The redshift that the, Catholic Church sponsored, Big Bang relies upon was faulty

Link (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html#Author)

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
By Paul Marmet (1932-2005)

.......Prominent scientists like R. L. Millikan and Edwin Hubble thought that the Big Bang model created more problems for cosmology than it solved, and that photon energy loss was a simpler and "less irrational" explanation of the redshift than its interpretation as a Doppler effect caused by recessional velocity, in keeping with the Big Bang (Reber 1989; Hubble 1937).

In more recent years, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén, and other students of astrophysical plasma have challenged the Big Bang with an alternative conception called Plasma Universe. In this cosmology, the universe has always existed and has never been concentrated in a point; galaxies and clusters of galaxies are shaped not only by gravity, but by electrical and magnetic fields over longer times that available in the Big Bang model (Peratt 1988, 1989; Bostick 1989).

From its birth in the 1930s, the Big Bang theory has been a subject of Controversy (Reber 1989, Cherry 1989). Indeed, our view of the universe must always be open to consideration and reconsideration.

This article will demonstrate that the big bang model is physically unacceptable because it is incompatible with important observations. Severe philosophical problems with the Big Bang are also brought up (see Maddox 1989). Science, however, is dedicated to the discovery of the causes of observed phenomena; the Big Bang model thus leads to the rejection of the principle of causality that is fundamental in philosophy as well as in physics. It is actually a creationist theory that differs from other creationisms (for example, one that claims creation took place about 4000 B.C.) only in the number of years since creation. According to the Big Bang model, creation occurred between 10 and 20 billion years ago.

The redshift that the, Catholic Church sponsored, Big Bang relies upon was faulty

Did they come up with a new version of the second law of thermodynamics?

Without changing that law, the theory that the universe always was fails big time.

Did they come up with a new version of the second law of thermodynamics?

Without changing that law, the theory that the universe always was fails big time.


I've read some of Marmet's other writings... His study of the anomolous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft for instance... He ignores known properties and questions not only the accepted, but also laws proven through the observation of phenomena. He focuses on what can be questioned, while ignoring the supporting knowns...

We know redshift relates directly to distance... we can verify this through taking shots of a particulr star at opposite sides of earth's orbit around the sun... figuring the degrees of difference between the two shots, and calculating the result. Simple geometry, but hard hard hard to get good shots, so redshift is more commonly used.

Did they come up with a new version of the second law of thermodynamics?

Without changing that law, the theory that the universe always was fails big time.

Are you talking about the Second Law that talks about entropy in a closed system (such as Earth)?

It doesnt apply in an infinite universe that has always been.

But since you lend credence to the Law of Thermodynamics, we know the Catholic Church approved Big Bang theory is invalid based on the First Law.

Are you talking about the Second Law that talks about entropy in a closed system (such as Earth)?

It doesnt apply in an infinite universe that has always been. Can you provide evidence of an infinite universe?

Can you demonstrate where the entropic qualities vary based on the size of the system?


TYIA!

we know the Catholic Church approved Big Bang theory is invalid based on the First Law.:confused: Why?

Science has already determined (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Cosmologists_Aim_To_Observe_First_Moments_Of_Universe_999.html)as empirically as evolution that the natural laws did not exist for the first little bit after the Big Bang (http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html).

Can you provide evidence of an infinite universe?

Can you demonstrate where the entropic qualities vary based on the size of the system?


TYIA!

Sure, scroll up its the first post in this thread

YWIA!

:confused: Why?

Science has already determined (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Cosmologists_Aim_To_Observe_First_Moments_Of_Universe_999.html)as empirically as evolution that the natural laws did not exist for the first little bit after the Big Bang (http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html).

You (This_Misrepresentation) are the one relying upon the Second Law as proof the Genesis inspired Big Bang Theory is Valid.

Funny how you'll rely upon science when you think it supports your argument.

Since you (This_Misrepresentation) think the Second Law is a valid reference, you have to also allow the First Law. This invalidates the Big Bang.

Sure, scroll up its the first post in this thread

YWIA!
Talks a lot about potential problems with red shift, but zero about proof of an infinite universe.

Please provide me the quote you feel demonstrates proof of an infinite universe, and the proof of entropy's qualities being effected by the size of the system involved.

You (This_Misrepresentation) are the one relying upon the Second Law as proof the Genesis inspired Big Bang Theory is Valid.

Funny how you'll rely upon science when you think it supports your argument.

Since you (This_Misrepresentation) think the Second Law is a valid reference, you have to also allow the First Law. This invalidates the Big Bang.

There are so many things wrong with your statements above, I'll try to stick to the subject and only point out the pertinent one.

