|
|
| Author |
Message |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
 Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| FFT wrote: | And it's absolutely retarded that I actually have to explain how the law of entropy works to someone trying to use it in an argument.
So congratulations. You're yet one more tick in my theory that creationists that invoke the laws of thermodynamics in their arguments have no idea how the laws of thermodynamics actually work. |
Finally... back online.. lets et back to Guth and your Zero sum Energy hypothesis and how it essentially negates 2LoTD.
Can you even explain how positive and negative energy make this possible? Before the board went down you kept appealing to the 'fact' that negative energy somehow negated 2LoTD.... as it was not violated.... because of Guth's proposition/supposition. Explain. With this explanation... I would like some specific citations other than an entire website or page... if you are going to cite wikipedia... fine... but tell me/us... how 2LoTD is overcome through Guth's hypothesis. I read the webpage and didn’t see it.
BTW... Guth does believe that everything came from nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5710
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Can you even explain how positive and negative energy make this possible? Before the board went down you kept appealing to the 'fact' that negative energy somehow negated 2LoTD.... as it was not violated.... because of Guth's proposition/supposition. Explain. |
Because in the math they cancel each other out. A - A = 0. The resulting net energy is zero, thus energy has not been created (and thus not violating the law).
The law isn't negated, it's simply bypassed.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | BTW... Guth does believe that everything came from nothing. |
If the net energy of "everything" is zero, this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Can you even explain how positive and negative energy make this possible? Before the board went down you kept appealing to the 'fact' that negative energy somehow negated 2LoTD.... as it was not violated.... because of Guth's proposition/supposition. Explain. |
Because in the math they cancel each other out. A - A = 0. The resulting net energy is zero, thus energy has not been created (and thus not violating the law).
The law isn't negated, it's simply bypassed. |
I didn't see a defintion of positive and negative energy... if neative energy cancels out positive energy, what is it?
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | BTW... Guth does believe that everything came from nothing. |
If the net energy of "everything" is zero, this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. |
No... but it most certainly violates the first... and the Law of Causality. Guth needs everything to come from nothing... as there is no other explanation... unless we defer to a 'Creator'... and Lord knows we can't be having that in Science... soemeone might get
'Sternberged' or something for even mentioning it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5710
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | I didn't see a defintion of positive and negative energy... if neative energy cancels out positive energy, what is it? |
Gravity, for instance. There was a definition of sorts in one of the links I've posted but they were in another thread.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | No... but it most certainly violates the first... |
Again, if the net energy is zero, the laws of thermodynamics are being bypassed.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | and the Law of Causality. |
What Law of Causality?
| Trinity1 wrote: | Guth needs everything to come from nothing... as there is no other explanation... unless we defer to a 'Creator'... and Lord knows we can't be having that in Science... soemeone might get
'Sternberged' or something for even mentioning it. |
Yes, Heaven forfend someone betray the peer review process and get used as a figurehead for a nonsense movement when they didn't really get punished in the first place (so they can't actually sue because then the facts would get brought up in an actual courtroom instead of the court of public opinion).
And exceedingly minute examples of exactly what I'm talking about (back to the positive/negative energy thing) happen all of the time without a cause. (Hint: there's no such thing as a "Law" of Causality) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | I didn't see a defintion of positive and negative energy... if neative energy cancels out positive energy, what is it? |
Gravity, for instance. There was a definition of sorts in one of the links I've posted but they were in another thread.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | No... but it most certainly violates the first... |
Again, if the net energy is zero, the laws of thermodynamics are being bypassed.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | and the Law of Causality. |
What Law of Causality?
| Trinity1 wrote: | Guth needs everything to come from nothing... as there is no other explanation... unless we defer to a 'Creator'... and Lord knows we can't be having that in Science... soemeone might get
'Sternberged' or something for even mentioning it. |
Yes, Heaven forfend someone betray the peer review process and get used as a figurehead for a nonsense movement when they didn't really get punished in the first place (so they can't actually sue because then the facts would get brought up in an actual courtroom instead of the court of public opinion).
And exceedingly minute examples of exactly what I'm talking about (back to the positive/negative energy thing) happen all of the time without a cause. (Hint: there's no such thing as a "Law" of Causality) |
Exactly what I thought... no explanation of what negativeenergy actually is (other than perhaps gravity ).
Also... if the Law of Causality is not a law... perhaps... maybe... you would like to offer or cite an example of its violation? This is pretty much akin to your instance that 2LoTD and 1LoTD can be violated without providing one example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5710
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Exactly what I thought... no explanation of what negativeenergy actually is (other than perhaps gravity ). |
So you don't know what you thought or something?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Also... if the Law of Causality is not a law... perhaps... maybe... you would like to offer or cite an example of its violation? |
That's not how it works. I don't have to give counterexamples to show that the supposed "Law of Causality" isn't a law--it's an argument from ignorance. "We haven't observed any acausal events (not true any more) therefore they don't happen." Hell, radioactive decay is to a certain extent acausal.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | This is pretty much akin to your instance that 2LoTD and 1LoTD can be violated without providing one example. |
Vacuum fluctuations are both acausal and appear to "violate" the laws of thermodynamics.
(edit)(fixed first quote) nobby |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Exactly what I thought... no explanation of what negativeenergy actually is (other than perhaps gravity ). |
So you don't know what you thought or something? |
No. I just want to know what you and Guth actually think negative energy is, how it relates to positive energy, and how this somehow accounts for the violation of 2LoTD. It really isn't much more complicated than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1533
Location: BC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very nice Ana. Appears to be another duck of sorts. I’m not going to waste an entire afternoon combing through those websites. If there is something pertinent in there… cite it. The closest thing I saw to an explanation was the board mentioning kinetic energy being canceled out by gravity. Still... that is not explanation of heat... which is what we are talking about. How does Guth's explanation negate 2LoTD as FFT insists?
Also... I'm still curious how Guth gets everything from nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1533
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very nice, Trinity. You asked what negative energy is, you got an answer (three perspectives really ought to be enough to help you grasp it), and now you won't even look at it (each is only a single medium-short page) - guess you didn't really want to know, eh?
I'd like to know why you think Guth's explanation (which you keep asking what is) somehow does violate it. Also, I'm confused: where did this talk of Guth come up? Before the boards went down, it looks like the last time anybody mentioned him here was in 2006...
Wasn't this thread supposed to be about your new favourite movie? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5710
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Still... that is not explanation of heat... which is what we are talking about. |
It is? How is it even relevant?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | How does Guth's explanation negate 2LoTD as FFT insists? |
The second law doesn't apply. What part of this aren't you getting?
How, in your estimation, is the second law of thermodynamics being violated by the spontaneous generation of equal parts positive and negative energy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Very nice, Trinity. You asked what negative energy is, you got an answer (three perspectives really ought to be enough to help you grasp it), and now you won't even look at it (each is only a single medium-short page) - guess you didn't really want to know, eh? |
I do. Really... but I don't have endless amounts of time to sit here and weed through pages and pages of websites when you or FFT can simply cut and paste the definition and then just use the website for a citation.
| Quote: | | I'd like to know why you think Guth's explanation (which you keep asking what is) somehow does violate it. |
Hint: Kinetic/Heat.
| Quote: | | Also, I'm confused: where did this talk of Guth come up? Before the boards went down, it looks like the last time anybody mentioned him here was in 2006... |
It was an exchange FFT and I had right before the boards went down a couple of weeks ago and the contents were lost when Admin brought the board back up... I questioned FFT on the veracity of Guth's theory as he postulates that everything came from nothing.
| Quote: | | Wasn't this thread supposed to be about your new favourite movie? |
 You know how things git 'round here...If you want to talk about the movie... that is fine with me. Last thing I remember was Bouncer stating that I was lying for Jesus by insisting that Sternberg got... um 'Sternberged' for allowing the publication of the Meyer article. Something do with ignoring facts... facts that he somehow missed and then accused my of lying about it.  I think he believes this is CT and BD where that is somehow permissible without being challenged on it. Who knows. Anyway, did you see the movie yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | How does Guth's explanation negate 2LoTD as FFT insists? |
The second law doesn't apply. What part of this aren't you getting?
How, in your estimation, is the second law of thermodynamics being violated by the spontaneous generation of equal parts positive and negative energy? |
FFT... Guth's theory deals with Kinetic energy.... not heat. 2LoTD deals with heat. Now, cite your definition Sir. I’d like to see what you are talking about… specifically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1533
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | Very nice, Trinity. You asked what negative energy is, you got an answer (three perspectives really ought to be enough to help you grasp it), and now you won't even look at it (each is only a single medium-short page) - guess you didn't really want to know, eh? |
I do. Really... but I don't have endless amounts of time to sit here and weed through pages and pages of websites when you or FFT can simply cut and paste the definition and then just use the website for a citation. |
It's not quite simple enough for a sound-byte answer. It is fairly simple, but you didn't go for FFT's answer, so I thought I'd give you some examples of the concept in use. I rather enjoyed reading the first one, so it's a shame you don't have time for it.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | I'd like to know why you think Guth's explanation (which you keep asking what is) somehow does violate it. |
Hint: Kinetic/Heat. |
Why can't these be countered by opposite energy? What's the problem?
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | Also, I'm confused: where did this talk of Guth come up? Before the boards went down, it looks like the last time anybody mentioned him here was in 2006... |
It was an exchange FFT and I had right before the boards went down a couple of weeks ago and the contents were lost when Admin brought the board back up... I questioned FFT on the veracity of Guth's theory as he postulates that everything came from nothing. |
Ahh, I wondered what had happened to a post or two I vaguely remembered making. That explains a lot.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | Wasn't this thread supposed to be about your new favourite movie? |
You know how things git 'round here...If you want to talk about the movie... that is fine with me. Last thing I remember was Bouncer stating that I was lying for Jesus by insisting that Sternberg got... um 'Sternberged' for allowing the publication of the Meyer article. Something do with ignoring facts... facts that he somehow missed and then accused my of lying about it. I think he believes this is CT and BD where that is somehow permissible without being challenged on it. Who knows. Anyway, did you see the movie yet? |
I'm not going to watch the movie in any way that would reward the ones who made it. About Sternberg - I read that he had an unpaid position that he had given notice of resignation for half a year prior to his, shall we say, gaffe. So, he left the job (if you can call it a job - it was certainly not his income source), not the other way 'round, and not even because of this little incident. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1533
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | How does Guth's explanation negate 2LoTD as FFT insists? |
The second law doesn't apply. What part of this aren't you getting?
How, in your estimation, is the second law of thermodynamics being violated by the spontaneous generation of equal parts positive and negative energy? |
FFT... Guth's theory deals with Kinetic energy.... not heat. 2LoTD deals with heat. |
I'm not a mind reader, but I think that this is why FFT said the law doesn't apply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
