Summations Only

Phat writes:

quote:

---

Can you (or anyone) explain to me what the 3Lot's are? Im not much of a science guy.

---

There are actually four, but most people only refer to the 1st through the 3rd.In short, the First Law of Thermodynamics basically says, "Everything's gotta go somewhere." In any thermodynamic reaction, all the energy has to be accounted for. Every single Joule you had at the beginning has to be allocated at the end.The Second Law of Thermodynamics basically says, "There is no perfect reaction." In any thermodynamic reaction, you cannot convert all of the energy into work. Some of that energy is bled off into the system. When I boil water, some of the energy is used to heat the pan, for example. You can increase efficiency, but there is no way to do it perfectly.As you may recall, I posted a Primer regarding the derivation of the Second Law from first principles. I've posted it a couple times but it has been so long and the board has had such changes that it isn't easy to find. The first reference I was able to track down is here: A Primer on ThermodynamicsThe Third Law of Thermodynamics has to do with absolute zero and defines what it is. But, it turns out there is no way to actually reach it. Any system you have exists in the universe which is filled with energy (even if at a very low state) and thus, it will bleed into your system.The pithy way of expressing the three laws are:You can't win: Energy cannot be created.
You can't break even: You always lose some energy.
You can't even quit the game: You can never get to zero.Now, the fourth law is often called the "Zeroth Law" because the first three are somewhat predicated upon an assumption that there is such a thing as a "thermodynamic reaction" in the first place. After all, it does no good to describe the laws by which energy must flow in reactions if energy never flows in the first place. The Zeroth Law has to do with equilibrium: If A is in equilibrium with B and B is in equilibrium with C, then A and C are also in equilibrium. It's what allows us to be able to take temperatures and be reliable about them. If I take a thermometer and set up a mark for the temperature it reads against one object, then any other object that gives the same reading is the same temperature because of the Zeroth Law.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

My position now has been updated to an unknown amount of non-infinite energy but all limited to that of the source, requiring work and rest by the source so as to manage the energy, compatible to 2LoT.

---

This violates the 1LOT, though. Energy cannot be created. There is no way for the source to "rest." If the source expends energy, the only way it can ever regain energy is for it to come from somewhere else.So what does god eat to regain his strength? And where does that get its energy?

quote:

---

If Jehovah's energy were infinite, there would be no need of rest.

---

Indeed, but all you've done is switch your violation. So take your pick: Do you want to violate the First or the Second?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

My position has consistently been that Jehovah, the source of energy dwells with his entourage of angelic beings within the Universe system, managing the system to suit his purpose, eternally.

---

But that violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.Ergo, to answer your original question, it is clear that the current model of cosmology is more in tune with thermodynamics than yours. This, of course, is not surprising since the current model of cosmology was developed in accordance with thermodynamics whereas yours was not.You don't really think the physicists who developed cosmology completely forgot all of their training in basic physics, do you? That they never bothered to look at the thermodynamic properties of the universe when developing a model of how it came to be as it is?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

My position has consistently been that Jehovah, the source of energy dwells with his entourage of angelic beings within the Universe system, managing the system to suit his purpose, eternally.

---

But that violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics

---

How so?

---

For all the reasons that have already been explained to you. You are proposing a perfect reaction which is impossible according to the Second Law. You are proposing that this deity can somehow regain energy "eternally" which is impossible according to the First Law.

quote:

---

If anything, it is more compatible with these laws than your singularity and BB theories

---

How? The current model of cosmology was developed with thermodynamics in mind. How could it possibly be in violation of it? I asked you this directly in the post to which you responded. It would be nice if you responded to it: Surely you're not suggesting that cosmologists forgot their basic training, are you? That they never bothered to look at the thermodynamics of cosmology?

quote:

---

in that the energy of the Universe has remained quantitatively constant infinitely, being managed by the intelligent source of it.

---

That's a direct violation of both the 1st and 2nd laws.

quote:

---

2LoT allows for work which slows/regulates the rate of equilibrium. No?

---

No. Go read the Primer again.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

It means that there is an intelligent agent within the system capable of managing the energy within the system.

---

Locally, finitely, yes. However, you are proposing a universal, eternal system which is a direct violation of thermodynamics.

quote:

---

We do not observe chaos and disorder emerging into order naturally.

---

Yes, we do. Go read the Primer again. Do you recall what "enthalpy" is? Have you forgotten how to calculate directions of reaction? You do recall that "entropy" has nothing whatsoever to do with "chaos" and "disorder," yes?Are you seriously claiming you've never seen a crystal form? It's a very simple experiment, easily doable in your own kitchen. You'll want to create what is called a "supersaturated solution." Take two cups of water and four cups of sugar. Heat the water to a boil. Slowly add the sugar, a cup at a time, stirring to completely dissolve each addition until it is all dissolved. Remove from heat and allow to cool. Do not agitate the syrup you've created.Take a string and weight it with a paperclip. Suspend it in the sugar solution. You can do this by tying it to a rod that extends over the pan. Cover.You'll see sugar crystals forming on the string. According to you, this "emerging order does not happen naturally." So are you saying god is the source of rock candy?

quote:

---

Order, life and complex systems observed within the Universe implicate an energetic intelligence within the system

---

Why? So far, all those things are directly observed to be the result of natural processes with no intelligence directing them. Where is your evidence?

quote:

---

capable of decreasing the entropy of the system via work.

