Atheism is the believe that something came out of nothing and we're all going nowhere

[ding]

So you saying that perpetual motion is possible.

In nature, YES! In man made machines, NO. There is a difference.
Take for instance a stable nonradioactive atom, if the entropy of the electron orbiting the nucleus was greater than zero then it would constantly be slowing down and would not be able to maintain its orbital distance from the nucleus and would be drawn in and split the nucleus and no matter would exist. The entropy of the electron is zero and will orbit perpetually unless acted on by an outside force.

Nope. Entropy increases monotonically over the entire universe, and eventually all free energy will be gone. This is known as heat death.

 

[Czernobog]

Space and time had a beginning, but not energy, therefore since energy IS something there always was something and there always will be something. Claiming that space and time had a beginning does not prove energy had a beginning.

Actually even the statement "Space and Time had a beginning" is a presumption. This universe as we know it had a beginning. However, to definitively state that all of time and space began with the beginning of this universe is, in fact, a presumptive statement without quantitative evidence.

Not according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. According to that, the universe had a beginning as it is impossible for the universe to be infinite acting.

See the 4 minute mark for this discussion.

The problem is that, even Einstein acknowledged that the closer one came to the event horizon of the universe, the more the laws of physics themselves begin to break down. So, how can you be certain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds true all the way back to the very foundation of the universe?

It is after the event horizon (i.e. during the expansion) that entropy increases and the usable energy of the closed system (i.e. the universe) decreases. So if the universe were to collapse back upon itself and the cycle of expansion and contraction were to repeat infinitely eventually there would be no more usable energy available, unless of course one wants to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics and add more energy to the closed system (i.e. the universe). Of course this would mean that we would still need to explain the source (i.e. the first cause) of where that energy came from.

.

So if the universe were to collapse back upon itself and the cycle of expansion and contraction were to repeat infinitely eventually there would be no more usable energy available, unless of course one wants to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics and add more energy to the closed system (i.e. the universe).

matter in unison from the initial Singularity is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory as a loop and will eventually reconvene at the point of its origin in mass to recreate compaction and the next moment of Singularity. BB is a cyclical loop in a vacuum w/constant energy.

Again, this is about the end of the universe, as we know it. I never commented on that. I stated that we have no evidence of what preceded the universe as we know it, thus to definitively state that time and space began with the universe as we know it is presumptive.

 

[ding]

I have proven that militant atheism leads to communism beyond a shadow of doubt.

Well, you can continue to claim that, but you haven't proven anything beyond mere correlation.

I provided the causation and the founding fathers of communism told you the causation. That is why every communist state has been an atheistic state.

 

[ding]

Actually even the statement "Space and Time had a beginning" is a presumption. This universe as we know it had a beginning. However, to definitively state that all of time and space began with the beginning of this universe is, in fact, a presumptive statement without quantitative evidence.

Not according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. According to that, the universe had a beginning as it is impossible for the universe to be infinite acting.

See the 4 minute mark for this discussion.

The problem is that, even Einstein acknowledged that the closer one came to the event horizon of the universe, the more the laws of physics themselves begin to break down. So, how can you be certain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds true all the way back to the very foundation of the universe?

It is after the event horizon (i.e. during the expansion) that entropy increases and the usable energy of the closed system (i.e. the universe) decreases. So if the universe were to collapse back upon itself and the cycle of expansion and contraction were to repeat infinitely eventually there would be no more usable energy available, unless of course one wants to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics and add more energy to the closed system (i.e. the universe). Of course this would mean that we would still need to explain the source (i.e. the first cause) of where that energy came from.

.

So if the universe were to collapse back upon itself and the cycle of expansion and contraction were to repeat infinitely eventually there would be no more usable energy available, unless of course one wants to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics and add more energy to the closed system (i.e. the universe).

matter in unison from the initial Singularity is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory as a loop and will eventually reconvene at the point of its origin in mass to recreate compaction and the next moment of Singularity. BB is a cyclical loop in a vacuum w/constant energy.

Again, this is about the end of the universe, as we know it. I never commented on that. I stated that we have no evidence of what preceded the universe as we know it, thus to definitively state that time and space began with the universe as we know it is presumptive.

No. It is not about the end. Disorder is increasing throughout the expansion of the universe from beginning to end. It never pauses.

 

[BreezeWood]

I have proven that militant atheism leads to communism beyond a shadow of doubt.

Well, you can continue to claim that, but you haven't proven anything beyond mere correlation.

I provided the causation and the founding fathers of communism told you the causation. That is why every communist state has been an atheistic state.

.

That is why every communist state has been an atheistic state.

only islamic states are theistic, otherwise all other states are including communist states void religion one way or another.

 

[danielpalos]

How does monotheism account for Lord Acton's, maxim regarding power?

 

[BreezeWood]

Not according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. According to that, the universe had a beginning as it is impossible for the universe to be infinite acting.

See the 4 minute mark for this discussion.

The problem is that, even Einstein acknowledged that the closer one came to the event horizon of the universe, the more the laws of physics themselves begin to break down. So, how can you be certain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds true all the way back to the very foundation of the universe?

It is after the event horizon (i.e. during the expansion) that entropy increases and the usable energy of the closed system (i.e. the universe) decreases. So if the universe were to collapse back upon itself and the cycle of expansion and contraction were to repeat infinitely eventually there would be no more usable energy available, unless of course one wants to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics and add more energy to the closed system (i.e. the universe). Of course this would mean that we would still need to explain the source (i.e. the first cause) of where that energy came from.

.

So if the universe were to collapse back upon itself and the cycle of expansion and contraction were to repeat infinitely eventually there would be no more usable energy available, unless of course one wants to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics and add more energy to the closed system (i.e. the universe).

matter in unison from the initial Singularity is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory as a loop and will eventually reconvene at the point of its origin in mass to recreate compaction and the next moment of Singularity. BB is a cyclical loop in a vacuum w/constant energy.

Again, this is about the end of the universe, as we know it. I never commented on that. I stated that we have no evidence of what preceded the universe as we know it, thus to definitively state that time and space began with the universe as we know it is presumptive.

No. It is not about the end. Disorder is increasing throughout the expansion of the universe from beginning to end. It never pauses.

.

No. It is not about the end. Disorder is increasing throughout the expansion of the universe from beginning to end. It never pauses.

disorder [sic] does not exist, all matter is traveling at a prescribed trajectory from the initial moment of expansion at constant energy in a vacuum.

 

[danielpalos]

Is this really just Nexus 6, and we got Zardoz, for being incorrigible?

 

[edthecynic]

So you saying that perpetual motion is possible.

In nature, YES! In man made machines, NO. There is a difference.
Take for instance a stable nonradioactive atom, if the entropy of the electron orbiting the nucleus was greater than zero then it would constantly be slowing down and would not be able to maintain its orbital distance from the nucleus and would be drawn in and split the nucleus and no matter would exist. The entropy of the electron is zero and will orbit perpetually unless acted on by an outside force.

Nope. Entropy increases monotonically over the entire universe, and eventually all free energy will be gone. This is known as heat death.

There can be no heat death because according to the TLoT, there is no temperature at which all motion stops. This was already pointed out to you.

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest."

- Anonymous

 

[ding]

So you saying that perpetual motion is possible.

In nature, YES! In man made machines, NO. There is a difference.
Take for instance a stable nonradioactive atom, if the entropy of the electron orbiting the nucleus was greater than zero then it would constantly be slowing down and would not be able to maintain its orbital distance from the nucleus and would be drawn in and split the nucleus and no matter would exist. The entropy of the electron is zero and will orbit perpetually unless acted on by an outside force.

Nope. Entropy increases monotonically over the entire universe, and eventually all free energy will be gone. This is known as heat death.

There can be no heat death because according to the TLoT, there is no temperature at which all motion stops. This was already pointed out to you.

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest."

- Anonymous

My goodness, just because entropy increases does not man the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated.

 

[edthecynic]

So you saying that perpetual motion is possible.

In nature, YES! In man made machines, NO. There is a difference.
Take for instance a stable nonradioactive atom, if the entropy of the electron orbiting the nucleus was greater than zero then it would constantly be slowing down and would not be able to maintain its orbital distance from the nucleus and would be drawn in and split the nucleus and no matter would exist. The entropy of the electron is zero and will orbit perpetually unless acted on by an outside force.

Nope. Entropy increases monotonically over the entire universe, and eventually all free energy will be gone. This is known as heat death.

There can be no heat death because according to the TLoT, there is no temperature at which all motion stops. This was already pointed out to you.

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest."
- Anonymous

My goodness, just because entropy increases does not man the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated.

What the hell are you talking about?
TLoT is the THIRD Law of Thermodynamics, which says there is no temperature at which ALL motion stops, therefore there cannot be a theoretical "heat death of the universe." The heat death of the universe would be the temperature at which all motion in the universe stops, including all electrons circling their nuclei, all expansion of the universe, etc. There is no such temperature!!!!!
The heat death of the universe exists only in SiFi books and creationist cults.

 

[edthecynic]

My goodness, just because entropy increases does not man the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated.

I never said an increase in entropy violates the FLoT. I say there are three forms of energy, 2 of which can do work, Kinetic (the energy of motion), Potential (the energy of position) and one that does not do work, heat. But heat DOES excite motion!!!!

 

[Czernobog]

So you saying that perpetual motion is possible.

In nature, YES! In man made machines, NO. There is a difference.
Take for instance a stable nonradioactive atom, if the entropy of the electron orbiting the nucleus was greater than zero then it would constantly be slowing down and would not be able to maintain its orbital distance from the nucleus and would be drawn in and split the nucleus and no matter would exist. The entropy of the electron is zero and will orbit perpetually unless acted on by an outside force.

Nope. Entropy increases monotonically over the entire universe, and eventually all free energy will be gone. This is known as heat death.

There can be no heat death because according to the TLoT, there is no temperature at which all motion stops. This was already pointed out to you.

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest."
- Anonymous

My goodness, just because entropy increases does not man the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated.

What the hell are you talking about?
TLoT is the THIRD Law of Thermodynamics, which says there is no temperature at which ALL motion stops, therefore there cannot be a theoretical "heat death of the universe." The heat death of the universe would be the temperature at which all motion in the universe stops, including all electrons circling their nuclei, all expansion of the universe, etc. There is no such temperature!!!!!
The heat death of the universe exists only in SiFi books and creationist cults.

Oops. Looks like someone for so fixated on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that he forgot that other laws also exist, and are also inviolate.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

So you saying that perpetual motion is possible.

In nature, YES! In man made machines, NO. There is a difference.
Take for instance a stable nonradioactive atom, if the entropy of the electron orbiting the nucleus was greater than zero then it would constantly be slowing down and would not be able to maintain its orbital distance from the nucleus and would be drawn in and split the nucleus and no matter would exist. The entropy of the electron is zero and will orbit perpetually unless acted on by an outside force.

Nope. Entropy increases monotonically over the entire universe, and eventually all free energy will be gone. This is known as heat death.

There can be no heat death because according to the TLoT, there is no temperature at which all motion stops. This was already pointed out to you.

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest."
- Anonymous

My goodness, just because entropy increases does not man the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated.

What the hell are you talking about?
TLoT is the THIRD Law of Thermodynamics, which says there is no temperature at which ALL motion stops, therefore there cannot be a theoretical "heat death of the universe." The heat death of the universe would be the temperature at which all motion in the universe stops, including all electrons circling their nuclei, all expansion of the universe, etc. There is no such temperature!!!!!

You are quibbling over theoretical heat death while I am telling you that an infinite acting universe would yield a practical heat death which is not what we observe today. Therefore, space and time did have a beginning.

 

[ding]

In nature, YES! In man made machines, NO. There is a difference.
Take for instance a stable nonradioactive atom, if the entropy of the electron orbiting the nucleus was greater than zero then it would constantly be slowing down and would not be able to maintain its orbital distance from the nucleus and would be drawn in and split the nucleus and no matter would exist. The entropy of the electron is zero and will orbit perpetually unless acted on by an outside force.

Nope. Entropy increases monotonically over the entire universe, and eventually all free energy will be gone. This is known as heat death.

There can be no heat death because according to the TLoT, there is no temperature at which all motion stops. This was already pointed out to you.

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest."
- Anonymous

My goodness, just because entropy increases does not man the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated.

What the hell are you talking about?
TLoT is the THIRD Law of Thermodynamics, which says there is no temperature at which ALL motion stops, therefore there cannot be a theoretical "heat death of the universe." The heat death of the universe would be the temperature at which all motion in the universe stops, including all electrons circling their nuclei, all expansion of the universe, etc. There is no such temperature!!!!!
The heat death of the universe exists only in SiFi books and creationist cults.

Oops. Looks like someone for so fixated on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that he forgot that other laws also exist, and are also inviolate.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

lol, not hardly.

 

[edthecynic]

In nature, YES! In man made machines, NO. There is a difference.
Take for instance a stable nonradioactive atom, if the entropy of the electron orbiting the nucleus was greater than zero then it would constantly be slowing down and would not be able to maintain its orbital distance from the nucleus and would be drawn in and split the nucleus and no matter would exist. The entropy of the electron is zero and will orbit perpetually unless acted on by an outside force.

Nope. Entropy increases monotonically over the entire universe, and eventually all free energy will be gone. This is known as heat death.

There can be no heat death because according to the TLoT, there is no temperature at which all motion stops. This was already pointed out to you.

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest."
- Anonymous

My goodness, just because entropy increases does not man the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated.

What the hell are you talking about?
TLoT is the THIRD Law of Thermodynamics, which says there is no temperature at which ALL motion stops, therefore there cannot be a theoretical "heat death of the universe." The heat death of the universe would be the temperature at which all motion in the universe stops, including all electrons circling their nuclei, all expansion of the universe, etc. There is no such temperature!!!!!

You are quibbling over theoretical heat death while I am telling you that an infinite acting universe would yield a practical heat death which is not what we observe today. Therefore, space and time did have a beginning.

Again there is NO heat death of the universe "practical" or otherwise. And I am NOT arguing that space/time didn't have a beginning, I am arguing that ENERGY did not have a beginning!

 

[ding]

Nope. Entropy increases monotonically over the entire universe, and eventually all free energy will be gone. This is known as heat death.

There can be no heat death because according to the TLoT, there is no temperature at which all motion stops. This was already pointed out to you.

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest."
- Anonymous

My goodness, just because entropy increases does not man the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated.

What the hell are you talking about?
TLoT is the THIRD Law of Thermodynamics, which says there is no temperature at which ALL motion stops, therefore there cannot be a theoretical "heat death of the universe." The heat death of the universe would be the temperature at which all motion in the universe stops, including all electrons circling their nuclei, all expansion of the universe, etc. There is no such temperature!!!!!

You are quibbling over theoretical heat death while I am telling you that an infinite acting universe would yield a practical heat death which is not what we observe today. Therefore, space and time did have a beginning.

Again there is NO heat death of the universe "practical" or otherwise. And I am NOT arguing that space/time didn't have a beginning, I am arguing that ENERGY did not have a beginning!

Let's start with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for any real process as time approaches infinity usable energy approaches zero, right? That is heat death. We know that this has not happened because when we look around the universe we see usable energy remaining, therefore we know that the time has not approached infinity and that there must have been a beginning in time that was finite.

Now let's look at the First Law of Thermodynamics. E= Q+W. Before the beginning Q=0. W = the work added to the system at the beginning.

Where exactly have I violated any of the Laws of Thermodynamics? I haven't.

Therefore, space and time - which is matter and energy - had a beginning.

 

[edthecynic]

There can be no heat death because according to the TLoT, there is no temperature at which all motion stops. This was already pointed out to you.

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest."
- Anonymous

My goodness, just because entropy increases does not man the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated.

What the hell are you talking about?
TLoT is the THIRD Law of Thermodynamics, which says there is no temperature at which ALL motion stops, therefore there cannot be a theoretical "heat death of the universe." The heat death of the universe would be the temperature at which all motion in the universe stops, including all electrons circling their nuclei, all expansion of the universe, etc. There is no such temperature!!!!!

You are quibbling over theoretical heat death while I am telling you that an infinite acting universe would yield a practical heat death which is not what we observe today. Therefore, space and time did have a beginning.

Again there is NO heat death of the universe "practical" or otherwise. And I am NOT arguing that space/time didn't have a beginning, I am arguing that ENERGY did not have a beginning!

Let's start with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for any real process as time approaches infinity usable energy approaches zero, right? That is heat death. We know that this has not happened because when we look around the universe we see usable energy remaining, therefore we know that the time has not approached infinity and that there must have been a beginning in time that was finite.
Now let's look at the First Law of Thermodynamics. E= Q+W. Before the beginning Q=0. W = the work added to the system at the beginning.
Where exactly have I violated any of the Laws of Thermodynamics? I haven't.
Therefore, space and time - which is matter and energy - had a beginning.

Space/time is space/time and NOT matter/energy.
Your phony heat death of the universe violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

What is the Third Law of Thermodynamics?

Siabal Mitra, a professor of physics at Missouri State University, provides another implication of this law. “One version of the Third Law states that it would require an infinite number of steps to reach absolute zero, which means you will never get there. If you could get to absolute zero, it would violate the Second Law, because if you had a heat sink at absolute zero, then you could build a machine that was 100 percent efficient.”

 

[ding]

My goodness, just because entropy increases does not man the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated.

What the hell are you talking about?
TLoT is the THIRD Law of Thermodynamics, which says there is no temperature at which ALL motion stops, therefore there cannot be a theoretical "heat death of the universe." The heat death of the universe would be the temperature at which all motion in the universe stops, including all electrons circling their nuclei, all expansion of the universe, etc. There is no such temperature!!!!!

You are quibbling over theoretical heat death while I am telling you that an infinite acting universe would yield a practical heat death which is not what we observe today. Therefore, space and time did have a beginning.

Again there is NO heat death of the universe "practical" or otherwise. And I am NOT arguing that space/time didn't have a beginning, I am arguing that ENERGY did not have a beginning!

Let's start with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for any real process as time approaches infinity usable energy approaches zero, right? That is heat death. We know that this has not happened because when we look around the universe we see usable energy remaining, therefore we know that the time has not approached infinity and that there must have been a beginning in time that was finite.
Now let's look at the First Law of Thermodynamics. E= Q+W. Before the beginning Q=0. W = the work added to the system at the beginning.
Where exactly have I violated any of the Laws of Thermodynamics? I haven't.
Therefore, space and time - which is matter and energy - had a beginning.

Space/time is space/time and NOT matter/energy.
Your phony heat death of the universe violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

How does it violate the Third Law of Thermodynamics exactly?

Without matter and energy there is no space time. They were created together.

 

[edthecynic]

What the hell are you talking about?
TLoT is the THIRD Law of Thermodynamics, which says there is no temperature at which ALL motion stops, therefore there cannot be a theoretical "heat death of the universe." The heat death of the universe would be the temperature at which all motion in the universe stops, including all electrons circling their nuclei, all expansion of the universe, etc. There is no such temperature!!!!!

You are quibbling over theoretical heat death while I am telling you that an infinite acting universe would yield a practical heat death which is not what we observe today. Therefore, space and time did have a beginning.

Again there is NO heat death of the universe "practical" or otherwise. And I am NOT arguing that space/time didn't have a beginning, I am arguing that ENERGY did not have a beginning!

Let's start with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for any real process as time approaches infinity usable energy approaches zero, right? That is heat death. We know that this has not happened because when we look around the universe we see usable energy remaining, therefore we know that the time has not approached infinity and that there must have been a beginning in time that was finite.
Now let's look at the First Law of Thermodynamics. E= Q+W. Before the beginning Q=0. W = the work added to the system at the beginning.
Where exactly have I violated any of the Laws of Thermodynamics? I haven't.
Therefore, space and time - which is matter and energy - had a beginning.

Space/time is space/time and NOT matter/energy.
Your phony heat death of the universe violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

How does it violate the Third Law of Thermodynamics exactly?

What is the Third Law of Thermodynamics?

Siabal Mitra, a professor of physics at Missouri State University, provides another implication of this law. “One version of the Third Law states that it would require an infinite number of steps to reach absolute zero, which means you will never get there. If you could get to absolute zero, it would violate the Second Law, because if you had a heat sink at absolute zero, then you could build a machine that was 100 percent efficient.”