Please explain how science has demonstrated that the first law of thermodynamics invalidates the big bang theory.

There are so many things wrong with your statements above, I'll try to stick to the subject and only point out the pertinent one.

Please explain how science has demonstrated that the first law of thermodynamics invalidates the big bang theory.

What is the First Law?

What is the First Law?The total amount of energy available in the universe is constant.

Please provide me the quote you feel demonstrates proof of an infinite universe, and the proof of entropy's qualities being effected by the size of the system involved

The total amount of energy available in the universe is constant.
No that is not the first law.

No that is not the first law.
Yep, it is.


First Law of Thermodynamics (http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.html)

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant

Yep, it is.


First Law of Thermodynamics (http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.html)

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant


No your first attempt at the First was not correct as much as you will try to potray it as such now.

We understand why you selectively posted the First Law of Thermodynamics. It would be hard to argue the validity of the Big Bang with the paradox it poses to the First Law of Thermodynamics.

If you hold that the Big Bang is correct, because of the Second Law, and you do. Can you explain how it doesnt violate the First Law, when the Energy used in your closed system was transfered or created from nothing?

TIA!

No your first attempt at the First was not correct as much as you will try to potray it as such now.

We understand why you selectively posted the First Law of Thermodynamics. It would be hard to argue the validity of the Big Bang with the paradox it poses to the First Law of Thermodynamics.

If you hold that the Big Bang is correct, because of the Second Law, and you do. Can you explain how it doesnt violate the First Law, when the Energy used in your closed system was transfered or created from nothing?

TIA!According to scientific studies that have been peer reviewed for accuracy, the first 10e-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the universal laws did not exist yet.

This is the scientific explaination. :lol:

And, your explaination of how entropy varies with system size?

According to scientific studies that have been peer reviewed for accuracy, the first 10e-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the universal laws did not exist yet.

This is the scientific explaination. :lol:
aww so the First and Second Laws didnt apply yet, because there was nothing for them to apply to.

And you get your panties in a twist when the following is asked
Can God create an indestructible asteroid?

Can God then destroy that asteroid?

and you wonder why you are thought of as the master of circular logic.
And, your explaination of how entropy varies with system size?
The Second doesnt apply in an open system.

aww so the First and Second Laws didnt apply yet, because there was nothing for them to apply to.According to science, in the Planck Era, which lasted for a staggeringly long 10e-43 seconds, the laws did not apply. This answers your question.
And you get your panties in a twist when the following is asked
Can God create an indestructible asteroid?

Can God then destroy that asteroid?Yeah, George Carlin was a cutup, wasn't he?and you wonder why you are thought of as the master of circular logic.Why, because I won't apply it, as that question above does?The Second doesnt apply in an open system.The earth is not an open system. The sun is not an open system. The galaxy is not an open system.

Infinite time universe theory does not work due to the second law of thermodynamics.

According to science, in the Planck Era, which lasted for a staggeringly long 10e-43 seconds, the laws did not apply. This answers your question.Yeah, George Carlin was a cutup, wasn't he?Why, because I won't apply it, as that question above does?The earth is not an open system. The sun is not an open system. The galaxy is not an open system.

Infinite time universe theory does not work due to the second law of thermodynamics.

Infinite time works because the second law wasnt invented yet when infinite time began

Infinite time works because the second law wasnt invented yet when infinite time beganWho invented it? Was it designed into the universe?




I'll just take it that you can't answer the question, yet won't cede the point. Again.

Who invented it? Was it designed into the universe?
Who invented what? Get out of your box and approach this from a different angle. There is no inventor. There is no Genesis creator (which is also Intelligent Design).

The Universe always was.
I'll just take it that you can't answer the question, yet won't cede the point. Again.
Nice try, your cute tactics to subvert the conversation will be ignored from now on. This just shows the weakness of your argument, and your inabillity to support your position. Your having a hard enough time explaining your paradoxial positions, maybe you should try to keep from throwing out the non-sequitors for cheap zings.

Who invented what? Get out of your box and approach this from a different angle. There is no inventor. There is no Genesis creator (which is also Intelligent Design). "Invented what?" Are you serious? Here is what I was responding to:Infinite time works because the second law wasnt invented yet when infinite time beganI'm out of my box.The Universe always was.Then, how does that fit with the second law of thermodynamics?

Because, the earth isn't an open system. The galaxy is also a closed system. As is the sun.

Nope, your "always was" theory fails out of the box.Nice try, your cute tactics to subvert the conversation will be ignored from now on. This just shows the weakness of your argument, and your inabillity to support your position. Your having a hard enough time explaining your paradoxial positions, maybe you should try to keep from throwing out the non-sequitors for cheap zings.I supported my opinion with science's position on the subject of Planck's Era.

What is the answer you gave regarding the second law of thermodynamics? Infinite time works because the second law wasn't invented yet when infinite time beganAnd you're saying I am demonstrating a weakness in my argument :roflmao:

Try again.

"Invented what?" Are you serious? Here is what I was responding to
I shouldnt have to address this, but that was in response to your posting that the laws didnt apply because the laws didnt exist yet. You know this, but dont want to admit to the paradox. When you figure out this is no different than the God building an indestructible asteroid paradox, then maybe you'll understand.
I'm out of my box.Then, how does that fit with the second law of thermodynamics?

Because, the earth isn't an open system. The galaxy is also a closed system. As is the sun.
Your definetly not out of your box.

While the Earth and Sun are closed systems, the theory of the article is that the Universe is not.

The Second law does not apply to an open system. If the Universe always was, as is equally peer reviewed and accepted, not only does this not violate the Second law, it also proves the Big Bang could not have occurred due to the First Law.

First Law of Thermodynamics states that although form can change, no matter or energy can ever be created or destroyed. IE: All the matter and energy that exists now has always existed.

The Big Bang theory is the belief that the entire "Everything" errupted (so to speak) from a singularity. It is not the belief that everything came from nothing. The Catholic Church approved theory of the Big Bang is based on research the Catholic Bishop Lemaitre conducted using the Hubbles discovery of the Doppler Red Shift. Lemaitre surmised the Red Shift observed was the Universe expanding, as the result of the "Big Bang".

Think of the explosion of a handgrenade. The grenade represents the point of origin for the known universe. Some people believe (including scientists) that there was a great explosion before there was ANYTHING, and the resulting debris has become our universe. Picture a hand grenade going off, and all the resulting shrapnal would represent all the galaxies and planets. Now, that shrapnal is only going to spread so far here on earth, but in space where there is no gravity and less friction it could spread out and expand (it would seem) forever.

The article details that Hubble did not agree with Lemaitre and that he was misreading the information.

There is another, just as valid theory, that the Universe always was.
Nope, your "always was" theory fails out of the box.I supported my opinion with science's position on the subject of Planck's Era.[/quote]
No actually it doesnt. Not only is the Scientific Theory of Always Was valid, it also is supported by the First law of Thermodynamics.

You might want to do a little research before delving into areas your not clear on (but based on your knowledge of the Bible we're not holding our breath). Planck Time has taken big hits in regards to the theorum. Analyses of Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field images in 2003 led implications of the Planck time as a physical minimum time interval.
Link (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/quantum_bits_030402.html)
"If time doesn't become 'fuzzy' beneath a Planck interval, this discovery will present problems to several astrophysical and cosmological models, including the Big Bang model of the universe," Lieu says.
And another hit Link (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-4357/585/2/L77/)
If the Second Law of thermodynamics is valid to use with the Catholic Church approved Big Bang theory, how do you address the paradox the Big Band has with the First Law?

I shouldnt have to address this, but that was in response to your posting that the laws didnt apply because the laws didnt exist yet. You know this, but dont want to admit to the paradox. When you figure out this is no different than the God building an indestructible asteroid paradox, then maybe you'll understand.So, you suggested the natural laws were invented to show they weren't? :confused: And you accuse me of circular logic? :killingmeWhile the Earth and Sun are closed systems, the theory of the article is that the Universe is not.

The Second law does not apply to an open system. If the Universe always was, as is equally peer reviewed and accepted, not only does this not violate the Second law, it also proves the Big Bang could not have occurred due to the First Law.

First Law of Thermodynamics states that although form can change, no matter or energy can ever be created or destroyed. IE: All the matter and energy that exists now has always existed.

The Big Bang theory is the belief that the entire "Everything" errupted (so to speak) from a singularity. It is not the belief that everything came from nothing. The Catholic Church approved theory of the Big Bang is based on research the Catholic Bishop Lemaitre conducted using the Hubbles discovery of the Doppler Red Shift. Lemaitre surmised the Red Shift observed was the Universe expanding, as the result of the "Big Bang".

Think of the explosion of a handgrenade. The grenade represents the point of origin for the known universe. Some people believe (including scientists) that there was a great explosion before there was ANYTHING, and the resulting debris has become our universe. Picture a hand grenade going off, and all the resulting shrapnal would represent all the galaxies and planets. Now, that shrapnal is only going to spread so far here on earth, but in space where there is no gravity and less friction it could spread out and expand (it would seem) forever.

The article details that Hubble did not agree with Lemaitre and that he was misreading the information.

There is another, just as valid theory, that the Universe always was.
Nope, your "always was" theory fails out of the box.I supported my opinion with science's position on the subject of Planck's Era.
No actually it doesnt. Not only is the Scientific Theory of Always Was valid, it also is supported by the First law of Thermodynamics.

You might want to do a little research before delving into areas your not clear on (but based on your knowledge of the Bible we're not holding our breath). Planck Time has taken big hits in regards to the theorum. Analyses of Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field images in 2003 led implications of the Planck time as a physical minimum time interval.
Link (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/quantum_bits_030402.html)

And another hit Link (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-4357/585/2/L77/)
If the Second Law of thermodynamics is valid to use with the Catholic Church approved Big Bang theory, how do you address the paradox the Big Band has with the First Law?Well, the 2nd law isn't the catholic church's theory, it's a scientifically established natural law. It's arguments scientists use to suggest the Big Bang is a valid theory, not the church.

I really think if you would simply accept the theory as a scientific one, not a church one (since that's what it is) you may be able to have an open mind. Until then, you'll continue to remain in ignorance. And, I mean ignorance not as a slam, but a valid term of lack of knowledge, in this case self-imposed.

The concept of "always was" does have a merit. If not for the second law (if the universe is an open system, with what other system is it open?), there may be some validity to it. The first law issue is handled by simply suggesting that those first 10e-43 seconds of time established the universal constants/laws/etc. Now, is that a complete, unarguable explaination? Of course not. It presumes a beginning, which implies an end, which scares some people. It suggests a point where something came from nothing (much like suggesting life formed from a series of lifeless chemicals that improbably came together in a primordial muck as a random meeting, guided by nothing), which scares some people because that means there is something other than our known universe for this to have formed in.

The scientific arguments are there for both. One works, poorly. The other doesn't work at all given more than a passing glance.

:cheers:

The redshift that the, Catholic Church sponsored, Big Bang relies upon was faulty

Link (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html#Author)

Gee if they would have read there Bibles, they wouldnt have been talking big bang. My Bible Says God(Preincarnate Christ) created the heavens and the earth from Ex nihilo (out of nothing) he spoke it into exsistence!

<DIR>Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
</DIR>

Gee if they would have read there Bibles, they wouldnt have been talking big bang. My Bible Says God(Preincarnate Christ) created the heavens and the earth from Ex nihilo (out of nothing) he spoke it into exsistence!

<DIR>Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
</DIR>

There you go This_Misrepresentation, more proof the Big Bang theory is incorrect.

Gee if they would have read there Bibles, they wouldnt have been talking big bang. My Bible Says God(Preincarnate Christ) created the heavens and the earth from Ex nihilo (out of nothing) he spoke it into exsistence!

<DIR>Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
</DIR>

Marie, I realize you have a hatred for all things Catholic but please do understand that Catholicism also believes Ex Nihilo. Nucklesack is an Atheist, and in no way is an authority on what the Catholic Church believes or even supports. Even if one were to believe that the Big Bang Theory is the mode of physiological creation, it in no way suggests it's ORIGINS.

There you go This_Misrepresentation, more proof the Big Bang theory is incorrect.

I can't believe you just posted that! As if YOU would use the Bible as proof for anything. :lmao: :buttkick:

There you go This_Misrepresentation, more proof the Big Bang theory is incorrect.
It would be inappropriate to use religion to prove science, and vice versa.

There you go This_Misrepresentation, more proof the Big Bang theory is incorrect.

I agree, God didnt use a big bang! That was my point.

I agree, God didnt use a big bang! That was my point.
Why not? I'm a Southern Baptist deacon and I don't have a problem with the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't negate the facts: that God created everything, Christ's work on the cross, or that God is imminent yet transcendent.

I can't believe you just posted that! As if YOU would use the Bible as proof for anything. :lmao: :buttkick:

sorry i didnt post the sarcasm smiley

but then i really didnt think it was necessary :razz:

Why not? I'm a Southern Baptist deacon and I don't have a problem with the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't negate the facts: that God created everything, Christ's work on the cross, or that God is imminent yet transcendent.

Yep. Like I suggested, there's a difference between a mode of creation and it's origin.

Just an observation when reading through this thread: Science is now attempting to proclaim that the universe always existed (just is) and religion has claimed that God always existed (just is). Science never wanted to accept that explanation about God before, and oddly probably still wont. :ohwell:

sorry i didnt post the sarcasm smiley

but then i really didnt think it was necessary :razz:

It wasn't, but I had to rag on you anyway. :huggy:

Yep. Like I suggested, there's a difference between a mode of creation and it's origin.

