Community > Science & Philosophy

Previous 1 2 … 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 … 49 50 Next

Topic: Creation vs. Evolution.
Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 05/25/12 11:12 AM
Not even. He is not even wrong. He is taking a descriptive law. (please look up what it means for something to be descriptive vs proscriptive) that applies to closed systems, and applying it without regard to context to the whole of existence. The universe, as a whole, is a giant closed system. The entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Why would the law detail what kind of system if it did not matter? Is our universe in thermal equilibrium? Are all parts of the universe equally hot? No, they are not. Therefore, entropy raises. You are behaving as if this isn't accepted science. So what, I'm the only person who has heard the term "heat death"? It does matter. We have you guys playing at physicist and you have no clue how these laws came into being. What does this mean exactly? All of science is descriptive, we learn based on what we find, we do not find a creator, we find nothing which requires a creator, and thus make no assumptions about creators in creating models of reality. Science is the study of the natural world. God is supernatural, having created nature, and therefore cannot be described by science.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 05/25/12 11:13 AM
They are misapplying the laws. This entire line of reasoning is a straw man. We've had this discussion before. The problem is that you don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 05/25/12 11:15 AM Edited by Spidercmb on Fri 05/25/12 11:15 AM
Sorry I don't get the argument that matter or energy just always existed. There had to be an origin. Why?

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Fri 05/25/12 11:16 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 05/25/12 11:28 AM
They are misapplying the laws. This entire line of reasoning is a straw man. We've had this discussion before. The problem is that you don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ohhh please. Go back a few posts, your answer awaits you. The universe, as a whole, is a giant closed system. Explain why this must be true? If you can you will win a Nobel. Is our universe in thermal equilibrium? Are all parts of the universe equally hot? No, they are not. Therefore, entropy raises. You are behaving as if this isn't accepted science. So what, I'm the only person who has heard the term "heat death"? laugh This is a typical error you make over and over again. We are talking about more than our universe when we are talking about what caused our universe. Regardless of if you think a membrane slamming into a bubble universe in a foam of infinite universal creation caused our pocket universe or if you think an eternal being existed prior to the universe and willed it into existence you are still talking about a universe that is NOT a closed system. Outside influences adding energy in both cases. This is really a waste of time. It happens over and over again, laymen think they understand the topic without any formal education and make statements with such conviction without regard to the bigger picture and without regard to context. They apply a law which states specific contextual principles and then ignore the context. . . and you guys wonder why I disappear from this forum periodically. Again, if you can prove that the membrane hypothesis cannot be true, or that any other cause of the universe cannot have occurred, then what you are really arguing is that the universe always was in one form or another or you are arguing it came from nothing. Which do you prefer? It seems to me it doesn't really matter which you prefer becuase neither require a god, and it doesn't prove anything, but if you could rule out any of the possibilities you would be a very well respected member of the cosmology community . . . which you are not.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 05/25/12 11:26 AM
The universe, as a whole, is a giant closed system. Explain why this must be true? If you can you will win a Nobel. It's true...it's accepted science. Please educate yourself on this. I like you and hate to see you humiliate yourself like this.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 05/25/12 11:29 AM
We are talking about more than our universe when we are talking about what caused our universe. No, here is where you are wrong. I AM talking about one point, to which I replied. Don't play this expanding the scope crap with me. I'm making an isolated point. I'm 100% correct. Your feeble attempts to refute my point or to strawman me show that you really are out of your depth.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Fri 05/25/12 11:29 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 05/25/12 11:37 AM
The universe, as a whole, is a giant closed system. Explain why this must be true? If you can you will win a Nobel. It's true...it's accepted science. Please educate yourself on this. I like you and hate to see you humiliate yourself like this. No, its useful to assume the universe is a closed system when you are making calculations. No one knows is the fact, and your pomp and certainty is what illustrates your lack of formal training on this matter. Science is the study of the natural world. God is supernatural, having created nature, and therefore cannot be described by science. This makes me question why you even engage in these conversations. We are talking about more than our universe when we are talking about what caused our universe. No, here is where you are wrong. I AM talking about one point, to which I replied. Don't play this expanding the scope crap with me. I'm making an isolated point. I'm 100% correct. Your feeble attempts to refute my point or to strawman me show that you really are out of your depth. The statement was that energy started to exist, basically that god created energy. The rebuttal was, how do you know that energy has not always existed? The answer was the second law of thermodynamics, which is a descriptive law (as is ALL of science). What does all of thermodynamics describe? Energy transfer within the universe. THAT is why it is nonsense when discussing the origin of energy, or the universe. Because the context of the law is within the universe, not before, not outside, not dealing in causes of the universe. The answer is we do not know how energy transfer would or could interact outside of time and space. The answer is we do not know if the universe is eternal and infinite, or cyclical, or one of an infinite universes. All kinds of theories exist about this and none have been shown to be necessarily true. Even in a heat death scenario energy still exists, it may not be usable, but it exists. You have made this error before in the exact same conversation, been schooled then and still did not understand.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 05/25/12 11:32 AM
We are talking about more than our universe when we are talking about what caused our universe. No, here is where you are wrong. I AM talking about one point, to which I replied. Don't play this expanding the scope crap with me. I'm making an isolated point. I'm 100% correct. Your feeble attempts to refute my point or to strawman me show that you really are out of your depth. your arguing about something that no one on this planet knows for sure, and your saying your 100% correct? for the limited amount of knowledge we have, no one is 100% correct...

