Physics Stupidity Hurts My Mind

[Zero]

You could also talk about how some of the oxygen we breath isn't even a stable configuration, and decays... it's still usable, but it aint perfect. Just sayin..

[DPDarkPrimus]

The correct use of the term "efficiency" in any process counts the output energy and divides by the total input energy. On the elementary level, these processes are governed by the laws of probability, so there is a chance that the photon is either refracted or absorbed. The correct way of assessing this process is to calculate the probability of each event. It is still not "perpetual motion".

Output energy will always exactly equal input energy with nothing consumed. It will be converted or stored as mass, which can later be reconverted through any of various processes. Our consideration of efficiency only matters to processes we design. If the material was designed to do nothing but diffract photonic energy it would be less than perfect. But we did not design it, now did we? Without the ability to absorb any energy it would be inconvertable and useless once bonded in the lattice. The whole universal carbon component could eventually become one huge indestructible diamond, which is less than ideal for the purposes of running a universe. The macrosystem of the diamond is destructible, the carbon atom is not - it can merely be converted for other uses. One such use is the natural decay of Carbon14 to N14 which contributes both kinetic energy and electrical charge derived from captured alpha particles in the atmosphere. So what we consider waste has a use in the scheme of the universe. If the elements were less than perfect there would be irretrievable loss in every natural process, but there isn't. They are only imperfect when we attempt to implement them for a specific purpose.

False. It is a matter of the correct use of language and an absence of goalpost-moving and cyclic logic. When you refer to "efficiency" and "perpetual motion" you are using precisely defined physics terms. Saying that the "normal" use of these terms is invalid because atoms are perfect (upon seeing that your argument otherwise does not hold)

Which I never stated, but whatever.

and then concluding that the atoms are perfect because of this is nonsense.

If it were ever implied that use of the terms was invalid because atoms are perfect, your assessment would not be utter nonsense.

Since when is the transmission system external to the discussion if it's effects?

Because unless you have a perfect transmission system directing photons in an unarbitrary manner toward the refraction zones of the lattice you are ascribing inefficiencies of an external system to the processes of the system in question. It is no different than calculating engine efficiency by including the fuel delivery system, which will loose fuel to evaporation, etc. If the engine had a perfect delivery system it would yeild a higher efficiency, thus you cannot include the delivery system in a discussion of engine efficiency; only in automobile efficiency.

Particularly since it consists of the oh-so-perfect atoms of yours? But if you insist on counting only those photons that slip through, you still do not have perpetual motion, the energy levels of the photons remain unchanged, and hence no work is done upon them. WORK IS ABOUT CHANGING ENERGY LEVELS: WORK IS MEASURED IN ENERGY. THAT IS THE DEFININITION OF "WORK" IN PHYSICS AND HENCE THE MEANING OF "WORK" IN THE DEFINITION OF PERPETUAL MOTION.

And what is Cos theta of the photon after the process? if no force were applied to the photon it would continue in a straight line, according to a certain law. The photon has momentum, and it has changed. Regardless, you can apply the same reason to any energy conversion process. Diffraction is a bad example because it is not an elemental function, but one of a crystal lattice macrostructure. As I have outlined in great detail the matter-antimatter annihilation process of a positron/electron pair which perfectly converts the matter/antimatter into 2.73 MeV of energy, and 2.73 MeV of energy converts perfectly back into a matter/antimatter pair. Theta in the process is 90 degrees, the mass is m(positron)+m(electron). Energy is converted, but none consumed in the process. Confine the discussion to processes which involve change in energy states and the same applies, but the atom remains unaltered before and after the conversion process. I noticed you subtly trying to create an amphibolous diversion when you restated my earlier matter/antimatter conversion as "destruction." You attempted to divert the argument from the fact that conversion was happening, reshaping it into an assumption something was ceasing to exist (destroyed). Clever, but childish.

To sum up:
Atoms convert energy without loss.
Atoms do not age.
Atoms never fail to perform according to design.
Atoms do not wear.

Atoms are flawless material; ie., perfect.

You are reading the definition but not understanding it. Work in physics refers to the amount of useful energy that a system produces. For instance, an internal combustion engine converts chemical energy (in the fuel) into mechanical energy (the work output). The statement that a machine cennot produce work indefinately is equivalent to saying that it cannot create energy, only convert it from one form to another.

Well is the material flawed or not? Should I keep my reciept for the oxygen I'm breathing in case I get a defective batch?

What receipt? Could you try to make sense at least?

Yeah that's right, no refunds. Fortunately the probability of getting elements which don't work is zero.

I'd like to throw in my own two cents, and point out that oxygen isn't stable- it decays. It's not perfect.

What's the half life of O16? Must have missed it in this table of isotopes.

[Lord Zentei]

The correct use of the term "efficiency" in any process counts the output energy and divides by the total input energy. On the elementary level, these processes are governed by the laws of probability, so there is a chance that the photon is either refracted or absorbed. The correct way of assessing this process is to calculate the probability of each event. It is still not "perpetual motion".

Output energy will always exactly equal input energy with nothing consumed. It will be converted or stored as mass, which can later be reconverted through any of various processes.

No. Output energy will not always equal input energy. You need to include waste into the equation.

It's called the First Law of Thermodynamics. Look into it.

Our consideration of efficiency only matters to processes we design.

Bullshit.

If the material was designed to do nothing but diffract photonic energy it would be less than perfect.

Since you named diffraction as proof of perfection, then concession accepted, fool.

But we did not design it, now did we?

Irrelevant.

Without the ability to absorb any energy it would be inconvertable and useless once bonded in the lattice. The whole universal carbon component could eventually become one huge indestructible diamond, which is less than ideal for the purposes of running a universe.

And this proves the "perfect" efficiency of atoms, how exactly? Or does it suggest that you have been full of shit all along?

The macrosystem of the diamond is destructible, the carbon atom is not - it can merely be converted for other uses.

Bullshit, atoms are destructible.

One such use is the natural decay of Carbon14 to N14 which contributes both kinetic energy and electrical charge derived from captured alpha particles in the atmosphere.

Which only happens when the atom decays. Concession accepted, again.

So what we consider waste has a use in the scheme of the universe. If the elements were less than perfect there would be irretrievable loss in every natural process, but there isn't. They are only imperfect when we attempt to implement them for a specific purpose.

So now the "waste" that you previoulsy denied existed is all a part of the Grand Plan, eh? ROTFLOL!! Perhaps we can use the same excuse for man made objects too then?

False. It is a matter of the correct use of language and an absence of goalpost-moving and cyclic logic. When you refer to "efficiency" and "perpetual motion" you are using precisely defined physics terms. Saying that the "normal" use of these terms is invalid because atoms are perfect (upon seeing that your argument otherwise does not hold)

Which I never stated, but whatever.

More lies. As a quick read of the thread will show.

Since when is the transmission system external to the discussion if it's effects?

Because unless you have a perfect transmission system directing photons in an unarbitrary manner toward the refraction zones of the lattice you are ascribing inefficiencies of an external system to the processes of the system in question. It is no different than calculating engine efficiency by including the fuel delivery system, which will loose fuel to evaporation, etc. If the engine had a perfect delivery system it would yeild a higher efficiency, thus you cannot include the delivery system in a discussion of engine efficiency; only in automobile efficiency.

Whatever. Your perfect atoms make poor components for a transmission system.

Particularly since it consists of the oh-so-perfect atoms of yours? But if you insist on counting only those photons that slip through, you still do not have perpetual motion, the energy levels of the photons remain unchanged, and hence no work is done upon them. WORK IS ABOUT CHANGING ENERGY LEVELS: WORK IS MEASURED IN ENERGY. THAT IS THE DEFININITION OF "WORK" IN PHYSICS AND HENCE THE MEANING OF "WORK" IN THE DEFINITION OF PERPETUAL MOTION.

And what is Cos theta of the photon after the process? if no force were applied to the photon it would continue in a straight line, according to a certain law. The photon has momentum, and it has changed. Regardless, you can apply the same reason to any energy conversion process. Diffraction is a bad example because it is not an elemental function, but one of a crystal lattice macrostructure. As I have outlined in great detail the matter-antimatter annihilation process of a positron/electron pair which perfectly converts the matter/antimatter into 2.73 MeV of energy, and 2.73 MeV of energy converts perfectly back into a matter/antimatter pair. Theta in the process is 90 degrees, the mass is m(positron)+m(electron).

This is called "conservation of energy" Woo hoo, what a discovery. This has no bearing on the "perfection" of atoms. CONSERVATION OF ENERGY ALWAYS APPLIES, WHEN YOU COUNT WASTE.

Energy is converted, but none consumed in the process. Confine the discussion to processes which involve change in energy states and the same applies, but the atom remains unaltered before and after the conversion process. I noticed you subtly trying to create an amphibolous diversion when you restated my earlier matter/antimatter conversion as "destruction." You attempted to divert the argument from the fact that conversion was happening, reshaping it into an assumption something was ceasing to exist (destroyed). Clever, but childish.

The diversion was yours you idiot. Your claim was that ATOMS were eternal and now you are reduced to invoking conservation of energy in atomic decay processes.

To sum up:
Atoms convert energy without loss.
Atoms do not age.
Atoms never fail to perform according to design.
Atoms do not wear.

1) False - if you refer to "loss" as waste. If you are babbling about the Conservatio of Energy then ALL THINGS OBEY THIS, INCLUDING MAN MADE ONES.
2) False - radioatoms have a halflife.
3) What fucking "design"? Do you have the goddamned blueprints to verify this?
4) False - atoms can be ionized and shattered such as by neutron radiation.

Atoms are flawless material; ie., perfect.

And false, as already shown.

You are reading the definition but not understanding it. Work in physics refers to the amount of useful energy that a system produces. For instance, an internal combustion engine converts chemical energy (in the fuel) into mechanical energy (the work output). The statement that a machine cennot produce work indefinately is equivalent to saying that it cannot create energy, only convert it from one form to another.

Well is the material flawed or not? Should I keep my reciept for the oxygen I'm breathing in case I get a defective batch?

What receipt? Could you try to make sense at least?
Yeah that's right, no refunds.

Fortunately the probability of getting elements which don't work is zero.

Now you are just bullshitting. This has nothing to do with the question of your not understanding physics concepts.



PS TO DARK PRIMUS:

This asshat is just trolling now. Perhaps you should point this out to someone.

[Lord Zentei]

Ghetto Edit:

PPS to DPDarkPrimus:

Hey, what happened to Kitsune?

[Darth Wong]

To sum up:
Atoms convert energy without loss.

Without loss to what? Entropy? Atoms most certainly can convert energy into entropy; has this guy ever heard of a microwave oven? This is like saying that the gears in a car do not produce any heat through friction ... as long as they don't touch anything.

Atoms do not age.

Radioactive nuclei decay. Atoms can and do age.

Atoms never fail to perform according to design.

There is no "design". And atoms are broken apart, welded together, or forced to shed electrons or gain them etc. on a regular basis.

Atoms do not wear.

Wrong. Atoms shed and gain electrons on a regular basis.

Atoms are flawless material; ie., perfect.

His definition of "perfect" is meaningless. He does not understand that the change in momentum of a photon when deflected by an atom is going to deposit energy in the atom, not take it away. And unless this energy is 100% usable, ie- non-randomized, then it can become entropy, which is inefficiency, which is imperfection.

[Cykeisme]

-"Atoms are perpetual motion machines"
The energy levels of the photons remain unchanged before and after diffraction. But does diffraction even qualify as "work"?
If it does not, then a diamond can't be a perpetual motion machine, because it does no work.
Also, are atoms even machines?


-Effieciency
A photon may be refracted or absorbed, with a random chance for either to happen. He seeks to consider only the ones that are refracted, thus "proving" 100% efficiency. The fact is that some of the energy that is input will randomly become useable output, and some of it becomes waste.

Isn't his "100% efficient atom" approach the same as looking at a heat engine where efficiency is (input / output - loss), but saying I only want to look at the random portion of input energy that becomes output, and concluding that the heat engine is 100% efficient?


I don't expect to know enough to contribute to the smackdown at hand, but I'd appreciate it if someone could comment on what I've said.

[Cykeisme]

Edits are disallowed in SLAM?
I misspelt "efficiency" in a really obvious place

I have another question.
Let's just say I have a hypothetical super ball that can off a hypothetical super wall without the ball losing energy to the wall. I suppose if I can set it up so the ball is bouncing up and down in a gravitational field (in a vacuum to eliminate kinetic energy loss to drag I guess) I can have it bounce forever.
This makes it a perpetual motion machine right? I'm converting kinetic energy to gravitational potential energy in an endless cycle.

Can that guy think of a setup to set a diamond up in a such a way to have a cycle of some sort go on forever?

[Cykeisme]

And speaking of efficiency mistakes, I also got the formula totally wrong in my rustiness.
I meant to say (output/input).

God dammit..

[Winston Blake]

Let's just say I have a hypothetical super ball that can off a hypothetical super wall without the ball losing energy to the wall. I suppose if I can set it up so the ball is bouncing up and down in a gravitational field (in a vacuum to eliminate kinetic energy loss to drag I guess) I can have it bounce forever.
This makes it a perpetual motion machine right? I'm converting kinetic energy to gravitational potential energy in an endless cycle.

Yes, it's a perpetual motion machine in the literal sense of the word, but so is a salami flying through perfectly empty space with constant velocity (motion).

No, in the usual sense, because you can't use it to perpetually do work on anything else. If i understand you right, you've essentially reworked the age-old example of a pendulum in a vacuum.

[Lord Zentei]

Type one perpetual motion machines must do work on an external system indefinately without external energy. Not possible, since work = raising energy states of whatever is being worked upon, i.e. it requires energy, i.e. perpetual work w/o external energy requires the creation of energy, which is impossible, due to the Law of the Conservation of Energy (1st Law).

Type two perpetual motion machines need to work cyclically without waste and without external energy (but w/o working on an external object). Not possible, due to the Law of the Increase of Entropy (2nd Law).

An object flying through space is not a machine at all.

[Cykeisme]

As I understand it, the magic bouncing ball (or pendulum) that never loses useable energy is a Perpetual Motion Machine of the second type then?

Anyway, what I was getting at is that a diamond refracting light clearly isn't a perpetual motion machine, or even a machine, of any time, right? Doesn't the guy on the other forum, for all his learned sophistry, realize this?

[Cykeisme]

As I understand it, the magic bouncing ball (or pendulum) that never loses useable energy is a Perpetual Motion Machine of the second type then?

Anyway, what I was getting at is that a diamond refracting light clearly isn't a perpetual motion machine, or even a machine, of any type, right? Doesn't the guy on the other forum, for all his learned sophistry, realize this?

[DPDarkPrimus]

Our spiral into madness continues...

No. Output energy will not always equal input energy. You need to include waste into the equation.

It's called the First Law of Thermodynamics. Look into it.

A. You mean the postulates of thermodynamics which have no mathematical proof? Sure, I accept them from what we've seen.
B. Waste is only relevant to our design criteria and irrelevant to the most elemental materials raised to the highest position; ie. excepting all external processes. A process which converts 75% of the input to photonic energy and 25% to kinetic enegy is either 25% efficient or 75% efficient depending on the subjective analysis of a process. Kinetic energy and mass of prompt neutrons in decaying Uranium are "loss" in a radioactive source while they are energy production when they occur in the fuel meat of a reactor. This is because they convey their kinetic energy to the hydrogen nuclei of the moderator, thus half the energy of the escaped neutron is used yielding 50% efficiency from the perspective of heat used, not lost in the process. You keep arguing in circles assuming human interpretation of the energy process has any bearing on the determination of efficiency of the elements. Nowhere did I state any man-made process would be perfect, yet you insist on turning the argument into this in your defense of flawed atoms.

Bullshit.

Bullshit back at ya. Your not strawmanning this into a debate over human designs that easily.

Since you named diffraction as proof of perfection, then concession accepted, fool.

I named the diffraction of any photon, not the entire natural process. Read much?

Irrelevant.

Fucking moron. DP, where'd you dig up these Jerry's kids physicists?

And this proves the "perfect" efficiency of atoms, how exactly? Or does it suggest that you have been full of shit all along?

Perfect efficiency was your term, mine was perfect material. Indestructible and universally compatible.

This next bit is great

Bullshit, atoms are destructible....


This is called "conservation of energy" Woo hoo, what a discovery. This has no bearing on the "perfection" of atoms. CONSERVATION OF ENERGY ALWAYS APPLIES, WHEN YOU COUNT WASTE.

Waste which only exists in the subjective application of our flawed designs. ...So atoms are destructible... but conservation of energy also applies? Strange, I always thought the matter was simply converted as I said. You're just full of conflicting statements aren't you?

Energy is converted, but none consumed in the process. Confine the discussion to processes which involve change in energy states and the same applies, but the atom remains unaltered before and after the conversion process. I noticed you subtly trying to create an amphibolous diversion when you restated my earlier matter/antimatter conversion as "destruction." You attempted to divert the argument from the fact that conversion was happening, reshaping it into an assumption something was ceasing to exist (destroyed). Clever, but childish.

The diversion was yours you idiot. Your claim was that ATOMS were eternal and now you are reduced to invoking conservation of energy in atomic decay processes.

Atoms are eternal fucking moron, only radioisotopes have a half-life. This also has a purpose because as Ernst Rutherford demonstrated to Lord Kelvin radioactive decay sustains the earth's temperature. Your continued attempts to equivocate eternal with indestructible/unconvertible are ignored. eternal simply means they will not change over time if not so designed, and barring any external application of energy beyond their tolerance. Eternal things can have tolerances in other variables, just not in time.

1) False - if you refer to "loss" as waste. (...and we don't) If you are babbling about the Conservatio of Energy then ALL THINGS OBEY THIS, INCLUDING MAN MADE ONES.

DING DING DING! You get the prize! Only the little one, however. Manmade processes never include all conversions in their design, thus they have loss. Atomic processes perform without loss according to each design.

2) False - radioatoms have a halflife.

Already discussed, and irrelevant as this also is a perfect conversion process.

3) What fucking "design"? Do you have the goddamned blueprints to verify this?

The design this whole damn argument has been about: materials for the construction of the universe, which you are defending as "flawed." The law of conservation of matter and energy could not exist with flawed material. Does any energy leak back into the quantum vaccuum? No. Does energy contained within any closed system get "lost?" No. Can an atom wear down? No. A material does not have to be inconvertible to be perfect. In fact a perfect material would be one with which you could construct absolutely anything and never have waste material. Matter can be so converted without loss, and can be converted to energy and back without loss, and cannot age with the universe. If it were possible to destroy an atom it would be imperfect, but the atom can only be converted for other uses. If it were possible for atoms to expire they would be imperfect. They do not. If it were possible to create unique atoms, or flawed ones which do not perform exactly as others of the same type, they would be flawed. It is not possible, however, to create an O16 atom which will age, or freeze at a different temperature, or fail to bond in an oxygen reaction, etc.

4) False - atoms can be ionized and shattered such as by neutron radiation.
And false, as already shown.

Bullshit, as already shown.

Now you are just bullshitting. This has nothing to do with the question of your not understanding physics concepts.

I think it's not my understanding that's in question if you insist on defending an assertion that the material of the universe is flawed.

PS TO DARK PRIMUS:

This asshat is just trolling now. Perhaps you should point this out to someone.

BWAAAHAHAAA! DP is the biggest bulshitting troll in here!! His friggin statements from ignorance are pretty damn obvious when he has to pull in a ringer to try to back him up! "Let me make an assinine statement and find some fool to argue for me!" Great plan DP!

To sum up:
Atoms convert energy without loss.

Without loss to what? Entropy? Atoms most certainly can convert energy into entropy; has this guy ever heard of a microwave oven? This is like saying that the gears in a car do not produce any heat through friction ... as long as they don't touch anything.

Atoms do not age.

Radioactive nuclei decay. Atoms can and do age.

Atoms never fail to perform according to design.

There is no "design". And atoms are broken apart, welded together, or forced to shed electrons or gain them etc. on a regular basis.

Atoms do not wear.

Wrong. Atoms shed and gain electrons on a regular basis.

Yeah. It's called conduction, and can continue indefinitely within the tolerances of the material. Will the copper atom ever stop pushing electrons across it? No, it won't, because it can't age or wear.

Atoms are flawless material; ie., perfect.

His definition of "perfect" is meaningless. He does not understand that the change in momentum of a photon when deflected by an atom is going to deposit energy in the atom, not take it away. And unless this energy is 100% usable, ie- non-randomized, then it can become entropy, which is inefficiency, which is imperfection.

This assumes the energy deposition (which I would love to see a derivation of) is needed for a directed purpose. Entropic energy deposition is useful in many processes including the conversion of one material to another through melting, for example. Were the universe made of any material which could not readilly be converted to another then there would be loss. But all energy is usable within the scope of the universe which is why the entropy of the universe remains constant (in theory).

Type one perpetual motion machines must do work on an external system indefinately without external energy. Not possible, since work = raising energy states of whatever is being worked upon, i.e. it requires energy, i.e. perpetual work w/o external energy requires the creation of energy, which is impossible, due to the Law of the Conservation of Energy (1st Law).

Type two perpetual motion machines need to work cyclically without waste and without external energy (but w/o working on an external object). Not possible, due to the Law of the Increase of Entropy (2nd Law).

An object flying through space is not a machine at all.

No. Work is force applied over a distance. A photon is diffracted over a nonzero subatomic distance d when it enters the diffraction lattice. The photon has an initial momentum p which is a vector quantity <p1,p2>. After being deflected through nonzero angle Θ in the diffraction process the new momentum is a vector quantity <p3, p4>. The magnitude of the force vector applied to the photon is given by Δp, or the square root of [(p3 - p1)^2 + (p4 - p2)^2].

Since work equals force times distance, the work applied to the photon is given by d*Δp != 0. Δp cannot equal zero since the photon has the exact same speed before and after diffraction (|v1| = |v2|), and cos(Θ) is nonzero unless the angle is Kπ/2°. d cannot be zero because the point of diffraction would create a discontinuity in the velocity vector whose first derivative, impulse, would be infinite at the diffraction point of any particle with momentum. Thus work is performed, no momentum is transfered to the atom since |v1| = |v2| , and no external energy is applied or consumed.

"Type one perpetual motion machines must do work on an external system indefinately without external energy" External system = photon, Work on a particle with momentum = d*Δp. External energy = 0, unless you can show where the photon looses energy during diffraction. Indefinite operation = guaranteed unless you've built the lattice out of radioisotopes. Perpetual motion.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Please note that the broken quotes were broken in his original post. I did not feel like going through and fixing them, sorry.

[Zero]

His entire bullshit argument that atoms can't be destroyed is... well... crap. We've already talked about radioactive isotopes, and I'm sure this fucktard understands fission reactions and such, but how the hell can he say that atoms are eternal when we've demonstrated that this isn't true, at least, of all atoms? His defense is that atoms will only decay if so designed relies on his claim that the material was designed in the first place. What does he say about particles and antiparticles, and their apparent ability to annihilate each other? If he says that the energy released makes up for the destruction, and that that means the atoms weren't really destroyed, couldn't I make the same claim of my hand if I lit it on fire? He's obviously just using the conservation of energy to prove that nothing can be lost. This doesn't make atoms perfect. If I build a house, and it falls down, it's not as functionally usefull as a standing house. He's full of shit. He claims we're ignorant, but he uses numerous evasions and various types of bullshit to defend his statements. Why are we still arguing with this jackass?

[Lord Zentei]

Output energy will always exactly equal input energy with nothing consumed. It will be converted or stored as mass, which can later be reconverted through any of various processes.

No. Output energy will not always equal input energy. You need to include waste into the equation.

It's called the First Law of Thermodynamics. Look into it.

A. You mean the postulates of thermodynamics which have no mathematical proof? Sure, I accept them from what we've seen.
B. Waste is only relevant to our design criteria and irrelevant to the most elemental materials raised to the highest position; ie. excepting all external processes. A process which converts 75% of the input to photonic energy and 25% to kinetic enegy is either 25% efficient or 75% efficient depending on the subjective analysis of a process. Kinetic energy and mass of prompt neutrons in decaying Uranium are "loss" in a radioactive source while they are energy production when they occur in the fuel meat of a reactor. This is because they convey their kinetic energy to the hydrogen nuclei of the moderator, thus half the energy of the escaped neutron is used yielding 50% efficiency from the perspective of heat used, not lost in the process. You keep arguing in circles assuming human interpretation of the energy process has any bearing on the determination of efficiency of the elements. Nowhere did I state any man-made process would be perfect, yet you insist on turning the argument into this in your defense of flawed atoms.

You named atomic processes as perfect and without waste, citing diffraction as a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. Thus the fact that photons are not diffracted with perfect efficiency is ENTIRELY RELEVANT to the argument. Your claim that efficiency cannot be used as a yardstick is disingenious in light of this fact.

Our consideration of efficiency only matters to processes we design.

Bullshit.

Bullshit back at ya. Your not strawmanning this into a debate over human designs that easily.

You cretin, I am not strawmanning, I am using the correct definition of the term "efficiency". The definition of efficiency does NOT come with a PS: "only applies to man made systems", you dolt. If you claim that the standard definition of "efficiency" does not apply to atoms then how can you claim that atoms are "perfect" because their processes involve no waste? Does the term "cyclic logic" mean anything to you? By the way: you yourself invited this discussion of efficiency in the first place, in case you are suffering from a selective memory lapse.

Since you named diffraction as proof of perfection, then concession accepted, fool.

I named the diffraction of any photon, not the entire natural process. Read much?

And as I pointed out, if you count individual photons then the correct way to judge efficiency would be to calculate the probability that it is diffracted.

Irrelevant.

Fucking moron. DP, where'd you dig up these Jerry's kids physicists?

It IS irrelevant. We CAN calculate the efficiency of processes that we do not design.

Your failure to adress the point is noted. The fact that we did not design atoms IS irrelevant when calculating the efficiency of atomic preocesses.

And this proves the "perfect" efficiency of atoms, how exactly? Or does it suggest that you have been full of shit all along?

Perfect efficiency was your term, mine was perfect material. Indestructible and universally compatible.

Now you are contradicting yourself. You stated that the absence of waste in atomic processes was proof of their perfection. This is called "goalpost moving". Incidentally, as has already pointed out to you: ATOMS ARE DESTRUCTIBLE.

The reason I highlighted the word "indestructible" in red will be clear in due course.

This next bit is great

I daresay.

Bullshit, atoms are destructible....


This is called "conservation of energy" Woo hoo, what a discovery. This has no bearing on the "perfection" of atoms. CONSERVATION OF ENERGY ALWAYS APPLIES, WHEN YOU COUNT WASTE.

Waste which only exists in the subjective application of our flawed designs. ...So atoms are destructible... but conservation of energy also applies? Strange, I always thought the matter was simply converted as I said. You're just full of conflicting statements aren't you?

You cretin, the fact that conservation of energy applies to a system does not preclude the destructibility of a system. Man made systems also obey the law of the conservation of energy, in case you didn't know. CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IS A UNIVERSAL LAW. IT ALWAYS APPLIES. You could just as well state that a car is 100% efficient because the design might include the intention of heating the environment.

Energy is converted, but none consumed in the process. Confine the discussion to processes which involve change in energy states and the same applies, but the atom remains unaltered before and after the conversion process. I noticed you subtly trying to create an amphibolous diversion when you restated my earlier matter/antimatter conversion as "destruction." You attempted to divert the argument from the fact that conversion was happening, reshaping it into an assumption something was ceasing to exist (destroyed). Clever, but childish.

The diversion was yours you idiot. Your claim was that ATOMS were eternal and now you are reduced to invoking conservation of energy in atomic decay processes.

Atoms are eternal fucking moron, only radioisotopes have a half-life. This also has a purpose because as Ernst Rutherford demonstrated to Lord Kelvin radioactive decay sustains the earth's temperature. Your continued attempts to equivocate eternal with indestructible/unconvertible are ignored. eternal simply means they will not change over time if not so designed, and barring any external application of energy beyond their tolerance. Eternal things can have tolerances in other variables, just not in time.

Amusing, since you yourself used the term indestructible. See the part above where I highlighted your own words in red.

And radioisotope decay has a "purpose", does it? So: first you claim that atoms are eternal, then when this claim is shown to be false, you claim that their ephemeral nature is "proof" of their perfection because their decay has a "purpose".

To sum up:
Atoms convert energy without loss.
Atoms do not age.
Atoms never fail to perform according to design.
Atoms do not wear.

1) False - if you refer to "loss" as waste. (...and we don't) If you are babbling about the Conservatio of Energy then ALL THINGS OBEY THIS, INCLUDING MAN MADE ONES.

DING DING DING! You get the prize! Only the little one, however. Manmade processes never include all conversions in their design, thus they have loss. Atomic processes perform without loss according to each design.

Prove it. All you have done thus far - apart from your bullshit regarding perpetual motion and indestructibility - is to assert that the "design" is "perfect" because it has no waste, and it has no waste because this is a part of the design. Cyclic logic.

My point was that regardless of whether you count loss as waste or not you have demonstrated nothing special about atoms. If your reference was to the Conservation of Energy, then all things obey this law. If you are referring to waste as loss (and yes, you DID clain that) then this too is false as atomic processes are not 100% efficient.

2) False - radioatoms have a halflife.

Already discussed, and irrelevant as this also is a perfect conversion process.

Sophistry. ATOMS CAN AND DO AGE, IN CONTRAST TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT THEY DO NOT.

3) What fucking "design"? Do you have the goddamned blueprints to verify this?

The design this whole damn argument has been about: materials for the construction of the universe, which you are defending as "flawed." The law of conservation of matter and energy could not exist with flawed material. Does any energy leak back into the quantum vaccuum? No. Does energy contained within any closed system get "lost?" No. Can an atom wear down? No. A material does not have to be inconvertible to be perfect. In fact a perfect material would be one with which you could construct absolutely anything and never have waste material. Matter can be so converted without loss, and can be converted to energy and back without loss, and cannot age with the universe. If it were possible to destroy an atom it would be imperfect, but the atom can only be converted for other uses. If it were possible for atoms to expire they would be imperfect. They do not. If it were possible to create unique atoms, or flawed ones which do not perform exactly as others of the same type, they would be flawed. It is not possible, however, to create an O16 atom which will age, or freeze at a different temperature, or fail to bond in an oxygen reaction, etc.

Your assertion was that ATOMS were perfect. When I showed that this was not the case, you are now claiming that the "material" of the universe is perfect asserting that the Conservation of Energy as testament to this, which was the very instrument by which your original argument was demolished. The conservation of energy has nothing to do with the perfection of atoms, per se.

Incidentally, my point was that your claim that atoms always perform according to the way that they are designed is meaningless unless you know what the design was or whether they were designed at all: arguing that the perceived waste is a part of the design is disingenious and an example of cyclic logic. The statement that you can demonstrate this perfection by observing the lack of waste in atomic processes is nonsense, since no such process is 100% efficient.

Atoms are flawless material; ie., perfect.

And false, as already shown.

Bullshit, as already shown.

No, you have shown nothing of the kind. Your initial assertion was that atoms are perpetual motion machines. This is false. You then claimed that atomic processes are 100% efficient. This is false. Finally, you claimed that they were indestructible. This too is false. Apart from this all you have accomplished on this thread is sophistry.

Now you are just bullshitting. This has nothing to do with the question of your not understanding physics concepts.

I think it's not my understanding that's in question if you insist on defending an assertion that the material of the universe is flawed.

Your insipid drivel about getting a receipt was entirely irrelevant to my argument that you were not understanding the definition of a perpetual motion machine. And now you are saying that it is my understanding of physics that is imperfect because I insist on defending the assetion that the material of the Univese is flawed. In other words, more cyclic logic and bullshit. I assert that atoms are not "perfect" because I observe this to be the case. Your idiotic claims that they are perpetual motion machines has been demolished, by showing that you failed to understand the defenition of the term "perpetual motion machine". If you wish to show that atoms are "perfect" anyway, find some other way to do so.

[Darth Wong]

He tries to cast doubt on the laws of thermodynamics because they "have no mathematical proof"? That line alone proves he's a complete idiot. Scientific laws are based on empirical data, not the kind of theoretical "proofs" that you do in mathematics.

[Lord Zentei]

Not to mention his disingenious subject-changing: first atoms are claimed to be perpetual motion machines, then when this is shown to be false, he claims that they operate without waste, then that the definition of efficiency does not apply to them because anything that we might perceive as waste is in fact a part of the "design".

He claims that atoms are eternal and indestructible, when this is shown to be false, he claims that atomic decay obeys the conservation of energy, when it is pointed out that this is a universal law, he claims that any forms the decay may take are part of the "design".

In short, after dodging the refutations of his bullshit arguments he is left with the assertion that atoms always perform according to design, hence they are perfect, hence they must have been designed. The face that this is an example of begging the question and that all his specific arguments in favour of his premise seems to be beyond his understanding.

[Zero]

Couldn't we just say that since all things that have ever been observed have been governed by naturalistic physical laws, it's never rational to assume that the universe was created for us? I mean, the universe must exist in such a way as to facilitate our existance, because we do, but it makes no sense to say that we're anything more then a part of the universe, as much of the time it doesn't seem to care about us. From our perspective, the universe exists to facilitate our existance, but if you take a bigger perspective, we exist to fit into the universe, to live off of what resources we can. If the universe were created for us, natural disasters and things like poisin wouldn't exist. There are many aspects of the universe that serve no purpose in our facilitation and can lead to our destruction. The universe wasn't created for us, obviously, so a rational supposition is that we're just a physical part of the natural universe. We will see the things around us as designed for us, but only because we were 'designed' by a random process to live off of those things around us.

Can we just say to this guy that even if atoms are quite good, they likely don't exist for us, as the universe doesn't really seem to exist for us? The universe is too chaotic to be designed...

[Lord Zentei]

Can we just say to this guy that even if atoms are quite good, they likely don't exist for us, as the universe doesn't really seem to exist for us? The universe is too chaotic to be designed...

He would simply twist that into "but the purpose of the universe is to be chaotic!11"

The thing is that his claims of the perfection of atoms by citing specific examples of their functionality have all been refuted, and now what he is doing is stating that anything perceived as "inperfection" is in fact a part of the "design", hence the atoms are "perfect" since they follow this "design".

Anyway, one cannot claim that atoms are perfect, good, bad or whatever by referencing their "design" without knowng what the "design" is (assuming there even is one at that). The only thing he is left with is invoking the law of conservation of energy (which all things obey anyway), and appeals to ignorance and cyclic logic. Fools like this are to logic as a duck's back is to water.

[Darth Wong]

The thing is that his claims of the perfection of atoms by citing specific examples of their functionality have all been refuted, and now what he is doing is stating that anything perceived as "inperfection" is in fact a part of the "design", hence the atoms are "perfect" since they follow this "design".

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

It looks like he's been learning from the Microsoft propaganda playbook.

[Lord Zentei]

The thing is that his claims of the perfection of atoms by citing specific examples of their functionality have all been refuted, and now what he is doing is stating that anything perceived as "inperfection" is in fact a part of the "design", hence the atoms are "perfect" since they follow this "design".

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

It looks like he's been learning from the Microsoft propaganda playbook.

Quite.

Or perhaps Bill Gates was inspired by creationist apologism and spin when he wrote said book.

[Master of Ossus]

The thing is that his claims of the perfection of atoms by citing specific examples of their functionality have all been refuted, and now what he is doing is stating that anything perceived as "inperfection" is in fact a part of the "design", hence the atoms are "perfect" since they follow this "design".

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

It looks like he's been learning from the Microsoft propaganda playbook.

It's really an example of circular logic. "This atom is perfect because... it does everything it does, which is now defined as perfection because that's the way God designed it. Hence, the atom is perfect."

[Lord Zentei]

The thing is that his claims of the perfection of atoms by citing specific examples of their functionality have all been refuted, and now what he is doing is stating that anything perceived as "inperfection" is in fact a part of the "design", hence the atoms are "perfect" since they follow this "design".

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

It looks like he's been learning from the Microsoft propaganda playbook.

It's really an example of circular logic. "This atom is perfect because... it does everything it does, which is now defined as perfection because that's the way God designed it. Hence, the atom is perfect."

Yeah, I kind of pointed that out already.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Well, that was refreshing. . .not!

A couple of meandering points:

1. I particularly liked the way he added the caveat to his Perfect Atom Theory that atoms are eternal provided nothing external is applied to them beyond certain tolerances. In that case, my ping-pong paddle is eternal, and since it will always rebound a ping-pong ball the same way under identical situations, I guess it must be a perpetual-motion machine too!

2. Perpetual Motion. A single event does not quality as perpetual motion. The photons in his example are always supplied from outside the system. To be true perpetual motion, he would need to set up a system of diffractors such that they will diffract a photon in a closed loop. Then send on photon in, let the system go, come back a million years later and see if it's still going. While this would be useless work, it would still qualify as perpetual motion. But alas, the photon would have been absorbed long ago, so there is no perpetual motion.

3. If I understand correctly, he is claiming that the alleged perfection of atoms is proof of a created design. Where is he going with this? Even if this was valid (and its not), he also stated that humans are imperfect because we have losses. Is he saying that God or whatever would deliberately create perfect atoms and imperfect humans (and all other life forms)? What kind of a creator is that? Or is he saying that the initial creation was perfect, but God abandoned it long, long ago thereby allowing us to evolve? In short, his argument opens numerous other problems. . .