Bull Ring ding: Does work in physics require motion

[ding]

George Bernard Shaw was a eugenicist and a Fabian Socialist.

Ed practices critical theory like a good little Fabian.

That deflection makes your surrender complete!
Thank you again.

Deflection? I described your debating method.

Of course it is deflection, and all it shows is you are a liar made in the image of your God. It also shows you as little about Shavian Eugenics as you do about science. Shaw mocked eugenicists and created his own version where women create the "Superman" by the choices they make in who they marry. You get your Shavian Eugenics from the same Christian lying scum you get your science.
And don't deny it, you certainly didn't get Shavian Eugenics from his famous play, "Man and Superman."

The only liar is you.

 

[ding]

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system.

And Ed is a liar because he denies it.

 

[ding]

The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining usable energy.

And Ed is a liar because he denies it.

 

[ding]

Before space and time began to expand and cool, the universe was at zero entropy. It was perfectly ordered and all of the energy was usable.

And Ed is a liar because he denies it.

 

[edthecynic]

Sore loser!

 

[ding]

As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases.

And Ed is a liar because he denies it.

 

[edthecynic]

As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases.

And Ed is a liar because he denies it.

"Usable" for what?
WORK!

 

[ding]

We logically conclude the universe is not eternal.

 

[edthecynic]

We logically conclude the universe is not eternal.

It has been proven by a repeatable experiment that ENERGY is eternal.

 

[ding]

We logically conclude the universe is not eternal.

It has been proven by a repeatable experiment that ENERGY is eternal.

And eventually unusable.

 

[ding]

This we do not see so the universe logically had a beginning.

 

[edthecynic]

We logically conclude the universe is not eternal.

It has been proven by a repeatable experiment that ENERGY is eternal.

And eventually unusable.

Please link to an experiment that confirms your lie.

 

[edthecynic]

This we do not see so the universe logically had a beginning.

But NOT energy.

 

[ding]

This we do not see so the universe logically had a beginning.

But NOT energy.

By extension it does.

 

[ding]

We logically conclude the universe is not eternal.

It has been proven by a repeatable experiment that ENERGY is eternal.

And eventually unusable.

Please link to an experiment that confirms your lie.

It's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining.

 

[edthecynic]

We logically conclude the universe is not eternal.

It has been proven by a repeatable experiment that ENERGY is eternal.

And eventually unusable.

Please link to an experiment that confirms your lie.

It's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining.

LIAR!
The REAL SLoT:

 

[edthecynic]

This we do not see so the universe logically had a beginning.

But NOT energy.

By extension it does.

No it doesn't.

 

[ding]

We logically conclude the universe is not eternal.

It has been proven by a repeatable experiment that ENERGY is eternal.

And eventually unusable.

Please link to an experiment that confirms your lie.

It's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining.

LIAR!
The REAL SLoT:

Too bad you don’t know what it means.

 

[ding]

This we do not see so the universe logically had a beginning.

But NOT energy.

By extension it does.

No it doesn't.

Ed the janitor has spoken.

I think I will side with Alexander Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking.

 

[edthecynic]

This we do not see so the universe logically had a beginning.

But NOT energy.

By extension it does.

No it doesn't.

Ed the janitor has spoken.

I think I will side with Alexander Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking.

All you have is name dropping of people you don't understand.