Physics Stupidity Hurts My Mind

[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. . .

[DPDarkPrimus]

Funny how these hired guns haven't even attempted to defend you yet DP. They've dumped a bunch of garbage as if somehow the universe were designed to "serve humanity" babbling about efficiency for our purposes and neglecting completely the scope of your assumption. Let's summerize this boondogle:

You said the material of the universe was flawed (imperfect).

I called you on it. Atoms convert 100% of energy applied without ever experiencing wear, degradation or aging.

You call in your "ringers" to prove your statement.

They divert the topic to human definitions of efficiency as applied to macrosystems, peripheral systems and other such inconsequential tripe. All because they fail to grasp that "waste" as used in efficiency is always a subjective term and therefore always limited to processes as interpreted by human definitions. It is possible to describe the efficiency of the Sun as a heat source, as a light source, as a radio emitter, etc., but it is impossible to generically describe "the efficiency of the Sun."

They say "atoms can be destroyed" then immediately invoke the law of conservation of mass and energy (?!?!?) which states it can't be destroyed - after I prove they can only be converted.

Now after they invoke the laws of thermodynamics which I clearly stated I accept, they try to straw man it again into a claim that I doubt the postulates.

After proving atoms are eternal because they never wear or degrade with time, they equivocate eternal with indestructible (an amphibolous term for transformable in this context). But it is known that an Oxygen-16 atom will oxidize today, and will do so 3 billion years from now, and will never alter it's performance with age. Thus, it is eternal.

They invent various nonsensical "cyclic logic" examples assuming I had ever suggested atoms and the design of the universe includes no waste (which is a conclusion, not a cause). This is, by the way, the exact same conclusion which lead to the law of conservation.

if there exists an atomic process which does not utilize 100% of the energy applied and in fact incurrs loss (irretrievable energy), none has been shown. Only "loss" in regard to conversion to another form; a subjective loss as defined by the process of our interpretation, has been demonstrated.

To the point of "unknown design" it is both true and equally applicable to their argument about "imperfect material". Thus as the last statement Lord Zentei concludes DarkPrimus you have absolutely no argument in your initial assertion that the material of the universe is imperfect:

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).

But the qualities of the material of the universe are as follows, as determined by the laws of conservation:

Eternal: the material of the universe does not degrade in performance with the passage of time. Certain constructs do decay with time as a critical matter of maintenance (photons, radioisotopes, etc.) But decay is not irretrievable loss (the only kind that matters.)

Universality: Material of a star is equally suited for organic life, radio transmission, light, antimatter, etc. through various conversion processes. All of these processes are 100% efficient in the respect that all material is usable and no energy or matter can ever become irretrievable lost. A less than perfect material would be such that some constructs require specific resources; such as a car which cannot use glass, steel, and rubber interchangably within our desing criteria unless radical and very inefficient processes are invoked. Inefficiency meaning, again, that our processes cannot retrieve all matter/energy wasted.

They further ignore the calculation of work of diffraction of a photon, which appears to mathematically prove the process fits the definition of perpetual motion.

In essence, unless you or they can show an atom can cease to exist in this universe, degrade in performance with time, they are eternal. Unless they can show energy can likewise cease to exist, or lose potency, or degrade in perfomance over time, it is eternal. If you cannot show that a flawed atom or energy carrier particle exists, you cannot assume they are imperfect. The material of the universe is perfect, otherwise the laws of conservation would not exist. Flawed material would be capable of degrading in performance. Flawed material would be capable of irretrievable loss in its processes. Flawed material would have limited application to the design.

And another post from him (with a quick reply from a smarter member):

That's not the definition of efficiency.

It most certainly is. It's pretty obvious all you and your lackeys have done is project humanistic ideals onto your argument.

Efficiency is measured by the amount of loss between input and output.

The law of conservation of energy and mass exists because we discovered that there is no loss in any natural process; there is only conversion and transformation. Modern society trivializes this fact which was mind boggling at the time of it's discovery. But no matter how complacent we become about it the implications are no less magnificent. When loss is exactly zero efficiency is exactly 100%. What you can't get through your head is that the universe doesn't exist for the singular purpose of serving our needs, which is exactly what you are saying when you arbitrarily define what you aren't using as "loss". Guess what? It ain't about you.

Loss - real loss - is when something ceases to exist; becomes irretrievable. It is completely irrelevant whether or not humans can use it or retrieve it - that was never a part of the argument, that is a mere subjective interpretation. Matter that has turned into gama particles can turn right back into matter; it's not lost. And nothing ever is; hence the material is indestructable and only capable of transformation. When you can find any process which loses mass or energy from the universe you will have an argument for loss. Likewise, when we had the two seperate laws; conservation of mass, and conservatin of energy, it was an imperfect system. We thought there was loss because we saw mass "evaporating" and it seemed like mass was destroyed.

Heat loss, you fucking shit. Heat is irretrievable.

GG fag.

[DPDarkPrimus]

To clarify (as I did in the thread) I said "Oh, sorry, I thought we were still talking about your magical 100% efficiency".

[Zero]

You can't retrieve matter after it's converted to pure energy by combining it with antimatter, can you?

[Winston Blake]

You can't retrieve matter after it's converted to pure energy by combining it with antimatter, can you?

Matter and antimatter don't annihilate into 'pure' energy. Electron/positron annihilation happens to produce gamma rays, but other ones (e.g. protons, neutrons, etc) tend to produce all sorts of crap like charged pions, which count as being matter anyway. I'm not sure but i should think that if you could somehow cram those products back together in just the right way you would get the original particles. Still, disorder would have to have increased.

(You can hit nuclei with a gamma ray and get pair production, but since electron-positron annihilation results in two gamma rays, each with only half that needed for the pair production, you can't reconstitute the matter (electron and positron) from 'pure energy' that way.)

[Zero]

Thanks for clarification. I must admit, my knowledge of such things is limited. My only knowledge of it all comes from current enrollment in a chem course in hgih school. Lol.

[Lord Zentei]

You can't retrieve matter after it's converted to pure energy by combining it with antimatter, can you?

Matter and antimatter don't annihilate into 'pure' energy. Electron/positron annihilation happens to produce gamma rays, but other ones (e.g. protons, neutrons, etc) tend to produce all sorts of crap like charged pions, which count as being matter anyway. I'm not sure but i should think that if you could somehow cram those products back together in just the right way you would get the original particles. Still, disorder would have to have increased.

Proton-antiproton reactions produce pions, 1.5 posetively charged pions, 1.5 negatively charged pions and 2 neutral ones per proton-antiproton reaction, on the average. Pions are unstable and quickly decay into gamma rays, electrons or positrons and neutrinos. Some of the electrons and positrons can then annihilate into gamma rays.

Particles and antiparticles can be produced in particle accellerators, though here it is kinetic energy that is converted to mass. You would have to harvest the gamma rays and use the energy to power the accellerator - a far from 100% efficient process.

[Darth Wong]

Vogon_Poet is hilarious. By his tortured definition, any process which does not cause part of its input mass/energy to cease to exist is perfect. By that definition, everything in the universe is perfect, since nothing can violate the First Law of Thermodynamics on anything but quantum timescales.

[Lord Zentei]

Vogon_Poet is hilarious. By his tortured definition, any process which does not cause part of its input mass/energy to cease to exist is perfect. By that definition, everything in the universe is perfect, since nothing can violate the First Law of Thermodynamics on anything but quantum timescales.

I pointed that out to him, after demolishing his claims that the specific atomic processes he named as perfect do indeed have waste: then he changes his tune, but only with regards to human designs: you only calculate the efficiency with regards to the machine's intended purpose. But "obviously" atoms have no waste because all forms of energy that result from atomic processes have a "purpose", hence they are perfect and hence they are created....

Yet, diamonds are not perfect refractors, strangely enough, despite not (neccesarily) being man made, and consisting of these "perfect" atoms. You shouldn't count the aggregate, you see: for on the atomic scale, the carbon atoms are perfect refractors, refracting all photons forever - assuming you only count those that are not absorbed. Because you should only apply the notion of "efficiency" to man made things, not atoms. In the case of atoms all things have purpose: even the heat radiocarbon decay heats the earth. They obey conservation of energy, therefore, atoms are perfect and eternal.

Four pages later he hasn't understood what is wrong with this line of reasoning.

[Lord Zentei]

Funny how these hired guns haven't even attempted to defend you yet DP. They've dumped a bunch of garbage as if somehow the universe were designed to "serve humanity" babbling about efficiency for our purposes and neglecting completely the scope of your assumption.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?

You dare post this garbage after whining about strawmanning, you odious llittle turd? Your claim was that atoms are PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES, you fucking liar. Please point out where it has been implied by ANYONE that the Universe is designed to "serve humanity" and "purpose", other than your own worthless self. IT WAS YOU WHO USED THE TERM "PURPOSE" YOU LYING LITTLE IMBECILE.

Let's summerize this boondogle:

You said the material of the universe was flawed (imperfect).

I called you on it. Atoms convert 100% of energy applied without ever experiencing wear, degradation or aging.

Which happens to be BULLSHIT. Unless you refer to the Conservation of Energy, but that ALWAYS APPLIES, and has nothing to do with atoms per se.

You call in your "ringers" to prove your statement.

They divert the topic to human definitions of efficiency as applied to macrosystems, peripheral systems and other such inconsequential tripe. All because they fail to grasp that "waste" as used in efficiency is always a subjective term and therefore always limited to processes as interpreted by human definitions. It is possible to describe the efficiency of the Sun as a heat source, as a light source, as a radio emitter, etc., but it is impossible to generically describe "the efficiency of the Sun."

You used the term "perpetual motion". That has a very specific meaning. Read the fucking thread again. AND IT WAS YOU THAT CLAIMED THAT ATOMIC PROCESSES INCUR NO WASTE YOU HYPOCRITE.

