Bull Ring ding: Does work in physics require motion

[Natural Citizen]

Bah. It's all wrong, guys. You're neglecting the intimacy of spacetime. Jiminy crickets, you're ignoring it completely.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Oh, sorry. I didn't notice I was in someone elses bull ring.

Proceed...

 

[ding]

Bah. It's all wrong, guys. You're neglecting the intimacy of spacetime. Jiminy crickets, you're ignoring it completely.

How so?

If you like I can create our own thread to debate how the intimacy of space time negates the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[ding]

Oh, sorry. I didn't notice I was in someone elses bull ring.

Proceed...

It's quite alright.

He's done.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If you like I can create our own thread to debate how the intimacy of space time negates the second law of thermodynamics.

Ding, our personalities clash, my friend. Space physics happens to be my field of education. Well, planetary physics and mathematics, to be clear. Though, the fruits of my labor sit framed at the bottom of a junk drawer under a bunch of pizza coupons. Truth be told, though, surviving a glorified flunkout program was the more gratifying success. Years later, I've changed course in life, but I thoroughly enjoy any discussion relating to these studies. I do, however, still get to enjoy a laboratory atmosphere once in a while, though, admittedly, the opportunities have been fewer and farther between. I've also been fortunate to have filled a seat on two STEM boards at the local level, with people who think just like you, by the way, good people, masters in their fields, though, to their credit, humble people, and their approaches are vastly different than yours. You're more likely, however, to bump into me in a hallway at SAIC or Lockheed or Boeing or some other similar installation, these days, and that's assuming I happen to be out in the field on any given day, heck, I don't even go out in the field much anymore.

If you and I could agree on a way to make a discussion on the topic stimulating and enjoyable, I'd shoot the breeze with you. I do not know if this is possible. I'd need you to liven up. The other thing is that I'm not the kind of person who's going to sit around harping on the second. I get what you're doing. I get why you're so preoccupied with it. You're more interested in debating and proving creation versus evolution, from a scientific perspective. I'm not interested in that. I'm not interested in proving or disproving creation. I'm interested in the mind of God. I want to know how God thinks. And here's where we're going to clash. I'm not so arrogant as to attest that I have all of the answers and that no further questions are necessary. This defeats the very nature of the sciences. Talk about humilty, Ding? That's humility. You, on the other hand, pretty much do that. Respectfully speaking.The way in which you discuss such things, and I've read your postings, is that you have all of the answers that matter and that no more questions need asking. And any questions that do follow are more often philosophical, for no other reason than to promote your worldview. This blatantly contradicts the very nature of science. Now, combine that with what I've observed from you as a very obtuse, very unlively, personality, I'd turn around and leave the thread in like 5 minutes.

Liven up a little, and I might tinker with the notion. I'm open to it, but I'm not the kind of person who is going to sit around talking about the second for hours on end. Nope. Not gonna do it. I'd get claustrophobic. I'd feel like I was shackled to a spike in a 6x6 room. There's so much more to talk about, Ding. There's just no way I'd let you 1 - set the terms of controversy, and, 2 - keep the terms of controversy limited to your own interest in it.

 

[ding]

If you like I can create our own thread to debate how the intimacy of space time negates the second law of thermodynamics.

Ding, our personalities clash, my friend. Space physics happens to be my field of education. Well, planetary physics and mathematics, to be clear. Though, the fruits of my labor sit framed at the bottom of a junk drawer under a bunch of pizza coupons. Truth be told, though, surviving a glorified flunkout program was the more gratifying success. Years later, I've changed course in life, but I thoroughly enjoy any discussion relating to these studies. I do, however, still get to enjoy a laboratory atmosphere once in a while, though, admittedly, the opportunities have been fewer and farther between. I've also been fortunate to have filled a seat on two STEM boards at the local level, with people who think just like you, by the way, good people, masters in their fields, though, to their credit, humble people, and their approaches are vastly different than yours. You're more likely, however, to bump into me in a hallway at SAIC or Lockheed or Boeing or some other similar installation, these days, and that's assuming I happen to be out in the field on any given day, heck, I don't even go out in the field much anymore.

If you and I could agree on a way to make a discussion on the topic stimulating and enjoyable, I'd shoot the breeze with you. I do not know if this is possible. I'd need you to liven up. The other thing is that I'm not the kind of person who's going to sit around harping on the second. I get what you're doing. I get why you're so preoccupied with it. You're more interested in debating and proving creation versus evolution, from a scientific perspective. I'm not interested in that. I'm not interested in proving or disproving creation. I'm interested in the mind of God. I want to know how God thinks. And here's where we're going to clash. I'm not so arrogant as to attest that I have all of the answers and that no further questions are necessary. This defeats the very nature of the sciences. Talk about humilty, Ding? That's humility. You, on the other hand, pretty much do that. Respectfully speaking.The way in which you discuss such things, and I've read your postings, is that you have all of the answers that matter and that no more questions need asking. And any questions that do follow are more often philosophical, for no other reason than to promote your worldview. This blatantly contradicts the very nature of science. Now, combine that with what I've observed from you as a very obtuse, very unlively, personality, I'd turn around and leave the thread in like 5 minutes.

Liven up a little, and I might tinker with the notion. I'm open to it, but I'm not the kind of person who is going to sit around talking about the second for hours on end. Nope. Not gonna do it. I'd get claustrophobic. I'd feel like I was shackled to a spike in a 6x6 room. There's so much more to talk about, Ding. There's just no way I'd let you 1 - set the terms of controversy, and, 2 - keep the terms of controversy limited to your own interest in it.

It sounds like you have all the answers when it comes to me.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It sounds like you have all the answers when it comes to me.

Well. Putting the way the universe works aside, and for lack of a better comparison, I tend to pick on my conservative peers far more than I do friends on the left. And for good reason. You being an engineer, someone who makes science applicable, and certainly someone with an appreciation and certainly necessity for mathematical methods, and sensory experience, or evidence, as it is, the scientific method, I have a great respect for you given that I am a product of the same school of thought. It's just that I want more. I'm not content with a half of a glass of water, I want to know if a full glass of water is attainable. And it's okay if I can't even have it full. But I want to try to see if I can. And that;s the very nature of the sciences. I'm naturally drawn to disagreement with like minded people, for no other reason than to expand the discussion. It's not because I want a fight. I simply find it stimulating. It's nothing personal. So, apologies if I've offended you. And peace on your path, my brother.

 

[ding]

It sounds like you have all the answers when it comes to me.

Well. Putting the way the universe works aside, and for lack of a better comparison, I tend to pick on my conservative peers far more than I do friends on the left. And for good reason. You being an engineer, someone who makes science applicable, and certainly someone with an appreciation and certainly necessity for mathematical methods, and sensory experience, or evidence, as it is, the scientific method, I have a great respect for you given that I am a product of the same school of thought. It's just that I want more. I'm not content with a half of a glass of water, I want to know if a full glass of water is attainable. I'm naturally drawn to disagreement with like minded people, for no other reson thanto expand the discussion. It's not because I want a fight. I simply find it stimulating. It's nothing personal. So. apologies if I've offended you. And peace on your path, my brother.

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 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.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh, sorry. I didn't notice I was in someone elses bull ring.

Proceed...

It's quite alright.

He's done.

Done with your constant lying, you mean.

 

[ding]

Oh, sorry. I didn't notice I was in someone elses bull ring.

Proceed...

It's quite alright.

He's done.

Done with your constant lying, you mean.

What have I lied about, Ed?

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Did you believe I was referring to cosmology when I brought up traditional theory?

 

[edthecynic]

Oh, sorry. I didn't notice I was in someone elses bull ring.

Proceed...

It's quite alright.

He's done.

Done with your constant lying, you mean.

What have I lied about, Ed?

Ahhhh, the perpetual dumb act again. You lie about science.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

 

[ding]

Oh, sorry. I didn't notice I was in someone elses bull ring.

Proceed...

It's quite alright.

He's done.

Done with your constant lying, you mean.

What have I lied about, Ed?

Ahhhh, the perpetual dumb act again. You lie about science.

Can you be a little more specific, Ed?

 

[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?

 

[edthecynic]

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.

 

[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.

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?

 

[ding]

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