How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

Yes, but the first law is the one that says the Flood heats up the Earth enough to cook Noah.

This is more your assertion, rather than the first law of thermo saying this.

This is your fundamental error. Entropy is neither a form of energy itelf nor a sink for energy.

Where did I state either of those?

If a room starts with one side hot and one side cool, the temperature will equalize with no lost heat. Entropy will be irreversibly increased such that the room won't spontaneously revert to its initial state, but no heat was lost.

Right, and the capability of work in the equilibrium state goes to zero. And at the scale of the universe, this would be the heat death.

All of the initial potential energy of the rock is now heat. All of it.

In the case of the flood, not all of the potential energy is converted into just heat, but work is also done.

Going back to this:

Your idea of "expended" implies that the energy that "eroded rock" disappeared or went somewhere else before it became heat via friction.

The potential energy of the initial state resulted in the final state of both work being done and additional heat being produced. It is not all of the initial potential energy only resulting in heat at the final state.

It can be visualized as a heat engine that converts heat into work:

A heat engine is a system that converts heat to usable energy, particularly mechanical energy, which can then be used to do mechanical work. While originally conceived in the context of mechanical energy, the concept of the heat engine has been applied to various other kinds of energy, particularly electrical, since at least the late 19th century. The heat engine does this by bringing a working substance from a higher state temperature to a lower state temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine

[Difflugia]

Yes, but the first law is the one that says the Flood heats up the Earth enough to cook Noah.

This is more your assertion, rather than the first law of thermo saying this.

Maybe, but at least part of your reasoning is that energy can "do work" without subsequently becoming either potential energy or heat. That violates the first law.

This is your fundamental error. Entropy is neither a form of energy itelf nor a sink for energy.

Where did I state either of those?

Fine. You don't think that. That was just my guess, because what you said doesn't make sense otherwise. Here's what you said that's wrong:

No, heat is not transformed into work and then back into heat so that temperature is conserved. Changes in temperature results in work and change in entropy. Work can be transformed to heat and vice-versa, but because of the increase in entropy, they are not a 100% efficient process because each transformation results in an increase in entropy.

I tried guessing at what you meant by that, but apparently didn't guess right. Let's try this.

We have a room from which no heat can escape (i.e. a closed system). Our initial state has a one-kilogram rock suspended one meter from the ceiling by a string. This represents 9.8 Joules of potential energy. If I cut the string and the rock falls onto the floor and stops, where is that 9.8 Joules now?

My answer is that all 9.8 Joules have been converted to heat in the form of an increased temperature in the room. Is that your answer?

If a room starts with one side hot and one side cool, the temperature will equalize with no lost heat. Entropy will be irreversibly increased such that the room won't spontaneously revert to its initial state, but no heat was lost.

Right, and the capability of work in the equilibrium state goes to zero. And at the scale of the universe, this would be the heat death.

If I'm not guessing at what you mean, this is just a non sequitur. You're going to have to tell me why that's important.

If I am guessing at what you mean, do you think that "heat death" means a low temperature? You didn't say that, so it might not be what you mean, but I'm otherwise baffled at how you think that statement impacts the current discussion.

All of the initial potential energy of the rock is now heat. All of it.

In the case of the flood, not all of the potential energy is converted into just heat, but work is also done.

This is wrong because it violates the conservation of energy.

Maybe this will help and maybe it won't, but imagine a one kilogram weight falling one meter onto a spring. The initial state has 9.8 Joules of potential energy in the weight. At the moment the weight hits the spring, most of the 9.8 Joules has been converted to kinetic energy. A tiny bit has been converted to heat and the temperature has increased a little bit. The falling weight "does work" and compresses the spring. When the spring is compressed, most of the weight's kinetic energy is converted into potential energy. Another small amount becomes heat through friction inside the spring. The spring "does work" and releases the energy back into the weight as kinetic energy. As the weight rises, the kinetic energy is once again converted to potential energy, with a small amount again converted to heat through friction. The weight stops moving when it is almost as high as it started.

The difference between the initial height and final height represents the amount of energy that was converted to heat during that cycle.

If we let the cycle repeat, a little more energy is converted to heat and again, the weight doesn't quite rebound to where it was. If we let this continue until both the weight and spring stop moving, then all 9.8 Joules have been converted to heat. All of the energy is conserved.

If we apply this to the Flood example, a huge amount of water is pushed upward and falls again. The energy does some "work" as it's converted back-and-forth between potential and kinetic energy. Friction is ever present, though, and some of the kinetic energy becomes heat every time the water sloshes or a rock slides. At the end, when all of the "work" has been "done," all of the energy that was doing work along the way is now heat in the form of increased temperature. All of it. Because of the conservation of energy.

A heat engine is a system that converts heat to usable energy, particularly mechanical energy, which can then be used to do mechanical work. While originally conceived in the context of mechanical energy, the concept of the heat engine has been applied to various other kinds of energy, particularly electrical, since at least the late 19th century. The heat engine does this by bringing a working substance from a higher state temperature to a lower state temperature.

A heat engine works because it's not a closed system. If it were a closed system (or in a closed system), the engine would stop as soon as the heat is evenly distributed within the system. That's the "heat death" that you mentioned earlier. "Heat death" can apply to any closed system, not just the Universe.

[POI]

I'm not going to drag this discussion out by addressing red herrings, no matter how many times you repeat them.

Do you agree or disagree these are the (3) inferred positions, for which none of them have been demonstrated?

1. Created with intention
2. Created without intention
3. Not created

Assuming you do, then it's best to remain agnostic until further notice. 'Science' pose(s) their 'positions', but they do not claim they are absolutely right.

And one of my points is that even if the universe had a true beginning, it may still not be 'created' with intention (option 2).

Who's claiming anything has been "vetted"?

Keeping your summary argument in place suggests you are valid to keep them there because the listed 'points' have not been successfully debunked, or you would not logically keep them there. And as you stated, you would modify if you saw something to modify.

Do you think Sean Carroll believes in an eternal universe, singularities, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc? Or are they all just hunches?

If they have not ever been demonstrated, they can only be 'inferred'.

It's not the lack of demonstration of aliens that is a problem for me, but the lack of evidence to back up the inferences.

My point is that until an alien has been demonstrated, they are to only be inferred. Same goes for 'god(s)'.

No, you keep claiming that scientists worth their salt must know about thermodynamics. What we see instead is a complete avoidance of addressing the thermodynamics argument.

The debate is timed, and he does not have time to do a deep dive into thermo, nor would the audience likely understand or stay awake anyways. These topics are HARD and require a lot of depth.

WLC presents some strawman's. Either because he does not understand, or purposefully.

33:40 Where Dr. states the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem had a beginning, that statement is false. What it instead states is that our ability to describe the universe classically gives out. It may be because of finite or eternal.

34:15 Carroll brings up the quantum eternity theorem. If you have a conventional universe which obeys the basic rules of quantum mechanics, and it has a non-zero energy, and the induvial laws of physics are not changing with time, that universe is necessarily eternal. The time parameter in the given equation goes from minus infinity to plus infinity. It's possible, but not demonstrated, and it takes quantum mechanics seriously.

35:41 In quantum eternity theorem , the reason the universe is always changing is because the universe always can change. There is not equilibrium.

35:56 Carroll points out another false statement, or strawman from WLC, in that Carroll's model is not working very well because it violated unitarity, which is false. ...... (tired of typing) up to 36:30. And it goes on....

The bottom line is that 'science' just does not doodle 'models' on a piece of scratch paper.

Why do you keep claiming there's some sort of conspiracy going on? Rather, another red herring statement.

Because you think 'science' is suppressing the 'truth'. This is why I'm extensively arguing that remaining agnostic to a position is not conspiracy.

otseng wrote: Sun May 26, 2024 4:42 am
The issue is more "I don't want to know" rather than "I don't know". People reject any idea that something might confirm the Bible, so they'd rather plead ignorance rather than confirm the Bible.

*************************************

Who cares what is the "intent" of the global flood? Another statement that I consider irrelevant.

It's quite relevant. It demonstrated my point. In that we cannot prove the intent of the Bible writer, we may also not ever be able to prove what is on the other side of the 'proverbial fence' either. Therefore, on the other side of the 'proverbial fence' must be where 'god' resides.

[otseng]

We have a room from which no heat can escape (i.e. a closed system). Our initial state has a one-kilogram rock suspended one meter from the ceiling by a string. This represents 9.8 Joules of potential energy. If I cut the string and the rock falls onto the floor and stops, where is that 9.8 Joules now?

It resulted in both work and heat. If the rock dropped and created a dent in the floor or the rock busting apart, then work was done.

Right, and the capability of work in the equilibrium state goes to zero. And at the scale of the universe, this would be the heat death.

If I'm not guessing at what you mean, this is just a non sequitur. You're going to have to tell me why that's important.

No, it's not a non sequitur because this is related to the original question if the universe is created or eternal. It was the reason thermodynamics was brought up in the first place. Since we are not in heat death now, it shows the universe is not eternal. See summary argument on universe being created.

In the case of the flood, not all of the potential energy is converted into just heat, but work is also done.

This is wrong because it violates the conservation of energy.

No, it's not a violation of the first law.

Maybe this will help and maybe it won't, but imagine a one kilogram weight falling one meter onto a spring...

This example should be modified so the weight is attached to a blade in a mixer. Ingredients are put into the mixer and when the weight is dropped, it moves the blade and mixes the contents in the mixer. The potential energy results in both work (the ingredients being mixed up) and heat (probably negligible since most of the energy went into mixing the ingredients).

Likewise with the flood, the initial energy caused massive movement of earth and restructuring of the entire surface of the planet. A significant amount of the initial energy went into this work.

Is the transformation of energy into work a violation of the first law of thermo?

No, the transformation of energy into work is not a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of energy conservation. This law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. When energy is transformed into work, it is simply changing from one form of energy (such as heat, chemical, or potential energy) into mechanical work. This conversion process is governed by the laws of thermodynamics and does not violate the first law.

A heat engine works because it's not a closed system.

It's a model to describe and analyze a particular idea. The idea is a temperature difference results in work and a rise in entropy.

[Difflugia]

It resulted in both work and heat. If the rock dropped and created a dent in the floor or the rock busting apart, then work was done.

This is wrong. This violates the first law of thermodynamics.

"Work" isn't a form of energy. After "work was done," something has to still be moving, in a higher energy state, or hotter. A broken rock at rest on the floor is none of those.

If you hit a rock with a hammer and break it, all of the energy you put into swinging the hammer and breaking the rock ultimately ends up as heat. If you did the same thing in space, some pieces of the rock would keep moving. That energy would stay kinetic energy and not be converted to heat until the piece hit something.

No, it's not a non sequitur because this is related to the original question if the universe is created or eternal.

I'm talking about the first law of thermodynamics.

In the case of the flood, not all of the potential energy is converted into just heat, but work is also done.

This is wrong because it violates the conservation of energy.

No, it's not a violation of the first law.

You're wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. If you want me to keep trying to explain it to you, I can, but I'm not going to argue about it.

This example should be modified so the weight is attached to a blade in a mixer.

Until you understand the simpler example, making it more complicated won't help. If you understand the spring example, then you understand that every millijoule that was present as potential energy in the weight has become heat when everything's at rest. Do you accept that?

Is the transformation of energy into work a violation of the first law of thermo?

The way you're using the word "work," yes.

You claimed earlier that a broken rock on the floor had work done to it in a way that made it an energy sink. A rock on the floor is in a lower energy state than a rock suspended from the ceiling, but the energy must still be there in some form. In the way that I worded the problem, that energy is in the form of heat. The temperature of the room has increased enough to account for exactly all of the potential energy in the rock at the beginning. If you think that having "done work" means that some of the energy wasn't converted to heat, then the transformation of energy into "work" as you've defined it is a violation of the first law.

No, the transformation of energy into work is not a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of energy conservation. This law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. When energy is transformed into work, it is simply changing from one form of energy (such as heat, chemical, or potential energy) into mechanical work. This conversion process is governed by the laws of thermodynamics and does not violate the first law.

This is wrong, or at least overly simplified to the point of being misleading.

In order for this to be even more-or-less correct, "mechanical work" must be synonymous with "kinetic energy." Maybe that's what ChatGPT means or maybe it's wrong.

A heat engine works because it's not a closed system.

It's a model to describe and analyze a particular idea. The idea is a temperature difference results in work and a rise in entropy.

That's fine, but that's not applicable to this part of the discussion.

[otseng]

It resulted in both work and heat. If the rock dropped and created a dent in the floor or the rock busting apart, then work was done.

This is wrong. This violates the first law of thermodynamics.

How does dropping a rock and causing a dent and busting up and generating a little heat violate the first law of thermo?

"Work" isn't a form of energy. After "work was done," something has to still be moving, in a higher energy state, or hotter. A broken rock at rest on the floor is none of those.

This is where the second law of thermo comes in. Energy is still constant in the total system, but the amount of usable energy has decreased.

If you hit a rock with a hammer and break it, all of the energy you put into swinging the hammer and breaking the rock ultimately ends up as heat.

Let's ask ChatGPT: If you hit a rock with a hammer and break it, would all of the energy you put into swinging the hammer and breaking the rock end up as heat?

No, not all of the energy you put into swinging the hammer and breaking the rock would end up as heat. Some of the energy would be absorbed by the rock and used to break its chemical bonds, while some would be transferred to other forms of energy, such as sound and vibration. Only a portion of the energy would be dissipated as heat due to the friction between the hammer and the rock during impact.

No, it's not a non sequitur because this is related to the original question if the universe is created or eternal.

I'm talking about the first law of thermodynamics.

And I'm trying to apply the discussion of thermodynamics to the actual debate. Diverting the discussion back to the flood would be the one deviating from the current discussion.

You're wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. If you want me to keep trying to explain it to you, I can, but I'm not going to argue about it.

Well, same for my side. I've provided evidence, definitions, and explanations from ChatGPT to support my case. And you also seem to ignore the second law of thermo and also ignore the debate on the current topic.

Until you understand the simpler example, making it more complicated won't help.

You have to make an example relevant to what is being described.

If you understand the spring example, then you understand that every millijoule that was present as potential energy in the weight has become heat when everything's at rest. Do you accept that?

No, I don't agree. The energy also caused the spring to move, which would be work. You're going to have to cite a source that says all energy in a system would ultimately be converted into heat.

A rock on the floor is in a lower energy state than a rock suspended from the ceiling, but the energy must still be there in some form.

But not necessarily into a usable energy. Energy is there, but it's not able to do be converted to do anything useful.

In the way that I worded the problem, that energy is in the form of heat.

Heat is not the only form of energy.

What are all the forms of energy?

1. Mechanical Energy: Energy associated with the motion and position of an object
2. Thermal Energy: Energy associated with the temperature of an object
3. Chemical Energy: Energy stored in the bonds of atoms and molecules
4. Electrical Energy: Energy associated with the motion of electrons
5. Nuclear Energy: Energy stored in the nucleus of an atom
6. Potential Energy: Energy that is stored in an object due to its position or condition
7. Kinetic Energy: Energy associated with the motion of an object
8. Light Energy: Energy that enables us to see and that is produced by the movement of electric charges
9. Sound Energy: Energy associated with the vibration of particles in a medium causing sound waves

If you think that having "done work" means that some of the energy wasn't converted to heat, then the transformation of energy into "work" as you've defined it is a violation of the first law.

Energy isn't necessarily a substance or something that exists as itself. But it is more a property of substances to be able to do work.

In physics, energy (from Ancient Greek (enrgeia) 'activity') is the quantitative property that is transferred to a body or to a physical system, recognizable in the performance of work and in the form of heat and light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Scientists define energy as the ability to do work.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/what-is-energy/

energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms.

https://www.britannica.com/science/energy

Maybe that's what ChatGPT means or maybe it's wrong.

Or it could be your view is wrong.

It's a model to describe and analyze a particular idea. The idea is a temperature difference results in work and a rise in entropy.

That's fine, but that's not applicable to this part of the discussion.

A heat engine is a fundamental concept to thermodynamics, so of course it is relevant. And if you're going to talk about a working system (such as the flood scenario), it would be entirely relevant.

[Difflugia]

How does dropping a rock and causing a dent and busting up and generating a little heat violate the first law of thermo?

This is the problem we had when we were discussing geology. You write something that seems reasonable, but means something completely different to you than it does to everyone else. If by "little heat," you mean anything other than virtually the entire amount of potential energy initially in the rock, then you're violating the first law of thermodynamics.

Since ChatGPT seems to be the way you want to go, I had a brief conversation. I asked:

In a room that is a closed system with regard to energy, there is a 1kg stone weight suspended 1m above a stone floor. If the weight is released and the system allowed to come to rest, what is the final form, amount, and distribution of the initial potential energy from the weight?

It responded:

To analyze the situation in the closed system, we'll consider the energy transformations that occur when the 1 kg stone weight is released and allowed to come to rest.

1. Initial Potential Energy:
   • The stone weight initially has gravitational potential energy given by E_p = mgh.
   • Here, m = 1 kg, g = 9.81 m/s (acceleration due to gravity), and h = 1 m.
   • Therefore, E_p = 1 kg 9.81 m/s² 1 m = 9.81 J.
2. Energy Transformations:
   • When the weight is released, its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy as it falls.
   • Upon hitting the stone floor, the kinetic energy is then converted into other forms of energy, primarily:
     • Heat energy due to the impact and friction.
     • Sound energy from the noise of the impact.
     • A small amount of energy may also be used to slightly deform the weight and the floor (elastic potential energy).
3. Final Distribution of Energy:
   • Heat Energy: A significant portion of the initial potential energy will be converted into heat energy, warming the stone weight and the floor at the point of impact.
   • Sound Energy: Some of the energy will be dissipated as sound waves, which will eventually also be absorbed by the surroundings as heat.
   • Deformation Energy: Any deformation of the stone weight or the floor will store a small amount of energy temporarily as elastic potential energy, but this too will likely convert into heat as the materials return to their original shapes or settle into new configurations.
4. Final Form of Energy:
   • The majority of the initial 9.81 J of potential energy will be in the form of heat energy within the room.
   • A small amount of energy will have been briefly in the form of sound energy, which will also ultimately dissipate as heat.
5. Distribution of Energy:
   • The heat energy will be distributed among the stone weight, the stone floor, and the air in the room.
   • The precise distribution will depend on the specific heat capacities and thermal conductivities of the materials involved, but generally, the stone floor and weight will absorb most of the energy, with a smaller portion warming the air in the room.

Summary:

• Final Form of Energy: Primarily heat energy.
• Amount of Energy: 9.81 Joules (initial potential energy).
• Distribution of Energy: Mostly in the stone floor and weight, with some distributed into the air as heat.

The closed system ensures that the total energy remains constant, transforming from gravitational potential energy into heat energy predominantly, with temporary and minor conversions to kinetic and sound energy.

Does this match what you expected? Why or why not?

"Work" isn't a form of energy. After "work was done," something has to still be moving, in a higher energy state, or hotter. A broken rock at rest on the floor is none of those.

This is where the second law of thermo comes in. Energy is still constant in the total system, but the amount of usable energy has decreased.

Whether usable or not, what form is that energy in? Kinetic? Potential? Thermal? If something else, then what?

If you hit a rock with a hammer and break it, all of the energy you put into swinging the hammer and breaking the rock ultimately ends up as heat.

Let's ask ChatGPT:

Now let's ask ChatGPT and ask it to quantify the answer.

If I break a rock with a hammer using 10N of force, all of the energy is transferred into the rock, and the fragments are allowed to come to rest, in what forms and in what amounts is that initial energy stored in the final system?

Here's ChatGPT's answer:

When you break a rock with a hammer using 10N of force, the initial energy you apply is transferred into the rock and converted into several forms of energy as the rock fragments. The forms and approximate amounts of energy stored in the final system can be broken down as follows:

1. Elastic Energy: Before fracturing, some of the applied force is temporarily stored as elastic energy in the rock. Once the rock breaks, this energy is released and converted into other forms of energy.
2. Fracture Energy: The primary form of energy where most of the applied force goes is into creating new surfaces within the rock. This involves breaking the chemical bonds (ionic, covalent, metallic, etc.) in the rock. The energy required to create these new surfaces is called fracture energy.
3. Sound Energy: Some of the energy will be released as sound waves. This is the noise you hear when the rock fractures.
4. Thermal Energy: The process of fracturing the rock generates heat due to internal friction and the breaking of bonds. This increases the temperature of the rock fragments and the surrounding environment slightly.
5. Kinetic Energy: Immediately after the impact, the fragments of the rock may move away from the point of impact. This motion represents kinetic energy. However, as the problem states that the fragments are allowed to come to rest, this kinetic energy will eventually be converted into other forms, primarily thermal energy due to friction.
6. Potential Energy: In some cases, if fragments are displaced and fall to a lower position, there could be a small amount of gravitational potential energy converted from the initial kinetic energy.

To quantify the amounts, assuming 10N of force is applied over a very short distance (a hammer strike), let's simplify the energy distribution:

1. Fracture Energy: A significant portion of the energy goes into creating new surfaces (breaking bonds). The exact amount depends on the rock type and its fracture toughness. For simplicity, let's assume a large fraction, say 6080%.
2. Sound Energy: This is typically a small fraction of the energy, likely around 510%.
3. Thermal Energy: The combination of kinetic energy dissipation and internal friction results in heat. This can be around 1020%.
4. Kinetic Energy: Initially, the fragments have kinetic energy, but since they come to rest, this energy will convert to thermal energy and, possibly, a negligible amount to potential energy. The initial kinetic energy might be 1020%, which then transfers mostly to thermal energy.

Given this, a rough estimate of the energy distribution would be:

• Fracture Energy: 68Nm (or Joules)
• Sound Energy: 0.51Nm (or Joules)
• Thermal Energy: 12Nm (or Joules)
• Kinetic Energy: Initially 12Nm (or Joules), eventually converted to thermal energy

These values are approximations and the exact distribution depends on specific conditions such as the type of rock, the precision of energy transfer, and environmental factors.

Now, there's a problem with this. "Fracture energy" isn't permanently stored, so in effect, ChatGPT is using a different definition of "at rest" than I am and is telling us the distribution at the moment of fracture. Since I know this, I had to prompt ChatGPT a bit.

How is stored fracture energy subsequently released?

ChatGPT then finished its answer:

The stored fracture energy in a rock, once it has fractured, is subsequently released in several ways:

1. Sound Energy: Part of the fracture energy is released as sound waves. The cracking sound you hear when a rock breaks is a result of the rapid release of energy as the bonds break and the rock fragments.
2. Thermal Energy: The breaking of bonds and the friction between the newly created surfaces generate heat. This thermal energy increases the temperature of the rock fragments and the surrounding air, although the temperature rise might be quite small and often not noticeable.
3. Kinetic Energy: When the rock fractures, the fragments may move apart due to the release of stored energy. This kinetic energy is evident immediately after the fracture as the pieces fly apart. However, as mentioned, if the fragments are allowed to come to rest, this kinetic energy is eventually dissipated, mostly as thermal energy through friction with the air and the ground.
4. Elastic Waves: Some of the energy is released as elastic waves that propagate through the rock and the surrounding material. These are essentially seismic waves, and in the context of a hammer strike on a rock, these are very small and localized.

To summarize, the fracture energy stored in the rock is released mainly as:

• Sound Energy: Audible cracking noise.
• Thermal Energy: Heat generated by the breaking bonds and friction.
• Kinetic Energy: Motion of rock fragments, which is subsequently converted to heat as fragments come to rest.
• Elastic Waves: Small seismic waves.

These processes ensure that the initial energy applied to the rock is fully accounted for in various forms of energy, following the principle of conservation of energy.

Does this match what you expected? Why or why not?

And I'm trying to apply the discussion of thermodynamics to the actual debate. Diverting the discussion back to the flood would be the one deviating from the current discussion.

I said you didn't understand thermodynamics based on the arguments you made during the Flood discussion. You said you were "willing to dive into this again." If you've changed your mind, that's fine.

And you also seem to ignore the second law of thermo and also ignore the debate on the current topic.

The first law and second law of thermodynamics are independent. I'm working through your misunderstanding of the first law. If we can get through this, we can work on the second law if you want.

The energy also caused the spring to move, which would be work.

"Work" is the transfer of energy from one form to another. It doesn't consume energy as such. It's counterintuitive at first because we're so used to friction in the real world bleeding off energy as heat, but that's the crux. Without friction, the spring-weight system would oscillate forever as the energy is converted from gravitational-potential to kinetic to elastic-potential to kinetic to gravitational-potential. At each transition, "work" is done without the energy being consumed or going anywhere. When friction is introduced, each interaction causes a little kinetic energy to become heat energy until ultimately all of the energy in the system is in the form of thermal energy.

You're going to have to cite a source that says all energy in a system would ultimately be converted into heat.

This is from Fundamentals of Physics I : Mechanics, Relativity, and Thermodynamics, Expanded Edition:

21.7 Heat as molecular kinetic energy

In the old days, people just said that heat was a caloric fluid, and they postulated the conservation law for the fluid. You can postulate what you want, but you have to make sure it works. The conservation of calories did seem to work, in the sense that all the Qs in any reaction did seem to add up to zero. But then people started getting hints that this fluid was not conserved and that this thing we call heat is not entirely independent of other things we have studied.

So, where do you get the clue? When we studied mechanics, we talked about two cars in a totally inelastic collision-they slam into one big static lump; in the end we have no kinetic energy and no potential energy. We just gave up and said, "Look, conservation of energy does not apply to this inelastic collision." On the other hand, we find that in such a collision the bodies become hot. So calories are not conserved either: they are created in a collision. There are more clues. You take cannon balls and drop them from a big tower. When they hit the sand, they start heating up. Or you drill a hole in a cannon to guide the ball, which is what Count Rumford did in 1790, and you find that you need to constantly pour water to keep the drill bit from heating up. You find all the time that, when mechanical energy is lost, things heat up, that is, calories appear from nowhere. So, you get a suspicion that maybe there's a rule connecting the mechanical energy that you cannot account for, that seems lost, to a corresponding gain in calories. Maybe the conservation of mechanical energy and of heat could both be salvaged into a single law of conservation of energy if joules measure energy you can see, and calories energy you cannot see. That is the premise. If that is the case, we must first determine the exchange rate between calories and joules.

James Prescott Joule performed the experiment shown in Figure 21.7. You have an insulated container in which there is water and a shaft attached to fins. The shaft can rotate. At its top is a pulley with a weight hanging as shown. There is a rope wrapped around the shaft, and when you let this weight go down, it's going to spin the shaft. The fins churn up the water. Now, you can keep track of how much mechanical energy is lost, right? This mass was at rest at first and it lost potential energy Mgh as it came down. Let's say it's got some kinetic energy at the end that is less than Mgh. Some number of joules are gone but the water heats up. When the water gets hot, you can ask how many calories were supplied to the water by looking at the mass and specific heat of the water and the increase in temperature. Then you ask if there is a proportionality between the joules and calories. You find it is 4.2 joules to a calorie, called the mechanical equivalent of heat. In other words, if you can expend 4.2 joules of mechanical energy, you get one calorie to be used for heating. In the example of the colliding cars, one car had some kinetic energy, and the other had some ki- netic energy, all measured in joules; they slammed together, and they came to rest. That means you can take all those joules, divide by 4.2, and get some number of calories Q. Then those calories will produce an increase in temperature of the cars, such that Q = mcT, where c is specific heat of whatever material the cars were made of.

In practice, there will be other losses. You heard the crash: that's some sound energy gone; you won't get it back. Some sparks were flying; that's light energy that's gone. You subtract all that out, and you find that in the end, the calories explain the missing joules.

Counting heat as another form of energy, we can save the law of conservation of energy. It is not violated, even during inelastic collisions, if you include heat as a form of energy using 4.2 joules per calorie. What right do we have to call heat energy? When we say some kid is energetic, we mean the kid is always running around mindlessly, back and forth. Energy is associated with motion. These two cars were moving, and we have every right to say they have kinetic energy. How about potential energy then? Well, if the car starts climbing up a hill and slows down, we think it has potential. If you let it go, it will come back and give you the kinetic energy. So, most people think of energy as just kinetic energy. That is what seems to have been lost in the collision. And yet, you get calories in return, so you ask yourself, "How is the calorie related to kinetic energy?"

The correct answer to that came only when we understood that everything is made of atoms. It turns out that the kinetic energy of atoms is what we call heat. But you have to be very careful. I take a cylinder full of very cold gas. I throw it at you. That whole cylinder is moving. That's not what I call heat; the cylinder is not hotter due to its overall motion. That is motion you can see. I'm talking about a cylinder of gas that doesn't seem to be going anywhere; yet it has motional energy because the little guys inside are going back and forth. If you kept track of the kinetic energy of every single molecule in this car, every single molecule in that car, and you added them up, you would get exactly the same number, before and after. The only difference will be that, originally, each car also had some global common velocity, macroscopic velocity you could see. On top of it, it had random motion of the molecules that made up the car. So did the other car. When they slammed together, the macroscopic motion was traded for thermal motion.

[otseng]

You write something that seems reasonable, but means something completely different to you than it does to everyone else.

A bit of a hyperbolic statement when you say "to everyone else", esp since few here even know about thermodynamics.

[*] Energy Transformations:

• A small amount of energy may also be used to slightly deform the weight and the floor (elastic potential energy).

Does this match what you expected? Why or why not?

The key is how much work was done in the system. If only a small amount resulted in deformation of the floor and the rock, then more heat would be in the final state compared to a large deformation of the floor and the rock.

Whether usable or not, what form is that energy in? Kinetic? Potential? Thermal? If something else, then what?

I had already listed other forms of energy in my previous post.

1. Fracture Energy: The primary form of energy where most of the applied force goes is into creating new surfaces within the rock. This involves breaking the chemical bonds (ionic, covalent, metallic, etc.) in the rock. The energy required to create these new surfaces is called fracture energy.

Now, there's a problem with this. "Fracture energy" isn't permanently stored, so in effect, ChatGPT is using a different definition of "at rest" than I am and is telling us the distribution at the moment of fracture.

How is stored fracture energy subsequently released?

Fracture energy was the energy used to fracture the rock (work), not some sort of energy store to be used after the rock was fractured.

I said you didn't understand thermodynamics based on the arguments you made during the Flood discussion. You said you were "willing to dive into this again." If you've changed your mind, that's fine.

Am I not addressing your points about the flood now? Who said anything about changing my mind? But, I will say I'll be on a hiatus soon since I'll be going out of the country. We can resume the discussion when I get back after a few weeks.

The first law and second law of thermodynamics are independent. I'm working through your misunderstanding of the first law. If we can get through this, we can work on the second law if you want.

I would disagree that they can be separated when talking about a thermodynamic system.

You're going to have to cite a source that says all energy in a system would ultimately be converted into heat.

In practice, there will be other losses. You heard the crash: that's some sound energy gone; you won't get it back. Some sparks were flying; that's light energy that's gone. You subtract all that out, and you find that in the end, the calories explain the missing joules.

Here it states energy was also lost in sound energy and light energy. So it was not completely transformed into heat.

[Difflugia]

• Energy Transformations:
  • A small amount of energy may also be used to slightly deform the weight and the floor (elastic potential energy).

Does this match what you expected? Why or why not?

The key is how much work was done in the system.

No it isn't. I'm pretty sure this is the fundamental error you're stuck on. First, work doesn't consume energy. Second, note the word potential there. "Elastic potential energy" is the same as the energy stored in a spring. That leads us to third, from farther down in the ChatGPT response:

• Deformation Energy: Any deformation of the stone weight or the floor will store a small amount of energy temporarily as elastic potential energy, but this too will likely convert into heat as the materials return to their original shapes or settle into new configurations.

Note the "temporarily" and "likely convert into heat."

If only a small amount resulted in deformation of the floor and the rock, then more heat would be in the final state compared to a large deformation of the floor and the rock.

I'm pretty sure the amount of energy you're imagining of is far, far more than what's really going on in reality. I can't tell, because you keep using words like "small" and "large" without any indication of how those translate to numbers. Some energy can be stored permanently due to deformation, but that's just another form of potential energy. In mechanical systems, that energy is released (converted from potential to kinetic energy) when the structure fails. Your "dent in the floor" is actually an example of the structure failing and stored deformation energy being released back into the system. That's why I'm trying to get you to engage with the simpler examples first until you fully understand them. More complicated examples are usually just a combination of many simple examples.

Whether usable or not, what form is that energy in? Kinetic? Potential? Thermal? If something else, then what?

I had already listed other forms of energy in my previous post.

Sure, but you can't just wave your hands and say that the energy is in one of those forms. You're challenging me to prove everything I say, but then claiming that the energy doesn't become heat because it's [waves hands] "over there." I'm telling you that the energy that is no longer usable is heat. If that's true, energy was conserved. If that's not true, as you claim, then in order for the energy to be conserved, it must be in some other form. It's up to you to tell me which of those forms the energy has been transformed into that isn't heat, but is also not usable.

Fracture energy was the energy used to fracture the rock (work), not some sort of energy store to be used after the rock was fractured.

Then the energy is still there in the system. As I keep telling you and you have yet to internalize, work doesn't consume energy in a way that makes it go away. Work is energy being transformed from one type to another. Energy doesn't get transformed into work. After the work is done, all of the energy that started in the system is still in the system. Absent friction, the energy could keep doing work over and over forever. Friction is always present, though, and transforms some of the energy into heat.

Am I not addressing your points about the flood now? Who said anything about changing my mind? But, I will say I'll be on a hiatus soon since I'll be going out of the country. We can resume the discussion when I get back after a few weeks.

At your convenience.

You're going to have to cite a source that says all energy in a system would ultimately be converted into heat.

In practice, there will be other losses. You heard the crash: that's some sound energy gone; you won't get it back. Some sparks were flying; that's light energy that's gone. You subtract all that out, and you find that in the end, the calories explain the missing joules.

Here it states energy was also lost in sound energy and light energy. So it was not completely transformed into heat.

The physics book is trying to get students thinking about different possible energy conversions, not give you a loophole. Note this from one of the ChatGPT responses:

• A small amount of energy will have been briefly in the form of sound energy, which will also ultimately dissipate as heat.

When sound collides with a wall, for example, the collision can be elastic or inelastic. A perfectly elastic collision means that all of the energy stays as sound energy and you get an echo with the same intensity (energy) as before the collision. A perfectly inelastic collision means that all of the energy is transformed into heat. Real interactoins are somewher in between elastic and inelastic. Some of the sound energy echoes and some is converted to heat. After a few collisions, all of the energy has been transformed into heat.

Light works the same way. Light hitting a perfect mirror would cause an elastic collision. Light hitting a perfectly black surface would cause an inelastic collision and convert all of the light to heat. When light hits a wall, some is reflected again as light and some is converted to heat.

Light and sound don't consume energy any more than any other work does. As long as you consider the sound and light to still be part of the system, that energy is conserved and will ultimately end up as heat.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to otseng in post #4276]

Thanks for the idea of using ChatGPT as a resource. I've been spending a bit of time since then asking it silly physics questions. It probably thinks it's doing my physics homework for me.

In a box considered to be a closed system, if all light interactions are perfectly elastic, what happens to a beam of light in the box?

If a beam of light is in a closed system where all interactions are perfectly elastic, it means that no energy is lost during reflections and other interactions with the walls of the box. In such a scenario, the following would happen to the beam of light:

1. Conservation of Energy: The energy of the light beam remains constant over time. There is no absorption or conversion of light energy into other forms (like heat).
2. Reflection: The light beam would reflect off the walls of the box indefinitely. If the walls are perfectly reflective (like mirrors), the light would bounce around the box perpetually without any loss of intensity.
3. No Absorption: Since all interactions are perfectly elastic, there is no absorption of light by the walls. The walls do not convert the light energy into thermal energy or any other form.
4. Path Tracing: The path of the light beam can be traced continuously. In a perfectly reflective and elastic system, the beam would follow predictable paths based on the geometry of the box and the initial direction of the light.

In essence, the light beam would keep bouncing around inside the box without losing any energy, maintaining its intensity and wavelength. This hypothetical scenario assumes ideal conditions, which are not achievable with real materials but are useful for theoretical considerations.