The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-06-2016, 08:43 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(30-06-2016 08:29 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 07:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, you don't. One can deduce from know facts; not inference, deduction.


Many have said that about many things. They were all wrong. Drinking Beverage


You don't know that. You can't know that. Your incredulity is not an argument.


Sure.

You can't prove something unequivocally by deduction without the ability to reproduce it. Else someone will always be able to provide some wild ass alternative.

All of the energy in the universe concentrated into a single point is the ultimate violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That would be the definition of a supernatural event that science could not explain unequivocally.

Nope. All the known laws of science break down at a singularity.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2016, 08:46 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(30-06-2016 08:29 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 07:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, you don't. One can deduce from know facts; not inference, deduction.


Many have said that about many things. They were all wrong. Drinking Beverage


You don't know that. You can't know that. Your incredulity is not an argument.


Sure.

You can't prove something unequivocally by deduction without the ability to reproduce it. Else someone will always be able to provide some wild ass alternative.

Do you know what deduction is? It is not speculation.

Quote:All of the energy in the universe concentrated into a single point is the ultimate violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

How is that? What exactly does that have to do with entropy?

Quote:That would be the definition of a supernatural event that science could not explain unequivocally.

Not until you actually explain how, it isn't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2016, 09:09 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(30-06-2016 08:29 PM)u196533 Wrote:  All of the energy in the universe concentrated into a single point is the ultimate violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That would be the definition of a supernatural event that science could not explain unequivocally.

First of all, the second law applies to closed systems only: how did you determine that the singularity is a closed system? I mean, leaving aside that you're talking about a point in time where the only thing that we know for sure is that it didn't behave anything like physics works now, let's just assume for the sake of the argument that the second law totally works the same there: how could you possibly have determined that the singularity is a closed system?

Secondly, "science cannot explain this" is not a justification for you to call it supernatural. That's an argument from ignorance: if we can't explain it, then why the hell are you positing a magic explanation?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Esquilax's post
01-07-2016, 09:17 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(30-06-2016 08:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 08:29 PM)u196533 Wrote:  You can't prove something unequivocally by deduction without the ability to reproduce it. Else someone will always be able to provide some wild ass alternative.

Do you know what deduction is? It is not speculation.

Quote:All of the energy in the universe concentrated into a single point is the ultimate violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

How is that? What exactly does that have to do with entropy?

Quote:That would be the definition of a supernatural event that science could not explain unequivocally.

Not until you actually explain how, it isn't.

Yes it can be deduced, and you might convince most people. However, if you can't reproduce it, it will not be unequivocal. Someone will always be able to propose an alternate theory. That is kinda the scientific method. That is why evolution is still being debated. There are valid scientific reasons to deny evolution, so it is not unequivocal. (I do not deny evolution; I am just using that as an example. I am not trying to get off on a tangent of evolution.)

That is the primary concept of the 2nd Law. The energy in any system will disperse as much as possible. (When it disperses some of it is lost (heat, friction, noise), and cannot be recaptured to do work. That lost energy is defined as entropy.) Energy will never spontaneously concentrate; that requires an outside influence.

So yes. Concentrating all of the energy of the universe into a single point would clearly be a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 09:25 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 09:17 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 08:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Do you know what deduction is? It is not speculation.


How is that? What exactly does that have to do with entropy?


Not until you actually explain how, it isn't.

Yes it can be deduced, and you might convince most people. However, if you can't reproduce it, it will not be unequivocal. Someone will always be able to propose an alternate theory. That is kinda the scientific method.

What you are referring to is inference, not deduction.

Quote:That is why evolution is still being debated. There are valid scientific reasons to deny evolution,

No, there are not.

Quote:so it is not unequivocal. (I do not deny evolution; I am just using that as an example. I am not trying to get off on a tangent of evolution.)
That is the primary concept of the 2nd Law. The energy in any system will disperse as much as possible. (When it disperses some of it is lost (heat, friction, noise),

That is not accurate. Nothing is lost.

Quote:and cannot be recaptured to do work.

Yes, it can. It just requires more energy.

Quote:That lost energy is defined as entropy.) Energy will never spontaneously concentrate; that requires an outside influence.

So yes. Concentrating all of the energy of the universe into a single point would clearly be a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo.

Non sequitur. You have not provided a cogent argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
01-07-2016, 09:30 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Evolution in no way "is still being debated". There has been not one major academic center in the world that has questioned it recently, and not one paper published by a legitimate scientist that proposes an alternative explanation for what is observed. Every major academic center in the world teaches it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 09:34 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(30-06-2016 09:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 08:29 PM)u196533 Wrote:  All of the energy in the universe concentrated into a single point is the ultimate violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That would be the definition of a supernatural event that science could not explain unequivocally.

First of all, the second law applies to closed systems only: how did you determine that the singularity is a closed system? I mean, leaving aside that you're talking about a point in time where the only thing that we know for sure is that it didn't behave anything like physics works now, let's just assume for the sake of the argument that the second law totally works the same there: how could you possibly have determined that the singularity is a closed system?

Secondly, "science cannot explain this" is not a justification for you to call it supernatural. That's an argument from ignorance: if we can't explain it, then why the hell are you positing a magic explanation?

You are flat out wrong. 2nd Law applies to ALL systems- The definition that I learned when I studied thermodynamics. “The entropy of the Universe must always increase”
A simple example should convince you. Let’s take a car. It gets it concentrated energy from gas. When you drive it the energy in the gas is dispersed via the 2nd Law to a drive train that makes the wheels spin. The energy is also dispersed to heat, noise, friction etc. Now imagine that you connect the drive train to a magical machine that creates gasoline. The gas out will always be less than the gas in because some of the chemical energy from the gas was lost to heat, noise, friction and cannot be recaptured. That energy that is lost to the environment is considered entropy because it cannot be recaptured for work.
If the car is a closed system, you will run out of gas, the entropy will be maximized and the gar will stop. To open the system, you simply add more gas. The chemical energy is dispersed and entropy is still maximized as you keep driving. The 2nd Law clearly still applies.
The Krebs cycle that your cells use for metabolism is another example of the 2nd Law at work in an open system.

Something that science cannot is explain is not supernatural. An event that violates the Laws of Physics is. That's kinda the definition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 09:55 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 10:12 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 09:34 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 09:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  First of all, the second law applies to closed systems only: how did you determine that the singularity is a closed system? I mean, leaving aside that you're talking about a point in time where the only thing that we know for sure is that it didn't behave anything like physics works now, let's just assume for the sake of the argument that the second law totally works the same there: how could you possibly have determined that the singularity is a closed system?

Secondly, "science cannot explain this" is not a justification for you to call it supernatural. That's an argument from ignorance: if we can't explain it, then why the hell are you positing a magic explanation?

You are flat out wrong. 2nd Law applies to ALL systems- The definition that I learned when I studied thermodynamics. “The entropy of the Universe must always increase”
A simple example should convince you. Let’s take a car. It gets it concentrated energy from gas. When you drive it the energy in the gas is dispersed via the 2nd Law to a drive train that makes the wheels spin. The energy is also dispersed to heat, noise, friction etc. Now imagine that you connect the drive train to a magical machine that creates gasoline. The gas out will always be less than the gas in because some of the chemical energy from the gas was lost to heat, noise, friction and cannot be recaptured. That energy that is lost to the environment is considered entropy because it cannot be recaptured for work.
If the car is a closed system, you will run out of gas, the entropy will be maximized and the gar will stop. To open the system, you simply add more gas. The chemical energy is dispersed and entropy is still maximized as you keep driving. The 2nd Law clearly still applies.
The Krebs cycle that your cells use for metabolism is another example of the 2nd Law at work in an open system.

Something that science cannot is explain is not supernatural. An event that violates the Laws of Physics is. That's kinda the definition.

Nope, it isn't. At all. (And that's not the definition of "supernatural").
Something that appears to violate the laws of Physics is not "supernatural". It's entirely "natural", simply unexplained at the moment.

"Spooky action at a distance" violates the laws of Physics, and is at present, unexplained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

No one has proposed that it is "supernatural" or has a supernatural explanation.
http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-s...tance.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 10:02 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 09:34 AM)u196533 Wrote:  You are flat out wrong. 2nd Law applies to ALL systems- The definition that I learned when I studied thermodynamics. “The entropy of the Universe must always increase”

It actually refers to isolated systems. Granted, you could say that the entire universe is an isolated system, and the entropy throughout will increase, but that is not the same as saying it applied to "all systems". The earth, of example, would not apply, because it get energy from an external source.

From the wiki article
Quote:The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
01-07-2016, 10:03 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 10:26 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(30-06-2016 09:09 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  First of all, the second law applies to closed systems only: ...

It doesn't even apply to closed systems, only isolated systems where neither matter nor energy can pass into, or out of the system.

"Processes in which the entropy of an isolated system would decrease do not occur, or, in every process taking place in an isolated system, the entropy of the system either increases or remains constant." (Sears, 1953)

(01-07-2016 09:34 AM)u196533 Wrote:  You are flat out wrong. 2nd Law applies to ALL systems- The definition that I learned when I studied thermodynamics.

Please tell us where you studied thermodynamics as a cautionary tale. I don't want my kids having the same basic elementary mistaken concepts as you.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: