Cosmic evolution violates energy diffusion

[special_peple32]

Energy can only spread, so how is the energy in the universe distributed regularly? If it's gravity, then the Earth should be cold, so gravity can only slow down the rate at which the universe is degenerating.
Scientific theory says, gravity attracts matter so that it evolves. It's a lot like the energy-gathering fallacy, doesn't take into account the collision of atoms. Put the air into the vacuum and diffuse it by the collision.
The evolution of the universe violates the theory of gravity: the gravity of the sun evolved the solar system, but I have never seen gravity evolve anti-gravity (the gravity of the earth). The Sun's gravity should prevent them from forming in the end.
Stars will run out of energy and evidence from the Big Bang proves that the universe has been degenerating (entropy increasing). In order to avoid creationism, they have to say that the universe evolved by entropy increase (degenerating). contradiction

 

If the universe and living things formed by coincidence or randomness, it violates the laws of energy. 

 

[Tetus]

1. Gravity makes things that aren’t supported fall down, not up.

Therefore, 2: If you drop something, it will fall down.

3. If I drop a basketball, it bounces up off the ground.

Therefore, 4. Gravity doesn’t exist.

[special_peple32]

@Epic Tetus 3. If I drop a basketball, it bounces up off the ground.

Gravity then decelerates the basketball with a deceleration rate of 9.8ms

[Tetus]

2 minutes ago, special_peple32 said:

@Epic Tetus 3. If I drop a basketball, it bounces up off the ground.

Gravity then decelerates the basketball with a deceleration rate of 9.8ms

Wait, so gravity’s pull can be overcome locally by a bouncing ball?

 

What a strange feature of gravity, and how intriguing that it differs from the third law of thermodynamics in this way. 

[uhtred]

An amazing amount is known about cosmology - enough to fill a library, not just a social media post

 

Why should the earth be cold? The energy released when it formed (from the gravitatinoal potential energy) made it hot. Radioactive decay in the core makes it hot, and of course heat from the sun make it hot (the last being the biggest effect for the surface by far)

 

IT is possible for complex seeming things to self create.  Think of crystals.  You can test this at home - disolve as much sugar as possible in hot water, then slowly cool it and complex crystals will form

[Epitaph]

They know for one thing that the energy in our universe isn't spread evenly, nor is it distributed regularily. There are pockets of space void of almost everything, resting very close to absolute zero, while pockets of gravity form clusters and superstructures of matter. These hot and cold regions deform how we expand overtime, meaning that our universe isn't a perfect;y shaped bubble if viewed from the outside. More like a mishapen lump of foam.

 

Our understanding of gravity is also shifting now. Gravity's not just some force that materialises because an object has mass, and gravity doesn't actually "pull" anything towards it. Gravity and and the fabric of spacetime influence each other.

 

Picture a grid and the sun. The grid is spacetime, and the sun exerts a gravitational field. As the sun moves through spacetime, it curves the grid. The greater the gravity, the greater the curvature of the grid towards the object. Anything else moving within this grid isn't getting pulled by gravity however. The grid of spacetime is actively telling matter how to behave within the gravitational field.

 

And another fun fact before I go, gravity is the weakest of all the fundamental forces. It never was or can be the primary reason why matter clusters together. The title of glue that holds all matter together goes to electromagnetism. 

 

 

[dwest]

12 hours ago, special_peple32 said:

If the universe and living things formed by coincidence or randomness, it violates the laws of energy.

The Universe didn't form. Or, rather, we don't know if it 'formed'. It may have always been. The Universe is just shorthand for everything we know to exist. Living things also don't form by coincidence or randomness, not in the truest senses of those words. Living organisms form because it is the most likely to succeed version of formation in that area. Though, that overall title probably goes to non-living things but, still, in small quantities and specific context living entities are the best form of formation.

None of these things violate any laws of energy.

Matter was originally distributed evenly, very early on, because gravity had no part of that. It was all space dynamics, as in literally the space between things. When you inflate a balloon, as an example, air is distributed evenly unless there are constraints altering its size and shape. Gravity is incredibly weak, and as such it fails to do much except on extremely massive scales.

