First off, thank you for the warm welcome everyone, and secondly Twister, what you're saying is that since there was a source of energy near the explosion coming from utterly nothing, that it sent all the planets into a perfect elliptical pattern? Is this science or theory? Can this be simulated in a lab? What if I lit a firecracker and destroyed a rock with it, and close to it I placed a battery (source of energy), would I create my own miniature replica of what happened to our solar system? It only makes scientific sense that there was an Intelligent Designer behind our universe. If you say my beliefs aren't scientific, are yours?

quote:

---

what you're saying is that since there was a source of energy near the explosion coming from utterly nothing, that it sent all the planets into a perfect elliptical pattern?

---

No, I was countering the argument that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics with my scientific definition of entropy, which lead to the obvious inclusion of the sun in our system. This more thorough understanding of entropy also shows us that 'order' can arise from 'disorder' if we have a poor understanding of entropy. With a proper understanding of entropy, however, we see that the movement of the planets and even the formation of the planets is not actually a move against the trend of stored energy to kinetic energy.

The ontologial
reference of some object is relative to the metalanguage it is translated into.

And remember; it wasn't a single molecule! That's a silly theory - the most widely accepted theory is that a nothingness of matter split into matter and anti-matter. These two cancel out and leave us with an aggregate of zero matter. Why did this happen? Well, there's actually no reason why it shouldn't and no reason why it should; the fact is, it can - there is no energy required, as energy was also conserved. All Quantum numbers are preserved, so there's absolutely no scientific or logical problem with this theory.

The ontologial
reference of some object is relative to the metalanguage it is translated into.

They didnt 'form' a perfectly elliptical orbit. It's called gravitational fields.

Gravity doesnt operate on a point, but on all sides, spherically. Hence elliptical orbits, hence spherical planets. Easy!

THe orbits aren't perfectly ellipitical.

quote:

---

And remember; it wasn't a single molecule! That's a silly theory - the most widely accepted theory is that a nothingness of matter split into matter and anti-matter. These two cancel out and leave us with an aggregate of zero matter. Why did this happen? Well, there's actually no reason why it shouldn't and no reason why it should; the fact is, it can - there is no energy required, as energy was also conserved. All Quantum numbers are preserved, so there's absolutely no scientific or logical problem with this theory.

---

If that was true it would be good but energy was created from nothing and the symmetery is evidentally broken. Energy was created as Antimatter+Matter=Lots of Energy (From Einstein's relativity (both special and general))

Even so I don't see why a creator God is implied and even if it is there is no reason why it is necessarily a kind person She may be a giant insect.

quote:

---

If that was true it would be good but energy was created from nothing and the symmetery is evidentally broken. Energy was created as Antimatter+Matter=Lots of Energy (From Einstein's relativity (both special and general))

Even so I don't see why a creator God is implied and even if it is there is no reason why it is necessarily a kind person She may be a giant insect.

---

Complete misunderstanding of energy and the difference between special and general relativity. Energy is effectively stored in matter and the interactions between matter. Relativistic effects between matter is what allows for this energy in the first place, because there is a difference between relativistic mass and constituent mass. This manifests itself in kinetic energy in the Big Bang, and kinetic energy is nett zero (energy is a vector).

Oh, and just for the science class, special relativity refers to the special case in which there is no relative acceleration, whereas general relativity refers to general cases (including those with and those without a relative acceleration).

Of course the orbits aren't perfectly elliptical, as there are many others forces involved.

The ontologial
reference of some object is relative to the metalanguage it is translated into.

[This message was edited by Twister on 06-15-06 at 10:18 PM.]

ENERGY IS NOT A VECTOR. It can't be given the equation 1/2(Not a vector) m (Not a vector) v^2 (Admittedly v is a vector but v^2 cannot be negative in the case that V is Real nt complex) admittedly not relatvisitc energy but close enough.There is no way that energy can be descirbed as a vector.

Special RElativity allows accelerating objects just is non gravational and inertial reference frames only.

The orbits aren't perfect ellipses even in the case of one planet orbiting a star where no other forces are invloved and the star doesn't move. Theese assumptions are more or less valid for the solar system.
Oh and I'm a member of the IoP so know what I am talking about.

A Newtonian understanding of kinetic energy. Card carrying member? Means nothing to me - I could give you my credentials, but that's not the debate.

Consider matter and antimatter, consider momentum transfer, consider projecting energy onto a unit vector, physicist.

http://www.mlawrence.co.uk/a43ch311.htm
http://www.mlawrence.co.uk/a22ch111.htm

The ontologial
reference of some object is relative to the metalanguage it is translated into.

"Consider matter and antimatter, consider momentum transfer, consider projecting energy onto a unit vector, physicist."

Antimatter...

Matter and anitmatter anillate creating 2 photons with frequency Mc^2/h where M is the mass of one of the particles c is the speed of light and h is plancks constant. As predicted by energy being scalar energy being a vector would imply that nothing was given out.

momentum transfer...

In no way does momentum transfer contradict energy being scalar. In fact without energy being scalar many things are impossible to explain e.g. Particle A and B have mass 1kg and travel at 1ms^-1 towards each other. They collide and come to a halt. Do you expect a noise? If energy is scalar then no as the initla energy was zero and the final energy is zero. Go away and test it but when two objects collide it makes a noise.

Consider projecting energy onto a unit vector...

Can't be done it is a scalar property. How do you explain thermal energy in vector terms anyway, or the rest energy of a system etc. etc.