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Fri 05/25/12 11:34 AM
The universe is not a "closed system." Take my word on it.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 05/25/12 11:47 AM
The universe is not a "closed system." Take my word on it. of course not, there is no way it could be...

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 05/25/12 11:50 AM
The answer was the second law of thermodynamics, which is a descriptive law (as is ALL of science). What does all of thermodynamics describe? Energy transfer within the universe. THAT is why it is nonsense when discussing the origin of energy, or the universe. Because the context of the law is within the universe, no before, not outside, not dealing in causes of the universe. A simple misunderstanding, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. If energy has always existed, then the amount of entropy would be far higher than it currently is. Yes, I am aware that a team of physicists determined that the universe has 30x more entropy than expected, but that is locked up in super massive black holes and doesn't count as the background entropy that we would expect to find if energy had existed infinitely. Even in a heat death scenario energy still exists, it may not be usable, but it exists. You have made this error before in the exact same conversation, been schooled then and still did not understand. No, I understand that completely. We argued for like 10 pages until you finally admitted that Entropy could not be converted back into matter.

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Fri 05/25/12 12:17 PM
The universe, as a whole, is a giant closed system. Explain why this must be true? If you can you will win a Nobel. It's true...it's accepted science. Please educate yourself on this. I like you and hate to see you humiliate yourself like this. Spider, You are wrong ... on several levels. At CERN, one of the primary experiments is to create matter from energy and "see what happens". One of the things that happens is that some particles spontaneously appear and disappear from this universe. We don't know where they go or where they come from. (I am NOT trying to inject the Higgs Boson into this thread!) A entire science of "virtual particles" has been created to explain various energy transference in the Standard Model. Whether or not the Standard Model is correct in some aspects doesn't matter. Energy and matter are appearing and dissappearing to and from our existence. Some of the best minds in the business are trying to understand that part of energy transference of our open system universe. You place great reliance in physical laws that act where we can see them. There is every indication that different laws act in areas that are beyond our ability to measure. The expanding universe is an example.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Fri 05/25/12 12:19 PM
The answer was the second law of thermodynamics, which is a descriptive law (as is ALL of science). What does all of thermodynamics describe? Energy transfer within the universe. THAT is why it is nonsense when discussing the origin of energy, or the universe. Because the context of the law is within the universe, no before, not outside, not dealing in causes of the universe. A simple misunderstanding, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. If energy has always existed, then the amount of entropy would be far higher than it currently is. Yes, I am aware that a team of physicists determined that the universe has 30x more entropy than expected, but that is locked up in super massive black holes and doesn't count as the background entropy that we would expect to find if energy had existed infinitely. Even in a heat death scenario energy still exists, it may not be usable, but it exists. You have made this error before in the exact same conversation, been schooled then and still did not understand. No, I understand that completely. We argued for like 10 pages until you finally admitted that Entropy could not be converted back into matter. Well if entropy doesn't start kicking in soon in this enclosed universe we are in then the dark matter/dark energy is going to push us right out of the enclosed universe.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 05/25/12 12:21 PM
The universe, as a whole, is a giant closed system. Explain why this must be true? If you can you will win a Nobel. It's true...it's accepted science. Please educate yourself on this. I like you and hate to see you humiliate yourself like this. Spider, You are wrong ... on several levels. At CERN, one of the primary experiments is to create matter from energy and "see what happens". One of the things that happens is that some particles spontaneously appear and disappear from this universe. We don't know where they go or where they come from. (I am NOT trying to inject the Higgs Boson into this thread!) A entire science of "virtual particles" has been created to explain various energy transference in the Standard Model. Whether or not the Standard Model is correct in some aspects doesn't matter. Energy and matter are appearing and dissappearing to and from our existence. Some of the best minds in the