I'm not sure what you mean by

12 hours ago, special_peple32 said:

have never seen gravity evolve anti-gravity (the gravity of the earth). The Sun's gravity should prevent them from forming in the end.

The sun is the very reason, and other massive stars, for planet formation, mostly started by gravity and continued by other forces and exchanges. Nor is the earth anti-gravity. This is a very nonsensical statement to me, please explain in more detail what is being missed here.

12 hours ago, special_peple32 said:

Stars will run out of energy and evidence from the Big Bang proves that the universe has been degenerating (entropy increasing). In order to avoid creationism, they have to say that the universe evolved by entropy increase (degenerating). contradiction

Stars don't run out of energy, they run out of fuel to generate energy. There's no loss of energy it just gets distributed elsewhere, but the specific environment of the sun 'runs out' of fuel to keep that going. 

It is also easy to avoid creationism. You just ask for someone to show evidence of creationism having taken place. There's plenty of evidence of the 'big bang' which is more like the big inflation, than there is of creationism, infinitely so. And it's not even the only compelling argument for how this particular area of our universe (the known universe) may have gotten 'started' as it were.

[uhtred]

1 minute ago, dwest said:

The Universe didn't form. Or, rather, we don't know if it 'formed'. It may have always been. The Universe is just shorthand for everything we know to exist. Living things also don't form by coincidence or randomness, not in the truest senses of those words. Living organisms form because it is the most likely to succeed version of formation in that area. Though, that overall title probably goes to non-living things but, still, in small quantities and specific context living entities are the best form of formation.

None of these things violate any laws of energy.

Matter was originally distributed evenly, very early on, because gravity had no part of that. It was all space dynamics, as in literally the space between things. When you inflate a balloon, as an example, air is distributed evenly unless there are constraints altering its size and shape. Gravity is incredibly weak, and as such it fails to do much except on extremely massive scales.

I'm not sure what you mean by

The sun is the very reason, and other massive stars, for planet formation, mostly started by gravity and continued by other forces and exchanges. Nor is the earth anti-gravity. This is a very nonsensical statement to me, please explain in more detail what is being missed here.

Stars don't run out of energy, they run out of fuel to generate energy. There's no loss of energy it just gets distributed elsewhere, but the specific environment of the sun 'runs out' of fuel to keep that going. 

It is also easy to avoid creationism. You just ask for someone to show evidence of creationism having taken place. There's plenty of evidence of the 'big bang' which is more like the big inflation, than there is of creationism, infinitely so. And it's not even the only compelling argument for how this particular area of our universe (the known universe) may have gotten 'started' as it were.

There is a lot of evidence for a big bang as a way the universe was formed.

[dwest]

13 minutes ago, uhtred said:

There is a lot of evidence for a big bang as a way the universe was formed.

If by big bang you mean the inflation event, and if by universe you mean what we can see (I.E. the known universe). And by formed you mean, re-arranging energy into matter, distributing it into more space, and acquisition of new properties due to various combinations.

There isn't any evidence that there was nothing anywhere (including beyond what we can see), and then suddenly there was something everywhere (even beyond our scope of historical sight). 

[uhtred]

11 minutes ago, dwest said:

If by big bang you mean the inflation event, and if by universe you mean what we can see (I.E. the known universe). And by formed you mean, re-arranging energy into matter, distributing it into more space, and acquisition of new properties due to various combinations.

There isn't any evidence that there was nothing anywhere (including beyond what we can see), and then suddenly there was something everywhere (even beyond our scope of historical sight). 

Once you get to a Plank time after the "big bang"  all bets are off - we don't know how to talk about physics there.  There is lots of (real physics) speculation about what happened "before" the big bang, but its not clear this is any more meaningful than asking what is "north of the north pole".

 

Its actually amazing how much is know about the early universe. They are close to seeing direct evidence of Inflation on the CMB background

[dwest]

1 minute ago, uhtred said:

Its actually amazing how much is know about the early universe. They are close to seeing direct evidence of Inflation on the CMB background

Certainly. That's why I mentioned it. What I am saying is there's no evidence of the universe forming. There's a trend line, some presumptions, but no evidence. And many ideas pan out mathematically to get us where we are today. So, 'forming' is more like re-arranging, since we only have evidence of an early universe made up of all the things (energy, fields, physics, whatever you want to include) that we have today just differently distributed and arranged. No real ability at this point, if ever, to look at beyond this current known universe space back to when it started arranging itself in the direction that led to us. The laws we even have identified in the universe could only be in this 'area' for all we know. We'd have to be able to travel faster than light to find out though.

