I can prove God exists

[Coyote]

coyote
Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die.

This is an interesting point. Disorder - entropy - begins at the moment of birth for every cell and organism. Systems decay, breakdown, malfunction within the cells...

 

[9sublime]

9sublime

"Mathematics is in the realm of ideas. Matter is in the physical world. Reality is a union of ideas and the physical - HENCE DUALITY."

You a truly a poet and may not know it.

Let me make a couple of subtle but necessary revisions to your statement

1. PERCEPTION of reality is a union of ideas and the physical.
Should your perception of reality prove false, the reality itself does not change.

2. Mathematics is in the realm of ideas and provides a demonstrable check on our perception of reality. If the numbers don't work, it ain't possible. There are no known exceptions to this, so far.

That wasn't my statement, it was numinius's.

 

[r0beph]

This is an interesting point. Disorder - entropy - begins at the moment of birth for every cell and organism. Systems decay, breakdown, malfunction within the cells...

Ehhhh sort of. As for entropy it happens, however entropy can be modified by the incept of energy, that's not a problem. We consume energy, we create heat (which counters the cooling effect of entropy in a system in which the temperature is lower than our core temp, etc. etc.) We make new cells as old ones reach there end, nothing magic there. As for invest's idea that dna is some mystical language, I think I explained why that was wrong in an earlier post he, as usual, decided to ignore... I wasted too much time typing way too many words to try again,

 

[r0beph]

Unfortunately, it does not suffice.

Thinking of gravity as an acceleration DOES NOT demonstrate curvature of spacetime - which you state in the first 2 sentences of that particular paragraph. What you demonstrated is an apparent contradiction. Newton's laws occur in EUCLIDEAN SPACE. Einstein's relativity - in NON-EUCLIDEAN SPACE.

Please stop saving face and own up to your errors.

Uhm gravity is causative of acceleration, if this weren't a fact we'd all float away from the earth...Newton's Gravity clearly accounts for acceleration. And regardless, I don't think of gravity as acceleration, but the fact remains gravity (well that gravitation)accelerates matter towards other matter. To deny this means to deny gravity. For what it's worth, that whether it's spacetime curvature or newtonian, you gain speed in a gravitational field. I didn't say it demonstrates a curvature.

I remember once in college a professor showed me a funny site, it had to do with crackpots, it was like 10pts to the crackpot scale per use of all capped words... in your case... I count 7 in this post alone..

See the problem is here you don't seem to realize, I don't care whether you understand physics or not, I've a pretty good grasp on things, you don't. Your acceptance and willingness to climb outside of your little box and try to understand things a bit better would do you some good, if not, oh well. The thing is you say that singularities somehow are granted the ability to "create" and this is a strange thing to say and doesn't make sense, when you decide to go off explaining it, you don't use the math, you use some sort of weird form of misdefinition and crackpot assumption to "prove" your incorrect point. I vote you a failure in this, thank you, come again.

 

[numinus]

Uhm gravity is causative of acceleration, if this weren't a fact we'd all float away from the earth...Newton's Gravity clearly accounts for acceleration. And regardless, I don't think of gravity as acceleration, but the fact remains gravity (well that gravitation)accelerates matter towards other matter. To deny this means to deny gravity. For what it's worth, that whether it's spacetime curvature or newtonian, you gain speed in a gravitational field. I didn't say it demonstrates a curvature.

Please stop saving face because your errors are clear for everyone to see.

You are looking at the same phenomenon from two TOTALLY DIFFERENT poinst of view.

Newtonian mechanics view gravity as FLUX, or an inverse square relation - no different from elastic, or electrical or magnetic potential. Do you remember maxwell's equations? From such a viewpoint, gravitational force and acceleration - vectors existing in EUCLIDEAN SPACE - are essential to a basic understanding.

Relativity, on the other hand, views gravity as a tendency to curve space. A curved space, by the way, is a EUCLIDEAN SPACE with a TIME-DEPENDENT SCALE FACTOR (lest you imagine it as a warped plane or something) - hence, NON-EUCLIDEAN. From this viewpoint, a mass is at inertia, and the phenomenon we percieve as acceleration, is actually the curvature of space or the time-dependent scale factor.

Take uniform circular motion, for instance. In newtonian mechanics, a mass in ucm has an acceleration that does not diminish the tangential speed, only its direction. Therefore, it is accelerating when viewed from euclidean space.

In relativity, the same mass in ucm is at INERTIA (constant speed travelling in a straight line). However, the straight line isn't actually straight since it is within a curved space - or more accurately, a constant velocity with a scale factor that is changing by time.

They are two very distinct theories. They are almost the same in weak gravity because the relativistic component is negligible. The difference becomes obvious when gravity is so strong that the newtonian mechanical model simply fails.

I remember once in college a professor showed me a funny site, it had to do with crackpots, it was like 10pts to the crackpot scale per use of all capped words... in your case... I count 7 in this post alone..

And there is this hilarious website for dummies. It was like 10 points on the dumb scale for every all capped word that the poor fool still couldn't understand.

See the problem is here you don't seem to realize, I don't care whether you understand physics or not, I've a pretty good grasp on things, you don't. Your acceptance and willingness to climb outside of your little box and try to understand things a bit better would do you some good, if not, oh well.

Apparently, your grasp of physics leaves much to be desired. So much so that pounding it into submission and ridicule could not expel its fundamental absurdity.

There is an obvious reason why the gravitational constant isn't included in the lorentz factor - it was not considered in its derivation. And so einstein felt necessitated to add general relativity.

And you had the temerity to correct me when I said 'length contraction' and not 'lorentz contraction'! Your gambit to sound intelligent simply blew up in your face. And now, you are trying to save what little remains of it.

The thing is you say that singularities somehow are granted the ability to "create" and this is a strange thing to say and doesn't make sense, when you decide to go off explaining it, you don't use the math, you use some sort of weird form of misdefinition and crackpot assumption to "prove" your incorrect point. I vote you a failure in this, thank you, come again.

LOL.

The lorentz invariant quantities in physics, (and they include about almost all quantities), rests on einstein's postulate that the speed of light is ABSOLUTE - a universal speed limit (if you are inclined to thing in that term). Notice that in the lorentz factor, c is considered a constant, correct?

But suppose c is not constant. Suppose c(x) varies according to some unknown parameter. What do you suppose happens to the lorentz factor, hmmm? It would then vary according to 2 parameters - v and c, correct? The lorentz invariant quantities of mass and energy also varies - hence NOT CONSERVED.

And why do you suppose anyone would be inclined to propose a varying speed of light?

Because there are ENDURING RIDDLES in our present understanding of cosmology - riddles that are FATAL to it. To enumerate - flatness problem, horizon problem, homogeniety problem, lambda problem.

And so a very ingenius american particle physicists, alan guth, invented 'super cooling', (not related to paris hilton's common use of the words). In it, it was possible to expand the space of the baby universe a couple of thousand times the speed of light - hence defeating 3 of the 4 riddles mentioned above. But of course, like a multi-headed monster hydra, more problems sprung - so much so that cosmologists today are seriously considering a radical reconstitution of our basic understanding of all physics.

And so, we go back to einstein, and question the basic postulate he asserted - the invariance of c. Ironically enough, the first and most important to go is the conservation of mass and energy - which has led our inquiry from the physical sciences to metaphysics.

 

[numinus]

"Mathematics is in the realm of ideas. Matter is in the physical world. Reality is a union of ideas and the physical - HENCE DUALITY."

You a truly a poet and may not know it.

Let me make a couple of subtle but necessary revisions to your statement

1. PERCEPTION of reality is a union of ideas and the physical.
Should your perception of reality prove false, the reality itself does not change.

Disagree. Duality itself is a reality - not a function of perception.

A piece of matter behaves both deterministically (according to physical laws) and non-deterministically (viewed within its fundamental component of quanta).

2. Mathematics is in the realm of ideas and provides a demonstrable check on our perception of reality. If the numbers don't work, it ain't possible. There are no known exceptions to this, so far.

Which is one of the things I wanted to expound on, but wasn't able to (thanks to the absurd needling of rObeph - which only proves the infinity he is so desperately disproving).

There is absolutely no reason for the physical world to behave according to mathematical concepts. And yet, it does - without fail. And so, one is compelled to ask - what exactly is the relationship between science and mathematics, and how does this relationship pertain to the objective truth we are seeking?

 

[Coyote]

Ehhhh sort of. As for entropy it happens, however entropy can be modified by the incept of energy, that's not a problem. We consume energy, we create heat (which counters the cooling effect of entropy in a system in which the temperature is lower than our core temp, etc. etc.) We make new cells as old ones reach there end, nothing magic there. As for invest's idea that dna is some mystical language, I think I explained why that was wrong in an earlier post he, as usual, decided to ignore... I wasted too much time typing way too many words to try again,

I will trust in your explanation of entropy - I truely don't have the background to understand it well.

However...each cell has a designated life span, after which it starts to fall apart, make replication errors etc. Wasn't this demonstrated with cloning Dolly? Her cells were the cells of a mature sheep - she lived an abreviated life, and died of old age related disease at a young age?

But the entire organism also has a finite span after which it begins to fail. Is that not entropy or is entropy only related to energy?

(sorry if I sound stupid but this is not my area of knowledge )

The DNA code stuff - that seems more like a logical fallacy.

 

[r0beph]

I will trust in your explanation of entropy - I truely don't have the background to understand it well.

However...each cell has a designated life span, after which it starts to fall apart, make replication errors etc. Wasn't this demonstrated with cloning Dolly? Her cells were the cells of a mature sheep - she lived an abreviated life, and died of old age related disease at a young age?

But the entire organism also has a finite span after which it begins to fail. Is that not entropy or is entropy only related to energy?

(sorry if I sound stupid but this is not my area of knowledge )

The DNA code stuff - that seems more like a logical fallacy.

Nah, entropy is entropy. dolly actually died of a viral ailment. But I'd say ya, we can only reproduce cells so many times before it gets a bit rough, I'm not sure if this is due to any form of entropy or just that cells have a finite replication limit.

 

[r0beph]

(thanks to the absurd needling of rObeph - which only proves the infinity he is so desperately disproving).

I've no problem with infinity as long is it's a valid infinity and not some mistaken ideology such as you have.

There is absolutely no reason for the physical world to behave according to mathematical concepts. And yet, it does - without fail. And so, one is compelled to ask - what exactly is the relationship between science and mathematics, and how does this relationship pertain to the objective truth we are seeking?

lol.... the physical world DOES have to behave according to those concepts, do you know why? Because those concepts were created to describe the physical world, not vice versa. If the physical universe behaved differently, the math would be different. This means nothing at all...

 

[numinus]

I've no problem with infinity as long is it's a valid infinity and not some mistaken ideology such as you have.

Nope. You have a serious problem interpreting the meaning of infinity as regards to physical phenomena. But you have no problem whatsoever, replying indefinitely after being squarely disproven.

lol.... the physical world DOES have to behave according to those concepts, do you know why? Because those concepts were created to describe the physical world, not vice versa. If the physical universe behaved differently, the math would be different. This means nothing at all...

LOL at yourself. You obviously failed (as always) to appreciate the conundrum I am presenting here.

For example - calculus has its roots as early as 1800 BC. Its principles were used extensively by the ancient greeks, chinese and indians. Einstein's relativity or newton's mechanics were never even dreamed of at its conception. But the laws formulated by these two couldn't have been explained without calculus, no?

The most glaring I can think of relates to maxwell's equations of elastic, electrical, magnetic and gravitational force. Prior to maxwell, nobody thought that there was a fundamental relationship between these forces. And yet, a mere glance at the equations would tell you that there is a distinct and unmistakable symmetry that makes these forces fundamentally the same.

As of today, THERE ARE NO THEORETICAL OR APPLIED BRANCH OF PHYSICS THAT DOES NOT USE CALCULUS. And that is just one branch of mathematics applying in only one branch of the natural sciences. In all cases, the validity of any proposed scientific law depends on its conformity with a mathematical model. The uncanny way by which mathematics predicts the behavior of physical phenomena we are only beginning to understand today - what accounts for it, hmmm?

Now, unless you are suggesting that ancient egyptians developed calculus for scientific purposes today, I'd say you don't know what you're talking about. So why don't you run along and let the intellectuals do a bit of discussion in peace, hmmm?

 

[numinus]

I will trust in your explanation of entropy - I truely don't have the background to understand it well.

However...each cell has a designated life span, after which it starts to fall apart, make replication errors etc. Wasn't this demonstrated with cloning Dolly? Her cells were the cells of a mature sheep - she lived an abreviated life, and died of old age related disease at a young age?

But the entire organism also has a finite span after which it begins to fail. Is that not entropy or is entropy only related to energy?

(sorry if I sound stupid but this is not my area of knowledge )

The DNA code stuff - that seems more like a logical fallacy.

It is not always adviceable to think of entropy as disorder. More accurately, it is a state or tendency towards thermal homegeneity. In an isothermic, isotropic system, (closed) system, entropy acts to distribute heat homogeneously everywhere. Consequently, it is irreversible. Within such a system, complex molecules such as dna cannot hope to form.

However, an ideally closed thermodynamic system is very hard to come by. Even in a laboratory setting, it is impossible to isolate a system from the environment. Heat will eventually seep in or dissipate. Living orgnasims therefore, are considered as open thermodynamic system. It is precisely this that living organisms take in free energy from the environment and use it to form complexity within itself. This free energy comes from the sun, to plants (by photosynthesis) to animals of ever growing complexity.

But, when one considers the genesis of the solar system, and how thermally inhomogenuous it is, an entropic model would suggest that the heat energy came from somewhere else. The thing is, it did not. It came from the compressive action of gravity. Which is why I somewhat agree with invest in this regard. Not only does the variety of life on the planet thrive to ever greater complexity, it is apparently isolated on this planet.

 

[Coyote]

It is not always adviceable to think of entropy as disorder. More accurately, it is a state or tendency towards thermal homegeneity. In an isothermic, isotropic system, (closed) system, entropy acts to distribute heat homogeneously everywhere. Consequently, it is irreversible. Within such a system, complex molecules such as dna cannot hope to form.

However, an ideally closed thermodynamic system is very hard to come by. Even in a laboratory setting, it is impossible to isolate a system from the environment. Heat will eventually seep in or dissipate. Living orgnasims therefore, are considered as open thermodynamic system. It is precisely this that living organisms take in free energy from the environment and use it to form complexity within itself. This free energy comes from the sun, to plants (by photosynthesis) to animals of ever growing complexity.

But, when one considers the genesis of the solar system, and how thermally inhomogenuous it is, an entropic model would suggest that the heat energy came from somewhere else. The thing is, it did not. It came from the compressive action of gravity. Which is why I somewhat agree with invest in this regard. Not only does the variety of life on the planet thrive to ever greater complexity, it is apparently isolated on this planet.

Your description reminded me of some of what I learned in chemistry years ago....but wow it's been a long time

Let me jump to your last statement: Not only does the variety of life on the planet thrive to ever greater complexity, it is apparently isolated on this planet.

How the fact that life on this planet striving for increasing complexity agree with Invest?

Second - we have explored/observed such a miniscule fraction of the galaxy, universe etc. there is no way we can make a statement that in any way says life is apparently isolated to this planet in order to support any sort of argument. There is just too little data to go on.

 

[numinus]

Your description reminded me of some of what I learned in chemistry years ago....but wow it's been a long time

Let me jump to your last statement: Not only does the variety of life on the planet thrive to ever greater complexity, it is apparently isolated on this planet.

How the fact that life on this planet striving for increasing complexity agree with Invest?

It has something to do with heat energy. It is defined as the kinetic energy of particles, no? Something that is hot would have molecules moving around vigorously. Consequently, something that is cold would have molecules that are barely moving. Entropy approaches its perfect state at the theoretical absolute freezing, 0 degrees kelvin, where molecules does not have any kinetic energy.

So, statistically speaking, the more kinetic energy, the more likely to create complex molecules, no?

Second - we have explored/observed such a miniscule fraction of the galaxy, universe etc. there is no way we can make a statement that in any way says life is apparently isolated to this planet in order to support any sort of argument. There is just too little data to go on.

Ah, but we have more or less comprehensive data on this solar system, no? The closest star system to us is alpha centauri, about 4 light years away. So for all intents and purposes, the solar system can be considered a somewhat closed thermodynamic system. But apparently, it does not behave like one. Not only that, it behaves completely opposite of what a closed thermodynamic system is supposed to.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

What are y'all even talking about anymore? What does this have to do with God? Way too intellectual for me.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It has something to do with heat energy. It is defined as the kinetic energy of particles, no? Something that is hot would have molecules moving around vigorously. Consequently, something that is cold would have molecules that are barely moving. Entropy approaches its perfect state at the theoretical absolute freezing, 0 degrees kelvin, where molecules does not have any kinetic energy.

So, statistically speaking, the more kinetic energy, the more likely to create complex molecules, no?



Ah, but we have more or less comprehensive data on this solar system, no? The closest star system to us is alpha centauri, about 4 light years away. So for all intents and purposes, the solar system can be considered a somewhat closed thermodynamic system. But apparently, it does not behave like one. Not only that, it behaves completely opposite of what a closed thermodynamic system is supposed to.

There is nothing closed about the solar system thermodynamically is there? If one looks at the massive amounts of energy contained in the quantum foam and that foam permeates the whole Universe (as far as we know) how can any system be considered closed or "somewhat closed"?