Re: A thought experiment...

PD wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:09 pm, Jonathan Thiessen
<jjthies...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Salutations,

I was thinking awhile back [as is customary], and I came up with a bit
of a thought experiment. I'm not interested in getting into debates,
and/or flame wars. Physics is my favourite science for the fact that it
has the greatest tendency of the physical sciences to be [surprise :P]
scientific [this is, methodical, and open/objective]. Mathematics is
completely objective, however, in and of itself, I wouldn't really
consider mathematics to be physical/tangible. But anyway... enough for
precursory ramblings. If you find anything straight-up wrong, or
otherwise questionable [that is phrased as being absolute], please bring
it up so that it may be reconciled [ie so that I can fix it [including
my understanding]].

----

Definitions:

D.1: Let the Universe be defined as being everything physical in
existence [ie all matter, and energy]

Assumptions:

A.1: Assume that the Universe has always existed [ie an
indefinite/infinite amount of time has already lapsed]

A.2: Assume that The Fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics are indeed correct

Implications:

I.1: By The First Law of Thermodynamics [A.2], there is nothing that is
being created, nor destroyed

Comments:
D.1 is inconsistent with the definition of Universe as physicists
presently understand it.

I see. I was defining the universe of discourse, or sample space. My intention was to include... well... everything really. I must say, I'm not really up on my physics jargon, I suppose [or modern physics, for that matter]. What precise meaning would a physicist give to the word "Universe"? Any also, what did I fail to include in my definition that would have significance in this problem?

A.1 is inconsistent with observation

This is the point of proof by contradiction. In fact, this was really the point that I was trying to substantiate some sort of proof. If the universe is finite in nature, how did it come into existence? Admittedly, I am relatively ignorant of the finer points [and quite possibly even general notions] of the Big Bang/singularity theory/theories. Is the "not quite so big before the Bang" singularity supposed to be it's own pre-existing entity? What caused it to become unstable? If it was an internal disruption, then it obviously wasn't at any sort of a equilibrium deadlock [in which case, wouldn't it also have to have existed for a finite period as we already agreed that it did? In which case, where did it come from].

I.1 does not follow from any of the Fundamental Laws of
Thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics doesn't have anything to do with the law of conservation of [mass and] energy? How so?


Rest omitted until this first part is addressed.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?
    ... That is not an endorsement of Platonism which is ... > realized in the physical existence of the universe before heat death. ... It is the current position of Physics that no more ... Realism holds that these ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?
    ... That is not an endorsement of Platonism which is ... PCs are physical and have all physical parts in a physical universe. ... It is the current position of Physics that no more ... "The oldest use of the term "realism" comes from Medieval interpretations ...
    (sci.math)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.physics)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)