Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Discussion and Debate > Physical & Life Sciences
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Calendar Mark Forums Read

Physical & Life Sciences A forum for physics, biology, chemistry and other physical sciences.

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Unread 18th September 2004, 11:57 PM
Deamiter's Avatar
I just follow Christ.

30 Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Country: Canada Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 10th November 2003
Posts: 6,283
Blessings: 98,472
Reps: 77,294 (power: 94)
Deamiter is a splendid one to behold
Deamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to behold
haha.... funny. I assume you noticed that the point of the thread was NEWTON's laws which have really very little to do with a human's potential... In a physical science forum, I'd expect that when one mentions Newton's laws, the meaning would be apparent.

Anyway, talking about energy in the human body, it's still not a potential. Until the carbohydrates or fat is converted into energy (which is used immediately either to fuel muscles or to store fat which can be later turned into energy. Of course it's a bit more complicated than that, but the point is that there is never any "stored energy" or potential in any sort of physical sense. Of course there are things that can be CONVERTED into energy but there's no form of energy either biological or physical that can be "destroyed" or created.
__________________
“there may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice,
but there should never be a time when we fail to protest.”

-- Elie Weisel
Reply With Quote
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #12  
Unread 19th September 2004, 09:33 PM
OneLastBreath's Avatar
Regular Member

Gender: Male Faith: Protestant Country: Canada Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 13th June 2004
Posts: 121
Blessings: 77,303
Reps: 161 (power: 0)
OneLastBreath has a spectacular aura aboutOneLastBreath has a spectacular aura about
Originally Posted by ThePhoenix
What? Talk about putting the cart in front of the horse. The principles of Newton's laws of conservation descend directly from the laws of thermodynamics. And your statement of them is wrong too, as "Kinetic energy" tends to just go away. Kick a ball and watch it loose all of it's kinetic energy pretty quickly.
I realize thermodynamics is the key to the conservation laws, however I just showing, using kinetic energy as an example (I apologize for the use of the word therefore, I didn't mean to equate the two). The previous post had said that Newton's laws had nothing to do with conservation of energy, I was just showing that his laws of motion and the conservation of energy are connected, in that energy can't simply disappear or appear, and so they do have something to do with each other.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 19th September 2004, 11:07 PM
Amalthea's Avatar
Senior Member

Faith: Protestant Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 14th September 2004
Posts: 536
Blessings: 165,371
Reps: 467 (power: 0)
Amalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the rough
This thread is terrible. Newton's laws have not only nothing to do with conservation laws neither does thermodynamics. I recommend all of you to right away enroll in a graduate physics curriculum.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 19th September 2004, 11:36 PM
Regular Member

Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 17th September 2004
Posts: 490
Blessings: 165,298
Reps: 505 (power: 0)
FromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really nice
Originally Posted by Amalthea
This thread is terrible. Newton's laws have not only nothing to do with conservation laws neither does thermodynamics. I recommend all of you to right away enroll in a graduate physics curriculum.
Um, ok. I kinda thought that a law stated as:
* 1st Law: Conservation of energy. This is a fundamental principle of mechanics, and more generally of physics. In thermodynamics, it is used to give a precise definition of heat. It is stated as follows:

The work exchanged in an adiabatic process depends only on the initial and the final state and not on the details of the process.

or

The heat flowing into a system equals the increase in internal energy of the system minus the work done by the system.
Might just have something to do with Conservation of energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

But enlighten us anyway. What grand law makes the first law of thermodynamics have nothing to do with conservation?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 19th September 2004, 11:46 PM
Amalthea's Avatar
Senior Member

Faith: Protestant Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 14th September 2004
Posts: 536
Blessings: 165,371
Reps: 467 (power: 0)
Amalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the rough
Thermodynamics is technically an observation from experiment. It is not fundamental in and of itself. Newton's laws of motion have nothing to do with energy conservation directly.

Energy conservation (from which you can derive thermodynamics as measured by experiment) is a consequence of symmetries in spacetime. Just like angular momentum conservation is a consequence of the rotational symmetry of space. Symmetries in nature imply an associated conservation law via a theorem of theroretical physics called Noethers theorem.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 20th September 2004, 08:49 AM
Deamiter's Avatar
I just follow Christ.

30 Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Country: Canada Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 10th November 2003
Posts: 6,283
Blessings: 98,472
Reps: 77,294 (power: 94)
Deamiter is a splendid one to behold
Deamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to beholdDeamiter is a splendid one to behold
Just out of idle curiosity, isn't energy conservation derived from observation by experiment as well? It's not as if we have a divinely inspired book outlining the symmetries in spacetime from which we derived energy conservation!

Perhaps on a very technical level, thermodynamics differs from energy conservation (and certainly it would be bad form to assume energy conservation from thermodynamics) but you CAN derive formulas for energy conservation starting with thermodynamics if you assume thermodynamics works (which is shown by experiment).

Anyway, moving away from arguing the technical merits of a particular derivation, perhaps we should be willing to explain things on a slightly lower level than graduate physics... Not only are there many people here who are not in science at ALL (like the origional poster with his question about electricity) those that ARE probably won't be taking graduate level physics. As much as I love to be corrected on little technicalities (so I don't FAIL graduate physics in the future) I'm afraid many others do not.
__________________
“there may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice,
but there should never be a time when we fail to protest.”

-- Elie Weisel
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 20th September 2004, 03:28 PM
Regular Member

Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 17th September 2004
Posts: 490
Blessings: 165,298
Reps: 505 (power: 0)
FromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really nice
Originally Posted by Amalthea
Thermodynamics is technically an observation from experiment. It is not fundamental in and of itself. Newton's laws of motion have nothing to do with energy conservation directly.
Observation from experiment is exactly what scientific theories are based on. I'm sorry if you like symmetries in spacetime, but the fact of the matter is that the law that states that is the first law of thermodynamics. The why of the first law is interesting, cool, and theoretical. I'm sorry, but the first law of thermodynamics works.

As a simple thought experiment to see which is more critical to the conservation of energy, imagine that some form of evidence disproved Noether's theorum. Now imagine some form of evidence disproved the first law of thermodynamics. Which would cause the conservation of energy to be tossed out the window and why?

Energy conservation (from which you can derive thermodynamics as measured by experiment) is a consequence of symmetries in spacetime. Just like angular momentum conservation is a consequence of the rotational symmetry of space. Symmetries in nature imply an associated conservation law via a theorem of theroretical physics called Noethers theorem.
Yes, and the equations probably give computers headaches. But it's a group of variables. An ounce of observation is worth more then a ton of theory.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 20th September 2004, 03:35 PM
Amalthea's Avatar
Senior Member

Faith: Protestant Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 14th September 2004
Posts: 536
Blessings: 165,371
Reps: 467 (power: 0)
Amalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the rough
A more fundamental property of space is it's symmetries than an experimental result in a lab. The first law of thermodynamics is a statement of energy conservation from experiment. But if you break the symmetries of spacetime then it would not apply and your experiment would give a different result. This would be the case say near a singularity where you lose the symmetry in question.

You are thinking like an engineer and not a physicist. Noether's theorem is a mathematical statement that is proven.

Conservation of energy probably may not apply in certain situations and even if some other conservation law can be formulated in the extreme situations where standard thermodynamics breaks down then it wont take the same form.

An ounce of observation is only worth something in the regime you perform the experiment.

I advise you, if you don't believe me, to check out the textbooks for a graduate curriculum in theoretical physics.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 20th September 2004, 07:20 PM
Regular Member

Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 17th September 2004
Posts: 490
Blessings: 165,298
Reps: 505 (power: 0)
FromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really niceFromTheAshes is just really nice
[quote]
Originally Posted by Amalthea
A more fundamental property of space is it's symmetries than an experimental result in a lab. The first law of thermodynamics is a statement of energy conservation from experiment. But if you break the symmetries of spacetime then it would not apply and your experiment would give a different result. This would be the case say near a singularity where you lose the symmetry in question.

You are thinking like an engineer and not a physicist. Noether's theorem is a mathematical statement that is proven.
A huge surprise... I am an engineer. And all of those beautiful equations have to be based on experiment for them to have real-world application. Therefore if an experiment discovered that a previous experiment that proved part of the prepositions used by Noether in his theorum were incorrect a different explaination would have to be found. Pure math is nice, but in the end it's exactly as good as the engineer who set up the equipment for the experiment.
Conservation of energy probably may not apply in certain situations and even if some other conservation law can be formulated in the extreme situations where standard thermodynamics breaks down then it wont take the same form.
Like?
An ounce of observation is only worth something in the regime you perform the experiment.
But if a thousand theories cannot explain that observation then each and every one of them is wrong.

I advise you, if you don't believe me, to check out the textbooks for a graduate curriculum in theoretical physics.
Oh I'm sure they explain conservation with Noether's theorum. But it's based in the laws of thermodynamics, the experimental results that allowed him to formulate his theorum.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 20th September 2004, 07:42 PM
Amalthea's Avatar
Senior Member

Faith: Protestant Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 14th September 2004
Posts: 536
Blessings: 165,371
Reps: 467 (power: 0)
Amalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the roughAmalthea is a jewel in the rough
Originally Posted by FromTheAshes
A huge surprise... I am an engineer.
I could tell, and no offence but engineers seem to often not understand physics.

And all of those beautiful equations have to be based on experiment for them to have real-world application. Therefore if an experiment discovered that a previous experiment that proved part of the prepositions used by Noether in his theorum were incorrect a different explaination would have to be found. Pure math is nice, but in the end it's exactly as good as the engineer who set up the equipment for the experiment.
Again an engineer speaking. Physics is more than real world experiment. By the way Emmy Noether was a woman!

Noether's theorem is purely mathematical use of the variational principle of calculus. If the 'action' is unchanged under some group of tranformations on the coordinates and the scalar field then there exist conserved quantities. This is physics at the fundamental level. The conservation of energy is the time translational symmetry of spacetime, period.

Like?
Think where a flat spacetime breaks down. On the global cosmological scale there are problems formulating energy conservation and near the Big Bang singularity. The 2nd Law has a similar problem as you cannot define the arrow of time that synopsises the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.



Oh I'm sure they explain conservation with Noether's theorum. But it's based in the laws of thermodynamics, the experimental results that allowed him to formulate his theorum.
Absolutely incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics originally were based on experiment. See James Joules work for instance.

You can approach them theoretically via energy conservation but this technically requires a Minkowskian spacetime. Take that away and you don't necessarily have this. You are putting the cart before the horse and starting off from thermodynamics. You strictly cannot do this. Practically as in an engineering sense you can get away with it but that doesn't make it right. Remember, engineers engineer things, physicists do science.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Return to Physical & Life Sciences

Thread Tools
Display Modes


 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:26 AM.