Bull Ring ding: Does work in physics require motion

[ding]

Growth filled communities explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Objective truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process. Honest men can have honest differences of opinion and should be able to voice their beliefs without fear of being attacked for no other reason than their views are the opposite of what someone else believes.

My positions are well established and well founded. I do not lightly come to my beliefs lightly. You have criticized the person because the content of what I am saying is true and you can’t criticize it and it bothers you. You have a preference for an outcome. I don’t. If at anytime someone tells me something that as a whole makes more sense than the whole of what I am saying, I will happily accept it because then the puzzle I am building will become more complete. But I am not swayed by critical theory which describes what something isn’t. I am swayed by traditional theory which describes what something is.

If you are who you say you are you will reflect upon what I have just written and instead of finding things to disagree about, will instead list the things you do agree with before challenging what you don’t agree with. You would be the first to do that here which is why you see the responses from me that you do.

Traditional theory is where I tend to sway a different direction. I accept the outcomes of traditional theory, and I accept it in so far as its usefulness. I naturally look for fault in it, as would anyone who is worthy of its study. To your other point, I'm just a regular guy, Ding. I put my pants on the same way you do, I just happen to have an education is that specific field, is all, and it's something I enjoy studying even to this day.

In terms of the second, you like the big bang and I like the big bounce.

Cyclical models are dead. They can’t get around the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The SLoT one of the many things you lie about.

What did I say that was a lie?

Entropy always increases.

Now that I corrected your error was there anything else?

 

[Natural Citizen]

So given enough time the universe will eventually reach thermal equilibrium.

Every other fundamental law of physics tells us the universe is naturally bi-directional. All of these fundamental laws are, themselves, reversable, including those of atomic and subatomic particles.

Ding, why do you believe that entropy can break the bi-directional nature of our universe?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Wait, Ed, can you invite me in? I'm interested in the discussion Ding and yourself are having. I kind of feel like I'm intruding, however.

I'm likely going to kick myself for it, though.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Cyclical models are dead. They can’t get around the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Well, it's a darned good thing I didn't mention anything about cyclical models. I'd have been literally wasting my time.

 

[edthecynic]

Traditional theory is where I tend to sway a different direction. I accept the outcomes of traditional theory, and I accept it in so far as its usefulness. I naturally look for fault in it, as would anyone who is worthy of its study. To your other point, I'm just a regular guy, Ding. I put my pants on the same way you do, I just happen to have an education is that specific field, is all, and it's something I enjoy studying even to this day.

In terms of the second, you like the big bang and I like the big bounce.

Cyclical models are dead. They can’t get around the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The SLoT one of the many things you lie about.

What did I say that was a lie?

Entropy always increases.

Entropy never decreases, Ed. And as long as thermodynamic processes are occurring- which they always are in the universe- then the entropy of the universe is always increasing. What part of this do you not understand or believe is wrong?

Never decreases does NOT equal always increases. They are two DIFFERENT equations. No matter how many times you repeat your lie it will ALWAYS be a lie. When the change in entropy equals zero, entropy does NOT increase.

 

[edthecynic]

Wait, Ed, can you invite me in? I'm interested in the discussion Ding and yourself are having. I kind of feel like I'm intruding, however.

I'm likely going to kick myself for it, though.

You are invited.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Wait, Ed, can you invite me in? I'm interested in the discussion Ding and yourself are having. I kind of feel like I'm intruding, however.

I'm likely going to kick myself for it, though.

You are invited.

Thank You. I don't want to try to prove or disprove anything. That's impossible. I just want to trade theories. I like the discussion.

 

[ding]

So given enough time the universe will eventually reach thermal equilibrium.

Every other fundamental law of physics tells us the universe is naturally bi-directional. All of these fundamental laws are, themselves, reversable, including those of atomic and subatomic particles.

Ding, why do you believe that entropy can break the bi-directional nature of our universe?

Just because the equations can work in reverse doesn’t mean anything in and of itself. Because even if there were a bounce or a crunch useable energy that was lost during the expansion and crunch would not be regained.

 

[ding]

Cyclical models are dead. They can’t get around the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The SLoT one of the many things you lie about.

What did I say that was a lie?

Entropy always increases.

Entropy never decreases, Ed. And as long as thermodynamic processes are occurring- which they always are in the universe- then the entropy of the universe is always increasing. What part of this do you not understand or believe is wrong?

Never decreases does NOT equal always increases. They are two DIFFERENT equations. No matter how many times you repeat your lie it will ALWAYS be a lie. When the change in entropy equals zero, entropy does NOT increase.

I don’t believe I could have explained it any clearer to you. And I don’t believe you have addressed my response.

 

[ding]

Cyclical models are dead. They can’t get around the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Well, it's a darned good thing I didn't mention anything about cyclical models. I'd have been literally wasting my time.

Let’s try a different approach.

Are conversions from matter to energy 100% efficient?

 

[edthecynic]

The SLoT one of the many things you lie about.

What did I say that was a lie?

Entropy always increases.

Entropy never decreases, Ed. And as long as thermodynamic processes are occurring- which they always are in the universe- then the entropy of the universe is always increasing. What part of this do you not understand or believe is wrong?

Never decreases does NOT equal always increases. They are two DIFFERENT equations. No matter how many times you repeat your lie it will ALWAYS be a lie. When the change in entropy equals zero, entropy does NOT increase.

I don’t believe I could have explained it any clearer to you. And I don’t believe you have addressed my response.

It has nothing to do with "belief," it has everything to do with mathematics. You need to show the math you Creationists used to change the equation to get rid of the part where the change in entropy can equal zero.

 

[ding]

What did I say that was a lie?

Entropy always increases.

Entropy never decreases, Ed. And as long as thermodynamic processes are occurring- which they always are in the universe- then the entropy of the universe is always increasing. What part of this do you not understand or believe is wrong?

Never decreases does NOT equal always increases. They are two DIFFERENT equations. No matter how many times you repeat your lie it will ALWAYS be a lie. When the change in entropy equals zero, entropy does NOT increase.

I don’t believe I could have explained it any clearer to you. And I don’t believe you have addressed my response.

It has nothing to do with "belief," it has everything to do with mathematics. You need to show the math you Creationists used to change the equation to get rid of the part where the change in entropy can equal zero.

The math is simple. Matter to energy conversions are not 100% efficient. So useable energy is lost for every exchange. Do you disagree? And if so, why?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Let’s try a different approach.

No dice, Ding. You haven't even heard my theories, I'm not gonna let you just completely control the terms.

 

[ding]

Let’s try a different approach.

No dice, Ding. You haven't even heard my theories, I'm not gonna let you just completely control the terms.

The debate is on whether or not the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe. In other words that the universe had to have a beginning.

It’s really a pretty simple discussion.

Ed is playing games. I figure that’s your intent too. I hope I am wrong.

So my question stands. Are matter to energy conversions 100% efficient? Yes or no.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Just because the equations can work in reverse doesn’t mean anything in and of itself.

Sure, it does. It means there are more questions to be asked. We can't just omit science from science. Perhaps we might redefine the second by askign more questions.

Because even if there were a bounce or a crunch useable energy that was lost during the expansion and crunch would not be regained.

Alright. The second forbids that our mumbers grow backward, and that our numbers can shrink going forward.

I'm going to offer an exception to this rule. Whether I can support the exception is quite another thing. But that's what I want to .

I need to do this in the evening, though, when we're all here and not doing anything else. I can't focus on this stuff during the day time.

Are you okay with that, Ding?

 

[Natural Citizen]

The debate is on whether or not the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe. In other words that the universe had to have a beginning.

It’s really a pretty simple discussion.

Ed is playing games. I figure that’s your intent too. I hope I am wrong.

So my question stands. Are matter to energy conversions 100% efficient? Yes or no.

Our postings crossed here. And, no, I'm not playing games. I enjoy dicussing the topic.

See my previous posting.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ding, I see the question of whether the universe had a beginning as too restrictive. This, of course, is why there is a second. It's a begged question, really. I'm okay with it, because I know that we can ask more questions and maybe tinker with it.

Anyway. I can't focus on this during the day time. I'll check in, in the evening, when I can think straight.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ding, how's your math? If I jot down some equations by hand, will you be able to decipher them ebough to review em wit hme? I'll try to upload em some time this evening.

I have to do it mathematically, that's the only way I'm going to be able to attempt to make entropy grow backward and shrink going forward. So, mathematically drawing antiparticles and stuff. lol. Crazy.

 

[ding]

Ding, how's your math? If I jot down some equations by hand, will you be able to decipher them ebough to review em wit hme? I'll try to upload em some time this evening.

I have to do it mathematically, that's the only way I'm going to be able to attempt to make entropy grow backward and shrink going forward. So, mathematically drawing antiparticles and stuff. lol. Crazy.

As long as you are genuine and not like Ed, I will enjoy the discussion. But you are going to need to explain it without math. Like you would to a six year old.

 

[edthecynic]

Entropy always increases.

Entropy never decreases, Ed. And as long as thermodynamic processes are occurring- which they always are in the universe- then the entropy of the universe is always increasing. What part of this do you not understand or believe is wrong?

Never decreases does NOT equal always increases. They are two DIFFERENT equations. No matter how many times you repeat your lie it will ALWAYS be a lie. When the change in entropy equals zero, entropy does NOT increase.

I don’t believe I could have explained it any clearer to you. And I don’t believe you have addressed my response.

It has nothing to do with "belief," it has everything to do with mathematics. You need to show the math you Creationists used to change the equation to get rid of the part where the change in entropy can equal zero.

The math is simple. Matter to energy conversions are not 100% efficient. So useable energy is lost for every exchange. Do you disagree? And if so, why?

That is not math!
Admit it, you are a liar made in the image of God.