business are trying to understand that part of energy transference of our open system universe. You place great reliance in physical laws that act where we can see them. There is every indication that different laws act in areas that are beyond our ability to measure. The expanding universe is an example. Uncertainty and Virtual Particles The conservation of energy seems to be violated by the apparent existence of these very energetic particles for a very short time. However, according to the above principle, if the time of a process is exceedingly short, then the uncertainty in energy can be very large. Thus, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, these high-energy force-carrier particles may exist if they are short lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice. The bottom line is that energy is conserved. The energy of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 05/25/12 12:23 PM
The answer was the second law of thermodynamics, which is a descriptive law (as is ALL of science). What does all of thermodynamics describe? Energy transfer within the universe. THAT is why it is nonsense when discussing the origin of energy, or the universe. Because the context of the law is within the universe, no before, not outside, not dealing in causes of the universe. A simple misunderstanding, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. If energy has always existed, then the amount of entropy would be far higher than it currently is. Yes, I am aware that a team of physicists determined that the universe has 30x more entropy than expected, but that is locked up in super massive black holes and doesn't count as the background entropy that we would expect to find if energy had existed infinitely. Even in a heat death scenario energy still exists, it may not be usable, but it exists. You have made this error before in the exact same conversation, been schooled then and still did not understand. No, I understand that completely. We argued for like 10 pages until you finally admitted that Entropy could not be converted back into matter. Well if entropy doesn't start kicking in soon in this enclosed universe we are in then the dark matter/dark energy is going to push us right out of the enclosed universe. Every moment of your life, you are creating entropy. If you want to reject accepted science, that's your business.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Fri 05/25/12 12:30 PM
The answer was the second law of thermodynamics, which is a descriptive law (as is ALL of science). What does all of thermodynamics describe? Energy transfer within the universe. THAT is why it is nonsense when discussing the origin of energy, or the universe. Because the context of the law is within the universe, no before, not outside, not dealing in causes of the universe. A simple misunderstanding, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. If energy has always existed, then the amount of entropy would be far higher than it currently is. Yes, I am aware that a team of physicists determined that the universe has 30x more entropy than expected, but that is locked up in super massive black holes and doesn't count as the background entropy that we would expect to find if energy had existed infinitely. Even in a heat death scenario energy still exists, it may not be usable, but it exists. You have made this error before in the exact same conversation, been schooled then and still did not understand. No, I understand that completely. We argued for like 10 pages until you finally admitted that Entropy could not be converted back into matter. Well if entropy doesn't start kicking in soon in this enclosed universe we are in then the dark matter/dark energy is going to push us right out of the enclosed universe. Every moment of your life, you are creating entropy. If you want to reject accepted science, that's your business. i'm not rejecting it Spider i'm refering to all the hot stuff in the universe better use up the dark energy or it's gonna push us out of this enclosed universe people seem to think we are in.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Fri 05/25/12 12:36 PM
The universe is not closed, so don't worry.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Fri 05/25/12 12:41 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Fri 05/25/12 12:42 PM
Uncertainty and Virtual Particles The conservation of energy seems to be violated by the apparent existence of these very energetic particles for a very short time. However, according to the above principle, if the time of a process is exceedingly short, then the uncertainty in energy can be very large. Thus, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, these high-energy force-carrier particles may exist if they are short lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice. The bottom line is that energy is conserved. The energy of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed. If you can't observe something,(or its effect) how can you assume they exist? How does anything escape "realities notice?" Don't you mean human observation? If all of reality does not notice or feel or is effected by a thing, then how can you say that it exists?

