Is Hell for Real?
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
Dreamwalker said:
No, not like that! Animals should act like animals and humans should act like humans. Animals act perfectly on their level, in their limited body, just like plants and natural forces. Humans have a more advanced body and greater moral system.
But we should do like animals and plants, we should be what we are - humans! We still have an animal and vegetative side, we need food and we have emotions. But we should use them as humans do, we should eat like humans.
itopal:
By the way itopal, I appreciate a candid and frank discussion.
The connection is as follows. May I please paraphrase the following "spam" so you can skip over it as you wish. The bible simply states that you should be able to look at the universe and tell it was created by a creator and this should be odvious.
Romans Chapter 1: 20, 21, 22
Odviously we can both look at the same universe, and I can say "Wow what an incredible creation!", and you can say, "Wow, what an incredibly complex universe that just happens to be here!" We can probably both agree that it is beyond man's intellectual capacity to explain the origin of the universe -- you can have the bing bang theory, I can have the creation point of view.
With that said, we can diverge in the realm of physics.
First let me state the energy laws of physics (and I'm going on memory):
1) Energy is neither created or destroyed when we include mass considerations for nuclear eneregy.
2) Energy conversion processes are never 100% efficient.
3) Energy processes always result in a degradation of the quality of energy, that never allow you to return to the previous state without an addition of more energy.
If you violate any of these three proven laws, then you create a perpetual motion machine (PPM) and this by definition is physically impossible. There is no PPM, it violates the laws of physics.
Now the 3rd law as stated here is a "quality of energy" law. That is to say in any energy process, that you balance the energy equation according to the first law, you have energy "quality" losses according to the second law, and those losses are irreversible according to the third law.
Light is a high form of energy, and heat is the lowest form of energy. Given enough process time, all forms of energy would eventually go to heat. Hence Kelvin concluded that the universe is not infinitely old or there would be no light, and he further concluded that the universe had to be created, or the laws as he discovered them were false.
If the origin of the universe is an energy transformation process (and I think we can agree that it is), the big bang theory fits the category of a perpetual motion machine on the 3rd law. I just plain don't buy it, it turns everything I ever learned about energy availability, energy processes, and mechanics right on its head. I don't understand why some physicists buy it. I'll go so far as to say the big bang theory is just plain ridiculus, and it violates common sense as well as the laws of physics. I don't improve the quality of something by blowing it up. As a matter of fact, I can't break even on the third law. All energy processes are downhill. If they aren't then someone needs to rewrite every physics and thermodynamics text I ever studied.
By the way itopal, I appreciate a candid and frank discussion.
The connection is as follows. May I please paraphrase the following "spam" so you can skip over it as you wish. The bible simply states that you should be able to look at the universe and tell it was created by a creator and this should be odvious.
Romans Chapter 1: 20, 21, 22
Odviously we can both look at the same universe, and I can say "Wow what an incredible creation!", and you can say, "Wow, what an incredibly complex universe that just happens to be here!" We can probably both agree that it is beyond man's intellectual capacity to explain the origin of the universe -- you can have the bing bang theory, I can have the creation point of view.
With that said, we can diverge in the realm of physics.
First let me state the energy laws of physics (and I'm going on memory):
1) Energy is neither created or destroyed when we include mass considerations for nuclear eneregy.
2) Energy conversion processes are never 100% efficient.
3) Energy processes always result in a degradation of the quality of energy, that never allow you to return to the previous state without an addition of more energy.
If you violate any of these three proven laws, then you create a perpetual motion machine (PPM) and this by definition is physically impossible. There is no PPM, it violates the laws of physics.
Now the 3rd law as stated here is a "quality of energy" law. That is to say in any energy process, that you balance the energy equation according to the first law, you have energy "quality" losses according to the second law, and those losses are irreversible according to the third law.
Light is a high form of energy, and heat is the lowest form of energy. Given enough process time, all forms of energy would eventually go to heat. Hence Kelvin concluded that the universe is not infinitely old or there would be no light, and he further concluded that the universe had to be created, or the laws as he discovered them were false.
If the origin of the universe is an energy transformation process (and I think we can agree that it is), the big bang theory fits the category of a perpetual motion machine on the 3rd law. I just plain don't buy it, it turns everything I ever learned about energy availability, energy processes, and mechanics right on its head. I don't understand why some physicists buy it. I'll go so far as to say the big bang theory is just plain ridiculus, and it violates common sense as well as the laws of physics. I don't improve the quality of something by blowing it up. As a matter of fact, I can't break even on the third law. All energy processes are downhill. If they aren't then someone needs to rewrite every physics and thermodynamics text I ever studied.
Last edited:
Woody,
Why are ya resorting to name-calling? Is it because ya think yer argument is weak, and ye'r trying to cover that up by looking tough?
Ye'r being immature.
She . . . is . . . an . . . Atheist. Atheist!
Too bad ya don't seem to have studied her.
Is there something wrong with you?
Take yer own advice.
Yer point?
Do ya have proof that she joined "the harlot church"? Do ya even know which church she joined?
Oh, ya seem to think M*W was a Catholic. Is there proof? Perhaps something about that was posted, and I missed it.
If ya can't say something nice, then shut the fuck up.
How typical. "Oh, those laws don't apply to me". If ye'r gonna base yer life around a book, don't pick and choose, or twist the meaning to make it fit what ya think it should mean.
So, ya think that law doesn't apply to ya. I'll make a deal with ya: Prove it or shut it!
We love a good debate.
Seriously, though? Hmm . . . The reasons are different for everyone, so I can't say exactly why.
. . . Who let you in on our plan?!
In his dimension? Pavlos is in a dimension other than ours? How is that possible?
Gee . . . I wonder why.
Sad story. Tell yer sister that Athelwulf is sorry for her.
That or ignorant. And in a few cases, just stupid.
Wow, I highly doubt that.
And you ours.
Oh, since ye'r so perfect, there must be a God<Sub>i</Sub>
Halleluja<Sub>i</Sub>
Why do so many people think that they couldn't've possibly done this on their own?!
I prefer the older one. The one that was unfaithful, avoided church, broke the law, smoked, drank, did drugs, read porn, and lived an indecent, immoral life. At least that Woody didn't preach to us.
You are very uneducated in the ways of the Atheist. Yer link says that Satanism encourages one to indulge in the cardinal sins. We Atheists don't do that; we just don't believe any of that is particularly "sinful". However, most of us do think it's a good idea to not indulge in these "sins". Ye'r mixing us up with Satanists, who think that one really should indulge.
Though it seems to be true that Satanism doesn't worship any deity, it doesn't mean that Satanism and Atheism are the same thing.
Have ya gone to college yet? If ya haven't, please study a bit of theology. If ya have gone to college, well, study it by yerself. You could really use it.
Keep telling yerself there is while ya rot in the ground.
Sure, dude . . . Sure.
Trust me, we won't.
And stop using those pictures in such a lame and overt attempt at making yer argument stronger. It doesn't convince anyone of anything, it's distracting, and it takes up bandwidth. Maybe ya should study some rhetoric as well.
Bravo, Woody. This is a much better way to express yerself in SciForums. Keep this up, and ya will certainly be tolerable.
However, I have a comment to make for what I have made bold:
You actually do create straw men. Do ya know what "Straw Man" means? It means that ya assign characteristics for which ya have no proof to a person with whom ye'r arguing, in an attempt to make that person's opinions easier to attack. It's a fallacy in logic. Please improve on this.
Again, however, I wanna say that ye'r starting to express yerself properly. This is the Woody I like.
I see ya have good intentions, and I don't blame ya.
Rhetoric can help with that. I have a book to recomend. However, I need to look for the title of the book, then look it up on Amazon to see if ya would in fact benefit from it. So please be patient.
I can understand that.
To me, that's a problem. I think one should get to know through their intellect what they have so much faith in. Not to say the heart doesn't matter, but one shouldn't base their life on something before examining it with their intellect.
Examples including . . . ?
Actually, that's not the case. Please learn a bit about evolution.
And why must the Bible be that boundary? I believe the human race is perfectly capable of setting its own boundary. I have, to a large extent. However, some don't know how to even start, and look to whatever holy scripture they're familiar with.
Humanity just has to realize that they don't need religion to live their life. I don't blame you or anyone else that thinks religion is necessary; it's just an instinct.
We like you too.
Catholicism is just as valid a religion as yers. Though that doesn't say much.
I have a suggestion for ya, since ya seem to dislike Catholicism: Avoid a debate with Leo Volont, no matter how entertaining it will be for the rest of us.
Aww . . . Ye'r faultering in yer ability to post tolerable posts. But I suppose ya had a good run, eh?
One should realize that any one law of physics doesn't necessarily apply to the universe at the very moment of the Big Bang. After all, as the theory says, all laws were created at a distinct time after the Big Bang. I believe itopal brought this up already. Perhaps order could come out of chaos in the lawless environment that was.
Why are ya resorting to name-calling? Is it because ya think yer argument is weak, and ye'r trying to cover that up by looking tough?
Ye'r being immature.
She . . . is . . . an . . . Atheist. Atheist!
Too bad ya don't seem to have studied her.
Is there something wrong with you?
Take yer own advice.
Yer point?
Do ya have proof that she joined "the harlot church"? Do ya even know which church she joined?
Oh, ya seem to think M*W was a Catholic. Is there proof? Perhaps something about that was posted, and I missed it.
If ya can't say something nice, then shut the fuck up.
How typical. "Oh, those laws don't apply to me". If ye'r gonna base yer life around a book, don't pick and choose, or twist the meaning to make it fit what ya think it should mean.
So, ya think that law doesn't apply to ya. I'll make a deal with ya: Prove it or shut it!
We love a good debate.
Seriously, though? Hmm . . . The reasons are different for everyone, so I can't say exactly why.
. . . Who let you in on our plan?!In his dimension? Pavlos is in a dimension other than ours? How is that possible?
Gee . . . I wonder why.
Sad story. Tell yer sister that Athelwulf is sorry for her.
That or ignorant. And in a few cases, just stupid.
Wow, I highly doubt that.
And you ours.
Oh, since ye'r so perfect, there must be a God<Sub>i</Sub>
Halleluja<Sub>i</Sub>
Why do so many people think that they couldn't've possibly done this on their own?!
I prefer the older one. The one that was unfaithful, avoided church, broke the law, smoked, drank, did drugs, read porn, and lived an indecent, immoral life. At least that Woody didn't preach to us.
You are very uneducated in the ways of the Atheist. Yer link says that Satanism encourages one to indulge in the cardinal sins. We Atheists don't do that; we just don't believe any of that is particularly "sinful". However, most of us do think it's a good idea to not indulge in these "sins". Ye'r mixing us up with Satanists, who think that one really should indulge.
Though it seems to be true that Satanism doesn't worship any deity, it doesn't mean that Satanism and Atheism are the same thing.
Have ya gone to college yet? If ya haven't, please study a bit of theology. If ya have gone to college, well, study it by yerself. You could really use it.
Keep telling yerself there is while ya rot in the ground.
Sure, dude . . . Sure.
Trust me, we won't.
And stop using those pictures in such a lame and overt attempt at making yer argument stronger. It doesn't convince anyone of anything, it's distracting, and it takes up bandwidth. Maybe ya should study some rhetoric as well.
Bravo, Woody. This is a much better way to express yerself in SciForums. Keep this up, and ya will certainly be tolerable.
However, I have a comment to make for what I have made bold:
You actually do create straw men. Do ya know what "Straw Man" means? It means that ya assign characteristics for which ya have no proof to a person with whom ye'r arguing, in an attempt to make that person's opinions easier to attack. It's a fallacy in logic. Please improve on this.
Again, however, I wanna say that ye'r starting to express yerself properly. This is the Woody I like.
I see ya have good intentions, and I don't blame ya.
Rhetoric can help with that. I have a book to recomend. However, I need to look for the title of the book, then look it up on Amazon to see if ya would in fact benefit from it. So please be patient.
I can understand that.
To me, that's a problem. I think one should get to know through their intellect what they have so much faith in. Not to say the heart doesn't matter, but one shouldn't base their life on something before examining it with their intellect.
Examples including . . . ?
Actually, that's not the case. Please learn a bit about evolution.
And why must the Bible be that boundary? I believe the human race is perfectly capable of setting its own boundary. I have, to a large extent. However, some don't know how to even start, and look to whatever holy scripture they're familiar with.
Humanity just has to realize that they don't need religion to live their life. I don't blame you or anyone else that thinks religion is necessary; it's just an instinct.
We like you too.
Catholicism is just as valid a religion as yers. Though that doesn't say much.
I have a suggestion for ya, since ya seem to dislike Catholicism: Avoid a debate with Leo Volont, no matter how entertaining it will be for the rest of us.
Aww . . . Ye'r faultering in yer ability to post tolerable posts. But I suppose ya had a good run, eh?
One should realize that any one law of physics doesn't necessarily apply to the universe at the very moment of the Big Bang. After all, as the theory says, all laws were created at a distinct time after the Big Bang. I believe itopal brought this up already. Perhaps order could come out of chaos in the lawless environment that was.
Let's get to it shall we?
Which is exactly what you're doing right now, and yet don't seem to find problem with that. Let it be known that I am not the kind of guy to 'breeze' through anything. I read the text several times, make notice of all elements, text styles, and issues within the text, and then respond to each point/question/claim/opinion in turn.
I notice that you don't do this, which is your right, but instead ignore any points or questions I have raised, and then leave a host of new questions, which I then answer, while wondering if you'll ever have the honour of doing the same in return.
However, nobody is perfect. Would you like to keep having this chat pointing out each others flaws or perhaps just stick to the relevant issues?
Show me where I said that. Maybe it's just me, but I thought this thread was about the existence, or non-existence, of hell. How you have jumped from that to making claims about my beliefs concerning the entire universe is beyond me. Sorry, what was it you were saying about breezing through peoples posts?
An apology for making accusations at the wrong person would be very much appreciated.
I am glad you ask because yes, I have.
The mess was terrible. All around me was debris, and remains of the items my house once contained. You see, there was a gas leak - and my house eventually went 'bye-bye'. To my eyes, and the eyes of the neighbours, firemen and policemen, there was no "order" to the leftovers of my house.
While sifting through the rubble, I noticed a small woodlouse had curled itself up in a ball and gone to sleep under a brick. A spider was happily making itself a web in one corner of ruin that was adequately dark and sheltered from the wind. A bird came down, and because my house had churned up a lot of the surrounding ground, he found it extremely easy to find his dinner.
Should I continue?
I sincerely hope you can grasp the point I am making here.
If you missed it, let me try and explain it simply: Order always comes from chaos, (and big explosions), just not always in the way that you perceive order to be.
Yes it does. Perhaps not to your eyes, but to something elses.
Is there some kind of debate you're trying to make with this statement? Do you honestly think a few years of high school and an extra couple at a college filled with dope smoking hippies who dress funny and wear earrings means you actually know anything about anything? You don't need to answer this.
This does not change the fact that a big explosion could in turn leave the surrounding area more hospitable to life. Perhaps not yours or mine, but insects and small mammals certainly. There need not be a godly hand behind the fact that a piece of rubble landed in such a place and position that it became the perfect hideaway for a beetle. Now think of this in larger terms, and try to understand exactly what I'm trying to tell you. If at any point it becomes difficult, just let me know.
I'm sorry, was there a point you were trying to make with this?
As I am a nice guy, I'm not going to just shout obscenities at you. Instead what I will do is give you the opportunity to scroll back through these pages and show me exactly where I stated in any way whatsoever that I believe in the big bang theory.
If you can't manage that, I expect an apology.
Well I would get off my 'pseudoscience pedestal', but alas I don't seem to be standing on one. Let's get this straight my ignorant little friend, not once have I mentioned that I believe in the 'big bang theory'. Either you have got me confused with someone else, or you're just changing the topic matter because you couldn't debate against the hell issue. Which is it?
I am obviously already aware that the latter is true. You seemed to view it as a game of hide and seek, swapping forum accounts faster than a whippet with a bum full of dynamite, and yet it doesn't give you valid call to start blaming me for things that I have never sat down and said.
An apology would be nice.
Whatever for? I thought this thread was about the existence or non-existence of hell.
Btw, thank you for calling me smart, but I'm afraid I can not return that comment.
I'm sorry, what? How about we keep it on the "is hell for real?" level?
[edit] As a final note, this is the second time now that you have resorted to simple make believe in order to make accusations and claims about me. The first time was mentioned in my last post, that you happily ignored, (including the questions I had asked).
Kindly see that it doesn't happen again.
Which is exactly what you're doing right now, and yet don't seem to find problem with that. Let it be known that I am not the kind of guy to 'breeze' through anything. I read the text several times, make notice of all elements, text styles, and issues within the text, and then respond to each point/question/claim/opinion in turn.
I notice that you don't do this, which is your right, but instead ignore any points or questions I have raised, and then leave a host of new questions, which I then answer, while wondering if you'll ever have the honour of doing the same in return.
However, nobody is perfect. Would you like to keep having this chat pointing out each others flaws or perhaps just stick to the relevant issues?
Show me where I said that. Maybe it's just me, but I thought this thread was about the existence, or non-existence, of hell. How you have jumped from that to making claims about my beliefs concerning the entire universe is beyond me. Sorry, what was it you were saying about breezing through peoples posts?
An apology for making accusations at the wrong person would be very much appreciated.
I am glad you ask because yes, I have.
The mess was terrible. All around me was debris, and remains of the items my house once contained. You see, there was a gas leak - and my house eventually went 'bye-bye'. To my eyes, and the eyes of the neighbours, firemen and policemen, there was no "order" to the leftovers of my house.
While sifting through the rubble, I noticed a small woodlouse had curled itself up in a ball and gone to sleep under a brick. A spider was happily making itself a web in one corner of ruin that was adequately dark and sheltered from the wind. A bird came down, and because my house had churned up a lot of the surrounding ground, he found it extremely easy to find his dinner.
Should I continue?
I sincerely hope you can grasp the point I am making here.
If you missed it, let me try and explain it simply: Order always comes from chaos, (and big explosions), just not always in the way that you perceive order to be.
Yes it does. Perhaps not to your eyes, but to something elses.
Is there some kind of debate you're trying to make with this statement? Do you honestly think a few years of high school and an extra couple at a college filled with dope smoking hippies who dress funny and wear earrings means you actually know anything about anything? You don't need to answer this.
This does not change the fact that a big explosion could in turn leave the surrounding area more hospitable to life. Perhaps not yours or mine, but insects and small mammals certainly. There need not be a godly hand behind the fact that a piece of rubble landed in such a place and position that it became the perfect hideaway for a beetle. Now think of this in larger terms, and try to understand exactly what I'm trying to tell you. If at any point it becomes difficult, just let me know.
I'm sorry, was there a point you were trying to make with this?
As I am a nice guy, I'm not going to just shout obscenities at you. Instead what I will do is give you the opportunity to scroll back through these pages and show me exactly where I stated in any way whatsoever that I believe in the big bang theory.
If you can't manage that, I expect an apology.
Well I would get off my 'pseudoscience pedestal', but alas I don't seem to be standing on one. Let's get this straight my ignorant little friend, not once have I mentioned that I believe in the 'big bang theory'. Either you have got me confused with someone else, or you're just changing the topic matter because you couldn't debate against the hell issue. Which is it?
I am obviously already aware that the latter is true. You seemed to view it as a game of hide and seek, swapping forum accounts faster than a whippet with a bum full of dynamite, and yet it doesn't give you valid call to start blaming me for things that I have never sat down and said.
An apology would be nice.
Whatever for? I thought this thread was about the existence or non-existence of hell.
Btw, thank you for calling me smart, but I'm afraid I can not return that comment.
I'm sorry, what? How about we keep it on the "is hell for real?" level?
[edit] As a final note, this is the second time now that you have resorted to simple make believe in order to make accusations and claims about me. The first time was mentioned in my last post, that you happily ignored, (including the questions I had asked).
Kindly see that it doesn't happen again.
Last edited:
Snakeloard,
Let's try this again, because I'm not sure about what you beleive, whether there is a creator or not, and how the cosmos originated. Belittlement doesn't answer the question. I apologize for my attack on you, and I will try to keep us on track. If you want me to start a new thread somewhere -- fine I will.
Simply stated, do you believe in the eternal existence of matter or the eternal existance of a creator?
If one believes in the eternal existance of matter, then the universe is a perpetual motion machine PPM by the evidence that we see. It defies the laws of entropy. How many times has the universe gone through a big bang? an infinite number of times? Either it is a PPM, or the big bang was not an energy process. If it wasn't a big bang that started things on this iteration of the universe, what was it that started things, a creator, a force, what?
A simple example of how entropy works: I drop a ball in a vacuum , it bounces off the floor, and it does not return to it's original height because no known material has a coefficient of restitution that is equal to 100%. There is always an energy loss in the form of heat. It is impossible to find a ball that restores itself 100% because it would be a PPM, and the laws of physics say this is physically impossible.
Just what is it you believe concerning the cosmos?
Lay out your position in a straight forward logical fashion, rather than a verbal attack. Please focus on the questions asked in this note, without tangential issues. I'd really like to hear a good, reasonable explanation about the origin of the universe. Thanks
Let's try this again, because I'm not sure about what you beleive, whether there is a creator or not, and how the cosmos originated. Belittlement doesn't answer the question. I apologize for my attack on you, and I will try to keep us on track. If you want me to start a new thread somewhere -- fine I will.
Simply stated, do you believe in the eternal existence of matter or the eternal existance of a creator?
If one believes in the eternal existance of matter, then the universe is a perpetual motion machine PPM by the evidence that we see. It defies the laws of entropy. How many times has the universe gone through a big bang? an infinite number of times? Either it is a PPM, or the big bang was not an energy process. If it wasn't a big bang that started things on this iteration of the universe, what was it that started things, a creator, a force, what?
A simple example of how entropy works: I drop a ball in a vacuum , it bounces off the floor, and it does not return to it's original height because no known material has a coefficient of restitution that is equal to 100%. There is always an energy loss in the form of heat. It is impossible to find a ball that restores itself 100% because it would be a PPM, and the laws of physics say this is physically impossible.
Just what is it you believe concerning the cosmos?
Lay out your position in a straight forward logical fashion, rather than a verbal attack. Please focus on the questions asked in this note, without tangential issues. I'd really like to hear a good, reasonable explanation about the origin of the universe. Thanks
Last edited:
let me hav a go....the patriarchal pagans (in the West, the Orphics), separate the 'cosmos' from earth whereas Earth religions never did so
the orignal insigfht is that energy and consciousness is a dynamic multidimensional web...metaphorically like warp and woof which pervades all
the ancient Taoists call it Tao, but it has other names too used by other Indigenous peoples
you ARe it, so you cannot be 'outside' it to OBJECTIFY it as though it is an object
the orignal insigfht is that energy and consciousness is a dynamic multidimensional web...metaphorically like warp and woof which pervades all
the ancient Taoists call it Tao, but it has other names too used by other Indigenous peoples
you ARe it, so you cannot be 'outside' it to OBJECTIFY it as though it is an object
Lemming,
Geez give me a break. A perfect vacuum can be created here on earth with a piston and cylinder.
You are correct about PMM. PPM is parts per million, a freudian slip on part since I use it a lot more. Thank you for the correction.
Audible,
If this poor fellow wants a bible there are many free ones available on the internet. Get a grip.
Duendy,
I asked for a physics answer.
Geez give me a break. A perfect vacuum can be created here on earth with a piston and cylinder.
You are correct about PMM. PPM is parts per million, a freudian slip on part since I use it a lot more. Thank you for the correction.
Audible,
If this poor fellow wants a bible there are many free ones available on the internet. Get a grip.
Duendy,
I asked for a physics answer.
Last edited:
Whether you can create it or not(which i could debate but its irrelavant so i wont) you still can not drop a ball in it and watch it bounce as there is no gravity(or any other force) in a true vacuum, there would be no forces acting on the ball to make it move in any direction, you seemed to have forgotten that.
As for the other correction your welcome.
This is fascinating, since the Big Bang theory is the one that almost allows for a Creator. Prior to the acceptance of the evidence for a Big Bang, the theory was that the Universe had always existed - the Steady State theory.Woody said:
You've frequently made analogies about the Big Bang which imply that you think of it in human terms as an explosion, as a destructive force. It was not in fact an explosion in the conventional destructive sense, but a sudden vast expansion of a dimensionless point that contained all the mass, all the substance of the Universe. It was not hanging around for a time in empty space, suddenly exploding and filling up the empty space with the debris - there was no empty space, and there was no time prior to the event.
Your interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics are misapplied. A closed system left to itself will surely decrease in temperature and originally "ordered" molecules will break down to "disorder". But if there wasn't such a thing as local increases in order there wouldn't be a Universe for us to debate the matter. When the Universe is new all the matter in it contains potential energy which is expressed in a number of ways, but primarily the one that has the greatest visible effect on the Universe we see is the force of gravity. Gravity causes clumps of matter (in the form of gases, mainly hydrogen) to come together. More mass means more gravity and ultimately you have a star-sizes ball of gas. The pressure and temperature at the centre is so great that the hydrogen atoms begin to fuse, releasing huge quantities of energy in the form of light and other electromagnetic radiation. As stars get older they form heavier elements within their cores, and then when insufficient heat is available to keep the star expanded, it collapses and explodes - this throws the heavier elements (iron, silicon, carbon, oxygen, etc) out into the Universe where the next generation of stars can form from the debris, this time with solid planets.
Everything that happens on the Earth, as it circles the mighty Sun then is no more a violation of the laws of thermodynamics than your ability to heat up a test tube in a bunsen burner and cause chemical reactions. The total energy dispersal and disorder is increasing, but locally within the test tube, or on the Earth, some increase in order is possible.
In any case, your misapprehension about the Big Bang has led you to miss how the entire creation of the Universe that we see is in fact merely the working out of the 3rd Law as you have described it. The proto-Universe being some kind of ultra-tiny entity containing all the mass and energy of our current Universe, and consequently being at some humungous temperature, consists of the ultimate in order: zero dimension, high mass, no chaotic arrangement of particles, just a single perfect object. It expands and cools (this is the Big Bang) and the disorder of the entire system increases, just as you have said. But the "Universe" that we see as a high order - mountains, seas, a spherical earth as the test tube containing the greatest chemical reaction in the known Universe - life - is merely the tiniest tiniest part of the Whole, and consequently is only a small increase in order (still destined ultimately to disorder and absolute zero) against the background of the enormous decrease caused by the radiation in all directions of the Sun.
Hey Woods, it may have escaped yer notice, but you are in the religiou forum, not the physics one...so you are liable to get answers such as mineWoody said:
however...since you mention it. what i cannot understand is how what with the revolution in physics...the weirdness of it all. how it is there still seems to be this need for wholly 'mechanical' interpretaions.......as if no imagination ...no poetry and metaphor is allowed in
i mean imagine will ya. i am posting in the physics section and give a religious post out. whatdoya think would happen?
yet you com over here throwing yer weight about........hahaha
me said:
audible said:
so as I understand it you dont wish to be the good true christian and help me, I suggest you go and read your scriptures and see your pastor, as you are not a christian person.woody said:
does it not say in the good book, new testament,
luke 6,30: Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. and in
matthew 5,42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
and also
luke 6,35: But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
so I tell you sir you are a bad bad christian, and a hypocrite.
Well, not quite the apology I was expecting, but it shall suffice.
Wouldn't know, wasn't there.
That's rich.
Apology accepted. Now could you possibly spell my name right?
While it's nice of you to actually be asking me what I believe as opposed to just telling me, I'm not really in a position to answer it - no matter how simply you state it. You know, I probably have more degrees than you have pairs of socks, and yet I can't say much more than 'I don't know'. Now think of a time where there was little to no education and little understanding about the planet, let alone anything beyond it. Do you honestly think Moses would know? Or Gilgamesh? Or Muhammed? These people didn't even know the basics of things we regard as incredibly simplistic, and yet the religious masses are more than willing to just latch onto the opinions of ancient people they've never met, never spoken to, and will never know. That is ridiculously naive.
What is even more disgustingly naive than that is thinking they're in the position to pick and choose. While they trust the opinions of one man they'll never know, (let's say Moses), they will happily and instantly dismiss the opinions of another, (say muhammed).
It could be likened to trusting an ants opinion on how to build a spaceship.
It's all 'take' with you isn't it? You know, not once have you answered a single question I have asked you throughout this entire thread, and yet for some reason you just keep piling more and more on me as if it is a requirement of my being here.
Sometimes even religious people need to give a little.
You really do not have a clue, do you? You dare to come in here and think you have the right to spout this garbage at me when it is you who is guilty of all of the above? I am positively sickened by your lack of grace, by your cowardly attitude, and your overly apparent lack of any sign of intelligence whatsoever. What you have done here is little more than a circus performance: swapping forum accounts, ignoring all questions, making unsupported claims and accusations at people you know nothing about and so on without so much as blinking.
I have seen 5 year olds with a greater amount of maturity and self respect. I would urge you to learn something from them.
However, I still do not believe in not answering questions, so here it comes:
I wouldn't know, I wasn't there. Perhaps you should ask someone that was.. namely.. uhh.. nobody.
Yorda said:
Ah, I see, thanks for clarification on that point. It makes more sense now.
Woody said:If one believes in the eternal existance of matter, then the universe is a perpetual motion machine PPM by the evidence that we see. It defies the laws of entropy. How many times has the universe gone through a big bang? an infinite number of times? Either it is a PPM, or the big bang was not an energy process. If it wasn't a big bang that started things on this iteration of the universe, what was it that started things, a creator, a force, what?
A simple example of how entropy works: I drop a ball in a vacuum , it bounces off the floor, and it does not return to it's original height because no known material has a coefficient of restitution that is equal to 100%. There is always an energy loss in the form of heat. It is impossible to find a ball that restores itself 100% because it would be a PPM, and the laws of physics say this is physically impossible.
Just what is it you believe concerning the cosmos?
Lay out your position in a straight forward logical fashion, rather than a verbal attack. Please focus on the questions asked in this note, without tangential issues. I'd really like to hear a good, reasonable explanation about the origin of the universe. Thanks
There's something ya don't seem to get.
The Big Bang Theory says that all laws of physics were created after the explosion of the singularity. This means that there was a period of time, no matter how short, when there were no laws of physics. The singularity was not subject to the modern laws of physics, because those laws did not exist!
Try learning some things about the Big Bang before ya argue against it, please.
....and 'no laws of physics' = Chaos which births order AND disorder
but this doesn't mean that 'chaos' is at A 'beginning' and now is ONLY so-called 'laws of physics' which are not 'set' anyhow, and not understood (for example, in a provate email to me, the physicist Nick Herbert claimed that phsycisists don't UNDERSTAND quantum menchanics, the kjust know it seems to work!) and flexible, and evolutionry. Rather Chaos is inherent Is reality. It is psychologically
experienced when one is in a state of ecstatic abandon, or NON-rationality
At the moment, mainstream science which is meanchistically-bias rather goes by a mechanical model of Big bang and then....and then....and then......type thing. YEAH, but that is only a PARt of the story
i admot that Chaos Theory is known about, but i dont think there has been a radical connection with what it means for actual experiential experience regarding our understanding of Nature and universe. it is still all being 'objectively'-analyzed
but this doesn't mean that 'chaos' is at A 'beginning' and now is ONLY so-called 'laws of physics' which are not 'set' anyhow, and not understood (for example, in a provate email to me, the physicist Nick Herbert claimed that phsycisists don't UNDERSTAND quantum menchanics, the kjust know it seems to work!) and flexible, and evolutionry. Rather Chaos is inherent Is reality. It is psychologically
experienced when one is in a state of ecstatic abandon, or NON-rationality
At the moment, mainstream science which is meanchistically-bias rather goes by a mechanical model of Big bang and then....and then....and then......type thing. YEAH, but that is only a PARt of the story
i admot that Chaos Theory is known about, but i dont think there has been a radical connection with what it means for actual experiential experience regarding our understanding of Nature and universe. it is still all being 'objectively'-analyzed
Athelwuf said
We agree that the laws of physics were created. Hooray! You have no argument from me.
Snakelord said:
"I wasn't there."
I think there are two voices in Snakelord, one says he's a scientist and therefore can not believe in a creator -- "I'll believe in anything but God." And yet there is a small voice in Snakelord that says "Maybe there is a God, but not the one you believe in." I am sorry I offended you Snakelord, my verbal manners can cause heat. My skin is thick in that regard.
itopal said,
Matter and antimatter both exist, but in my mind antimatter is nothing more than an atomic nucleus with a negative charge. If it collides with a "normal" positive nucleus it does not cause the combined matter to become zero. It only neutralizes the charge value from what I understand of it and it can cause some changes in energy state-- ie a proton becomes a neutron. We did not study that theory in detail in my nuclear engineering professional training because it did not have a practical application.
I understand "mass defect" which is the difference between newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics in the nuclear world, and it really is no defect at all. It makes perfect sense when you understand that mass and energy can be converted to one another, and Kelvin's laws were modified for this relativistic aspect, i.e. energy is conserved but mass is not in the relativistic mechanics world.
Lemming 3k
The earth, moon, and sun are in a vacuum and they attract each other by gravity. A vacuum is the absense of matter, and hince it weighs nothing. A vacuum has nothing to do with the force of gravity. You are however, correct on not being able to create a perfect vacuum, because it violates the 3rd law. Even when you remove all molecules of a gas there is still a very minute amount of pressure caused by photons, this can only be overcome by absolute zero temperature, which is impossible to achieve according to Kelvin's 3rd law, I stand corrected on that count.
My example of a bouncing ball still holds true (I made it up), based on what I know about energy theory. The coefficient of restitution can not be one because of heat losses at the molecular level when an object bounces. This means it will not bounce back to its original position or it would be a PMM, which is impossible. So even if you could create a perfect vacuum (against 3rd law), the ball will not bounce back 100%-- 3rd law reigns again.
Deundy said,
Deundy, this is because the bible I believe in says you can not refute that the universe was created by God. By the laws of physics and the observed physical evidence there is only one rational conclusion -- the universe as a whole is winding down and a metaphysical event is needed to recharge the batteries -- I believe the metaphysical event was God in the beginning.
Silas said,
There are allowances for localized "good outcomes" i.e., upward bounces at the localized level, but the overall trend of the universe is a downward trend in "energy quality" which means there is less and less energy available to do work. A good example is the earth's own energy resources which are being depleted.
This is a steady state process, not an energy transformation process, because the earth is not changing energy states as a result of rotating around the sun. There are, however tidal effects from the sun and moon's gravity which are slowing down the rotation of the earth about its own axis.
As I said before, Kelvin's laws are bulletproof. Every physicist agrees. Kelvin's energy laws are also true when relativistic (Einstein) mechanics are applied. I will debate Kelvin's laws until the day I die, because I am a scientist, and I have no other rational choice but to accept a metaphysical event for the existence of the universe. Kelvin came to the same conclusion. He and I agree there is a creator God by rational scientific reasoning.
As they say in geometry: Q.E.D.
We agree that the laws of physics were created. Hooray! You have no argument from me.
Snakelord said:
"I wasn't there."
I think there are two voices in Snakelord, one says he's a scientist and therefore can not believe in a creator -- "I'll believe in anything but God." And yet there is a small voice in Snakelord that says "Maybe there is a God, but not the one you believe in." I am sorry I offended you Snakelord, my verbal manners can cause heat. My skin is thick in that regard.
itopal said,
Matter and antimatter both exist, but in my mind antimatter is nothing more than an atomic nucleus with a negative charge. If it collides with a "normal" positive nucleus it does not cause the combined matter to become zero. It only neutralizes the charge value from what I understand of it and it can cause some changes in energy state-- ie a proton becomes a neutron. We did not study that theory in detail in my nuclear engineering professional training because it did not have a practical application.
I understand "mass defect" which is the difference between newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics in the nuclear world, and it really is no defect at all. It makes perfect sense when you understand that mass and energy can be converted to one another, and Kelvin's laws were modified for this relativistic aspect, i.e. energy is conserved but mass is not in the relativistic mechanics world.
Lemming 3k
The earth, moon, and sun are in a vacuum and they attract each other by gravity. A vacuum is the absense of matter, and hince it weighs nothing. A vacuum has nothing to do with the force of gravity. You are however, correct on not being able to create a perfect vacuum, because it violates the 3rd law. Even when you remove all molecules of a gas there is still a very minute amount of pressure caused by photons, this can only be overcome by absolute zero temperature, which is impossible to achieve according to Kelvin's 3rd law, I stand corrected on that count.
My example of a bouncing ball still holds true (I made it up), based on what I know about energy theory. The coefficient of restitution can not be one because of heat losses at the molecular level when an object bounces. This means it will not bounce back to its original position or it would be a PMM, which is impossible. So even if you could create a perfect vacuum (against 3rd law), the ball will not bounce back 100%-- 3rd law reigns again.
Deundy said,
Deundy, this is because the bible I believe in says you can not refute that the universe was created by God. By the laws of physics and the observed physical evidence there is only one rational conclusion -- the universe as a whole is winding down and a metaphysical event is needed to recharge the batteries -- I believe the metaphysical event was God in the beginning.
Silas said,
There are allowances for localized "good outcomes" i.e., upward bounces at the localized level, but the overall trend of the universe is a downward trend in "energy quality" which means there is less and less energy available to do work. A good example is the earth's own energy resources which are being depleted.
This is a steady state process, not an energy transformation process, because the earth is not changing energy states as a result of rotating around the sun. There are, however tidal effects from the sun and moon's gravity which are slowing down the rotation of the earth about its own axis.
As I said before, Kelvin's laws are bulletproof. Every physicist agrees. Kelvin's energy laws are also true when relativistic (Einstein) mechanics are applied. I will debate Kelvin's laws until the day I die, because I am a scientist, and I have no other rational choice but to accept a metaphysical event for the existence of the universe. Kelvin came to the same conclusion. He and I agree there is a creator God by rational scientific reasoning.
As they say in geometry: Q.E.D.
Last edited: