Bull Ring ding: Does work in physics require motion

[edthecynic]

When the universe reaches thermal equilibrium no work is being done. The random motion of atoms is not performing work.

Work in physics is NOT a job kind of work, in physics work is a force through a distance. So a bunch of atoms randomly bumping into each other IS doing WORK as defined in physics, and is the "perpetual commotion" I stated for the fate of the universe.

Random motion of atoms is not performing work. So says BU.

Quote BU saying that, you liar made in the image of God.
How many times have I told you name dropping does not work in physics?????

You have no one you can point to that agrees with you that the cosmological fate has the universe is not thermal equilibrium. In fact the only expert you have relied upon agrees with me that the cosmological fate of the universe is thermal equilibrium.

Gee what a surprise, NOT! No direct quote from BC.
The problem with trying to communicate with you is as someone made in the image of God, you have no shame in lying.
Sad.

 

[ding]

When the universe reaches thermal equilibrium no work is being done. The random motion of atoms is not performing work.

Work in physics is NOT a job kind of work, in physics work is a force through a distance. So a bunch of atoms randomly bumping into each other IS doing WORK as defined in physics, and is the "perpetual commotion" I stated for the fate of the universe.

Random motion of atoms is not performing work. So says BU.

Quote BU saying that, you liar made in the image of God.
How many times have I told you name dropping does not work in physics?????

You have no one you can point to that agrees with you that the cosmological fate has the universe is not thermal equilibrium. In fact the only expert you have relied upon agrees with me that the cosmological fate of the universe is thermal equilibrium.

Ge what a surprise, NOT! No direct quote from BC.
The problem with trying to communicate with you is as someone made in the image of God, you have no shame in lying.
Sad.

Do you have any links from actual scientists who support your position that the cosmological fate of the universe is not thermal equilibrium?

 

[edthecynic]

Say it with me Ed. The universe had a beginning.

You say it with me first, ENERGY had no beginning and has no end.
That is what we are arguing about, ENERGY and NOT the universe.
The universe of space/time having a beginning is your Straw Man for every time you have to admit energy can be neither created nor destroyed!!!

Inflation theory says otherwise. So does the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is possible for energy to be created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event which does not violate the law of conservation because the negative energy of the gravity of the matter exactly compensates the positive energy of the matter such that the net energy of the universe is zero. There is even an elegant equation which describes it. Quantum mechanics states that anything which does not violate the law of conservation will necessarily occur with some non-zero probability. You lose again.

Inflation says no such thing, your lie has already been exposed by your own quote. Two kinds of energy in equal amounts does not mean neither kind of energy exists. Each kind of energy is SOMETHING, and their sum is 2 somethings, not 2 nothings.
Why can't you see just how STUPID your misinterpretation of inflation is???????

Inflation theory says exactly that. That matter and energy were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event that did not violate the laws of conservation.

Prove me wrong. Provide a link that disagrees with what I have told you.

Because I have already provided numerous links and videos of subject matter experts who say exactly what I have told you. They are the ones I got it from.

Geeeeezzzz, I took your OWN quote that said there was both positive and negative energy in equal amounts, neither is NOTHING, and the conservation laws were not violated because your double-talk essentially says energy created energy from energy equal in total to the energy you started with which you dishonestly call nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

Work in physics is NOT a job kind of work, in physics work is a force through a distance. So a bunch of atoms randomly bumping into each other IS doing WORK as defined in physics, and is the "perpetual commotion" I stated for the fate of the universe.

Random motion of atoms is not performing work. So says BU.

Quote BU saying that, you liar made in the image of God.
How many times have I told you name dropping does not work in physics?????

You have no one you can point to that agrees with you that the cosmological fate has the universe is not thermal equilibrium. In fact the only expert you have relied upon agrees with me that the cosmological fate of the universe is thermal equilibrium.

Ge what a surprise, NOT! No direct quote from BC.
The problem with trying to communicate with you is as someone made in the image of God, you have no shame in lying.
Sad.

Do you have any links from actual scientists who support your position that the cosmological fate of the universe is not thermal equilibrium?

Still no direct quote from BC supporting your lie.
Thank you.

 

[ding]

Say it with me Ed. The universe had a beginning.

You say it with me first, ENERGY had no beginning and has no end.
That is what we are arguing about, ENERGY and NOT the universe.
The universe of space/time having a beginning is your Straw Man for every time you have to admit energy can be neither created nor destroyed!!!

Inflation theory says otherwise. So does the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is possible for energy to be created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event which does not violate the law of conservation because the negative energy of the gravity of the matter exactly compensates the positive energy of the matter such that the net energy of the universe is zero. There is even an elegant equation which describes it. Quantum mechanics states that anything which does not violate the law of conservation will necessarily occur with some non-zero probability. You lose again.

Inflation says no such thing, your lie has already been exposed by your own quote. Two kinds of energy in equal amounts does not mean neither kind of energy exists. Each kind of energy is SOMETHING, and their sum is 2 somethings, not 2 nothings.
Why can't you see just how STUPID your misinterpretation of inflation is???????

Inflation theory says exactly that. That matter and energy were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event that did not violate the laws of conservation.

Prove me wrong. Provide a link that disagrees with what I have told you.

Because I have already provided numerous links and videos of subject matter experts who say exactly what I have told you. They are the ones I got it from.

Geeeeezzzz, I took your OWN quote that said there was both positive and negative energy in equal amounts, neither is NOTHING, and the conservation laws were not violated because your double-talk essentially says energy created energy from energy equal in total to the energy you started with which you dishonestly call nothing.

No you didn’t. You totally fucked it up.

Provide the link that says that.

 

[edthecynic]

Learn to read, the end of life does not mean there will be no energy to do WORK!!!!!
Your phony thermal equilibrium says:
not no further "life" will be possible.
But you still haven't learned that in physics WORK is a force through a distance.

But do make a fool of yourself by patting yourself on the back again.

When thermal equilibrium is reached the only motion will be the random motion of atoms. I already provided a link from Boston University which said exactly that. Do you have any expert testimony that contradicts this?

As long as there is motion (kinetic energy) there is useful energy to do work (a force through a distance).

Where is your expert testimony that work is being done when the universe reaches a uniform temperature?

My "expert" testimony is the basic physics definitions for the terms we are using. I'm not surprised you know nothing about the terms you are using.

But you are applying them all wrong to the cosmological fate of the universe, dipshit. That’s why your own link literally describes exactly what I have been telling you and you have zero subject matter experts that you can point to that says the universe won’t end in thermal equilibrium.

Literally repeating your lie literally makes you a serial liar.

 

[ding]

Random motion of atoms is not performing work. So says BU.

Quote BU saying that, you liar made in the image of God.
How many times have I told you name dropping does not work in physics?????

You have no one you can point to that agrees with you that the cosmological fate has the universe is not thermal equilibrium. In fact the only expert you have relied upon agrees with me that the cosmological fate of the universe is thermal equilibrium.

Ge what a surprise, NOT! No direct quote from BC.
The problem with trying to communicate with you is as someone made in the image of God, you have no shame in lying.
Sad.

Do you have any links from actual scientists who support your position that the cosmological fate of the universe is not thermal equilibrium?

Still no direct quote from BC supporting your lie.
Thank you.

I’ve provided tons of links that support my position that the cosmological fate of the universe is thermal equilibrium. Even your own link describing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe said that.

You haven’t provided anything that supports your position.

Do you have any links from actual scientists who support your position that the cosmological fate of the universe is not thermal equilibrium?

 

[edthecynic]

As long as there is motion (kinetic energy) there is useful energy to do work (a force through a distance).

Where is your expert testimony that work is being done when the universe reaches a uniform temperature?

My "expert" testimony is the basic physics definitions for the terms we are using. I'm not surprised you know nothing about the terms you are using.

But you are applying them all wrong to the cosmological fate of the universe, dipshit. That’s why your own link literally describes exactly what I have been telling you and you have zero subject matter experts that you can point to that says the universe won’t end in thermal equilibrium.

Only if in physics WORK equals LIFE, which it doesn't, which only proves you LITERALLY have invented your own definitions for everything. Physics does not use your definitions for anything!!!!!
And subject matter "experts" count for bupkus in physics.

Are you arguing against the link you provided?

Got any links that support your belief that the cosmological fate of the universe does not end in thermal equilibrium?

No, I am arguing against your perversion of the link I provided where you substituted "life" for "work."
But you knew that already.

 

[ding]

Where is your expert testimony that work is being done when the universe reaches a uniform temperature?

My "expert" testimony is the basic physics definitions for the terms we are using. I'm not surprised you know nothing about the terms you are using.

But you are applying them all wrong to the cosmological fate of the universe, dipshit. That’s why your own link literally describes exactly what I have been telling you and you have zero subject matter experts that you can point to that says the universe won’t end in thermal equilibrium.

Only if in physics WORK equals LIFE, which it doesn't, which only proves you LITERALLY have invented your own definitions for everything. Physics does not use your definitions for anything!!!!!
And subject matter "experts" count for bupkus in physics.

Are you arguing against the link you provided?

Got any links that support your belief that the cosmological fate of the universe does not end in thermal equilibrium?

No, I am arguing against your perversion of the link I provided where you substituted "life" for "work."
But you knew that already.

How about the link you provided that agrees with me, dipshit?

 

[edthecynic]

You say it with me first, ENERGY had no beginning and has no end.
That is what we are arguing about, ENERGY and NOT the universe.
The universe of space/time having a beginning is your Straw Man for every time you have to admit energy can be neither created nor destroyed!!!

Inflation theory says otherwise. So does the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is possible for energy to be created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event which does not violate the law of conservation because the negative energy of the gravity of the matter exactly compensates the positive energy of the matter such that the net energy of the universe is zero. There is even an elegant equation which describes it. Quantum mechanics states that anything which does not violate the law of conservation will necessarily occur with some non-zero probability. You lose again.

Inflation says no such thing, your lie has already been exposed by your own quote. Two kinds of energy in equal amounts does not mean neither kind of energy exists. Each kind of energy is SOMETHING, and their sum is 2 somethings, not 2 nothings.
Why can't you see just how STUPID your misinterpretation of inflation is???????

Inflation theory says exactly that. That matter and energy were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event that did not violate the laws of conservation.

Prove me wrong. Provide a link that disagrees with what I have told you.

Because I have already provided numerous links and videos of subject matter experts who say exactly what I have told you. They are the ones I got it from.

Geeeeezzzz, I took your OWN quote that said there was both positive and negative energy in equal amounts, neither is NOTHING, and the conservation laws were not violated because your double-talk essentially says energy created energy from energy equal in total to the energy you started with which you dishonestly call nothing.

No you didn’t. You totally fucked it up.

Provide the link that says that.

It is possible for energy to be created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event which does not violate the law of conservation because the negative energy of the gravity of the matter exactly compensates the positive energy of the matter such that the net energy of the universe is zero.

The net energy of the universe is NEUTRAL, not zero, when you have equal AMOUNTS of positive and negative energy.

 

[ding]

Inflation theory says otherwise. So does the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is possible for energy to be created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event which does not violate the law of conservation because the negative energy of the gravity of the matter exactly compensates the positive energy of the matter such that the net energy of the universe is zero. There is even an elegant equation which describes it. Quantum mechanics states that anything which does not violate the law of conservation will necessarily occur with some non-zero probability. You lose again.

Inflation says no such thing, your lie has already been exposed by your own quote. Two kinds of energy in equal amounts does not mean neither kind of energy exists. Each kind of energy is SOMETHING, and their sum is 2 somethings, not 2 nothings.
Why can't you see just how STUPID your misinterpretation of inflation is???????

Inflation theory says exactly that. That matter and energy were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event that did not violate the laws of conservation.

Prove me wrong. Provide a link that disagrees with what I have told you.

Because I have already provided numerous links and videos of subject matter experts who say exactly what I have told you. They are the ones I got it from.

Geeeeezzzz, I took your OWN quote that said there was both positive and negative energy in equal amounts, neither is NOTHING, and the conservation laws were not violated because your double-talk essentially says energy created energy from energy equal in total to the energy you started with which you dishonestly call nothing.

No you didn’t. You totally fucked it up.

Provide the link that says that.

It is possible for energy to be created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event which does not violate the law of conservation because the negative energy of the gravity of the matter exactly compensates the positive energy of the matter such that the net energy of the universe is zero.

The net energy of the universe is NEUTRAL, not zero, when you have equal AMOUNTS of positive and negative energy.

Same thing, dipshit. They are balanced such when you sum them up the sum is zero.

 

[edthecynic]

My "expert" testimony is the basic physics definitions for the terms we are using. I'm not surprised you know nothing about the terms you are using.

But you are applying them all wrong to the cosmological fate of the universe, dipshit. That’s why your own link literally describes exactly what I have been telling you and you have zero subject matter experts that you can point to that says the universe won’t end in thermal equilibrium.

Only if in physics WORK equals LIFE, which it doesn't, which only proves you LITERALLY have invented your own definitions for everything. Physics does not use your definitions for anything!!!!!
And subject matter "experts" count for bupkus in physics.

Are you arguing against the link you provided?

Got any links that support your belief that the cosmological fate of the universe does not end in thermal equilibrium?

No, I am arguing against your perversion of the link I provided where you substituted "life" for "work."
But you knew that already.

How about the link you provided that agrees with me, dipshit?

Nowhere in the link did it say there will be no kinetic energy to do work, it only said the universe will become too cold to support life as we know it. Work and life are two different things to everyone but a liar like you.

 

[edthecynic]

Inflation says no such thing, your lie has already been exposed by your own quote. Two kinds of energy in equal amounts does not mean neither kind of energy exists. Each kind of energy is SOMETHING, and their sum is 2 somethings, not 2 nothings.
Why can't you see just how STUPID your misinterpretation of inflation is???????

Inflation theory says exactly that. That matter and energy were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event that did not violate the laws of conservation.

Prove me wrong. Provide a link that disagrees with what I have told you.

Because I have already provided numerous links and videos of subject matter experts who say exactly what I have told you. They are the ones I got it from.

Geeeeezzzz, I took your OWN quote that said there was both positive and negative energy in equal amounts, neither is NOTHING, and the conservation laws were not violated because your double-talk essentially says energy created energy from energy equal in total to the energy you started with which you dishonestly call nothing.

No you didn’t. You totally fucked it up.

Provide the link that says that.

It is possible for energy to be created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event which does not violate the law of conservation because the negative energy of the gravity of the matter exactly compensates the positive energy of the matter such that the net energy of the universe is zero.

The net energy of the universe is NEUTRAL, not zero, when you have equal AMOUNTS of positive and negative energy.

Same thing, dipshit. They are balanced such when you sum them up the sum is zero.

But the sum is not zero, it is electronically NEUTRAL.
By your moronic logic any neutral atom with equal amounts of protons and electrons is nothing.

 

[ding]

But you are applying them all wrong to the cosmological fate of the universe, dipshit. That’s why your own link literally describes exactly what I have been telling you and you have zero subject matter experts that you can point to that says the universe won’t end in thermal equilibrium.

Only if in physics WORK equals LIFE, which it doesn't, which only proves you LITERALLY have invented your own definitions for everything. Physics does not use your definitions for anything!!!!!
And subject matter "experts" count for bupkus in physics.

Are you arguing against the link you provided?

Got any links that support your belief that the cosmological fate of the universe does not end in thermal equilibrium?

No, I am arguing against your perversion of the link I provided where you substituted "life" for "work."
But you knew that already.

How about the link you provided that agrees with me, dipshit?

Nowhere in the link did it say there will be no kinetic energy to do work, it only said the universe will become too cold to support life as we know it. Work and life are two different things to everyone but a liar like you.

Your link that you relied upon literally said the cosmological fate of an ever accelerating expansion of the universe is a big freeze. That’s what thermal equilibrium is dummy.

 

[ding]

Inflation theory says exactly that. That matter and energy were created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event that did not violate the laws of conservation.

Prove me wrong. Provide a link that disagrees with what I have told you.

Because I have already provided numerous links and videos of subject matter experts who say exactly what I have told you. They are the ones I got it from.

Geeeeezzzz, I took your OWN quote that said there was both positive and negative energy in equal amounts, neither is NOTHING, and the conservation laws were not violated because your double-talk essentially says energy created energy from energy equal in total to the energy you started with which you dishonestly call nothing.

No you didn’t. You totally fucked it up.

Provide the link that says that.

It is possible for energy to be created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event which does not violate the law of conservation because the negative energy of the gravity of the matter exactly compensates the positive energy of the matter such that the net energy of the universe is zero.

The net energy of the universe is NEUTRAL, not zero, when you have equal AMOUNTS of positive and negative energy.

Same thing, dipshit. They are balanced such when you sum them up the sum is zero.

But the sum is not zero, it is electronically NEUTRAL.
By your moronic logic any neutral atom with equal amounts of protons and electrons is nothing.

The sum of the net energy is zero. That’s how it is possible to create energy and matter from nothing without violating the law of conservation.

That does not mean there is no positive energy. It only means it is balanced and did not violate the law of conservation. On an atomic level atoms are balanced too. That does not mean they have no mass. It only means they are balanced to keep them from flying apart. It is essentially a freebody diagram so to speak.

 

[ding]

Hey Ed, do you see a big freeze now? No. So the universe has not existed forever which means it did have a beginning.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Do not post in this thread if you have not been invited

 

[edthecynic]

Only if in physics WORK equals LIFE, which it doesn't, which only proves you LITERALLY have invented your own definitions for everything. Physics does not use your definitions for anything!!!!!
And subject matter "experts" count for bupkus in physics.

Are you arguing against the link you provided?

Got any links that support your belief that the cosmological fate of the universe does not end in thermal equilibrium?

No, I am arguing against your perversion of the link I provided where you substituted "life" for "work."
But you knew that already.

How about the link you provided that agrees with me, dipshit?

Nowhere in the link did it say there will be no kinetic energy to do work, it only said the universe will become too cold to support life as we know it. Work and life are two different things to everyone but a liar like you.

Your link that you relied upon literally said the cosmological fate of an ever accelerating expansion of the universe is a big freeze. That’s what thermal equilibrium is dummy.

And again there is no temperature at which no work can be done except absolute zero which as you know cannot be reached, so no matter what temperature thermal equilibrium settles on as long as it is not absolute zero there will be kinetic energy, the energy of motion, to do work.
You are just repeating the same debunked lies over and over again.
Find some new lies or concede defeat.

 

[edthecynic]

That’s how it is possible to create energy

energy can neither be created nor destroyed

 

[edthecynic]

The sum of the net energy is zero...
That does not mean there is no positive energy.

Thank you for finally admitting the truth.