Leaderboard

! Moderator Note It's quite clear from the OP that the faith discussed in this thread is from believers in religion. ! Moderator Note FreeWill, this is an example of a strawman, since Moontanman never claimed dimreepr needed protection from religious faith. See the difference?

Thermodynamics, in its general meaning, is always equilibrium Thermodynamics. Calculations of processes assume that the systems go through a series of equilibrium states during the process, which is called a quasi-static process. Reversibility is not required for studiot's entropy change equation in the first post. The equation is fully applicable to bringing two otherwise isolated systems with different temperatures into thermal contact, which I will use as an example: In the theory of thermodynamic processes, both systems' states change to the final state through a series of individual equilibrium states (*). Because of their different temperatures and conservation of energy (and because/if the higher-temperature system is the one losing heat to the colder) the sum of entropies increases. In the final state, both systems can be considered as two sub-volumes of a common system that is in thermal equilibrium. Since the common system is in equilibrium (and isolated), it has a defined entropy. Since entropy is extensive, it can be calculated as the sum of the two entropies of the original systems' end states. As far as I understand it, removing barriers between two parts of a container is essentially the same as bringing two systems in thermal contact. Except that the two systems can exchange particles instead of heat. The two systems that are brought into contact are not isolated - they are brought into contact. If one insists on calling the two systems a single, unified system right after contact, then this unified system is not in an equilibrium state (**). And I believe this is exactly where your disagreement lies: Does this unified, non-equilibrated state have an entropy? I do not know. I am tempted to go with studiot and say that entropy in the strict sense is a state variable of thermal equilibrium states - just from a gut feeling. On the other hand, in these "bring two sub-volumes together"-examples the sum of the two original entropies under a thermodynamic process seem like a good generalization of the state variable and converges to the correct state value at the end of the process. (*): I really want to point out that this is merely a process in the theory framework of equilibrium Thermodynamics. It is most certainly not what happens in reality, where a temperature gradient along the contact zone is expected. (**): In the absence of a theory for non-equilibrium states this kind of means that it is not a defined thermodynamic state at all. But since there obviously is a physical state, I will ignore this for this post.

All you did was substitute "PrimalMinister did it" for "God did it". If those are my only two options I'll choose God (and I'm an atheist). MigL's explanation is as likely as yours. And I really doubt you've looked at 'modern physics' in any meaningful way.

I believe that they are affected by spacetime curvature (eg. they can be lensed) but not directly by matter - they would just pass through the Earth, for example. There are probably more detailed answers here: https://stuver.blogspot.com/p/informational-posts.html See the series on "The Journey of a Gravitational Wave"

Are they available on Amazon?

And there are many other possibilities. Not only that, but it could be both: it could be a virtual reality simulation of a universe that was created in the Big Bang!

False dilemma. The universe may have existed prior to the BB. And btw, the Big Bang is NOT a creation theory.

That doesn't make sense to me. It is fine to say that the earth is not moving through space, instead space is moving past earth, but it becomes very problematic if you add other bodies. If space is moving past the earth so that it appears that the earth is moving around the sun, then obviously the space cannot be moving past the sun at the same rate and direction that it is moving past the earth. In other words if bodies are moving relative to each other, but it is really space that is moving, then the space is moving differently for each body.

My assumption is that if one would perform a rigorous analysis (math, experiments models) of the idea one would end up with something that exactly is the current mainstream theories*. One would have to create "fine tuned" definitions that makes the idea indistinguishable from the current mainstream. Or end up with something that does not match observations and therefore be considered incorrect. The shift in perspective would add no new explanations, predictions, tests or have scientifically interesting consequences. That said, "space is moving things around" might open up discussions from a more philosophical point of view, but that would be a separate thread in another section of the forum. *) With the exception of course for new discoveries extending the current models and theories

We all know that though. This is a science site, so we are well versed on the fact that whatever we believe it doesn't impact on reality. (Apart from things like placebo effects... but even that is a belief that effects the well being and make up of a hugely complex human body... placebo's might effect biological machines but they won't effect the laws of physics).

You can if you discuss religious faith, the bible gives a pretty good definition: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1 I apologize for the neg rep, as soon as I can I'll remove it...

Maybe, but this is a science site and I'm peer-reviewing.

He is clearly talking about religious faith in the OP.

We had a thread on this a while ago. I'll see if I can find it ... [Later that day] Here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117010-new-defintion-of-kilogram But the useful bit was the link to the description of how it works: https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-kibble-balance

But the title is "What is faith"

He's got a point here. We know what definition of the word faith we are discussing. Religious faith. This is different from using the word faith to simply mean to have hope I think. Hoping something will happen isn't the same as having faith it will happen. The faith part seems to suggest more surety of the outcome of events where hope admits the chance element and merely wishes for the desired outcome rather than expecting (knowing) it.

Not as long as Dim can make up his own definitions... Yes I gave a down vote for making assumptions about me you have no right or clue to say... Faith is not a path to knowledge and it is no better than thinking lady luck is gonna make you win the lotto... Again your context is meaningless, this thread is about religious faith, please stop trying to derail the thread...

but they mean 2 different things.

I think you might be mixing faith with hope.

Do you have to use polynomials? Just by eye it seems like a time series approach like ARIMA would make a better model (there is both seasonality and an upward trend), but maybe your teacher wants you to learn something specific about fitting polynomials. No idea how to do this in excel, but shouldn't be too hard to find a tutorial online somewhere - or have you already made the graph? Check out Runge's phenomena for why high order polynomials are often not a good model choice, although i think there's a more fundamental reason in this case.

To members here, I am a self confessed "country bumpkin", and folks like myself are reputed to know very little about how the brain works. This is me making a joke about myself before others get the opportunity, as quoted in your thread... but did I learn anything from your quote ?. Well no I didn't, because as a child I had a disability in regards my sir name i.e. the weather present in my regional TV news bulletins is called Sarah "Blizzard". My sir name does not relate to an element of the weather, but it did unfortunately scupper any childhood dreams I had of becoming a tyre salesman... I'll leave that to the imagination of the mind . However as a consequence of other children's actions towards me, I poked fun at myself and this left them confused as to how to respond. My thought process was to either take the beatings or take away their ammunition... their thought process was in disarray, so they backed off. So perhaps this is an example of how the mind "does not" work !. I am actually responding here because I do not understand why this "grievance" thread was opened ?. As stated in a "very"early" stage of your thread, the option to run the gauntlet was in your court. This meant "taking the beatings" along the way, which I have recently discovered myself means having your belief, idea or hypothesis tested to the limit. And if you make it to the other side, it means you "may" have something credible and worthy of further investigation. I read your topic, and although I did have to double my usual caffeine intake to keep up, I did try to make an effort to understand what you were saying. I found it interesting in the sense that it portrayed how your mind works (meant as a compliment), but as suggested, you took too long in getting to the point. Which is not criticism by the way, because I have fallen down the same hole as you in this respect. However, what I do not understand is the fact that your thread remains open, you have at least two comments of encouragement from fellow members i.e. "but if you try again, I'm sure you'll be accepted"... yet you decided to take this course !. I also think that you are not doing yourself any favours by naming names, because the description you posted above reads like a police report !. You should consider the advice given because as a newby myself, I seen no aspects of the replies you received directed to your character status, only a sense of frustration at repeated requests for answers. The option to recover from this situation is still open to you, so you still have time to work the problem and "take the beatings" like you would joke about yourself... rather than accept hostility is working against you !. Good luck E B (certified bumpkin)

Sorry, I was being a bit snarky. USNO, which where I work, is the source of time for GPS. IOW, the standard way for us to get time is to measure it locally, since that measurement is better than what you can get from GPS.

! Moderator Note Rigor was requested and not supplied

! Moderator Note Hamster22, it's clear from posts like this that you have a misinformed perspective on science in general. Science isn't interested in truth, or proof, or even logic. Nothing "confirms" a theory, because theories are supported by evidence rather than proven or confirmed. It's frustrating to those here who understand science that you're "spending your energy" on these misconceptions. Please study some physics and reread some of the excellent replies you've received from professionals and amateurs who are just trying to help. Why did you come to a mainstream science discussion forum if you didn't want to learn? This thread is closed. Please don't bring this up again unless you have evidence to support yourself. Reasonable and rational methodology rigorously applied will help you much more than your made-up "logic".

So, if you guys don't know, starlite is a super heat resistant material that was under serious review by Nasa for use as one of the worlds most effective heat shields. However, the guy who knew the recipe died and we never figured out what it was. It had ridiculous properties that we haven't even come close to being able to replicate. Except, this guy on this youtube channel put out a video show casing what he believes to be starlite, and even explains how to make it so you can test it out for yourself. Thoughts? Is this real?

Thanks, it kinda proves my point.

That seems like a horrible way to live, no lucky pants, no fingers crossed and no friends till they prove themselves worthy. They are in a way, an unnatural way; my point has always been that we all have faith somewhere on its continuum (unless we're unfortunate) and faith doesn't = bad, until we look down on those who have less, or more, than us; which is kind of natural for humans.

@FreeWill, There is no point in discussing if you don't know the meaning of the words you use and/or use the words in different meaning than they actually have. To the mods: I can't quote FreeWill in the above post, I'm not even able to copy with mouse and cursor what he wrote above. I think @studiot had a problem like this before, is this a feature or a bug?

I know you think you know the meaning of words but you don’t. How many times do you need to have something repeated to yourself to understand it? ”In the context of religion, one can define faith as confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief” : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith I’ve tried multiple times to explain this to you in a civil, friendly manner and it seems its not working. Get it through your thick skull that everybody in this thread is talking about faith in the context of religion. @FreeWill Stevie Wonder has a song called „Faith” does that mean that faith is a song by Stevie Wonder? What will it take for you to understand?

DrmDoc said: "...some of you do not seem to have a clear perspective of what distinguishes faith from science.  Most often arguments against science are used as justification for faith; however, those arguments do not appear to define a basis for your religious faith." For clarity, I've highlighted the portions of my original comments pertaining to the origin of this discussion. Certainly one may have faith in science--which is confidence in its methodology without any real objective evidence or experience or need for same--but then that would be a type of religion and not science in it's purest form as generally understood in this forum--IMO. Faith, in its purest form is religion, which is a believe system that does not need or require material evidence or support as science methodology requires or demands for validity. To have faith, IMO, is to have confidence, trust, or belief without any real or reproducible basis in material evidence or experience. Although it doesn't offer the legitimacy of science, faith appears to be a useful tool to individuals engaging the uncertainties of life with inadequate awareness, experience, understanding, or curiosity. Of these, I think inadequate curiosity does the most harm because of the doors to profound insight a lack of curiosity could leave unopened.

I have no faith in the future that is not simply extrapolating from past experiences. Again why does this matter in this thread? This thread is about religious faith and I lack faith, I am a skeptic but mostly I am an apistevist, I lack faith, I require evidence before I trust or believe.

OK, what is the issue?

Not absolutely true. Deleted.

Or neg rep it.

I ask that question because you may have never thought about it, it is a very interesting problem. But if I am right, then I actually have an answer for it, I can explain how you get the laws of the universe everywhere. Its simple, the universe extends in all directions for ever, it has and will always exist, it is immortal. The first thing is space. Space is composed entirely of tiny virtual reality machines, about the size of strings from string theory, which took collectivily make a virtual reality machine of infinite size. So a giant virtual reality machine composed of tiny virtual reality machines, each tiny machine has all the laws of the universe embedded in it. This is how you get the laws of the universe everywhere. That is space, now time. All the tiny machines follow a fixed cycle, they create reality, then they destory reality, over and over again. The absolute reality is the machines, the relative reality we see is virtual, its flicking in and out of existance billions of times a second. Each new generation of the universe is slightly different to the last, and hence everything in the universe moves slightly. All movement in the universe is governed by these tiny machines, these tiny machines are moving everything about according to the laws we know. This is what I mean by space moving things about, not things moving about space.

Ok, but we are in agreement that the universe is not run on magic, however physics answer to the question 'how do you actually get the laws of the universe everywhere' is basically 'well it just magically occurs'.

Its the same people answering the posts so I just want to say my final piece. When I say magic, I don't mean God magic, I mean the magic a street magician does. You can see the trick being done (the laws of the universe are everywhere) but you don't know how the universe is pulling it off, so it occurs as if by magic, that is the explanation of modern physics. I have looked at the theories, they are sophisticated, I am not trying to dismiss them as nonsense. Its just that you want me to accept 'we don't know' and then wait until someone works it all out. As I say, I don't think you are stupid, but I don't think I am stupid either.

Do they? In the context my posts, hope is just as entwined with trust as faith.

We can not discuss the topic. Your opinion is ok, your reasoning must be true without evidence and there is no space to discuss because you kill any other opinion with a straw men. (You do not understand the word)...

Ok, the reasoning, the logic. First, you have to look at current physics. Yes we know a vast amount, but there are things we don't know. The things we know are very interesting, but I find interesting the things we don't know, have no explanation for. Consequently, scientists try to turn that lack of knowledge into knowledge. For example: May have existed, implying we don't know. Despite our sophisticated knowledge, modern physics has questions it has no answers for. Its a fact, the evidence is clear, we had it wrong before and the big bang, is to me, a sign we have got something wrong again. Lots of scientists reject religion for its nonsense, then suggest the big bang, I am surprised people believe it. Yes, I know models, evidence and so on, but we had it wrong before. So there are things we don't know, for example, please answer this question with the same mathematics you expect of me. The laws of the universe are everywhere, how does science explain this, how are the laws of the universe everywhere?