Religious

[Marshall Bennett]

Krauss claims religion and science cannot co-exist, and that's where he loses my interest with him. He exerts a lot of energy damning religion so that his own theories and agenda appeal more to himself and his audience.
He's a brilliant man, but he allows this intense obsession make it all a waste in my opinion.

[classhandicapper]

This thread should be turned into a Seinfeld episode.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by zico20

The total energy of an isolated system is constant, energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

That's the Law of Conservation of Energy, not the First Law of Thermodynamics.

What about E = mc^2 ?

[zico20]

Originally Posted by Actor

That's the Law of Conservation of Energy, not the First Law of Thermodynamics.

What about E = mc^2 ?

The first law obeys the principle of conservation of energy, which cannot be created or destroyed.

[snickster]

E=mc2 implies that matter/mass is energy. Therefore the destruction of matter/mass (frozen energy) creates energy un-frozen like a lot of heat and pressure energy. Like a mushroom cloud of pressure and heat from the disappearance of mass/matter. lol.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by zico20

The first law obeys the principle of conservation of energy, which cannot be created or destroyed.

Correct. But the Law of Conservation of Energy is not the same as the First Law of Thermodynamics. Obviously both laws must "obey" each other, but beyond that, what is the First Law of Thermodynamics?

For that matter there are four laws of thermodynamics. Can you state all four?

And you still have not answered "what about E = mc^2 ?"

[zico20]

Originally Posted by Actor

Correct. But the Law of Conservation of Energy is not the same as the First Law of Thermodynamics. Obviously both laws must "obey" each other, but beyond that, what is the First Law of Thermodynamics?

For that matter there are four laws of thermodynamics. Can you state all four?

And you still have not answered "what about E = mc^2 ?"

In college I had to learn all four. But the 3rd and 4th are irrelevant to me. And I don't profess to know or care.

The first deals with the conservation of energy.
The second deals with entropy increasing but never can be negative.

E=mc^2 deals with mass-energy

I was a history major in college, the only thing I liked about science in college was anthropology, archaeology, and astronomy.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, when your mom was pregnant with you, she was expecting you to what...to come out of her past. But if you were in her past, then you had already been born.

In the beginning of all things -- the moment the cosmic clock started ticking, Mr. Hank -- there was NO Past. Time "flowed" from the fountain called the Future.

Sure Boxie what ever you say.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by zico20

In college I had to learn all four. But the 3rd and 4th are irrelevant to me. And I don't profess to know or care. The first deals with the conservation of energy.

True, but it deals with more than that, otherwise why have it? Why not just use the Law of Conservation of Energy?

Furthermore, the first law can be mathematically stated as

dE = dQ - dW

where dE is the change in the internal energy of the system, dQ is the amount of energy entering the system, and dW is the amount of energy leaving the system. It clearly deals with energy crossing the boundary of the system (i.e., it does not deal with an isolated system) so why does the conservation of energy even apply?

Originally Posted by zico20

The second deals with entropy increasing but never can be negative.

If memory serves entropy is defined by

S = kΣ p[n]ln(p[n])

with the summation being over all possible values of n. k is Boltzman's constant p[n] is the probability that the system is in state n, and ln is the natural logarithm. So, why can't S be negative?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by zico20

There you guys go again. There is not one shred of evidence that matter and energy were present before the singularity known as the Big Bang.

General relativity predicts that the singularity would have an event horizon just like a black hole. Time stops at an event horizon. It does not exist. Therefore the phrase "before the singularity known as the Big Bang" is meaningless. There simply cannot be a "before time began".

This means that time had no beginning. Time is an open ended set. There are an infinite number of instants of time that precede any given instant in time but all instants in time come after the beginning of time. There is no instant in time corresponding to the beginning of time. All events come after the beginning of time.

In effect this means that anything that has existed since the big bang has existed for eternity. The universe has existed since the big bang therefore the universe has existed for eternity.

This also means that the universe did not need a cause. Time slows down as you run the clock backwards toward the big bang. You are always getting closer to it but you approach it asymptotically, never reaching it.

[classhandicapper]

I suspect that debating this is futile because 99.99999% of everything about the universe is probably outside the range humanity. Our position of understanding the universe is probably around the equivalent of a chimp's understanding of our mathematics. That doesn't mean we should stop trying, but I do think it means when forming our views we probability have a better chance of intuiting reality than calculating it at this stage.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Hank

Sure Boxie what ever you say.

Not only that... ut if time flows out of the Past then we would have knowledge of the Future just the way we do of the Past. Maybe you'd like to share with us who has won each of the 8 races today at the Big A before the 1st one goes off at 1:20 P.M.? That would convince me that the Future flows from the Past. In fact, I'd greatly appreciate if you would also do that for GP, OP, TP, TAM and SA. Should be a be a piece of cake for you to reveal to us the history of those races before they are run.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Not only that... utif time flows out of the Past then we would have knowledge of the Future just the way we do of the Past. Maybe you'd like to share with us who has won each of the 8 races today at the Big A before the 1st one goes off at 1:20 P.M.? That would convince me that the Future flows from the Past. In fact, I'd greatly appreciate if you would also do that for GP, OP, TP, TAM and SA. Should be a be a piece of cake for you to reveal to us the history of those races before they are run.

YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

I have asked you over and over again to post your selections because you have repeatedly claimed the future comes BEFORE the present and the past. Therefore accordingly in your backwards time arrow universe you should know what will happen. Now you want others who maintain the future cannot be known because it has yet to happen somehow SHOULD know the outcome of future horse races?

Methinks Shirley your elevator does not go much above the basement level
The Urban Dictionary describe your lame reply....

"I know you are, but what am I?"
It's quite simply the most retarded comeback someone makes when they've completely lost the argument. This statement signifies that the argument has gone to a completely immature level. Below is a hardcore argument starting with the immature statement

[zico20]

Originally Posted by Actor

General relativity predicts that the singularity would have an event horizon just like a black hole. Time stops at an event horizon. It does not exist. Therefore the phrase "before the singularity known as the Big Bang" is meaningless. There simply cannot be a "before time began".

This means that time had no beginning. Time is an open ended set. There are an infinite number of instants of time that precede any given instant in time but all instants in time come after the beginning of time. There is no instant in time corresponding to the beginning of time. All events come after the beginning of time.

In effect this means that anything that has existed since the big bang has existed for eternity. The universe has existed since the big bang therefore the universe has existed for eternity.

This also means that the universe did not need a cause. Time slows down as you run the clock backwards toward the big bang. You are always getting closer to it but you approach it asymptotically, never reaching it.

Wow, straight from the atheist playbook. I would expect no less from you. Every atheist plays from the same deck of cards. You should really get off of atheist web sites and study science. Your Newtonian view is also so outdated.

Space and time were created from the Big Bang. This is accepted science from every objective person. Time before time is a mental construction only, a product of the imagination. Time cannot exist apart from events. Time is man made.

The Universe is not eternal and yes it did need a cause. That is obvious to every rational thinker. The cause is God. The BVG Theorem proves the Universe had a beginning. If there was no Universe how would you measure time?

The Universe came into existence, as did time and space. Atheists' really need to start understanding science and put away the Richard and Lawrence atheist playbook.

BTW, how much does that playbook cost? Does it come in a condensed, pocket sized version. We know it exists, because every atheist uses the exact same outdated arguments. Does Richard and Lawrence have a 1-800 hotline for you guys to call when you get in a bind?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by zico20

The Universe is not eternal and yes it did need a cause. That is obvious to every rational thinker. The cause is God.

Why can't the cause be something other than God?

It makes no intuitive sense to me that our physical universe was anything other than created, but I see no reason there can't be something outside the physical universe that we can't see, hear, taste, feel, smell, comprehend, measure, understand etc..where creating something from nothing makes perfect sense without it being God.