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
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #301

Post by Still small »

Bust Nak wrote:That much is fine, however your earlier claim was that a Steady State universe contradicts 2LoT, are you ready to accept that there is no contradiction with a static universe and 2LoT first? You really should resolve this before moving on to another point re: Big Bang
Ok, let’s look at this. If you are referring to the standard model of the Steady State Universe (SSU), then it contradicts 1LoT -
“In cosmology, the Steady State theory is an alternative to the Big Bang model of the evolution of our universe. In the steady-state theory, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, . . . “ (Emphasis added) (Link).

If, on the other hand, it is some model of SSU where matter is not being continually created, then after an infinite amount of time of it past existence, the amount of energy available for use should have already reached maximum entropy, leaving no energy available for fuelling stars, etc.

To which particular version of SSU would you be referring?
If your claim is that the expansion of an infinite universe is just a reduction of density, then you still come across the problem of Olber’s paradox.
The solution to the "paradox" is right there in the article, under the subtitle "The final explanation."
I’m not sure that I’m following your argument for an infinite universe (SSU) and solution for Olber’s Paradox. “The final explanation� to which you refer states either -
“This definite beginning imposes a finite age for the universe.� A ‘finite age’ contradicts an ‘infinite universe’ as proposed by the SSU.
Or “[T]he scarcity of the contained energy and matter in the whole universe also becomes an independent valid reason to justify its darkness.� which also contradicts the SSU standard model which continuously creates matter (see above reference) or has an infinite amount of matter from which to form stars over an infinite amount of time and fill the night sky as per the ‘concentric shell’ illustration in the Wiki entry.
Both these points appear to rule out the SSU model as explained in the “Conclusion� of the article.

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #302

Post by Still small »

brunumb wrote: [Replying to post 279 by Still small]
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. - (Being the phenomenon which we know as the Big Bang.)
The early universe was opaque and effectively dark. Stars did not form until some hundreds of million years after the Big Bang. It would appear that God waited all that time until light naturally began to be emitted from the earliest stars and tried to take credit for it. Or, the anonymous authors of that ancient text didn't have a clue about how their world started and made up a fanciful tale with a magical being that could do anything.
:study: (Emphasis added)
Actually, according to the standard model of cosmology, photons, being the elementary ‘particles’ of light appeared about 10 seconds after the Big Bang event in a period known as the ’Photon Epoch’. While the hot dense plasma present at the time may have obstructed the path of the photons, giving the appearance of opaqueness, they were still present. (As for the stars emitting light, some time later, God created the stars for this purpose on the fourth day.)

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3004 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

Post #303

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 300 by Still small]
As for the stars emitting light, some time later, God created the stars for this purpose on the fourth day.
The first stars formed from the condensation of massive clouds of predominantly hydrogen and helium. Once temperatures in the cores were high enough to overcome nuclear repulsion, fusion reactions began igniting the stars with the subsequent emission of heat and light energy. About 200 billion galaxies each containing about 200 billion stars are in the observable universe, hardly necessary to provide light for one planet. Only one star illuminates Earth and provides sufficient energy to maintain the temperature at a level hospitable to human life. There is no evidence that a god had anything to do with it.

:study:

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Post #304

Post by Bust Nak »

Still small wrote: Ok, let’s look at this. If you are referring to the standard model of the Steady State Universe (SSU), then it contradicts 1LoT -
“In cosmology, the Steady State theory is an alternative to the Big Bang model of the evolution of our universe. In the steady-state theory, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, . . . “ (Emphasis added) (Link).
Creation of matter is fine though with a corresponding loss of energy, it is the creation of matter/energy that 1LoT says cannot happen.
If, on the other hand, it is some model of SSU where matter is not being continually created, then after an infinite amount of time of it past existence, the amount of energy available for use should have already reached maximum entropy, leaving no energy available for fuelling stars, etc.
That assumes a finite amount of usable energy. What if there is an an infinite amount of energy?
To which particular version of SSU would you be referring?
That latter I guess, I was thinking of a non-expanding universe. But the former seems okay too.
I’m not sure that I’m following your argument for an infinite universe (SSU) and solution for Olber’s Paradox. “The final explanation� to which you refer states [quote cropped.]
Both these points appear to rule out the SSU model as explained in the “Conclusion� of the article.
I see what you were getting at now. I thought you've moved on from SSU to Big Bang when you mentioned "expansion of an infinite universe." SSU would of course by ruled out by modern cosmology.

