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

[Difflugia]

I don't know why I didn't think of this yesterday, but I asked ChatGPT to calculate the rise in temperature for the "vapor canopy" model of the Flood. Note that this underestimates the temperature because it assumes that the water is suspended initially as liquid rather than vapor. It's still instructive. I'll leave it as an "exercise for the reader" to try to come up with a more detailed (or perhaps "realistic") model for ChatGPT.

If all of the water on Earth were suspended 10km above the Earth's surface and allowed to fall, approximately how much would the temperature of the water increase when it came to rest?

To determine the temperature increase of the water when it falls from 10 km above the Earth's surface and comes to rest, we need to calculate the potential energy converted into heat energy and then find out the corresponding temperature change. Here's the step-by-step process:

1. Calculate the Potential Energy:
   
   • The potential energy (PE) of an object at height h is given by:
     
     
     PE = mgh
     
     where m is the mass of the water, g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s²), and h is the height (10,000 m).
2. Mass of Water on Earth:
   
   • The total mass of water on Earth is approximately 1.410²¹ kg.
     
     Potential Energy Calculation:
     
     
     PE = (1.4 10²¹ kg) (9.8 m/s2) (10,000 m)
     
     PE = 1.4 10²¹ 9.810⁴ J
     
     PE = 1.372 10²⁷ J
3. Convert Potential Energy to Heat Energy:
   
   • Assume all potential energy is converted to heat energy (Q).
4. Calculate Temperature Increase:
   
   • The specific heat capacity of water (c) is 4184 J/kgK.
   • The temperature change (T) is given by:
     
     
     Q = mcT
     
     Solving for T:
     
     
     T = Q / mc
     
     Substituting the values:
     
     
     T = (1.372 10²⁷ J) / ((1.4 10²¹ kg) (4184 J/kgK))
     
     T = (1.372 10²⁷) / (5.8576 10²⁴)
     
     T 234.2 K

Therefore, if all the water on Earth were suspended 10 km above the Earth's surface and allowed to fall, the temperature of the water would increase by approximately 234.2 degrees Celsius (or Kelvin) when it came to rest, assuming all potential energy is converted to heat and there are no losses.

Edit 1: I was going through ChatGPT's numbers above and its math is off by a factor of 10 (1.4e21 x 9.8e4 is 1.372e26, not 1.372e27). Even when I changed numbers, the weird math error persisted in that chat session. Once I started a new one, the math error went away. That means that the temperature increase is 23.42 K, not 234.2 K. That's also linear with distance, so at 20,000m it's doubled, at 5,000m it's halved.

Edit 2: For anyone else as amused by this as I am, I asked it to factor in heat of vaporization:

If the water in the previous problem began as vapor and condensed before it fell, how would that change the answer?

Therefore, if the water vapor condenses before falling, the temperature of the water would increase by approximately 564.49C when it comes to rest. This significant increase is due to the substantial amount of latent heat released during condensation.

Edit 3: In this earlier comment, I estimated that the temperature would rise 1C for every 430m the water shot up. That means an increase of 23.26C at 10,000m, so my math was pretty close (and why I double-checked ChatGPT). For reference, here was the original claim I was addressing from this comment:

Yes, the water was superheated. But, it lost a lot of it's energy during the rupture phase of the flood. Noah was in the ark so he avoided being "poached".

If energy is conserved like the First Law of Thermodynamics says it should be, then that energy wasn't "lost," but stuck around as heat.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to otseng in post #1]

St. Augustine (354-430) was one of the founders of the Roman Catholic Church. He well understood that Christianity was like a house of cards; if the church dared to admit to even a single error in the Bible, who could say there wasn't an error on every page? The resurrection story might then be false and everyone's hopes are in vain. This is what he said:


"The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books....If you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true." --St. Augustine in Epistula, p. 28.

[otseng]

First, work doesn't consume energy.

Yes, energy can be transformed into work.

Some energy can be stored permanently due to deformation, but that's just another form of potential energy.

