Why I disagree with static eternal universe

I think we are off topic here. get back to physics cosmology and mathematical relationships and I am with you. Otherwise.... Once one gets on to faith we might as well believe in the expanding universe.

lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.

Indeed, we are discussing the underlying principle upon which mathematics, physics and cosmology are based. It's a matter of logic, not opinion or faith.

Simply stated,
1) If 'A' is derived from 'B', then 'A' is a derivative of 'B'
2) A phenomenon can't be derived from its own subordinate derivative because the derivative can't exist absent the original phenomenon

Something must exist in order to change or be changed. Another way to say this is:
1) Cause and effect is DERIVED from the phenomenon of existence
2) Cause and effect is a function of existence

Only processes involving cause and effect necessitate the existence a 'creator'. Existence is not a function of cause and effect.

If you can demonstrate any case in which something may be derived from its own subordinate derivative, please enlighten me. But to date I haven't found anything to refute this simple iteration of logic.

In any case, the premise of CREATION ex nihilo would necessarily mean the Universe is finite, for unless it expanded for an infinite time or at an infinite rate, it must be limited in size. On the other hand, EXISTENCE ex nihilo places no such limit on the nature of the cosmos.

I'd procrastinate, but I can't seem to find the time

G'day

An infinite Universe is infinite in the meaning of infinite. Matter keeps changing from one phase to the next.

Nothing gained nothing lost.

Similar to the notes in the following link

Dynamic migration of rotating neutron stars due to a phase transition instability
Jul-09
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.396.2269D
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_quer...=PREPRINT&db_key=AST

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Using numerical simulations based on solving the general relativistic hydrodynamic equations with the CoCoNuT code, we study the dynamics of a phase transition in the dense core of isolated rotating neutron stars, triggered by the back bending instability reached via angular momentum loss. In particular, we investigate the dynamics of a migration from an unstable configuration into a stable one, which leads to a mini-collapse of the neutron star and excites sizeable pulsations in its bulk until it acquires a new stable equilibrium state. We consider two equations of state which exhibit softening at high densities, a simple analytic one with a mixed hadron-quark phase (where the hadron pressure is approximated by a polytrope) in an intermediate pressure interval and pure quark matter at very high densities, and a microphysical one that has a first-order phase transition at constant pressure with a jump in density, originating from kaon condensation. Although the marginally stable initial models are rigidly rotating, we observe that during the collapse (albeit little) differential rotation is created. We analyze the emission of gravitational radiation in such an event, which in some models is amplified by mode resonance effects, and assess its prospective detectability by current and future interferometric detectors. We expect that the most favourable conditions for dynamic migration exist in very young magnetars. The rate of such events in our Galaxy is of the order of one per century and rises to about one per year if the Virgo cluster of galaxies is considered. We find that the damping of the post-migration pulsations and, accordingly, of the gravitational wave signal amplitude strongly depends on the character of the equation of state softening (either via a density jump or continuous through a mixed state). The damping of pulsations in the models with the microphysical equation of state is caused by dissipation associated with matter flowing through the density jump at the edge of the dense core. If at work, this mechanism dominates over all other types of dissipation, like bulk viscosity in the exotic-phase core, gravitational radiation damping or numerical viscosity. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Smile and live another day

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Alan McDougall</i>
<br />gliitle,

I went to the link, but I do not agree that the universe is eternal, it had a beginning and it must also end . Entropy will ensure that happens

If we change the Bahai wording from "CREATION" , TO "EXISTENCE" THEN I WOULD AGREE WITH THE TEXT

Alan

Alan

I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Before something can act or be acted upon, change or be changed, it must first exist. This explicitly means cause and effect is derived from the phenomenon of existence. Since no phenomenon can be derived from its own subordinate derivative, the reverse cannot be true. Existence is not the product of cause and effect.

Time is simply the measurement of change. Existence is not temporal.

My condolences to the proponents of both Big Bang and Genesis.

I'd procrastinate, but I can't seem to find the time

G'day

Alan Macougall

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Thing might cycle and flow back and forth for a time but on the macro scale of the whole universe there is only one direction the arrow of time and by this entropy wins in the end and all things die, including the universe which is just a macrocosm of our human microcosm reality and life. Like it we die

The universe and we are created by the same intellegence and it keeps to form

Alan

I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think that your ideas are based on opinion and not science.

The cyclic processes are eternal, we know that matter is able to transit to nuclear phases and vic versa in compact objects such as star cores such as our Sun and Neutron stars etc.

You speak about the arrow of time as if time had an origin.



Smile and live another day

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lyndonashmore</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />6.626E-34 Now this is dimensionless because the speed of light and the speed of gravity are in the same units.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Its true that your ratio of speeds is dimensionless and has one value only.
But I have a friend who is old and uses eVs for h. He wants to know why his value for the speed of gravity compared to 'c' is only one tenth of yours? Is 'b' variable?
To put it another way, from all the possible numerical values for h out of all the values for 'h' in the world(depending upon the units) why do you choose 6.626E-34?
Cheers,
lyndon

lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It's a good job that someone posted to this thread as I knew someone had mentioned a speed of gravity ten times less than my estimate. So Lyndon, can you get your friend's reasoning? Or better yet, get him to post.