Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:

From: Kermit (unrestrained_hand_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/08/04 

Date: 8 Oct 2004 12:13:40 -0700

"Bob Weigel" <dontuwish@nothing.net> wrote in message news:<10m9i3c3mc92957@corp.supernews.com>...
> "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..

I believe you're refering to our fruitless but frequent attempts to
explain to young Earth creationists that photosynthesis shows clearly
that the Erath is not a closed system. Are you claiming otherwise? Or
are you just easily confused by what you read?

> 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.

So what do you tutor - "Aw Shucks, English"?

> Do your homework and talk to me some other day. Sound
> Doctorin' is always around, Lord willing. -Bob
>

"Your search - oregon "who's who" "Bob Weigel" - did not match any
documents. "
"Your search - oregon "who's who" "Robert Weigel" - did not match any
documents. "

So what are you, really, an air conditioner repair major?

>
> >
> > > 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.

>From the Star Trek Voyager Encyclopedia:
"EPISODE: HEROES AND DEMONS

Bewoulf - An epic earth poem set in 6th century Denmark in which
Bewoulf fights a creature name Grendel; Kim plays Bewoulf in a
holodeck simulation; the Doctor participates in the Bewoulf program in
order to rescue Kim, Chakotay, and Tuvok from the photonic energy life
form. (Heroes and Demons)"

Kermit

Relevant Pages

  • Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:
    ... > Been done in another post here Seppo. ... > have trouble telling that I'm referring to the 'energy of photons' when I ... > say 'photonic energy'. ... So, why don't you say "Electromagnetic radiation", but rather babble about ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: You might be a fundiementalist atheist if:
    ... PHOTOSYNTHESIS show that PROCESSES EXIST where ENERGY IS ... someone to tutor you in it. ... > Bewoulf fights a creature name Grendel; ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
    ... It has no difficulty storing energy without velocity. ... an EM wave, it must first convert the EM wave energy to ... converting EM energy to electronic energy ... difference between photonic energy and electronic ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
Loading