If it's permanent, how would it have have any potential to release that energy?

Your "dent in the floor" is actually an example of the structure failing and stored deformation energy being released back into the system.

There are dents all over my kitchen floor and there's no indication they will release their energy and return back to a smooth floor.

Sure, but you can't just wave your hands and say that the energy is in one of those forms.

My point is there are many forms of energy, not just thermal energy. Your original claim was that the final state of the flood must have all the energy converted into heat:

According to Google, the specific heat of water is 4.2 kJ/kg per degree Celsius. 4200 J/kg (m²s²) 9.8 m/s² is 430 m. That means that the amount of energy to send an amount of water 430 meters into the air is enough to raise its temperature one degree. If the water fell back down, that much energy went somewhere as heat.

If there is enough potential energy stored in the rock layer atop the subterranean reservoirs to shoot the water up in the air, that energy ends up as heat if that water comes to rest at any point below its maximum height.

My claim is not all the energy would end up as thermal energy at the end of the flood, but would also be transformed into work and other energy forms in addition to heat.

I'm telling you that the energy that is no longer usable is heat.

Not sure what you mean by this. There's a difference between usable heat and unusable heat.

>>> what is the difference between usable heat and unusable heat?

~~~ Usable heat refers to heat energy that can be effectively converted into useful work, such as providing energy for generating electricity or heating up a room. Unusable heat, on the other hand, refers to heat energy that is lost in a process and cannot be harnessed for any useful purpose. This wasted heat is typically dissipated into the environment and cannot be easily captured or reused. The key difference between usable and unusable heat lies in the ability to extract useful work from the heat energy.

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.

What I claim is a set of the initial energy has been transformed into work (moving of sediments, creation of geologic layers, moving of the crust, creation of mountains, etc). Going back to the simple example of creating a dent in the floor, the energy would be "stored permanently" in these transformations of the earth.

Absent friction, the energy could keep doing work over and over forever.

Sure, in a theoretical situation, energy and work can transform back and forth forever, but in our universe it's impossible.

Friction is always present, though, and transforms some of the energy into heat.

Yes. But where I disagree is all the energy would always be transformed into heat for a particular system. Sure, possibly at the heat death of the universe everything would be heat, but that's a long way off.

The physics book is trying to get students thinking about different possible energy conversions, not give you a loophole.

Simply citing what you posted is not 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.

Sure, in the ultimate final scenario, all energy could dissipate as heat, but that does not mean a particular system would.

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.

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.

I would disagree. Light is more complicated than that. It can also cause chemical changes as well as heat. So, not all energy (including light) ends up as thermal energy.

[otseng]

St. Augustine (354-430) was one of the founders of the Roman Catholic Church. He well understood that Christianity was like a house of cards; if the church dared to admit to even a single error in the Bible, who could say there wasn't an error on every page?

I disagree that even if a single error is found in a document that it invalidates the entire document.

The resurrection story might then be false and everyone's hopes are in vain.

This I do agree with. If the resurrection story is false, then a belief in Christianity is in vain.

[Difflugia]

First, work doesn't consume energy.

Yes, energy can be transformed into work.

This is you not understanding thermodynamics.

What gets called "work" is the conversion of one type of energy into another. The work itself doesn't somehow consume the energy. If you have a frictionless spring with a weight on the end and I add energy by pulling the weight and stretching the spring, the energy that is converted to potential energy in the spring is exactly the amount that was removed from me. "Work" isn't a form of energy, so all of the energy added to the spring is potential energy.

Releasing the spring causes the potential energy to be transformed into kinetic energy of the spring. Work is done, but the amount of kinetic energy exactly matches the initial potential energy.

The kinetic energy is then converted to gravitational potential energy. At the point that the weight reaches its highest point, all of the kinetic energy has been converted to potential energy. Work was done, but the amount of total energy hasn't changed.

