Bull Ring ding: Does work in physics require motion

[ding]

One would think that someone who believed the TLoT means thermal equilibrium cannot be reached because thermal equilibrium can only occur at a temperature of absolute zero would be the one who doesn't understand thermodynamic processes.

You are leaving out that the theoretical thermal equilibrium requires that there is no energy to do WORK, only heat. Do I have to quote your OWN post again?????

Are you suggesting that heat can flow from cold to hot or between objects at the same temperature?

Because that's all that really matters in thermodynamics.

 

[edthecynic]

The third law of thermodynamics states that it is not possible for a closed system to reach a temperature of absolute zero given a finite amount of time and finite resources.

It does not mathematically preclude a system from reaching a uniform temperature warmer than absolute zero.

And at a temperature greater than absolute zero, WORK can still be done.

If the closed system is at a spatially uniform temperature then no thermodynamic processes are possible. Heat cannot flow if everything is the same temperature and if heat cannot flow there are no thermodynamic processes.

But there still IS work being done by DYNAMIC processes, even if no work is being done by thermal processes!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

One would think that someone who believed the TLoT means thermal equilibrium cannot be reached because thermal equilibrium can only occur at a temperature of absolute zero would be the one who doesn't understand thermodynamic processes.

You are leaving out that the theoretical thermal equilibrium requires that there is no energy to do WORK, only heat. Do I have to quote your OWN post again?????

Are you suggesting that heat can flow from cold to hot or between objects at the same temperature?

Because that's all that really matters in thermodynamics.

No, I suggesting that as long as there is kinetic energy work can be done at any temperature except absolute zero, which is impossible to reach in reality.

And the only thing that matters in thermodynamics is if work can be done.

 

[ding]

One would think that someone who believed the TLoT means thermal equilibrium cannot be reached because thermal equilibrium can only occur at a temperature of absolute zero would be the one who doesn't understand thermodynamic processes.

You are leaving out that the theoretical thermal equilibrium requires that there is no energy to do WORK, only heat. Do I have to quote your OWN post again?????

Are you suggesting that heat can flow from cold to hot or between objects at the same temperature?

Because that's all that really matters in thermodynamics.

No, I suggesting that as long as there is kinetic energy work can be done at any temperature except absolute zero, which is impossible to reach in reality.

And the only thing that matters in thermodynamics is if work can be done.

You have just ass raped the second law of thermodynamics with that statement.

 

[ding]

According to Ed, thermodynamic processes can still occur when the temperature of a closed system is spatially uniform as long as it is not at a temperature of absolute zero which he believes is impossible regardless of time or resources which means he must believe thermodynamic processes are possible for infinity.

Brilliant.

 

[edthecynic]

One would think that someone who believed the TLoT means thermal equilibrium cannot be reached because thermal equilibrium can only occur at a temperature of absolute zero would be the one who doesn't understand thermodynamic processes.

You are leaving out that the theoretical thermal equilibrium requires that there is no energy to do WORK, only heat. Do I have to quote your OWN post again?????

Are you suggesting that heat can flow from cold to hot or between objects at the same temperature?

Because that's all that really matters in thermodynamics.

No, I suggesting that as long as there is kinetic energy work can be done at any temperature except absolute zero, which is impossible to reach in reality.

And the only thing that matters in thermodynamics is if work can be done.

You have just ass raped the second law of thermodynamics with that statement.

Well I take it back, you know the least about the SLoT, not the 0th Law.

 

[edthecynic]

According to Ed, thermodynamic processes can still occur when the temperature of a closed system is spatially uniform as long as it is not at a temperature of absolute zero which he believes is impossible regardless of time or resources which means he must believe thermodynamic processes are possible for infinity.

Brilliant.

Well yes it is brilliant! As long as there is motion, WORK can be done.
To quote you again:

Thermal equilibrium only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. This is when the universe reaches maximum entropy.

 

[yiostheoy]

ding,

Ding says motion has nothing to do with work and therefore the perpetual motion in the universe does not disprove his thermal equilibrium lie.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium. A thermodynamic system in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium has a spatially uniform temperature. The second law of thermodynamics states that every energy transfer increases the entropy of the universe due to the loss of usable energy. During energy transfer, some amount of energy is lost in the form of unusable heat energy. Because energy is lost in an unusable form, no energy transfer is completely efficient. The more energy that is lost by a system to its surroundings, the less ordered and more random the system is. Entropy is a measure of randomness and disorder; high entropy means high disorder and low energy. Thermal equilibrium only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. This is when the universe reaches maximum entropy.

At what temperature does all motion stop?

Motion is not the measure. Thermodynamic equilibrium occurs when a spatially uniform temperature is achieved. Thermal equilibrium only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. And since we are no where near this point, the universe has not existed forever. That's why everyone who understands cosmology accepts that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old.

Motion IS the result of work!!!!!
The only way energy can no longer be exploited to do work is when all motion stops.
work = force x distance

You are debating with Ding ??

That's like mudwrestling with a pig.

 

[ding]

ding,

Ding says motion has nothing to do with work and therefore the perpetual motion in the universe does not disprove his thermal equilibrium lie.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium. A thermodynamic system in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium has a spatially uniform temperature. The second law of thermodynamics states that every energy transfer increases the entropy of the universe due to the loss of usable energy. During energy transfer, some amount of energy is lost in the form of unusable heat energy. Because energy is lost in an unusable form, no energy transfer is completely efficient. The more energy that is lost by a system to its surroundings, the less ordered and more random the system is. Entropy is a measure of randomness and disorder; high entropy means high disorder and low energy. Thermal equilibrium only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. This is when the universe reaches maximum entropy.

At what temperature does all motion stop?

Motion is not the measure. Thermodynamic equilibrium occurs when a spatially uniform temperature is achieved. Thermal equilibrium only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. And since we are no where near this point, the universe has not existed forever. That's why everyone who understands cosmology accepts that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old.

Motion IS the result of work!!!!!
The only way energy can no longer be exploited to do work is when all motion stops.
work = force x distance

You are debating with Ding ??

That's like mudwrestling with a pig.

Ed starts off by intentionally misstating my position while arguing a point that has no bearing to our original discussion - which was cyclical models of the universe don't work because matter to energy and energy to matter exchanges are inefficient and will eventually run out of usable energy as time approaches infinity - and I am the the dirty pig?

 

[ding]

But I think it is brilliant that Ed has reached such a groundbreaking conclusion that up is down. I just think Ed needs to contact this guy and tell him he is wrong.

 

[edthecynic]

ding,

Ding says motion has nothing to do with work and therefore the perpetual motion in the universe does not disprove his thermal equilibrium lie.

At what temperature does all motion stop?

Motion is not the measure. Thermodynamic equilibrium occurs when a spatially uniform temperature is achieved. Thermal equilibrium only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. And since we are no where near this point, the universe has not existed forever. That's why everyone who understands cosmology accepts that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old.

Motion IS the result of work!!!!!
The only way energy can no longer be exploited to do work is when all motion stops.
work = force x distance

You are debating with Ding ??

That's like mudwrestling with a pig.

Ed starts off by intentionally misstating my position while arguing a point that has no bearing to our original discussion - which was cyclical models of the universe don't work because matter to energy and energy to matter exchanges are inefficient and will eventually run out of usable energy as time approaches infinity - and I am the the dirty pig?

You do know that in physics "usable energy" is energy that can do WORK!.

 

[edthecynic]

But I think it is brilliant that Ed has reached such a groundbreaking conclusion that up is down. I just think Ed needs to contact this guy and tell him he is wrong.

He would tell you that YOU are wrong!

 

[ding]

ding,

Ding says motion has nothing to do with work and therefore the perpetual motion in the universe does not disprove his thermal equilibrium lie.

Motion is not the measure. Thermodynamic equilibrium occurs when a spatially uniform temperature is achieved. Thermal equilibrium only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. And since we are no where near this point, the universe has not existed forever. That's why everyone who understands cosmology accepts that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old.

Motion IS the result of work!!!!!
The only way energy can no longer be exploited to do work is when all motion stops.
work = force x distance

You are debating with Ding ??

That's like mudwrestling with a pig.

Ed starts off by intentionally misstating my position while arguing a point that has no bearing to our original discussion - which was cyclical models of the universe don't work because matter to energy and energy to matter exchanges are inefficient and will eventually run out of usable energy as time approaches infinity - and I am the the dirty pig?

You do know that in physics "usable energy" is energy that can do WORK!.

In the conversation of can the universe have existed forever, the only thing that matters is that each exchange between matter and energy and energy and matter reduces the usable energy because the process is not perfectly efficient. Do this enough times and you reach maximum disorder or entropy and there is no more usable energy.

This is the reason cyclical universes have been rejected.

 

[ding]

But I think it is brilliant that Ed has reached such a groundbreaking conclusion that up is down. I just think Ed needs to contact this guy and tell him he is wrong.

He would tell you that YOU are wrong!

He would tell you that the universe had a beginning and that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics along with a whole bunch of other reasons proves it.

But you don't have to take my word for it. He says it in the video.

 

[edthecynic]

ding,

Ding says motion has nothing to do with work and therefore the perpetual motion in the universe does not disprove his thermal equilibrium lie.

Motion IS the result of work!!!!!
The only way energy can no longer be exploited to do work is when all motion stops.
work = force x distance

You are debating with Ding ??

That's like mudwrestling with a pig.

Ed starts off by intentionally misstating my position while arguing a point that has no bearing to our original discussion - which was cyclical models of the universe don't work because matter to energy and energy to matter exchanges are inefficient and will eventually run out of usable energy as time approaches infinity - and I am the the dirty pig?

You do know that in physics "usable energy" is energy that can do WORK!.

In the conversation of can the universe have existed forever, the only thing that matters is that each exchange between matter and energy and energy and matter reduces the usable energy because the process is not perfectly efficient. Do this enough times and you reach maximum disorder or entropy and there is no more usable energy.

This is the reason cyclical universes have been rejected.

Again you dishonestly substitute universe for energy, which tells me deep down in your gut you know energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but you ate not honest enough to admit it.
Thank you.

 

[edthecynic]

But I think it is brilliant that Ed has reached such a groundbreaking conclusion that up is down. I just think Ed needs to contact this guy and tell him he is wrong.

He would tell you that YOU are wrong!

He would tell you that the universe had a beginning and that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics along with a whole bunch of other reasons proves it.

But you don't have to take my word for it. He says it in the video.

I would NEVER take your word for anything.

 

[ding]

ding,

Ding says motion has nothing to do with work and therefore the perpetual motion in the universe does not disprove his thermal equilibrium lie.

You are debating with Ding ??

That's like mudwrestling with a pig.

Ed starts off by intentionally misstating my position while arguing a point that has no bearing to our original discussion - which was cyclical models of the universe don't work because matter to energy and energy to matter exchanges are inefficient and will eventually run out of usable energy as time approaches infinity - and I am the the dirty pig?

You do know that in physics "usable energy" is energy that can do WORK!.

In the conversation of can the universe have existed forever, the only thing that matters is that each exchange between matter and energy and energy and matter reduces the usable energy because the process is not perfectly efficient. Do this enough times and you reach maximum disorder or entropy and there is no more usable energy.

This is the reason cyclical universes have been rejected.

Again you dishonestly substitute universe for energy, which tells me deep down in your gut you know energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but you ate not honest enough to admit it.
Thank you.

Space and time were created with a finite amount of energy.

Do you agree or disagree?

The correct answer is agree

 

[ding]

ding,

Ding says motion has nothing to do with work and therefore the perpetual motion in the universe does not disprove his thermal equilibrium lie.

You are debating with Ding ??

That's like mudwrestling with a pig.

Ed starts off by intentionally misstating my position while arguing a point that has no bearing to our original discussion - which was cyclical models of the universe don't work because matter to energy and energy to matter exchanges are inefficient and will eventually run out of usable energy as time approaches infinity - and I am the the dirty pig?

You do know that in physics "usable energy" is energy that can do WORK!.

In the conversation of can the universe have existed forever, the only thing that matters is that each exchange between matter and energy and energy and matter reduces the usable energy because the process is not perfectly efficient. Do this enough times and you reach maximum disorder or entropy and there is no more usable energy.

This is the reason cyclical universes have been rejected.

Again you dishonestly substitute universe for energy, which tells me deep down in your gut you know energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but you ate not honest enough to admit it.
Thank you.

Matter and energy are equivalent.

Do you agree or disagree?

The correct answer is agree.

 

[ding]

ding,

Ding says motion has nothing to do with work and therefore the perpetual motion in the universe does not disprove his thermal equilibrium lie.

You are debating with Ding ??

That's like mudwrestling with a pig.

Ed starts off by intentionally misstating my position while arguing a point that has no bearing to our original discussion - which was cyclical models of the universe don't work because matter to energy and energy to matter exchanges are inefficient and will eventually run out of usable energy as time approaches infinity - and I am the the dirty pig?

You do know that in physics "usable energy" is energy that can do WORK!.

In the conversation of can the universe have existed forever, the only thing that matters is that each exchange between matter and energy and energy and matter reduces the usable energy because the process is not perfectly efficient. Do this enough times and you reach maximum disorder or entropy and there is no more usable energy.

This is the reason cyclical universes have been rejected.

Again you dishonestly substitute universe for energy, which tells me deep down in your gut you know energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but you ate not honest enough to admit it.
Thank you.

Conversions from matter to energy and energy to matter are not 100% efficient.

Do you agree or disagree?

The correct answer is agree.

 

[ding]

ding,

Ding says motion has nothing to do with work and therefore the perpetual motion in the universe does not disprove his thermal equilibrium lie.

You are debating with Ding ??

That's like mudwrestling with a pig.

Ed starts off by intentionally misstating my position while arguing a point that has no bearing to our original discussion - which was cyclical models of the universe don't work because matter to energy and energy to matter exchanges are inefficient and will eventually run out of usable energy as time approaches infinity - and I am the the dirty pig?

You do know that in physics "usable energy" is energy that can do WORK!.

In the conversation of can the universe have existed forever, the only thing that matters is that each exchange between matter and energy and energy and matter reduces the usable energy because the process is not perfectly efficient. Do this enough times and you reach maximum disorder or entropy and there is no more usable energy.

This is the reason cyclical universes have been rejected.

Again you dishonestly substitute universe for energy, which tells me deep down in your gut you know energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but you ate not honest enough to admit it.
Thank you.

Some energy is lost in the form of heat for every matter to energy conversion and energy to matter conversion.

Do you agree or disagree?

The correct answer is agree.