Physics Stupidity Hurts My Mind

[DPDarkPrimus]

This guy just won't listen to what's being said...

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.

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

Bullshit, atoms are destructible....

CONSERVATION OF ENERGY ALWAYS APPLIES!

Oops! Someone forgot their memantine!
Nothing can be destroyed. Idiot.

Stands. Prove the bullshit that follows.

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.

Which in no way relates to this discussion. "Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out". So the only reason we have to believe atoms can't function forever is not because of evidence, but because of this doctrine? Your religion has no meaning here. You have grossly missapplied physics concepts in a circular fallacy.

"A closed system is self-contained: outside events are separated from the system. The total energy of the system stays the same; there is no input or output of energy, just transferrence within."

Well, the Casimir effect is an observable instance of energy added from outside the system. Nope, looks like you're an asshat after all

Well I guess we know where your faith lies; a finite universe! "What I can't see doesn't exist", eh? Grow the fuck up and leave you bible at home when attempting scientific discourse.

Sorry, no creationism there! Just your egomaniacal projections!

Purpose: n. What something is used for; function.

Worldnet Dictionary 2.0. Princeton Press.

Example 1:
Offler, Christina E. TRANSFER CELLS: Cells Specialized for a Special Purpose.
Annual Review of Plant Biology 54 431-44

Example 2: "Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant purpose as a part of the body's immune system"

N. ROBERTS, LONDON. Does the appendix serve a purpose in any animal? Scientific American 285 no5 96 N 2001

Your head is believed to be vacant. My factoid has more relevance. Your beliefs have no evidenciary support, your assumptions have no relevance. Atoms are eternal. Radioisotopes decay.

Straw man #2,167. Never was the chemical process of oxidation called perpetual motion. The O-16 atom itself can oxidize and reduce alternately for infinity without degrading in performance. Likewise, the atom can perform any other catalytic reaction and it's reversal reaction infinitely without degrading.

See point regarding unsubstantiated personal beliefs in scientific discourse.

And according to the First law nothing can be lost. What is sophistry is your assumption that converting energy forms violates the first law and destroys something. Is the convertible sofa you'll be sleeping on because you're an idiot destroyed when you convert it into a bed?

The First Law of Thermodynamics, already quoted more than enough for the a retard to grasp clearly states that energy can NOT be destroyed, and special relativity related mass and energy as interchangable; ergo matter CAN NOT BE DESTROYED!

There is only ONE kind of destroyed in thermodynamics; the only one I have ever referred to except when paraphrasing your mindless drivel.

False. "Obeys thermodynamics without exception" is perfection. All things imperfect will have exceptions. All things perfect lack exceptions. A perfect circle has an exact radius without exception at any point. A perfect material complies with a specification without exception, etc.

How the hell should I know? You made it up! My perpetual motion is the definition you first provided, and I gave mathematical proof of.

You are confused. The second law properly states that when energy is converted some will be dispersed into other forms. "Waste" can never be an objective term unless it is used to mean "To destroy completely," which would violate the first law. Waste in the context of efficiency is always something that escapes without being used, and is therefore always subjective to the intent of the process being observed. Subjective valuation of the work derived.

Were this true then your argument becomes something does not exist for the simple reason that a postulate fails to predict it. Dogma. Yet mathematically it is easy to see that work is performed without application of external energy and without producing waste in every conversion process which obeys the first law when subjective interpretation is removed from the analysis.

It's the bullfuckery that proves efficiency is inescapably subjective because "work delivered" will be determined relative to the human-assigned intent of the process being observed.

If by "demolish" you mean state your opinion about proton half-lives and offer up amphibolous definitions of physics terms then you have succeeded. But for the purposes of destroying a fact-based argument your effort is wanting.

But the definitions of perfect are logically analogous to the initial assertion of flawed material, which is the whole purpose of this debate: the perfectio/imperfection of the material of the universe. If you aregue that the material - or atoms - of the universe are not perfect, then you must be defending the initial assertion of a flawed material.

But the scalar magnitude of the photon momentum is the same before and after the process thus the magnitude of momentum gained by the refractor is zero.

Then all processes will operate exactly the same for infinity given the evidence.

Perhaps it is, but aren't such events corollary to entropy? If such were the case there would be an argument for "flawed material" but the claim cannot stand without evidence even if a postulate predicts it.

I have always understood that the arbitrary collision of a photon with an atom had a probability of serveral interactions. But the probability exists in each isolated instance due to the nature of the collision not the efficiency of the process. Squirting gas at the side of your car will yield very poor fuel efficiency, but neglecting the spillage isolates the system in question from other systems such as the retarded gas attendant.

[Lord Zentei]

<snip reams upon reams of idiotic word games, outright lies, disingenious sophistry and general bullshit>

OK, seeing that you are adept at avoiding the crux of the issue while spewing tons of lies, ignoring points, and claiming that your bullshit holds the status of proof I'll simply put these points to you directly:

1) Explain how your claim of atoms being "perpetual motion machines" is consistent with your acceptance of the laws of thermodynamics when perpetual motion breaks the laws of thermodynamics by definition.

2) Explain how your idiotic mechanism for refraction generating perpetual energy can work given the law of conservation of momentum.

3) Explain how the statement "nothing can be destroyed" is the equivalent of conservation of energy.

4) Explain how your bullshit regarding the Casimir Effect has anything to do with the issue at hand and how this causes the Universe to become an open system, since the virtual particles that generate said effect are originated inside the system.

5) Explain how the Universe must be finite for it to be a closed closed system.

6) Explain how proton half-life is my "personal beleif".

7) Explain how it is meaningful to speak of the efficiency of atomic processes when you are explicitly discounting waste.

Explain how you seek to make atomic processes excempt from the Second Law.

[Max]

I don't mean to segue or anything, but I didn't want to start a completely new thread. I was hoping some of you could help me out, as it's physics related, and I'm not to adept at the subject.

I told someone on another board that it's impossible for a being to exist outside of space/time. I tried to use the little knowledge that I have to explain why. However, I got this reply.

By regular definitions of existence (which you've alluded to) you're right. But you can't say that merely due to the fact that there's no way to test that. Since we have no way to exclude ourselves from time or space, that's untestable obviously. It being untestable doesn't mean that it's not true, but that also means that it's not necessarily false. To make such an absolute statement is to claim to a certain degree that you know everything, because that would be the only way to say that for sure.

[Lord Zentei]

I don't mean to segue or anything, but I didn't want to start a completely new thread. I was hoping some of you could help me out, as it's physics related, and I'm not to adept at the subject.

I told someone on another board that it's impossible for a being to exist outside of space/time. I tried to use the little knowledge that I have to explain why. However, I got this reply.

By regular definitions of existence (which you've alluded to) you're right. But you can't say that merely due to the fact that there's no way to test that. Since we have no way to exclude ourselves from time or space, that's untestable obviously. It being untestable doesn't mean that it's not true, but that also means that it's not necessarily false. To make such an absolute statement is to claim to a certain degree that you know everything, because that would be the only way to say that for sure.

If he wants to claim that existance outside of time and space is possible or meaningful in any regard, let him put up or shut up. Burden of proof is on the claimant, as ever.

[Max]

Wouldn't the burden of proof be on me for implying that no being can exist outside of space/time?

[Zero]

Just tell him that absolutely all things that we know exist within space and time, and it's the best assumption that there exists no such being. If you say that it might exist, then I can say that there's an invisible non-corporeal being living in my fat ass. It's useless to say that something might exist outside of spacetime as spacetime is reality as we know it. Just tell him that existance includes what's inside our little bubble of spacetime, and until there's any evidence at all that makes us believe something's outside of it, nothing is.

[Lord Zentei]

Wouldn't the burden of proof be on me for implying that no being can exist outside of space/time?

No. You are asserting the negative.

[Max]

Ok, so could someone help me with being a little more detailed with "nothing exists outside of space/time?" I tried to explain it, but he came back with:

[QUOTE=asshat, I hate him]But it's still an assumption. And assumptions aren't a scientific way of dealing with things.[/quote]

[Max]

sorry... forgot to add this:

Actually you still didn't answer his question. It was how did life come about, not the universe, or amino acids. And Heinekin's right, the theory of evolution (or any scientific theory on how life came about on earth) has yet to be PROVEN. That's why it's a theory. In fact more and more of the scientific community (religious and secular) is finding problems with the theory of evolution because it has so many holes in it. I'm not saying they're defecting to creationism, I'm just saying their acknowledging the problems with the theory.

Widely accepted is not proven. Widely accepted still means there are plenty of people who have doubts and may not agree. Widely accepted does not make something fact. It was widely accepted that the earth was flat because that's the best hypothesis they could come up with with their technology. Today's widely accepted is tomorrow's scientific laughingstock. Until it's proven as FACT, it shouldn't be argued as such.

[Zero]

To the first: Einstein's theory of gravitation is a theory too. Theory, in scientific terms, usually means it's pretty much proven. As for how life began... it was amino acids, in a chance reaction that produced something that was likely very similar to a primitive RNA molecule, something that would self-replicate. With each replication, there's a chance of a screwup, of mutation. Add on enough time and mutations, and you have single cells. More time, and you get organisms. Enough time, adn you get organisms with an organ to time muscle contractions based on outside stimulai. More time still, and you have creatures using this organ to reason out the reason for their own existance. Interesting, eh?

As for the second... it was not widely accepted among scholars that the world was flat, pretty much ever. Scholars have known for quite a time that the world was round. It was the average uneducated man who didn't know that the world was round, and in the middle ages, this was almost everyone, including, often, the nobility. Actually, there was even a rough estimate on the size of the world, based on the difference between the size of shadows at different lattitudes. So that's crap. And dude, almost NOTHING is proven as fact. There's a certain amount of assumption made in everything. 4+3=7 assumes the value of 4, 3, 7, and the purpose of the marks + and =. Anything we learn about the world is based upon the assumption that our senses don't decieve us, that the world around us is real. These are logical assumptions, as we simply have nothing else to go on. It's also a logical assumption to assume that something doesn't exist, until there's actually a reason to think it exists. If we don't make such assumptions, then anything could be considered scientifically feasable. We might still believe that God created lightning and disease if we made such assumptions.

[Thinkmarble]

Actually you still didn't answer his question. It was how did life come about, not the universe, or amino acids. And Heinekin's right, the theory of evolution (or any scientific theory on how life came about on earth) has yet to be PROVEN. That's why it's a theory.

Evolution is a fact. Speciation events as well as change in gene frequency have been observed aplenty in the fossil records, in the laboratory and last but not least in nature.
The theory of evolution explains they why and hows of observations and facts.
Claiming that evolution is not a fact because the theory of evolution is not a proven is like claiming that gravity is not fact because the general theory of relativity is not proven.
Incidently a theory can not proven, but only falsified and is always tentative (in fact nothing can be proven, but things can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that's what a theory is).
This is true for the theories we use to build houses, air planes and nuclear weapons.

In fact more and more of the scientific community (religious and secular) is finding problems with the theory of evolution because it has so many holes in it.
I'm not saying they're defecting to creationism, I'm just saying their acknowledging the problems with the theory.

Guess what scientists do, they do research, the improve upon our knowledge and correct misconceptions.
Since the time of Darwin we have learned quite a bit and accordingly the theory of evolution has changed.
The discovery of the DNA, population dynamics, the works, the discussion about punctuated equilibrium.
But all these advancements are raised upon the bedrock of the understanding that evolution takes place.
In physics we went from the "everything clestials moves in circles because circles are perfect" to the Newtonian theory of gravity to the general theory of relativity.
At no point the notion was rejected that objects actually fall to the ground, just the whys and hows were improved upon.
Claiming that because there do exists problems in evolutionary theory evolution is to be rejected or to be doubted is as silly as claiming that because there are conceptual problems between GTR and QXD we have to reject the notion that objects fall to the ground.

I have always understood that the arbitrary collision of a photon with an atom had a probability of serveral interactions. But the probability exists in each isolated instance due to the nature of the collision not the efficiency of the process.

The nature of the collision determines the efficiency of the process.
What else could ?

Squirting gas at the side of your car will yield very poor fuel efficiency, but neglecting the spillage isolates the system in question from other systems such as the retarded gas attendant.

*amused*
So god is now an retarded gas attendant.
The things you learn.
*/amused*

If you want to know what the efficiency is of the process of filling up the tank of the car eliminating the retarded gas attendant who is part of the system only screws the conclusions.

You have on operator describing the whole system (including the interaction).
You have on inital state.
You have one finial state.
Developing the finial state into an superposition of eigenstates of the Hamiltonoperator, identifying all eigenstates representing an refraction and then summing up over the modulus of their coefficients gives an result of less then 1.
Which means that the atom has an effiency of less then 100% when refracting photons.

Everything else is just bullshitting.
You can`t point to one single part and go: see this is where the ineffiency comes from, because there are not single parts.
There is one operator,
there is one initial state,
there is one finial state,
and the moment where you talk about the real world,
about physical operators,
about physical states
your efficency drops below one.

As an aside, the fact that the conversion of parity is violated shows that the building blocks of our universe are flawed and from that it follows that god does not exist.

[Lord Zentei]

Ok, so could someone help me with being a little more detailed with "nothing exists outside of space/time?" I tried to explain it, but he came back with:

But it's still an assumption. And assumptions aren't a scientific way of dealing with things.

If he means that is is "just an assumption" that nothing exists outside of space and time, and that it is unscientific to do so, then he is a moron who wouldn't know science and logic if it bit him in the ass. The thing is you are NOT making an assumption if you don't acnowledge anything outside of spacetime.

This is similar to the typical fundie bullshit with regards to atheism vs agnosticism: they assume that saying "I don't think that there is anything beyond spacetime" is a posetive statement of beleif akin to "I beleive that there is a invisible dragon in my garage". It isn't. It is simply a healthy skepticism not to beleive anything and everything that is suggested to you without evidence, since there is literally an infinite number of nonsense beleifs that you could swallow whole if you didn't demand some kind of proof, or at least credible and/or verifiable testimonial.

Science is about those things for which there is evidence and which you can formulate theories about it's nature and models describing it's behaviour. Since we have no evidence for anything outside of spacetime it is a waste of effort to speculate about it from a scientific standpoint: we might as well start discussing invisible leprechauns and their dietary habits, with about as much useful result.

IF we ever obtain verifiable evidence that there is something outside of space and time, then the situation changes completely, of course. In that hypothetical scenario, this thing - whatever it is - would become a valid subject for science. Until then, it is a subject for fantasy alone. If this person wishes to convince people that there are things outside of space and time (or that there is an invisible dragon in his garage, or whatever), then it is he that needs to do the convincing, not the reverse.

[DPDarkPrimus]

It was so long since he replied, I hoped that he had slithered off to die...

No such luck. Notice he doesn't actually answer the questions.

OK, seeing that you are adept at avoiding the crux of the issue while spewing tons of lies, ignoring points, and claiming that your bullshit holds the status of proof I'll simply put these points to you directly:

1) Explain how your claim of atoms being "perpetual motion machines" is consistent with your acceptance of the laws of thermodynamics when perpetual motion breaks the laws of thermodynamics by definition.

Sure. After you cite a reputable publication where this definition exists.

2) Explain how your idiotic mechanism for refraction generating perpetual energy can work given the law of conservation of momentum.

Already proven mathematically. Momentum conservation is the proof that no energy is transferred to the refractor. And no, you've never ever addressed the mathematical proof.

3) Explain how the statement "nothing can be destroyed" is the equivalent of conservation of energy.

Surely by now you are the only one following this who hasn't seen it a dozen times already, but:
Energy cannot be destroyed as the very definition of the law of conservation. Matter is interchangable with energy through special relativity, and thus cannot be destroyed. We're talking about 8th grade science here. I hope that's not an indication of who I'm dealing with.

4) Explain how your bullshit regarding the Casimir Effect has anything to do with the issue at hand and how this causes the Universe to become an open system, since the virtual particles that generate said effect are originated inside the system.

Impetuous fucking dolt! Originate inside the system?!?!? You can't find even ONE SINGLE SOURCE that agrees with your utter bullshit! They come from nothing, and return to nothing. The ONLY theory offered with any credibility is Hawking who suggests they are particles in quantum leaps through time. The FUTURE is not in this system, nor is the past. If they were then all energies and matter would be INFINITE by definition.

5) Explain how the Universe must be finite for it to be a closed closed system.

This requires calculus which would be wasted on you, as obviated by your avoidance of the conservation of momentum proof.

6) Explain how proton half-life is my "personal belief".

Do you hear any other people advocating it?

7) Explain how it is meaningful to speak of the efficiency of atomic processes when you are explicitly discounting waste.

For the thousandth time because WASTE IS A RELATIVE TERM. Oxegen "wasted" in photosynthesis is critical to CO2 producing animals, which is critical to the biota, which is critical to plants, which is critical to photosynthesis on the larger scale. "Waste" can never be an objective term unless it is irretrievable and affects nothing through its production or destruction.

Explain how you seek to make atomic processes excempt from the Second Law.

They spontaneously tend to diffuse energies as a collective, but obviously preserve everything according to the first law.

Why don't you ever cite anything? How can you even hope to convince us of these "flaws" in the universe by pulling factoids and dogma out of your ass?

[Zero]

Isn't his talk about mathematical crap BS? Hadn't we already said that science was based on empirical evidence, not math?

[Lord Zentei]

OK, seeing that you are adept at avoiding the crux of the issue while spewing tons of lies, ignoring points, and claiming that your bullshit holds the status of proof I'll simply put these points to you directly:

1) Explain how your claim of atoms being "perpetual motion machines" is consistent with your acceptance of the laws of thermodynamics when perpetual motion breaks the laws of thermodynamics by definition.

Sure. After you cite a reputable publication where this definition exists.

A perpetual motion machine is a machine that can do work indefinately without external energy. This violates the first law. So: Explain how your claim of atoms being "perpetual motion machines" is consistent with your acceptance of the laws of thermodynamics when perpetual motion breaks the laws of thermodynamics by definition.

2) Explain how your idiotic mechanism for refraction generating perpetual energy can work given the law of conservation of momentum.

Already proven mathematically. Momentum conservation is the proof that no energy is transferred to the refractor. And no, you've never ever addressed the mathematical proof.

Lies. I did indeed adress your "proof", and you explicitly FAILED to employ momentum conservation. I pointed this out to you as the flaw in your bullshit "proof". So: Explain how your idiotic mechanism for refraction generating perpetual energy can work given the law of conservation of momentum.

3) Explain how the statement "nothing can be destroyed" is the equivalent of conservation of energy.

Surely by now you are the only one following this who hasn't seen it a dozen times already, but: Energy cannot be destroyed as the very definition of the law of conservation. Matter is interchangable with energy through special relativity, and thus cannot be destroyed. We're talking about 8th grade science here. I hope that's not an indication of who I'm dealing with.

You are an idiot. The fact that we have conservation of energy does not mean that "nothing can be destroyed". This is disingenious sophistry. Here's a suggestion: put a bullet through your worthless skull. According to your nonsense, you will not be destroyed.

4) Explain how your bullshit regarding the Casimir Effect has anything to do with the issue at hand and how this causes the Universe to become an open system, since the virtual particles that generate said effect are originated inside the system.

Impetuous fucking dolt! Originate inside the system?!?!? You can't find even ONE SINGLE SOURCE that agrees with your utter bullshit! They come from nothing, and return to nothing. The ONLY theory offered with any credibility is Hawking who suggests they are particles in quantum leaps through time. The FUTURE is not in this system, nor is the past. If they were then all energies and matter would be INFINITE by definition.

Hoo-boy. You really are smoking it.

5) Explain how the Universe must be finite for it to be a closed closed system.

This requires calculus which would be wasted on you, as obviated by your avoidance of the conservation of momentum proof.

I was the one who first invoked the Conservation of Momentum, not you., just as it was I who first invoked the Laws of Thermodynamics. And you failed to answer the fucking question. Explain how the Universe must be finite for it to be a closed closed system.

6) Explain how proton half-life is my "personal belief".

Do you hear any other people advocating it?

Do your fucking homework.

7) Explain how it is meaningful to speak of the efficiency of atomic processes when you are explicitly discounting waste.

For the thousandth time because WASTE IS A RELATIVE TERM. Oxegen "wasted" in photosynthesis is critical to CO2 producing animals, which is critical to the biota, which is critical to plants, which is critical to photosynthesis on the larger scale. "Waste" can never be an objective term unless it is irretrievable and affects nothing through its production or destruction.

No. Waste is NOT a relative term, when one refers to the Entropy. So: Explain how it is meaningful to speak of the efficiency of atomic processes when you are explicitly discounting waste.

Explain how you seek to make atomic processes excempt from the Second Law.

They spontaneously tend to diffuse energies as a collective, but obviously preserve everything according to the first law.

I did not ask about their behaviour as a collective nor did I ask about the first law. Answer the fucking question: Explain how you seek to make atomic processes excempt from the Second Law.

Why don't you ever cite anything? How can you even hope to convince us of these "flaws" in the universe by pulling factoids and dogma out of your ass?

Strawman. I am NOT attempting to convince anyone of anything other than your "perfection" and "perpetual motion" arguments are bullshit.

[Lord Zentei]

Note to DPDarkPrimus:

Though it appears that I posted the same post twice, there are errors in the first one. Use the second one, i.e. the one directly above this post, the one where #8 reads:

I did not ask about their behaviour as a collective nor did I ask about the first law. Answer the fucking question: Explain how you seek to make atomic processes excempt from the Second Law.

Rather than:

I did not ask about their behaviour as a collective nor did I ask about the second law. Answer the fucking question: Explain how you seek to make atomic processes excempt from the Second Law.

There is one other change a bit higher up too.

[Lord Zentei]

Note to DPDarkPrimus:

Though it appears that I posted the same post twice, there are errors in the first one. Use the second one, i.e. the one directly above this post, the one where #8 reads:

I did not ask about their behaviour as a collective nor did I ask about the first law. Answer the fucking question: Explain how you seek to make atomic processes excempt from the Second Law.

Rather than:

I did not ask about their behaviour as a collective nor did I ask about the second law. Answer the fucking question: Explain how you seek to make atomic processes excempt from the Second Law.

There is one other change a bit higher up too.

Nevermind, Alyeska fixed it. (thanks, Aly)

[Zero]

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Proton_decay

Here's a quick example of an outside source on proton decay. It isn't anybody's personal opinion, and this guy's a douche.

[Lord Zentei]

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Proton_decay

Here's a quick example of an outside source on proton decay. It isn't anybody's personal opinion, and this guy's a douche.

Cool. Though if he had more than half a brain, he would have realized that by now and cut his losses. How much do you want to bet that he will somehow try to spin proton decay into a core element of his arguments claiming that I was strawmanning him previously?

Isn't his talk about mathematical crap BS? Hadn't we already said that science was based on empirical evidence, not math?

You can demonstrate things mathematically, but then you are either using existing theory (to solve problems), or you are creating a new hypothesis which then needs to be verified empirically, or you are bullshitting. Guess which applies to VP.

Also, note how he tries to claim the arguments made against him as his own: when I mentioned the Laws of Thermodynamics he started talking about them as though they had been integral to his argument all along, when I used the Conservation of Momentum to refute his bullshit "proof" he calls it the "conservation of momentum" proof as though conservation of momentum were a central part of that rubbish all along. He uses subjective definitions of key concepts and thinks he can demonstrate something with them, shouting "strawman, strawman" when it is pointed out to him that this doesn't add up.

[Zero]

Does this guy have any idea about the fact that any unstable system will decay until it is stable? I mean, this is the only reason that things seem perfect, but it's true of any system at all. Any unstable system will change until it's stable.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Zero, many thanks. I've posted your quick addition as well as Zentai's post.