Entropy is unusable energy. It can't be turned back into matter. It can't be used for anything. It's permanently waste energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy count is always going up. Given enough time, nothing will exist except entropy. No matter and no energy that can be converted to matter.



It does. There is a world of difference between usable energy and unusable energy. This is a good time to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect, because you my friend are in full effect.

EDIT: To clarify the last sentence of the first paragraph. Added "and no energy that can be converted to matter."

Energy is energy regardless of its usability in regards to its existence. Just becuase it is spread out and not usable doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Context much?

Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa.

I do not need any appeals to any given cosmological model. All I need is special relativity.

Inflation is one way cosmologist deal with entropy problems. QM fluctuations are another. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. As long as there are ways of dealing with entropy then a model supports eternal energy. I have no need to prove anything. Usable or not energy isn't destroyed or made. Even if you had no way of dealing with entropy in a model that still does not say anything about the origins of energy or the lack there of . . .

I am done responding to your straw man attempts.

Entropy cannot be used for anything by any known or theorized process.



I never said it was. I simply pointed out that the most common "eternal universe" model proposed by scientists is negated by the second law of thermodynamics. I never once stated that your silly statement about matter/energy being eternal was dependent on a cosmological argument. It's actually quite the opposite, if you take the time to understand what I posted.

What you have posted is off topic, has no relevance and was out of context to any meaning I was using. You are just trolling looking for a way to argue with me, and I am not interesting in the useless battle to achieve nothing.

That deals with entropy density, not with total entropy.

How exactly do you think that by increasing the size of the universe, the amount of entropy would go down?

If you take a bucket of water and pour it into a bathtub, is there now less water, more water or the same amount of water?

It is relevant, I was correcting a misstatement you made. I'm not trolling or looking to argue. You should have just taken the correction, you didn't even have to admit you were completely wrong and then moved on.

So your saying energy isn't eternal? No your not, your posing conditions under which eternal energy would evolve.

Entropy says NOTHING about eternal energy or the origins of energy. Thermodynamics is a field of study that deals with the transitions of energy within space.

You are so seriously out of it. This line of thinking doesn't deal with my initial statement at all.

Tell you what, you show me where any credible physicist believes energy is not eternal and I will read it. You are just blathering in this topic as far as I am concerned until you put up or shutup.

Energy is eternal, but "matter/energy" isn't. Usable energy is a finite resource and it decreases every minute.



No, I'm pointing out the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which invalidated your statement about matter being eternal.



Entropy is dead energy. I never said it deals with the "origins of energy" where do you get this crap?

You dont even answer questions. How does this prove energy is not eternal?

The universe could expand into infinity, and the energy density of the universe could move asymptotically toward 0 and never reach it.

Your really working hard here, but ultimately you need to show me how energy would not be eternal. You are dancing around the facts.

Is that a scientific term? lol

Pardon my French, but Jesus H Christ man!

I never said that energy isn't eternal. I have stated that usable energy (IE energy that is interchangeable with matter or can do work) is not eternal. You stated that "Actually it appears matter/energy is eternal. This is supported by laws of physics." That is flat out not true. If you had said "energy is eternal", we wouldn't have an argument. But when you throw matter into the mix, you have stated something, which is absolutely known to NOT be true.

Which is not relevant to my original point, ie it was pointless. Gotcha. SNAFU

You are arguing in a context all your own buddy. Spider the Straw man abuser.

My only point was that matter/energy is eternal. This makes matter/energy fundamental. From a philosophical view point (the context of this thread) it means that materialism is very well founded, that if all the various phenomena of the universe can be explained in terms of matter/energy.

It was a refutation of what you posted. "Actually it appears matter/energy is eternal. This is supported by laws of physics." is not true. That was the point from the beginning. Maybe...maybe you could have just read my post and realized that? Is that humanly possible? To read a post and realize that the post is self contained and has no hidden agenda? No sinister anti-science Christian conspiracy, just correcting a really wrong statement? Is that possible?

You were wrong, I corrected you. It's unfortunate that you aren't able to gracefully accept correction when you are obviously wrong.

Contradict much?

QM fluctuations can cause a loss of entropy. Matter can spontaneously form. These are facts. Matter from energy and energy from matter is well accepted. I have said nothing worth refutation and you have said nothing I disagree with expect that you clearly have no clue what this topic is about.

Assuming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence is not worthy of refutation with appeals to useful energy. Red Herring, and off topic.
I am not wrong. You are talking about something else and now we have 2 pages of me trying to pout you back on topic. SNAFU indeed.

Oh, I see. Your only point is that "matter/energy is eternal". Well, your only point is still wrong. Matter is not eternal. Usable energy is not eternal. It's that pesky Second Law of Thermodynamics.

"The energy of the universe is constant. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum." -- Rudolf Clausius

I bolded the important part.

You really need to bush up on Entropy, then you might actually understand how the words you are typing aren't true.

No need to pout man, everyone is wrong some times.

Spiders only goal. To try to make others he doesn't like and doesn't agree with look bad.

My purpose here is a little more interesting, and so Id ask you stop posting here, its offtopic.