The weight then falls again. The gravitational potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy again. As the weight falls against the force of the spring, the kinetic energy is converted into potential energy in the spring. Work is done, but no energy is lost.

Absent friction, this will repeat ad infinitum. Every time the energy is transformed from potential energy to kinetic energy and back, work is done, but the amount of energy in the system doesn't change.

If we allow for friction, then every time the weight moves and the spring compresses or releases, the energy required to overcome friction is transformed into heat. That energy is no longer available to "do work," but is still in the system as a higher temperature of the system.

Some energy can be stored permanently due to deformation, but that's just another form of potential energy.

If it's permanent, how would it have have any potential to release that energy?

Because the word "permanent" is used in a relative sense. It's the kind of simplification used to help students understand what's going on.

Your "dent in the floor" is actually an example of the structure failing and stored deformation energy being released back into the system.

There are dents all over my kitchen floor and there's no indication they will release their energy and return back to a smooth floor.

You misread or misunderstood what I wrote. The reason it's a dent is because the structure already failed and released the potential energy of deformation (which is the kind of potential energy in a spring).

Sure, but you can't just wave your hands and say that the energy is in one of those forms.

My point is there are many forms of energy, not just thermal energy. Your original claim was that the final state of the flood must have all the energy converted into heat:

The situation that we're in is that I'm trying to simplify things enough to help you understand. You're then claiming that the simplifications mean that what I'm saying is wrong. You're technically correct as far as that goes, but not for the reasons you think you are.

The amount of energy that is not converted to heat is infinitesimal. There are other places that can act as temporary energy sinks, but you're imagining that they're significant enough to account for the difference between a plausible, survivable Flood and one in which everything dies. There are no such energy sinks. The things that you're claiming are energy sinks ("work") are based on a misunderstanding of the physics.

My claim is not all the energy would end up as thermal energy at the end of the flood, but would also be transformed into work

This is wrong, or perhaps more appropriately, not even wrong. In the conservation of energy sense, energy isn't transformed into work. "Work" is a kind of convenient fiction for introducing the physics of energy and mechanics. "Work" typically means that energy has been transformed in a way that we find useful (or at least obvious), but it's not actually something. When you throw a ball and our physics formula is precise enough, we'll have terms for various forms of potential energy and kinetic energy, mass and velocity, but none for "work". In a physics sense, chemical potential energy in my body is transformed into kinetic energy in my arm, transformed into kinetic energy in the ball, transformed into potential energy of gravity, back to kinetic energy, then to heat through friction with the air and ground. "Work" is just a nebulously defined term for some part of that that we wish to simplify. The "work" we did might be "throwing the ball" or "the ball moving from point A to point B" or somesuch, but there's nowhere to put "work" in the equations such that it makes some of the energy go somewhere. Throw a ball with some amount of energy and a few seconds later under nearly any circumstances, that energy has all become heat.

and other energy forms in addition to heat.

This may be technically correct, but the fractions are tiny and simply represent other forms of potential energy. An example would be something like the piezoelectric effect. That's why I asked to enumerate some of these ofther forms of energy. You seem convinced that they must together be enough to keep Noah alive, but you don't actually know what they are.

I'm telling you that the energy that is no longer usable is heat.

Not sure what you mean by this. There's a difference between usable heat and unusable heat.

Even if we're being pedantic, what I said is still true. Even if some of the heat is usable, all of the unusable energy is in the form of heat. You mentioned heat death a while ago. Heat death is when all of the energy in the universe has been converted to heat and that heat is evenly distributed.

What I claim is a set of the initial energy has been transformed into work (moving of sediments, creation of geologic layers, moving of the crust, creation of mountains, etc). Going back to the simple example of creating a dent in the floor, the energy would be "stored permanently" in these transformations of the earth.

No. The dent itself doesn't store energy. The dent is evidence that the structure of the floor (or whatever) has failed. Energy was stored as deformation (like in a spring). Once the amount of energy that the material could store was exceeded, the structure failed and released the energy. The dent is an over-stretched spring.

Absent friction, the energy could keep doing work over and over forever.

Sure, in a theoretical situation, energy and work can transform back and forth forever, but in our universe it's impossible.

Right. Because some of the energy is converted to heat via friction during each transformation.

Friction is always present, though, and transforms some of the energy into heat.

Yes. But where I disagree is all the energy would always be transformed into heat for a particular system.

If you're imagining this as anything more than technically (and temporarily) true, then you're wrong. You're wrong to at least four decimal places.

Sure, in the ultimate final scenario, all energy could dissipate as heat, but that does not mean a particular system would.

In this case, you were talking about sound. When the sound can no longer be heard, it has become heat. The problem is that you think that I'm the one relying on some sort of technicality. If you're in a soundproof room and you yell, as soon as you stop hearing the sound, all of the sound energy from your yell is heat. The reason that seems so counterintuitive is because we're used to experiecing relatively tiny sounds in our relatively huge world.

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.

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.

I would disagree. Light is more complicated than that. It can also cause chemical changes as well as heat. So, not all energy (including light) ends up as thermal energy.

Light isn't more complicated than that, though one could create a few scenarios that are. If you were to create a photosynthetic wall, for example, and provide it with a source of carbon dioxide and water, a tiny amount of that energy would be stored in the higher energy state of glucose and oxygen. Is that what you had in mind? Do you think something like that is sinking the energy from a flashlight that you shine at the wall?

[Difflugia]

If I shine a 1W light at a normal wall for 1s, about how much of the energy is converted to heat rather than other forms, like chemical potential energy?

When you shine a 1W (1 joule per second) light on a wall for 1 second, the total energy emitted by the light is 1 joule.

To determine how much of this energy is converted to heat rather than other forms, like chemical potential energy (assuming you're referring to any chemical processes involving the wall material), we need to consider the nature of the interaction:

1. Absorption and Conversion to Heat: Typically, when light hits a surface like a wall, most of its energy is absorbed and converted into heat. The wall material absorbs the photons, which excite the atoms and molecules, leading to an increase in thermal energy (heat).
2. Reflection and Transmission: Some portion of the light might also be reflected or transmitted through the wall, depending on its material properties (like reflectivity and transparency). However, for most common materials (like a typical painted wall), a significant portion of the light energy is absorbed.
3. Chemical Potential Energy: The concept of chemical potential energy in the context of a wall is less straightforward unless the wall material undergoes some chemical change due to the light exposure (e.g., photoreactive materials). However, in most cases, the primary interaction is thermal (absorption leading to heating).

Given these points, for a typical scenario where a 1W light is shone on a wall:

• Heat Conversion: The vast majority of the 1 joule of light energy will be converted into heat upon absorption by the wall. This is because materials like walls are not designed to store significant chemical potential energy from light directly; instead, they primarily absorb light as heat.
• Other Forms (like chemical potential energy): Unless the wall is made of a specific material that undergoes a chemical change upon light exposure, the amount of energy converted to other forms like chemical potential energy would typically be negligible compared to the thermal energy generated.

Therefore, in the scenario described:

• Approximately 1 joule of energy from the 1W light source is converted to heat upon being absorbed by the wall.

Other forms of energy conversion (like chemical potential energy) are minimal in typical wall materials under normal conditions of light exposure. Thus, almost all of the energy from the light is effectively converted to heat in this context.

If you're willing to accept some advice about understanding some of this, I'd suggest that you try asking ChatGPT questions in a way that makes simplifications and technicalities obvious. If you ask yes/no questions, you'll get "trick question" style answers. Ask ChatGPT to quantify answers.

[Difflugia]

If I push a block across a floor expending 100 joules and the block comes to rest, how much of the energy is consumed by work and how much is lost to heat?

When you push a block across a floor and it comes to rest, the energy you expend primarily gets dissipated as heat due to friction between the block and the floor. Here's how the energy distribution typically works in this scenario:

1. Work Done on the Block:
   • Work W is defined as the force F applied to move the block over a distance d:
     W = F d
   • The work done on the block is directly related to the energy you expend. If you expend 100 joules of energy, this is the amount of work done on the block to move it across the floor.
2. Energy Dissipation (Heat):
   • When you push the block, friction between the block and the floor converts mechanical energy (from your push) into thermal energy (heat).
   • Frictional forces act in the opposite direction to the motion of the block, dissipating energy as heat.
   • As the block comes to rest, the kinetic energy it gained from your push is entirely converted into heat due to friction.
3. Energy Distribution:
   • In this scenario, since the block comes to rest, all of the energy you initially provided (100 joules) is eventually converted into heat.
   • The breakdown would be:
     • Work done on the block: Initially, all 100 joules would be considered as work done on the block to move it. However, as the block slows down and comes to rest, this kinetic energy is gradually dissipated into heat due to friction.
     • Heat dissipation: Eventually, all 100 joules would be lost as heat due to frictional forces.

To summarize:

• Work done on the block: Initially, you expend 100 joules of energy, which is all converted into work done on the block to move it across the floor.
• Energy lost to heat: As the block comes to rest, all of the initial 100 joules of energy you expended is dissipated as heat due to friction.

Therefore, in this specific case where the block comes to rest:

• Work done on the block: Initially 100 joules.
• Energy lost to heat: Eventually, all 100 joules are converted into heat due to friction.

Note that the amount of energy needed to "do the work" is exactly the same amount that is converted to heat.

[Difflugia]

What happens to sound energy after we no longer hear it?

After sound energy is no longer audible to us (after we no longer hear it), several things can happen to it, depending on the environment and the nature of the sound:

1. Reflection and Absorption: Sound waves can reflect off surfaces or be absorbed by them. When sound waves encounter a surface, some of the energy may bounce back (reflect) while some may be absorbed into the material of the surface. This absorption usually results in the conversion of sound energy into heat energy within the material.
2. Transmission: Sound waves can also continue to propagate through a medium, such as air or water, even if they are no longer audible to us. They can travel long distances and may eventually dissipate due to absorption and spreading out.
3. Conversion to Heat: One of the primary ways sound energy dissipates is through conversion into heat. When sound waves interact with materials (solid, liquid, or gas), frictional forces between the molecules of the material cause the mechanical energy of the sound waves to be converted into heat energy. This process reduces the amplitude (intensity) of the sound waves over time.
4. Scattering and Diffusion: In environments with many surfaces, sound waves can scatter and diffuse, spreading out and becoming less coherent. This scattering contributes to the overall dissipation of sound energy.
5. Loss to Higher Frequencies or Infrasound: Sound waves can also undergo processes that change their frequency. High-frequency components can dissipate faster due to absorption in the medium, while low-frequency components can become infrasound, which is generally not perceptible to humans but can still exist and propagate.

In summary, after we no longer hear sound energy, it typically continues to exist in the environment but in a dispersed and less organized form. It undergoes various processes like absorption, reflection, and conversion into heat, ultimately dissipating into the surroundings.

In what form does the energy dissipate into the surroundings?

When sound energy dissipates into the surroundings, it primarily dissipates in the form of heat. This happens through several mechanisms:

1. Conversion by Absorption: When sound waves interact with materials (such as walls, floors, furniture, etc.), the mechanical energy of the sound waves causes the molecules of the material to vibrate. These vibrations generate frictional forces between molecules, which in turn generate heat. This process is the primary way in which sound energy is converted into thermal energy (heat).
2. Viscous Dissipation in Air: In the air, especially in turbulent or highly viscous environments, sound waves can also dissipate due to frictional losses between air molecules. This contributes to a slight increase in the temperature of the air, albeit usually in very small amounts compared to solid materials.
3. Scattering and Redistribution: Sound waves can scatter and reflect off surfaces, spreading out and reducing in intensity over distance. Each interaction with a surface or object may result in some energy being absorbed and converted into heat.
4. Radiation: While not as significant as in electromagnetic radiation, sound waves can also radiate energy away from the source. This can contribute to a slight cooling effect in the immediate vicinity of the sound source, though the amount is typically minimal compared to heat generated through absorption.
5. Conversion to Other Forms: In some cases, especially with high-intensity sound waves (like those produced by loudspeakers or industrial equipment), there can be secondary effects such as ionization of air molecules (leading to tiny electrical discharges) or even chemical reactions under extreme conditions. However, these are less common and typically occur only in specific circumstances.

Overall, the predominant form of energy dissipation when sound energy leaves the audible range is through the conversion of mechanical energy carried by sound waves into thermal energy (heat). This process occurs as sound waves interact with materials and the medium through which they travel, gradually reducing their intensity and converting their energy into random molecular motion, which we perceive as an increase in temperature.

What percentage of the energy is likely to be stored in a form other than heat under extreme conditions?

Under extreme conditions, such as those involving very high-intensity sound waves or specific environments where unusual interactions occur, a portion of the energy from sound waves may be stored in forms other than heat. However, the percentage of energy stored in these alternative forms is typically quite small compared to the energy that ends up as heat. Here are some scenarios where energy may be stored differently:

1. Electromagnetic Conversion: In rare cases of extremely intense sound waves, some of the energy can be converted into electromagnetic radiation. This can happen through processes like nonlinear effects or interactions with specific materials that can generate electromagnetic waves.
2. Ionization and Chemical Effects: Very high-intensity sound waves can potentially lead to ionization of air molecules in their path. This ionization can result in the conversion of sound energy into electrical energy temporarily. Similarly, extreme sound waves can induce chemical reactions in certain substances.
3. Mechanical Effects: In highly resonant environments or with certain materials, sound waves can induce mechanical vibrations or stresses that store some energy in the form of potential mechanical strain.

However, it's crucial to note that these scenarios are generally specific to extreme conditions and not typical of everyday sound propagation in most environments. In practical terms, for normal sound waves encountered in daily life:

• The vast majority of sound energy is converted into heat through interactions with surfaces and the surrounding medium.
• Only a very small percentage of energy might be diverted into other forms such as electromagnetic radiation, mechanical effects, or temporary ionization under extreme circumstances.

In summary, under extreme conditions, less than 1% of the energy from sound waves might be stored in forms other than heat. The exact percentage would depend heavily on the specific conditions and the nature of the sound waves involved.

[otseng]

This is you not understanding thermodynamics.

Personal comment.

Releasing the spring causes the potential energy to be transformed into kinetic energy of the spring. Work is done, but the amount of kinetic energy exactly matches the initial potential energy.

Yes, and the other way around too. Energy is added to a spring to compress it and work is done. The energy added to it is now in the form of potential energy.

The amount of energy that is not converted to heat is infinitesimal. There are other places that can act as temporary energy sinks, but you're imagining that they're significant enough to account for the difference between a plausible, survivable Flood and one in which everything dies. There are no such energy sinks. The things that you're claiming are energy sinks ("work") are based on a misunderstanding of the physics.

I don't think I'm the one misunderstanding the physics. What you're arguing is all the work done would end up all as thermal energy, which I disagree with. Instead, it could also be stored as potential energy.

"Work" is a kind of convenient fiction for introducing the physics of energy and mechanics. "Work" typically means that energy has been transformed in a way that we find useful (or at least obvious), but it's not actually something.

The same for energy. Energy doesn't exist per se by itself. Rather, energy is a description of a system for the capacity to do work.

>>> What is energy?

