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.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2103
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1346 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #321

Post by benchwarmer »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:50 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:27 pm
You are confusing multiple things.
I can assure you that it isn't me who is confused about things here. :D
Of course not, you're never wrong apparently. Even when shown mathematically to be so. In this case you are wrong about my position. Your failure to see that results in going in circles.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:50 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:27 pm I'm simply saying that what came BEFORE the universe started expanding may also be eternal.
Again, I already made the case as to why the cause of the universe must be an UCC (uncaused cause), and why "God" fits the bill.
And your case has been shown to be full of holes, thus it's not a settled matter as you seem to have presumed from the outset.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:50 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:27 pm Our current timeline began at the universe's expansion because that is when our space/time started operating. HOWEVER, you can't simply presume or assert that the 'stuff' the universe began expanding from was or was not always there.
I did more than presume, I made an entire case about it, and I am not about to fight a war on two fronts (two threads).
Great, no need for you to reply. You're the one that wandered into this thread.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:50 pm The argument was made, and all you've (specifically, you) provided was "the same thing applies to God", which is a strawman.
Except you are playing fast and loose with "the same thing".

I'm saying that 'something' may have been sitting there and then started expanding.

You are saying that 'something' caused our universe to poof into existence.

Apparently your something can somehow magically have whatever properties you want it too, but no one else is allowed to do the same thing for their something. THAT is the issue and not a strawman. Unless you are now contending that your god didn't always exist.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:50 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:27 pm THAT is the argument I'm making. You accusing me a of a strawman is ironic as you are not representing my argument.
So, your argument isn't "the same thing applies to God"?? Do I need to pull up the history?
Are you talking about always existing and resulting in the universe as it is now? Seems so and that applies to both your 'god' and my 'something' that does not need to have decided to poof something into existence.

There are multiple arguments going on, thus my initial comment about your confusion.

You: God is the uncaused cause (always there) that caused the universe to begin to exist.
Me: Something, not a thinking god, may also be uncaused (always there) and resulted in the universe.

The issue is, rather than accepting multiple hypotheses and awaiting observational evidence, you jump to unwarranted conclusions. I, on the other hand, have no issue letting a god be one of the hypotheses. I see no need for the added complexity (Occam's razor and all), but I don't discount it. You seem to think I outright dismiss it.

I certainly have no problem showing all the holes in your theory, but that doesn't mean I completely remove a god from the equation. In science, we let the data lead the way. In apologetics they let interpretation of Bible verses lead the way. Check which forum you are currently in.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:50 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:27 pm Again, what came before the current space/time of our universe starting expanding and beginning the flow of our timeline has EXACTLY the same possibility of your unobserved god hypothesis as being correct.
Um, no, it doesn't.
And your reason for that other than plugging your ears and basically avoiding other possibilities because they don't align with your faith?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:50 pm I grow weary of saying the same thing over and over again to multiple folks. You guys are raising issues that I addressed in the OP of the other thread.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of repeating myself.
Then stop. No one is forcing you to respond. If you feel your point has been made clearly and any challenges to it have already been satisfactorily met, why bother continuing if you don't want to?

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #322

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:16 pm
Of course not, you're never wrong apparently. Even when shown mathematically to be so. In this case you are wrong about my position. Your failure to see that results in going in circles.
?? :?:
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am And your case has been shown to be full of holes, thus it's not a settled matter as you seem to have presumed from the outset.
It is settled to me.
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am Great, no need for you to reply. You're the one that wandered into this thread.
I wandered into this thread and was conversing with bluegreenearth. You chimed in, and made references to the infinite regression thread....and that is what took it there.
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am Except you are playing fast and loose with "the same thing".

I'm saying that 'something' may have been sitting there and then started expanding.

You are saying that 'something' caused our universe to poof into existence.

Apparently your something can somehow magically have whatever properties you want it too, but no one else is allowed to do the same thing for their something. THAT is the issue and not a strawman. Unless you are now contending that your god didn't always exist.
And I demonstrated why nature can't have those properties, so at that point it is foolish to appeal to something that lacks the explanatory power to explain the effect.

That is when you move to other things, the only game left in town at that point; God (the supernatural).

I already gave reasons why, either address those reasons...or simply leave the convo alone.
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am Are you talking about always existing and resulting in the universe as it is now? Seems so and that applies to both your 'god' and my 'something' that does not need to have decided to poof something into existence.

There are multiple arguments going on, thus my initial comment about your confusion.

You: God is the uncaused cause (always there) that caused the universe to begin to exist.
Me: Something, not a thinking god, may also be uncaused (always there) and resulted in the universe.
I already gave reasons why God is the best explanation.
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am I, on the other hand, have no issue letting a god be one of the hypotheses.
One of the hypotheses? How many hypotheses are there? Go ahead, list them for me.
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am I see no need for the added complexity (Occam's razor and all), but I don't discount it. You seem to think I outright dismiss it.
Whatever this "something" you imagine it is, that something is added complexity.
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am I certainly have no problem showing all the holes in your theory, but that doesn't mean I completely remove a god from the equation. In science, we let the data lead the way. In apologetics they let interpretation of Bible verses lead the way. Check which forum you are currently in.
Science = science text books.

