Bull Ring ding: Does work in physics require motion

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,818
Reaction score
3,792
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Are you arguing against the link you provided? :lol:

Got any links that support your belief that the cosmological fate of the universe does not end in thermal equilibrium?
No, I am arguing against your perversion of the link I provided where you substituted "life" for "work."
But you knew that already.
How about the link you provided that agrees with me, dipshit? :lol:
Nowhere in the link did it say there will be no kinetic energy to do work, it only said the universe will become too cold to support life as we know it. Work and life are two different things to everyone but a liar like you.
Your link that you relied upon literally said the cosmological fate of an ever accelerating expansion of the universe is a big freeze. That’s what thermal equilibrium is dummy. :lol:
And again there is no temperature at which no work can be done except absolute zero which as you know cannot be reached, so no matter what temperature thermal equilibrium settles on as long as it is not absolute zero there will be kinetic energy, the energy of motion, to do work.
You are just repeating the same debunked lies over and over again.
Find some new lies or concede defeat.
Hey Ed, do you see a big freeze now? No. So the universe has not existed forever which means it did have a beginning.
 
OP
edthecynic

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
39,253
Reaction score
4,876
Points
1,130
No, I am arguing against your perversion of the link I provided where you substituted "life" for "work."
But you knew that already.
How about the link you provided that agrees with me, dipshit? :lol:
Nowhere in the link did it say there will be no kinetic energy to do work, it only said the universe will become too cold to support life as we know it. Work and life are two different things to everyone but a liar like you.
Your link that you relied upon literally said the cosmological fate of an ever accelerating expansion of the universe is a big freeze. That’s what thermal equilibrium is dummy. :lol:
And again there is no temperature at which no work can be done except absolute zero which as you know cannot be reached, so no matter what temperature thermal equilibrium settles on as long as it is not absolute zero there will be kinetic energy, the energy of motion, to do work.
You are just repeating the same debunked lies over and over again.
Find some new lies or concede defeat.
Hey Ed, do you see a big freeze now? No. So the universe has not existed forever which means it did have a beginning.
Repeating yourself again, your concession is accepted.
As I have pointed out exhaustingly, it is not the beginning of the universe that is in question, but your lie that energy had a beginning. You always go to your "universe had a beginning" Straw Man when you know you've lost the argument.
So again, thank you for conceding.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,818
Reaction score
3,792
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
How about the link you provided that agrees with me, dipshit? :lol:
Nowhere in the link did it say there will be no kinetic energy to do work, it only said the universe will become too cold to support life as we know it. Work and life are two different things to everyone but a liar like you.
Your link that you relied upon literally said the cosmological fate of an ever accelerating expansion of the universe is a big freeze. That’s what thermal equilibrium is dummy. :lol:
And again there is no temperature at which no work can be done except absolute zero which as you know cannot be reached, so no matter what temperature thermal equilibrium settles on as long as it is not absolute zero there will be kinetic energy, the energy of motion, to do work.
You are just repeating the same debunked lies over and over again.
Find some new lies or concede defeat.
Hey Ed, do you see a big freeze now? No. So the universe has not existed forever which means it did have a beginning.
Repeating yourself again, your concession is accepted.
As I have pointed out exhaustingly, it is not the beginning of the universe that is in question, but your lie that energy had a beginning. You always go to your "universe had a beginning" Straw Man when you know you've lost the argument.
So again, thank you for conceding.
You don’t see a “big freeze” so the universe had a beginning. Just as predicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as heat flows from hot to cold.
 
OP
edthecynic

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
39,253
Reaction score
4,876
Points
1,130
Nowhere in the link did it say there will be no kinetic energy to do work, it only said the universe will become too cold to support life as we know it. Work and life are two different things to everyone but a liar like you.
Your link that you relied upon literally said the cosmological fate of an ever accelerating expansion of the universe is a big freeze. That’s what thermal equilibrium is dummy. :lol:
And again there is no temperature at which no work can be done except absolute zero which as you know cannot be reached, so no matter what temperature thermal equilibrium settles on as long as it is not absolute zero there will be kinetic energy, the energy of motion, to do work.
You are just repeating the same debunked lies over and over again.
Find some new lies or concede defeat.
Hey Ed, do you see a big freeze now? No. So the universe has not existed forever which means it did have a beginning.
Repeating yourself again, your concession is accepted.
As I have pointed out exhaustingly, it is not the beginning of the universe that is in question, but your lie that energy had a beginning. You always go to your "universe had a beginning" Straw Man when you know you've lost the argument.
So again, thank you for conceding.
You don’t see a “big freeze” so the universe had a beginning. Just as predicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as heat flows from hot to cold.
How many times are you going to concede??????
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,818
Reaction score
3,792
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Your link that you relied upon literally said the cosmological fate of an ever accelerating expansion of the universe is a big freeze. That’s what thermal equilibrium is dummy. :lol:
And again there is no temperature at which no work can be done except absolute zero which as you know cannot be reached, so no matter what temperature thermal equilibrium settles on as long as it is not absolute zero there will be kinetic energy, the energy of motion, to do work.
You are just repeating the same debunked lies over and over again.
Find some new lies or concede defeat.
Hey Ed, do you see a big freeze now? No. So the universe has not existed forever which means it did have a beginning.
Repeating yourself again, your concession is accepted.
As I have pointed out exhaustingly, it is not the beginning of the universe that is in question, but your lie that energy had a beginning. You always go to your "universe had a beginning" Straw Man when you know you've lost the argument.
So again, thank you for conceding.
You don’t see a “big freeze” so the universe had a beginning. Just as predicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as heat flows from hot to cold.
How many times are you going to concede??????
None. I won. The universe had a beginning. :lol:
 
OP
edthecynic

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
39,253
Reaction score
4,876
Points
1,130
And again there is no temperature at which no work can be done except absolute zero which as you know cannot be reached, so no matter what temperature thermal equilibrium settles on as long as it is not absolute zero there will be kinetic energy, the energy of motion, to do work.
You are just repeating the same debunked lies over and over again.
Find some new lies or concede defeat.
Hey Ed, do you see a big freeze now? No. So the universe has not existed forever which means it did have a beginning.
Repeating yourself again, your concession is accepted.
As I have pointed out exhaustingly, it is not the beginning of the universe that is in question, but your lie that energy had a beginning. You always go to your "universe had a beginning" Straw Man when you know you've lost the argument.
So again, thank you for conceding.
You don’t see a “big freeze” so the universe had a beginning. Just as predicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as heat flows from hot to cold.
How many times are you going to concede??????
None. I won. The universe had a beginning. :lol:
Every time you repeat your Straw Man you surrender.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,818
Reaction score
3,792
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Hey Ed, do you see a big freeze now? No. So the universe has not existed forever which means it did have a beginning.
Repeating yourself again, your concession is accepted.
As I have pointed out exhaustingly, it is not the beginning of the universe that is in question, but your lie that energy had a beginning. You always go to your "universe had a beginning" Straw Man when you know you've lost the argument.
So again, thank you for conceding.
You don’t see a “big freeze” so the universe had a beginning. Just as predicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as heat flows from hot to cold.
How many times are you going to concede??????
None. I won. The universe had a beginning. :lol:
Every time you repeat your Straw Man you surrender.
You misspelled win.
 
OP
edthecynic

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
39,253
Reaction score
4,876
Points
1,130
Repeating yourself again, your concession is accepted.
As I have pointed out exhaustingly, it is not the beginning of the universe that is in question, but your lie that energy had a beginning. You always go to your "universe had a beginning" Straw Man when you know you've lost the argument.
So again, thank you for conceding.
You don’t see a “big freeze” so the universe had a beginning. Just as predicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as heat flows from hot to cold.
How many times are you going to concede??????
None. I won. The universe had a beginning. :lol:
Every time you repeat your Straw Man you surrender.
You misspelled win.
Grow up, child.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,818
Reaction score
3,792
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
You don’t see a “big freeze” so the universe had a beginning. Just as predicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as heat flows from hot to cold.
How many times are you going to concede??????
None. I won. The universe had a beginning. :lol:
Every time you repeat your Straw Man you surrender.
You misspelled win.
Grow up, child.
:rofl:
 

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
37,243
Reaction score
9,190
Points
1,470
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
And again there is no temperature at which no work can be done except absolute zero which as you know cannot be reached, so no matter what temperature thermal equilibrium settles on as long as it is not absolute zero there will be kinetic energy, the energy of motion, to do work.
You are just repeating the same debunked lies over and over again.
Find some new lies or concede defeat.
Hey Ed, do you see a big freeze now? No. So the universe has not existed forever which means it did have a beginning.
Repeating yourself again, your concession is accepted.
As I have pointed out exhaustingly, it is not the beginning of the universe that is in question, but your lie that energy had a beginning. You always go to your "universe had a beginning" Straw Man when you know you've lost the argument.
So again, thank you for conceding.
You don’t see a “big freeze” so the universe had a beginning. Just as predicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as heat flows from hot to cold.
How many times are you going to concede??????
None. I won. The universe had a beginning. :lol:
What if it didn't?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,818
Reaction score
3,792
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Hey Ed, do you see a big freeze now? No. So the universe has not existed forever which means it did have a beginning.
Repeating yourself again, your concession is accepted.
As I have pointed out exhaustingly, it is not the beginning of the universe that is in question, but your lie that energy had a beginning. You always go to your "universe had a beginning" Straw Man when you know you've lost the argument.
So again, thank you for conceding.
You don’t see a “big freeze” so the universe had a beginning. Just as predicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as heat flows from hot to cold.
How many times are you going to concede??????
None. I won. The universe had a beginning. :lol:
What if it didn't?
Not possible.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top