|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Thermodynamics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jordo86 Inactive Member |
Far out thats interesting. Never thought about gravity being negative energy before. Do you know if they can test this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And about your second question, i would have thought there must have been more than zero right? Not necessarily. If all the energy here is counterposed by opposite energies there, then the universe has a net energy of zero, and so it doesn't violate the first law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5261 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
I don't think it is really "testable" in the usual sense. It is just a convention, that makes the maths work out nicely. That potential energy reduces as you move into a gravitional well is pretty clear. As you fall, you speed up (more kinetic energy) and also lose potential energy.
By convention, the zero for potential energy is when there is no detectable gravitational force, which means objects are far far apart. Using a value other than zero is a bit awkward, since kinetic energy increases without bound as you fall into a point source of gravity. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jordo86 Inactive Member |
Ahhh so both you and creationists have problems with the ultimate origins of the universe. By the way, do you guys have links to any continuing arguments you guys have with creationists on this site? Id be interested to see both views at once.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jordo86 Inactive Member |
So the end result is zero energy.
" If all the energy here is counterposed by opposite energies there" But how did the energy "here" come about? Or is that the part Sylas said scientists dont know about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But how did the energy "here" come about? Probably through the same quantum process that makes energy spring up out of the vacumn - pairs of opposing particles flit in and out of existence at every point in space, constantly. Each particle in the pair has non-zero energy; taken together they have net zero energy because they cancel out. You can pretty much have all the particles and energy you want so long as the sums cancel each other out in the end. Well, maybe that's an overstatement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jordo86 Inactive Member |
Does that mean energy is being created all over the place, but only if the net energy remains at 0?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Jordo86 writes:
Exactley, asking what created the universe is like asking what created God. The universe could possibly be something that has always been. The Big Bang simply a extension of what was; manifesting into what we now know as "our universe". We need not introduce causality to something that may be self existant . The "energy" may be a by product of existance itself. Perhaps when humans do find out what energy is we will know God. This is my own opinion btw.
I can't answer that
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jordo86 Inactive Member |
I was just wondering if evolutionists did in fact have an answer for the first step in the origins of the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I was just wondering if evolutionists did in fact have an answer for the first step in the origins of the universe. Evolution is a theory of biology; its developers and researchers are therefore biologists. The origin of the universe is a problem of cosmology. It's like you're asking a tax accountant for medical advice. Cosmic origins aren't an evolutionary field.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
As noted several times in this thread:
Where Did Big Bang Energy Come From? the answer is unknown. And as Crash says in the previous msg it is not an evolutionary question in any case. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-18-2005 11:08 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jordo86 Inactive Member |
I wasnt asking if evolution had an answer, i was asking if evolutionists did. I wondered if you guys, being evolutionists, had any "sure" theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jordo86 Inactive Member |
Yes i understand now. I guess noone has a sure provable answer. But then again if someone did claim to be able to prove their theory on the origin whatever they said would go against normal, operational science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Jordo86 writes: I was just wondering if evolutionists did in fact have an answer for the first step in the origins of the universe. Crash is correct that the Big Bang is an issue of cosmology, but to address your question, all I can say is that I think it's been answered. From a split second after the Big Bang the evidence we have gives us a pretty clear picture, but prior to that we have only ideas. The ideas are consistent with the evidence we have, but there is insufficient evidence to choose between them, and therefore we don't know if events before the Big Bang obeyed the first law of thermodynamics or not. The first law of thermodynamics is based upon our observations of the natural universe. We created this law because it describes the way the universe behaves when we make observations or conduct experiments, and when used to predict the future results of observations or experiments it has proven uniformly successful. Creationists argue that we haven't observed everything everywhere across all time, and that there could be exceptions to this law. Scientists would agree that this possibility exists, but we have no evidence for exceptions at this time, and so the law is tentatively accepted within the scientific community. But probably many would concede that the most likely possibility of a place and time with an exception to this law would be the time before that split second after the Big Bang. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jordo86 Inactive Member |
Why do you say
"Creationists argue that we haven't observed everything everywhere across all time, and that there could be exceptions to this law." And then talk about scientists (i assume evolution beleiving scientists) saying that this law could have had exceptions just before the big bang thus helping an atheistic worldview anyway? Im just saying it seems that you are painting creationists in a negative light (and if your not i apologise) and i dont think its necessary when either side of any debate do this. Im not attacking you, it just bothers me the way you talk about your rivals
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024