Quick physics lesson for theists and to a lesser extent atheists.

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quick physics lesson for theists and to a lesser extent atheists.

Browsing the boards I see similar arguments popping up again and again. While I'm all for debate, I'm not for butchering the laws of physics.

 

First Law of Thermodynamics: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Brian and Kelly refered to this as the third law during the debate. Anyway, it was used to imply that the universe could be infinite. That matter/energy always existed and only took on several forms.This is still up for debate, as their are several theories (multiverse for example) that could indicate that matter can be created ex nilho (see vaccum flucutations)(These theories may have their own problems)

 

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In a nutshell it states that closed system will tend to disorder. Creationists use this do disprove evolution, however the Earth is not a closed system. First, what is a closed system? A closed system is a system that neither gains or loses energy to another system. Earth is not a closed system, as it recieves cosmic rays form the Sun and other celestial sources and even terristial sources via geological events (volcanos for example). Now is the universe a closed system? Some say yes, and hence it will tend to disorder. While the system itself may tend to disorder, it's open subsystems may not. Entropy is conserved since energy is required to make order. (That is the Earth 'sucks energy' from the universe) If the universe keeps expanding it will result in a 'big freeze', since expanding matter lowers in temperature.

 

Vacuum Fluctuations: As stated, above they could be used to explain the orgins of matter. Basically, in a vacuum, a matter anti-matter pair appear and annilhate each other. This is thought to have caused the big bang. However there are problems:

1) Space is required for a vacuum. It may be possible to have quantum tunneling into space and hence create a vacuum, however this according to the multi-verse theory, different univeres have different laws of physics and hence they may be exclusive to our universe. (Or it could be a universal...errr or rather a multiversal law) 

2) There is a theory that these are a result of interference from other univeres. Which brings us back to square one: Where did THAT universe come from?

 

Goldilocks Universe:  You know the bed is not too hard, not too soft, but just right? Some say this implies a designer. However, atheists point out that with all the planets of course, in probability, at least one will support life. The problem is that if the four major forces (strong/weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnitism) seperated differently gravity, for example, may be weaker and planets couldn't form, or the nuclear force could be weaker and hydrogen fusion which stars burn (and eventually form heavier elements (helium, carbon) and then even heavier elements when they supernova) could not be possible.  This implies the multi verse theory(see below). 

 

Mulitverse Theory: The theory that their are MANY universes and of course  ours is the one that forms 'just right'. It is mostly predicted by string thoery, (which uses Einstien's equations). This theory has problems, as we may never confirm it. (It is theoretically possible to use Einstein-Rosen bridges (blackhole entrance, white hole exit)to travel between univerese, but unfortuantly the closest black hole is VERY VERY far away, and my hyper drive spaceship is at the cleaners. Even once it's squeeqy clean, the gravity of the black-hole could crush the space ship.) It is theoretically possible to use negative energy (Cashmir effect) to avoid the little detail of being killed and destroyed before you exit the universe, but so far no way has been found. However, given the fine tuning of our universe, they may have their own laws of physics and since there is supposidly an infinite number of them ANYTHING is possible (Smurfs, Superman, Sailor Moon etc) (Thanks to canofbutter for correcting me when I said EVERYTHING is possible)

 

 Infinite Universe: Not to be confused with the universe always existed, but rather that the theory that the universe has infinite space. (i.e that I can go forever in one direction and never see the same point twice). It is shown by the doppler effect that the universe is expanding. It is predicted (I think via Einstien's equations) that empty space travels at 10^50m/s. Yes the is faster than light, however it's empty space and hence does not violate the speed of light limit. The accepted theory is that space has the shape of a saddle like form and will continue to expand according to the hubble equation. (If I travel forever in one direction form Earth, for example, I will eventually arrive back to Earth) Now you may ask: "What's outside the universe then smarty pants?" Well it could range from nothing (not 'space nothing' but "nothing nothing" as in no space) to other univeres etc... However my spaceship doesn't have a knife sharp enough to cut through space and time so I can't take a look. (but it has a killer paint job).

 

Main point: We don't know everything. And even if we form one theory, it as holes in it and needs other theories etc.... 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Questions? Comments?

Questions? Comments? Additions?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Questions? Comments? Additions?

 

An interesting fact is that the vacuum is not empty. And then there's that pesky dark matter.

 

The universe blows my mind.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Browsing the boards I see similar arguments popping up again and again. While I'm all for debate, I'm not for butchering the laws of physics.

 

First Law of Thermodynamics: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Brian and Kelly refered to this as the third law during the debate. Anyway, it was used to imply that the universe could be infinite. That matter/energy always existed and only took on several forms.This is still up for debate, as their are several theories (multiverse for example) that could indicate that matter can be created ex nilho (see vaccum flucutations)(These theories may have their own problems)

 

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In a nutshell it states that closed system will tend to disorder. Creationists use this do disprove evolution, however the Earth is not a closed system. First, what is a closed system? A closed system is a system that neither gains or loses energy to another system. Earth is not a closed system, as it recieves cosmic rays form the Sun and other celestial sources and even terristial sources via geological events (volcanos for example). Now is the universe a closed system? Some say yes, and hence it will tend to disorder. While the system itself may tend to disorder, it's open subsystems may not. Entropy is conserved since energy is required to make order. (That is the Earth 'sucks energy' from the universe) If the universe keeps expanding it will result in a 'big freeze', since expanding matter lowers in temperature.

Vacuum Fluctuations: As stated, above they could be used to explain the orgins of matter. Basically, in a vacuum, a matter anti-matter pair appear and annilhate each other. This is thought to have caused the big bang. However there are problems:

1) Space is required for a vacuum. It may be possible to have quantum tunneling into space and hence create a vacuum, however this according to the multi-verse theory, different univeres have different laws of physics and hence they may be exclusive to our universe. (Or it could be a universal...errr or rather a multiversal law)

2) There is a theory that these are a result of interference from other univeres. Which brings us back to square one: Where did THAT universe come from?

 

Goldilocks Universe: You know the bed is not too hard, not too soft, but just right? Some say this implies a designer. However, atheists point out that with all the planets of course, in probability, at least one will support life. The problem is that if the four major forces (strong/weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnitism) seperated differently gravity, for example, may be weaker and planets couldn't form, or the nuclear force could be weaker and hydrogen fusion which stars burn (and eventually form heavier elements (helium, carbon) and then even heavier elements when they supernova) could not be possible. This implies the multi verse theory(see below).

 

Mulitverse Theory: The theory that their are MANY universes and of course ours is the one that forms 'just right'. It is mostly predicted by string thoery, (which uses Einstien's equations). This theory has problems, as we may never confirm it. (It is theoretically possible to use Einstein-Rosen bridges (blackhole entrance, white hole exit)to travel between univerese, but unfortuantly the closest black hole is VERY VERY far away, and my hyper drive spaceship is at the cleaners. Even once it's squeeqy clean, the gravity of the black-hole could crush the space ship.) It is theoretically possible to use negative energy (Cashmir effect) to avoid the little detail of being killed and destroyed before you exit the universe, but so far no way has been found. However, given the fine tuning of our universe, they may have their own laws of physics and since there is supposidly an infinite number of them ANYTHING is possible (Smurfs, Superman, Sailor Moon etc) (Thanks to canofbutter for correcting me when I said EVERYTHING is possible)

 

Infinite Universe: Not to be confused with the universe always existed, but rather that the theory that the universe has infinite space. (i.e that I can go forever in one direction and never see the same point twice). It is shown by the doppler effect that the universe is expanding. It is predicted (I think via Einstien's equations) that empty space travels at 10^50m/s. Yes the is faster than light, however it's empty space and hence does not violate the speed of light limit. The accepted theory is that space has the shape of a saddle like form and will continue to expand according to the hubble equation. (If I travel forever in one direction form Earth, for example, I will eventually arrive back to Earth) Now you may ask: "What's outside the universe then smarty pants?" Well it could range from nothing (not 'space nothing' but "nothing nothing" as in no space) to other univeres etc... However my spaceship doesn't have a knife sharp enough to cut through space and time so I can't take a look. (but it has a killer paint job).

 

Main point: We don't know everything. And even if we form one theory, it as holes in it and needs other theories etc....

 

 

 

I admit my mistake in misquoting which one it was and Sapeint would as well. But both he and I know without a doubt none of these laws have anything to do with proping up fictional super heros anymore than than they would if I claimed that these laws would justify a purple snarfwidget that makes kegs of beer for me.

It is sad that they cant look beyond what amounts to a typo yet insted cheerleading becomes so important to the believer insted of intelectual honesty that they use science to wipe their asses with and pretend that believing in Kaptain Kirk and Luke Skywaker is ok.

So I am glad you posted these laws so that people can read them. But I myself am not going to buy claims of spirit sperm because a Christian wants to basterdize science to justify the absurd. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
one possible way to look at

one possible way to look at it is that theists see it as the bed is not too hard, not too soft, but just right, because we are here. and atheists see it as we are here because the bed is not too hard, not too soft.

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Nice list, Cpt. Now if only

Nice list, Cpt. Now if only we could get the other theists here to read it...


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for posting this,

Thanks for posting this, you're not such a bad banana(pineapple).


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
First law: Perhaps we

First law: Perhaps we should rephrase this to be specific that matter and energy can individually be created or destroyed, but there cannot be a reaction where both go one direction (E = M C squared)

 Vacuum fluctuations, Multiverse, Infinite Universe: All of these ammount to arguments from silence. We either have minimal evidence for any of these and the evidence can have alternative explainations, or there is no evidence at all (as in the multiverse) in which case Occams Razor is the best way of ruling out these possibilities.

Quote:
2) There is a theory that these are a result of interference from other univeres. Which brings us back to square one: Where did THAT universe come from?

You have basically put your finger on the gist of Godels Theorem. Wiki it and learn it because even though it was proven for arithmetic, it can and (and as you just did) is applied to all axiomatic systems.

Special note on the 2nd Law of thermodynamics:

In an earlier debate between myself and deludedgod, he drew a dichotomy between "chaos" and "entropy" and defined entropy with an equation that ammounts to a measurement of the temperature.

First off, this is clearly wrong (or at least an oversimplification.) Entropy is defined as a driving force in chemistry, so if entropy is not "a measure of the disorder" in a system, there ought to not be any endothermic reactions (as that there is not a driving force to allow them, in the case of endothermic reactions, the entropy must rise more than the energy absorbed.)

Secondly, pressure, temperature, and state of matter are all directly related, so any reaction that increases the molecule count of a system or changes the state of a matterial increases the disorder of the system while increasing the entropy via pressure.

Also, crystals and snowflakes are a perfect illustration of entropy in action because -even though they have much order, they are both created in entropy decreasing environments because the temperature is falling. Increased order is to be expected.

Finally, there is a big distinction between order and information in biology. Information requires order, but the reverse is not true.

Order is defined around the parameters of fitting a pattern (like a crystal always having a set number of sided) While information is order that fits into a specific place or fits a pattern wholy seperate from the patterns of derrivation (hence ruling out a crystal as having information.) 

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

First law: Perhaps we should rephrase this to be specific that matter and energy can individually be created or destroyed, but there cannot be a reaction where both go one direction (E = M C squared)

 

Good point but as you can see most people that make that argument are not physists. Didn't want to confuse them too muchWink

 

Quote:
 

Vacuum fluctuations, Multiverse, Infinite Universe: All of these ammount to arguments from silence. We either have minimal evidence for any of these and the evidence can have alternative explainations, or there is no evidence at all (as in the multiverse) in which case Occams Razor is the best way of ruling out these possibilities.

 

One of my points is that atheists say God is an argument from silence.

 

Quote:

Quote:

2) There is a theory that these are a result of interference from other univeres. Which brings us back to square one: Where did THAT universe come from?

You have basically put your finger on the gist of Godels Theorem. Wiki it and learn it because even though it was proven for arithmetic, it can and (and as you just did) is applied to all axiomatic systems.

 

 

wiki'd it too long; didn't read. I'll get to it later.

 

Quote:
 

Special note on the 2nd Law of thermodynamics:

In an earlier debate between myself and deludedgod, he drew a dichotomy between "chaos" and "entropy" and defined entropy with an equation that ammounts to a measurement of the temperature.

 

Gibbs Duhem equation perhaps?

link to the topic?

 You're thought barrier is blocking my mind reading powers.

Quote:
 

First off, this is clearly wrong (or at least an oversimplification.) Entropy is defined as a driving force in chemistry, so if entropy is not "a measure of the disorder" in a system, there ought to not be any endothermic reactions (as that there is not a driving force to allow them, in the case of endothermic reactions, the entropy must rise more than the energy absorbed.)

 


Secondly, pressure, temperature, and state of matter are all directly related, so any reaction that increases the molecule count of a system or changes the state of a matterial increases the disorder of the system while increasing the entropy via pressure.

 I'm confused, are you referring to deludedgod's argument or mine?

 

Quote:
 

Also, crystals and snowflakes are a perfect illustration of entropy in action because -even though they have much order, they are both created in entropy decreasing environments because the temperature is falling. Increased order is to be expected.

 

Are you saying that abiogenises couldn't happen? 

 

Quote:

Finally, there is a big distinction between order and information in biology. Information requires order, but the reverse is not true.

Order is defined around the parameters of fitting a pattern (like a crystal always having a set number of sided) While information is order that fits into a specific place or fits a pattern wholy seperate from the patterns of derrivation (hence ruling out a crystal as having information.)

 

I'm not talking about information theory. Are you talking about deludedgod or me?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Bump.

Bump.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Cpt!  Between you

Thanks Cpt!  Between you and BGH and a few others I am going to understand physics eventually.  This was quite helpful!