They say "atoms can be destroyed" then immediately invoke the law of conservation of mass and energy (?!?!?) which states it can't be destroyed - after I prove they can only be converted.

Atoms ARE destroyed you ignorant moron. If an atom is annihilated, it is converted to subatomic particles and radiation. This does nothing to disprove the Conservation of Energy, tool. You might as well clain that rocks are indestructible on the grounds that if you smash them you retain their mass.

Now after they invoke the laws of thermodynamics which I clearly stated I accept, they try to straw man it again into a claim that I doubt the postulates.

LIES, you worthless troll. We invoke the Laws of Thermodynamics when you FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THEM, ad you clearly do if you think that atoms can be perpetual motion machines.

After proving atoms are eternal because they never wear or degrade with time, they equivocate eternal with indestructible (an amphibolous term for transformable in this context). But it is known that an Oxygen-16 atom will oxidize today, and will do so 3 billion years from now, and will never alter it's performance with age. Thus, it is eternal.

nothing that is destructible is eternal, fool. Any system will last until destroyed by interaction with it's environment. That does not make them "eternal".

They invent various nonsensical "cyclic logic" examples assuming I had ever suggested atoms and the design of the universe includes no waste (which is a conclusion, not a cause). This is, by the way, the exact same conclusion which lead to the law of conservation.

It was your own goddamned cyclic logic that was at fault. Quit complaining when this is pointed out to you.

if there exists an atomic process which does not utilize 100% of the energy applied and in fact incurrs loss (irretrievable energy), none has been shown. Only "loss" in regard to conversion to another form; a subjective loss as defined by the process of our interpretation, has been demonstrated.

All the examples you have named involve loss you lying little shit.

To the point of "unknown design" it is both true and equally applicable to their argument about "imperfect material". Thus as the last statement Lord Zentei concludes DarkPrimus you have absolutely no argument in your initial assertion that the material of the universe is imperfect:

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).

Your assertion was that atoms are perpetual motion machines and perfect. What can be done is to show that your arguments are shit.

But the qualities of the material of the universe are as follows, as determined by the laws of conservation:

Eternal: the material of the universe does not degrade in performance with the passage of time. Certain constructs do decay with time as a critical matter of maintenance (photons, radioisotopes, etc.) But decay is not irretrievable loss (the only kind that matters.)

Heat is irretrevable, you ignoramus. Incidentally, the first and second sentances in this snippet contradict one another.

Universality: Material of a star is equally suited for organic life, radio transmission, light, antimatter, etc. through various conversion processes. All of these processes are 100% efficient in the respect that all material is usable and no energy or matter can ever become irretrievable lost. A less than perfect material would be such that some constructs require specific resources; such as a car which cannot use glass, steel, and rubber interchangably within our desing criteria unless radical and very inefficient processes are invoked. Inefficiency meaning, again, that our processes cannot retrieve all matter/energy wasted.

It still astounds me how you can use this double standard with a straight face. In the case of atoms, all the forms that the energy that leaves the system takes is counted into it's "efficiency" but not for macrosystems. IF YOU USE DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING EFFICCIENCY OF DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT! If you want to measure the relative efficiency of two systems, you use the SAME criteria, otherwise the comparrison is meaningless.

They further ignore the calculation of work of diffraction of a photon, which appears to mathematically prove the process fits the definition of perpetual motion.

No it does not, you uneducated tool. The energy state of the photon does not change. Work is about changing energy states. It gains momentum perpendicular to it's original motion, and the refracting material gains an equal and opposite momentum. Where is the increased energy state?

In essence, unless you or they can show an atom can cease to exist in this universe, degrade in performance with time, they are eternal.

Already done.

Unless they can show energy can likewise cease to exist, or lose potency, or degrade in perfomance over time, it is eternal.

And the strawman projector strikes again. When have I or ANYONE else claimed that energy can cease to exist, and what does that have to do with your idiotic claims of perpetual motion?

If you cannot show that a flawed atom or energy carrier particle exists, you cannot assume they are imperfect.

Define "flawed". Oh, you define flawed as anything that does not obey conservation laws. But that is meaningless. By that argument any system is "perfect" since no system can break conservation laws. But then you state that this definition of "perfection" somehow does not apply to macrosystems - and from this you conclude that macrosystems are imperfect and atoms are not.

The material of the universe is perfect, otherwise the laws of conservation would not exist.

Semantic drivel, and irrelevant to your claims of atoms being perpetual motion machines.

Flawed material would be capable of degrading in performance. Flawed material would be capable of irretrievable loss in its processes. Flawed material would have limited application to the design.

Blah, blah, blah.

[Lord Zentei]

It most certainly is. It's pretty obvious all you and your lackeys have done is project humanistic ideals onto your argument.

No. What we have done is show that your arguments are bullshit using the correct definition of efficiency. It was you who projected humanistic needs upon the argument by the "purpose" drivel, you lying little fuckwit.

Efficiency is measured by the amount of loss between input and output.

Actually, it is measured by the ratio between output and input, i.e. whatever isn't lost.

The law of conservation of energy and mass exists because we discovered that there is no loss in any natural process; there is only conversion and transformation. Modern society trivializes this fact which was mind boggling at the time of it's discovery.

Indeed.

But no matter how complacent we become about it the implications are no less magnificent. When loss is exactly zero efficiency is exactly 100%. What you can't get through your head is that the universe doesn't exist for the singular purpose of serving our needs, which is exactly what you are saying when you arbitrarily define what you aren't using as "loss". Guess what? It ain't about you.

And here is another distortion of our position. WHEN HAVE WE IMPLIED THAT THE UNIVERSE IS CREATED FOR OUR NEEDS, LIAR? It is your own stupidity that causes you to fail to grasp the simple fact that your argument is worthless since you are using different definitions for efficiency for macrosystems and atomic processes.

I don't know what I find more idiotic about you: your blatant ignorance or your disingenious attempts to project your stupidity upon others.

Loss - real loss - is when something ceases to exist; becomes irretrievable. It is completely irrelevant whether or not humans can use it or retrieve it - that was never a part of the argument, that is a mere subjective interpretation. Matter that has turned into gama particles can turn right back into matter; it's not lost. And nothing ever is; hence the material is indestructable and only capable of transformation.

Which affects your argument that ATOMS are eternal how, exactly? And FYI, the Entropy IS irreversible. And I find it amusing how you have switched from "atoms are perpetual motion machines" to "the material obeys the conservation of energy". CONCESSION ACCEPTED IMBECILE. In case you were unaware of it, if atoms obey the conservation laws they are NOT PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES BY DEFINITION!

When you can find any process which loses mass or energy from the universe you will have an argument for loss. Likewise, when we had the two seperate laws; conservation of mass, and conservatin of energy, it was an imperfect system. We thought there was loss because we saw mass "evaporating" and it seemed like mass was destroyed.

Your asinine goalpost moving has been noted several times already. Just give it up.

[Lord Zentei]

GHETTO EDIT:

After proving atoms are eternal because they never wear or degrade with time, they equivocate eternal with indestructible (an amphibolous term for transformable in this context). But it is known that an Oxygen-16 atom will oxidize today, and will do so 3 billion years from now, and will never alter it's performance with age. Thus, it is eternal.

nothing that is destructible is eternal, fool. Any system will last until destroyed by interaction with it's environment. That does not make them "eternal".

That should say:

nothing that is destructible is eternal, fool. Any system will last until destroyed by interaction with it's environment or it's own internal processes.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Concession accepted.

I pointed that out to him, after demolishing his claims that the specific atomic processes he named as perfect do indeed have waste:

You argued this, but failed to prove anything has been lost.

then he changes his tune, but only with regards to human designs: you only calculate the efficiency with regards to the machine's intended purpose.

Explain how this is a "change" from the initial argument which never involved human concepts? You were the first to attempt to project your flawed material argument onto human designs with the superconductor, IIRC. I have merely attempted to keep us on topic and avoid you diversionary tactics.

But "obviously" atoms have no waste because all forms of energy that result from atomic processes have a "purpose", hence they are perfect and hence they are created....

Yet another straw man joins the army. Cite my quote please.

Yet, diamonds are not perfect refractors, strangely enough, despite not (neccesarily) being man made, and consisting of these "perfect" atoms. You shouldn't count the aggregate, you see: for on the atomic scale,

The only scale relevant to a discussion of the material of the universe. Shall we discuss hookes law in a discussion of iron?

the carbon atoms are perfect refractors, refracting all photons forever - assuming you only count those that are not absorbed. Because you should only apply the notion of "efficiency" to man made things, not atoms.

Ladies and gentlemen, he can be taught.

In the case of atoms all things have purpose: even the heat radiocarbon decay heats the earth. They obey conservation of energy, therefore, atoms are perfect and eternal.

Correct. Less than perfect material would have exceptions and loss, as pointed out a dozen times. The laws of conservation conclude that loss is not possible.

Four pages later he hasn't understood what is wrong with this line of reasoning.

Neither of you have understood that you can't state that "the universe is not designed for humans" while sustaining an argument faulting the materials of the universe for not meeting our needs. There has been no change of scope from my end, and the only goalposts here are the ones you erected with the initial assertion that the material of the universe is imperfect. You keep trying to ad hoc supplement the caveat that it's not perfect "for human defined processes."

Curious how you avoid the mathematical proof as well.

Work is force applied over a distance (W=F*d). 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 F applied to the photon is given by Δp/t, or the square root of [(p3 - p1)^2 + (p4 - p2)^2]/t.

Thus work equals force times distance/time , the work applied to the photon is given by d*Δp/t != 0. Δp/t 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/t. 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.

[Zero]

Why don't we just start mocking this fucktard? He isn't being very reasonable with all of this. My ass follows conservation of energy, but its perfection is debatable.