TrevaOsbon
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:19 pm

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #305

Post by TrevaOsbon »

Yes, you are right, it has nothing to do with God. Scientific facts speak for it.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #306

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

The Tanager wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:43 pm
(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal
In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This law only comes into effect AFTER the universe began to exist.
The Tanager wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:43 pm (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...there is nothing outside it giving it (replenishing) its energy. The universe is not losing energy per se, but it is losing its usable energy.

The usable energy is being depleted second by second. It is like a automobile, you put gas in the car, now the car has usable energy.

As the car drives, the gas (usable energy) is being depleted and it is only a matter of time before all of the usable energy is gone, and the car will stop.

The universe is the same way.

On Christian theism, God put gas in the car (the universe) and the gas has been depleting ever since and will soon run out.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #307

Post by bluegreenearth »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 8:43 pm
The Tanager wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:43 pm
(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal
In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This law only comes into effect AFTER the universe began to exist.
If not a single expert physicist has yet been able to successfully offer a demonstrable understanding of what the state of the universe was or could have possibly been prior to the Planck Era, how are you confident that the conservation of energy only came into effect after the Big Bang?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 8:43 pm
The Tanager wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:43 pm (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...there is nothing outside it giving it (replenishing) its energy. The universe is not losing energy per se, but it is losing its usable energy.
Again, what justifies your confidence in the claim that there is nothing outside the universe if not a single expert in the field has succeeded in ruling-out the possibility that there could be something existing outside the universe?

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #308

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

bluegreenearth wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 9:04 pm If not a single expert physicist has yet been able to successfully offer a demonstrable understanding of what the state of the universe was or could have possibly been prior to the Planck Era, how are you confident that the conservation of energy only came into effect after the Big Bang?
I have evidence (and is confident) that the universe (all physical reality) began to exist. You can't have laws of nature without...nature.

Can you?

You can't have the United States Constitution without first having the United States, can you?
bluegreenearth wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 9:04 pm Again, what justifies your confidence in the claim that there is nothing outside the universe if not a single expert in the field has succeeded in ruling-out the possibility that there could be something existing outside the universe?
Reading comprehension. I never said that there couldn't be anything outside of the universe. Rather, what I said was; there is nothing outside of the universe REPLENISHING THE USABLE ENERGY THAT IT IS LOSING.

Big difference, isn't it?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #309

Post by bluegreenearth »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 9:24 pm
bluegreenearth wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 9:04 pm If not a single expert physicist has yet been able to successfully offer a demonstrable understanding of what the state of the universe was or could have possibly been prior to the Planck Era, how are you confident that the conservation of energy only came into effect after the Big Bang?
I have evidence (and is confident) that the universe (all physical reality) began to exist. You can't have laws of nature without...nature.

Can you?

You can't have the United States Constitution without first having the United States, can you?
I'm not challenging the notion that our observable universe began to exist at the moment of the Big Bang. I'm asking how you could know that the conservation of energy couldn't apply to what may or may not have existed prior to the Big Bang if you cannot know what may or may not have existed prior to the Big Bang.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 9:24 pm
bluegreenearth wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 9:04 pm Again, what justifies your confidence in the claim that there is nothing outside the universe if not a single expert in the field has succeeded in ruling-out the possibility that there could be something existing outside the universe?
Reading comprehension. I never said that there couldn't be anything outside of the universe. Rather, what I said was; there is nothing outside of the universe REPLENISHING THE USABLE ENERGY THAT IT IS LOSING.

Big difference, isn't it?
I apologize for the misinterpretation and reserve the right to be smarter later.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #310

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

bluegreenearth wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 9:11 pm I'm not challenging the notion that our observable universe began to exist at the moment of the Big Bang.
Good, and that alone should tell you something...
bluegreenearth wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 9:11 pm I'm asking how you could know that the conservation of energy couldn't apply to what may or may not have existed prior to the Big Bang if you cannot know what may or may not have existed prior to the Big Bang.
Because prior to the Big Bang, there was no energy (physical energy) to conserve. That is the point.
bluegreenearth wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 9:11 pm I apologize for the misinterpretation and reserve the right to be smarter later.
Your sin is forgiven. :D
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply