lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Origins and Possibilities for the Universe (not a creation/big bang debate)
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 10-24-2003, 08:18 PM   #41
Homuncul
 
Homuncul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 383
Quote:
Jubatus:
Fret not, my russian comrade, as should be obvious from what I've written in this post I hold you in quite a favorable esteem
You have my respect then.

Cheers. Do svidanya
Homuncul is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-25-2003, 06:26 PM   #42
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Okay, this is irrelevant. The problem I posed was that the universe would run out of usable energy. While there are similarities between matter and energy, eventually the universe's energy will all be converted to heat. No known process can use heat for power. I'm not saying there isn't one that we don't know about, but to claim that energy will simply be altered in form is to propose some unknown mechanism simply to support your theory.
There some part of science you are missing here because I don't think you understand some basic things.. "conservation of matter" Even energy is made up of particles of matter "light or heat is also." All this is radiated energy and it has substance.

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Moreover, you comment about water is an absurdity . That's chemistry, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with energy. It's utterly irrelevant. And just because 8 electrons, 8 protons, and 8 neutrons makes oxygen doesn't mean that the energy of the universe can be infinitely recycled. Au contraire, all that we know of science says it can't.
I'm getting the impression you really don't know anything here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
And don't give me that crud about science and math being only tools. Duh. But you're ideas are founded on the same stuff. They may be only tools, but it's the only way we have to analyze the universe.
So because we have these tools we can't use them wrong?

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Your claim is like saying that just because a hammer is only a tool makes it useless for pounding nails into wood. Moreover, the stuff the rest of us are talking about is firmly rooted in the best tools we have accessible. You have yet to do anything except be bitter or talk about how we don't understand the world. We all understand that, but you don't seem to think that it applies to you.
LOL A hammer is useless for pounding nails into wood if you don't know what nails are or what to do with a hammer. Besides beating yourself in the head..

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
PLease give us some real, reasonable support for your ideas; I'm more than happy to listen to that. But his inconsistent and unsupported stuff you're giving us is difficult to stomach. If you have some science to show, use it, but don't just propose your own theory without any backing or credibilty whatsoever.
Your lack of real knowledge and insight is difficult for me to stomach. I feel like I'm talking to a 13 yr old that found a physics book with 1/2 the pages missing. You are as committed to it as you are the bible. You quote it at every chance. To bad your book is missing so much. If you know so much you would know " the law of conservation of matter." "law" means "fact."

In fact it is so easy to get info on the net it's pathetic. The fact that you argue me things that all you have to do is type into the search engine and there it is...

You will like this page it is a christion page..
http://www.voy.com/28395/4.html

This post by someone that really understands physicas. I don't think you made it..
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7973.Ot.r.html

http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/Thermoch...ss-Energy.html

Here is a school science experiment to try it yourself. lol http://www.phys.virginia.edu/educati...servMatter.htm

http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astr...vationofmatter

Upps the big bang theory might be wrong, because of the the law of conservation of matter. If you take that, the big bang theroy, and my idea they work together.
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

All these websites are directly linked to what I said. In fact none of my idea would work without the law of conservation of matter. My idea of time wouldn't work also. So either you don't understand that simple law or we really aren't comunicating at all. Knock yourself out with that hammer, because you don't know how to use it...

My post isn't edited I have to rush to work..


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-26-2003, 12:56 AM   #43
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
grrr.....

Okay, first off:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Even energy is made up of particles of matter "light or heat is also." All this is radiated energy and it has substance.
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Sorry to be possibly rude, but seriously. You're the one who needs a high school physics book. It is theorized - that is, not shown to be fact at all yet, in this case, that energy at its basic component is similar to matter, but in a different shape. It is not matter. It might be made out of strings, as might matter, but strings are more fundamental than either. Energy is not matter. Care to disagree with me? Then you're disagreeing with everyone from Newton to Einstein to Hawking and Witten.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
So because we have these tools we can't use them wrong?
No I'm saying you're missing a whole lot of tools. We're using them the best we know how. I'm not saying we don't make mistakes, but we have a tendency to correct them. Your argument is that nearly a century of evidence is wrong because it doesn't fit your happy little theory.

Next point. Just because you can find "evidence" on the Internet doesn't make you or it right. Anyone can have a website. That means your sights may have good or bad info. And to be honest, I'm not disagreeing with your theory entirely. I'm simply presenting good evidence against it. That's what good science does; it tries to disprove theories. You can find an infinite amount of evidence supporting your theory, but all it takes is one disproof to disprove the whole thing. I'm simply pointing out the difficulties in your theory, and just as you did against CTBD, you're taking offense. We're perfectly amenable to rational logical discussion of ideas. You have done none of this, simply whine when we try to point out possible flaws in your arguments. WE, on the other hand, have done our best to be rational about your presentation of points against us.

I understand that your job makes your life difficult. But if you're not inclined to be exceedingly rational after work, then don't post in the Senate; it'll just make you angry. Seriously, I don't mind disagreeing with you, but I think you're getting way too stressed over a forum, dude.

And just because matter + energy in the universe is a constant doesn't mean that matter + usable energy = constant. Heat energy is not usable by any known process. Again, I'm not saying there's processes that we haven't discovered that can use it, but any high school chemistry student could tell you that.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-26-2003, 01:57 AM   #44
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Re: grrr.....

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It is theorized - that is, not shown to be fact at all yet, in this case, that energy at its basic component is similar to matter, but in a different shape. It is not matter.
Then why do equations that work for energy work for matter as well. I can show the wavelength and frequency of a baseball, even if it is at rest. Also, how do you explain the bond enthalpies of atoms? I'm not saying you are wrong, mind you.... I'm just asking questions.


Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Seriously, I don't mind disagreeing with you, but I think you're getting way too stressed over a forum, dude.
You should have been here for his first 50 or so posts!

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Heat energy is not usable by any known process.
That's because heat isn't energy. Energy is the capacity to do work or transfer heat. Heat is simply the effect of energy being transferred to a colder object from hotter one.

But this energy transfer does have the capacity to be used. And it is. Every time you make a pot of coffee.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-26-2003, 03:19 AM   #45
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Re: grrr.....

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Energy is not matter. Care to disagree with me? Then you're disagreeing with everyone from Newton to Einstein to Hawking and Witten.
Incidently, it was Einstein that postulated that energy and matter are equivalent (Einstein, 1935). Eddington pointed out that we treat mass and energy as different only because we use different units to measure them. By introducing time as a unit of measure, the distinction disappears. The use of 'light-years' for instance.

Torretti (1983) stated, "If a kitchen refrigerator can extract mass from a given jug of water and transfer it by heat radiation or convection to the kitchen wall behind it, a trenchant metaphysical distinction between the mass and the energy of matter does seem far fetched." He also referred to the distinction between matter and energy as an illusion that was "the convenient but deceitful act of the mind by which we abstract time and space from nature."

Feynman (1989) pointed out that in experiments in which matter was annihilated -converted totally to energy (20 kiloton atomic explosions), the principle of mass-energy equivalence has been tested quite thouroughly.

According to these interpretations, the philosophical lesson of E_= mc^2 is that we should no longer regard the world as consisting of two types of stuff: matter and energy. Instead, the world is composed of only one type of fundamental stuff.

Also, noting your distaste for internet sources, I used some physical ones of peer-reviewed nature.


Einstein, A. (1935) "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy," Am. Math. Soc. Bul. 41:223-230

Einstein, A. (1935) "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy," Am. Math. Soc. Bul. 41:223-230

Feynman, R. P. (1989) The Feynman Lectures in Physics, Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Torretti, R. (1983) Relativity and Geometry, New York


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-26-2003, 12:16 PM   #46
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Re: Re: grrr.....

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Sorry to be possibly rude, but seriously. You're the one who needs a high school physics book. It is theorized - that is, not shown to be fact at all y
If I believed in god I would be saying OH MY GOD... Now I know I have nothing to discuses with you. What can you possibly know if you think a basic scientific fact is still a theory that was a fact before you or I were born.

Now you are making your argument out of your own pieced together knowledge. That has more than a few holes. My idea revolves around a fact and your argument revolves around telling me a excepted fact is an obscure theory...

I think this stems from you lack of knowledge of the word answer. I could be wrong? I should have saw this when discussing that with you. From what I can tell you have a terrible problem with common sence.

Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker
You should have been here for his first 50 or so posts!
I think I have gotten allot better. I would have already been banned 2 or 3 times by now....

Yes this is just a forum, but this is also a serious subject in a serious discussion forum. The fact that it is a Star Wars themed forum has nothing to do with it, but that some people that are debating in it shouldn't be. On this case I would say all my ducks are in a row; however, I would stress that your's are a little out of place. "Master_Keralys" I'm not sure if you want to argue this with "SkinWalker" be my guess.. He always has a ready source of facts to back what he says up if you ask for them...

I have the problem of expecting others to know common stuff. I asked all the people I worked with last night if they knew what the conservation of matter was out of like 30 some people. Only 2 people knew what it was. LOL


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.

Last edited by Cosmos Jack; 10-26-2003 at 12:45 PM.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-28-2003, 03:18 PM   #47
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
My point is that energy and matter might be interchangeable, but that doesn't mean that there is an infinite amount of either in the universe. I was also angered by the fact that CJ insisted on arguing that energy was made out of matter... it's not. At their basic level, they are made of the same component - which is why they can be interchanged. But they're not made out of each other. They're made out of something more fundamental.

I argued that string theory was only a theory, not yet shown to be fact. That's not even proven now, and it was only proposed a few years before I was born.

Skin, I see what you're saying; I think I wasn't clear enough in what I was saying. There is a difference between being interchangeable and being the same thing. That was what I was trying to say earlier in this post.

I beg to differ with your last point in your second to last post. Heat is energy. It is the least ordered form of energy, actually. And, actually, when making coffee, the heat is simply a byproduct that we can use. It's not usable, though, for chemical reactions - only reactions within a particular chemical, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but heart is the byproduct of exergonic reactions; all the books I've ever read have said that it is the lowest form of energy and is unusable by known reactions. I'd be happy to shown wrong; that's just what I've seen.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-28-2003, 06:12 PM   #48
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
My point is that energy and matter might be interchangeable, but that doesn't mean that there is an infinite amount of either in the universe.
I take it you still don't understand "conservation of matter."

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
I was also angered by the fact that CJ insisted on arguing that energy was made out of matter... it's not.
It isn't? Keep being angered here because you don't know what you are talking about....

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
At their basic level, they are made of the same component - which is why they can be interchanged.
I thought you said they weren't made of the same stuff?

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
But they're not made out of each other. They're made out of something more fundamental.
"something more fundamental" lol

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
I argued that string theory was only a theory, not yet shown to be fact. That's not even proven now, and it was only proposed a few years before I was born.
What does this have to do with "conservation of matter." The string theory isn't very old; however, "the law of conservation of matter" is.

The String theroy.....
http://superstringtheory.com/history/history4.html

The law of conservation of matter and energy..... make sure to read the highlited print at the bottom..
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/...nservation.htm

To give you a break.. I understand what your saying about the universe running out of usable energy "I have from the beging", but that is a god fearing mans clutch on science. That is a hold out for them to say the universe had a beginning and will have a end. If it began than it must have had a creator.

The simple problem here is if all our knowledge is saying that then we are automatically wrong we haven't used the tools in the right way. We are making a fundamental error in reasoning that has led us to this. With all our knowledge of math and science we have made a big mistake. There is something that we don't understand and have left out. Possibly, because we don't know about it.

There are all kinds of things that we don't understand Black holes Dark matter, and Dark energy.. We aren't at a point were we can say there is a beginning and end by a long shot. We must rule out the fantasy of god from science. To think allot of scientist don't want to have to say there isn't a god. We have subconsciously lead ourselves back into a hole saying god did it.

So when you said this..
Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
As far as the concept of an oscillating universe goes, sorry Cosmos Jack, but what we know of physics rules that out.
and I typed this...
Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
"Sorry Mr. Columbus, but from what we know of the world if you sail out to far you will fall of the edge.
I made a perfect point. At our state of physics we know as much as people knew about the shape of the world back then. So you can keep thinking the world is flat "that the universe has a beginning and a end" and that god created it all you want. I really don't care.

I'm Sorry I make you so mad, but it seems it's more, because you don't know what you are arguing about. Than what I am saying..

Either way I don't makeing people like you mad.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.

Last edited by Cosmos Jack; 10-28-2003 at 06:33 PM.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-31-2003, 08:10 PM   #49
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
I'm not getting what you're saying by conservation of matter. The way it has been taught to me, it means that there is the same output of matter in a reaction as there was input. That's it. The same thing goes for energy. This in no way implies that the two are infinite, or that they are infinitely reusable (at least, energy isn't, though matter is). Maybe the problem is that I'm not understanding what you're trying to get across.

Energy is not made of matter. Nor is matter made of energy. Saying that they are both made from another, more fundamental component is not absurd; it is quite logical. Your comment about me not saying they were made of the same thing is, quite frankly, stupid. I did not say that. I said (and you quoted me as saying) that energy is not made of matter. I later said that both are made of something else.

The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

That's a direct quote from your website. Duh. I've said that exact thing all along. My argument has always been that the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing. That's what the second law of thermodynamics says.

Perhaps you could explain what is so funny about the phrase "something more fundamental"? I'm just not sure what you're laughing at.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
The simple problem here is if all our knowledge is saying that then we are automatically wrong we haven't used the tools in the right way. We are making a fundamental error in reasoning that has led us to this. With all our knowledge of math and science we have made a big mistake. There is something that we don't understand and have left out.
Okay, whoa! You're saying, pretty much, that all of our knowledge is wrong because it doesn't line up with your theory. So any proof we have is, in essence wrong, because it doesn't line up with what you're saying. Maybe I'm reading this wrong; if so please explain, but to me it looks like you're saying that you're right regardless of what our evidence shows.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
I made a perfect point. At our state of physics we know as much as people knew about the shape of the world back then. So you can keep thinking the world is flat "that the universe has a beginning and a end" and that god created it all you want. I really don't care.
I'm not the only one arguing this perspective. Others, including an agnostic and (I think) an atheist (Homuncul?) are arguing the same perspective. So saying it's a "God" excuse is rather lame. I would say that you are wrong about Columbus. It had been known by well over a thousand years (closer to 1500, I think) that the world was round. Actual scientists knew that, that is. The common people may not have, but they weren't that informed anyway.

And I've never claimed we know all there is to know. I'm simply arguing from the perspective of what we do know. We can only truly create good theories from what we know, never from what we don't. I can say "We don't know that our world isn't the exact center of the universe, so it is," but that's bad logic. Instead, we go from what we do know: "Our would does not appear to be the center of the universe, so it's probably not". Mind you that's a pretty radical example, but I think it gets across my point.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-01-2003, 04:30 AM   #50
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
I'm not sure how this thread got to be the "Matter and Energy" thread, but I suppose these are fundamental concepts to understanding the origin of the universe(s).

Let me try to be clearer than I was earlier in this thread and perhaps bring you guys together.

Matter is that which has substance and takes up space. Gases, plants/animals, rocks, dust, pure elements, etc.

Energy is simply the capacity to do work and can either be kinetic or potential. It is contained in all matter. Energy by itself is not matter, but it cannot exist without matter being present.

A diatomic hydrogen molecule has energy. 103 kcal to be exact.

Einstein theorized, and later researchers successfully tested the theory, that energy can be transformed into matter.

Some energy is already matter, such as radiation energy. This energy is made up of particles such as α, β or γ particles.

Light exhibits properties of both waves and particles. Light is another form of energy.

Atomic energy is released from the nucleus of an atom at the expense of its mass. If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it must be transformed. It becomes a new type of matter called energy in the form of particles that are radiated.

Another type of energy is heat energy. This is an aggregated form of energy created by the motion of atoms. Atoms are matter.

Heat is energy that is commonly useful. It easily expands gases and other matter, initiates chemical reactions (chemical energy is another energy form), and is transferred by conduction, convection, and radiation. The formula for the total amount of heat absorbed or released by a substance is: Heat energy (J) = specific heat x mass x ∇t

A common use for heat energy involves its uses with water. The more heat energy availble to water, the faster it's molecules are excited. By taking water in it's liquid state, containing it in a vessel then applying heat, steam can be produced. Since the gaseous form of water will require more space than the liquid form, pressure can be built and utilized to push a piston.

Heat energy made consumer capitalists out of midwestern Americans by allowing trains to deliver goods in a matter of days rather than weeks or months.

Perhaps I don't follow why you say heat is the "lowest form of energy and is unusable by known reactions." Heat is very useful in initiating chemical reactions and producing work. It is true that heat is a by-product in many other reactions or physical operations of physics and chemistry, but that is true of many other forms of energy as well. Atomic energy releases particles, lasers produce light, radiation produces light, etc.

It is also true that scientists see the total amount of matter in the universe as finite and fixed. However, it is infinitely reuseable. This is because matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy is infinately abundant in that it will exist as long as there is matter.

Most theorists of the origin of the universe agree that much of the matter we observe in our universe was likely the result of changes in Hydrogen to the other elements on the periodic table. One electron orbiting one proton. Perhaps Helium was present as well, since it introduces a new particle: the neutron.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-01-2003, 08:44 PM   #51
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
I really have nothing to say to you other than to correct this. Arguing with you is like arguing with a blind man about the color of the sky. It's also really annoying how you twist what I say, because you don't understand what I mean. So there is no way of talking to you.

I have no desire to keep correcting your misinterpretations just to have you misinterpret again and again. The fact that you still are arguing things that I have already proven you wrong on is also annoying. It makes it totally pointless to continue, because you don't realize when you are wrong and someone else is right. Even when they have facts to back them up. Odd how when you don't like the facts you ignore them, but you expect everyone to go with your "Swiss Cheese Statements."

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
I would say that you are wrong about Columbus. It had been known by well over a thousand years (closer to 1500, I think) that the world was round. Actual scientists knew that, that is. The common people may not have, but they weren't that informed anyway.
I know all to well about this I really hate when what I say is taken out of context. Eratosthenes figured almost the exact circumference of the Earth over 2,200 years ago in Alexandria. This knowledge became lost and found again "thanks to the Christians ransacking the library of Alexandria." Christians have had a terrible hatred for science and true knowledge from the very beginning. By the time Columbus rolled around educated people knew the Earth was round commoners did not. Columbus argued that Eratosthenes was wrong and that the earth was smaller than it was believed to be.

The odd thing of this is that Columbus was wrong about everything except the Earth really being round. If the Americas had not been in his way he would have led his ships to their death. So in America we calibrate a guy that was an idiot that got lucky.

Personally with all the knowledge you claim to have I fined it odd you didn't point out Eratosthenes to me. Instead of taking a random guess.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-03-2003, 09:05 PM   #52
Homuncul
 
Homuncul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 383
MK and CJ

You're guys are nuts! In about 10th flaming post I lost the point of your dispute. If it's not too bothering (since you've had such a wonderful intellectual discussion) please do you mind posting again where exactly the misinterpretation (or simply problem with you) is. Maybe it would be simple to solve by an outsider (meaning myself and my super-intelligence). It's just I don't like when worthy discussions end like this.

Quote:
Others, including an agnostic and (I think) an atheist (Homuncul?) are arguing the same perspective.
ATHEIST? Oh no, do I look like one? That was harsh. No, I believe in god, it's just I don't go on with religion anymore. And since atheism in my and not solely my opinion is a religion too, I can not possibly be an atheist. Call me realist if you like. I dunno... can't help thinking I'm just some kind of twisted agnostic who doesn't know how convince people that agnosticism is not perfect, that it has contradictions.... which I can't neither justify implicitly nor disprove.
Homuncul is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-03-2003, 11:30 PM   #53
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
Wink

Sorry bout that Homuncul. We were talking about infinite energy or infinite usability for energy in the context of the possibility of an oscillating universe.

Okay, got some corrections of myself here. I was going off of older chemistry text - and it lied. Well, it actually just didn't tell the whole truth.

Heat is the energy that flows between two objects as a result of difference in temperature.

Reality is that all known processes generate waste heat. This is not to say that no process can use it, just that our processes can't. I was, therefore, wrong on that count. However, as a note, Sadi Carnot showed back in the 1800's that even an ideal engine would generate some waste heat. From this it can be show that any given reaction - regardless of what it is - will increase or maintain the entropy of a system. Even a point system. Moreover, the universe itself is running down: it is a closed system, if our math and Einstein are correct. Getting back to the original point, an oscillating universe would run out of gas, so to speak, because of the principle of entropy: the size of the system doesn't matter, entropy will always increase.

Unless this book is wrong too.

I apologize for my vehemence there; I was kind of hot at some of the things CJ said. However, as a note, I did have backup - my book did agree with me. I didn't know that the book wasn't telling the whole story.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-14-2003, 04:56 PM   #54
Kryn Dreith
Rookie
 
Kryn Dreith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Inside a dream inside a dream inside a dream...
Posts: 15
Interesting.

I like multiverse, personally. It means that somehwere, somehow, I'm a Jedi... Okay, so not really. But it does make for a lot more possibilities. And it deals with a lot of the paradoxes in our own universe. If there is a multiverse, it means that we don't have to worry about improbabilities and whatnot; they're all bound to happen with enough universes. More later, must run...


Kryn Dreith
The Whip of Fate

Call me Kryn. Or Dreith. But whatever you do, don't ever call me Kryn Dreith!!!!
Kryn Dreith is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Origins and Possibilities for the Universe (not a creation/big bang debate)

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:28 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.