Bible = religious book(s).

So either way, we both have our books.
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am And your reason for that other than plugging your ears and basically avoiding other possibilities because they don't align with your faith?
I already addressed this.
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am
Then stop. No one is forcing you to respond. If you feel your point has been made clearly and any challenges to it have already been satisfactorily met, why bother continuing if you don't want to?
Because the record needs to reflect that I did. Trust me, a "you can have the last word" is coming soon.

That is when you will know I am done with it.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2103
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1346 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #323

Post by benchwarmer »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:36 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:16 pm
Of course not, you're never wrong apparently. Even when shown mathematically to be so. In this case you are wrong about my position. Your failure to see that results in going in circles.
?? :?:
You've already forgotten how you are wrong about how an infinite series can be generated? I assumed your failure to answer the muffin eating question was your final admission that you were wrong without actually coming out and saying it. i.e. how many bites to eat a muffin if you are only allowed to eat half the remaining muffin each time.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:36 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am And your case has been shown to be full of holes, thus it's not a settled matter as you seem to have presumed from the outset.
It is settled to me.
We get that. The fact there is continuing debate should tell you it's not settled for others.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:36 pm And I demonstrated why nature can't have those properties, so at that point it is foolish to appeal to something that lacks the explanatory power to explain the effect.

That is when you move to other things, the only game left in town at that point; God (the supernatural).

I already gave reasons why, either address those reasons...or simply leave the convo alone.
I'll respond as I see fit thank you. You have demonstrated nothing other than presuming to know what happened beyond what we can observe. That may work in Theology and Doctrine, but not here.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:36 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am Are you talking about always existing and resulting in the universe as it is now? Seems so and that applies to both your 'god' and my 'something' that does not need to have decided to poof something into existence.

There are multiple arguments going on, thus my initial comment about your confusion.

You: God is the uncaused cause (always there) that caused the universe to begin to exist.
Me: Something, not a thinking god, may also be uncaused (always there) and resulted in the universe.
I already gave reasons why God is the best explanation.
And many of us have rejected those reasons and/or logic or lack thereof. The primary issue is you seem fine committing the special pleading fallacy.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:36 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am I, on the other hand, have no issue letting a god be one of the hypotheses.
One of the hypotheses? How many hypotheses are there? Go ahead, list them for me.
Are you expecting me to be omniscient now? I hope you realize that I'm not. Why would you expect me to know them all just because I claim there is more than one? I have already demonstrated there is more than one (the current energy of our universe may have been in another state prior to its expansion).

Is this your new standard for defeating your arguments? Your interlocuter has to know everything?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:36 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am I see no need for the added complexity (Occam's razor and all), but I don't discount it. You seem to think I outright dismiss it.
Whatever this "something" you imagine it is, that something is added complexity.
How is simply postulating what we currently observe was in a different state 'complex' and imagining god entities is not? My hypothesis involves no extra beings, yours does.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:36 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:50 am I certainly have no problem showing all the holes in your theory, but that doesn't mean I completely remove a god from the equation. In science, we let the data lead the way. In apologetics they let interpretation of Bible verses lead the way. Check which forum you are currently in.
Science = science text books.

Bible = religious book(s).

So either way, we both have our books.
So you don't know what science is then? Do you really think science is summed up by whatever happens to be in current science textbooks? If so, you are wrong. Let me demonstrate:

1) Pick up any nearby object
2) Hold it over your big toe, you decide the elevation difference between your toe and the object. Let's call this difference the "ouch factor" for fun.
3) Make a hypotheses about what will happen when you let go of the object. Feel free to disregard any previous knowledge and make up something new if you like for the test.
4) Let go
5) Observe the results.
6) Go back to (3) and refine your hypothesis until it lines up with your observations.

See? No textbooks required, and full on science in action.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #324

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

benchwarmer wrote: Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:10 am You've already forgotten how you are wrong about how an infinite series can be generated?
No, I remembered how wayyyy over your head these conversations are going for you.
I assumed your failure to answer the muffin eating question was your final admission that you were wrong without actually coming out and saying it. i.e. how many bites to eat a muffin if you are only allowed to eat half the remaining muffin each time.
Bad assumption.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:36 pm We get that. The fact there is continuing debate should tell you it's not settled for others.
Or, I could just chalk it up to "If these guys want to continue being wrong, then wrong they shall continue to be".
I'll respond as I see fit thank you. You have demonstrated nothing other than presuming to know what happened beyond what we can observe. That may work in Theology and Doctrine, but not here.
Okkkk.
And many of us have rejected those reasons and/or logic or lack thereof. The primary issue is you seem fine committing the special pleading fallacy.
Cool.
Are you expecting me to be omniscient now? I hope you realize that I'm not. Why would you expect me to know them all just because I claim there is more than one? I have already demonstrated there is more than one (the current energy of our universe may have been in another state prior to its expansion).
That is one. List all of the ones that you know. There, is that easier for you?
How is simply postulating what we currently observe was in a different state 'complex' and imagining god entities is not? My hypothesis involves no extra beings, yours does.
Reading comprehension. I am saying that BOTH are complex. Smh.
So you don't know what science is then? Do you really think science is summed up by whatever happens to be in current science textbooks?
I am talking about the science that IS inside the current text books.
1) Pick up any nearby object
2) Hold it over your big toe, you decide the elevation difference between your toe and the object. Let's call this difference the "ouch factor" for fun.
3) Make a hypotheses about what will happen when you let go of the object. Feel free to disregard any previous knowledge and make up something new if you like for the test.
4) Let go
5) Observe the results.
6) Go back to (3) and refine your hypothesis until it lines up with your observations.

See? No textbooks required, and full on science in action.
Wowwwww. Great science :approve:
Last edited by We_Are_VENOM on Sat Jul 10, 2021 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24863
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #325

Post by Goat »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:48 pm
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.
How do you know that the universe is a closed system? What scientific observation confirms it and where is the math showing that is true?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #326

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

.

*an old post under my old username is being quoted*
Goat wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:37 am How do you know that the universe is a closed system?
Because I know my science (entropy) and I don't speak on subjects I know nothing about.
What scientific observation confirms it and where is the math showing that is true?
Entropy is one of the most understood concepts in science, never failing.

Instead of asking me these elementary school questions, do some homework on the subject and get back to me if you feel the need to take a stand against anything I said.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3000 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #327

Post by brunumb »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 11:17 am .

*an old post under my old username is being quoted*
Goat wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:37 am How do you know that the universe is a closed system?
Because I know my science (entropy) and I don't speak on subjects I know nothing about.
What scientific observation confirms it and where is the math showing that is true?
Entropy is one of the most understood concepts in science, never failing.

Instead of asking me these elementary school questions, do some homework on the subject and get back to me if you feel the need to take a stand against anything I said.
That's a Claytons answer if ever there was one. Read between the lines and you clearly get "I really don't know".
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24863
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #328

Post by Goat »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 11:17 am .

*an old post under my old username is being quoted*
Goat wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:37 am How do you know that the universe is a closed system?
Because I know my science (entropy) and I don't speak on subjects I know nothing about.
What scientific observation confirms it and where is the math showing that is true?
Entropy is one of the most understood concepts in science, never failing.

Instead of asking me these elementary school questions, do some homework on the subject and get back to me if you feel the need to take a stand against anything I said.
Yes, entropy increases. And we assume the universe is a closed system. But, can you show me the experiment that verifies that assumption? Just because entropy keeps on increasing doesn't mean that we are in a closed system
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2103
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1346 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #329

Post by benchwarmer »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 11:17 am .

*an old post under my old username is being quoted*
Goat wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:37 am How do you know that the universe is a closed system?
Because I know my science (entropy) and I don't speak on subjects I know nothing about.
<bolding above mine>

Must resist..... Ah, who am I kidding. This is the science sub-forum, so all I have to do is provide falsification of the premise:

From a tangent discussion on infinite series, we see someone who thinks an infinite amount lies in the "finitude"
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:15 pm
bluegreenearth wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:54 pm
If infinite segments are not traversed, then how many segments are traversed with each step when each segment is half the length of the segment ahead of it?
I dont know the precise amount...but the answer must lie in the "finitude".
QED

As for the topic of whether the universe is an open or closed system, we can only assume (hypothesize) it is closed at the moment.

In fact, Christians MUST contend the universe is an OPEN system. Otherwise their god (who was not part of the universe before the universe came to be) would not be able to interact with it. If the god can inject anything that wasn't in the system to the system, the system is open by definition. To claim otherwise would be to contend that their god went from outside the system to now be wholly and completely contained by the system. That would mean heaven is inside the universe. I'm pretty sure we haven't spotted that yet with the Hubble telescope, but I guess it means we could?

So this seems a bit odd of a Christian to be supporting a closed system universe.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #330

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

benchwarmer wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 8:19 am Must resist..... Ah, who am I kidding. This is the science sub-forum, so all I have to do is provide falsification of the premise:

From a tangent discussion on infinite series, we see someone who thinks an infinite amount lies in the "finitude"
Ok.
benchwarmer wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 8:19 am As for the topic of whether the universe is an open or closed system, we can only assume (hypothesize) it is closed at the moment.
Well, there ya go. :D
benchwarmer wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 8:19 am In fact, Christians MUST contend the universe is an OPEN system. Otherwise their god (who was not part of the universe before the universe came to be) would not be able to interact with it. If the god can inject anything that wasn't in the system to the system, the system is open by definition.
I mean, sure. Being the Creator and all..it had better be open to him.
benchwarmer wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 8:19 am To claim otherwise would be to contend that their god went from outside the system to now be wholly and completely contained by the system. That would mean heaven is inside the universe. I'm pretty sure we haven't spotted that yet with the Hubble telescope, but I guess it means we could?

So this seems a bit odd of a Christian to be supporting a closed system universe.
Closed to us, open to God.

You know, I am really trying hard to find a way to allow you to actually win a debate against me.

But you are making it very, very difficult. :D
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply