100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Creation vs. Evolution. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Entropy does not destroy energy, it makes it useless. That is all that needs to be said to refute spider. Entropy is energy, which cannot be used. When have I ever said that "entropy destroys energy"? You can't honestly think I've ever posted that, can you? Is that just a strawman because you are frustrated or what? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 05/25/12 01:58 PM
|
|
Entropy does not destroy energy, it makes it useless. That is all that needs to be said to refute spider. Entropy is energy, which cannot be used. When have I ever said that "entropy destroys energy"? You can't honestly think I've ever posted that, can you? Is that just a strawman because you are frustrated or what? Entropy does not destroy energy, it makes it useless. That is all that needs to be said to refute spider. Entropy is energy, which cannot be used. When have I ever said that "entropy destroys energy"? You can't honestly think I've ever posted that, can you? Is that just a strawman because you are frustrated or what? Here I will quote myself explaining what we are talking about again, and why thermodynamics is not a refutation. 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. So how does energy transfer say anything at all about energies origin or lack there of? Either you are saying entropy destroys energy, or you are making no sense, or you are confusing at what scale we are referring. I am leaning toward no sense, but wanted to rule out your thinking entropy was something it is not. I also wanted to rule out your talking about useful energy, or not understanding that we where talking about weather energy has always existed vs coming into existence. I have also addressed how entropy can be lowered without some magic man making it happen. Next time when someone asks how someone else knows energy has not always existed its best to not mention entropy. Then we wont have to go over all of this again. Entropy is energy, which cannot be used. There are two related definitions of entropy: the thermodynamic definition and the statistical mechanics definition. The thermodynamic definition was developed in the early 1850s by Rudolf Clausius and essentially describes how to measure the entropy of an isolated system in thermodynamic equilibrium. Importantly, it makes no reference to the microscopic nature of matter. The statistical definition was developed by Ludwig Boltzmann in the 1870s by analyzing the statistical behavior of the microscopic components of the system. Boltzmann showed that this definition of entropy was equivalent to the thermodynamic entropy to within a constant number which has since been known as Boltzmann's constant. In summary, the thermodynamic definition of entropy provides the experimental definition of entropy, while the statistical definition of entropy extends the concept, providing an explanation and a deeper understanding of its nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 05/25/12 02:08 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. Energy is never destroyed. This has never been proven to be incorrect. Where the energy came from for the BB is something many folks would love to know. Some have hypothesis, no one seriously believes a magic man did it. You really should have nothing to say on the topic. If science can never detect the influence of god, nor model gods interaction with reality then you cannot argue for creationism using science. finally admitted that Entropy could not be converted back into matter. I never admitted any such thing becuase it is not even wrong. Entropy is not matter, it is not energy. It is either a statistical principle of thermodynamics, or a useful calculation to determine useful energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Wow! You took something from a completely different part of physics and used it to prove a point that is not the point that was made. Where, exactly, do the dark energy and the dark energy particles come from that appear in open space and cause the expansion of our universe? What are the laws of physics that allow the universe to expand? The bottom line, to use your words, is that the universe is an open system, not a closed one as you stated, and that we don't know where energy comes from or what the laws of physics are there if we could get there. You are using the second law of thermodynamics, which is a law and a pretty good one, and using it as an absolute in a place where you don't even know if it works. Your points are escaping reality's notice. And your above post about the conservation of energy did not explain where the virtual particles go. A brief existence is still existence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! You took something from a completely different part of physics and used it to prove a point that is not the point that was made. Where, exactly, do the dark energy and the dark energy particles come from that appear in open space and cause the expansion of our universe? What are the laws of physics that allow the universe to expand? The bottom line, to use your words, is that the universe is an open system, not a closed one as you stated, and that we don't know where energy comes from or what the laws of physics are there if we could get there. You are using the second law of thermodynamics, which is a law and a pretty good one, and using it as an absolute in a place where you don't even know if it works. Your points are escaping reality's notice. And your above post about the conservation of energy did not explain where the virtual particles go. A brief existence is still existence. He states with certainty that which the brightest minds would willingly admit uncertainty. This is the egoism of creationism. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Fri 05/25/12 02:23 PM
|
|
The universe is not a "closed system." Take my word on it.  of course not, there is no way it could be... You guys are being a little silly here. If its not closed, what matter and energy can possibly exist outside the universe??? Nothing is outside the universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The universe is not a "closed system." Take my word on it. of course not, there is no way it could be... You guys are being a little silly here. If its not closed, what matter and energy can possibly exist outside the universe??? Nothing is outside the universe. when was the last time you were out of the universe? where is the edge of the universe? how do you know that nothing is outside of the universe? you cannot comprehend what you do not know, meaning that since we don't know where the universe starts or ends, how can we comprehend what is outside of it when we have nothing to base it on? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
metalwing
on
Fri 05/25/12 02:43 PM
|
|
I read an interesting article some time back. I don't remember where. It was about the meaning of the word "universe". Not too long ago, our universe was the Milky Way. It was all we could see and all we knew existed. It was the "one" verse so we called it the universe.
Hubble came along and changed all that by seeing other galaxies and measuring their speed away from us. Not long after, we discovered the background radiation of the the big bang ... and it was everywhere. The universe keeps growing and so does it's definition. Physics came to define the possibility mathematically of where the big bang might have come from. Different universes, parallel universes, alternate realities, and quantum realities became multiverse possibilities. So the logical thing to do was discard the term universe for "everything" and just make it mean "what we can see and measure". To a large degree we can see holes in the universe, but we don't know where they go or what they mean. CERN is trying hard to take a peek. The bottom line is that if one is to use the term "universe" to describe truly "everything", that which it describes may include mostly what we cannot see or perceive in any way and the vast majority of it may not follow the laws of physics as they have become known to us in this tiny part of existence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The universe is not a "closed system." Take my word on it. of course not, there is no way it could be... You guys are being a little silly here. If its not closed, what matter and energy can possibly exist outside the universe??? Nothing is outside the universe. when was the last time you were out of the universe? where is the edge of the universe? how do you know that nothing is outside of the universe? you cannot comprehend what you do not know, meaning that since we don't know where the universe starts or ends, how can we comprehend what is outside of it when we have nothing to base it on? I did assume we both knew what the word universe means: the definition includes all matter. The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists,[1] including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.[2][3] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read an interesting article some time back. I don't remember where. It was about the meaning of the word "universe". Not too long ago, our universe was the Milky Way. It was all we could see and all we knew existed. It was the "one" verse so we called it the universe. Hubble came along and changed all that by seeing other galaxies and measuring their speed away from us. Not long after, we discovered the background radiation of the the big bang ... and it was everywhere. The universe keeps growing and so does it's definition. Physics came to define the possibility mathematically of where the big bang might have come from. Different universes, parallel universes, alternate realities, and quantum realities became multiverse possibilities. So the logical thing to do was discard the term universe for "everything" and just make it mean "what we can see and measure". To a large degree we can see holes in the universe, but we don't know where they go or what they mean. CERN is trying hard to take a peek. The bottom line is that if one is to use the term "universe" to describe truly "everything", that which it describes may include mostly what we cannot see or perceive in any way and the vast majority of it may not follow the laws of physics as they have become known to us in this tiny part of existence. Well maybe one day they will discover a way in which matter can be created from nothing. Until then we have the knowledge that matter exists and yet we do not understand where it originated. We have the creator theory and the "I've got no idea how it all arrived" view. I prefer the creator theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read an interesting article some time back. I don't remember where. It was about the meaning of the word "universe". Not too long ago, our universe was the Milky Way. It was all we could see and all we knew existed. It was the "one" verse so we called it the universe. Hubble came along and changed all that by seeing other galaxies and measuring their speed away from us. Not long after, we discovered the background radiation of the the big bang ... and it was everywhere. The universe keeps growing and so does it's definition. Physics came to define the possibility mathematically of where the big bang might have come from. Different universes, parallel universes, alternate realities, and quantum realities became multiverse possibilities. So the logical thing to do was discard the term universe for "everything" and just make it mean "what we can see and measure". To a large degree we can see holes in the universe, but we don't know where they go or what they mean. CERN is trying hard to take a peek. The bottom line is that if one is to use the term "universe" to describe truly "everything", that which it describes may include mostly what we cannot see or perceive in any way and the vast majority of it may not follow the laws of physics as they have become known to us in this tiny part of existence. Well maybe one day they will discover a way in which matter can be created from nothing. Until then we have the knowledge that matter exists and yet we do not understand where it originated. We have the creator theory and the "I've got no idea how it all arrived" view. I prefer the creator theory. Technically, you've got it backwards. We have the "big bang" theory (which is a part of the "where it all came from" concept; and the creator view. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The universe is not a "closed system." Take my word on it. of course not, there is no way it could be... You guys are being a little silly here. If its not closed, what matter and energy can possibly exist outside the universe??? Nothing is outside the universe. when was the last time you were out of the universe? where is the edge of the universe? how do you know that nothing is outside of the universe? you cannot comprehend what you do not know, meaning that since we don't know where the universe starts or ends, how can we comprehend what is outside of it when we have nothing to base it on? I did assume we both knew what the word universe means: the definition includes all matter. The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists,[1] including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.[2][3] again, where does it end or start? we can only see so far... your talking about the known universe, which we still know little of that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, you've got it backwards. We have the "big bang" theory (which is a part of the "where it all came from" concept; and the creator view. The big bang theory does not explain where matter came from, it just assumes matter and energy was all consoladated in one place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
again, where does it end or start? we can only see so far... your talking about the known universe, which we still know little of that. No. I am not talking about the known universe, I'm talking about the universe as described in Wikipedia, it includes ALL MATTER/ENERGY, and because of this it is a closed system with a certain mass/energy. No known mechanism can break the law of conservation of energy/mass and so for now those who don't believe in God have to settle for an unknown inexplicable source for all energy/mass. This is a simple point, most people would simple agree that the source of matter is unknown. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Sat 05/26/12 04:29 AM
|
|
Ya know i think if science would take a much harder look at leptons and quarks aka elementary particles they could come up with a rational explanation of what happened before the big bang.If these are particles that can't be broken down any further,carry eletrical charges and lepton move at a rate of a billion mile per hour.which could cause a collision as they both where just floating around in space this could be where either matter or just the process of atoms colliding and go BOOOOOOOM.
