes wrote:
My hypothesis:

According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy, in particular[1]), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed.

Scientists have hypothesized that Dark matter[2] slows down the growth of the Universe. Anyways...

If that is so, energy must be finite.

If the Universe is metrically expanding, at one point, wouldn't there be areas in the Universe without energy?

Conclusion:

Bear with me, please. I registered the date this thread was added.

Also, thank you for taking your time out of your day to read my theory.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Even if there were areas like this, how do you imagine energy is being destroyed, thus violating the law of conservation of energy? If I were to expand a concentration of something, that simply makes it less concentrated over a greater volume - not destroyed.
SweetBabycakes
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 10:47:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2013 10:42:40 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 12/8/2013 10:31:34 PM, SweetBabycakes wrote:
My hypothesis:

According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy, in particular[1]), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed.

Scientists have hypothesized that Dark matter[2] slows down the growth of the Universe. Anyways...

If that is so, energy must be finite.

If the Universe is metrically expanding, at one point, wouldn't there be areas in the Universe without energy?

Conclusion:

Bear with me, please. I registered the date this thread was added.

Also, thank you for taking your time out of your day to read my theory.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Even if there were areas like this, how do you imagine energy is being destroyed, thus violating the law of conservation of energy? If I were to expand a concentration of something, that simply makes it less concentrated over a greater volume - not destroyed.

It's not that energy is being destroyed (Which is impossible (According to the laws of conservation of energy)). It is filling up those spaces.
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 10:54:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2013 10:47:32 PM, SweetBabycakes wrote:
At 12/8/2013 10:42:40 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
At 12/8/2013 10:31:34 PM, SweetBabycakes wrote:
My hypothesis:

According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy, in particular[1]), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed.

Scientists have hypothesized that Dark matter[2] slows down the growth of the Universe. Anyways...

If that is so, energy must be finite.

If the Universe is metrically expanding, at one point, wouldn't there be areas in the Universe without energy?

Conclusion:

Bear with me, please. I registered the date this thread was added.

Also, thank you for taking your time out of your day to read my theory.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Even if there were areas like this, how do you imagine energy is being destroyed, thus violating the law of conservation of energy? If I were to expand a concentration of something, that simply makes it less concentrated over a greater volume - not destroyed.

It's not that energy is being destroyed (Which is impossible (According to the laws of conservation of energy)). It is filling up those spaces.

Ah yes I see what you mean now. Hawking touched on this theory at one point and gave some reasoning on it, I believe mostly just to say that it had been considered and not gained much traction (Occam's Razor would obviously suggest against it). Have you read A Brief History of Time?
StrawberryShortcake
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2013 5:29:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Alright.

Yes. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Laws of conservation of energy, in particular), energy can neither be created nor be destroyed.

So yes, if that is so, energy must be finite.

Extension:

I will try to prove/disprove the Big Bang theory, but...

According to the theory, the Universe was very dense and tiny. Matter and energy was compacted together. There was a cataclysmic explosion and now the Universe is metrically expanding.

"According to the laws of thermodynamics (Laws of conservation of energy, in particular), energy can neither be created nor be destroyed."

If that is so, and energy and matter always fills up those spaces, then most areas in the Universe must contain no energy and matter.
StrawberryShortcake
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2013 6:07:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2013 5:29:36 PM, StrawberryShortcake wrote:
Alright.

Yes. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Laws of conservation of energy, in particular), energy can neither be created nor be destroyed.

So yes, if that is so, energy must be finite.

Extension:

I will try to prove/disprove the Big Bang theory, but...

According to the theory, the Universe was very dense and tiny. Matter and energy was compacted together. There was a cataclysmic explosion and now the Universe is metrically expanding.

"According to the laws of thermodynamics (Laws of conservation of energy, in particular), energy can neither be created nor be destroyed."

If that is so, and energy and matter always fills up those spaces, then most areas in the Universe must contain no energy and matter.

Alright. I have disproved the Big Bang theory.

There are two different types of when stars end. When the little stars die, it"s just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova. What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it"s more dense.

So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.

So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?

Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.

Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.

However, that does not go for the belief that the Universe is metrically expanding.
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 12:31:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2013 6:07:48 PM, StrawberryShortcake wrote:
Alright. I have disproved the Big Bang theory.

There are two different types of when stars end. When the little stars die, it"s just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova. What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it"s more dense.

So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.

So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?

Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.

Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.

However, that does not go for the belief that the Universe is metrically expanding.

I don't know if the small time period you mentioned is an issue. Fusion occurs at extremely short intervals. For example, that big deal fusion experiment they did a couple months back, the laser one? That was ICF fusion, which operates on a scale of nanoseconds. But the time you need is inversely proportional to the heat and pressure involved in the reaction. If all the universe's matter was condensed into a small space, the temperature and density would massively outscale what was used in the ICF, so I think it would take a much much shorter time to produce a reaction. So I think it could still be reasonable to generate a majority of the carbon present in the universe now through a big bang, with the remainder coming from stellar reactions afterwards.
APhysicist
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 6:01:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2013 5:29:36 PM, StrawberryShortcake wrote:
Alright.

Yes. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Laws of conservation of energy, in particular), energy can neither be created nor be destroyed.

So yes, if that is so, energy must be finite.

Extension:

I will try to prove/disprove the Big Bang theory, but...

According to the theory, the Universe was very dense and tiny. Matter and energy was compacted together. There was a cataclysmic explosion and now the Universe is metrically expanding.

"According to the laws of thermodynamics (Laws of conservation of energy, in particular), energy can neither be created nor be destroyed."

If that is so, and energy and matter always fills up those spaces, then most areas in the Universe must contain no energy and matter.

Energy and mass does not fill up those spaces. Solid objects are dense, in which the mass does not have enough space to freely move. However, gas is not, in which mass has space to freely move, in which it does. Same goes for our Universe.
LawsofPhysics
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 8:25:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2013 6:07:48 PM, StrawberryShortcake wrote:
At 12/9/2013 5:29:36 PM, StrawberryShortcake wrote:
Alright.

Yes. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Laws of conservation of energy, in particular), energy can neither be created nor be destroyed.

So yes, if that is so, energy must be finite.

Extension:

I will try to prove/disprove the Big Bang theory, but...

According to the theory, the Universe was very dense and tiny. Matter and energy was compacted together. There was a cataclysmic explosion and now the Universe is metrically expanding.

"According to the laws of thermodynamics (Laws of conservation of energy, in particular), energy can neither be created nor be destroyed."

If that is so, and energy and matter always fills up those spaces, then most areas in the Universe must contain no energy and matter.

Alright. I have disproved the Big Bang theory.

There are two different types of when stars end. When the little stars die, it"s just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova. What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it"s more dense.

So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.

So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?

Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.

Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.

However, that does not go for the belief that the Universe is metrically expanding.

No.

What happens is, nuclei can fuse with another nucleus helium, which turns into carbon-12. That happened during the Big Bang.
PwningEinstein
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 2:40:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2013 5:29:36 PM, StrawberryShortcake wrote:
Alright.

Yes. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Laws of conservation of energy, in particular), energy can neither be created nor be destroyed.

So yes, if that is so, energy must be finite.

Extension:

I will try to prove/disprove the Big Bang theory, but...

According to the theory, the Universe was very dense and tiny. Matter and energy was compacted together. There was a cataclysmic explosion and now the Universe is metrically expanding.

"According to the laws of thermodynamics (Laws of conservation of energy, in particular), energy can neither be created nor be destroyed."

If that is so, and energy and matter always fills up those spaces, then most areas in the Universe must contain no energy and matter.

Mass does not fill up those spaces. Solid objects are dense. Mass is very compact, in which it does not have space to move around. However, gases do. Mass has enough space to freely move, in which they do. Same goes for our universe.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 9:14:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can you prove that the Laws of Thermodynamics are absolute?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 9:40:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 10:31:34 PM, SweetBabycakes wrote:
My hypothesis:

According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy, in particular[1]), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed.


The laws of thermodynamics are only "correct" in classical mechanics - the world of the quantum operates by a seemingly completely different set of rules, as evidenced in things like the Casimir effect. Further, the fundamental laws of the universe were broken down at the singularity, or the beginning of time.
Scientists have hypothesized that Dark matter[2] slows down the growth of the Universe. Anyways...


That is completely incorrect. In fact, it is dark energy that is actually positively accelerating the expansion of the universe.
If that is so, energy must be finite.


The net energy of the universe is zero.
If the Universe is metrically expanding, at one point, wouldn't there be areas in the Universe without energy?


The total mechanical energy is the sum of the kinetic and potential energies. The work is equal to the positive change in kinetic energy and the negative change in potential energy. In other words, there are areas of the universe with a positive energy and areas of the universe with a negative energy, but they all net sum to zero.
Conclusion:

Bear with me, please. I registered the date this thread was added.

Also, thank you for taking your time out of your day to read my theory.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
SweetCrackerJack
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 9:13:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2013 5:29:36 PM, StrawberryShortcake wrote:
Alright.

Yes. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Laws of conservation of energy, in particular), energy can neither be created nor be destroyed.

So yes, if that is so, energy must be finite.

Extension:

I will try to prove/disprove the Big Bang theory, but...

According to the theory, the Universe was very dense and tiny. Matter and energy was compacted together. There was a cataclysmic explosion and now the Universe is metrically expanding.

"According to the laws of thermodynamics (Laws of conservation of energy, in particular), energy can neither be created nor be destroyed."

If that is so, and energy and matter always fills up those spaces, then most areas in the Universe must contain no energy and matter.

Mass does not fill up those spaces. Gases aren't dense. The mass is not compact, in which mass has space to freely move around, in which they do. Same goes for our Universe.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 7:01:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The laws of nature are not know to be absolute, so conservation of energy cannot be asserted true for all conditions. Newtons Laws do not hold a speeds near the speed of light. According to inflation theory, the laws of relativity did not apply at the temperatures and densities right after the Big Bang. So maybe conservation of energy is always true, but it's not guaranteed.
SweetCrackerJack
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 9:37:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 7:01:41 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The laws of nature are not know to be absolute, so conservation of energy cannot be asserted true for all conditions. Newtons Laws do not hold a speeds near the speed of light. According to inflation theory, the laws of relativity did not apply at the temperatures and densities right after the Big Bang. So maybe conservation of energy is always true, but it's not guaranteed.

Indeed. Newton's laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy, in particular) were said to not be absolute.