Science contradicts itself..Questions

[cameron sydenham]

that is where our motor gets its additional power from that we are almost finished rebuilding.
cam

[Charlie_V]

You guys type too much for me to read haha, I'm a slow reader.  I wanted to put in my two cents:

Energy cannot be created, it is the 4th state of matter, but scientists are apparently speaking out of two sides of the mouth when they say it can't be destroyed.  If it can't be destroyed, then you should be able to recapture it, recycle it, thus use it over and over and over by regenerating your battery with it.

This is the biggest contradiction that science makes!  Everyone step back a moment and think about this - Energy cannot be created or destroyed..... Now really think about that a minute.  Energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet we also have entropy (universe expanding, things become more disordered, energy spreading out into oblivion never to be harnessed again).  My friends, if this were the case, if science was so correct, we would not be here, we would never have existed! 

If energy cannot be created or destroyed then where did it come from?  The big bang - a singularity - is what most astrophysicists will say.  It takes energy for things to explode, that doesn't happen energy free!   So scientists turn to the possibility of different dimensions and all kinds of bogus "fudge factors".  What a load of crap!  The simplest answer is the one right in front of us, ENERGY CAN BE CREATED (and probably destroyed).  Nature shows us that everything has a beginning and an end.   Everything we observe is created, dies, and from its remains more things are created.  Thus energy too has a beginning, and an end.  It takes energy to make energy.  God does exist, he input the initial energy but he's lazy.   God doesn't want to keep putting in energy, he made it a system that once started builds on itself. Unfortunately, we are too small to see that, and what we don't see we can't accept.  Instead of blowing so much effort on ethanol and renewable fuel sources, we should be trying to find the mechanism that creates energy.  I know there is one, without it we would not be here, period. 

[Koen1]

I feel there may be a misconception at play here.
Obviously, if you consider the Big Bang to be an explosion of matter and energy from
one specific point in space and time, then indeed the energy must have been concentrated
in that point in space and time before it exploded. The "bubble" of matter and energy
spreading out from that point in space and time would gain size and decrease in concentration.

But I think you're forgetting that there was no space nor time before the Big Bang.
At least, as far as I know, the Big Bang is not just an explosion of matter and energy inside
space and time, but it is the actual coming into existance of everything, including matter and energy
and space and time simulataneously.
There was no point in space and time where all matter and energy were concentrated before it exploded.
There was nothing, and that's not even true because there was no "was".
At that superbly mysterious moment of birth of the universe that we so laughably call "Big Bang",
the quantumfluctuation that many scientists now believe the universe is, somehow started to
"unravel" its entangled dimensions and at the same time gave rise to space, time, energy, and matter.
We can't even be sure that "time" as we experience it is really anything like the "true" way this entire
multidimensional construct works. As string theory suggests, we probably live in a world that we experience
as a defined set of dimensions, and take a great many dimensions that we cannot directly observe independantly
for granted, consider them theoretical, nonexistant, infinitely small, or simply don't even realise they are here.
"The arrow of time" for example, seems to be very one-way for us humans. But if you rework our "three dimensional"
spacetime into a more abstract construct of a 4-dimensional sphere and try to imagine models that can account
for physical phenomena in our world, certain things seem to make much more sense. It is possible to model such
a "spacetime" where time is not at all a "one-way arrow" but rather a circular dimension, and everything in our
everyday world would still work out exactly the same for people living in our 'dimensional plane'...
So how can we make clear statements about what happens to energy in the universe, if we use a crooked view
of "the universe" to begin with?

Just a grab out of my thought box.

[Charlie_V]

coming into existance of everything, including matter and energy
and space and time simulataneously.

No, not a misconception, energy and matter "cannot be created or destroyed" says the law of conservation of matter and energy.  Thus by that definition, it cannot "come into existence", it must have already been here by that definition.  A contradiction at the heart of scientific theory.  So if we take it from the law's standpoint, there was no big bang, everything was already here way before that occurred.  If then we look at the second law of thermodynamics, stating that entropy of a system is ever increasing, we realize that our universe (which is far older than the big bang, since by the governing laws could never have happened) should of been at a state of equilibrium long ago.  We should not be here according to these laws. 

The easiest explanation is usually what is right in front of you.  That is energy CAN be created and that entropy is ever increasing yet so is the energy creation.  Thus our universe is already in an equilibrium, a perpetual equilibrium.  We should look for the mechanism that creates this energy.

[Koen1]

Well it seems to me there is a contradiction in your analysis...
After all, if everything including time, space, matter and energy did not exist before the BB, then there was no place for everything to be in,
there was no time for anything to be in, and there was no matter that could perform the act of being, as any of those require the elements
time, space, and matter.
Yes, if you assume there was a setting of time ans space, then obviously matter cannot have magically appeared inside that system.
But there was no such system. The whole system including space, time, matter and energy just came from not existing to existing.
There was not an emptyness that suddenly got filled. There was a fully filled system that was not in existence, and then it came into
existence fully filled. That's what the Big Bang says. It does not say there was a lot of empty space and time and all of a sudden there
was matter and energy. It says there was no time, no space, no matter, no energy. And yes, that is impossible to intelligently make claims about,
as in our everyday worlds it is totally impossible for time and space not to exist and cone into the equation. We're like fish talking about
what the moon could be like without the ability to grasp the concept of vacuum.

But let me ask you, how do you see the law of entropy as valid if there is continuous creation of matter?
And where is this matter created then? Do you, beside the reasoning you have shown, have any reason to
conclude matter is continually created?
And why do you feel our universe should have been at a state of balance long ago? What reasons do you have to
conclude this?

I see no reason to conclude this... Entropy is clearly present, universal expansion too, slow cooling of the universe
as well, so what is the anomaly that makes you question the standard interpretation? I don't see the anomaly.