Just an observation when reading through this thread: Science is now attempting to proclaim that the universe always existed (just is) and religion has claimed that God always existed (just is). Science never wanted to accept that explanation about God before, and oddly probably still wont. :ohwell:

Or there is no reaon for Science to care about God. Not a knock on faith, since Scientests can have faith. But Science is the pursuit of knowledge with evidence (whether you accept it or not) to support its belief. The act of Science relies upon objective disinterest.

Or there is no reaon for Science to care about God. Not a knock on faith, since Scientests can have faith. But Science is the pursuit of knowledge with evidence (whether you accept it or not) to support its belief. The act of Science relies upon objective disinterest.

Understood. I just think it's an interesting observation. Would you admit as much?

Understood. I just think it's an interesting observation. Would you admit as much?

Only if you promise to stop :smack: i already have a headache.

I agree it is interesting, and while God maybe disproven by the action of Science that doesnt mean Science (in its purest form) is trying to disprove God.

Well my first thought is that scripture says God spoke the world into existence.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
If we take it literally we don’t take away any Glory from God. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
So your probably thinking why not speak it via a bang.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
In order to have a bang you need elements to bang together.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Nothing existed God created the world exnehilo out of nothing. That’s important!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
When ever you try to look from science into scripture it doesn’t work, but if you look from the Bible to science things do fit together, IE we have fossils because of a Global flood.<o:p></o:p>
Also we see Christ calming the winds and the sea by his voice, we see him raise Lazarus from the dead with a command. Based on that I think we should take it as stated also Christ is referred to as the word The spoken word has power it doesn’t need anything else.<o:p></o:p>
It says he drawled the land up out of the waters. The bang says there was a cosmic explosion and everything appeared as it is. That doesn’t match up with drawing the land out of the sea.<o:p></o:p>
We don’t need reduce scripture to seem rational to the world, that’s deaf dumb and blind, to try to win them. We proclaim truth, tell them of their sin by holding up the mirror of the law and why they need a savior and what that savior has done for them and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit who has prepared that heart a head of time.<o:p></o:p>
I really recommend Ken Hams (Answers in Genesis)<o:p></o:p>
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-070# (http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-070)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
where did Dinosaurs come from as it talks of the importance of a solid foundation and how and why our perspective is so… important

I agree, God didnt use a big bang! That was my point.

How do you know? God didn't really go into enough detail to come to that conclusion. I've always believed God set the rules of nature of the universe and wouldn't change them for expediency. And in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? This is just another attempt by nuck to use science to disprove the existence of God.

It fails on this very simple point: how did it all get there? To say it was always there assumes all this stuff just popped up out of nothing. And isn’t it coincidental that now the same argument for eternity is being used to explain the universe’s existence as we have been using to explain God’s?

Only if you promise to stop :smack: i already have a headache.

I agree it is interesting, and while God maybe disproven by the action of Science that doesnt mean Science (in its purest form) is trying to disprove God.

Science can't disprove the existence of God anyway because there will always be something more to learn, and as long as there is always something more, there will be God.

Okay, okay, I'll stop. I'm even giving myself a headache now. :lol:

Science can't disprove the existence of God anyway because there will always be something more to learn, and as long as there is always something more, there will be God.

Okay, okay, I'll stop. I'm even giving myself a headache now. :lol:

haha :killingme

So, you suggested the natural laws were invented to show they weren't? :confused: And you accuse me of circular logic? :killingmeWell, the 2nd law isn't the catholic church's theory, it's a scientifically established natural law. It's arguments scientists use to suggest the Big Bang is a valid theory, not the church.

I really think if you would simply accept the theory as a scientific one, not a church one (since that's what it is) you may be able to have an open mind. Until then, you'll continue to remain in ignorance. And, I mean ignorance not as a slam, but a valid term of lack of knowledge, in this case self-imposed.

The concept of "always was" does have a merit. If not for the second law (if the universe is an open system, with what other system is it open?), there may be some validity to it. The first law issue is handled by simply suggesting that those first 10e-43 seconds of time established the universal constants/laws/etc. Now, is that a complete, unarguable explaination? Of course not. It presumes a beginning, which implies an end, which scares some people. It suggests a point where something came from nothing (much like suggesting life formed from a series of lifeless chemicals that improbably came together in a primordial muck as a random meeting, guided by nothing), which scares some people because that means there is something other than our known universe for this to have formed in.

The scientific arguments are there for both. One works, poorly. The other doesn't work at all given more than a passing glance.

:cheers:Nuck, you didn't answer. If the universe is open, with what other system is it open?