[Sally]

11 hours ago, special_peple32 said:

@Epic Tetus 3. If I drop a basketball, it bounces up off the ground.

Gravity then decelerates the basketball with a deceleration rate of 9.8ms

A comment probably displaying my complete lack of physics knowledge --

 

Doesn't the deceleration rate of a basketball depend upon how fast the basketball loses air, since it is air-filled, which allows it to bounce in the first place?  What does that deceleration have to do with gravity?

[uhtred]

3 hours ago, Sally said:

A comment probably displaying my complete lack of physics knowledge --

 

Doesn't the deceleration rate of a basketball depend upon how fast the basketball loses air, since it is air-filled, which allows it to bounce in the first place?  What does that deceleration have to do with gravity?

When the basketball is in the air, the biggest force acting on it is gravity. There is some air resistance too.

How fast it leaves the ground when it bounces is partially due to how much air is in it, but once it has left the ground, its motion is mostly controlled by gravity

 

The most amazing thing about gravity is that if gravity is the only force acting (say in a vacuum so no air resistance) EVERYTHING falls at EXACTLY the same rate.  This has been measured to fantastic precision.  (deviation is < .0000000000000001%   ). 

[special_peple32]

@Epic Tetus The ball bounces because of the reaction force, then the gravitational force reduces the reaction force

[special_peple32]

@uhtred The earth is cold: if gravity can controls the energy, the energy of the sun will not come to the earth.

Since you said that the earth was formed, before it was formed, the energy was transferred from low to high energy?

Form crystals as in an open environment. If the universe formed this way, there is no way that stars are degenerating today

[special_peple32]

@E  Gravity forms superstructure = transfer of energy from low to high energy. Why do you want to add pocket?

[special_peple32]

@dwest The universe cannot exist forever, the energy will run out.

Biological origins, non-living things form living things, just as the code itself forms the game. Due to the laws of energy diffusion, energy diffusion is also more suitable for that environment than "succeed version of formation in that area"

 

”None of these things violate any laws of energy." What about galaxy formation?

 

In the beginning, the solar system only had the gravity of the sun, and the theory said that the gravity of the sun evolved into 8 planets. So the gravity of the 8 planets is the anti-gravity of the sun. Unless you think 8 planets were not formed by the sun

 

If there is no energy loss, then why is its vicinity hot? The Big Inflation was the formation of matter after the Big Bang? Wikipedia has too many words, no time to read

I use the laws of energy to define that galaxies cannot evolve, let alone form themselves after the Big Inflation

[special_peple32]

@uhtred  Evidence of the Big Bang proves that the universe has been increasing entropy (degenerate), so the universe did not evolve. The normal theory of the big bang: the universe keeps expanding, matter keeps spreading, and eventually nothing is formed, void

[special_peple32]

@dwest As the universe expands, matter should spread all the time, making it impossible to combine properties. Your content is only for small enclosed spaces

[special_peple32]

@Sally The basketball bounces because of the reaction force. Gravity reduces the reaction force after

[uhtred]

4 hours ago, special_peple32 said:

@uhtred The earth is cold: if gravity can controls the energy, the energy of the sun will not come to the earth.

Since you said that the earth was formed, before it was formed, the energy was transferred from low to high energy?

Form crystals as in an open environment. If the universe formed this way, there is no way that stars are degenerating today

I don't know what you mean by "if gravity can control the energy". Gravity doesn't "control" energy.  Gravity produces a force that is proportional to mass.  Imagine I have a rock. The earth's gravity pull the rock toward the earth, but if I build a fire under the rock, it will still get hot.

 

Gravitational potential energy is one type of energy, but there are many types of energy.

 

If you drop a rock from a great height it will be slightly warmer when it hits as its energy of motion is converted to thermal energy.  When the solar system was formed, a large cloud of cold gas fell on itself / condensed, and because it fell from a great height, it got hot.