~~~ Energy is the ability to do work or create change. It exists in various forms, such as mechanical, thermal, electromagnetic, nuclear, and chemical, and can be converted from one form to another. Energy powers everything around us, from moving vehicles to producing heat and light.

Even heat energy doesn't per se exist by itself. Fundamentally, it's just a macro description of atoms and molecules moving around.

Throw a ball with some amount of energy and a few seconds later under nearly any circumstances, that energy has all become heat.

Sure, but that example does not apply to all cases. If you throw the ball and it lands on the roof, the energy becomes potential energy. So, not all systems end with the final result being all converted to thermal energy.

That's why I asked to enumerate some of these ofther forms of energy. You seem convinced that they must together be enough to keep Noah alive, but you don't actually know what they are.

No, I don't claim to know the entire physics of the flood. But I am pushing back on the claim that all energy must end up as thermal energy for a particular system. I would say the largest transfer of energy would be into potential energy. Creation of mountains has potential energy stored in them. Even flat geologic strata would have potential energy in them. And there are probably several other potential energy stores as well.

You mentioned heat death a while ago. Heat death is when all of the energy in the universe has been converted to heat and that heat is evenly distributed.

Yes, this was the reason heat was brought up in the first place. And this is evidence the universe cannot be eternal and must've been created since we're not at the heat death.

Light isn't more complicated than that, though one could create a few scenarios that are. If you were to create a photosynthetic wall, for example, and provide it with a source of carbon dioxide and water, a tiny amount of that energy would be stored in the higher energy state of glucose and oxygen. Is that what you had in mind? Do you think something like that is sinking the energy from a flashlight that you shine at the wall?

Yes, photosynthesis is an example. Light energy is captured into chemical potential energy and not just thermal energy.

[Difflugia]

Yes, and the other way around too. Energy is added to a spring to compress it and work is done. The energy added to it is now in the form of potential energy.

Yes.

I don't think I'm the one misunderstanding the physics. What you're arguing is all the work done would end up all as thermal energy, which I disagree with. Instead, it could also be stored as potential energy.

If this is what you were always arguing, then I misunderstood you. I'll assume that's true and won't belabor the point.

"Work" is a kind of convenient fiction for introducing the physics of energy and mechanics. "Work" typically means that energy has been transformed in a way that we find useful (or at least obvious), but it's not actually something.

The same for energy. Energy doesn't exist per se by itself. Rather, energy is a description of a system for the capacity to do work.

As long as we stick to Newtonian mechanics, yes.

Even heat energy doesn't per se exist by itself. Fundamentally, it's just a macro description of atoms and molecules moving around.

Yes. Heat is often considered as a form kinetic energy.

Sure, but that example does not apply to all cases. If you throw the ball and it lands on the roof, the energy becomes potential energy. So, not all systems end with the final result being all converted to thermal energy.

That's true. As a reminder, here's where we were before.

You're fundamentally wrong and I'm not sure how to prove it to you.

My rebuttal is simply the energy in the water also resulted in work, not just heat.

Your rebuttal is wrong. Energy that does "work" ends up as either potential energy again or heat. I don't know what else to tell you. Find a physicist you trust and ask her.

If we were saying the same thing, I apologize.

No, I don't claim to know the entire physics of the flood. But I am pushing back on the claim that all energy must end up as thermal energy for a particular system. I would say the largest transfer of energy would be into potential energy. Creation of mountains has potential energy stored in them.

Unless you start changing your model, the superheated subterranean water still shoots high into the air and falls back down. Unless the falling water somehow created the mountains, then the energy to push up the mountains is in addition to the energy we were already talking about. Erosion as such ultimately transforms energy into heat, so for the mountains to be an energy sink for the falling and superheated water, there must be a mechanism for falling water to push up mountains.

You've got more of a handle on the physics, but you're still just waving your hands.

Even flat geologic strata would have potential energy in them.

Unless this is just another technicality involving fractions of a percent, this is something you'll have to justify.

And there are probably several other potential energy stores as well.

Like what? There's a reason that physicists (and ChatGPT) typically assume that unenumerated energy sinks are negligible.

Yes, photosynthesis is an example. Light energy is captured into chemical potential energy and not just thermal energy.

Again, just so we're on the same page, are you arguing that my example is technically too simple or that an appreciable amount of light energy is actually converted to potential energy for an appreciable amount of time?

For the record, it sounds to me like you figured out the relationship between work, energy, and the conservation of energy. I still think you're seriously overestimating how much energy is "reclaimed" as anything other than heat in the Flood discussion, but I won't claim that you don't understand thermodynamics anymore, at least in terms of conservation of energy.