In other words if it can't be broken down anymore then the only thing left for it to do is build into a subatomic partical,then an atom...etc.So with that typed elementary particles could have always existed cause they need no other particles to become what they are. So i'll add the elementary particles always existed theory to the theories.Rebuttal will be "science laws" says this is impossible,In the words of Howzit 'Thats what makes science great" leaves options and possibilities open. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Sat 05/26/12 05:30 AM
|
|
And during this force of energy from the big bang leptons and quarks were scattered and fusion began so this is where the elements started.
Or i could just give up and say a DJ Deity and his magic went "POOF, there it is..POOF,there it is." 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya know i think if science would take a much harder look at leptons and quarks aka elementary particles they could come up with a rational explanation of what happened before the big bang.If these are particles that can't be broken down any further,carry eletrical charges and lepton move at a rate of a billion mile per hour.which could cause a collision as they both where just floating around in space this could be where either matter or just the process of atoms colliding and go BOOOOOOOM. In other words if it can't be broken down anymore then the only thing left for it to do is build into a subatomic partical,then an atom...etc.So with that typed elementary particles could have always existed cause they need no other particles to become what they are. So i'll add the elementary particles always existed theory to the theories.Rebuttal will be "science laws" says this is impossible,In the words of Howzit 'Thats what makes science great" leaves options and possibilities open. Leptons and quarks appear from pure energy just like all other matter. The concept of "where does matter come from?" has been brought up several times on this thread. The answer to that question is easy, it comes from energy. The real question is where did the energy come from. Matter is created from energy, CERN and other accelerators create mass every day. Some properties, such as gravity, appear to operate from outside our universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya know i think if science would take a much harder look at leptons and quarks aka elementary particles they could come up with a rational explanation of what happened before the big bang.If these are particles that can't be broken down any further,carry eletrical charges and lepton move at a rate of a billion mile per hour.which could cause a collision as they both where just floating around in space this could be where either matter or just the process of atoms colliding and go BOOOOOOOM. In other words if it can't be broken down anymore then the only thing left for it to do is build into a subatomic partical,then an atom...etc.So with that typed elementary particles could have always existed cause they need no other particles to become what they are. So i'll add the elementary particles always existed theory to the theories.Rebuttal will be "science laws" says this is impossible,In the words of Howzit 'Thats what makes science great" leaves options and possibilities open. Leptons and quarks appear from pure energy just like all other matter. The concept of "where does matter come from?" has been brought up several times on this thread. The answer to that question is easy, it comes from energy. The real question is where did the energy come from. Matter is created from energy, CERN and other accelerators create mass every day. Some properties, such as gravity, appear to operate from outside our universe. Man it's really dead on the jobsite today there's one subcontractor out here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Sat 05/26/12 07:23 AM
|
|
see maybe even gravity always existed and at one point gravity was so dense it crushed leptons and quarks with so much force they exploded...another thought in the making.Or go back to the leptons fast pace movement which the motion of a partical creates khenitic energy then theres the source of energy.
So energy came from the motion of elementary particles and elementary particles have always existed cause you can't break them down any further. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Sat 05/26/12 08:44 AM
|
|
see maybe even gravity always existed and at one point gravity was so dense it crushed leptons and quarks with so much force they exploded...another thought in the making.Or go back to the leptons fast pace movement which the motion of a partical creates khenitic energy then theres the source of energy. So energy came from the motion of elementary particles and elementary particles have always existed cause you can't break them down any further. |
|
|
|
|
