Jump to content


Photo

Two Giant Stop Signs Against Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
160 replies to this topic

#141 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 11 July 2012 - 07:17 AM

How so... Starting with NO ENERGY and then ending with ENERGY means that energy has been created which does defy the 1st law, there is no way you can dodge around this. If you claim a naturalistic beginning of the universe from absolute nothing then you are breaking the 1st law no matter what you claim.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html#gpt
if you start with no energy and end with equal amounts of positive and negative energy, then no net increase in energy has occured. The first law states that no net increase in energy can occur, so there would be no violation.

If your net worth is 0 and you borrow a dollar, your net worth is still zero because you have 1 dollar and 1 negative-dollar (debt).

#142 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 11 July 2012 - 08:09 AM

http://hyperphysics....e/gpot.html#gpt
if you start with no energy and end with equal amounts of positive and negative energy, then no net increase in energy has occured. The first law states that no net increase in energy can occur, so there would be no violation.

If your net worth is 0 and you borrow a dollar, your net worth is still zero because you have 1 dollar and 1 negative-dollar (debt).


Someone needs to teach this fellow that 'no energy' means...............................................no energy. Period.

#143 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,372 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 11 July 2012 - 08:52 PM

If your net worth is 0 and you borrow a dollar, your net worth is still zero because you have 1 dollar and 1 negative-dollar (debt).


The analogy is fallacious. When you borrow a dollar you are getting it from an outside agency that has a dollar. From whom is this "no-energy" universe borrowing? God?? Posted Image

#144 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 July 2012 - 11:09 PM

http://hyperphysics....e/gpot.html#gpt
if you start with no energy and end with equal amounts of positive and negative energy, then no net increase in energy has occured. The first law states that no net increase in energy can occur, so there would be no violation.

If your net worth is 0 and you borrow a dollar, your net worth is still zero because you have 1 dollar and 1 negative-dollar (debt).


Dude you're totally contradictory..

We are not merely discussing the end points, ABSOLUTE NOTHING means ABSOLUTE NOTHING. No positive energy, no negative energy, no gravity, no mass, no space, no time. Even if the two charges were to cancel out then you STILL have energy except the net charge is canceled out. We are not discussing the charge of energy here we are discussing the amount of energy.

Hence your claim is merely a confused idea... which is perpetuated by within the atheist community it seems since here is a video of Willam Lane Craig demolishing it. I implore you to perhaps critically analyse your claims since as it has been demonstrated they are severely lacking.



whole video





2 mins onwards




Here is another video, Genesis week, with Ian Juby, (first 3and a half minutes)




Using your analogy... There would be no dollars to borrow since NOTHING exists in the first place!! I guess the crux of the argument is "the ends justify the means" whereby if you claim zero at the end then you can forget about everything in between... Unfortunately reality doesn't work like that, at some point you have to account for breaking the laws of physics, (energy being created)... and when that happens a supernatural cause is implied (because supernatural means above natural law).

Furthermore I read the site and not sure of the evidence for claiming potential energy as negative? Can you please clear up on what basis this form of energy is claimed to be negative.

#145 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 12 July 2012 - 06:39 AM

So - evolutionists can't answer two questions. There is one question that creationists can't answer. Its rarely addressed and when it is you get a pitiful, poorly thought-out answer to a very deeply problematical implication for their theory. That question is "Who created the Creator". Its just as much a problem as the origin of matter and the origin of life are for the Evolutionists. After all just saying "God is" would be like saying "Matter is" or "Life is".


Sounds like a good subject for a New Thread to me. So I will make it a new thread. http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=5172

#146 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 13 July 2012 - 04:32 PM

Dude you're totally contradictory..

We are not merely discussing the end points, ABSOLUTE NOTHING means ABSOLUTE NOTHING. No positive energy, no negative energy, no gravity, no mass, no space, no time. Even if the two charges were to cancel out then you STILL have energy except the net charge is canceled out. We are not discussing the charge of energy here we are discussing the amount of energy.

Hence your claim is merely a confused idea... which is perpetuated by within the atheist community it seems since here is a video of Willam Lane Craig demolishing it. I implore you to perhaps critically analyse your claims since as it has been demonstrated they are severely lacking.

