Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
My statement to which you are responding says mine has evidence lending credence to it.
Incorrect. So far, all your claims violate not only known physics (second law, thermal equilibrium, etc.) but is also internally inconsistent (it contradicts itself). Therefore, there is no evidence lending credence to it.
quote:
There can be supportive evidence to unfalsifiable hypotheses. Right?
Wrong. That's the very point of being "unfalsifiable." If any and all outcomes are consistent with your claim, then there is actually no evidence in support. Something that explains everything actually explains nothing. In order for there to evidence in support, there has to be the conceivable possibility that there is evidence against. If your scenario is consistent with all possible outcomes, then none of those outcomes actually support your claim because they are necessarily independent.
As an example, take the cosmic background radiation. Since god can do anything, then the existence of the cosmic background radiation doesn't actually tell us anything about the existence of god. There is nothing about god that necessarily requires background radiation. The fact that we have it is not evidence in support of god because the opposite result, the absence of background radiation, is just as compatible. Thus, god creating the universe is independent of the cosmic background radiation.
quote:
Your evidence is based on a definition of space far different than mine; yours having properties which are questionable as to whether they are spacial properties or whether they are properties pertaining to things/forces occupying space.
Correct that we are defining space different, incorrect that the properties I am using are "questionable." The reason I am including them is because we have directly tested and measured them.
quote:
How many times have I stated the work/manage factor relative to my hypothesis being effected by the intelligent omnipotent designer which you persistently refuse to acknowledge?
Irrelevant. The problem is not the mentioning of it. The problem is the violation of the second law that your claim requires. Heat to work, work to heat, what does the second law tell us?
Again, here's the hint: What would happen if we hooked up your engine to a refrigerator? I wrote about this very specific example when discussing how one can derive the second law from scratch. It is a common example and is used in all three of my physics textbooks, which is why I also used it. You say that god expends work. That's fine. You say that god takes up energy back. That is fine, too.
You seem to think that this cycle can continue indefinitely, especially since you claim that universe is eternal. But this is a direct violation of the second law. Heat to work, work to heat, what does the second law tells about this?
quote:
I've explained how this does not contradict 2LoT.
Incorrect. You've simply declared it not to with no explanation as to how or why. I have asked you directly to explain what would happen if you hook up an engine to a refrigerator. There is a reason for this. It would be nice if you would actually respond to questions directly asked of you.
quote:
Where have I effectively been refuted on this thus far in this thread?
Pretty much in every response I have made to you in this thread:
Message 7:
Rrhain writes:
This would mean that the universe should already be at thermal equilibrium. That's what "eternal" means. All thermodynamic processes achieve equilibrium within a finite amount of time. If the universe is "eternal," then it has existed for an infinite amount of time and no thermodynamic reactions would be possible.
...
Rrhain writes:
This is a direct violation of the Second Law. Can you think why? Without looking anything up, can you think why? Here, let me help you refresh your memory:
Suppose I have an engine running a refrigerator. What would that mean?
I then directly asked you to show the math to justify your assertion. So far, you haven't.
Message 15:
Rrhain writes:
Because there's nothing to stop it. You really don't understand the math and physics involved, do you? You're thinking linearly and anybody who has done any real work in physics would know that the universe is not linear. You have to stop thinking of "anywhere" and "anywhen." The universe does not function that way.
...
Rrhain writes:
No energy was required. Again, you don't understand the physics and math, do you? The inflation of the universe, the expansion that is still happening (and no, those two things are not the same thing), they do not require energy but are consequences of the physical structure of the universe itself.
I then directly asked you to let us know your background in physics since you are making fundamental errors. So far, you have blown me off. So I ask yet again:
Have you ever had any formal training in physics? I mean real physics that you need calculus to figure out where you did the experiment of suspending a pendulum from the ceiling so you could directly calculate G (the constant of universal gravitation), where you recreated the Millikin experiment to directly measure the charge on an electron, where you measured the spectral lines of hydrogen, that sort of physics.
Again, that's high school level stuff. How much physics do you know?
Cosmology, on the other hand, is well beyond high school. Have you ever done any work in quatum physics? Calculated the wave-form of an electron? Run the two-slit experiment? When was the last time you had to deal with the calculations involved in a twisted tensor?
I asked you this in my message, but apparently you decided to blow it off, too:
What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton?
The reason I ask these questions is because the questions you are asking show a severe ignorance of how physics works. This isn't something you can "common sense" your way through because the universe does not work the way you think it works.
Message 16:
Rrhain writes:
All thermodynamic processes reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time. It is impossible to construct a system that maintains its energy indefinitely.
If the universe is "eternal" as you say, then it should be inert as all processes would have reached equilibrium.
...
Rrhain writes:
Have you ever studied physics? While work can decrease entropy, it can only do so when there is a concommitant increase in entropy somewhere else.
The second law of thermodynamics states that for a closed system, the change in entropy must always be non-negative. But since a great deal of reactions do not take place in a closed system, what do we do?
For any reaction, there is the system in which the reaction takes place and the surroundings of the system. Thus:
delta-S
total = delta-S
sys + delta-S
surr
This means that the change in entropy of the system might be negative so long as the change in entropy of the surroundings are sufficiently positive to have a non-negative result. Or conversely, the change in entropy of the surroundings may be negative so long as the change in entropy of the system is sufficiently positive to have a non-negative result:
delta-S
total = delta-S
sys + delta-S
surr >= 0
You have to respond to this.
Message 33:
Rrhain writes:
There are experiments already taking place with regard to inflation. As I have asked you directly at least twice now: What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton?
...
Rrhain writes:
Are you seriously claiming that there is no accepted age of the universe?
...
Rrhain writes:
Current cosmological theory has an unbounded universe, too.
It is, however, finite.
You do understand the difference between finite/infinite and bounded/unbounded, yes?
Rrhain writes:
And yet, we can directly observe space expanding right in front of our eyes. What do you think the red-shift is evidence of?
And we have done experiments upon the inflation of the universe, too. You do understand the difference between inflation and expansion, yes?
Message 34:
Rrhain writes:
Both PaulK and I have come up with very specific violations of your claims with regard to established physics (general relativity, expansion of the universe, second law of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, quantum cosmology, etc.) You've done your best to avoid them.
It would help if you would actually respond to the violations of known physics your claims require.
...
Rrhain writes:
Because if you're going to claim the universe is eternal, you're going to have to explain why things have not reached equilibrium since all physical reactions reach equilibrium in a finite time. This means you have to actually show how the equations are wrong and what they have overlooked. You can calculate reaction rates to determine how the reaction takes place. If you're going to say that they don't complete, then where in the chemistry have things broken down? What has been overlooked?
Be specific.
So far, you have ignored this request.
Message 35:
Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. What do you think the WMAP and PLANCK experiments were for?
And that doesn't even begin to deal with the responses by lyx2no and Rahvin.
You have yet to actually respond to any of the questions put to you regarding the actual physics involved. You simply say, "Work was done," but that is not sufficient. Work requires energy. Where did this energy come from? You simply declaim, "It gets reabsorbed." But that's a direct violation of the second law. Again, what do you think will happen if we hook up your engine to a refrigerator? What does the second law tell us about such a scenario?
With your claim that the universe is eternal, how do you explain why the universe is not at equilibrium? All physical processes achieve equilibrium in a finite amount of time. If the universe is eternal, then an infinite amount of time will have passed and no physical processes would be capable of occurring since equilibrium would have been established.
quote:
quote:
But by your logic, we should all be claiming Zeus is lord since we have coroborating evidence of the credibility of the Iliad and the Odyssey.
This is a bare asserted claim on your part
Incorrect. I have given the specific reason why: We found Troy. It was, indeed, sacked. And we have found the path and places that Odysseus is claimed to have traveled. If we're going to declare the Bible to be accurate based upon connections to historical geopolitics, then we must necessarily conclude that the Iliad and the Odyssey are just as accurate.
Of course, the Exodus as described in the Bible never happened. Not only is there absolutely no record of half the population of Egypt simply leaving (the number of people described taking part in the Exodus is about half of the entire population of Egypt at the time), the Bible gets the geography wrong. The landmarks that it describes are not in the places it claims and the directions it provides are not accurate.
Heck, there's no evidence of the existence of Jesus that cannot be traced back to the Bible. Thus, there is no independent corroboration of his existence. And if he was truly such a rabble rouser as is claimed, there should be something in a Roman record somewhere. And there was certainly no massacre of the innocents as is claimed.
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.
™ Version 4.2