Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which More 3LoT Compatible, Cavediver's Temp.Non-ID Or Buzsaw's Infinite ID Universe
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 168 of 304 (642741)
12-01-2011 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Buzsaw
11-30-2011 1:10 PM


Re: BB Model?
Exactly! That's what happened to you and the other sheeple who've been dumbed down throughout all of your education since a kid. Once they dumbed you down, they indoctrinated you into believing their illogical, abstract and unobservable mystical magic math, like the illusionist magician who wows the audience masterfully.
That's why you can believe the once submicroscopic hot Universe naturally and progressively allegedly morphed itself into all of the wonders of complexity and order we now observe , defying the tennants of logic, reality, entropy, and the LoTs. The real junk science, it is.
That's why you dumbed down sheeple can believe that primordial chaotic live-less soup allegedly progressed bio-genetically into life, surviving it's alleged beginnings naturally into all of the wonderment of complex systems we observe, again defying all logic, reason and reality.
It's funny how these "dumbed down sheeple" think the same thing as the smartest scientists on the planet. It's almost as though disagreeing with you isn't the same as being dumb. Indeed, it's almost as though disagreeing with you is what smart, well-educated people do.
Incidentally, I have told you before --- the word is tenets, not tennants.
A tenet is an axiom, doctrine, or belief.
A tenant is someone who owns or leases a property.
And "tennant" is a word you've made up.
Perhaps before you lecture the rest of us on logic, or indeed on how stupid we are, you could learn the basic vocabulary of the subject about which you wish to bloviate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 11-30-2011 1:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 207 of 304 (644021)
12-14-2011 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Buzsaw
12-14-2011 7:35 AM


Re: Infinite energy again
The difference in my system and a perpetual motion machine would be that in any machine there is friction.
Your system includes the universe. There is friction in the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Buzsaw, posted 12-14-2011 7:35 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Larni, posted 12-14-2011 8:02 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 210 by Buzsaw, posted 12-14-2011 8:22 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 218 of 304 (644163)
12-15-2011 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Buzsaw
12-15-2011 6:00 PM


Re: Amazing Effects Of Increased Entropy
But the fact that we never see a magical decrease in net entropy surely is significant, just as the fact that we've never seen a winged pig is relevant to the question of whether there are pigs with wings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Buzsaw, posted 12-15-2011 6:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Buzsaw, posted 12-15-2011 7:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 223 of 304 (644191)
12-16-2011 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Buzsaw
12-15-2011 7:49 PM


Re: No Net Entropy Seen
The fact is that nobody has seen a net increase in entropy since the alleged singularity.
The fact is that no-one hasn't seen a net increase in entropy. This is all we ever see. This is why the second law of thermodynamics is considered a law of nature and not a science-fiction story about an alternative universe. Because we always see it happening.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Buzsaw, posted 12-15-2011 7:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 235 of 304 (644281)
12-16-2011 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Buzsaw
12-16-2011 7:07 PM


Re: Observed?
Mmm, Thanks, Jar. I'll add that to my list ...
Actually, I think you'll find that you've added something completely different to your list. You can tell that it's different by the way that it's not the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Buzsaw, posted 12-16-2011 7:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 242 of 304 (644436)
12-17-2011 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Buzsaw
12-17-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Entropy Observed?
What did it look like, from the time of the alleged singularity up until the present time? For how long have you actually observed a verified net increase in the entropy of the Universe?
The same amount of time we've observed an absence of flocks of winged pigs playing on flaming tubas.
Would an increase in complexity, order and design from chaotic soup billions of years ago to that which is observe be indicative of observing a net increase in entropy of the Universe?
Of course.
If so, how so?
Every time we see anything increasing in complexity, order, or design, it does so in a way that increases the net entropy of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Buzsaw, posted 12-17-2011 4:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Buzsaw, posted 12-18-2011 1:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 263 of 304 (644536)
12-18-2011 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Buzsaw
12-18-2011 1:33 PM


Re: Entropy Observed?
Please explain this and post a reliable link source which agrees.
This is a corollary of something known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you may have heard of it.
Link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Buzsaw, posted 12-18-2011 1:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 264 of 304 (644537)
12-18-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Buzsaw
12-18-2011 9:01 PM


Re: Entropy Observed?
As per the Online Free Dictionary definition of entropy, it is only a measurement of the amount of "thermal energy not available to do work" and the amount of "disorder or randomness" in the system.
It does not specify that the entropy of the system must always increase. That is an assumption based on Cavedivers/your conventional science uniformitarion expansion. theory which defies logic and violates these basic laws of science
theory. .
No, that is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If in the name of your "Infinite ID Universe" you wish to deny that this is the case, then your ideas are not "3LoT Compatible", what with them involving a denial of one of the three laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Buzsaw, posted 12-18-2011 9:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Buzsaw, posted 12-18-2011 11:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 269 of 304 (644545)
12-19-2011 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Buzsaw
12-18-2011 11:15 PM


