Celtic Heroes

First law of thermodynamics...

Mass is a measurement of matter. Matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, only transformed to other forms of matter and energy.

Dark matter/energy, antimatter, etc are highly theoretical and, therefore, should be excluded as hard evidence for discussion.

With that said, where is this discussion heading? Lol

Not sure what you are meaning but the first law of thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy. Because energy is conserved, the internal energy of a system changes as heat flows in or out of it.

Antimatter is anything but theoretical. You may want to look up what a PET scanner does or what particles they are measuring over at CERN.

Dark matter is observable through gravitational influence and there is just as much evidence for it as black holes. You can see that stars orbit nearly an order of magnidude too fast for the gravity that astronomers can account for in galaxies. Gravitational lensing is where massive structures like galaxies bend the light behind them and again there is way more bending than is accountable for. Look up the bullet cluster for a third type of evidence. It is so overwhelming that the only deniers are laypeople with no understanding of high school physics. Something is creating that gravational effect.

Finally there is pretty good evidence for dark energy as well. Most of the evidence is based of the rate of change of the size of the universe at different periods in time. Supernovas as well as some other methods have been used to measure this. Additionally there is evidence in the cosmic microwave background. So manny different approaches lead to the same conclusion - that the universe expansion is accelerating. When I was in high school there were three different hypothesis for the expanding universe - it would fall back in on itself - it would expand to a specific size asymptotically - or expand forever at an ever slower rate. For all of these there was little evidence measured but they were good extrapolations from known data. The scientists that discovered this were the first ones to actually take the data. It is now widely accepted by all physicists.

I disagree, there is far more evidence for black holes because we just understand them better, we know what dark matter is but we can't categorise it, is It a quake? Is it a lepton? Is it a boson? We just don't know. Whereas we understand that a black hole is a large amount of mass squashed to a tiny size, and contrary to popular belief, anything can become a black hole, if I squash you small enough to a singularity, your gravitational pull would be so strong light couldnt escape

Over the past century, black holes have gone from mathematical curiosity's to real time objects in the cosmos.
Seemingly crucial to the formation of galaxies.









Cool song: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7e5-0t0pTF0

First law of thermodynamics...

Mass is a measurement of matter. Matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, only transformed to other forms of matter and energy.

Dark matter/energy, antimatter, etc are highly theoretical and, therefore, should be excluded as hard evidence for discussion.

With that said, where is this discussion heading? Lol

Also, dark energy was proven because without it,our galaxy wouldnt hold together, despite the incredible gravitational pull of the supermassive black hole at the middle of our galaxy, some outer planets would whizz off. Dark matter has a gravitational effect on these planets to keep them there.

This is true but it may be simpler to think that without the dark matter the orbiting material in galaxies would move much much slower. This isn't like a 1% difference it is huge. All hypothesis for modifying gravity on large scales have flopped so far.

But believe it or not there is far more real controversy over dark matter and energy than evolution or the Big Bang. This will die down as more evidence rules out competing hypothesis.

First law of thermodynamics...

Mass is a measurement of matter. Matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, only transformed to other forms of matter and energy.

Dark matter/energy, antimatter, etc are highly theoretical and, therefore, should be excluded as hard evidence for discussion.

With that said, where is this discussion heading? Lol

Not sure what you are meaning but the first law of thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy. Because energy is conserved, the internal energy of a system changes as heat flows in or out of it.

Antimatter is anything but theoretical. You may want to look up what a PET scanner does or what particles they are measuring over at CERN.

Dark matter is observable through gravitational influence and there is just as much evidence for it as black holes. You can see that stars orbit nearly an order of magnidude too fast for the gravity that astronomers can account for in galaxies. Gravitational lensing is where massive structures like galaxies bend the light behind them and again there is way more bending than is accountable for. Look up the bullet cluster for a third type of evidence. It is so overwhelming that the only deniers are laypeople with no understanding of high school physics. Something is creating that gravational effect.

Finally there is pretty good evidence for dark energy as well. Most of the evidence is based of the rate of change of the size of the universe at different periods in time. Supernovas as well as some other methods have been used to measure this. Additionally there is evidence in the cosmic microwave background. So manny different approaches lead to the same conclusion - that the universe expansion is accelerating. When I was in high school there were three different hypothesis for the expanding universe - it would fall back in on itself - it would expand to a specific size asymptotically - or expand forever at an ever slower rate. For all of these there was little evidence measured but they were good extrapolations from known data. The scientists that discovered this were the first ones to actually take the data. It is now widely accepted by all physicists.

I disagree, there is far more evidence for black holes because we just understand them better, we know what dark matter is but we can't categorise it, is It a quake? Is it a lepton? Is it a boson? We just don't know. Whereas we understand that a black hole is a large amount of mass squashed to a tiny size, and contrary to popular belief, anything can become a black hole, if I squash you small enough to a singularity, your gravitational pull would be so strong light couldnt escape

The leading theories place exotic types of bosons as the most likely category of particle responsible for dark matter.

You get partial credit for saying anything crushed to sufficiently small size forms a black hole. However there is a critical size one must reach for it to be stable and last any real time. One reason is that there may be Hawking radiation. This is in inverse proportion to its mass. Something like me that was turned into a black hole would explode in a few billion trillionths of a second. Something the size of a super massive black hole puts out less power than a cell phone therefore it is undetectable in any stable hole as of today.

I'm going to argue we do not know what black holes are at all except for some extremely basic facts. Can you violate entropy by dumping material into a black hole and erasing its past history? Stephen hawking lost a bet to Leonard Susskind (whose free physics and cosmology lectures in YouTube are awesome) about this only a couple of years ago but it is only theoretical. Is Hawking radiation real or does something else happen? How does the frame dragging really work? If an object falls in will it be crushed or burned first? How exactly do the jets form in the way they do? Why do some feed more slowly and some seem to pass the theoretical feeding limit imposed by the heating when material falls in?

Believe it or not we only see the gravitational effects like orbiting stars and the jets in a similar way to dark matter. In fact since dark matter is passing through the earth continuously we are already building detectors to study it up front and personal. Black holes on the other hand will need to be observed by telescopes for at least thousands of years if not longer.

Now, I would not go so far as to say something as extreme as that, though I do dub it in my own opinion as a preposterous hypothesis. However, there are many facts that disapprove the Big Bang Theory, such as the density of ice in it's different physical states relative to those of other matter. The universe would have to have a brain or something of the sort for things like this: H₂O(l) is is actually more dense than it's solid form, H₂O(s)! Why would the universe pick ice to randomly be the exception in the common law of physical states? Well, if bodies of water froze from the bottom up, we'd be in big trouble, because of things such as the fish freezing, making them harder to get to for early civilizations because of the extremely thick ice. We would not be alive to the day if it wasn't for the fact that liquid water is more dense than ice!

I think you're forgetting that life evolved around the environment. The environment does not really evolve around life. Of course we wouldn't be alive if water was more dense in solid form for the reasons you gave, but that is because we have adapted to live in conditions where ice is less dense than liquid water.

Lol, look up these concepts and you will see the words "THEORETICAL" and "HYPOTHETICAL" surrounding them. (With the exception of antimatter. I was confusing antimatter with something else) We think we know they exist because of the effect on the surrounding environment. Yes, they are widely accepted and I have accepted them. However, any major discussion should exclude the theoretical unless the discussion is actually about theories.

Now, the first law of thermodynamics in a middle school text book is about heat being conserved in a system. However, the law actually expands to a whole series of ideas that revolve around the mass-energy equivalence equation, E = mc^2. That means matter and energy, which are really the same thing, are always conserved in a system. Therefore, matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, only transformed to another form of matter and energy.

What does this have to do with a god? The world may never know...

Lol, look up these concepts and you will see the words "THEORETICAL" and "HYPOTHETICAL" surrounding them. (With the exception of antimatter. I was confusing antimatter with something else) We think we know they exist because of the effect on the surrounding environment. Yes, they are widely accepted and I have accepted them. However, any major discussion should exclude the theoretical unless the discussion is actually about theories.

Now, the first law of thermodynamics in a middle school text book is about heat being conserved in a system. However, the law actually expands to a whole series of ideas that revolve around the mass-energy equivalence equation, E = mc^2. That means matter and energy, which are really the same thing, are always conserved in a system. Therefore, matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, only transformed to another form of matter and energy.

What does this have to do with a god? The world may never know...

Theoretical as in the theory of relativity? The data and effects are irrefutable and incontrovertible. The only question is in the fine detail. There will be no overturning of the facts so far any more than we will suddenly find out computers or cars can't work because our scientific understanding was wrong.

I'm not sure of your textbook it may be talking about conservation of energy. E=mc^2 is not related to thermodynamics it is the basic formula for relativity. Conservation of energy is important because of how the laws deal with the flow of heat.

And these laws are important because not only do some religious people try to use them (often incorrectly) - but they are descriptive of reality and thus important to everyone.

It's also important because anything like 'god' must have a concept of and use mathematics. However because mathematics existed before people from our perspective it does not follow there is a Christian god.

Theoretical as in the theory of relativity? The data and effects are irrefutable and incontrovertible. The only question is in the fine detail. There will be no overturning of the facts so far any more than we will suddenly find out computers or cars can't work because our scientific understanding was wrong.

Some theories are more stable than others and such small things as home computers and cars will continue to function normally. A rock and a feather will still fall to the ground at the same time even if the explanation for why is incorrect.

Also, if by data and effects you mean science, then that is incorrect. The whole idea of science revolves around multiple possibilities. Data can make you lean to a point where you act as if the tested idea is correct, but you must always remain open to other possibilities. If not, you are no better than the close-minded fools you seem to believe you are arguing against.

I'm not sure of your textbook it may be talking about conservation of energy. E=mc^2 is not related to thermodynamics it is the basic formula for relativity. Conservation of energy is important because of how the laws deal with the flow of heat.

The first thing to understand here is that all areas of physics are inherently related to each other. The first law of thermodynamics includes the idea of the law of conservation of energy. Also, relativity (and special relativity) are not an isolated super special part of physics. They are applicable to pretty much all areas of physics that we at this time which includes light, space, time, gravity, and other various phenomena.

And these laws are important because not only do some religious people try to use them (often incorrectly) - but they are descriptive of reality and thus important to everyone.

It's also important because anything like 'god' must have a concept of and use mathematics. However because mathematics existed before people from our perspective it does not follow there is a Christian god.

Ok, but the thing is almost everyone with a concept of god believes it(him, her, whatever) to be able to minipulate reality or have an understanding that is so complete to the point where 'it' could do amazing things beyond our understanding. One of the main ideas I have seen regarding religion is that we are still children that can not begin to comprehend the complexity that is god. That is why I am not sure where physics comes in...

Theoretical as in the theory of relativity? The data and effects are irrefutable and incontrovertible. The only question is in the fine detail. There will be no overturning of the facts so far any more than we will suddenly find out computers or cars can't work because our scientific understanding was wrong.

Some theories are more stable than others and such small things as home computers and cars will continue to function normally. A rock and a feather will still fall to the ground at the same time even if the explanation for why is incorrect.

Also, if by data and effects you mean science, then that is incorrect. The whole idea of science revolves around multiple possibilities. Data can make you lean to a point where you act as if the tested idea is correct, but you must always remain open to other possibilities. If not, you are no better than the close-minded fools you seem to believe you are arguing against.

Almost completely wrong. Sorry but it is. In science you are forced to accept facts. This includes data that is collected by thousands of independent sources in a plethora of ways. That is incontrovertible and undeniable. Any shot at having a theory must account for all past facts. There is no room for this not being a possibility. Period. The only possibility is in the tiny unexplained areas for which we have not taken enough data yet. This is why it is impossible to ever prove science wrong. Newtons law of forces and gravitation is still so perfect and correct it is taught in grade school and high schools. It was right then. It is right now. It is forever right. Quantum mechanics, relativity, string theory are just add ons that simplify to newtons laws at everyday scales.

I'm not sure of your textbook it may be talking about conservation of energy. E=mc^2 is not related to thermodynamics it is the basic formula for relativity. Conservation of energy is important because of how the laws deal with the flow of heat.

The first thing to understand here is that all areas of physics are inherently related to each other. The first law of thermodynamics includes the idea of the law of conservation of energy. Also, relativity (and special relativity) are not an isolated super special part of physics. They are applicable to pretty much all areas of physics that we at this time which includes light, space, time, gravity, and other various phenomena.

Yes I should have added closely related. Because they are not. I do have a masters degree mechanical in engineering so I am quite familiar with thermodynamics.

And these laws are important because not only do some religious people try to use them (often incorrectly) - but they are descriptive of reality and thus important to everyone.

It's also important because anything like 'god' must have a concept of and use mathematics. However because mathematics existed before people from our perspective it does not follow there is a Christian god.

Ok, but the thing is almost everyone with a concept of god believes it(him, her, whatever) to be able to minipulate reality or have an understanding that is so complete to the point where 'it' could do amazing things beyond our understanding. One of the main ideas I have seen regarding religion is that we are still children that can not begin to comprehend the complexity that is god. That is why I am not sure where physics comes in...

Ahh ok. While that is likely true of the general belief in what 'god' or gods are I was simply making the point that god must use math and you must have math before god existed or at least at the same time as god came into being. However if math exists you do not need a god as an explanation. Math can exist on its own as eternally true. So saying you 'believe' in math is saying a lot less than belief in god. Additionally the equivelant principles must have existed for at least as long as our universe since natural laws function upon them. Even further it is likely if not certain that mathematics 'exists' or is accessable from outside our visible universe. It's entirely possible that our reality is simply an embodiment of simple logical principles with no 'intelligent being' as the driving force. It is both a simpler explanation than a god and a more descriptive one. it could even eventually lead to predictions that are testable.

Almost completely wrong. Sorry but it is. In science you are forced to accept facts. This includes data that is collected by thousands of independent sources in a plethora of ways. That is incontrovertible and undeniable. Any shot at having a theory must account for all past facts. There is no room for this not being a possibility. Period. The only possibility is in the tiny unexplained areas for which we have not taken enough data yet. This is why it is impossible to ever prove science wrong. Newtons law of forces and gravitation is still so perfect and correct it is taught in grade school and high schools. It was right then. It is right now. It is forever right. Quantum mechanics, relativity, string theory are just add ons that simplify to newtons laws at everyday scales.

The argument I am making is not about science but about what science has proven. I am not sure what else I can say, or rather repeat, about the nature of science. We both understand that concepts proven by science are considered facts but then you seem to act exactly as the "way too religious" people do, which is to find an idea and then sit on it without moving forward.

Newton's laws are indeed correct but you still have to at least accept the possibility that they are not correct or at least not complete. If you can not do this, then you can not expect others to look beyond religion.