The principle of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, even though its form can be changed. In any isolated or closed system the sum of any quantity of energy remains constant.
This principle is still valid when viewed in the relationship of mass-energy equivalence principle which pops up in Einstein's restricted theory of relativity.
So for the universe to be finite or a closed system it would also have to be eternal for conservation of energy to hold true. You can't go from a state of no energy to massive energy according to the conservation principle. It must remain constant.
Likewise you can't go from massive energy to no energy. So the oft-predicted end of the universe is pure poppycock too.
If conservation of energy is valid, and it is possibly the most reliable of observed scientific principles, then the universe must never "begin" or "finish". That means the universe has to be infinite--because we can't have any nothing anywhere--and eternal--because we can't have any temporal limitations on the universe either.
See?
This was decidedly concise & positively easy to read.
;-)
Off Topic » in reply to you said:
Conservation of energy as it reagards a finite/infinite universe
The whole thread (103 posts)
- Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God"
- re: Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God"
- After all the comments in this thread I listened to it...
- re: Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God"
- Literalism has its pitfalls
- re: Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God"
- Heard it too.
- re: Interesting view point, but
- Why do otherwise smart people think that religion solves the first causes problem? (n/t)
- Creation is an oxymoron.
- re: Creation is an oxymoron..... I see you Reorganized some words, did
- 64,000 Monkeys....
- Well...
- I'd like to see your proof of your assertion (n/t)
- circular infinity
- That's just math though
- Causation is driven by chaos
- re: Causation is driven by chaos
- Infinite Parameters (warning long)
- Universal I/O
- The problem must be addressed at the "atomic" level
- Is there really any chaos in the game of life?
- Conway’s Game of Life is the starting point
- disagree: adding more dimensions to Life does not require adding anything random.
- Randomness is required to model this problem
- nice stuff, Gary
- re: Randomness is required to model this problem
- Life is a good model of a creationist view
- Randomness is required to model this problem
- disagree: adding more dimensions to Life does not require adding anything random.
- I should have capitalized the L in Life
- Agent Smith Quotes
- Conway’s Game of Life is the starting point
- Is there really any chaos in the game of life?
- re: Creation is an oxymoron..... I see you Reorganized some words, did
