Hawking says physics proves there is no time for "Gawd".

[OohPooPahDoo]

Bullshit! Even assuming that the universe stops expanding and all motion stops, (a violation of the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics), and no energy exists as potential or kinetic energy, the entropic state you refer to, ENERGY WILL STILL EXIST AS HEAT!!!!!!
That's right, a universe of heat ENERGY.

I love it when people take a term that means one thing and try to make it mean the opposite.

The heat death of the universe is a state where the universe has no thermodynamic free energy. That means the universe can no longer sustain movement, or life. Heat requires movement to exist, a total absence of movement is a total absence of heat.

And I love it when know-it-alls use terms that they have no idea what they mean.

The theoretical heat death of the universe is when there is no kinetic or potential energy to do work because all energy has been converted to heat. As long as there is motion there is kinetic energy and work can be done. And according to the Third Law of Thermodynamics, there is no temperature at which all motion stops (absolute zero). Therefore there is no heat death of the universe.

However QW has explained it to you (right or wrong) - heat death is a jargon term that means the universe has gotten to a state where there is no energy left for work - where its all been thermalized into heat energy.

 

[edthecynic]

Matter is destroyed when you split an atom. Unless you think God creates energy from nothing.

A small amount of matter is CONVERTED to energy, it is not destroyed, it exists as energy.

It no longer exists, unless you know a way to change energy to matter. Entropy will eventually result in a universe with no energy and no increase in mass.

I love it when people take a term that means one thing and try to make it mean the opposite.

The heat death of the universe is a state where the universe has no thermodynamic free energy. That means the universe can no longer sustain movement, or life. Heat requires movement to exist, a total absence of movement is a total absence of heat.

And I love it when know-it-alls use terms that they have no idea what they mean.

The theoretical heat death of the universe is when there is no kinetic or potential energy to do work because all energy has been converted to heat. As long as there is motion there is kinetic energy and work can be done. And according to the Third Law of Thermodynamics, there is no temperature at which all motion stops (absolute zero). Therefore there is no heat death of the universe.

However QW has explained it to you (right or wrong) - heat death is a jargon term that means the universe has gotten to a state where there is no energy left for work - where its all been thermalized into heat energy.

No he said there will be a universe with NO ENERGY, he had no idea of what the concept of work is in physics.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A small amount of matter is CONVERTED to energy, it is not destroyed, it exists as energy.

It no longer exists, unless you know a way to change energy to matter. Entropy will eventually result in a universe with no energy and no increase in mass.

And I love it when know-it-alls use terms that they have no idea what they mean.

The theoretical heat death of the universe is when there is no kinetic or potential energy to do work because all energy has been converted to heat. As long as there is motion there is kinetic energy and work can be done. And according to the Third Law of Thermodynamics, there is no temperature at which all motion stops (absolute zero). Therefore there is no heat death of the universe.

However QW has explained it to you (right or wrong) - heat death is a jargon term that means the universe has gotten to a state where there is no energy left for work - where its all been thermalized into heat energy.

No he said there will be a universe with NO ENERGY, he had no idea of what the concept of work is in physics.

It would appear that way, yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bullshit! Even assuming that the universe stops expanding and all motion stops, (a violation of the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics), and no energy exists as potential or kinetic energy, the entropic state you refer to, ENERGY WILL STILL EXIST AS HEAT!!!!!!
That's right, a universe of heat ENERGY.

I love it when people take a term that means one thing and try to make it mean the opposite.

The heat death of the universe is a state where the universe has no thermodynamic free energy. That means the universe can no longer sustain movement, or life. Heat requires movement to exist, a total absence of movement is a total absence of heat.

And I love it when know-it-alls use terms that they have no idea what they mean.

The theoretical heat death of the universe is when there is no kinetic or potential energy to do work because all energy has been converted to heat. As long as there is motion there is kinetic energy and work can be done. And according to the Third Law of Thermodynamics, there is no temperature at which all motion stops (absolute zero). Therefore there is no heat death of the universe.

Actually, the second law is what makes absolute zero impossible, the third law says that the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero is zero. All of that is actually irrelevant because the heat death of the universe is, by definition, the absence of motion because there no thermodynamic free energy.

For the less scientifically inclined among us, that describes a state in which the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. This actually would allow the temperature of that state to be something above absolute zero and still stop all movement.

This is where is where we run into a problem with language.

BTW, what was that about know it alls?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where do you think all this matter came from?

Ever increasing entropy results in a universe with no energy that can be converted to work. There will still be energy. Plenty of it. Near the end, the universe will first go through a state where most of its matter is locked up in black holes. As those black holes evaporate, all that will be left behind eventually is a sea of isotropically distributed photons and leptons of an average temperature asymptotically tending to zero in time. That's energy - but it can't produce any useful work at all. The only "feature" of such a universe with any useful meaning would be its temperature, which would get closer and closer to zero over time, but never get there.

If the temperature goes down the energy goes down.

The energy DENSITY goes down - the TOTAL ENERGY (energy density X volume) does NOT.

You lost me here. Does the volume of the universe increase after the heat death of the universe? Never heard that one before.

 

[edthecynic]

I love it when people take a term that means one thing and try to make it mean the opposite.

The heat death of the universe is a state where the universe has no thermodynamic free energy. That means the universe can no longer sustain movement, or life. Heat requires movement to exist, a total absence of movement is a total absence of heat.

And I love it when know-it-alls use terms that they have no idea what they mean.

The theoretical heat death of the universe is when there is no kinetic or potential energy to do work because all energy has been converted to heat. As long as there is motion there is kinetic energy and work can be done. And according to the Third Law of Thermodynamics, there is no temperature at which all motion stops (absolute zero). Therefore there is no heat death of the universe.

Actually, the second law is what makes absolute zero impossible, the third law says that a perfect crystal at absolute zero is zero. All of that is actually irrelevant because the heat death of the universe is, by definition, the absence of motion because there no thermodynamic free energy.

For the less scientifically inclined among us, that describes a state in which the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. This actually would allow the temperature of that state to be something above absolute zero and still stop all movement.

This is where is where we run into a problem with language.

BTW, what was that about know it alls?

You know less about the SLoT than you do the third. The SLoT has nothing to do with Absolute Zero. And again, there is no temperature at which all motion stops so there will be no heat death of the universe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A small amount of matter is CONVERTED to energy, it is not destroyed, it exists as energy.

It no longer exists, unless you know a way to change energy to matter. Entropy will eventually result in a universe with no energy and no increase in mass.

And I love it when know-it-alls use terms that they have no idea what they mean.

The theoretical heat death of the universe is when there is no kinetic or potential energy to do work because all energy has been converted to heat. As long as there is motion there is kinetic energy and work can be done. And according to the Third Law of Thermodynamics, there is no temperature at which all motion stops (absolute zero). Therefore there is no heat death of the universe.

However QW has explained it to you (right or wrong) - heat death is a jargon term that means the universe has gotten to a state where there is no energy left for work - where its all been thermalized into heat energy.

No he said there will be a universe with NO ENERGY, he had no idea of what the concept of work is in physics.

Wow, now you can read minds through the internet, amazing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I love it when know-it-alls use terms that they have no idea what they mean.

The theoretical heat death of the universe is when there is no kinetic or potential energy to do work because all energy has been converted to heat. As long as there is motion there is kinetic energy and work can be done. And according to the Third Law of Thermodynamics, there is no temperature at which all motion stops (absolute zero). Therefore there is no heat death of the universe.

Actually, the second law is what makes absolute zero impossible, the third law says that a perfect crystal at absolute zero is zero. All of that is actually irrelevant because the heat death of the universe is, by definition, the absence of motion because there no thermodynamic free energy.

For the less scientifically inclined among us, that describes a state in which the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. This actually would allow the temperature of that state to be something above absolute zero and still stop all movement.

This is where is where we run into a problem with language.

BTW, what was that about know it alls?

You know less about the SLoT than you do the third. The SLoT has nothing to do with Absolute Zero. And again, there is no temperature at which all motion stops so there will be no heat death of the universe.

Funny, I don't recall saying that it had anything to do with absolute zero, I said it makes absolute zero impossible. The reason for this is actually quite simple, absolute zero would provide a second state in which equilibrium is stable.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, the second law is what makes absolute zero impossible, the third law says that a perfect crystal at absolute zero is zero. All of that is actually irrelevant because the heat death of the universe is, by definition, the absence of motion because there no thermodynamic free energy.

For the less scientifically inclined among us, that describes a state in which the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. This actually would allow the temperature of that state to be something above absolute zero and still stop all movement.

This is where is where we run into a problem with language.

BTW, what was that about know it alls?

You know less about the SLoT than you do the third. The SLoT has nothing to do with Absolute Zero. And again, there is no temperature at which all motion stops so there will be no heat death of the universe.

Funny, I don't recall saying that it had anything to do with absolute zero, I said it makes absolute zero impossible. The reason for this is actually quite simple, absolute zero would provide a second state in which equilibrium is stable.

Are you saying that according to the SLoT entropy always increases?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know less about the SLoT than you do the third. The SLoT has nothing to do with Absolute Zero. And again, there is no temperature at which all motion stops so there will be no heat death of the universe.

Funny, I don't recall saying that it had anything to do with absolute zero, I said it makes absolute zero impossible. The reason for this is actually quite simple, absolute zero would provide a second state in which equilibrium is stable.

Are you saying that according to the SLoT entropy always increases?

Not quite.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If the temperature goes down the energy goes down.

The energy DENSITY goes down - the TOTAL ENERGY (energy density X volume) does NOT.

You lost me here. Does the volume of the universe increase after the heat death of the universe? Never heard that one before.

Yes. The Universe continues to "expand" after heat death. But it wouldn't really matter. There would only be one thing left - temperature - which would be decreasing in time towards zero, but equal in value throughout the whole universe. So "space" wouldn't really matter, because every point in space would have identical properties to every single other.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

One of the weirdest things about growing older is that you go from a young man, where you absolutely KNOW you know everything, to an older man where you absolutely KNOW you don't know hardly anything.

I sit around sometimes in a park, or a shopping mall, or a restaurant and I look around and I just absolutely love to watch people. It is the greatest show on earth.

Now someone comes and tells me that this bunch of self-absorbed, ignorant, herd of people are the supreme beings in this universe. That there is no God and that everything just kind of randomly fell into place. That faith and the asperations to do right are hollow endeavors because it really doesn't mean anything anyway.

Really? And for you this is progress? There is a website called "The people of Wal-Mart"... I like my supreme beings to be a little more...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

One of the weirdest things about growing older is that you go from a young man, where you absolutely KNOW you know everything, to an older man where you absolutely KNOW you don't know hardly anything.

I sit around sometimes in a park, or a shopping mall, or a restaurant and I look around and I just absolutely love to watch people. It is the greatest show on earth.

I'm 35, so not old yet. But old enough to know that "I just absolutely love to watch people" is old man code for "I like to stand around checkin' out young tail"

 

[Youwerecreated]

Theoretically I feel it's as close to anything else we could call an explanation.

How can non-living material evolve?

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this much thought.

There are many theories, google abiogenesis.

After that explain to me how a deity in the sky made humans.

I was wondering when one of you would point to abiogenesis as an explanation. It's an impossibility. I have pointed out the flaws in this theory many times. When I have more time I will explain it again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Right, because Genesis makes more sense, sure.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM]The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker. - YouTube[/ame]


Morons.

If you knew anything about the origins of life it does make more sense.

 

[Liability]

It's tough to argue with someone who at least pretends not to know what they are talking about. Splitting an atom does not destroy matter, it simply breaks the atom into smaller parts releasing the energy that held the parts together.

Again, since it has been proven that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it always existed "in the first damn place." And my basic premise is not your Straw Man "something exists prior to itself" but that there is no such THING as nothing. There never was nothing and there never will be nothing. Everything is energy in some form.

You are such a dork. Splitting the atom does destroy the atom which IS what releases the energy. It transforms matter INTO energy.

I always love it when you parrot what I said as if it was your own. Thanks for changing from the MATTER is destroyed to the atom is split to pieces releasing the energy holding the pieces together.

It would be easier -- not to mention refreshing -- for you to have the integrity to simply acknowledge that you were wrong.

 

[bobcollum]

How can non-living material evolve?

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this much thought.

There are many theories, google abiogenesis.

After that explain to me how a deity in the sky made humans.

I was wondering when one of you would point to abiogenesis as an explanation. It's an impossibility. I have pointed out the flaws in this theory many times. When I have more time I will explain it again.

You have to try and remember that when I speak of things it could be completely theoretical, since science doesn't claim to have all the answers in the way religion does.

You seem to excel at telling people why they're wrong, but you're not so good at explaining why you're right.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How can non-living material evolve?

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this much thought.

There are many theories, google abiogenesis.

After that explain to me how a deity in the sky made humans.

I was wondering when one of you would point to abiogenesis as an explanation. It's an impossibility. I have pointed out the flaws in this theory many times. When I have more time I will explain it again.

Clearly abiogenesis is the ONLY explanation. Obviously before there was life there was no life. Its common sense almost.

 

[koshergrl]

There are many theories, google abiogenesis.

After that explain to me how a deity in the sky made humans.

I was wondering when one of you would point to abiogenesis as an explanation. It's an impossibility. I have pointed out the flaws in this theory many times. When I have more time I will explain it again.

You have to try and remember that when I speak of things it could be completely theoretical, since science doesn't claim to have all the answers in the way religion does.

You seem to excel at telling people why they're wrong, but you're not so good at explaining why you're right.

Soo..let me get this straight...

It's okay for you to never prove your statements, because it's "scientific" and proof isn't required...

But people who claim to state things as a matter a faith must provide "evidence" or they're wrong.

Got it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You are such a dork. Splitting the atom does destroy the atom which IS what releases the energy. It transforms matter INTO energy.

I always love it when you parrot what I said as if it was your own. Thanks for changing from the MATTER is destroyed to the atom is split to pieces releasing the energy holding the pieces together.

It would be easier -- not to mention refreshing -- for you to have the integrity to simply acknowledge that you were wrong.

It depends on which mass you're talking about. There is an invariant mass - namely, the total number of nucleons times their mass in free space. The mass we measure will be different, though, you're right about that. The difference is in the energy that holds the atom together - that appears as mass


Strictly speaking, under relativity there is little distinction between energy and mass.