Theme of the universe = waste resources?

TabbyStar said:
So I agree that said universe is not sentient. However, it either was designed or resulted randomly. In either event it wastes....it wastes...it wastes without, to me, purpose or benefit in any substantial way
There is a third option.....which theoretically satisfies a TOE ...:)
 
I would argue that the following argues for having a clear natural example of a hybrid energy dependent self-referential molecules which is the bridge between chemical and self-referential bio-chemical reactions.
 
TabbyStar, given you concept of waste, are you saying that the entire Universe was just being wasteful for the first 13.80 billion years, considering that homo sapiens has only been around roughly 200,000 years?

Is in only in the last 200,000 years that it has started to because less wasteful?
 
Since it is commonly stated ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED OR DISTROYED ✓
where does the waste come in?

We have X amount of energy at the start of the Universe and we still have X amount of energy

:)
... entropy transference ?



...
naked man standing in the middle of the shopping mall asking people walking by.. "can you point to my underpants please?"
Seriously?????

Which means what?
practical applications afford reason with no purpose for the sake of the Ego.
"meaning" is always implied by the observer as a perception.
 
New

Since it is commonly stated ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED OR DISTROYED ✓
where does the waste come in?

We have X amount of energy at the start of the Universe and we still have X amount of energy

:)
... entropy transference ?

Transformation

In otherwords , entropy happens .

But not to where energy is ceased to exist .
 
Last edited:
In BB , entropy leads to a stilled Universe . The Universe runs out of energy .

In my thinking , entropy is part of the cycle of energy forms .

From the cold superfluid to high energy forms .

All forms of energy have all ways existed .

The Universe in my thinking , never runs out of energy .

BB is based on extreme heat . And density . And gravity .

My theory upon the Universe , is different . Obviously .
 
Last edited:
river is known for his posts being so short as to not even be sentences.
Looks like he's leveled-up.
Now he posts without saying anything at all.
:D
Perhaps Moderation has asked him to improve the intellectual content of his posts, and this is how he achieves that. :biggrin:
 
I was assuming, for the moment, in the Milky Way example. Trying to flow my thoughts best I could. We do not know.

It's difficult for guys, like, me to express thoughts sometimes. Especially in neighborhoods of higher intellects. I understand q & a sessions. No problem there. Not good at citing specific sources or point counterpoints often. Still I try to participate the best I can.

Off topic. Part of my dilemma is 36 years in automotive engineering. An environment where $$$ is everything! Efficiencies matter! Get a machine to operate faster, more parts...less defects...money money money. So most of my brain exercises view the cosmos in similar ways. Hard, if not impossible, to shake my career experiences:(

I will try to lurk more. Again, I am not on the same science level as others. Likely, I never will be. Not much sense in wasting precious forum time on my low level thoughts. You and me are fine:) You seem witty. Keep doing what you do! I will learn a lot from you and countless others. TY for that:)
Aha, I suppose it makes sense for an automotive engineer to think, even if only subconsciously, in terms of thermodynamics. In fact, when I started reading this thread I even wondered if you had chosen a handle with TS in it for that reason (dQ = TdS). :wink:

Your description of "resources" in the universe seems a bit teleological, i.e. assuming the existence of a purpose or goal. After all a "resource" means something available to someone or something to use, in some way. Whereas science does not assume there is any purpose or goal.

But the concept of the universe "running down" through the evening out of its energy distribution (i.e. its entropy increasing over time) is a standard thermodynamic picture.

There is even a speculative hypothesis, developed by Jeremy England at MIT, according to which life emerged as a way of running down the universe more quickly! More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_England

This gives us food for thought in today's world, in which the running down of the Earth by mankind is becoming a pervasive concern.........
 
Since it is commonly stated ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED OR DISTROYED ✓
where does the waste come in?

We have X amount of energy at the start of the Universe and we still have X amount of energy

:)
You need to starting of the 2nd Law of TD, not just the 1st. :biggrin:

Entropy is a measure of the "wasting" of energy. The amount of energy may stay the same, but its ability to do work reduces all the time. I'm sure you must have come across the idea of the "heat death" of the universe.
 
The amount of energy may stay the same, but its ability to do work reduces all the time
???? Wait a minute - its ability to do work ????

Surely if something has its ability to do work reduced part of that reduction has what??? been lost (wasted?) By that definition all energy being used is wasted

I'm sure you must have come across the idea of the "heat death" of the universe.

Yes. As I understand all stuff will reach a level level (sic) at which nothing can be activated and temperature at a level level throughout the Universe

Which puzzles me about What is holding the energy we said could not be destroyed? and how can energy be brought back to get work happening again

:)
 
???? Wait a minute - its ability to do work ????

Surely if something has its ability to do work reduced part of that reduction has what??? been lost (wasted?) By that definition all energy being used is wasted



Yes. As I understand all stuff will reach a level level (sic) at which nothing can be activated and temperature at a level level throughout the Universe

Which puzzles me about What is holding the energy we said could not be destroyed? and how can energy be brought back to get work happening again

:)
That's exactly right. Any use of energy ends up wasting some of it. That is the reason why no heat engine can be 100% efficient. The highest efficiency with which the most sophisticated modern heat engines (e.g. combined cycle gas turbines) can convert heat to work is about 60%. So 40% or more is always wasted. This is called "waste" heat in fact.

Once the energy in the universe is all evened out it is still all there, in the thermal motion of atoms, molecules and subatomic particles, but it will not flow anywhere as everything will be at the same temperature. At that point there can be no more processes of change in the universe and it will dead. But all the energy will still be there, just unable to do anything.

The basic point about it is that heat is the most randomised form of energy there is: it is just kinetic energy of atoms and molecules in random motion. Once it is random, you cannot un-randomise it all. So any process that involves conversion of energy to heat can be said involve "wasting" energy, by putting it into a useless form, from which it cannot be recovered.

My suspicion is that our new automotive engineer friend has absorbed these ideas from his professional life.
 
Once the energy in the universe is all evened out it is still all there, in the thermal motion of atoms, molecules and subatomic particles, but it will not flow anywhere as everything will be at the same temperature. At that point there can be no more processes of change in the universe and it will dead. But all the energy will still be there, just unable to do anything.
Okaaaaa so how do we kick start the Universe again?

:)
 
Okaaaaa so how do we kick start the Universe again?

:)
You cross your fingers and hope that the universe is sufficiently massive for gravity to eventually overcome expansion and re-coalesce it back to a hot, dense state.

In a book I read (Starplex by Robert J. Sawyer), the protagonist had a unique solution. The story contained "stargates" (wormholes) and he figured out how to use them to make passages through time.

So we went a trillion years into the future and pushed old, copper-green, dying stars back through the wormhole to present day in a bold effort to increase the mass of today's universe, causing it to go from "open" to "closed".
 
You cross your fingers and hope that the universe is sufficiently massive for gravity to eventually overcome expansion and re-coalesce it back to a hot, dense state.
That's just the problem

Apparently the rate of expansion is accelerating (did I read / hear correct) going faster than light at the edge???

Also fairly certain read the gravity constant was decreasing

As mentioned earlier I go for the big rip where the vacuum is so thin even atoms break down

:)
 
Back
Top