[Lord Zentei]

Vogon_Poet is hilarious. By his tortured definition, any process which does not cause part of its input mass/energy to cease to exist is perfect. By that definition, everything in the universe is perfect, since nothing can violate the First Law of Thermodynamics on anything but quantum timescales.

Concession accepted.

What concession, you liar? Darth Wong’s point was that your definition of “perfection” is meaningless.

I pointed that out to him, after demolishing his claims that the specific atomic processes he named as perfect do indeed have waste:

You argued this, but failed to prove anything has been lost.

Lies. All the atomic processes you have named are less than 100% efficient.

then he changes his tune, but only with regards to human designs: you only calculate the efficiency with regards to the machine's intended purpose.

Explain how this is a "change" from the initial argument which never involved human concepts? You were the first to attempt to project your flawed material argument onto human designs with the superconductor, IIRC. I have merely attempted to keep us on topic and avoid you diversionary tactics.

I have made no diversionary tactics. Your initial claim that atoms are perpetual motion machines is false, since by definition a perpetual motion machine violates the laws of thermodynamics.

But "obviously" atoms have no waste because all forms of energy that result from atomic processes have a "purpose", hence they are perfect and hence they are created....

Yet another straw man joins the army. Cite my quote please.

Sure thing:

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.

See, there you go.

Yet, diamonds are not perfect refractors, strangely enough, despite not (neccesarily) being man made, and consisting of these "perfect" atoms. You shouldn't count the aggregate, you see: for on the atomic scale,

The only scale relevant to a discussion of the material of the universe. Shall we discuss hookes law in a discussion of iron?

Yet your criteria for perfection is “obeys thermodynamics”. When it is pointed out that macrosystems also obey thermodynamics you state that the criteria for perfection is “obeys thermodynamics – PS: only applies to atoms”. Can’t you see that you are begging the question? And how the hell is “obeys thermodynamics” consistent with “is a perpetual motion machine”?

the carbon atoms are perfect refractors, refracting all photons forever - assuming you only count those that are not absorbed. Because you should only apply the notion of "efficiency" to man made things, not atoms.

Ladies and gentlemen, he can be taught.

Which is more than can be said for you, sadly enough. Apparently you don’t do too well with irony either.

In the case of atoms all things have purpose: even the heat radiocarbon decay heats the earth. They obey conservation of energy, therefore, atoms are perfect and eternal.

Correct. Less than perfect material would have exceptions and loss, as pointed out a dozen times. The laws of conservation conclude that loss is not possible.

What has that to do with perpetual motion? You switch between that asinine position to “obeys thermodynamics, therefore it is perfect” at the drop of a hat it seems. In addition, what you yet fail to grasp is that macrosytems – including man made ones - ALSO obey thermodynamics, so presumably they would be “perfect” too.

Four pages later he hasn't understood what is wrong with this line of reasoning.

Neither of you have understood that you can't state that "the universe is not designed for humans" while sustaining an argument faulting the materials of the universe for not meeting our needs. There has been no change of scope from my end, and the only goalposts here are the ones you erected with the initial assertion that the material of the universe is imperfect. You keep trying to ad hoc supplement the caveat that it's not perfect "for human defined processes."

I HAVE NOT FAULTED THE MATERIALS OF THE UNIVERSE FOR NOT MEETING OUR NEEDS, YOU LIAR. NEITHER WAS THE “IMPERFECTION” ARGUMENT MINE. INCIDENTALLY IT IS NOT DPDARKPRIMUS' EITHER. IS IS A GODDAMNED STRAWMAN THAT YOU SEEM UNWILLING TO LET GO OF. ALL I HAVE DONE ON THIS THREAD IS TO DEMOLISH YOUR “PERPETUAL MOTION” BULLSHIT AND YOUR MEANINGLESS DEFINITIONS OF "PERFECTION". THE INITIAL ARGUMENT WAS YOURS, IT WAS MADE IN RELATION TO CREATIONISM AND YOURS IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

Curious how you avoid the mathematical proof as well.

If you fail to grasp elementary concepts, mathematics is not going to help you much.

Work is force applied over a distance (W=F*d). 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 F applied to the photon is given by Δp/t, or the square root of [(p3 - p1)^2 + (p4 - p2)^2]/t.

Thus work equals force times distance/time , the work applied to the photon is given by d*Δp/t != 0. Δp/t 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/t. 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.

Bullshit bolded. And I find it hilarious that you argue on the one hand that atoms are perpetual motion machines and on the other that they obey the laws of thermodynamics. Do make up your mind, now.

[Thinkmarble]

The whole discussion is inane.
If an photon interacts with an atom there is always a non-vanishing probability that one of the following events occur:
- pair creation
- gamma ray induced fission of the atom
- excitation of the atom into an higher state, then falling back to the ground state by emission of several low energetic photons
and so on
Remember that in the real world photons are always in a superposition of energy eigentstates, with a non-vanishing coefficient for energy values smaller then infinity.

Refraction is just one of the possible processess, so any atom refracts photons with less then 100% efficency.

It's rather like a puddle waking up one morning - I know they don't normally do this, but allow me, I'm a science fiction writer - A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: "This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly... I mean really precise isn't it?... It must have been made to have me in it."

This quote of him comes always to my mind when talking to creationists or IDists.

[DPDarkPrimus]

What concession, you liar? Darth Wong’s point was that your definition of “perfection” is meaningless.

As is your definition of IMPERFECT you sniveling tit. You've conceded that the FIRST law of thermodynamics is inescapable, thus NOTHING can be "destroyed."

Lies. All the atomic processes you have named are less than 100% efficient.

What the hell is it about you cretins that makes you think you can just say things to make them so? Every now and again, people tend to ask for proof.

My claim is not initial, it is a rebuttal. My claim stands until proof is given that the work done by atomic conversion cannot be done for eternity and requires an outside energy source. Otherwise, educate us. Which law states all processes must have irretrievable loss?
Entropy? Nope. Only applies to closed systems. Is the universe closed? Nope. A. Try to prove it; B. Zero Point energy. Does it matter in a discussion about atomic systems? No. Yet another diversion.

Am I the only one who fails to see my "hence they are created" inferrance? Am I also the only one who is still looking for any statement that could be remotely interpreted as "all forms of energy that result from atomic processes have a 'purpose'"?

Q: How long will an Oxygen-16 atom exist?
A: Eternity.
Q: How many times can an Oxygen-16 atom "burn?"
A: Infinite.
Q: Will an Oxygen-16 atom degrade with age?
A: No.
Q: Can an Oxygen-16 atom ever be permanently destroyed?
A: No. The energy released can be recombined to reform the atom.

More properly, how is it inconsistent or even relevant. "Begging a question" and asking are two entirely different things. One implies your subjective interpretation of the proposal, the other is the argument itself. Do not assume any question in a scientific debate; they are all fallacious until rendered.

No, what you pointed out is that processes in macrosystems never achieve 100% efficiency as defined by subjective valuation of the work derived. But the discrepancy of our interpretation of "loss" and the First Law, which essentially states that loss is impossible, lies in the syntax of the terminology. My argument has been from the beginning that with the discovery of the First Law we have discovered that the "material of the universe" is indestructible. Our modern ho-hum treatment of the fact does not lessen the implications of a timeless, universally versatile and indestructible fabric.

Ladies and gentlemen, he can be taught.

Which is more than can be said for you, sadly enough. Apparently you don’t do too well with irony either.

...But he can't be taught the double standard of defining efficiency in regard to "human usability" while not defining the system as "human centric"

Correct. Less than perfect material would have exceptions and loss, as pointed out a dozen times. The laws of conservation conclude that loss is not possible.

What has that to do with perpetual motion? You switch between that asinine position to “obeys thermodynamics, therefore it is perfect” at the drop of a hat it seems. In addition, what you yet fail to grasp is that macrosytems – including man made ones - ALSO obey thermodynamics, so presumably they would be “perfect” too.

They are perfect if we detach the efficiency derivation from the intended purpose of the system, which all human-designed or human-interpreted systems do have.

Neither of you have understood that you can't state that "the universe is not designed for humans" while sustaining an argument faulting the materials of the universe for not meeting our needs. There has been no change of scope from my end, and the only goalposts here are the ones you erected with the initial assertion that the material of the universe is imperfect. You keep trying to ad hoc supplement the caveat that it's not perfect "for human defined processes."

I HAVE NOT FAULTED THE MATERIALS OF THE UNIVERSE FOR NOT MEETING OUR NEEDS, YOU LIAR. NEITHER WAS THE “IMPERFECTION” ARGUMENT MINE. INCIDENTALLY IT IS NOT DPDARKPRIMUS' EITHER. IS IS A GODDAMNED STRAWMAN THAT YOU SEEM UNWILLING TO LET GO OF. ALL I HAVE DONE ON THIS THREAD IS TO DEMOLISH YOUR “PERPETUAL MOTION” BULLSHIT AND YOUR MEANINGLESS DEFINITIONS OF "PERFECTION". THE INITIAL ARGUMENT WAS YOURS, IT WAS MADE IN RELATION TO CREATIONISM AND YOURS IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

I made an initial assertion related to creationism? The only reason you're here is to defend the flaws of the universe!

DarkPrimus said:
" And I was thinking, and had an interesting realization. A perfect creator can only create perfect objects with perfect materials. No matter the skill of a craftsman, one can only do so much with flawed material."

...Oh, perhaps Darkprimus left that tidbit out? Pehaps he'll even neglect to copy it this time as well.

The burden of proof is on DP and his hired guns (you).

Curious how you avoid the mathematical proof as well.

If you fail to grasp elementary concepts, mathematics is not going to help you much.

Work is force applied over a distance (W=F*d). 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 F applied to the photon is given by Δp/t, or the square root of [(p3 - p1)^2 + (p4 - p2)^2]/t.

Thus work equals force times distance/time , the work applied to the photon is given by d*Δp/t != 0. Δp/t 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/t. 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.

Bullshit bolded. And I find it hilarious that you argue on the one hand that atoms are perpetual motion machines and on the other that they obey the laws of thermodynamics. Do make up your mind, now.

You've got your opinion, I've got my mathematical proof. So you assert that both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. I simply ask for the proof that any atomic process today will have diferent results in the future. Will diamonds eventually fail to refract photons? Will Hydrogen bonds become extinct? Provide your proof or evidence please.[/quote]

[Lord Zentei]

]As is your definition of IMPERFECT you sniveling tit. You've conceded that the FIRST law of thermodynamics is inescapable, thus NOTHING can be "destroyed."

HA HA HA HAAA!

Read the thread again this time with your pathetic excuse for a brain switched on. I was the one who brought up the First Law to demolish YOUR bullshit. I have conceded NOTHING.

What the hell is it about you cretins that makes you think you can just say things to make them so? Every now and again, people tend to ask for proof.

And your lack of comprehension and sophistry means that it has sailed by your head each and every time.

My claim is not initial, it is a rebuttal. My claim stands until proof is given that the work done by atomic conversion cannot be done for eternity and requires an outside energy source. Otherwise, educate us. Which law states all processes must have irretrievable loss?
Entropy? Nope. Only applies to closed systems. Is the universe closed? Nope. A. Try to prove it; B. Zero Point energy. Does it matter in a discussion about atomic systems? No. Yet another diversion.

You repeadedly accuse me of diversions, yet it is you who have misapplied physics concepts each and every time. By the way, nobody mentioned zero point energy before you did. Your yabbering about atomic processes requiring an "outside energy source" has been met with the invocation of the Second Law of thermodynamics.

And in case you were unaware of it: entropy is irreversible even for open systems. And incedentally, the Universe is a CLOSED system. Idiot.

Am I also the only one who is still looking for any statement that could be remotely interpreted as "all forms of energy that result from atomic processes have a 'purpose'"?

Yes.

Q: How long will an Oxygen-16 atom exist?
A: Eternity.

False. Protons are beleived to have a halflife. This is assuming that the O-16 atom isn't destroyed by powerful collisions previously.

Q: How many times can an Oxygen-16 atom "burn?"
A: Infinite.

It can burn ONCE, then you need to input energy into the system if you want it to do so again. No "perpetual motion" here.

Q: Will an Oxygen-16 atom degrade with age?
A: No.

See point regarding proton halflife.

Q: Can an Oxygen-16 atom ever be permanently destroyed?
A: No. The energy released can be recombined to reform the atom.

YES IT CAN, MORON. The energy released can be used to form just about anything. Counting a "reformed" atom as the same atom is sophistry. Incidentally, you will be faced with the Entropy here as well.

Oh, and nice evasion from "destroyed" to "destroyed permanently".

Yet your criteria for perfection is “obeys thermodynamics”. When it is pointed out that macrosystems also obey thermodynamics you state that the criteria for perfection is “obeys thermodynamics – PS: only applies to atoms”. Can’t you see that you are begging the question? And how the hell is “obeys thermodynamics” consistent with “is a perpetual motion machine”?

More properly, how is it inconsistent or even relevant. "Begging a question" and asking are two entirely different things. One implies your subjective interpretation of the proposal, the other is the argument itself. Do not assume any question in a scientific debate; they are all fallacious until rendered.

Sophistry and bullshit. How the hell is “obeys thermodynamics” consistent with “is a perpetual motion machine”?

No, what you pointed out is that processes in macrosystems never achieve 100% efficiency as defined by subjective valuation of the work derived. But the discrepancy of our interpretation of "loss" and the First Law, which essentially states that loss is impossible, lies in the syntax of the terminology.

I never mentioned "subjective" valuation of the work derived, tool. That was your nonsense attempt to make atomic processes excempt from waste, i.e. Entropy, which is implicit in the First Law. Entropy also applies to atomic processes. And it is ALWAYS irreversible, see Second Law.

My argument has been from the beginning that with the discovery of the First Law we have discovered that the "material of the universe" is indestructible. Our modern ho-hum treatment of the fact does not lessen the implications of a timeless, universally versatile and indestructible fabric.

Actually, I was the one who first invoked the First Law, to indicate to you that your argument was nonsense. And your initial argument concerned ATOMS, not the "material of the universe". And you have failed to reconcile the argument that "First Law applies, therefore the material of the Universe is perfect" with "atoms are perpetual motion machines, therefore they are perfect". In case you didn't know, perpetual motion machines break the laws of thermodynamics by definition.

Which is more than can be said for you, sadly enough. Apparently you don’t do too well with irony either.

...But he can't be taught the double standard of defining efficiency in regard to "human usability" while not defining the system as "human centric"

What manner of bullfuckery is this? The efficiency of a process has nothing to do with whether or not it is "human centric".

What has that to do with perpetual motion? You switch between that asinine position to “obeys thermodynamics, therefore it is perfect” at the drop of a hat it seems. In addition, what you yet fail to grasp is that macrosytems – including man made ones - ALSO obey thermodynamics, so presumably they would be “perfect” too.

They are perfect if we detach the efficiency derivation from the intended purpose of the system, which all human-designed or human-interpreted systems do have.

And that is cyclic logic. Efficiency is NOT simply applied to human designed systems. "They are perfect if we don't count effeciency", yeah right.

I made an initial assertion related to creationism? The only reason you're here is to defend the flaws of the universe!

DarkPrimus said:
" And I was thinking, and had an interesting realization. A perfect creator can only create perfect objects with perfect materials. No matter the skill of a craftsman, one can only do so much with flawed material."

...Oh, perhaps Darkprimus left that tidbit out? Pehaps he'll even neglect to copy it this time as well.

The burden of proof is on DP and his hired guns (you).

No. My purpose here is to demolish youur foolish claim that atoms are perpetual motion machines, and to point out that your definitions of "perfection" are meaningless. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bullshit bolded. And I find it hilarious that you argue on the one hand that atoms are perpetual motion machines and on the other that they obey the laws of thermodynamics. Do make up your mind, now.

You've got your opinion, I've got my mathematical proof.

You have no mathematical proof. Your "proof" was flawed and I pointed it out to you. Typically, you ignore this. I'll give you a hint: there is this little thing called "the Law of the Conservation of Momentum", and it implies that the refractor gains momentum equal and opposite to that of the refracted photon.

So you assert that both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on.

It is called "Entropy".

I simply ask for the proof that any atomic process today will have diferent results in the future.

Strawman.

Will diamonds eventually fail to refract photons? Will Hydrogen bonds become extinct? Provide your proof or evidence please.

I have never claimed any of these things. You are a fine one to accuse others of strawan fallacies. My argument was one that regarded Entropy, not that atomic bonds would function differently at a future point. Here is a compatriot who words it thusly:

The whole discussion is inane.
If an photon interacts with an atom there is always a non-vanishing probability that one of the following events occur:
- pair creation
- gamma ray induced fission of the atom
- excitation of the atom into an higher state, then falling back to the ground state by emission of several low energetic photons
and so on
Remember that in the real world photons are always in a superposition of energy eigentstates, with a non-vanishing coefficient for energy values smaller then infinity.

Refraction is just one of the possible processess, so any atom refracts photons with less then 100% efficency.

Perhaps this wording is more clear to you?

[Darth Wong]

This "Vogon Poet" moron is why I wish there was a way to restrict science-related postings on the Internet to people who have at least a modicum of education in the subject (the kind you get in a large building called a "university", not the kind you get from Googling).

[Lord Zentei]

Unfortunately, he is not only ignorant, but dishonest as well.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Unfortunately, he is not only ignorant, but dishonest as well.

Well, of course. In another thread, he asserts that evolution says where life comes from (after I said it did not), because it asserts common descent. I point out that it has nothing to do with where the first life form came from, and then he turns around and says "WHERE DOES ID SAY THAT LIFE COMES FROM GOD, OR VISHNU, etc?", ignoring the fact that ID by definition proclaims that life originiated from SOME sort of higher power, and so it makes the assertion of where life came from.

[Lord Zentei]

Unfortunately, he is not only ignorant, but dishonest as well.

Well, of course. In another thread, he asserts that evolution says where life comes from (after I said it did not), because it asserts common descent. I point out that it has nothing to do with where the first life form came from, and then he turns around and says "WHERE DOES ID SAY THAT LIFE COMES FROM GOD, OR VISHNU, etc?", ignoring the fact that ID by definition proclaims that life originiated from SOME sort of higher power, and so it makes the assertion of where life came from.

Good grief. What board is this happening on, anyway?

[Zero]

Unfortunately, he is not only ignorant, but dishonest as well.

Well, of course. In another thread, he asserts that evolution says where life comes from (after I said it did not), because it asserts common descent. I point out that it has nothing to do with where the first life form came from, and then he turns around and says "WHERE DOES ID SAY THAT LIFE COMES FROM GOD, OR VISHNU, etc?", ignoring the fact that ID by definition proclaims that life originiated from SOME sort of higher power, and so it makes the assertion of where life came from.

Abiogenesis isn't really part of evolutionary theory, although when arguing with fucktards, abiogenesis will come up, as they'll always have something to say about how life can't come from nothing. I aint so sure about this, but aren't we pretty certain that evolution and all that began with a self-replicating molecule, often thought to be a primative RNA molecule? They always try to bring in probabilities reguarding the spontaenous formation of single celled life to combat evolution... is there any kind of probability that can be associated with spontaneous formations of some kind of self-replicating molecule? This is probably off topic of this thread, but I've always wondered what the actual probabilities may be..