How?
Funny, then, that the idea was initially rejected because it opened a door to claiming there was a God. As Dale noted:
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics is that you cannot create or destroy energy.
I see no evidence of theism in articles on the Big Bang. Whether Hubble et al included God or not, the discussions centre around dark matter and other cosmic phenomena and the observable expansion of the Universe rather than the origins of the initial expansion.
I am not disputing that God is the most logical answer, I am trying to ascertain the scientific solution that excludes Him.
Richard
The scientists at Los Alamos must not have heard of this law. They built a device that excels at creating energy from matter. And the process can actually work in reverse, matter from energy.
I attended a lecture by Robert Jastrow way back in 1967, or there abouts, where he explained all of this.
Clearly you do not understand. Matter contains energy. All they are doing is releasing that energy.
The law of thermodynmics holds.
Richard
E = mc*2 They generate the energy by destroying matter. You know the whole splitting the atom thing. Matter and energy are equivalent.
2 Likes
And?
Not exactly.
Matter has energy stored within it. Splitting the atom releases that energy. When it explodes other matter is formed along with a tremendous release of kinetic energy. That energy is not spent or lost but it is absorbed into the atmosphere until it disipates. Even then it is not actually lost, the mean temperature rises until evened out by combining with the energy levels already present.
There is a reason why the Law of thermodynamics was made. It does not dictate, it observes, and to date there is no exception to it.
Richard
and the little 2?
What does "not exactly mean?
Richard
One big thing that you are missing is that the resultant mass of the fission products is less than the parent isotopes. So you have a lot more energy and less mass than you started with. Some of the mass was actually converted into energy â it wasnât just âreleasedâ by splitting the atom. (This is not unlike your misconception that the big bang was a chemical explosion.)
1 Like
Of course, some of the energy is spent in heat.
Look, I do not want to argue physics , any more than I want ot argue cosmology or even Evolution.
Scientists are notoriously tunnel-visioned. They have their specialties and sometimes they are literally unaware of other disciplines that might impinge or affect their theories or beliefs.
Christians can be likewise. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I have a broad but shallow knowledge of a great deal of science but I am not up to date on any of it. I use the Internet to try and catch up but it is only the popular stuff not the cutting edge.
I throw stuff out and see what bites. Congratulations, you bit. But I do not have the knowledge to completely roll you in.
Richard
And? What about the lost mass? Where is it hiding?
Your insults do not fill the gap of your missing understanding.
1 Like
It isnât hiding it is transformed.
I didnât write the law of thermodynamics.
Richard
You said energy was released. You said nothing about mass becoming energy, it being transformed, the mass being âspentâ as energy.
Heat is energy.
In fission, smaller atomic weight nuclides are formed. In fusion, new bigger particles are formed, not smaller ones, but maybe counterintuitively there is still less mass in the result because so incredibly much energy is released.
1 Like
That was what was meant to come across, so, my bad. like i said, I am not a physicist as such.
I am almost certain that you do get it but my explanations fall short, sorry
Richard
1 Like
That doesnât answer the question. If energy pre-existed, then it pre-existed; that has nothing to do with being created or destroyed.
I would think that depends on the sources of articles youâre reading. Iâve seen a half dozen over the last year or so that talked about the Big Bang and attributed it to God, some in passing but a couple asking why He might do things that way. But if youâre looking at science journals, of course you wonât see God mentioned; as divine activity canât be measured, it isnât a matter scientists are going to bother with so long as there are plenty of things around that can be measured or similarly investigated.
There are no solutions that exclude Him, scientific or otherwise, first because (as above) divine activity canât be measured, and second because there is no way to tell the difference, for example, between a cosmic ray that arose naturally and one that God created fresh and aimed at Earth.
1 Like
Yes, exactly â and e = mc^2 specifies that equivalence.
As my university professor for first term relativistic physics put it, matter is just really cold energy.
BTW, that equivalence is why photons could be used as a space propulsion system.
Yeah, one of my physics professors was always hoping that one of the lab exercises would produce a deviant result that couldnât be explained away. There was a story of how he thought he had one when one lab team got some really weird results; there set-up was left untouched and their table cordoned off and the whole class plus his grad students went over everything step by step looking for sources of error, some by checking everything the lab team had recorded while most started over and ran the exercise again. Eventually they found the source of error, which allegedly was subtle enough that he guided the lab team responsible and a couple of his grad students in writing a brief paper on the matter.
The story doesnât even mention what the exercise was about; the point is that real scientists are always looking for something that will overturn some accepted principle or even a whole theory, and will go to great lengths to verify when something appears to deviate.
No, some of the mass is converted to energy â thatâs where the heat comes from.
Matter-antimatter reactions perhaps make this the most clear: take one electron and one positron and smack them together, and you will have no mass afterwards â two electron masses of matter no longer exists, and you have a batch of energetic photons.
[note: proton-antiproton collisions arenât so tidy; since theyâre both made of quarks, the general result is a spread of loose quarks and some photons, no total annihilation]
You and I might believe that, but it is by no means the universal belief. Part of the reason for discussing is to draw out the agnostic or antitheistic viewpoint and answer , or at least debate it.
I appreciate the Scientific precision but that really is not the point here.
Richard
Mesopotamia existed because it sat on the flood plains of the Tigris and Euphrates. Regular flooding brought in fresh soil nutrients which kept farming going. I donât think it is a stretch to think that there were some really bad floods on those flood plains. Also, given the central importance of flooding to the culture it isnât surprising that they have flood myths. Flooding was also really important for farming along the Nile.
Ziggurats existed at that time, so Iâm guessing they were the source of the myth.
1 Like