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Fri 05/25/12 12:58 PM
Uncertainty and Virtual Particles The conservation of energy seems to be violated by the apparent existence of these very energetic particles for a very short time. However, according to the above principle, if the time of a process is exceedingly short, then the uncertainty in energy can be very large. Thus, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, these high-energy force-carrier particles may exist if they are short lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice. The bottom line is that energy is conserved. The energy of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed. If you can't observe something,(or its effect) how can you assume they exist? How does anything escape "realities notice?" Don't you mean human observation? If all of reality does not notice or feel or is effected by a thing, then how can you say that it exists? they use cameras to slow it down by frames and computers to analyze it.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Fri 05/25/12 01:04 PM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 05/25/12 01:30 PM
Entropy does not destroy energy, it makes it useless. That is all that needs to be said to refute spider. As to the question of why the entropy of the universe would be so low if energy is eternal? Many models have proposed mechanisms for reducing entropy. Inflation is one such model. Entropy can also be reduced via quantum mechanical fluctuations, and if the entirety of the universe was smaller than the size of the particle it would then be effected by QM fluctuations. I do not remember the name of the person who proposed this, but I can check my physics history book when I get home. Spider, I aced thermodynamics in college, and also aced my philosophy of science course, this stuff is VERY fundamental to a physics education. Not knowing it shows you self taught and never got the smack down we all get when we say silly things. These kinds of questions get asked regularly at uni. Even if the universe IS a closed system and all that exists, and has always existed via big bounce/big crunch, there exists proposed mechanics for resetting entropy. Entropy is not an argument against eternal energy, and never has been. Conservation of energy SUPPORTS the notion that energy is the most fundamental principle of nature and can never be destroyed, only transferred or transformed. This topic is FAR more intricate and complex than what you present. The kicker is that it really doesn't matter to this thread. Evolution is correct independently of our answers to the origin of the universe. The attempt at a gotcha that creationists use by referencing cosmology in an attempt to refute evolution is plain to see. Cosmic Evolution of Entropy Entropy is defined as the degree of randomness, which can be expressed alternatively as the degree of freedom in a system (the degree of freedom is the number of different parameters or arrangements needed to specify completely the state of a particle or system). The evolution of entropy in the universe as a whole can be separated into four phases: Leptogenesis 1. The inflaton field is a coherent system changing gradually until the end of the inflationary era (Figure 06). Such system has very few degrees of freedom, so it has a very low entropy. 2. At the end of inflation the energy density of the inflaton field decays to zero (see Figure 03a), thereby releasing lots of energy to produce particle anti-particle pairs, and to heat up the universe. It is this "reheating" that produce lots of degree of freedom, and thus lots of entropy. 3. The infusion of energy dU ceased once the inflaton energy density vanished, i.e., dU = 0. According to the thermodynamics relation dU = TdS - pdV (where p = pressure, V = volume, Figure 06 Initial Entropy [view large image] T = temperature), the entropy now varies as dS = (p/T)dV. The universe was dominated by radiation up to 104 years after the Big Bang. During this era p T4; since in term of the size of the universe R, T 1/R, dV R2dR, thus dS dR/R and the entropy S log (R). 4. In a matter dominated universe p = 0, thus dS = 0; the entropy is conserved as a whole for the rest of the cosmic expansion. 5. If acceleration of the cosmic expansion is taken into account, then there is infusion of energy by an amount dU. The entropy dS dU/T will increase until space is nearly empty in attaining the highest entropy state. This is but one example of explaining low entropy. Inflation smooths out randomness, reducing entropy. Another mechanism is when the universe shrinks to a singularity, all matter is broken down, and entropy is reset. So really whatever model you want to propose must deal with entropy and must explain what we see. Thus all workable models incorporate such a mechanism. Even in the heat death universe energy exists. The fact you disagree shows me you have never done a energy density calculation on an expanding volume. A word comes to mind, asymptotic. I am no great physicist, and I am not a biologist at all, but I did study hard, and I do understand thermodynamics.