"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

King Mob

J C wrote: »

It is self-evident that an ultimate intelligent input as well as an external energy source are required to locally decrease entropy ... so I don't think it requires much more than to point out this obvious fact!!!

... and the fact that I seem to be the first person to discover it.

... who says tha all obvious scientific facts have been discovered already???

... it reminds me of the story about one of the directors of the US Patents Office during mid 19th Century who recommended that the office should be 'wound down' because he believed that every useful device that could be invented had been invented!!!!

Well it might very well be obvious to your clearly magnificent mind, but there's a few of us who need to actually see the mathematical proof of this theorem.

So why not just slap up that proof and we can all see how wrong we've been.

Don't worry about the calculus you'll need, I'm sure it won't be too complex with it being self evident and all.

(Calculus is the one with the d's and the squiggly lines in case you forgot.)

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Well it might very well be obvious to your clearly magnificent mind, but there's a few of us who need to actually see the mathematical proof of this theorem.

So why not just slap up that proof and we can all see how wrong we've been.
Don't worry about the calculus you'll need, I'm sure it won't be too complex with it being self evident and all.

(Calculus is the one with the d's and the squiggly lines in case you forgot.)

... there is no need for maths or calculus in this case ... just observation ... and the hypothesis is that decreases in entropy are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source.

5uspect

J C wrote: »

Will they accept a peer-reviewed Creation Science paper??

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... there is no need for maths or calculus in this case ... just observation ... and the hypothesis is that decreases in entropy are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source.

Oh come on humour me. Show us the mathematical statement of this.
You don't even have to prove it, just put your above theorem into it's proper form.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Oh come on humour me. Show us the mathematical statement of this.
You don't even have to prove it, just put your above theorem into it's proper form.

The hypothesis is that decreases in entropy are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source ... now go away and behave as a scientist ... and come back to me if you have disproof of this hypothesis ... indeed Law ... because of the strength of the evidence supporting it.

J C

5uspect wrote: »

... are these the crayons that are used to colour in the nice pictures in the evolution storybooks???

King Mob

J C wrote: »

The hypothesis is that decreases in entropy are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source ... now go away and behave as a scientist ... and come back to me if you have disproof of this hypothesis ... indeed Law ... because of the strength of the evidence supporting it.

But JC, how can I disprove it when you've even yet to state it?

So I'll start you off.
If entropy is "S" and and the change in S is DS (D is delta here, cause I can't type that symbol). Then DS= DQ/T where Q is the heat absorbed by the system and T is the temperature of the system.

So where do you go from here?

J C

King Mob wrote: »

But JC, how can I disprove it when you've even yet to state it?

So I'll start you off.
If entropy is "S" and and the change in S is DS (D is delta here, cause I can't type that symbol). Then DS= DQ/T where Q is the heat absorbed by the system and T is the temperature of the system.

So where do you go from here?

... no need for any of that ... so I'll restate my scientific hypothesis that decreases in entropy are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source ... now go away ... and come back to me, if you have disproof of this hypothesis ... indeed Law ... because of the strength of the evidence supporting it.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... no need for any of that ... I'll merely restate my scientific hypothesis that decreases in entropy are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source ... now go away ... and come back to me, if you have disproof of this hypothesis ... indeed Law ... because of the strength of the evidence supporting it.

But there is a need JC. If you can't put your theorem into a mathematical statement, which you said should be self evident, you'd run the risk of looking like an idiot who hasn't a clue about what he's talking about.

So come on, as the discoverer of this statement and a scientist, surely you have all the equations done out and to hand.

clever_name

J C wrote: »

... no need for any of that ... so I'll restate my scientific hypothesis that decreases in entropy are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source ... now go away ... and come back to me, if you have disproof of this hypothesis ... indeed Law ... because of the strength of the evidence supporting it.

A quick question to help clarify, you state "decreases in entropy are never observed", is it that a decrease can not happen or that decreases are not measurable?

J C

GO_Bear wrote: »

Why would I attend lectures when I could go to mass ...

... 'cop out' of the century!!!!
... could I gently point out that you could do both, if you are a Roman Catholic!!!:eek:

J C

King Mob wrote: »

But there is a need JC. If you can't put your theorem into a mathematical statement, which you said should be self evident, you'd run the risk of looking like an idiot who hasn't a clue about what he's talking about.

So come on, as the discoverer of this statement and a scientist, surely you have all the equations done out and to hand.

This isn't a mathematical theorm ... it's a scientific hypothesis and a candidate Scientific Law.

... and sombody looking for a mathematical theorm ... when we are clearly discussing a scientific hypothesis ... could indeed run the risk of looking like an idiot who hasn't a clue about what he is talking about ... so please think about it, before you do this again!!!

J C

clever_name wrote: »

A quick question to help clarify, you state "decreases in entropy are never observed", is it that a decrease can not happen or that decreases are not measurable?

... it is that decreases in entropy have never been observed ... they can be measured by increases in order and complexity ... which are always found as a result of the intelligently designed harnessing of external energy to intelligently manipulate matter within the laws of physics and chemistry.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

This isn't a mathematical theorm ... it's a scientific hypothesis and a candidate Scientific Law.

... and sombody looking for a mathematical theorm ... when we are clearly discussing a scientific hypothesis ... could indeed run the risk of looking like an idiot who hasn't a clue about what he is talking about ... so please think about it, before you do this again!!!

Except I actually know thermodynamics quite well.
You are positing a thermodynamic theory.
Entropy is a mathematical concept.

So unfortunately you can't posit a theory about entropy with using math.
And your theory is a mathematical theorem.

But silly JC, as a scientist you should know that much.

So come on JC stop playing around and give us the mathematical expression you have for your theory.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Except I actually know thermodynamics quite well.
You are positing a thermodynamic theory.
Entropy is a mathematical concept.

So unfortunately you can't posit a theory about entropy with using math.
And your theory is a mathematical theorem.

But silly JC, as a scientist you should know that much.

So come on JC stop playing around and give us the mathematical expression you have for your theory.

I am not positing a thermodynamic theory ... I am positing a scientific hypothesis ... that decreases in entropy (and increases in order and complexity) are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source.

You say that you are an expert in thermodynamics ... so have you observed any situation that is in conflict with my hypothesis?

clever_name

J C wrote: »

... it is that decreases in entropy have never been observed ... they can be measured by increases in order and complexity ... which are always found as a result of the intelligently designed harnessing of external energy.

J.C. that sounds like scientific dynamite, I will have to leave this discussion as I don't understand the new theroetical offshoot of thermodynamics that you are working on.

Also I just don't have time to forget the old wrong stuff so I can learn the new laws, I just tried to forget the little I know about differences in entropy in closed and open systems and no luck, its still there.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

I am not positing a thermodynamic theory ... I am positing a scientific hypothesis ... that decreases in entropy are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source.

You say that you are an expert in thermodynamics ... so have you observed any situation that is in conflict with my hypothesis?

Actually I never said I was an expert, just that I knew it quite well.

The thing is I still don't know what the hypothesis actually is because you haven't actually stated it properly.

And silly JC, you are positing a theory that involves entropy. Entropy is a thermodynamic concept. Therefore you are positing a thermodynamic theory, therefore you need math.
But you should know this cause you're a real scientist aren't you?

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Actually I never said I was an expert, just that I knew it quite well.

The thing is I still don't know what the hypothesis actually is because you haven't actually stated it properly.

And silly JC, you are positing a theory that involves entropy. Entropy is a thermodynamic concept. Therefore you are positing a thermodynamic theory, therefore you need math.
But you should know this cause you're a real scientist aren't you?

... you don't need to apply maths to a repeatably observable (i.e. scientific) hypothesis ... in this case, the hypothesis that decreases in entropy (and increases in order and complexity) are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source.

J C

clever_name wrote: »

J.C. that sounds like scientific dynamite, I will have to leave this discussion as I don't understand the new theroetical offshoot of thermodynamics that you are working on.

... not dynamite ... just pure science in action.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... you don't need to apply maths to a repeatably observable (i.e. scientific) hypothesis ... in this case, that decreases in entropy (and increases in order and complexity) are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source.

But it's thermodynamics JC, you need the math.

Don't worry if you think it's too technically, I'm sure since it's self evident and all we can understand most of it.

So come on, show us the math you did to prove this law of yours.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

But it's thermodynamics JC, you need the math.

Don't worry if you think it's too technically, I'm sure since it's self evident and all we can understand most of it.

So come on, show us the math you did to prove this law of yours.

Maths has it's place in science ... but in this case the hypothesis is based on observation, and not maths ... so do you know of any evidence that disproves my hypothesis?

... please stop stalling with a maths 'red herring' ... and answer my question.

Fluffybums

JC by your reckoning this planet should die since the sun runs on nuclear fusion. I'm not a physicist of your standing but by your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics the sun is clearly not possible.


But then again I can guess your answer, it was created and is maintained by a "creator" and that is why it exists and continues to exist.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Maths has it's place in science ... but in this case the hypothesis is based on observation, and not maths ... so do you know of any evidence that disproves my hypothesis?

... please stop stalling with a maths 'red herring' ... and answer my question.

Again I can't disprove your hypothesis because you've yet to state it properly.

If you're making a thermodynamic statement, like the above, you need to describe it throught maths.
Why is this a problem JC?
You do know how to express your theorem in proper maths notation, right?
Cause you'd look like a total idiot if you couldn't/

And yes I do know of an example of something that disproves your hypothesis, if all you have is the statement without the math.

J C

Fluffybums wrote: »

JC by your reckoning this planet should die since the sun runs on nuclear fusion. I'm not a physicist of your standing but by your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics the sun is clearly not possible.


But then again I can guess your answer, it was created and is maintained by a "creator" and that is why it exists and continues to exist.

... the Sun itself is increasing entropy ... so my hypothesis isn't about such situations ...
... it is concerned with decreases in entropy (and increases in order and complexity) ... which are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source.

Fluffybums

J C wrote: »

... the Sun itself is increasing entropy ... so my hypothesis isn't about such situations ...
... it is concerned with decreases in entropy (and increases in order and complexity) ... which are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source.

Nuclear fusion/sun?

robindch

J C wrote: »

is concerned with decreases in entropy (and increases in order and complexity) ... which are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source.

Even assuming your broken and weird understanding of "entropy", "decreases" in "entropy" are constantly observed here on earth owing to (a) energy flows from one place to another, which "decrease" the "entropy" in one place by "increasing" it elsewhere and (b) the net input of energy from outside the earth's "system".

I know you like a challenge, so I won't tell you what introduces the energy which powers this "decrease" in "entropy", but if you step out from your bunker on a cloudless day and look upwards, you'll see a large, hot yellow thing in the sky and that's what does it.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Again I can't disprove your hypothesis because you've yet to state it properly.

If you're making a thermodynamic statement, like the above, you need to describe it throught maths.
Why is this a problem JC?
You do know how to express your theorem in proper maths notation, right?
Cause you'd look like a total idiot if you couldn't/

And yes I do know of an example of something that disproves your hypothesis, if all you have is the statement without the math.

It is stated properly allright, it doesn't need maths to disprove it ... all that is required is just one case where it doesn't happen.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Even assuming your broken and weird understanding of "entropy", "decreases" in "entropy" are constantly observed here on earth owing to (a) energy flows from one place to another, which "decrease" the "entropy" in one place by "increasing" it elsewhere and (b) the net input of energy from outside the earth's "system".

I know you like a challenge, so I won't tell you what introduces the energy which powers this "decrease" in "entropy", but if you step out from your bunker on a cloudless day and look upwards, you'll see a large, hot yellow thing in the sky and that's what does it.

... my hypothesis is about how external energy (ultimately from the Sun) converts physical phenonmena into more ordered complex states ... and it always requires an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source to do so.
The applliance of energy, in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising it, always results in an increase in disorder.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

It is stated properly allright, it doesn't need maths to disprove it ... all that is required is just one case where it doesn't happen.

But JC it's not, you have to state it mathematically.

Frankly I am shocked that you can't seem to do this and am beginning to think you've actually no idea what you are talking about.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

But JC it's not, you have to state it mathematically.

Frankly I am shocked that you can't seem to do this and am beginning to think you've actually no idea what you are talking about.

... are you an expert in ye olde arte ... of the red herring??!!:)