Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:
From: Bob Weigel (dontuwish_at_nothing.net)
Date: 10/07/04
- Next message: know buddee: "The Situation in Iraq - candid email from Wall Street Journal reporter in Baghdad"
- Previous message: Bob Weigel: "Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:"
- In reply to: Seppo Pietikainen: "Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:"
- Next in thread: Seppo Pietikainen: "Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:"
- Reply: Seppo Pietikainen: "Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:"
- Reply: John Ings: "Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:"
- Reply: Kermit: "Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:30:22 -0600
"Seppo Pietikainen" <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:2sjtgcF1l9k6iU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Bob Weigel wrote:
> > 2nd law of thermodynamics for the layperson, is expressed in Psalm 102
btw.
>
> I'm not interested in how you interpret how your babble describes the 2LOT
to
> laypeople. I'm interested in how *you* describe the 2LOT in *scientific*
terms.
Been done in another post here Seppo. Search the text of nearby
articles..should take a second to find it.
>
>
> > Saying that everything in the heavens even wears out like an 'old
garmet'
> > In a submicroscopic way...this is basically what happens indeed.
The
> > universe is progressing towards a state of disorder. Every plant that
> > photosynthesizes 'order' costs the SUN a MASSIVE amount of 'disorder
> > converstion'. The processes in the sun are the most inefficient
> > imaginable. It like all the other stars just converts organized
'matter' to
> > photonic energy.
>
> What is this "photonic energy" you're babbling about?
Ohh LORD! Heheh. You say to describe things in scientific terms they you
have trouble telling that I'm referring to the 'energy of photons' when I
say 'photonic energy'.
> "The processes in the sun are the most inefficient imaginable"? OK,
describe
> those processes and why do you think thay are "the most inefficient
imaginable",
> especially when compared to other processes (btw. conversion of H+H -> He
is
> anything but inefficient).
Look at the context. I was speaking about 'efficiency' in terms of
transferring ENERGY PRODUCED into processes that produce MORE order.
Morons..er..I mean..atheists...CONSTANTLY refer to photosynthesis as an
example of how the 2nd law 'doesn't hold' in their utter ignorance..FAILING
to see that while a few calories of energy were used to increase the order
in a small system...billions and billions of calories (dont' you just love
saying that...BIlllions and BILLllions....has a ring to it doesn't it?
heheh) WERE WASTED in terms of every producing any kind of order AGAIN!
Anyway I can tell you need school for asking these kinds of questions. I
earn money to tutor. Do your homework and talk to me some other day. Sound
Doctorin' is always around, Lord willing. -Bob
>
> > That photonic energy just...flys around the universe. And from
what we
> > can tell...since everything is linearly 'red shifting' as the distance
from
> > us increases....there is likely an energy loss of those photons even
just
> > from travelling through the 'aether' as it was called. We don't
understand
> > it. But regardless....it looks very likely that energy is actually
> > 'dissipated' as light/EM radiation moves.
>
> Your babbling is getting incoherent. "Tired" light theory has been
discarded
> a long time ago, "aether" theory has been dead and buried for close to a
> hundred years.
>
> > ANyway, that's the story. At time t=infinity, science thus predicts
a
> > state called 'heat death' where matter either no longer exists, or
exists
> > ONLY in a completely dormant state where it can't react in any way. Of
> > course as far as we know, as long as photons fly, there will be
interactions
> > and eventually the matter will completely break down to utter
'disorganized'
> > state of raw photonic energy or 'particles' that do not interact with
> > photons at all. There ya be.
> > NOW WHY would you be speculating that I'm dishonest or whatever.
That's
> > kind of..bizarre. What did I say that looked like a lie to you? -Bob
>
> First of all, I think the jury is still out as to the universe ending up
> in heat death. The Big Crunch is still within the realm of possibilities.
>
> While it is a fact that our sun will eventually die, but it won't happen
> real-soon-now.
>
> What makes me think that you are dishonest is your incoherent babbling
about
> things you obviously know nothing about.
>
> So, how *do* you formulate the 2LOT, again?
>
> >
> > "Seppo Pietikainen" <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> > news:2sidkmF1mkd4vU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>John Ings wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:06:30 -0600, "Bob Weigel"
> >>><dontuwish@nothing.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hard to figure some people out here. Regardless, because
> >>>>
> >>>>1) 2nd law of thermodynamics says all physical matter HAS a STARTING
> >>>>point...elsewise it would be at 'heat death'.
> >>>
> >>Since you claim to know what 2LOT says, would you be kind enough to
> >>provide us what *is*, or what you *mean* by the second law of
> >
> > thermodynamics?
> >
> >>Or, are you perhaps simply ignorant? There's another possibility: Are
you
> >>simply dishonest?
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>Seppo P.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Seppo P.
- Next message: know buddee: "The Situation in Iraq - candid email from Wall Street Journal reporter in Baghdad"
- Previous message: Bob Weigel: "Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:"
- In reply to: Seppo Pietikainen: "Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:"
- Next in thread: Seppo Pietikainen: "Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:"
- Reply: Seppo Pietikainen: "Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:"
- Reply: John Ings: "Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:"
- Reply: Kermit: "Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