---

Indeed, entropy can be decreased via work...but only at the expense of increasing entropy elsewhere. Your claim that this deity of yours can "rest" to replenish the energy, that is a violation of thermodynamics.

quote:

---

Intelligently managed energy within the system prevents a state of maximum entropy.

---

Direct violation of the 2nd law. There is no way to do that.

quote:

---

This does not necessarily violated the 2nd Law.

---

Yes, it does.

quote:

---

It is indicative of an intelligence within the system capable of managing the system's entropy.

---

Which is a direct violation of the 2nd law. Local, finite actions can do so, but they cannot be done universally or infinitely.

quote:

---

The alleged Singularity event

---

What is this "singularity event"? It's something you gleaned from a creationist site, right? It isn't what cosmologists talk about. Physics abhors a singularity. It's why modern cosmology doesn't deal with it. Why are you bringing up something that doesn't exist in physics?

quote:

---

having no space in which to have existed, no time in which to have happened and no area for the ensuing BB to expand into, on the other hand, violates the 1st and 2nd laws, in that entropy decreases from zero heat/energy to an intensely hot submicroscopic speck, effecting the ensuing alleged BB expansion, allegedly emerging, over the ages, chaos and disorder into all of the order, life and complex systems observed today, defying all logic.

---

Incorrect. Have you considered the possibility that the problem is not that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training and completely ignored the question of the thermodynamic implications of a thermodynamic reaction but rather that the problem is that you don't understand current cosmological descriptions of the expansion of the universe?I asked you this previously as a direct question. I would appreciate an answer:You don't seriously think that cosmologists completely forgot their basic physics and completely ignored the thermodynamic properties of cosmogenesis?

quote:

---

Though both ideologies have debatable aspects pertaining to the LoTs

---

Incorrect. Current cosmology was developed specifically to be in accordance with thermodynamics. After all, our understanding of thermo came first. You don't become a cosmologist until after you are trained heavily in thermo. In fact, a lot of cosmology (I dare say most) has to do with fluid dynamics and their thermodynamic properties. We wouldn't have our current models of cosmology without direct applications of thermodynamic theory.It's why we did the WMAP and PLANCK experiments: A singularity that exploded would have produced a purely uniform thermodynamic environment which could not have created the lumpy nature of the universe we currently see. But the WMAP and PLANCK observations of the universe show a decidedly lumpy thermodynamic environment which means that this fake "singularity" claim you have isn't true.It's because of thermodynamics that we have the current cosmological model that we have. Why are you pretending that there is some sort of violation of thermo in cosmology when it is summarily dependent upon it to happen?

quote:

---

Cavediver's Temporary Non-ID Universe is less compatible to the LoTs than Buzsaw's Genesis Infinite ID Universe.

---

That makes no sense. Cosmology is driven by thermodynamics whereas your claims are naught but direct violations of it. How does one conclude that a process that is in lock-step with thermo is less compatible than one that is in constant violation of it?Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists completely forgot their basic physics and never bothered to consider the thermodynamic implications of the largest thermodynamic reaction ever witnessed?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

What I propose is that all of the energy of the system relates to the system's intelligent manager of the energy.

---

Which is a violation of the Second Law. There is no way to "manage" it. That's the point.

quote:

---

All energy has infinitely existed in conjunction with that entity.

---

Which is a violation of the second law. In a closed system, an infinitely existing amount of energy would reach maximum entropy making absolutely none of it available to do any work.

quote:

---

There is an ebb and flow of the energy from the entity, flowing from the entity by design and ebbing from the system to the entity by design.

---

Which is a violation of either the First Law or the Second Law...you get to take your pick. Either you are generating energy out of nothing or you are saying that entropy gets to undo itself.

quote:

---

Thus the need for rest by the entity following creative work.

---

Which is a violation of the First Law. You are generating energy out of nothing.

quote:

---

What is unknown by either camp is how big the universe is.

---

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter how large the universe is. Whatever energy is there must obey the laws of thermodynamics and you are proposing violations of the First and Second Laws. You want energy to be created from nothing and for entropy to reverse itself.

quote:

---

Whether the absolute zero event is referred to as a singularity or whatever

---

Thus showing that you don't understand what "absolute zero" and "singularity" mean. They are not synonymous and have no connection to each other.

quote:

---

the current model of cosmology relative to thermodynamics is problematic regarding the origin of a temporal universe.

---

How can that be when the current model of cosmology is a gigantic exercise in thermodynamics? You still haven't answered the question I put to you, so let me ask for a fourth time:Surely you're not suggesting that cosmologists forgot their basic training, are you? That in investigating the largest thermodynamic reaction every witnessed, they never bothered to look at the thermodynamics of it?You have yet to give any actual reason why there is a thermodynamic problem in cosmology. You've just asserted it to be so. Can you be more specific?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

evidence of such an entity existing, capable of effecting the reduction of entropy, managing the system.

