Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thermodynamics
Jordo86
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 159 (186410)
02-17-2005 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Loudmouth
02-17-2005 9:28 PM


Far out thats interesting. Never thought about gravity being negative energy before. Do you know if they can test this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Loudmouth, posted 02-17-2005 9:28 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Sylas, posted 02-17-2005 9:36 PM Jordo86 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 159 (186411)
02-17-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Jordo86
02-17-2005 9:21 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Jordo86, posted 02-17-2005 9:21 PM Jordo86 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Jordo86, posted 02-18-2005 1:26 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5261 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 123 of 159 (186412)
02-17-2005 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Jordo86
02-17-2005 9:31 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Jordo86, posted 02-17-2005 9:31 PM Jordo86 has not replied

  
Jordo86
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 159 (186413)
02-17-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Sylas
02-17-2005 9:30 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Sylas, posted 02-17-2005 9:30 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Jordo86
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 159 (186438)
02-18-2005 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
02-17-2005 9:33 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2005 9:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 02-18-2005 1:34 AM Jordo86 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 126 of 159 (186440)
02-18-2005 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Jordo86
02-18-2005 1:26 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Jordo86, posted 02-18-2005 1:26 AM Jordo86 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Jordo86, posted 02-18-2005 1:37 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jordo86
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 159 (186441)
02-18-2005 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by crashfrog
02-18-2005 1:34 AM


Does that mean energy is being created all over the place, but only if the net energy remains at 0?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 02-18-2005 1:34 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 128 of 159 (186504)
02-18-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Jordo86
02-17-2005 9:12 PM


Jordo86 writes:
I can't answer that
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Jordo86, posted 02-17-2005 9:12 PM Jordo86 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Jordo86, posted 02-18-2005 10:55 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Jordo86
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 159 (186505)
02-18-2005 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by 1.61803
02-18-2005 10:51 AM


I was just wondering if evolutionists did in fact have an answer for the first step in the origins of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by 1.61803, posted 02-18-2005 10:51 AM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 02-18-2005 10:58 AM Jordo86 has replied
 Message 131 by NosyNed, posted 02-18-2005 11:07 AM Jordo86 has replied
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 02-18-2005 11:23 AM Jordo86 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 130 of 159 (186507)
02-18-2005 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Jordo86
02-18-2005 10:55 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Jordo86, posted 02-18-2005 10:55 AM Jordo86 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Jordo86, posted 02-18-2005 11:07 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 131 of 159 (186512)
02-18-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Jordo86
02-18-2005 10:55 AM


Origin of the universe
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Jordo86, posted 02-18-2005 10:55 AM Jordo86 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Jordo86, posted 02-18-2005 11:12 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Jordo86
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 159 (186514)
02-18-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
02-18-2005 10:58 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 02-18-2005 10:58 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Loudmouth, posted 02-18-2005 11:41 AM Jordo86 has replied

  
Jordo86
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 159 (186517)
02-18-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by NosyNed
02-18-2005 11:07 AM


Re: Origin of the universe
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by NosyNed, posted 02-18-2005 11:07 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 134 of 159 (186522)
02-18-2005 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Jordo86
02-18-2005 10:55 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Jordo86, posted 02-18-2005 10:55 AM Jordo86 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Jordo86, posted 02-18-2005 11:38 AM Percy has replied

  
Jordo86
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 159 (186527)
02-18-2005 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Percy
02-18-2005 11:23 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 02-18-2005 11:23 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 02-18-2005 12:49 PM Jordo86 has replied
 Message 141 by JonF, posted 02-18-2005 1:09 PM Jordo86 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