 

Sorry, this is difficult to describe without a common physics language, but all this is well understood.   In physics words like "energy" and "force" have very specific technical meanings and it can be confusing to someone without out a physics background because in common language "energy" is used to mean a wide variety of things, like "that person has a lot of energy".  But that has nothing to do with the physics definition.

[uhtred]

3 hours ago, special_peple32 said:

@dwest As the universe expands, matter should spread all the time, making it impossible to combine properties. Your content is only for small enclosed spaces

The universe expands, but gravity pull parts of it togetehr to form galaxies and stars

 

[dwest]

10 hours ago, special_peple32 said:

The universe cannot exist forever, the energy will run out.

If the universe doesn't have some cyclical existence to it, it can still exist forever while forever expanding, but it would have an extremely low heat in any space because of it.

10 hours ago, special_peple32 said:

Biological origins, non-living things form living things, just as the code itself forms the game. Due to the laws of energy diffusion, energy diffusion is also more suitable for that environment than "succeed version of formation in that area"

Biological origins would be living things from non-living things. Not the reverse. You can't use a thing as proof of itself. Which is what the second sentence seems to be "Due to the laws of energy diffusion, energy diffusion is also ..." We've otherwise had great predictability with regards to biological life forms and evolution by natural selection. So, there's a lot of corroborating evidnce for that, and not for what you are mentioning unless you can link to something that clears up what you are saying.

10 hours ago, special_peple32 said:

”None of these things violate any laws of energy." What about galaxy formation?

What about galaxies? There's nothing about a galaxy formation that violates energy. Please specify any specific aspect of galaxy formation you think violates any physical law related to energy.

10 hours ago, special_peple32 said:

In the beginning, the solar system only had the gravity of the sun, and the theory said that the gravity of the sun evolved into 8 planets. So the gravity of the 8 planets is the anti-gravity of the sun. Unless you think 8 planets were not formed by the sun

This still makes no sense. Perhaps you do not understand how gravity works. The sun's gravity is specifically the reason why planets would form. Particles begin to swirl, things cool, matter results as particles start to collide and do not have enough energy left in them to avoid being attracted by one another. They stay around the sun starting to make an orbit because of gravity, but other forces are at play as these particles collide to form atoms, molecules, compounds, which then create and sustain their own energy. Their inertia is enough to put them into an orbit after they grow massive enough, and these objects start to select out, becoming planets. This is a very oversimplification, but there's no anti-gravity here. At zero points in this does anything require anti-gravity. Just velocity, mass and gravity.

10 hours ago, special_peple32 said:

If there is no energy loss, then why is its vicinity hot? The Big Inflation was the formation of matter after the Big Bang? Wikipedia has too many words, no time to read

I use the laws of energy to define that galaxies cannot evolve, let alone form themselves after the Big Inflation

As energy cools quantum particles and sub-atomic particles collide, and other forces can overcome their previous high energy states. These allow for matter to be formed. This is a rather complex physics discussion if you aren't willing to read through a wiki page. But, suffice it to say, if you mean 'evolve' as in what biological life forms do then no, galaxies don't really do that specifically. However, they do go from simple states to complex states as entropy increases. This is an expected, common, feature of the universe. Life forms are more complex than crystals, and we are much more apart of that entropy process than crystals.
 

[special_peple32]

@uhtred Energy transfer from high to low energy = diffusion. I wrote like that before, people can understand

 

"gravity pull parts of it togetehr to form galaxies and stars"

=This answer is ridiculous. The reality is E=MC2, the energy is spreading, causing the mass to become smaller and smaller, and the gravitational force to become smaller and smaller, and finally the galaxy dies. Your comment is the same as I wrote earlier: Scientific theory says, gravity attracts matter so that it evolves.........

[special_peple32]

@dwest I now know what you're saying in your comment, I said before that galaxies won't last forever

 

Your comment is saying that abiotic forms organisms during evolution? My comment is that when the earth has no living things, non-living things form living things

 

"solar system evolution"

=A simplification of my content: For example, after the earth acquires foreign energy and matter (gas), the energy is diffused in the earth. Your comment: The energy and matter (gas) of the earth, under the action of the earth's gravity, finally gather together.

 

"Please specify any specific aspect of galaxy formation you think violates any physical law related to energy."

=The galaxy will run out of energy, which means that its energy cannot form or evolve on its own, because energy can only diffuse

[dwest]

On 5/20/2022 at 8:06 AM, special_peple32 said:

Your comment is saying that abiotic forms organisms during evolution?

We don't have the specific link between non-living collections forming biological life. However, we know that there are many non-living things that have formations that allow for small bits of randomness to re-arrange and thus propagate better in certain environments over others. These bits of randomness even appear in crystal formations which should have only identical formations all throughout if their system of formation was perfect. It is not, allowing in a certain degree of randomness similar to mutations, and some of those new slightly different formations propagate better than others, and thus the best at doing so takes over. This process repeats.

 

On 5/20/2022 at 8:06 AM, special_peple32 said:

My comment is that when the earth has no living things, non-living things form living things

When I commented I saw from, instead of form. Yes, non-living things eventually become living things. We agree on that. 

On 5/20/2022 at 8:06 AM, special_peple32 said:

I said before that galaxies won't last forever

My specific response was to your comment that said Universes won't last forever. I said that that's not true. The energy, you indicated, would run out. It doesn't, it just disperses.

 

On 5/20/2022 at 8:06 AM, special_peple32 said:

"solar system evolution"

=A simplification of my content: For example, after the earth acquires foreign energy and matter (gas), the energy is diffused in the earth. Your comment: The energy and matter (gas) of the earth, under the action of the earth's gravity, finally gather together.

This in response to my question about antigravity? Which you did not explain. Antigravity is a thing, and that thing has no bearing on the formation of galaxies. Gravity pulls things in around the sun, as those things are pulled into an orbit, it allows for collisions, chemical mixing, and more. As those things happen, material collects into groups, those groups are things like solar systems, solar systems then keep that spiraling careening effect happening until things like the Earth are formed.

The more mass starts to collect together the more things it can 'catch' as it were, from individual particles to larger objects either orbiting other stars or that broke away from another system to enter this one. This process continues on and on so long as there is material close enough to make its way here.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. What's the question? You said previously at first there's just the sun, and that's an oversimplification. At first there's a bunch of material spinning and whirling about the galaxy. Some of it becomes so influenced by the gravity of other material that they start to spin around one another, and because of that they have a high chance of crashing into other material, collecting more and more, and gaining energy and matter as it goes. This can lead to even denser collections, or those initial spinning materials into colliding themselves. And this process continues, as things get more massive, larger collections of materials keep doing this. Stars may form first, in a lot of these instances, otherwise it'd be hard to create orbits, but the material for an eventual planet may have been there before the star was formed.

Are you calling this evolution? It could certainly be thought of as a kind of evolution, but specifically evolution by natural selection relates to biological species.

[special_peple32]

@dwest propaganda what? The whole paragraph of propaganda is a bit incomprehensible. Most mutations are bad.

If living things are of random origin, it is impossible for the Earth to be completely free of random traces. Traces:  May be fossils and phenomenon caused by traces, such as  uncontrolled, messy, massively replicated DNA junk organisms.

 

Scientific theories pay attention to evidence, but biological evolution theory, such as human evolution theory, has no sufficient evidence at all. According to probability, impossible without "middle" fossils,, because perfection does not exist unless it is not a fact. I only believe half of biological evolution, creatures are evolving.

Theory, Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. Shouldn't be the real Adam and Eve.

 

Not really anti-gravity, I'm just a metaphor. There are 6 directions of the earth's gravity, and then I liken a completely opposite direction to the sun's gravity to the sun's anti-gravity.

 

chemical mix. Matter becomes compounds, and if you put compounds in space, they move outward. Matter diffuses, not aggregates, because of collisions. So your content is entirely based on the imagination of scientists. That theory that violates the laws of physics is really easy to deceive most people. I used to believe it, but I discovered it after studying entropy.

E=MC2, energy spreads, resulting in less and less mass, resulting in less and less gravity. Your comment is the same as I wrote earlier: Scientific theory says, gravity attracts matter so that it evolves.......... According to your content, why does the solar system stop evolving now? You probably didn't read my reply to someone else's content. .