Customer Discussions > Science forum

# Creationists propose a simplified First Law of Thermodynamcics. Is it the Settled Science?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 33 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 13, 2013 1:06:25 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2013 4:45:00 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion.]

Posted on Jan 13, 2013 1:17:08 PM PST
Mass can be created from energy and turned into energy. E = M c^2, if you want the quantities involved.

Posted on Jan 13, 2013 1:22:08 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2013 1:28:11 PM PST
Mass can be created from energy and turned into energy?
Us Creationists, we disagree.

But if we're wrong, we're wrong.
Do you have an example?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 1:32:26 PM PST
Yes. Compare the mass of a helium atom to the mass of two protons and two neutrons in isolation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 2:12:21 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
A nuclear device of any type, particle collisions, etc.

Now please go away. This wasn't funny a year ago and it has gotten even less amusing since.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 2:57:38 PM PST
tom kriske says:
It is incomplete. Let's use the standard definition, since definitions, by definition, are important:

In a thermodynamic process of a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the increment of heat accumulated by the system and the increment of work done by it.

Posted on Jan 13, 2013 3:23:39 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion.]

Posted on Jan 13, 2013 3:27:32 PM PST
Nuclear fusion in the sun proceeds mainly by uniting four hydrogen atoms to form a helium atom. In the process, 400 million tons of hydrogen are turned into energy every second--which is why the sun shines. Both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion depend on mass and energy being interconvertible. If you couldn't convert mass to energy, neither nuclear bombs nor nuclear power plants would work, and neither would the sun and stars.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 3:49:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2013 3:51:07 PM PST
Deckard says:
Christopher Haynes said:
"Mass can be created from energy and turned into energy?
Us Creationists, we disagree."

LOL. Are you really this clueless? And it's really converted, not created.

"But if we're wrong, we're wrong.
Do you have an example?"

You're always wrong. Go open up any physics book and look up fission or fusion. You might want to learn how to read first.

Posted on Jan 13, 2013 3:52:04 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2013 4:52:13 PM PST
Us Creationists agree, the conversion of hydrogen to helium would cause the sun to lose about 400 million tons a second.

The sun's temperature stays more or less constant while this happens.
To stay at the same temperaure, the sun must of given off radiation, photons.
400 million tons of photons a second.
So the mass the sun loses, outer space gains.

This is in keeping with the Creationist Law of Conservation:
In the absence of divine intervention, mass is never created or destroyed.

Posted on Jan 13, 2013 4:07:31 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 15, 2013 2:13:05 PM PST
Youre wrong about atomic power plants.
They DONT convert mass to energy.
Take it from us Creationists, the total amount of mass always stays the same.

That's in keeping with the Creationist Law of Conservation:
"In the absence of divine intervention, mass is never created or destroyed."

For a simple example, take a simple atomic power plant. Hanford, back in 1945.
It didnt never make no steam or electricity, cause it was built just to make weapons of mass destruction.
The reactor was cooled by water from the Columbia River.

When the reactor ran, it gave off heat energy. So its mass went down.
Using Einstein his formula E=mc2, The loss in mass was Heat/c2
(Einstein he figured that c2 is equal to 19.7 trillion Btus per pound.)

The water what got pumped through the reactor, it took away the heat energy.
So its mass went up. It went up by Heat/c2

So the mass the reactor lost, the Columbia River gained.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 5:01:57 PM PST
Deckard says:
Christopher Haynes said:
"To stay at the same temperaure, the sun must of given off radiation, photons.
400 million tons of photons a second.
So the mass the sun loses, outer space gains"

Photons have no mass. If they did, they could not move at the speed of light.

Posted on Jan 13, 2013 5:11:35 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2013 5:31:29 PM PST
Respectfully, you should of studied physics.
Like us Creationists we got in high school.
Then you wouldnt of written what was wrong.

Take it from us Creationists, a photon has mass.
Because it moves at the speed of light.
Its mass is equal to its energy.
(0.8 ounces per trillion Btu's, according to Einstein's factor.)

The photon's energy its proportional to the frequency.
(6*10^-37 Btu per Hert, according to Planck's formula.)
So its mass, its proportional to its frequency.

Respectfully, you arent being very considerate of your kids.
Think how them other kids will laugh at your poor kids now.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 5:19:23 PM PST
Deckard says:
Christopher Haynes said:
"Take it from us Creationists, a photon has mass.
Its mass is equal to its energy."

Go look up mass-equivalence.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 6:06:06 PM PST
SinSeeker says:
"In the absence of divine intervention, mass is never created or destroyed."

Let's conduct an experiment. Can you clarify how we would know the difference between the presence and absence of divine intervention? Can you outline the experimental protocols for creating or destroying mass?

This is a really straightforward 2 X 2 experiment and I'm keen to get started! There's a Nobel prize in the offing!

Chris, I know your feelings on lining the pockets of rich pointy headed intellectuals. You can donate your share of the prize to the poor.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 3:56:37 AM PST
CH: Us Creationists agree, the conversion of hydrogen to helium would cause the sun to lose about 400 million tons a second.

The sun's temperature stays more or less constant while this happens.
To stay at the same temperaure, the sun must of given off radiation, photons.
400 million tons of photons a second.
So the mass the sun loses, outer space gains.

This is in keeping with the Creationist Law of Conservation:
In the absence of divine intervention, mass is never created or destroyed.

BPL: Then how does it differ from mass-energy conservation in the usual laws of physics?

Posted on Jan 14, 2013 4:54:23 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 14, 2013 7:25:11 AM PST
The Creationist Law of Conservation:
"In the absence of divine intervention, mass is never created or destroyed."

How does it differ from mass-energy conservation in the usual laws of physics?
Here's how.
A Law should be true for all cass, for all systems, for all times.
The Creationist Law is.
The "Usual" Laws arent.

Compelling empirical evidence shows that the "usual laws" are false.
(See John 2:1-12. Mathew 14:13-21 and others)
That's why we got the first clause in the Creationist Law of Conservation.

That jazz about the atomic reactor, I hope you agree with it.
The total mass is unchanged.
The mass the reactor lost, the Columbia River gained.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 8:59:23 AM PST
J. Russell says:
heat is not mass. Heat is atoms moving faster so no the Columbia did NOT gain mass when it was used to cool the reactor.

Posted on Jan 14, 2013 9:10:18 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 14, 2013 11:48:00 AM PST
You should of kept up with Peer Reviewed Science.
Then you wouldnt of written nitwit stuff.

Take it from us Creationsits.
Heat IS mass
ALL energy is mass.

Them accelerators, they proved when stuff goes faster, it has more mass.
Even when it goes just a little bit faster, them Peer Reviewed Formulas say.

You heat water, them atoms they go faster.
So you got more mass.

How much more? m=E/c2
c2? Einstein came up with the right figure: 0.8 ounces of mass, per trillion Btu's of heat.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 2:12:45 PM PST
SinSeeker says:
"In the absence of divine intervention, mass is never created or destroyed."

Let's conduct an experiment. Can you clarify how we would know the difference between the presence and absence of divine intervention? Can you outline the experimental protocols for creating or destroying mass?

This is a really straightforward 2 X 2 experiment and I'm keen to get started! There's a Nobel prize in the offing!

Chris, I know your feelings on lining the pockets of rich pointy headed intellectuals. You can donate your share of the prize to the poor.

Come on Chris, let's collaborate on this. I'm excited to start!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 2:50:46 PM PST
Deckard says:
Christopher Haynes said:

"You heat water, them atoms they go faster.
So you got more mass."

But it's not the same mass. So your "law" is wrong. Unless of course there was divine intervention.

Posted on Jan 15, 2013 4:44:46 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 15, 2013 6:41:55 AM PST
Us Creationsts, we need to correct some more stuff.

One guy he tried to put out a statement of the first law.
Here it is:
Ahem, "In a thermodynamic process of a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the increment of heat accumulated by the system and the increment of work done by it. "
Whew!
It's got two errors, and one nonsensical term

The first error:
That stufff about the change in internal energy is equal to heat plus work, its just wrong.

Take a closed system. An elevator counterweight.
Consider this case: Everything is isothermal, so there's no heat transfer, and the weight goes down.
Its "internal energy" doesnt change, and it doesnt accumualte heat.
The weight lifts the elevator, doing work on it.
This here "Law" says that its change in internal energy its equal to the work done on the elevator.
But the internal energy it didnt change!

The second error:
Compelling empirical evidence shows that ALL of the "standard laws " are false.
(See John 2:1-12. Mathew 14:13-21 and others)

The nonsensical term:
Its this: "Heat."
Why is Heat is nonsensical?
Its putting the cart before the horse.
Without the 2nd law, "heat" is indistinguishable from work
So in the 1st law, you cant talk about heat, which is based on a 2nd law that you dont got yet.
That's some nonsenscial, huh?

Anyhow, you dont need all them big words.
We got the Creationist Law of Conservation for you:
"In the absence of divine intervention, mass is never created or destroyed."

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 12:24:14 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 15, 2013 12:24:51 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 2:05:08 PM PST
SinSeeker says:
"In the absence of divine intervention, mass is never created or destroyed."

Can you clarify how we would know the difference between the presence and absence of divine intervention? Can you outline the experimental protocols for creating or destroying mass?

There's a Nobel prize in this! I'm happy to do the grunt work, but I'll need some guidance on the experimental protocols you think we should adopt.

Chris, I know your feelings on lining the pockets of rich pointy headed intellectuals. We can both donate the Nobel prize money to the poor.

Come on Chris, let's collaborate on this. I'm excited to start!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 2:49:58 PM PST
Deckard says:
Christopher Haynes said:
"Take a closed system. An elevator counterweight.
Consider this case: Everything is isothermal, so there's no heat transfer, and the weight goes down.
Its "internal energy" doesnt change, and it doesnt accumualte heat.
The weight lifts the elevator, doing work on it.
This here "Law" says that its change in internal energy its equal to the work done on the elevator.
But the internal energy it didnt change."

It's not supposed to.

From wikipedia - Internal energy does not include the energy due to motion of a system as a whole. It further excludes any kinetic or potential energy the body may have because of its location in external gravitational, electrostatic, or electomagnetic fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy

"Anyhow, you dont need all them big words.
We got the Creationist Law of Conservation for you:
"In the absence of divine intervention, mass is never created or destroyed.""

You have no evidence of divine intervention and your previous example shows that your statement on mass is wrong.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]]
Prompts for sign-in

### Recent discussions in the Science forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
831 3 minutes ago
367 17 minutes ago
8 30 minutes ago
2237 45 minutes ago
182 57 minutes ago
36 59 minutes ago
5880 1 hour ago
183 2 hours ago
354 3 hours ago
2005 8 hours ago
61 13 hours ago
10 19 hours ago

### More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

## This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  7
Total posts:  33
Initial post:  Jan 13, 2013
Latest post:  Jan 19, 2013