---

That would be a violation of the Second Law. Since we have never seen a violation of the Second Law, why would we investigate the existence of an entity that violates it?For the fifth time: Are you suggesting cosmologists forgot their basic training in physics? That in investigating the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to look into the thermodynamic implications?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Which is a violation of the Second Law. There is no way to "manage" it. That's the point.

---

​

Of course there isn't by the standards of conventional science. I'm not talking about that. My hypothesis is not based on your theory.

---

If your claim requires violation of the laws of thermodynamics, why do you care which one is more in accordance with them? Do you seriously not see it? This thread is about which claim is more in accordance with thermodynamics and now you come along and say that yours directly violates them. So if that's the case, why do you care?If you're going to invoke magic, just come right out and say it. Stop pretending that you are basing your claims in science.Fifth time: Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists have forgotten their basic training in physics? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they didn't bother to consider the thermodynamics of it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

The same applies to both camps.

---

Indeed.Where is your evidence that current cosmology violates thermodynamics?

quote:

---

The question remains, which is the most compatible.

---

Sixth time:Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Since you haven't answered my question yet, Buzsaw, I'm asking again.Seventh time:Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Since you haven't answered my question yet, Buzsaw, I'm asking again.Eighth time:Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training?

---

​

The basic training in our exclusively secularistic college level physics haven't forgotten.

---

What does that mean? Is that a no, they haven't? Could you please answer more directly?Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training?

quote:

---

Their problem is what they have been deprived of in that training relative to the probability of an operative intelligent designer in the Universe which would best explain the reversal of some aspects of positive entropy prevalent to 2LoT via work of the designiner/manager of the Universe.

---

What does this have to do with anything? The question put to you is whether or not they forgot basic physics and in the process of examining the biggest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they all forgot to consider the thermodynamics of it.Your post is about being "compatible" with the laws of thermodynamics. Great.What I am asking you is why would cosmologists who are studying a thermodynamic event come up with a theory for it that is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics? Did they forget their basic training? Did they simply not bother to look at the thermodynamic properties of a thermodynamic event?In short, why do you think current cosmological models are in any way out of "compatibility" with the laws of thermodynamics? The models were created by people trained in thermo. They are necessarily designed to be in accordance with thermo. In fact, many of the models were rejected precisely because there was a problem. Why do you think inflation was presented?So I guess I get to ask for a ninth time. Please try to answer directly:Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics?You are free to expound upon your answers, but I need a direct answer first. These are yes-or-no questions. Did they forget their basic training? Yes or no. Did they simply not bother to look into the thermodynamic properties of the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed? Yes or no.If the answer to those questions is no No, they didn't forget their training and no, they actually did look into the thermodynamic properties of the expansion of the universe then what is your basis for claiming that current cosmological models are "incompatible" with the laws of thermodynamics when they were developed in strict accordance with them?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

I'm still waiting for an answer, Buzsaw. Tenth time:Why would cosmologists who are studying a thermodynamic event come up with a theory for it that is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics? Did they forget their basic training? Did they simply not bother to look at the thermodynamic properties of a thermodynamic event?In short, why do you think current cosmological models are in any way out of "compatibility" with the laws of thermodynamics? The models were created by people trained in thermo. They are necessarily designed to be in accordance with thermo. In fact, many of the models were rejected precisely because there was a problem. Why do you think inflation was presented?Please try to answer directly:Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics?You are free to expound upon your answers, but I need a direct answer first. These are yes-or-no questions. Did they forget their basic training? Yes or no. Did they simply not bother to look into the thermodynamic properties of the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed? Yes or no.If the answer to those questions is no No, they didn't forget their training and no, they actually did look into the thermodynamic properties of the expansion of the universe then what is your basis for claiming that current cosmological models are "incompatible" with the laws of thermodynamics when they were developed in strict accordance with them?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

I'm still waiting for an answer, Buzsaw. Eleventh time:Why would cosmologists who are studying a thermodynamic event come up with a theory for it that is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics? Did they forget their basic training? Did they simply not bother to look at the thermodynamic properties of a thermodynamic event?In short, why do you think current cosmological models are in any way out of "compatibility" with the laws of thermodynamics? The models were created by people trained in thermo. They are necessarily designed to be in accordance with thermo. In fact, many of the models were rejected precisely because there was a problem. Why do you think inflation was presented?Please try to answer directly:Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics?You are free to expound upon your answers, but I need a direct answer first. These are yes-or-no questions. Did they forget their basic training? Yes or no. Did they simply not bother to look into the thermodynamic properties of the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed? Yes or no.If the answer to those questions is no No, they didn't forget their training and no, they actually did look into the thermodynamic properties of the expansion of the universe then what is your basis for claiming that current cosmological models are "incompatible" with the laws of thermodynamics when they were developed in strict accordance with them?

Bump. Message 135, Buzsaw, if you please.Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.