The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2016, 10:21 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 09:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 09:17 AM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

OK "lost" is not the perfect word. The energy converted to heat, friction, noise cannot be recaptured and transmitted to the drive train to be used for work. That "unusable" energy is defined as entropy.

This is a very simple explanation. You define it as a non sequitur because you cannot refute it. You clearly do not understand Thermodynamics and should not be posting until you do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 10:28 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 10:03 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(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 mistaken concepts as you.

I studied at University of Illinois, and have advanced degrees in engineering. I will believe my professors with doctorates in Engineering who teach Thermodynamics over someone who clearly gets their science from the internet. I presented a very simple explanation that a high school kid would understand. If you can't understand that you are too ignorant to have this discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 10:28 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
...........

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
01-07-2016, 10:29 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 10:28 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  ...........

Another Patriot U grad. Weeping

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2016, 10:31 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 10:28 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:03 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  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)


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

I studied at University of Illinois, and have advanced degrees in engineering. I will believe my professors with doctorates in Engineering who teach Thermodynamics over someone who clearly gets their science from the internet. I presented a very simple explanation that a high school kid would understand. If you can't understand that you are too ignorant to have this discussion.

Oh really.
And your professors of engineering teach about the "supernatural".
I see.
Facepalm

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2016, 10:33 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 10:21 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 09:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  What you are referring to is inference, not deduction.


No, there are not.


That is not accurate. Nothing is lost.


Yes, it can. It just requires more energy.


Non sequitur. You have not provided a cogent argument.

OK "lost" is not the perfect word. The energy converted to heat, friction, noise cannot be recaptured and transmitted to the drive train to be used for work. That "unusable" energy is defined as entropy.

This is a very simple explanation. You define it as a non sequitur because you cannot refute it. You clearly do not understand Thermodynamics and should not be posting until you do.

You are trying to apply a physical law to a singularity where all known physical laws break down.

Maybe you should stop posting until you have a better grasp of physics.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
01-07-2016, 10:38 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 10:54 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 10:28 AM)u196533 Wrote:  I studied at University of Illinois, and have advanced degrees in engineering. I will believe my professors with doctorates in Engineering who teach Thermodynamics over someone who clearly gets their science from the internet.

Welp, the Johns Hopkins University might differ with your opinion (although they do continue to educate me via the Internet at very low cost, God bless 'em.). I am not questioning your instructors' credentials (was a visiting researcher in the cornfields of UIUC for a couple of years), but I am questioning your ability to understand and appreciate what they tried to teach you.

Do you understand and appreciate the difference between an open system, a closed system, and an isolated system? Have you even heard of them?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
01-07-2016, 10:48 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. 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.

" That is why evolution is still being debated. There are valid scientific reasons to deny evolution, so it is not unequivocal."

Evolution is still being studied and researched in order to be better understood. It is not still being debated as to whether or not it is true or whether or not it accurately describes the diversity of life on Earth. There are no valid scientific reasons I have ever seen to deny evolution as a scientific fact. There are numerous religious reasons to reject it, but religious reasons for rejecting any science does not mean that the validity of the science is still being debated by scientists.

"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."

*Clearly* not since all matter/energy of the universe was concentrated at a single point.



*(whenever someone says "clearly" they never mean it is actually clear but that they assume their observations and explanations and beliefs should be accepted without question because it is "clear" to the claimant)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
01-07-2016, 11:06 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 10:38 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:28 AM)u196533 Wrote:  I studied at University of Illinois, and have advanced degrees in engineering. I will believe my professors with doctorates in Engineering who teach Thermodynamics over someone who clearly gets their science from the internet.

Welp, the Johns Hopkins University might differ with your opinion (although they do continue to educate me via the Internet at very low cost, God bless 'em.). I am not questioning your instructors' credentials (was a visiting researcher in the cornfields of UIUC for a couple of years), but I am questioning your ability to understand and appreciate what they tried to teach you.

Do you understand and appreciate the difference between an open system, a closed system, and an isolated system? Have you even heard of them?

Yes. Of course. The 2nd Law is about energy dispersion and how that energy is sometimes converted to forms of energy that cannot be recaptured for work. That process occurs in ALL systems. I have provided an example using a car. Please read it and actually think about it. Also consider the Krebs cycle. That is another example of the 2nd Law in an open system. I'm not going to continue to argue with someone who never studied Thermo. There is nothing to argue. It's cut and dried.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 11:08 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 10:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:21 AM)u196533 Wrote:  OK "lost" is not the perfect word. The energy converted to heat, friction, noise cannot be recaptured and transmitted to the drive train to be used for work. That "unusable" energy is defined as entropy.

This is a very simple explanation. You define it as a non sequitur because you cannot refute it. You clearly do not understand Thermodynamics and should not be posting until you do.

You are trying to apply a physical law to a singularity where all known physical laws break down.

Maybe you should stop posting until you have a better grasp of physics.

The concentration of energy must have occurred prior to the singularity. It caused it. Think about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: