Observations of Great Debate - ID and thermodynamics

1. Doesn't my post 95 address this? Would you care to respond to that?2. Isn't the energy which is gravitationally compressed into a black hole recycled energy? If so, by the same token, why couldn't energetic ID recycle energy?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

buzsaw The first Law of Thermodynamics is simply a conservation Law concerning energy,or rather mass-energy.The sum total of the mass-energy before and after an event remains the same.The universe started out at tremendous heat{but a fixed energy} >10*33 kelvin.The energy density however does change over time and was larger then than now.The requirement by law for work to be done in our universe is that there must be a temperature differential between two or more bodies.The eventual demise of the universe occurs in a state known as the "heat death" wherein the temperature is uniform throughout the universe and as such no work can be peformed.There is still the same amount of energy but now there is no means by which it can transfer to perform work. No that is not correct.We do not today know what energy itself is it is only the name we give to that which remains the same after events occur between 2 or more bodies.When space time began energy could simply be a measurement of that expansion and not necessarily the cause of it.The thermodynamic laws simply deal with the transfer of energy through heat-work cycles as a result of the interaction of bodies in the universe as the universe gradually cools.

I think what the other people were trying to show is how thermodynamics work in the real universe as compared to your model universe. That was what I was trying to do. I would like to know, buz, what you think the differences is between the real universe and you ID universe? Are you thinking that somehow because there is heat being formed it has something to do with star formation. That it is the heat that is forming the star? It almost looks like disorder is being turned into order. Order increases as the matter gets closer together, but disorder is also increasing because heat is increasing. In other words you know more about the individual atoms positions, but less about their velocities. Basically as the atoms of gas and dust get closer together, uncertainty of the position of the atoms decreases faster than the growth of the uncertainty of the momentum of the atoms. "As the gas ball collapses, it loses energy: the kinetic energy goes up, but the potential energy goes down even faster! Since the kinetic energy goes up, the gas gets hot. Energy goes down, temperature goes up!" (1) Because of the conservation of energy the energy lost from the system equals exactly the amount of energy gained by radiation in the universe (2). These gravitationally bound systems have a negative specific heat and will shrink until they become black holes. I think you should drop the idea of recycling altogether. I know that the 1st law of thermodynamics makes it seem like there is recycling because energy cannot be created or destroyed, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics means that energy will go to useless energy. Higher energy to lower energy. Order to disorder. Heat is useless energy. Eventually the capacity to do work in a closed system decreases as the differences between heat of two system reaches equilibrium. This is not recycling, equilibrium is when the universe goes dead.I don't think anyone has mentioned the Zeroth law of thermodynamics because most people think of it as common sense. The 0th law precedes the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd laws and basically states that "two systems are said to be in thermal equilibrium when 1) both of the systems are in a state of equilibrium, and 2) they remain so when they are brought into contact, where 'contact' is meant to imply the possibility of exchanging heat" (3). Equilibrium is "the state of a body or physical system at rest" (4).As you stated buz, Black holes don't explode. They may increase in size, but this is because more matter or energy is put into the black hole and passes through the event horizon. This would be taking matter and energy away from stars because a black hole as something called the event horizon, which is the part of the black hole where the gravitational force is greater than the speed of light. So something cannot escape after it enters the event horizon. If no matter is inputed into the black hole though, as Stephen Hawking has shown, small particles are radiated from the black hole, and still the law of conservation is observed. These particles come from matter in the black hole. As it was explained to me, for example, an anti proton and proton could be formed from matter or energy right at the event horizon of the black hole. One particle is on the escape side of the event horizon while the other is not. Eventually over a long time (something like 1*10^65 years) the black hole would disintegrate.To say black holes form stars is silly. Some of the energy released may go to form a star, but this energy is released so slowly that so many black holes would be needed for the star to be formed that the black holes would actually suck in the star. Stars must be primarily formed another way, and they are as I explained in my third paragraph. Yes, a problem does arise, notably the thermodynamic paradox that I mentioned earlier. As I stated in this post (and other people have stated in their posts), warm systems exchange heat with cooler systems until they are at equilibrium (the same temperature is reached). If the universe was infinitely old then the probability that the universe has already reached equilibrium is infinite. In other words, "if the universe was infinitely old there must have been enough time for the stars to cool and warm their surroundings. Everywhere should therefore be at the same (cool) temperature and there should be no stars" (5). If the universe was infinite, if the laws of thermodynamics were true, the probability that I or anyone else would be alive is negligible.This message has been edited by Kevin, 01-04-2005 18:26 AMThis message has been edited by Kevin, 01-04-2005 18:28 AM

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

buzsaw quote: Kevin response: It states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Right? I see what destruction of energy would be conservation related, but how is the creation of energy so related? If energy cannot be created and if the universe consists of everything, including all existing space, how can you say the universe, i.e, energy and space had a beginning/started out? How can you be so sure the universe will die when elements from dying stars and galaxies eventually recycle into new stars and galaxies due to gravitational compression of particles, et al?If there was an alleged big bang, all the energy which exists today existed before the big bang within the space of the universe and within whatever allegedly exploded into areas of the universe's space from it. But according to law 1, we do know that no energy has ever been [i]created.[/b] Right?According to law 1 energy has always existed, implying that the universe has always existed. My hypothesis says that it has eternally existed. It appears that my hypothesis is more thermodynamically scientific than your alleged theory. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-04-2005 20:14 AM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This position goes without saying. Nothing infinite can ever increase or decrease. Infinity, be it monkeys, pennies, penguins or plain numbers, is boundless. No matter how many monkeys I kill within an infinite set of monkeys, I still have infinite monkeys (damn, dirty apes!).So when you say;

quote:

---

My system is clearly closed, in that there's no place for another system to exist with a boundless space system. There can only be one system with boundless space.

---

You're really saying infinite energy exists within an infinite space. What about the mass of this infinite space? With infinite energy should one conclude infinite mass?Of course, if one does conclude infinite mass then one has to have infinite density as well. Does your system also have infinite density?thanx
PM1K

The first law of thermodynamics is the application of conservation of energy to heat-work cycles.The law of conservation of mass energy states that the sum total of mass-energy in the universe does not change,however,in the process of doing work in the universe there must be a temperature differential in order for work to be done.When the temperature of the universe dilutes to the point where there is no differential energy transfer through heat cannot occur and no work can be done.The amount of mass energy in the universe still remains the same it is just unavailable to do work.In the same way an infinite amount of energy in an infinite universe would mean that there is an equal amount of heat throughout each point of space and therefore there would be no temperature differential between any 2 bodies and therefore no work could be accomplished.Inifinite energy /infinite space = 1 unit of energy for every 1 unit of space means we could not have machinery of any kind and would automatically be in the "heat death" right off the hop. No the conservation law speaks about the energy we observe not how it came to be.As I previously mentioned there is a problem that occurs when we state that there is no beginning to the universe since if time never had a beginning then how can we come to measure the passage of something that never started in the first place. This is because the universe is expanding so the distance between particles to be attracted under the force of gravity eventually {a huge amount of time}reaches a point where the avereage distance between particles is equal and thus the gravitational attraction between one paritcle is the same as another and they cancel one anothers attraction,a sort of gravitational stasis. No.We cannot say that the energy of the universe was there before the big bang. We do not know.This starts to get into the quantum realm and the uncertainty princple as applies to energy and time.

Now there's a well thought out and challenging question, PM!
The question of whether God's infinite energy has infinite density within his being or whether it is an infinite amount of recycled energy within the system and/or recycled within the omnipotent supreme being would be an unknown. Figuring that out would be paramount to analyzing God. As in the evolutionist system, there are also unknowns in the ID system.Regardless, three givens remain.1. The td laws do not specify how much energy that can exist within a system.
2. In a boundless space system, there would be no other existing system from which energy can come since there would be no space for it to exist in. The boundless space system, by definition, has all space that could possibly exist.
3. In boundless space, there would be no limit of space for mass and energy to be introduced into. That would be at the disgression of the ID (intelligent designer), the omnipotent god, Jehovah.Conclusion: I suppose the possibility of infinite density is no more complex than the first law of thermodynamics, which implies that it all had to have eternally existed, since energy cannot be created. It all had to have existed in one form or another, to satisfy td law 1.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Sidelined, I posted before reading yours. I need to hit hay, but will get to you when I can. Thanks.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

"Within his being" is a confusing statement to me. This statement makes it sound like God is system unto himself and possibly takes up a finite space. Infinite energy, like infinite monkeys, would have to occupy an infinite space.Also, I'm unclear about your term "recycled energy." Within any infinite set there would be no such thing as recycling. There would be no purpose since infinity cannot ever increase or decrease. Does recycling not imply a finite set? Doesn't the possibility of infinite density create a huge problem for your closed system? If every point within a system, infinite or not, has the same density then the whole system is uniform. In the case of an infinite density/space system, the result is infinitely homogeneous. If your purposed system needs to reflect our observed universe then how do you resolve this needed homogeneous state with a universe that appears to very heterogeneous?thanx
PM1K edited to make a sentence a little clearerThis message has been edited by portmaster1000, 01-05-2005 13:33 AM

Are you sure about this? It seems that 2x is twice as large, in magnitude, as x regardless of the value of x.

But he didn't say he had x amount...he said he an an infinite amount. Or are you trying to tell me that 2 X infinity is greater than infinity?

It would seem so, yes.2x/x = 2Make x as big as you like. 2x/x will never equal 1. Apparently all infinities are not created equal.

Only if x is a finite number will that hold true.If x = infinity then x - 1 = infinity or x + 1 = infinity, true?
No finite number equals itself when something is added or subtracted from it. Infinity voliates this rule. Here's a more detailed answer:http://www.math.toronto.edu/...net/answers/infnotnumber.htmlAs we don't have infinite monkeys to do any field testing on , the nature of infinity is often conceptual.thanx
PM1K

So you seem to be saying that infinity does not exist. If it doesn't, then what is the point in saying that one infinity cannot be greater than another? Non-existent things can have all sorts of illogical properties.If infinity is considered as a limit (as in calculus), then it seems one infinity can be greater than another.

Care to define infinity for me?