Conservation of energy

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Conservation of energy

Post #1

Post by The Tanager »

I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #2

Post by Neatras »

The Tanager wrote: I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.
The second is the correct description, and looks to be pulled either from wikipedia or a source that would be linked to in wikipedia.

The second question needs clarification. If by "tighten up" you mean going into further detail about each component of the law's statements to avoid misinformation, then that would leave the law as written too wordy; it's easy enough to look up relevant literature.

If by "tighten up" you mean you want the word count reduced without destroying the meaning, i.e. turning statement 2 into statement 1 via some kind of literary transformation, then that is not likely to be useful. It would only lead to misinformation.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #3

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to post 2 by Neatras]

Those options were definitely meant to be general and without scientific precision. By tightening it up, I guess I meant a third option that gets at the general gist of the law better, not going into more scientific precision that would get too wordy. Thanks for your feedback.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #4

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

The Tanager wrote:
(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal
Impossible, as it defies observation and experiment..and it is philosophically flawed.
The Tanager wrote: (2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.
The universe is a closed system, and it is losing all usable energy. If the universe was eternal, it would have lost all its energy a long time ago. Just like how you know that a car that is running on gas wasn't running for an infinite amount of time, because that is impossible due to only a finite amount of gas.

Look, people; the universe began to exist...whether we like it or not. Embrace the truth..the universe began to exist, and anything that begins to exist must have a cause.

An external cause.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 8139
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 142 times
Been thanked: 309 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #5

Post by Clownboat »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
The Tanager wrote:
(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal
Impossible, as it defies observation and experiment..and it is philosophically flawed.
The Tanager wrote: (2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.
The universe is a closed system, and it is losing all usable energy. If the universe was eternal, it would have lost all its energy a long time ago. Just like how you know that a car that is running on gas wasn't running for an infinite amount of time, because that is impossible due to only a finite amount of gas.

Look, people; the universe began to exist...whether we like it or not. Embrace the truth..the universe began to exist, and anything that begins to exist must have a cause.

An external cause.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you would like to pretend that your god concept has always existed for example, and sense we are just using our imaginations, then imagine that the universe always existed as well (in some form).

Not really fair to apply your imagination to a god and not also the thing you are comparing said god to.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #6

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Clownboat wrote: You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you would like to pretend that your god concept has always existed for example, and sense we are just using our imaginations, then imagine that the universe always existed as well (in some form).
Um, we don't need to imagine that the universe always existed forever...why? Because of the evidence we have that it COULDN'T have existed forever (in some form). We have both philosophical/scientific evidence to support this.

How about dealing with the arguments/evidence that support this? Instead of this "if you can do it, we can do it" nonsense.
Clownboat wrote: Not really fair to apply your imagination to a god and not also the thing you are comparing said god to.
?

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #7

Post by Kenisaw »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
The Tanager wrote:
(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal
Impossible, as it defies observation and experiment..and it is philosophically flawed.
Accuracy matters in a discussion such as this, and your statements are not accurate.

You do not know if energy and mass are eternal, or not. No one does. Our current understanding of things takes us back to the beginning of THiS universe, and this universe only. Everything before that is hypothetical, even though some of those hypothesis are supported mathematically. Matter and energy may have a beginning, and they may not. It's one of the questions that awaits an answer.

From a philosophical view, I actually agree with you that it doesn't make sense (to me) that matter and energy are eternal. It doesn't make sense, from a philosophical view, that anything is eternal for that matter. But I will delve into that more below...
The Tanager wrote: (2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.
The universe is a closed system, and it is losing all usable energy. If the universe was eternal, it would have lost all its energy a long time ago. Just like how you know that a car that is running on gas wasn't running for an infinite amount of time, because that is impossible due to only a finite amount of gas.
You are correct that the universe is a closed system. You are correct that this universe has entropy, and therefore the amount of usable energy in it will eventually reach zero. I agree that this implies that this universe cannot be eternal or it would already be at maximum entropy. Your statements here are clear and concise and accurate.

The problem we have still is similar to the previous paragraph, in that we don't know what was around before this universe. Entropy is time related. In other words, without an arrow of time, entropy isn't an issue because it would be possible to move back and forth between two states with no entropy penalty in either direction. As an example, a deck of cards thrown into the air would require the exact same amount of energy to make them into an organized deck again. In our entropic universe that isn't true, but we can't say it isn't possible outside this universe.

Before time began, the singularity didn't have entropy constrains. If a previous universe collapsed to the point where spacetime no longer existed, everything in the subsequent singularity could move to a low entropy state with no penalty. Then our universe could have started from a low entropy state singularity. Since there was no time, there also isn't a cause effect relationship to things either. Which means a universe could potentially start without a cause.

The problem here is that we know a lot of things, but it pales in comparison to what we don't know. We don't know what preceded this universe, we don't know why there is an arrow time, we don't know why there is entropy, we don't know why our universe started out with low entropy. We can't assume, based on what we DO know, what is the explanation is for the things we DON'T know.
Look, people; the universe began to exist...whether we like it or not. Embrace the truth..the universe began to exist, and anything that begins to exist must have a cause.

An external cause.
As explained above, we can't say this universe needed a cause, because we don't know if it is eternal or not, and we don't know the conditions that preceded this universe. That's the problem with The Kalam Argumen - it assumes things that's cannot be considered true.

I promised a further explanation on philosophy, and here it is. The problem with eternal anything (universes or gods) is a basic one. If something exists eternally, then we can never reach the point in that existence where this universe appears. Be it a god or a constant universe, it would take an eternity before you reach the point where this universe appears. There is no middle to infinity Kingdom, and therefore no way to get to a finite universe appearing. It's false logic.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 8139
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 142 times
Been thanked: 309 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #8

Post by Clownboat »

Um, we don't need to imagine that the universe always existed forever...why? Because of the evidence we have that it COULDN'T have existed forever (in some form). We have both philosophical/scientific evidence to support this.
Please provide the scientific evidence that shows that the universe couldn't have pre-existed in some form.
How about dealing with the arguments/evidence that support this? Instead of this "if you can do it, we can do it" nonsense.
I need to see the evidence first before I can 'deal' with it.
Clownboat wrote: Not really fair to apply your imagination to a god and not also the thing you are comparing said god to.
?
I don't see how you could know if your god concept is eternal or not. Perhaps it was created an 'eternity' ago by another type of god concept? Perhaps your god concept is just eternal? Unless this is known, then you are just imagining an eternal god concept. To be fair, I can imagine an eternal universe.

Look, people; the universe began to exist...whether we like it or not. Embrace the truth..the universe began to exist, and anything that begins to exist must have a cause.

An external cause.
If I can imagine an eternal universe, then it would not need a cause.
I was just trying to keep things fair.

My entire point is probably moot though since you are going to supply evidence that the universe could not have previously existed in some other form.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #9

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Clownboat wrote: Please provide the scientific evidence that shows that the universe couldn't have pre-existed in some form.
The standard model of the big bang theory has the most scientific evidence supporting it...and in this model, physical reality began at this point. If you want to claim that the universe existed in some other "form" one way or another, then the onus is on you to provide evidence for such.
Clownboat wrote: I need to see the evidence first before I can 'deal' with it.
Infinite regression...a problem..
Clownboat wrote:]
I don't see how you could know if your god concept is eternal or not. Perhaps it was created an 'eternity' ago by another type of god concept? Perhaps your god concept is just eternal? Unless this is known, then you are just imagining an eternal god concept.
SMH.
Clownboat wrote: To be fair, I can imagine an eternal universe.
You can't imagine infinite regression.
Clownboat wrote: If I can imagine an eternal universe, then it would not need a cause.
I was just trying to keep things fair.
But the universe began to exist tho.
Clownboat wrote: My entire point is probably moot though since you are going to supply evidence that the universe could not have previously existed in some other form.
Infinite regression...problem.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 8139
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 142 times
Been thanked: 309 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #10

Post by Clownboat »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Clownboat wrote: Please provide the scientific evidence that shows that the universe couldn't have pre-existed in some form.
The standard model of the big bang theory has the most scientific evidence supporting it...and in this model, physical reality began at this point. If you want to claim that the universe existed in some other "form" one way or another, then the onus is on you to provide evidence for such.
I do not claim that the universe pre-existed in some form, therefore I have no onus. I can imagine a universe though that pre-existed, much like I think you are doing in regards to a god concept.
Either way, you claimed that there was scientific evidence that shows the universe could not have existed in some previous form.
Please supply it or be honorable and retract your claim.
Clownboat wrote: I need to see the evidence first before I can 'deal' with it.
Infinite regression...a problem..
I'm sorry For the Kingdom, but these words are not evidence, nor do they specify what it is you are asking me to deal with.
Peepee on a toilet seat...a problem..
Clownboat wrote:]
I don't see how you could know if your god concept is eternal or not. Perhaps it was created an 'eternity' ago by another type of god concept? Perhaps your god concept is just eternal? Unless this is known, then you are just imagining an eternal god concept.
SMH.
Why are you shaking your head and not debating?
Clownboat wrote: To be fair, I can imagine an eternal universe.
You can't imagine infinite regression.
For the Kingdom, I said I can imagine an eternal universe. Never have I stated that I can imagine infinite regression.
Clownboat wrote: If I can imagine an eternal universe, then it would not need a cause.
I was just trying to keep things fair.
But the universe began to exist tho.
Is it possible that it existed in a previous form before this 'began to exist' claim of yours applies?
Clownboat wrote: My entire point is probably moot though since you are going to supply evidence that the universe could not have previously existed in some other form.
Infinite regression...problem.
Please offer some specifics and if you can, please allude to how/why they apply to anything that I have said.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Post Reply