Re: Entropy Observed?
According to the Clausius Statement, if the sole purpose of the process is to transfer heat to a higher temperature from a lower temperature, that would be impossible. That would be applicable if the process is spontaneous. In my system the transfer of heat is not spontaneous. It is intelligently designed by a working engineer.
The second law doesn't make exceptions for engineers. On the contrary. It says that such a system can't exist. Therefore, an engineer can't make one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Buzsaw, posted 12-18-2011 11:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 283 of 304 (644563)
12-19-2011 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Chuck77
12-19-2011 5:32 AM


What I meant was "for someone who apperantly" meaning as viewed by others as not knowing what he's talking about, not me. I may not know everything he means but why it takes atleast eight people in a non-science section to try to talk science to Buz about a theory that doesn't comply with the lots anyhow (I think) is what is perplexing.
Yeah ... if he's wrong, why are people disagreeing with him? It's a mystery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Chuck77, posted 12-19-2011 5:32 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Chuck77, posted 12-19-2011 6:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 288 of 304 (644576)
12-19-2011 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Chuck77
12-19-2011 6:28 AM


Yes, the multitudes pointing out that his theory, as he sees it, that overrides the lots due to a prime mover (Jehovah God) which is his right to theorize ...
(1) Sure, he's got the right to theorize it. He's got the right to theorize that he's a giant purple aardvark called Jeremy Q. Yetifondler. But not to do so without disagreement.
(2) What people are objecting to is not that he claims that this prime mover overrides the LoTs, but that he also claims that it is compatible with them. Clearly he can't have it both ways. Things that break the laws of nature aren't compatible with them.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Chuck77, posted 12-19-2011 6:28 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 296 of 304 (644692)
12-20-2011 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Buzsaw
12-20-2011 2:31 AM


Re: Concluding Statement
The three laws assume randomness in the system when they are applied. As I understand them, nothing in the laws state that randomness must apply.
These two sentences are mutually contradictory.
Though randomness is assumed, nothing that I am aware of in the three laws specifies what type or amount of energy must exist within the system, so long as the net energy of a system remains the same.
That would be the second law. When work is done, some of the energy must be converted to "lower" forms of energy such as heat.
The total energy of the Buzsaw system is intelligently engineered, the intelligent energetic entity of the system being the source of the system's energy, managing it. This unique engineering within the system allows for intelligent management of the entropy of the system. The entity, A is the intelligent energy source. B is the entity's surroundings. The intelligent energy source, A, has the ability to manage the total energy of the system, via work in B, the surrounding area. When work is done, entropy is increased.
A, the intelligent entity, has the ability to decrease the entropy of the system by engineering recovered energy from B, the surrounding area. This energy, perhaps may be radiated heat and light emanating from the surrounding area, i.e. cosmos of the system and perhaps from living things within the system. According to the Biblical record, the entity's surrounding area includes a throne room to bright and glorious to comprehend, etc.
The Genesis record states that after work was done by Jehovah, A, the energy source, he rested. This rest time is indicative af an example of entropy decrease in the system. A will always contain more energy than B, by design.
Look, the laws of thermodynamics don't allow an exception for the intelligent any more than the law of gravity has an exception for the good-looking.
OTOH, the conventional singularity & BB finite temporal Universe allegedly began with an alleged expansion of spacetime from T=0, i.e. the singularity. Space & time, energy, heat, expansion had a beginning from some unexplainable T=zero singularity
The spontaneous expansion ensued from that point of a chaotic unorganized submicroscopic bit to expand into all of the expanse, energy, matter, complexity and order observed presently.
That energy allegedly had a T=zero factor would render the conventional incompatible with 1LoT.
And yet actual physicists see no incompatibility. Perhaps you should think about why, in between contemplating the reason why you can't show us any actual working.
The emergence of chaos into order and complexity over the millinia as would be assumed relative conventional science ToE, etc, runs counter to what is observed in reality. It defies logic. It runs counter to the common definition of entropy which better defines what we observe in known history and the here and now.
Again, actual physicists think you're wrong. And indeed, you are obviously wrong. When I do a jigsaw, for example, the jigsaw goes from chaos to order, but that is not because I can do miracles, it's because the laws of thermodynamics don't say what you think they do. The formation of a crystal from a solute doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics. The self-assembly of the tobacco mosaic virus doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics. The development of a human from a zygote doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics. If they did, it wouldn't be considered a law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Buzsaw, posted 12-20-2011 2:31 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024