Using your analogy... There would be no dollars to borrow since NOTHING exists in the first place!! I guess the crux of the argument is "the ends justify the means" whereby if you claim zero at the end then you can forget about everything in between... Unfortunately reality doesn't work like that, at some point you have to account for breaking the laws of physics, (energy being created)... and when that happens a supernatural cause is implied (because supernatural means above natural law).

Furthermore I read the site and not sure of the evidence for claiming potential energy as negative? Can you please clear up on what basis this form of energy is claimed to be negative.

The 1st law doesn't care what form zero energy takes as long as it sums up to zero. Try thinking of the law of conservation of angular momentum. Two non-rotating balls can end up spinning in equal and opposite directions without violating the law because the total angular momentum remains zero. It's just zero expressed in a different way. As for Craig, we don't worry about horses coming from nothing because there are limits on the mass and duration of virtual particles.

There's a difference between physical nothing and philosophical nothing. Physical nothing is flat empty space with no energy or matter, things pop in and out of existence from this nothing all the time. Philosophical nothing is just a concept, there's no example of it in the real world and no scientific basis for discussing what could or couldn't come from it.

Here's a decent overview of the process of things coming from physical nothing.
http://scienceblogs....othing-the-phi/

The negative energy concept can be demonstrated by where you pick your zero value, by convention we assign zero at infinite distances when talking about the universe. Just like electricity you can set your potential to zero wherever you want as long as you are consistent. Imagine a stationary rock on the ground. It's not moving so the rock has no kinetic energy and we'll set the potential energy to zero since it's on the ground. This means the initial energy is zero (0 = 0 + 0). Now imagine we open a trapdoor under the rock and let it fall 1 meter. The rock is moving as it hits ground so it has a positive kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2), the potential energy must therefore be negative and equal to the kinetic energy for the 1st law to be valid (0 = 1/2 mv^2 + negative potential energy).
For a more space based example, an object traveling at exactly escape velocity would come to a stop at an infinite distance away, at that point it's total energy would be zero. There would be no motion (0 kinetic energy) and the gravitational attraction at infinite distance is zero (0 potential energy). Since it required adding kinetic energy to reach escape velocity and you end up with zero total energy at infinity, then the potential energy would need to be negative (0=x + -y).

#147 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 July 2012 - 05:44 PM

1. The 1st law doesn't care what form zero energy takes as long as it sums up to zero.

2. Try thinking of the law of conservation of angular momentum. Two non-rotating balls can end up spinning in equal and opposite directions without violating the law because the total angular momentum remains zero. It's just zero expressed in a different way. As for Craig, we don't worry about horses coming from nothing because there are limits on the mass and duration of virtual particles.

3. There's a difference between physical nothing and philosophical nothing. Physical nothing is flat empty space with no energy or matter, things pop in and out of existence from this nothing all the time. Philosophical nothing is just a concept, there's no example of it in the real world and no scientific basis for discussing what could or couldn't come from it.

Here's a decent overview of the process of things coming from physical nothing.
http://scienceblogs....othing-the-phi/

The negative energy concept can be demonstrated by where you pick your zero value, by convention we assign zero at infinite distances when talking about the universe. Just like electricity you can set your potential to zero wherever you want as long as you are consistent. Imagine a stationary rock on the ground. It's not moving so the rock has no kinetic energy and we'll set the potential energy to zero since it's on the ground. This means the initial energy is zero (0 = 0 + 0). Now imagine we open a trapdoor under the rock and let it fall 1 meter. The rock is moving as it hits ground so it has a positive kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2), the potential energy must therefore be negative and equal to the kinetic energy for the 1st law to be valid (0 = 1/2 mv^2 + negative potential energy).
For a more space based example, an object traveling at exactly escape velocity would come to a stop at an infinite distance away, at that point it's total energy would be zero. There would be no motion (0 kinetic energy) and the gravitational attraction at infinite distance is zero (0 potential energy). Since it required adding kinetic energy to reach escape velocity and you end up with zero total energy at infinity, then the potential energy would need to be negative (0=x + -y).



Did you watch the videos? Because if you had I was quite sure you'd see how idiotic the claim is and that you could bow out graciously..



1. And where is this stated in the ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED. There is nothing claiming that a zero charge means the creation of energy from no energy is permissible. I ask you to give evidence of you claim here, failure to do so will reveal that you're merely stating a knee-jerk claim as if by saying it was all the evidence you needed.

It has already been shown to you that a zero charge doesn't mean zero energy

Failure to recognise this will only reflect poorly on yourself


2. This is also idiotic!! Two NON-ROTATING balls SPINNING in opposite directions. You do realise that once the balls are spinning they are considered to be rotating, (despite the net difference!!!). Do you see how its a self-defeating claim? Read the capitalised words and consider how these descriptions of being can fit within the same object, its the same as a round square, absolute lunacy.

Here is the actual law

"The law of conservation of angular momentum states that when no external torque acts on an object or a closed system of objects, no change of angular momentum can occur. Hence, the angular momentum before an event involving only internal torques or no torques is equal to the angular momentum after the event. "

Now please tell me where it states that two opposite spinning objects can be counted as not spinning, failure to do so will show that you are merely positing laws in an attempt to make your claim seem more "scientific"... could be a variation of an argument from authority since you are piggybacking on the authority of natural law.


3. Hang on nothing has no space flat or otherwise, if there is space then there is something which is not nothing. NOTHING is absolute NOTHING, or if you wish to continue to equivocate and claim that nothing is nothing + space then I will ask where did the space originate? (Considering that the BB theory makes no mention of any kind of space beforehand, it seems that you're merely equivocating the term of nothing).

ACTUAL NOTHING has no energy, no matter, no space, no time, no laws of physics to abide by (since there is nothing to abide by the laws)... it is NOTHING. If you claim its nothing is nothing + something then that is not nothing, its nothing + something which is actually something.



4. I had a quick skim over the website you posted and it has a major flaw in its logic,

"Take a vacuum, and inside of it, place two parallel, uncharged metal plates.


Posted Image
In the absence of these vacuum fluctuations, you would expect the force between the plates to be dominated by gravitation. But if you bring these plates close enough together, you find that these vacuum fluctuations cause the plates to attract one another! This attractive force is purely quantum in nature, and is the surefire experimental evidence — that's been around since 1948 — that this is the physical nature of nothingness.



This is seriously flawed since it assumes that a mere vacuum is absolute nothing however a vacuum is not what was described as nothing earlier by this writer. There is still space, time, energy and laws of physics that exist even within a vacuum. This is NOT nothing hence the conclusion from the experiment is totally false.



5. This only applies to energy on a downward falling rock therefore the analogy is merely a specific one and doesn't pertain to what I am asking. I am asking as per energy in all sense of energy, (matter consists of energy too) and how does gravitational potential energy negate it.

- how does gravity negate the energy within the bonds of a chemical compound
- how does gravity negate light energy
- how does gravity negate sound energy / kinetic
- how does gravity negate heat energy, (including the movement of particles with is sourced via heat energy)



Actually using your analogy I can already debunk your claim. Yes if a rock falls the impact and the gravitational pull will amount to zero energy however the rock itself exists hence lets assume that the rock sits there and never falls hence no negative gravitational energy. The rock and the energy within its molecular structure still exists which will then amount to a net positive amount of energy since there is no negation of this form of energy via gravity.... Gee that was easy!! I'm amazed that physicists cannot critically analyse their own claims

#148 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 July 2012 - 06:25 PM

Gilbo: "This is also idiotic!!"

I am also feeling your frustration at this. This zero argument is utter nonsense.

Quite frankly, they can't make up their cotton picking minds so they play semantic games with us. Zero = nothing = no thing = something?

Oh, I know exactly what they are driving at but it is truly idiotic. Their arguments only work in their imaginations and nowhere else.

Posted Image

They want us to switch our brains off and believe every wacko theory they come up with which really amounts to less than a band-aid or chewing gum meant to repair a flat tire.

#149 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 July 2012 - 11:13 PM

Gilbo: "This is also idiotic!!"

I am also feeling your frustration at this. This zero argument is utter nonsense.

Quite frankly, they can't make up their cotton picking minds so they play semantic games with us. Zero = nothing = no thing = something?

Oh, I know exactly what they are driving at but it is truly idiotic. Their arguments only work in their imaginations and nowhere else.

Posted Image

They want us to switch our brains off and believe every wacko theory they come up with which really amounts to less than a band-aid or chewing gum meant to repair a flat tire.


The sad thing is that these fallacious claims are being made by seemingly intelligent people


Take for instance the rock analogy. Just because a rock has the potential to fall and when it comes to a halt the gravitational velocity stops and imparts impact force to the object that stopped it, in no way supports the claim that gravitational energy is "negative" energy, it merely demonstrates that it is a different form of energy. This seems to be a recurring theme where the atheist / evolutionist observes some phenomena and immediately jumps to the claim that it supports his / her worldview without actually analysing the claim beforehand. As William Craig has mentioned the lack of critical thinking in minds today is a serious problem with the education system, (I personally hold belief in evolution and its portrayal in education responsible)

Its funny when we are discussing charges and their negation yet gravity in REALITY has no charge hence Miles claim is bolstered by false statements and analogies. In his world he may perceive gravity as having a negative charge, yet in reality it doesn't have a charge at all.
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#150 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:46 AM

Its funny when we are discussing charges and their negation yet gravity in REALITY has no charge hence Miles claim is bolstered by false statements and analogies. In his world he may perceive gravity as having a negative charge, yet in reality it doesn't have a charge at all.


In reality he wouldn't have gravity either.

#151 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 July 2012 - 11:37 AM

In reality he wouldn't have gravity either.


Yes very true since gravity is derived from mass hence if there is NOTHING then there is no mass with which to derive gravity. (This isn't mentioning the laws of reality by which gravity pertains, who is to say where these laws came from in the first place before there was anything for the laws to describe)

This is a very elementary point and it just goes to show the total lack of critical thinking that has gone into this idea. Let all atheists henceforth never claim a creationist irrational due to the absolute irrationality of the claims being made here.


It seems to me that from this point onward the atheist believes the law itself with create something even if the requirements for its application are not met. John Lennox has a fantastic lecture on this subject and absolutely demolishes the claim being made. He states that a theory or law describes the world however other than that it has no creative power, his explanation is very simple, the laws of logic surrounding addition states that 1+1=2, from this it can be derived that if I put $1000 in the bank and then if the bank put in $1000 of interest then I would have $2000. Now can I sit back and decide that these laws will in fact create $2000 in my bank account without first my addition of the initial $1000? No, its absolute idiocy to claim that the law of describing how something works can create something of its own accord without its prior motivation.

It is merely another attempt by which the atheist seek to defy the law of cause and effect, (you can add this law to your collection of stop signposts Posted Image )

Here is the video of John Lennox's lecture, its a great video so I highly recommend it.



#152 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 July 2012 - 02:30 PM

As for Craig, we don't worry about horses coming from nothing because there are limits on the mass and duration of virtual particles.


I missed this contradictory nugget of irrationality.

If you are not worried about a horse popping into existence and soiling your carpet when you are out somewhere, and you claim this non-worry from the limits on virtual particles then by what premise do you claim that the universe can form?

Its either you believe the universe can pop into existence all by itself and indeed should be worried about horses spontaneously forming and soiling your carpet, or pianos appearing 10 meters over your car etc

OR

You are not concerned about these ridiculous events which therefore means that you do not believe that the universe can pop into existence much like these horses and pianos.



You cannot have it both ways. If you claim that the universe popped into existence then the obvious prediction following that is that other things can pop into existence in exactly the same fashion. Now how many documented occurrences have been made of things popping into existence of their own accord? Absolute Zero. Therefore the prediction of the atheist hypothesis is yet to be verified via documentation.

#153 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 14 July 2012 - 05:30 PM

.
If you are not worried about a horse popping into existence and soiling your carpet when you are out somewhere, and you claim this non-worry from the limits on virtual particles then by what premise do you claim that the universe can form?

Its either you believe the universe can pop into existence all by itself and indeed should be worried about horses spontaneously forming and soiling your carpet, or pianos appearing 10 meters over your car etc

OR

You are not concerned about these ridiculous events which therefore means that you do not believe that the universe can pop into existence much like these horses and pianos.

You cannot have it both ways..


Here, here!

P.S. Oh, but they will try to have it both ways...as always.

#154 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 July 2012 - 10:25 PM

I wonder what Miles will say to all this? :)

#155 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 July 2012 - 02:53 AM

http://hyperphysics....e/gpot.html#gpt
if you start with no energy and end with equal amounts of positive and negative energy, then no net increase in energy has occured. The first law states that no net increase in energy can occur, so there would be no violation.

If your net worth is 0 and you borrow a dollar, your net worth is still zero because you have 1 dollar and 1 negative-dollar (debt).


Ending with "equal amounts of positive and negative energy" claims that there is in fact an amount of positive and negative energy which therefore is not no energy. Since any amount of energy is more than zero (negatively charged or otherwise).

#156 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:54 AM

Did you watch the videos? Because if you had I was quite sure you'd see how idiotic the claim is and that you could bow out graciously..



1. And where is this stated in the ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED. There is nothing claiming that a zero charge means the creation of energy from no energy is permissible. I ask you to give evidence of you claim here, failure to do so will reveal that you're merely stating a knee-jerk claim as if by saying it was all the evidence you needed.

It has already been shown to you that a zero charge doesn't mean zero energy

Failure to recognise this will only reflect poorly on yourself

What charges are you talking about, there's no electrical or magnetic element to this discussion? The discussion is dealing with the relative magnitudes of positive energy from mass and negative potential energy. Zero total magnitude does in fact mean zero total energy.

2. This is also idiotic!! Two NON-ROTATING balls SPINNING in opposite directions. You do realise that once the balls are spinning they are considered to be rotating, (despite the net difference!!!). Do you see how its a self-defeating claim? Read the capitalised words and consider how these descriptions of being can fit within the same object, its the same as a round square, absolute lunacy.

Here is the actual law

"The law of conservation of angular momentum states that when no external torque acts on an object or a closed system of objects, no change of angular momentum can occur. Hence, the angular momentum before an event involving only internal torques or no torques is equal to the angular momentum after the event. "

Now please tell me where it states that two opposite spinning objects can be counted as not spinning, failure to do so will show that you are merely positing laws in an attempt to make your claim seem more "scientific"... could be a variation of an argument from authority since you are piggybacking on the authority of natural law.

Two non-rotating balls can end up spinning in equal and opposite directions.

The bold words you quoted might make more sense to you if you read the words in between them. It should be clear I'm talking about two balls that start out non-rotating, and end up rotating. For example if they collide in such a way that they act on each other with a torque (the torque would be internal to the system of the two balls) they will impart rotation to each other. Each ball will then be rotating in opposite directions to each other. You are arguing that a vector sum can only be zero if all the components of that sum are zero. This is not true, a vector sum of equal and opposite non-zero vectors will be zero.

http://hyperphysics....ser.html#conamo
The angular momentum is a vector quantity and the vector sum of the angular momenta of the parts of an isolated system is constant. This puts a strong constraint on the types of rotational motions which can occur in an isolated system. If one part of the system is given an angular momentum in a given direction, then some other part or parts of the system must simultaneously be given exactly the same angular momentum in the opposite direction.

This is saying that if you have a system with 0 angular momentum, any part of the system that starts rotating, must also involve another part of the system starting to rotate in the opposite direction. The total angular momentum remains 0 despite distinct parts now having angular momentum. The conservation laws only require the net amount of the entity being conserved to remain constant, they do not prohibit equal and opposite values of that entity from occuring.

I underlined the part of your definition that shows that two opposite spinning objects can be counted as not spinning. The angular momentum of a system containing two opposite spinning objects is equal to the angular momentum of a system with no spinning objects.

3. Hang on nothing has no space flat or otherwise, if there is space then there is something which is not nothing. NOTHING is absolute NOTHING, or if you wish to continue to equivocate and claim that nothing is nothing + space then I will ask where did the space originate? (Considering that the BB theory makes no mention of any kind of space beforehand, it seems that you're merely equivocating the term of nothing).

ACTUAL NOTHING has no energy, no matter, no space, no time, no laws of physics to abide by (since there is nothing to abide by the laws)... it is NOTHING. If you claim its nothing is nothing + something then that is not nothing, its nothing + something which is actually something.

If you want to make the claim in bold then you can't claim that matter being created from nothing violates the 1st law since by your claim there would be no 1st law to violate prior to the universe existing.

There's no limit on flat space existing forever so there's no need for it to originate from anything. Some versions of the big bang have spacetime being created at the big bang which would also mean that there was no time when the universe didn't exist. This is very similar to the claim that there's no time where god didn't exist and therefore god does not require a cause. Other versions have space time existing eternally. Neither case involves violating the 1st law.

I explicitly stated there was a difference between nothing in the physical sense and nothing as a philosophical concept so I'm not equivocating.

4. I had a quick skim over the website you posted and it has a major flaw in its logic,

"Take a vacuum, and inside of it, place two parallel, uncharged metal plates.

In the absence of these vacuum fluctuations, you would expect the force between the plates to be dominated by gravitation. But if you bring these plates close enough together, you find that these vacuum fluctuations cause the plates to attract one another! This attractive force is purely quantum in nature, and is the surefire experimental evidence — that's been around since 1948 — that this is the physical nature of nothingness.

This is seriously flawed since it assumes that a mere vacuum is absolute nothing however a vacuum is not what was described as nothing earlier by this writer. There is still space, time, energy and laws of physics that exist even within a vacuum. This is NOT nothing hence the conclusion from the experiment is totally false.

The only way for "there was nothing before the big bang" to make sense is if you are assuming time existed prior to the big bang, at which point you are discussing physical nothing similar to a quantum vaccuum. If philosophical nothing includes no time, then there would be no time when the universe did not exist and therefore no moment where mass/energy did not exist. Philosophical nothing means essentially that the universe always existed and that 'always' consists of about 12 billion years.

5. This only applies to energy on a downward falling rock therefore the analogy is merely a specific one and doesn't pertain to what I am asking. I am asking as per energy in all sense of energy, (matter consists of energy too) and how does gravitational potential energy negate it.

- how does gravity negate the energy within the bonds of a chemical compound
- how does gravity negate light energy
- how does gravity negate sound energy / kinetic
- how does gravity negate heat energy, (including the movement of particles with is sourced via heat energy)

Actually using your analogy I can already debunk your claim. Yes if a rock falls the impact and the gravitational pull will amount to zero energy however the rock itself exists hence lets assume that the rock sits there and never falls hence no negative gravitational energy. The rock and the energy within its molecular structure still exists which will then amount to a net positive amount of energy since there is no negation of this form of energy via gravity.... Gee that was easy!! I'm amazed that physicists cannot critically analyse their own claims

Energy creates gravity according to relativity. As far as gravity is concerned there's no difference between mass and energy. The point is that the gravitational potential energy caused by the rock is equal and opposite to the mass/energy of the rock.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
But the implication that energy contributes to gravitational mass can be rather counterintuitive. Students are often willing to accept the idea that potential energy has weight—after all, potential energy is a rather mysterious quantity to begin with—but many balk at the application to kinetic energy. Can it really be true that a hot brick weighs more than a cold brick?
....
We can thus tell our students with confidence that kinetic energy has weight,not just as a theoretical expectation, but as an experimental fact.

#157 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 July 2012 - 09:40 AM

1. What charges are you talking about, there's no electrical or magnetic element to this discussion? The discussion is dealing with the relative magnitudes of positive energy from mass and negative potential energy. Zero total magnitude does in fact mean zero total energy.


2. Two non-rotating balls can end up spinning in equal and opposite directions.

The bold words you quoted might make more sense to you if you read the words in between them. It should be clear I'm talking about two balls that start out non-rotating, and end up rotating.

3. For example if they collide in such a way that they act on each other with a torque (the torque would be internal to the system of the two balls) they will impart rotation to each other. Each ball will then be rotating in opposite directions to each other. You are arguing that a vector sum can only be zero if all the components of that sum are zero. This is not true, a vector sum of equal and opposite non-zero vectors will be zero.

http://hyperphysics....ser.html#conamo
The angular momentum is a vector quantity and the vector sum of the angular momenta of the parts of an isolated system is constant. This puts a strong constraint on the types of rotational motions which can occur in an isolated system. If one part of the system is given an angular momentum in a given direction, then some other part or parts of the system must simultaneously be given exactly the same angular momentum in the opposite direction.

4. This is saying that if you have a system with 0 angular momentum, any part of the system that starts rotating, must also involve another part of the system starting to rotate in the opposite direction. The total angular momentum remains 0 despite distinct parts now having angular momentum. The conservation laws only require the net amount of the entity being conserved to remain constant, they do not prohibit equal and opposite values of that entity from occuring.

5. I underlined the part of your definition that shows that two opposite spinning objects can be counted as not spinning. The angular momentum of a system containing two opposite spinning objects is equal to the angular momentum of a system with no spinning objects.

6. If you want to make the claim in bold then you can't claim that matter being created from nothing violates the 1st law since by your claim there would be no 1st law to violate prior to the universe existing.

7. There's no limit on flat space existing forever so there's no need for it to originate from anything. Some versions of the big bang have spacetime being created at the big bang which would also mean that there was no time when the universe didn't exist. This is very similar to the claim that there's no time where god didn't exist and therefore god does not require a cause. Other versions have space time existing eternally. Neither case involves violating the 1st law.

8. I explicitly stated there was a difference between nothing in the physical sense and nothing as a philosophical concept so I'm not equivocating.


9. The only way for "there was nothing before the big bang" to make sense is if you are assuming time existed prior to the big bang, at which point you are discussing physical nothing similar to a quantum vaccuum.

10. If philosophical nothing includes no time, then there would be no time when the universe did not exist and therefore no moment where mass/energy did not exist. Philosophical nothing means essentially that the universe always existed and that 'always' consists of about 12 billion years.


11. Energy creates gravity according to relativity. As far as gravity is concerned there's no difference between mass and energy. The point is that the gravitational potential energy caused by the rock is equal and opposite to the mass/energy of the rock.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
But the implication that energy contributes to gravitational mass can be rather counterintuitive. Students are often willing to accept the idea that potential energy has weight—after all, potential energy is a rather mysterious quantity to begin with—but many balk at the application to kinetic energy. Can it really be true that a hot brick weighs more than a cold brick?
....
We can thus tell our students with confidence that kinetic energy has weight,not just as a theoretical expectation, but as an experimental fact.



1. Firstly you have failed to state how gravity can be considered to negate the chemical energy within mass, you have also failed to account for all the other forms of energy, (light, sound, kinetic etc).

Until you do so you have no basis for your claim. I won't go into the other irrationalities since there is no point until you have supported your claim.

Secondly you have failed to support your claim in that having equal positive and negative energy allows energy to be created without breaking the first law. Keep in mind that I am the one with reality on my side, you are the one attempting to defy natural laws hence you are the one with the burden of proof as to how the laws can be defied. Furthermore keep in mind that this also hinges on the assumption that the there are exactly equal amounts, (of which there is no empirical evidence).


2. And? How does this mean that you can create energy without creating energy? If anything it is a silly analogy since it explains nothing.

3. Even if the vector sum of the balls rotations equal zero the balls are STILL considered to be spinning which is my point. Even if the energy can theoretically negate itself there is STILL considered to be energy.

4. And how does momentum have anything to do with energy considering that there is no law stating that "momentum cannot be created nor destroyed only conserved", meaning that you are actually comparing apples to oranges, since they have different functions and laws based on their application in reality. Perhaps stick to energy and not attempt to muddy the subject with false analogies.

5. Even if the net momentum is zero the objects are still spinning which is our point.

6. Under that same logic there would be no law of gravity with which to do the things you are claiming. Hence either you have no premise (gravity) or you defy the 1st law. Take your pick, either way your claim fails.

7. Yes there is. Nothing is NOTHING, meaning no space. Therefore there is a limit. If you are positing space existing as nothing then that is clearly not nothing, in which then you would additionally need to demonstrate where did the space originate. Furthermore as I said the BB theory makes no claim or need for additional space outside of the singularity hence you are stating this ad hoc.

8. And can you demonstrate this difference, (with EVIDENCE). In my mind the physical nothing should be ABSOLUTE nothing and the philosophical nothing should be what you are stating since philosophy deals with metaphysics.

9. No I have never stated that, so don't put words in my mouth and then use them to support your own claims. As I said a quantum vacuum is not nothing since it contains space, time, energy (radio waves / random heat energy via entropy). That is not absolute nothing. Perhaps watch the video of John Lennox's lecture he is a Mathematician and a Philosopher so it perfectly suited to this issue.

10. And? We are asking from where did it come from?

11. You haven't done what I asked.

I asked HOW does gravity NEGATE mass energy, light energy, sound energy, heat energy etc. Ever since I have asked you this you've said nothing to demonstrate how gravity can negate energy. You've only demonstrated gravitational potential energy and how it is a different form of energy, that is it.



Furthermore are you now worried about a horse spontaneously popping into existence exactly like the "natural" phenomena. If it occurs naturally who is to say that it doesn't occur again? (in fact this is what we would expect if your claims were true...)



Additionally you do realise that if you claim that no energy exists in the universe at all, then you are claiming that nothing exists. Do you see how absurd such a claim is? As William Lane Craig has put it, (paraphrasing) 'at least I know I exist since if I were to doubt my own existence then who is there to do the doubting? I doubt therefore I am'.

Are you claiming that nothing exists? Since this is the logical follow through of your claims. Does this mean that people should go and commit suicide since they actually don't exist anyway? In fact why do we even have laws of thermodynamics since if energy doesn't exist then there would be no laws to describe energy since it doesn't exist, furthermore why are there laws about matter- ie- Boyles Gas law since if energy doesn't exist then matter also doesn't exist since matter is made up of energy.

A refutation to your claim can be thus.

Premise 1: Gravity is an effect cause by matter
Premise 2: Matter is essentially made of energy
Premise 3: Gravity can be observed to be in effect in the world
Premise 4: Therefore matter exists as the cause of this effect
Premise 5: Therefore energy exists within matter.


Another thing to ponder is what was the initial cause of the creation of the universe?... (oops the universe doesn't exist so I can't call it that, sorry).. If you claim no cause then you are breaking the law of cause and effect.

#158 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 July 2012 - 02:52 PM

Gilbo:

Another thing to ponder is what was the initial cause of the creation of the universe?... (oops the universe doesn't exist so I can't call it that, sorry).. If you claim no cause then you are breaking the law of cause and effect.


The retort is usually, "There is no 'law of cause & effect'. But then ask him/her if they can verify anything that happens without a cause. If they can't, then it's a law.

#159 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 15 July 2012 - 03:05 PM

....shortened for space....


I'm done after this post, it's clear this is going nowhere.
Conservation of energy behaves the same way as other conservation laws. As long as the total amount of the conserved thing (energy/momentum/etc.) in a system is unchanged the conservation laws are not violated. It doesn't matter if individual portions of the system have more or less of the conserved thing than the system as a whole as long as the total energy/momentum/etc contained within the system remains the same as the initial amount contained within the system. If the universe is a system that came from a zero energy initial state (you can call this nothing or something) and the universe currently contains zero energy expressed as positive and negative values then the 1st law has not been violated. The WMAP data is empirical evidence that the universe is flat, meaning it contains zero total energy. There are mechanisms, such as inflation separating virtual particle pairs, proposed that could cause this division of energy into positive and negative, but the original question from the initial post in this thread is answered by the fact that the universe coming from zero energy doesn't violate the 1st law because the total overall energy in the universe remains zero.

#160 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 July 2012 - 06:20 PM

I'm done after this post, it's clear this is going nowhere.
Conservation of energy behaves the same way as other conservation laws. As long as the total amount of the conserved thing (energy/momentum/etc.) in a system is unchanged the conservation laws are not violated. It doesn't matter if individual portions of the system have more or less of the conserved thing than the system as a whole as long as the total energy/momentum/etc contained within the system remains the same as the initial amount contained within the system. If the universe is a system that came from a zero energy initial state (you can call this nothing or something) and the universe currently contains zero energy expressed as positive and negative values then the 1st law has not been violated. The WMAP data is empirical evidence that the universe is flat, meaning it contains zero total energy. There are mechanisms, such as inflation separating virtual particle pairs, proposed that could cause this division of energy into positive and negative, but the original question from the initial post in this thread is answered by the fact that the universe coming from zero energy doesn't violate the 1st law because the total overall energy in the universe remains zero.


What empirical evidence? Show us.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users