Discussion:
Regarding the energy preservation and the second law
(too old to reply)
aaa
2018-01-10 06:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the energy preservation when
we are discussing the second law. To us humans, energy preservation is
nothing but storing the energy as it is for later consumption. However,
from the view of the second law, that is not accurate.

According to the second law, storing energy should not be confused with
preserving energy. In nature, energy is stored as exergy. It's increased
entropy. There is no energy preservation in nature apart from what's
happening in life. All usable energy in nature is going to be used to
increase entropy.

In order to preserve the energy in the natural environment, the useable
energy can't be allowed to increase entropy to become exergy. It has to
be preserved by establishing order so that there can be reduced entropy.

Therefore, in nature, the used energy is stored as exergy, and the
useable energy is preserved as orderly construction in DNA. The stored
energy is the result of following the second law with increased entropy.
The preserved energy is the result of moving against second law with
reduced entropy.

So energy preservation does not depend on the supply of energy. It
depends on how to put the useable energy back into matter to establish
order. The preserved energy is no longer energy. It's a lump of sugar or
a DNA molecule.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Tim
2018-01-10 09:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the energy preservation when
we are discussing the second law.
Yes, so you keep demonstrating.
Post by aaa
To us humans, energy preservation is
nothing but storing the energy as it is for later consumption. However,
from the view of the second law, that is not accurate.
The second law has no views. It's a law, not an observer.
Post by aaa
According to the second law, storing energy should not be confused with
preserving energy.
The second law says no such thing.
Post by aaa
In nature, energy is stored as exergy.
No. There you go again using words that you don't understand.
Post by aaa
It's increased
entropy.
More ignorance.

<remaining shit snipped>
aaa
2018-01-10 10:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the energy preservation when
we are discussing the second law.
Yes, so you keep demonstrating.
Post by aaa
To us humans, energy preservation is
nothing but storing the energy as it is for later consumption. However,
from the view of the second law, that is not accurate.
The second law has no views. It's a law, not an observer.
Post by aaa
According to the second law, storing energy should not be confused with
preserving energy.
The second law says no such thing.
Post by aaa
In nature, energy is stored as exergy.
No. There you go again using words that you don't understand.
Post by aaa
It's increased
entropy.
More ignorance.
<remaining shit snipped>
I see you have no interest to understand what I'm saying. So why even
reply? I know you wouldn't understand me. I'm only talking about my
yesterday's discussion to clarify a few things. This is key to
understand why the second law has prevented evolution from happening.

Preserving energy is not the same as storing energy. The preserved
energy has become fuel and disappeared.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Tim
2018-01-10 12:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the energy preservation when
we are discussing the second law.
Yes, so you keep demonstrating.
Post by aaa
To us humans, energy preservation is
nothing but storing the energy as it is for later consumption. However,
from the view of the second law, that is not accurate.
The second law has no views. It's a law, not an observer.
Post by aaa
According to the second law, storing energy should not be confused with
preserving energy.
The second law says no such thing.
Post by aaa
In nature, energy is stored as exergy.
No. There you go again using words that you don't understand.
Post by aaa
It's increased
entropy.
More ignorance.
<remaining shit snipped>
I see you have no interest to understand what I'm saying.
I see that what your saying is your opinion that is based on your opinion.
You don't see that that doesn't count for anything.
Post by aaa
So why even reply?
To get you to see your mistakes.
Post by aaa
I know you wouldn't understand me.
Sure, because you know your just tossing word salad.
Post by aaa
I'm only talking about my yesterday's discussion to clarify a few things.
LOL! You don't clarify things. You bastardize well understood words.
Post by aaa
This is key to understand why the second law has prevented evolution from
happening.
Funny how evolution is happening, and has been doing so for nearly four
billion years.
Post by aaa
Preserving energy is not the same as storing energy. The preserved energy
has become fuel and disappeared.
So preserved energy is not preserved? Wow, you sure know how to talk
nonsense.
aaa
2018-01-10 14:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the energy
preservation when we are discussing the second law.
Yes, so you keep demonstrating.
Post by aaa
To us humans, energy preservation is nothing but storing the
energy as it is for later consumption. However, from the view
of the second law, that is not accurate.
The second law has no views. It's a law, not an observer.
Post by aaa
According to the second law, storing energy should not be
confused with preserving energy.
The second law says no such thing.
Post by aaa
In nature, energy is stored as exergy.
No. There you go again using words that you don't understand.
Post by aaa
It's increased entropy.
More ignorance.
<remaining shit snipped>
I see you have no interest to understand what I'm saying.
I see that what your saying is your opinion that is based on your
opinion. You don't see that that doesn't count for anything.
No. What I said demonstrates my understanding of the second law and
explains why I can prove evolution wrong when you cannot.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
So why even reply?
To get you to see your mistakes.
You need to understand me first before you can even claim that.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
I know you wouldn't understand me.
Sure, because you know your just tossing word salad.
Now you have made the term "word salad" your sorry excuse for not
understanding me.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
I'm only talking about my yesterday's discussion to clarify a few things.
LOL! You don't clarify things. You bastardize well understood words.
If you mean that I have been giving you a big headache for not being
able to understand me, I'm definitely guilty.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
This is key to understand why the second law has prevented
evolution from happening.
Funny how evolution is happening, and has been doing so for nearly
four billion years.
Except that's only the figment of your imagination.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Preserving energy is not the same as storing energy. The preserved
energy has become fuel and disappeared.
So preserved energy is not preserved? Wow, you sure know how to talk
nonsense.
What I said is just a figure of speech to help you better understand the
situation.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Tim
2018-01-10 17:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the energy
preservation when we are discussing the second law.
Yes, so you keep demonstrating.
Post by aaa
To us humans, energy preservation is nothing but storing the
energy as it is for later consumption. However, from the view
of the second law, that is not accurate.
The second law has no views. It's a law, not an observer.
Post by aaa
According to the second law, storing energy should not be
confused with preserving energy.
The second law says no such thing.
Post by aaa
In nature, energy is stored as exergy.
No. There you go again using words that you don't understand.
Post by aaa
It's increased entropy.
More ignorance.
<remaining shit snipped>
I see you have no interest to understand what I'm saying.
I see that what your saying is your opinion that is based on your
opinion. You don't see that that doesn't count for anything.
No. What I said demonstrates my understanding of the second law
No, it demonstrates that you don't understand the second law.
Post by aaa
and
explains why I can prove evolution wrong when you cannot.
More wishful thinking.
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
So why even reply?
To get you to see your mistakes.
You need to understand me first before you can even claim that.
No, you need to see your mistakes.
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
I know you wouldn't understand me.
Sure, because you know your just tossing word salad.
Now you have made the term "word salad" your sorry excuse for not
understanding me.
No it's your word salad that prevents you from being understandable.
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
I'm only talking about my yesterday's discussion to clarify a few things.
LOL! You don't clarify things. You bastardize well understood words.
If you mean that I have been giving you a big headache for not being
able to understand me, I'm definitely guilty.
Headache? You overestimate yourself. You don't even understand the concepts that you keep bastardizing.
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
This is key to understand why the second law has prevented
evolution from happening.
Funny how evolution is happening, and has been doing so for nearly
four billion years.
Except that's only the figment of your imagination.
No, it's a well established fact, and a well established theory, and people all over the globe accept it for what it is.

You can't point to one person who buys into your particular brand of theistic word salad.
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Preserving energy is not the same as storing energy. The preserved
energy has become fuel and disappeared.
So preserved energy is not preserved? Wow, you sure know how to talk
nonsense.
What I said is just a figure of speech to help you better understand the
situation.
I understand that you're an idiot who doesn't understand what he's babbling about.
aaa
2018-01-11 02:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:21:56 AM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the energy
preservation when we are discussing the second law.
Yes, so you keep demonstrating.
Post by aaa
To us humans, energy preservation is nothing but storing
the energy as it is for later consumption. However, from
the view of the second law, that is not accurate.
The second law has no views. It's a law, not an observer.
Post by aaa
According to the second law, storing energy should not be
confused with preserving energy.
The second law says no such thing.
Post by aaa
In nature, energy is stored as exergy.
No. There you go again using words that you don't
understand.
Post by aaa
It's increased entropy.
More ignorance.
<remaining shit snipped>
I see you have no interest to understand what I'm saying.
I see that what your saying is your opinion that is based on
your opinion. You don't see that that doesn't count for
anything.
No. What I said demonstrates my understanding of the second law
No, it demonstrates that you don't understand the second law.
Except I'm the only one here explaining the second law with clear
everyday English.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
and explains why I can prove evolution wrong when you cannot.
More wishful thinking.
I think I have done my job quite successfully.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
So why even reply?
To get you to see your mistakes.
You need to understand me first before you can even claim that.
No, you need to see your mistakes.
You haven't been able to show that there is any mistake.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
I know you wouldn't understand me.
Sure, because you know your just tossing word salad.
Now you have made the term "word salad" your sorry excuse for not
understanding me.
No it's your word salad that prevents you from being understandable.
How can that be? In this thread, I'm talking about the second law.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
I'm only talking about my yesterday's discussion to clarify a few things.
LOL! You don't clarify things. You bastardize well understood words.
If you mean that I have been giving you a big headache for not
being able to understand me, I'm definitely guilty.
Headache? You overestimate yourself. You don't even understand the
concepts that you keep bastardizing.
That's just another empty claim without evidence.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
This is key to understand why the second law has prevented
evolution from happening.
Funny how evolution is happening, and has been doing so for
nearly four billion years.
Except that's only the figment of your imagination.
No, it's a well established fact, and a well established theory, and
people all over the globe accept it for what it is.
Except I have just knocked it down completely.
Post by Tim
You can't point to one person who buys into your particular brand of theistic word salad.
At this point, I think my understanding is clear enough for people to
take notice.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Preserving energy is not the same as storing energy. The
preserved energy has become fuel and disappeared.
So preserved energy is not preserved? Wow, you sure know how to
talk nonsense.
What I said is just a figure of speech to help you better
understand the situation.
I understand that you're an idiot who doesn't understand what he's babbling about.
That's what I call a wishful thinking.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Tim
2018-01-11 08:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:21:56 AM UTC-5, aaa
Post by aaa
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the energy
preservation when we are discussing the second law.
Yes, so you keep demonstrating.
Post by aaa
To us humans, energy preservation is nothing but storing
the energy as it is for later consumption. However, from
the view of the second law, that is not accurate.
The second law has no views. It's a law, not an observer.
Post by aaa
According to the second law, storing energy should not be
confused with preserving energy.
The second law says no such thing.
Post by aaa
In nature, energy is stored as exergy.
No. There you go again using words that you don't
understand.
Post by aaa
It's increased entropy.
More ignorance.
<remaining shit snipped>
I see you have no interest to understand what I'm saying.
I see that what your saying is your opinion that is based on
your opinion. You don't see that that doesn't count for
anything.
No. What I said demonstrates my understanding of the second law
No, it demonstrates that you don't understand the second law.
Except I'm the only one here explaining the second law with clear everyday
English.
LOL! Is that the English where words aren't defined?
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
and explains why I can prove evolution wrong when you cannot.
More wishful thinking.
I think I have done my job quite successfully.
LOL! You need to look up the word "think".
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
So why even reply?
To get you to see your mistakes.
You need to understand me first before you can even claim that.
No, you need to see your mistakes.
You haven't been able to show that there is any mistake.
I have, but you're too slow to keep up.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
I know you wouldn't understand me.
Sure, because you know your just tossing word salad.
Now you have made the term "word salad" your sorry excuse for not
understanding me.
No it's your word salad that prevents you from being understandable.
How can that be? In this thread, I'm talking about the second law.
No, you've clearly shown that you're not talking about the second law.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
I'm only talking about my yesterday's discussion to clarify a few things.
LOL! You don't clarify things. You bastardize well understood words.
If you mean that I have been giving you a big headache for not
being able to understand me, I'm definitely guilty.
Headache? You overestimate yourself. You don't even understand the
concepts that you keep bastardizing.
That's just another empty claim without evidence.
You evidence it with your nonsensical posts.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
This is key to understand why the second law has prevented
evolution from happening.
Funny how evolution is happening, and has been doing so for
nearly four billion years.
Except that's only the figment of your imagination.
No, it's a well established fact, and a well established theory, and
people all over the globe accept it for what it is.
Except I have just knocked it down completely.
LOL! In your dreams, but have a look around the word. Do you see any
university biology departments closing down?

You're a fool.
Post by Tim
You can't point to one person who buys into your particular brand of theistic word salad.
At this point, I think my understanding is clear enough for people to take
notice.
<crickets>
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Preserving energy is not the same as storing energy. The
preserved energy has become fuel and disappeared.
So preserved energy is not preserved? Wow, you sure know how to
talk nonsense.
What I said is just a figure of speech to help you better
understand the situation.
I understand that you're an idiot who doesn't understand what he's babbling about.
That's what I call a wishful thinking.
Sure, you and your personal dictionary. But no one but you cares.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-10 15:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the energy preservation when
we are discussing the second law. To us humans, energy preservation is
nothing but storing the energy as it is for later consumption. However,
from the view of the second law, that is not accurate.
The second law has no "point of view". The second law simply says that IN A CLOSED SYSTEM entropy always increases. To understand what that means you need to get your brain around the subtle concept of entropy, but first you need to understand what is the difference between a closed and an open system. Now, in the laboratory, an experimenter can try to approximate a closed system by carefully insulating an experiment from its environment. An isolation which is virtually unknown in the natural world. Within a sufficiently insulated lab system the second law can be seen in action. Out in the real world nothing smaller than the whole universe is sufficiently isolated (and I'm not sure even about that).

Out in the real world, in far-from-equilibrium systems like the one we live in, the second law is actually irrelevant.

The second law says nothing about such matters as "energy preservation" (whatever that means). The nearest scientific concept is potential energy. Potential energy can be a rock on the top of a mountain, a raindrop high in the air, a cylinder of compressed gas, or a gram of TNT. In entropic terms all these things have a lower entropy than they will have after the energy is released and becomes kinetic energy.
Post by aaa
According to the second law, storing energy should not be confused with
preserving energy. In nature, energy is stored as exergy. It's increased
entropy. There is no energy preservation in nature apart from what's
happening in life. All usable energy in nature is going to be used to
increase entropy.
Thermodynamics doesn't use _either_ term, so there is little danger of it confusing them.
Post by aaa
In order to preserve the energy in the natural environment, the useable
energy can't be allowed to increase entropy to become exergy. It has to
be preserved by establishing order so that there can be reduced entropy.
Now that's not far off true. Free energy must be associated with a relatively low entropy state. When energy gains entropy it becomes "thermalised" and is in equilibrium with its surroundings.
Post by aaa
Therefore, in nature, the used energy is stored as exergy, and the
useable energy is preserved as orderly construction in DNA. The stored
energy is the result of following the second law with increased entropy.
The preserved energy is the result of moving against second law with
reduced entropy.
In thermodynamic terms DNA is a very minor component of the reduced entropy generated.
Post by aaa
So energy preservation does not depend on the supply of energy. It
depends on how to put the useable energy back into matter to establish
order. The preserved energy is no longer energy. It's a lump of sugar or
a DNA molecule.
The potential energy of a chemical compound is still energy.
Post by aaa
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Most of them associated with identifiable parts of the paleocortex.

Only consciousness itself remains mysterious.
aaa
2018-01-10 17:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the energy preservation
when we are discussing the second law. To us humans, energy
preservation is nothing but storing the energy as it is for later
consumption. However, from the view of the second law, that is not
accurate.
The second law has no "point of view".
It means when viewed according to the second law.


The second law simply says
Post by Malcolm McMahon
that IN A CLOSED SYSTEM entropy always increases. To understand what
that means you need to get your brain around the subtle concept of
entropy, but first you need to understand what is the difference
between a closed and an open system. Now, in the laboratory, an
experimenter can try to approximate a closed system by carefully
insulating an experiment from its environment. An isolation which is
virtually unknown in the natural world. Within a sufficiently
insulated lab system the second law can be seen in action. Out in the
real world nothing smaller than the whole universe is sufficiently
isolated (and I'm not sure even about that).
Out in the real world, in far-from-equilibrium systems like the one
we live in, the second law is actually irrelevant.
That's your ignorance speaking. You can as well say that the law of
gravity is irrelevant.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The second law says nothing about such matters as "energy
preservation" (whatever that means). The nearest scientific concept
is potential energy. Potential energy can be a rock on the top of a
mountain, a raindrop high in the air, a cylinder of compressed gas,
or a gram of TNT. In entropic terms all these things have a lower
entropy than they will have after the energy is released and becomes
kinetic energy.
The second law doesn't have to say anything about energy preservation,
but it is the law that controls all energy flow in the universe. To
understand what energy preservation is, we need to look at it according
to the second law.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
According to the second law, storing energy should not be confused
with preserving energy. In nature, energy is stored as exergy. It's
increased entropy. There is no energy preservation in nature apart
from what's happening in life. All usable energy in nature is going
to be used to increase entropy.
Thermodynamics doesn't use _either_ term, so there is little danger of it confusing them.
Here in this case, it's necessary to understand these terms more accurately.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
In order to preserve the energy in the natural environment, the
useable energy can't be allowed to increase entropy to become
exergy. It has to be preserved by establishing order so that there
can be reduced entropy.
Now that's not far off true. Free energy must be associated with a
relatively low entropy state. When energy gains entropy it becomes
"thermalised" and is in equilibrium with its surroundings.
Energy is just energy. It has nothing to do with entropy. Energy is only
about whether it's usable or whether it's used. Entropy is the
description of matter as the result of receiving energy according to the
manner it receives such energy.

If the matter receives the energy by following the second law, its
entropy increases. If the matter receives the energy by moving against
the second law, its entropy will decrease because order has been
established within the matter by the received energy.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Therefore, in nature, the used energy is stored as exergy, and the
useable energy is preserved as orderly construction in DNA. The
stored energy is the result of following the second law with
increased entropy. The preserved energy is the result of moving
against second law with reduced entropy.
In thermodynamic terms DNA is a very minor component of the reduced entropy generated.
But it's the subject of our discussion.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
So energy preservation does not depend on the supply of energy. It
depends on how to put the useable energy back into matter to
establish order. The preserved energy is no longer energy. It's a
lump of sugar or a DNA molecule.
The potential energy of a chemical compound is still energy.
Yes, but it's no longer under the control of the second law. It's been
preserved.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness,
intelligence, happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom,
and life itself.
Most of them associated with identifiable parts of the paleocortex.
Only consciousness itself remains mysterious.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-11 13:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
The second law doesn't have to say anything about energy preservation,
but it is the law that controls all energy flow in the universe. To
understand what energy preservation is, we need to look at it according
to the second law.
Try google. _Nobody_ has anything to say about "energy preservation". It's a concept which you appear to have made up.

You've admitted that everything you know about thermodynamics comes from this board. The trouble is that there are two kinds of posters that talk about thermodynamics here, people who have, to a greater or lessor extent, studied the subject (some a lot more recently than me), and those that have picked up the special version of the theory which exists only to disprove evolution, and which is passed between one creationist source and another.


It's part of your magical thinking. Magic is basically the idea that thought can bypass or change physical law.
aaa
2018-01-11 15:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
The second law doesn't have to say anything about energy
preservation, but it is the law that controls all energy flow in
the universe. To understand what energy preservation is, we need to
look at it according to the second law.
Try google. _Nobody_ has anything to say about "energy preservation".
It's a concept which you appear to have made up.
You've admitted that everything you know about thermodynamics comes
from this board. The trouble is that there are two kinds of posters
that talk about thermodynamics here, people who have, to a greater or
lessor extent, studied the subject (some a lot more recently than
me), and those that have picked up the special version of the theory
which exists only to disprove evolution, and which is passed between
one creationist source and another.
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it except
me. I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow your
way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is just a
common concept. I can't believe people who studied the second law would
overlook it. The funny thing is that most of you still wouldn't
understand it until yesterday. The very first line in my original post
to disprove revolution is about energy preservation. After so many days,
I still have to write another post to clarify it for you. Am I becoming
your physics teacher now?

:-)
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It's part of your magical thinking. Magic is basically the idea that
thought can bypass or change physical law.
There is no magic. What I have said and explained is legitimate science.

Now, it should be time for the scientists to start working to get their
house in order. I trust that the integrity of science is still intact so
that we can start a new chapter.

Let us make evolution a past history. Let us become one people under God!
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-11 16:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
The second law doesn't have to say anything about energy
preservation, but it is the law that controls all energy flow in
the universe. To understand what energy preservation is, we need to
look at it according to the second law.
Try google. _Nobody_ has anything to say about "energy preservation".
It's a concept which you appear to have made up.
You've admitted that everything you know about thermodynamics comes
from this board. The trouble is that there are two kinds of posters
that talk about thermodynamics here, people who have, to a greater or
lessor extent, studied the subject (some a lot more recently than
me), and those that have picked up the special version of the theory
which exists only to disprove evolution, and which is passed between
one creationist source and another.
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it except
me.
That comes as no surprise.
Post by aaa
I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow your
way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is just a
common concept. I can't believe people who studied the second law would
overlook it.
And, if it existed, they wouldn't have.


The funny thing is that most of you still wouldn't
Post by aaa
understand it until yesterday. The very first line in my original post
to disprove revolution is about energy preservation. After so many days,
I still have to write another post to clarify it for you. Am I becoming
your physics teacher now?
What you're trying to teach isn't physics.
Post by aaa
:-)
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It's part of your magical thinking. Magic is basically the idea that
thought can bypass or change physical law.
There is no magic. What I have said and explained is legitimate science.
You claim that certain physical phenomena are possible only when directed by intelligence (human or divine). That's what magic is.
Post by aaa
Now, it should be time for the scientists to start working to get their
house in order. I trust that the integrity of science is still intact so
that we can start a new chapter.
Their house is in as much order as anyone's house has ever been.

Your model of thermodynamics makes life itself as impossible as evolution. Both involve local reductions of entropy. If your have a set of beliefs about astronomy that tell you the Sun rises in the North, you should take that as evidence that your theory is wrong, not that everyone who tells you the Sun rises in the East is a liar or a fool.
Post by aaa
Let us make evolution a past history. Let us become one people under God!
Which of the various god's?
s***@gmail.com
2018-01-11 16:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
The second law doesn't have to say anything about energy
preservation, but it is the law that controls all energy flow in
the universe. To understand what energy preservation is, we need to
look at it according to the second law.
Try google. _Nobody_ has anything to say about "energy preservation".
It's a concept which you appear to have made up.
You've admitted that everything you know about thermodynamics comes
from this board. The trouble is that there are two kinds of posters
that talk about thermodynamics here, people who have, to a greater or
lessor extent, studied the subject (some a lot more recently than
me), and those that have picked up the special version of the theory
which exists only to disprove evolution, and which is passed between
one creationist source and another.
/> > Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it except
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
me.
/> That comes as no surprise.

Well yeah -- no one knew of the formation of ATP via the
respiratory cascade and the proton gradient that drives
the rotation of the ATP synthase molecule until "aaa" clarified
it for us.


I'm surprised he has to remind you of this.

Selene
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow your
way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is just a
common concept. I can't believe people who studied the second law would
overlook it.
And, if it existed, they wouldn't have.
The funny thing is that most of you still wouldn't
Post by aaa
understand it until yesterday. The very first line in my original post
to disprove revolution is about energy preservation. After so many days,
I still have to write another post to clarify it for you. Am I becoming
your physics teacher now?
What you're trying to teach isn't physics.
Post by aaa
:-)
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It's part of your magical thinking. Magic is basically the idea that
thought can bypass or change physical law.
There is no magic. What I have said and explained is legitimate science.
You claim that certain physical phenomena are possible only when directed by intelligence (human or divine). That's what magic is.
Post by aaa
Now, it should be time for the scientists to start working to get their
house in order. I trust that the integrity of science is still intact so
that we can start a new chapter.
Their house is in as much order as anyone's house has ever been.
Your model of thermodynamics makes life itself as impossible as evolution. Both involve local reductions of entropy. If your have a set of beliefs about astronomy that tell you the Sun rises in the North, you should take that as evidence that your theory is wrong, not that everyone who tells you the Sun rises in the East is a liar or a fool.
Post by aaa
Let us make evolution a past history. Let us become one people under God!
Which of the various god's?
aaa
2018-01-11 18:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
The second law doesn't have to say anything about energy
preservation, but it is the law that controls all energy flow
in the universe. To understand what energy preservation is,
we need to look at it according to the second law.
Try google. _Nobody_ has anything to say about "energy
preservation". It's a concept which you appear to have made
up.
You've admitted that everything you know about thermodynamics
comes from this board. The trouble is that there are two kinds
of posters that talk about thermodynamics here, people who
have, to a greater or lessor extent, studied the subject (some
a lot more recently than me), and those that have picked up the
special version of the theory which exists only to disprove
evolution, and which is passed between one creationist source
and another.
/> > Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it except
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
me.
/> That comes as no surprise.
Well yeah -- no one knew of the formation of ATP via the respiratory
cascade and the proton gradient that drives the rotation of the ATP
synthase molecule until "aaa" clarified it for us.
I'm surprised he has to remind you of this.
What are you talking about? I'm only talking about the second law. As a
scientist, can you understand what I have said in this thread?
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow
your way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy
preservation is just a common concept. I can't believe people who
studied the second law would overlook it.
And, if it existed, they wouldn't have.
The funny thing is that most of you still wouldn't
Post by aaa
understand it until yesterday. The very first line in my original
post to disprove revolution is about energy preservation. After
so many days, I still have to write another post to clarify it
for you. Am I becoming your physics teacher now?
What you're trying to teach isn't physics.
Post by aaa
:-)
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It's part of your magical thinking. Magic is basically the idea
that thought can bypass or change physical law.
There is no magic. What I have said and explained is legitimate
science..
You claim that certain physical phenomena are possible only when
directed by intelligence (human or divine). That's what magic is.
Post by aaa
Now, it should be time for the scientists to start working to get
their house in order. I trust that the integrity of science is
still intact so that we can start a new chapter.
Their house is in as much order as anyone's house has ever been.
Your model of thermodynamics makes life itself as impossible as
evolution.. Both involve local reductions of entropy. If your have
a set of beliefs about astronomy that tell you the Sun rises in the
North, you should take that as evidence that your theory is wrong,
not that everyone who tells you the Sun rises in the East is a liar
or a fool.
Post by aaa
Let us make evolution a past history. Let us become one people under God!
Which of the various god's?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
s***@gmail.com
2018-01-11 19:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
The second law doesn't have to say anything about energy
preservation, but it is the law that controls all energy flow
in the universe. To understand what energy preservation is,
we need to look at it according to the second law.
Try google. _Nobody_ has anything to say about "energy
preservation". It's a concept which you appear to have made
up.
You've admitted that everything you know about thermodynamics
comes from this board. The trouble is that there are two kinds
of posters that talk about thermodynamics here, people who
have, to a greater or lessor extent, studied the subject (some
a lot more recently than me), and those that have picked up the
special version of the theory which exists only to disprove
evolution, and which is passed between one creationist source
and another.
/> > > > Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it
/> > except me
/> > > That comes as no surprise.
/> > Well yeah -- no one knew of the formation of ATP via the respiratory
/> > cascade and the proton gradient that drives the rotation of the ATP
/> > synthase molecule until "aaa" clarified it for us.
/> > I'm surprised he has to remind you of this.
/> What are you talking about?

What? I'm talking about energy preservation.

How did you think the energy in glucose ends up getting stored in ATP?

36 ATPs per glucose.


Selene
Post by aaa
I'm only talking about the second law. As a
scientist, can you understand what I have said in this thread?
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow
your way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy
preservation is just a common concept. I can't believe people who
studied the second law would overlook it.
And, if it existed, they wouldn't have.
The funny thing is that most of you still wouldn't
Post by aaa
understand it until yesterday. The very first line in my original
post to disprove revolution is about energy preservation. After
so many days, I still have to write another post to clarify it
for you. Am I becoming your physics teacher now?
What you're trying to teach isn't physics.
Post by aaa
:-)
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It's part of your magical thinking. Magic is basically the idea
that thought can bypass or change physical law.
There is no magic. What I have said and explained is legitimate
science..
You claim that certain physical phenomena are possible only when
directed by intelligence (human or divine). That's what magic is.
Post by aaa
Now, it should be time for the scientists to start working to get
their house in order. I trust that the integrity of science is
still intact so that we can start a new chapter.
Their house is in as much order as anyone's house has ever been.
Your model of thermodynamics makes life itself as impossible as
evolution.. Both involve local reductions of entropy. If your have
a set of beliefs about astronomy that tell you the Sun rises in the
North, you should take that as evidence that your theory is wrong,
not that everyone who tells you the Sun rises in the East is a liar
or a fool.
Post by aaa
Let us make evolution a past history. Let us become one people under God!
Which of the various god's?
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
aaa
2018-01-12 01:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
The second law doesn't have to say anything about energy
preservation, but it is the law that controls all energy flow
in the universe. To understand what energy preservation is,
we need to look at it according to the second law.
Try google. _Nobody_ has anything to say about "energy
preservation". It's a concept which you appear to have made
up.
You've admitted that everything you know about thermodynamics
comes from this board. The trouble is that there are two kinds
of posters that talk about thermodynamics here, people who
have, to a greater or lessor extent, studied the subject (some
a lot more recently than me), and those that have picked up the
special version of the theory which exists only to disprove
evolution, and which is passed between one creationist source
and another.
/> > > > Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it
/> > except me
/> > > That comes as no surprise.
/> > Well yeah -- no one knew of the formation of ATP via the respiratory
/> > cascade and the proton gradient that drives the rotation of the ATP
/> > synthase molecule until "aaa" clarified it for us.
/> > I'm surprised he has to remind you of this.
/> What are you talking about?
What? I'm talking about energy preservation.
How did you think the energy in glucose ends up getting stored in ATP?
36 ATPs per glucose.
Why should I care? I'm only talking about how energy preservation works
under the second law in general. I don't have to care about the details.
That would be something for the scientists to find out. I'm sure it will
not contradict with what I have described according to the second law.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
Post by aaa
I'm only talking about the second law. As a
scientist, can you understand what I have said in this thread?
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow
your way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy
preservation is just a common concept. I can't believe people who
studied the second law would overlook it.
And, if it existed, they wouldn't have.
The funny thing is that most of you still wouldn't
Post by aaa
understand it until yesterday. The very first line in my original
post to disprove revolution is about energy preservation. After
so many days, I still have to write another post to clarify it
for you. Am I becoming your physics teacher now?
What you're trying to teach isn't physics.
Post by aaa
:-)
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It's part of your magical thinking. Magic is basically the idea
that thought can bypass or change physical law.
There is no magic. What I have said and explained is legitimate
science..
You claim that certain physical phenomena are possible only when
directed by intelligence (human or divine). That's what magic is.
Post by aaa
Now, it should be time for the scientists to start working to get
their house in order. I trust that the integrity of science is
still intact so that we can start a new chapter.
Their house is in as much order as anyone's house has ever been.
Your model of thermodynamics makes life itself as impossible as
evolution.. Both involve local reductions of entropy. If your have
a set of beliefs about astronomy that tell you the Sun rises in the
North, you should take that as evidence that your theory is wrong,
not that everyone who tells you the Sun rises in the East is a liar
or a fool.
Post by aaa
Let us make evolution a past history. Let us become one people under God!
Which of the various god's?
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Yap Honghor
2018-01-24 22:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
The second law doesn't have to say anything about energy
preservation, but it is the law that controls all energy flow
in the universe. To understand what energy preservation is,
we need to look at it according to the second law.
Try google. _Nobody_ has anything to say about "energy
preservation". It's a concept which you appear to have made
up.
You've admitted that everything you know about thermodynamics
comes from this board. The trouble is that there are two kinds
of posters that talk about thermodynamics here, people who
have, to a greater or lessor extent, studied the subject (some
a lot more recently than me), and those that have picked up the
special version of the theory which exists only to disprove
evolution, and which is passed between one creationist source
and another.
/> > > > Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it
/> > except me
/> > > That comes as no surprise.
/> > Well yeah -- no one knew of the formation of ATP via the respiratory
/> > cascade and the proton gradient that drives the rotation of the ATP
/> > synthase molecule until "aaa" clarified it for us.
/> > I'm surprised he has to remind you of this.
/> What are you talking about?
What? I'm talking about energy preservation.
How did you think the energy in glucose ends up getting stored in ATP?
36 ATPs per glucose.
Why should I care? I'm only talking about how energy preservation works
under the second law in general. I don't have to care about the details.
That would be something for the scientists to find out. I'm sure it will
not contradict with what I have described according to the second law.
Oh, you don't care ?
Details are what make a law or theory valid.
Apparently, you know nothing...
aaa
2018-01-11 18:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
The second law doesn't have to say anything about energy
preservation, but it is the law that controls all energy flow
in the universe. To understand what energy preservation is, we
need to look at it according to the second law.
Try google. _Nobody_ has anything to say about "energy
preservation". It's a concept which you appear to have made up.
You've admitted that everything you know about thermodynamics
comes from this board. The trouble is that there are two kinds of
posters that talk about thermodynamics here, people who have, to
a greater or lessor extent, studied the subject (some a lot more
recently than me), and those that have picked up the special
version of the theory which exists only to disprove evolution,
and which is passed between one creationist source and another.
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it
except me.
That comes as no surprise.
And it has proven evolution wrong. Isn't that wonderful?
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow your
way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is
just a common concept. I can't believe people who studied the
second law would overlook it.
And, if it existed, they wouldn't have.
But I have shown that it does exist.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The funny thing is that most of you still wouldn't
Post by aaa
understand it until yesterday. The very first line in my original
post to disprove revolution is about energy preservation. After so
many days, I still have to write another post to clarify it for
you. Am I becoming your physics teacher now?
What you're trying to teach isn't physics.
Well, if you still haven't really understood my argument, there is no
point to continue the debate. I was expecting you to be better than this.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
:-)
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It's part of your magical thinking. Magic is basically the idea
that thought can bypass or change physical law.
There is no magic. What I have said and explained is legitimate science.
You claim that certain physical phenomena are possible only when
directed by intelligence (human or divine). That's what magic is.
According to that logic, it would make those flying airplanes magic too.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Now, it should be time for the scientists to start working to get
their house in order. I trust that the integrity of science is
still intact so that we can start a new chapter.
Their house is in as much order as anyone's house has ever been.
Their house is not going to be in order until evolution is kicked out.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Your model of thermodynamics makes life itself as impossible as
evolution. Both involve local reductions of entropy. If your have a
set of beliefs about astronomy that tell you the Sun rises in the
North, you should take that as evidence that your theory is wrong,
not that everyone who tells you the Sun rises in the East is a liar
or a fool.
My argument only proves evolution wrong. In fact, I have demonstrated
the amazing ability of life to preserve the sunlight energy and to
construct DNA molecule is unique and special. It can only be
intelligently designed.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Let us make evolution a past history. Let us become one people under God!
Which of the various god's?
There is only one God.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
David Canzi
2018-01-15 01:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it except
me. I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow your
way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is just a
common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about energy preservation
then it is not a common concept.
--
David Canzi | Science is the signal; religion is the noise.
Teresita
2018-01-15 02:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it except
me. I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow your
way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is just
a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about energy preservation
then it is not a common concept.
Elon Musk is trying to increase energy preservation for his Tesla cars.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
aaa
2018-01-19 06:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it except
me. I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow your
way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is just
a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about energy preservation
then it is not a common concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the second law from the
perspective of energy preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored to
be able to look at a scientific law from a different perspective.

Regarding the second law, the common understanding is always about the
entropy of the matter. There is also another side of the second law that
determines the quality of energy. And some have confused the quality of
energy with entropy. Entropy is only about matter. It's affected by
energy, but it has nothing to do with energy itself. The expression "a
lower entropy energy" is quite wrong. It's like saying "a more solid
temperature."
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-19 10:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it except
me. I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow your
way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is just
a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about energy preservation
then it is not a common concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the second law from the
perspective of energy preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored to
be able to look at a scientific law from a different perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are just fantasising.
aaa
2018-01-19 11:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it except
me. I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow your
way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is just
a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about energy preservation
then it is not a common concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the second law from the
perspective of energy preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored to
be able to look at a scientific law from a different perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are just fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original post in this thread.
It actually explains the second law from the view of usable and used
energy. It should make the understanding of the second law more complete
than the official explanation that completely overlooks what happens to
energy under the second law. In a way, I explained half of the second
law that no one has bothered to investigate before.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-19 11:37:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it except
me. I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow your
way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is just
a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about energy preservation
then it is not a common concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the second law from the
perspective of energy preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored to
be able to look at a scientific law from a different perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are just fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original post in this thread.
It actually explains the second law from the view of usable and used
energy. It should make the understanding of the second law more complete
than the official explanation that completely overlooks what happens to
energy under the second law. In a way, I explained half of the second
law that no one has bothered to investigate before.
No, you just imagine you did.
aaa
2018-01-19 12:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it except
me. I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow your
way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is just
a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about energy preservation
then it is not a common concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the second law from the
perspective of energy preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored to
be able to look at a scientific law from a different perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are just fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original post in this thread.
It actually explains the second law from the view of usable and used
energy. It should make the understanding of the second law more complete
than the official explanation that completely overlooks what happens to
energy under the second law. In a way, I explained half of the second
law that no one has bothered to investigate before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely ignoring what I have
said in my original post.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-19 13:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought about it except
me. I learned the second law from you, but I don't have to follow your
way of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is just
a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about energy preservation
then it is not a common concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the second law from the
perspective of energy preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored to
be able to look at a scientific law from a different perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are just fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original post in this thread.
It actually explains the second law from the view of usable and used
energy. It should make the understanding of the second law more complete
than the official explanation that completely overlooks what happens to
energy under the second law. In a way, I explained half of the second
law that no one has bothered to investigate before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely ignoring what I have
said in my original post.
I read your initial post without finding a shred of evidence.

You only imagine what you are saying is evidence.

Science understands this stuff perfectly well, and has done since the 19th century.
aaa
2018-01-19 13:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought
about it except me. I learned the second law from you,
but I don't have to follow your way of thinking to be
brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is just a
common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about energy
preservation then it is not a common concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the second law
from the perspective of energy preservation. That's
unfortunate. I'm honored to be able to look at a scientific
law from a different perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are just
fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original post in
this thread. It actually explains the second law from the view
of usable and used energy. It should make the understanding of
the second law more complete than the official explanation that
completely overlooks what happens to energy under the second
law. In a way, I explained half of the second law that no one
has bothered to investigate before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely ignoring what I
have said in my original post.
I read your initial post without finding a shred of evidence.
You only imagine what you are saying is evidence.
Science understands this stuff perfectly well, and has done since the 19th century.
I don't believe you did. Otherwise, care to show me why energy
preservation can be an automatic process in the natural environment to
ensure evolution happening?

Mind you, my argument is the exact opposite of that.

Now, let's see what you have got.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-19 13:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has thought
about it except me. I learned the second law from you,
but I don't have to follow your way of thinking to be
brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is just a
common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about energy
preservation then it is not a common concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the second law
from the perspective of energy preservation. That's
unfortunate. I'm honored to be able to look at a scientific
law from a different perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are just
fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original post in
this thread. It actually explains the second law from the view
of usable and used energy. It should make the understanding of
the second law more complete than the official explanation that
completely overlooks what happens to energy under the second
law. In a way, I explained half of the second law that no one
has bothered to investigate before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely ignoring what I
have said in my original post.
I read your initial post without finding a shred of evidence.
You only imagine what you are saying is evidence.
Science understands this stuff perfectly well, and has done since the 19th century.
I don't believe you did. Otherwise, care to show me why energy
preservation can be an automatic process in the natural environment to
ensure evolution happening?
First show that "energy preservation" actually means something beyond the well understood free energy concept.

Sugar, like any fuel, has free energy bound up in it. You think the likes of Boltzmann and Carnot didn't understand that when they formulated the science of thermodynamics. Fuels have potential energy, like that of a boulder on the top of a hill.
aaa
2018-01-19 14:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has
thought about it except me. I learned the second
law from you, but I don't have to follow your way
of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy
preservation is just a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about
energy preservation then it is not a common concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the second
law from the perspective of energy preservation.
That's unfortunate. I'm honored to be able to look at a
scientific law from a different perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are just
fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original post
in this thread. It actually explains the second law from
the view of usable and used energy. It should make the
understanding of the second law more complete than the
official explanation that completely overlooks what happens
to energy under the second law. In a way, I explained half
of the second law that no one has bothered to investigate
before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely ignoring what
I have said in my original post.
I read your initial post without finding a shred of evidence.
You only imagine what you are saying is evidence.
Science understands this stuff perfectly well, and has done since the 19th century.
I don't believe you did. Otherwise, care to show me why energy
preservation can be an automatic process in the natural environment
to ensure evolution happening?
First show that "energy preservation" actually means something beyond
the well understood free energy concept.
Sugar, like any fuel, has free energy bound up in it. You think the
likes of Boltzmann and Carnot didn't understand that when they
formulated the science of thermodynamics. Fuels have potential
energy, like that of a boulder on the top of a hill.
They are naturally preserved energy done by life on earth, yes.

So where is the answer to my question?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-19 16:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has
thought about it except me. I learned the second
law from you, but I don't have to follow your way
of thinking to be brainwashed by you. Energy
preservation is just a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about
energy preservation then it is not a common concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the second
law from the perspective of energy preservation.
That's unfortunate. I'm honored to be able to look at a
scientific law from a different perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are just
fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original post
in this thread. It actually explains the second law from
the view of usable and used energy. It should make the
understanding of the second law more complete than the
official explanation that completely overlooks what happens
to energy under the second law. In a way, I explained half
of the second law that no one has bothered to investigate
before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely ignoring what
I have said in my original post.
I read your initial post without finding a shred of evidence.
You only imagine what you are saying is evidence.
Science understands this stuff perfectly well, and has done since the 19th century.
I don't believe you did. Otherwise, care to show me why energy
preservation can be an automatic process in the natural environment
to ensure evolution happening?
First show that "energy preservation" actually means something beyond
the well understood free energy concept.
Sugar, like any fuel, has free energy bound up in it. You think the
likes of Boltzmann and Carnot didn't understand that when they
formulated the science of thermodynamics. Fuels have potential
energy, like that of a boulder on the top of a hill.
They are naturally preserved energy done by life on earth, yes.
So where is the answer to my question?
The answer is that your "energy preservation" is just the accumulation of potential energy in chemical compounds, a process well understood in classical thermodynamics and completely compatible with the 2nd law.
aaa
2018-01-19 18:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has
thought about it except me. I learned the
second law from you, but I don't have to follow
your way of thinking to be brainwashed by you.
Energy preservation is just a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about
energy preservation then it is not a common
concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the
second law from the perspective of energy
preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored to be
able to look at a scientific law from a different
perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are
just fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original
post in this thread. It actually explains the second
law from the view of usable and used energy. It should
make the understanding of the second law more complete
than the official explanation that completely overlooks
what happens to energy under the second law. In a way,
I explained half of the second law that no one has
bothered to investigate before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely ignoring
what I have said in my original post.
I read your initial post without finding a shred of
evidence.
You only imagine what you are saying is evidence.
Science understands this stuff perfectly well, and has done since the 19th century.
I don't believe you did. Otherwise, care to show me why energy
preservation can be an automatic process in the natural
environment to ensure evolution happening?
First show that "energy preservation" actually means something
beyond the well understood free energy concept.
Sugar, like any fuel, has free energy bound up in it. You think
the likes of Boltzmann and Carnot didn't understand that when
they formulated the science of thermodynamics. Fuels have
potential energy, like that of a boulder on the top of a hill.
They are naturally preserved energy done by life on earth, yes.
So where is the answer to my question?
The answer is that your "energy preservation" is just the
accumulation of potential energy in chemical compounds, a process
well understood in classical thermodynamics and completely compatible
with the 2nd law.
You are still not answering my actual question. My energy preservation
is fully compatible with the second law. I don't need you to remind me
that. The problem is that my energy preservation is not compatible with
evolution. Nature is not capable to automatically preserve energy to
move back in time to the beginning of the Big Bang. Evolution imagines
that nature can actually do that based on random chance. Can you see how
ridiculous that is?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-23 10:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has
thought about it except me. I learned the
second law from you, but I don't have to follow
your way of thinking to be brainwashed by you.
Energy preservation is just a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about
energy preservation then it is not a common
concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the
second law from the perspective of energy
preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored to be
able to look at a scientific law from a different
perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are
just fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original
post in this thread. It actually explains the second
law from the view of usable and used energy. It should
make the understanding of the second law more complete
than the official explanation that completely overlooks
what happens to energy under the second law. In a way,
I explained half of the second law that no one has
bothered to investigate before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely ignoring
what I have said in my original post.
I read your initial post without finding a shred of
evidence.
You only imagine what you are saying is evidence.
Science understands this stuff perfectly well, and has done
since the 19th century.
I don't believe you did. Otherwise, care to show me why energy
preservation can be an automatic process in the natural
environment to ensure evolution happening?
First show that "energy preservation" actually means something
beyond the well understood free energy concept.
Sugar, like any fuel, has free energy bound up in it. You think
the likes of Boltzmann and Carnot didn't understand that when
they formulated the science of thermodynamics. Fuels have
potential energy, like that of a boulder on the top of a hill.
They are naturally preserved energy done by life on earth, yes.
So where is the answer to my question?
The answer is that your "energy preservation" is just the
accumulation of potential energy in chemical compounds, a process
well understood in classical thermodynamics and completely compatible
with the 2nd law.
You are still not answering my actual question. My energy preservation
is fully compatible with the second law. I don't need you to remind me
that. The problem is that my energy preservation is not compatible with
evolution. Nature is not capable to automatically preserve energy to
move back in time to the beginning of the Big Bang. Evolution imagines
that nature can actually do that based on random chance. Can you see how
ridiculous that is?
Like all creationalists your straw man ToE is entirely about mutation, and
neglects the equally important selection.

The _combination_ is an extremely powerful source of functional structure.

Lets take it bit by bit: First of all: Can you accept that random chemistry
might, however rarely, produce chemical combinations that capture sunlight to
produce compounds with potential energy that could br released later?
aaa
2018-01-24 01:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has
thought about it except me. I learned the
second law from you, but I don't have to follow
your way of thinking to be brainwashed by you.
Energy preservation is just a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about
energy preservation then it is not a common
concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the
second law from the perspective of energy
preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored to be
able to look at a scientific law from a different
perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are
just fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original
post in this thread. It actually explains the second
law from the view of usable and used energy. It should
make the understanding of the second law more complete
than the official explanation that completely overlooks
what happens to energy under the second law. In a way,
I explained half of the second law that no one has
bothered to investigate before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely ignoring
what I have said in my original post.
I read your initial post without finding a shred of
evidence.
You only imagine what you are saying is evidence.
Science understands this stuff perfectly well, and has done
since the 19th century.
I don't believe you did. Otherwise, care to show me why energy
preservation can be an automatic process in the natural
environment to ensure evolution happening?
First show that "energy preservation" actually means something
beyond the well understood free energy concept.
Sugar, like any fuel, has free energy bound up in it. You think
the likes of Boltzmann and Carnot didn't understand that when
they formulated the science of thermodynamics. Fuels have
potential energy, like that of a boulder on the top of a hill.
They are naturally preserved energy done by life on earth, yes.
So where is the answer to my question?
The answer is that your "energy preservation" is just the
accumulation of potential energy in chemical compounds, a process
well understood in classical thermodynamics and completely compatible
with the 2nd law.
You are still not answering my actual question. My energy preservation
is fully compatible with the second law. I don't need you to remind me
that. The problem is that my energy preservation is not compatible with
evolution. Nature is not capable to automatically preserve energy to
move back in time to the beginning of the Big Bang. Evolution imagines
that nature can actually do that based on random chance. Can you see how
ridiculous that is?
Like all creationalists your straw man ToE is entirely about mutation, and
neglects the equally important selection.
At this point, selection is irrelevant, yes. That's because there is
nothing to select when there is no beneficial DNA change possible. The
beneficial DNA change has to be based on energy preservation to create
new orderly construction. Since energy preservation can not be the
result of automatic random event under the second law, ToE is not possible.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The _combination_ is an extremely powerful source of functional structure.
Lets take it bit by bit: First of all: Can you accept that random chemistry
might, however rarely, produce chemical combinations that capture sunlight to
produce compounds with potential energy that could br released later?
According to the second law, that is absolutely imaginary. Energy
preservation is not and will never be an automatic process in nature.
For example, your battery will never be automatically charged in the
natural environment. Only you can charge your battery. Nature, having no
intelligence, can never do that.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Teresita
2018-01-24 03:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
According to the second law, that is absolutely imaginary. Energy
preservation is not and will never be an automatic process in nature.
For example, your battery will never be automatically charged in the
natural environment. Only you can charge your battery. Nature, having no
intelligence, can never do that.
Kaylee: "We’re on a year now, I ain’t had nothing ‘twixt my nethers
weren’t run on batteries."

Mal: "Oh, God! I can’t know that!"

Jayne: "I could stand to hear a little more."
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-24 03:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by aaa
According to the second law, that is absolutely imaginary. Energy
preservation is not and will never be an automatic process in nature.
For example, your battery will never be automatically charged in the
natural environment. Only you can charge your battery. Nature, having no
intelligence, can never do that.
.> Kaylee: "We’re on a year now, I ain’t had nothing ‘twixt my nethers
.> weren’t run on batteries."
.> Mal: "Oh, God! I can’t know that!"
.> Jayne: "I could stand to hear a little more."

Heh!

(now there's a real engineer)



AA
Post by Teresita
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-24 10:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has
thought about it except me. I learned the
second law from you, but I don't have to follow
your way of thinking to be brainwashed by you.
Energy preservation is just a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about
energy preservation then it is not a common
concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the
second law from the perspective of energy
preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored to be
able to look at a scientific law from a different
perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are
just fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original
post in this thread. It actually explains the second
law from the view of usable and used energy. It should
make the understanding of the second law more complete
than the official explanation that completely overlooks
what happens to energy under the second law. In a way,
I explained half of the second law that no one has
bothered to investigate before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely ignoring
what I have said in my original post.
I read your initial post without finding a shred of
evidence.
You only imagine what you are saying is evidence.
Science understands this stuff perfectly well, and has done
since the 19th century.
I don't believe you did. Otherwise, care to show me why energy
preservation can be an automatic process in the natural
environment to ensure evolution happening?
First show that "energy preservation" actually means something
beyond the well understood free energy concept.
Sugar, like any fuel, has free energy bound up in it. You think
the likes of Boltzmann and Carnot didn't understand that when
they formulated the science of thermodynamics. Fuels have
potential energy, like that of a boulder on the top of a hill.
They are naturally preserved energy done by life on earth, yes.
So where is the answer to my question?
The answer is that your "energy preservation" is just the
accumulation of potential energy in chemical compounds, a process
well understood in classical thermodynamics and completely compatible
with the 2nd law.
You are still not answering my actual question. My energy preservation
is fully compatible with the second law. I don't need you to remind me
that. The problem is that my energy preservation is not compatible with
evolution. Nature is not capable to automatically preserve energy to
move back in time to the beginning of the Big Bang. Evolution imagines
that nature can actually do that based on random chance. Can you see how
ridiculous that is?
Like all creationalists your straw man ToE is entirely about mutation, and
neglects the equally important selection.
At this point, selection is irrelevant, yes. That's because there is
nothing to select when there is no beneficial DNA change possible. The
beneficial DNA change has to be based on energy preservation to create
new orderly construction. Since energy preservation can not be the
result of automatic random event under the second law, ToE is not possible.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The _combination_ is an extremely powerful source of functional structure.
Lets take it bit by bit: First of all: Can you accept that random chemistry
might, however rarely, produce chemical combinations that capture sunlight to
produce compounds with potential energy that could br released later?
According to the second law, that is absolutely imaginary. Energy
preservation is not and will never be an automatic process in nature.
For example, your battery will never be automatically charged in the
natural environment. Only you can charge your battery. Nature, having no
intelligence, can never do that.
Right! You fall at the first hurdle. Now, why do you think thermodynamics is also known as "statistical" mechanics?
TT Liams
2018-01-25 00:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has
thought about it except me. I learned the
second law from you, but I don't have to follow
your way of thinking to be brainwashed by you.
Energy preservation is just a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about
energy preservation then it is not a common
concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the
second law from the perspective of energy
preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored to be
able to look at a scientific law from a different
perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are
just fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original
post in this thread. It actually explains the second
law from the view of usable and used energy. It should
make the understanding of the second law more complete
than the official explanation that completely overlooks
what happens to energy under the second law. In a way,
I explained half of the second law that no one has
bothered to investigate before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely ignoring
what I have said in my original post.
I read your initial post without finding a shred of
evidence.
You only imagine what you are saying is evidence.
Science understands this stuff perfectly well, and has done
since the 19th century.
I don't believe you did. Otherwise, care to show me why
energy
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
preservation can be an automatic process in the natural
environment to ensure evolution happening?
First show that "energy preservation" actually means something
beyond the well understood free energy concept.
Sugar, like any fuel, has free energy bound up in it. You think
the likes of Boltzmann and Carnot didn't understand that when
they formulated the science of thermodynamics. Fuels have
potential energy, like that of a boulder on the top of a hill.
They are naturally preserved energy done by life on earth, yes.
So where is the answer to my question?
The answer is that your "energy preservation" is just the
accumulation of potential energy in chemical compounds, a
process
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
well understood in classical thermodynamics and completely
compatible
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
with the 2nd law.
You are still not answering my actual question. My energy
preservation
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
is fully compatible with the second law. I don't need you to remind me
that. The problem is that my energy preservation is not
compatible with
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
evolution. Nature is not capable to automatically preserve
energy to
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
move back in time to the beginning of the Big Bang. Evolution imagines
that nature can actually do that based on random chance. Can you see how
ridiculous that is?
Like all creationalists your straw man ToE is entirely about
mutation, and
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
neglects the equally important selection.
At this point, selection is irrelevant, yes. That's because there is
nothing to select when there is no beneficial DNA change possible. The
beneficial DNA change has to be based on energy preservation to create
new orderly construction. Since energy preservation can not be the
result of automatic random event under the second law, ToE is not possible.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The _combination_ is an extremely powerful source of functional structure.
Lets take it bit by bit: First of all: Can you accept that random chemistry
might, however rarely, produce chemical combinations that capture sunlight to
produce compounds with potential energy that could br released later?
According to the second law, that is absolutely imaginary. Energy
preservation is not and will never be an automatic process in
nature.
Post by aaa
For example, your battery will never be automatically charged in the
natural environment. Only you can charge your battery. Nature,
having no
Post by aaa
intelligence, can never do that.
Conservation of energy is a nature's law
A***@gmail.com
2018-01-23 23:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one has
thought about it except me. I learned the
second law from you, but I don't have to follow
your way of thinking to be brainwashed by you.
Energy preservation is just a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought about
energy preservation then it is not a common
concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the
second law from the perspective of energy
preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored to be
able to look at a scientific law from a different
perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are
just fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my original
post in this thread. It actually explains the second
law from the view of usable and used energy. It should
make the understanding of the second law more complete
than the official explanation that completely overlooks
what happens to energy under the second law. In a way,
I explained half of the second law that no one has
bothered to investigate before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely ignoring
what I have said in my original post.
I read your initial post without finding a shred of
evidence.
You only imagine what you are saying is evidence.
Science understands this stuff perfectly well, and has done
since the 19th century.
I don't believe you did. Otherwise, care to show me why energy
preservation can be an automatic process in the natural
environment to ensure evolution happening?
First show that "energy preservation" actually means something
beyond the well understood free energy concept.
Sugar, like any fuel, has free energy bound up in it. You think
the likes of Boltzmann and Carnot didn't understand that when
they formulated the science of thermodynamics. Fuels have
potential energy, like that of a boulder on the top of a hill.
They are naturally preserved energy done by life on earth, yes.
So where is the answer to my question?
The answer is that your "energy preservation" is just the
accumulation of potential energy in chemical compounds, a process
well understood in classical thermodynamics and completely compatible
with the 2nd law.
You are still not answering my actual question. My energy preservation is
fully compatible with the second law. I don't need you to remind me that.
The problem is that my energy preservation is not compatible with
evolution. Nature is not capable to automatically preserve energy to move
back in time to the beginning of the Big Bang. Evolution imagines that
nature can actually do that based on random chance. Can you see how ridiculous that is?
I agree with you but are you born again? Jesus said you must be born again
to enter heaven.
aaa
2018-01-24 01:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
On Friday, 19 January 2018 06:57:34 UTC, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one
has thought about it except me. I learned
the second law from you, but I don't have
to follow your way of thinking to be
brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is
just a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought
about energy preservation then it is not a
common concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the
second law from the perspective of energy
preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored
to be able to look at a scientific law from a
different perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are
just fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my
original post in this thread. It actually explains
the second law from the view of usable and used
energy. It should make the understanding of the
second law more complete than the official
explanation that completely overlooks what happens
to energy under the second law. In a way, I
explained half of the second law that no one has
bothered to investigate before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely
ignoring what I have said in my original post.
I read your initial post without finding a shred of
evidence.
You only imagine what you are saying is evidence.
Science understands this stuff perfectly well, and has
done since the 19th century.
I don't believe you did. Otherwise, care to show me why
energy preservation can be an automatic process in the
natural environment to ensure evolution happening?
First show that "energy preservation" actually means
something beyond the well understood free energy concept.
Sugar, like any fuel, has free energy bound up in it. You
think the likes of Boltzmann and Carnot didn't understand
that when they formulated the science of thermodynamics.
Fuels have potential energy, like that of a boulder on the
top of a hill.
They are naturally preserved energy done by life on earth,
yes.
So where is the answer to my question?
The answer is that your "energy preservation" is just the
accumulation of potential energy in chemical compounds, a
process well understood in classical thermodynamics and
completely compatible with the 2nd law.
You are still not answering my actual question. My energy
preservation is fully compatible with the second law. I don't need
you to remind me that. The problem is that my energy preservation
is not compatible with evolution. Nature is not capable to
automatically preserve energy to move back in time to the beginning
of the Big Bang. Evolution imagines that nature can actually do
that based on random chance. Can you see how ridiculous that is?
I agree with you but are you born again? Jesus said you must be born
again to enter heaven.
That would depend on what you mean by being born again. Spiritually
speaking, I'm born again every time I can overcome my sin to learn the
truth. It's a never ending struggle because there is no end of learning
the truth of God.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
TT Liams
2018-01-25 21:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by aaa
On Friday, 19 January 2018 06:57:34 UTC, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
Energy preservation is mine alone. No one
has thought about it except me. I learned
the second law from you, but I don't have
to follow your way of thinking to be
brainwashed by you. Energy preservation is
just a common concept.
If you are the only person who has thought
about energy preservation then it is not a
common concept.
Perhaps no one has bothered to understand the
second law from the perspective of energy
preservation. That's unfortunate. I'm honored
to be able to look at a scientific law from a
different perspective.
Or perhaps its not a meaningful term and you are
just fantasising.
I made my explanation pretty clearly in my
original post in this thread. It actually explains
the second law from the view of usable and used
energy. It should make the understanding of the
second law more complete than the official
explanation that completely overlooks what happens
to energy under the second law. In a way, I
explained half of the second law that no one has
bothered to investigate before.
No, you just imagine you did.
Yet, you never bother to show why by completely
ignoring what I have said in my original post.
I read your initial post without finding a shred of
evidence.
You only imagine what you are saying is evidence.
Science understands this stuff perfectly well, and has
done since the 19th century.
I don't believe you did. Otherwise, care to show me why
energy preservation can be an automatic process in the
natural environment to ensure evolution happening?
First show that "energy preservation" actually means
something beyond the well understood free energy concept.
Sugar, like any fuel, has free energy bound up in it. You
think the likes of Boltzmann and Carnot didn't understand
that when they formulated the science of thermodynamics.
Fuels have potential energy, like that of a boulder on the
top of a hill.
They are naturally preserved energy done by life on earth, yes.
So where is the answer to my question?
The answer is that your "energy preservation" is just the
accumulation of potential energy in chemical compounds, a
process well understood in classical thermodynamics and
completely compatible with the 2nd law.
You are still not answering my actual question. My energy
preservation is fully compatible with the second law. I don't need
you to remind me that. The problem is that my energy preservation
is not compatible with evolution. Nature is not capable to
automatically preserve energy to move back in time to the
beginning
Post by aaa
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
of the Big Bang. Evolution imagines that nature can actually do
that based on random chance. Can you see how ridiculous that is?
I agree with you but are you born again? Jesus said you must be born
again to enter heaven.
That would depend on what you mean by being born again. Spiritually
speaking, I'm born again every time I can overcome my sin to learn the
truth. It's a never ending struggle because there is no end of
learning
Post by aaa
the truth of God.
If your not born again your not christian.

David Canzi
2018-01-12 19:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the energy preservation when
we are discussing the second law. To us humans, energy preservation is
nothing but storing the energy as it is for later consumption. However,
from the view of the second law, that is not accurate.
According to the second law, storing energy should not be confused with
preserving energy.
I can't tell what the process is that you're calling "energy
preservation". What do physicists call it?
--
David Canzi | Science is the signal; religion is the noise.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-12 20:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Canzi
Post by aaa
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the energy preservation when
we are discussing the second law. To us humans, energy preservation is
nothing but storing the energy as it is for later consumption. However,
from the view of the second law, that is not accurate.
According to the second law, storing energy should not be confused with
preserving energy.
I can't tell what the process is that you're calling "energy
preservation". What do physicists call it?
He doesn't know and can't explain it - it's made up nonsense.
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-12 21:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the energy preservation when
we are discussing the second law. To us humans, energy preservation is
nothing but storing the energy as it is for later consumption. However,
from the view of the second law, that is not accurate.
.> >> According to the second law, storing energy should not be confused with
.> >> preserving energy.

.> >I can't tell what the process is that you're calling "energy
.> >preservation". What do physicists call it?
.> He doesn't know and can't explain it - it's made up nonsense.

Oh, you just don't understand it philosophically and spiritually.

And ergometrically and kinetically and alphabetically and
gastronomically and epithelially. And above all, silly-ly.


AA
Loading...