There is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics if the universe is not a closed system. If the universe came from something else (if, for instance, it started as a region of spacetime pinching off from a black hole in another spacetime, as proposed by Smolin 1997) then there still would be no conflict with the first law of thermodynamics, because on such a scenario the universe was not always a closed system, and would have inherited its initial energy from whatever it came from.
With that scope of view, the whole universe may not be a closed system. But for short-sighted geologist, the earth IS a closed system.
But for short-sighted geologist, the earth IS a closed system.
What "short-sighted" geologist are you referring to?
I don't know of any geologist who claims the "earth is a closed system."
Should know, known plenty in my time (BS, Geological Engineering, 82, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology).
Obviously the Earth is not a "closed" system. In addition to the solar power of the sun as Coragyps pointed out, you have nuclear decay, hence nuclear power, and, because of gravity itself, you have geothermal power.
I don't know what you are referring to when you say "short-sighted geologist" but is obviously does not refer to anyone with a bachelor's in any earth-related science at NMT as Physics 121 is a requirement for graduation.
Experiences at other colleges may vary, perhaps you are referring to graduates of Liberty "university."
The problem with knowing everything is learning nothing.
If you don't know what you're doing, find someone who does, and do what they do.
Yes, of course you have no response except to clutch your pearls and complain about the attack of the vapors my words caused you. Typical hypocritical creationist.
Did you at least finally learn something about logic? Or did you ignore that lesson in order to maintain your ignorance? Willfully maintaining ignorance is a clear example of idiocy. Therefore, the label of "ignorant idiot" does apply to you.
There is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics if the universe is not a closed system.
Are you saying the Standard Theory is wrong?
I will use your word "if". If the universe began as a small pin point and expanded in every direction from that pin point the universe would be circular with no thing outside.
If the universe came from something else (if, for instance, it started as a region of spacetime pinching off from a black hole in another spacetime, as proposed by Smolin 1997) then there still would be no conflict with the first law of thermodynamics,
If you have a hypothesis about how this black hole could exist and about another spacetime, I would love to hear it.
because on such a scenario the universe was not always a closed system, and would have inherited its initial energy from whatever it came from.
Do you know of such a hypothesis?
and would have inherited its initial energy from whatever it came from.
And where whatever that was got its initial energy from????
The first law says you can not create or destroy energy. You can change its form and every time you do part of that energy becomes unusable. That is the second law.
According to those laws the only way the universe can exist is that a very powerful, all knowing, endless source of power, is in control.
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
I beg your pardon? How much water has the Earth gained in the last 100,000,000 years?
Good question. It could be a thesis for a master degree geology student.
That means, it is a workable problem. We can model the annual budget of water on the earth and find it out. The earth has way passed its peak dewatering stage. But the new (cognate) water is still continuously coming up to the surface through volcanic activity.
The key problem is: we may not see all the water generated just by measuring how much water shows up. A lot of water are generated in the mantle but temporary stay and accumulated in there.
quote:Water on Earth is omnipresent and essential for life as we know it, and yet scientists remain a bit baffled about where all of this water came from: Was it present when the planet formed, or did the planet form dry and only later get its water from impacts with water-rich objects such as comets?
A new study in the journal Science suggests that the Earth likely got a lot of its precious water from the original materials that built the planet, instead of having water arrive later from afar.
The researchers who did this study went looking for signs of water in a rare kind of meteorite. Only about 2% of the meteorites found on Earth are so-called enstatite chondrite meteorites. Their chemical makeup suggests they're close to the kind of primordial stuff that glommed together and produced our planet 4.5 billion years ago.
quote:Despite these convincing results, she says, there's still plenty of watery mysteries to plumb. For example, researchers are still trying to determine exactly how much water is locked deep inside the Earth, but it's surely substantial several oceans' worth.
"There is more water down beneath our feet," Peslier says, "than there is that you see at the surface."
Yes, I think it’s pretty clear that for all his pretensions of expertise Juvenissum really didn’t understand what he was talking about.
What I think he misunderstood is this. Granite is formed when magma slowly cools. If that magma is hydrated, the water is released. That’s the reaction he was describing. If the magma is not hydrated granite can still form, but you won’t get an6 water out of it.