Is Hell for Real?

[fahrenheit 451]

woody:
your going to hell, your not a true xian.
do you come home at weekends, with black eyes and fat lips.
because I sure by the way you talk on these threads, if you did it in real life you would attract a lot of violance to yourself. you dont know snakelord and certainly cannot think for him, you cant do that for yourself. so how you can thing you could do it for anyone else is strange.

anyhow you wont help if it's asked of you, so your going to hell.
bad xian.

 

[Woody]

fahrenheit,

You comments aren't even worthy of a reponse. Does this forum allow money scammers?

 

[Lemming3k]

My example of a bouncing ball still holds true (I made it up), based on what I know about energy theory.

Im not argueing against your complete theory, since its evident if you drop a ball you can see it doesnt regain its full height after each bounce, however for a ball to bounce it would require a force acting on it to pull or push it in a direction, on earth if you let a ball go it drops due to gravity(and loses energy, in a vacuum it would not move as a vacuum does not generate a gravitational force, a revised version of your theory would appear to fit with science, but a ball in a vacuum simply doesnt move.

 

[Woody]

Lemming3k,

The only reason I suggested a Vacuum is because of windage (air friction) losses on the ball so the example would be simple. Objects attract each other by gravitational pull regardless of whether they are in a vacuum are not. I think the reason you believe your theory is because the men in space are weightless, but this wasn't caused by a vacuum, it was caused by their distance from the earth.

Newtonian mechanics accounts for the gravitational attraction between two objects in space. Space is a vacuum unless you put mass in it. His equation (I'm going on memory here) says that the force of gravitaional attraction between two objects is a function of the mass of each object, and I believe it is the inverse square of their spatial distance apart (again I'm going on memory). A Vacuum is space.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

fahrenheit,

You comments aren't even worthy of a reponse. Does this forum allow money scammers?

you have been duly tested and found to be wanting, no money scam here, just a test of your xianity, which proved you have none.
bad xian,bad xian.
and I repeat, does it not say in the good book, new testament,
luke 6,30: Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
and in
matthew 5,42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
and also
luke 6,35: But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

 

[Athelwulf]

Don't flatter yerself, Woody. You know very well that I'm not agreeing with you.

Yes, I realized that I said "created". However, the word I was thinking of was "appeared". I hereby retract my statement that the laws of physics were created, and substitute the statement that the laws of physics had appeared.

Sorry if I caused ya any confusion or any false hope that yer argument was working. And I still have an argument for you, don't worry.

 

[Athelwulf]

Woody, I have a question for ya that will get us back on track (or at least closer thereto):

Do you still stand by yer belief that anyone who doesn't believe in God hates Him?

 

[Woody]

Fahrenheight 451,

How much money do you need from me? I am well aware of the beatitudes from Jesus. If my money will save you from hell, I'm willing to do it. I don't have much and I have a family to provide for. My wife is disabled, and I live in a rental house. What can I do to help you sir?

How great is your need? Are you hungry, do you need a house, do you need clothes? I have given to help poor homeless people, tsunami victims, starving people in Haiti, and many other worthy causes. Is your need as great as theirs? There is a limited amount of me to go around in this world, but I try.

I am not going to give you money to support a drug habit, but I will supply a need as specified in the bible like a coat, something to eat, and if you can show me a deficiency in some area, please let me know who you are. Right now you are script on the internet, but I know there is a real person. Where do you live?

 

[Silas]

Matter and antimatter both exist, but in my mind antimatter is nothing more than an atomic nucleus with a negative charge. If it collides with a "normal" positive nucleus it does not cause the combined matter to become zero. It only neutralizes the charge value from what I understand of it and it can cause some changes in energy state-- ie a proton becomes a neutron. We did not study that theory in detail in my nuclear engineering professional training because it did not have a practical application.

No, no, anti matter is not just stuff with an opposite charge. A proton becomes a neutron because it combines with an electron. A proton has a positive charge, an electron has an equivalent negative charge and the neutron has no charge. But electrons are not the anti-matter of protons. Anti-matter is the opposite particle of the same type, so there are anti-protons and anti-electrons (also called positrons) and if a proton and an anti-proton collide they annihilate one another and transform instantly to the equivalent amount of energy (by E=mc²). This is high school physics stuff and there can scarcely be a physics text book that doesn't cover it.

Silas said,

Your interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics are misapplied. A closed system left to itself will surely decrease in temperature and originally "ordered" molecules will break down to "disorder". But if there wasn't such a thing as local increases in order there wouldn't be a Universe for us to debate the matter.

There are allowances for localized "good outcomes" i.e., upward bounces at the localized level, but the overall trend of the universe is a downward trend in "energy quality" which means there is less and less energy available to do work. A good example is the earth's own energy resources which are being depleted.

Nothing wrong there, but my point is that your original concept was that order could not arise out of the "disorder" that was the Big Bang. I was pointing out that everything we see around us (stars, planets, life, etc) is the localized "good outcome" as you put it, and I'm certainly not denying that the overall trend of the Universe is downwards. You haven't addressed why this applies to the Big Bang, since as I said the proto-Universe was the ultimate order and the Bang itself was merely the start of the winding down process - but with plenty of energy to create stars, planets, life, in small pockets, as I've described.

Everything that happens on the Earth, as it circles the mighty Sun then is no more a violation of the laws of thermodynamics

This is a steady state process, not an energy transformation process, because the earth is not changing energy states as a result of rotating around the sun. There are, however tidal effects from the sun and moon's gravity which are slowing down the rotation of the earth about its own axis.

I wasn't talking about the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. When I said "everything that happens on the Earth as it circles the mighty Sun" I was referring to the everything (meaning creation of lands and seas, of mountains, and of Life) that happens on the Earth does not violate the laws of thermodynamics any more than heating a test tube and creating a new molecule out of two different elements. The circling the Sun part was a rhetorical reference to the Sun as the energy source.

As I said before, Kelvin's laws are bulletproof. Every physicist agrees. Kelvin's energy laws are also true when relativistic (Einstein) mechanics are applied. I will debate Kelvin's laws until the day I die, because I am a scientist, and I have no other rational choice but to accept a metaphysical event for the existence of the universe. Kelvin came to the same conclusion. He and I agree there is a creator God by rational scientific reasoning.

As they say in geometry: Q.E.D.

Kelvin didn't even begin to know the half of it. Modern cosmology now attempts to delve past the beginning of the Big Bang in order to account for it. I don't believe there's a Creator God who started it all - but neither do I believe it is possible for us to discover by whatever scientific means exactly how the Universe started. In fact I'd rather scientists stayed with the known and the experimentable, rather than go into the realms of, no matter how they dress it up as physics, philosophy and metaphysics.

But to bring us back to the topic, while retaining the physics aspect it has acquired, take a look at this.

Heaven is hotter than Hell (by logic)
Heaven is hotter than Hell (by scripture and physics)

 

[Woody]

Athelwulf said,

Do you still stand by yer belief that anyone who doesn't believe in God hates Him?

You seem like a reasonable fellow. So I will try to give you a reasonable answer -- "not just anyone that doesn't believe in God."

I limited my statement to athiests who deny the existence of a God. Denial is a form of hatred. If you hate someone you can deny that they even exist. In your heart that person is dead. I know of a family relationship between two family members that got so bad they didn't speak to each other for more than 20 years. One of them said to me, that as far as he was concerned the other one was dead. That is what I mean by hatred.

An agnostic on the other hand like Larry King, just says he doesn't know if God exists or not, based on the evidence. This in my opinion is a much more objective approach to the subject of theology. He doesn't predicate his examination with denial (or hatred if you will) from the beginning.

 

[Lemming3k]

The only reason I suggested a Vacuum is because of windage (air friction) losses on the ball so the example would be simple.

I can understand that, however it would not hold true without a second object inside the vacuum large enough to have a gravitational effect on the object.

Objects attract each other by gravitational pull regardless of whether they are in a vacuum are not. I think the reason you believe your theory is because the men in space are weightless, but this wasn't caused by a vacuum, it was caused by their distance from the earth.

The reason i believe the ball would not move is because a single object in a vacuum will have no forces exerted on it to move it in any direction, a second object is required inside the vacuum for the gravitational pull on the ball, an object outside the vacuum will not affect the ball.
Your comparison to the earth, sun and moon is flawed as they are 3 objects in a vacuum so gravity can take effect from one to the other(thus causing the orbits we know), any existing on its own in space will be the sole gravitational force and will not move(such is the case with the ball).
What was the point you was trying to make in the first place anyway?

 

[Woody]

Lemming3k,

I think I see it now. What if the vacuum is in a sealed vessel on the earth. When you pull a vacuum in an autocalve do the objects inside start floating around? I have designed an autoclave before, and that was not a concern. We also had a dehumidification process in a compressor plant where a nearly perfect vacuum was drawn using cryogenics. The objects in the vacuum chamber did not get any lighter as a result. I hope this answers your question, if it does not, then I suggest you take physics 101.

 

[Lemming3k]

may i respectfully suggest that you try to gain at least a rudimentary grasp of physics, especially quantum physics, before embarking upon any more half-baked arguments.
i assume by your allusion to physics 101 that you are from the US. obviously education continues to be a very low priority in your country. your grasp of the nature of anti-matter is another example of ignorance. if you a re trying to prove or disprove a point, it does help to have at least some grounding in the subjects that you intend to use as an example.
[also atheists cannot, by their very nature, be satanists]
i think a better thread would be are you for real?

 

[Woody]

Lemming,

Do you believe that objects float in a vacuum pressure vessel? Go take a look for yourself. Believe me, they don't. If they did our production process at the compressor plant would not have worked. You disparage our universities in the U.S. yet foriegn students come here in droves. The 3rd world countries call it "brain drain" because their best and brightest come here to the states.

I don't have all the answers in the realm of science, but with that said consider this: Our universities in the U.S. are excellent. I attended 3 of them altogether and have 3 degrees. I also graduated magna cum laude from my engineering university at the very top of my class, with a 3.94 gpa out of possible 4.0, and I went more rigorous than most engineering students by taking graduate courses too. I am a registered engineer, licensed to practice engineering in the U.S. I attained this right by passing the most rigorous exam I have ever taken in my life in which 50% of all eligible candidates fail. Having a 4 year degree doesn't necessarily make you eligibible to sit for the exam. I could get into just about any math or engineering graduate program in the world if I wanted to.

Just what is it you are having a problem with Lemming? Let's try to be constructive.

 

[Lemming3k]

yes, we all know about the supposed excellence of US univercities, however, we also know that US degrees are only equivalent to what are known as A levels in the uk and europe. it is also well known that US degrees carry little to no weight within educational circles outside of your wonderful example of the perfect country. i am finding it hard to be constructive when faced with such ignorance on the higher aspects of both physics and theology, after all your democratically elected leader recieves 'messages from beyond the stars'! so he must have both a wonderful grasp of astrophysics and one would assume theology.
as an aside what are your view on the US giving 2 billion dollars worth of weaponary to the right wing paramilitaries of columbia? very christian in my view. i do believe that your country is a shining light in the universe!

 

[Dreamwalker]

Ahh, just to comment on the topic of universities... I know people who want to study in the USA, not because their unis are so great, just because it gives them an edge when they apply for a job (normally one where international relations exist) and can say that they studied at Harvard, Berkley or whereever. They do not go there because they are better, a japanese businessman probably recognizes the name Harvard, while he might not know the university of Münster (which is quite a good German uni).

Just prestige.


Anyway, I still see no evidence that hell exists or that Woody's god is the only/real one. So go ahead and discuss physics... by the way, as far as I know, a perfect vacuum is normally thought to be also devoid of gravity, friction and everything else.

 

[SnakeLord]

one says he's a scientist and therefore can not believe in a creator -- "I'll believe in anything but God."

Much that you wont comprehend my reply, the sole reason for not believing in 'a creator' happens to be exactly the same reason for you not believing in leprechauns. When you figure out why that is, let me know.

In short: Complete and total lack of evidence.

As always, you're way off track, and have done nothing in this entire thread but think you have the right to speak for me. To tell me what I believe or don't believe or now telling me what I think or feel. You display nothing but a gross ignorance to life and a truly christian contempt for anyone who doesn't agree completely with your naive little views.

If you're older than thirteen I'm gonna cry.

And yet there is a small voice in Snakelord that says "Maybe there is a God, but not the one you believe in."

You really don't understand me at all, or indeed the very aspect of being an atheist. It's like saying: "You believe more in Billy the leprechaun than Bob the leprechaun". This is clearly ludicrous, because not having a belief in leprechauns means neither can be more real than any other.

So let me clarify the issue. Be it Abellio the god of apple trees, Yhwh the god of no vowels, Thor the god of thunder and war, Jesus, Apollo, Poseidon, Odin, Zeus, Tiamat, Marduk, etc etc etc, I have no belief in them or any of the other thousands I could mention.

Let it also be known that you're not of any importance that I could really care what you believe in. Just that if we ever meet in the real world, kindly refrain from talking to me because you're an embarrasment to all that humanity stands for.

I am sorry I offended you Snakelord

Oh don't fool yourself, you don't have the required intellect to be offensive. A better word to use would be repulsed. I can't help but feel sick someone loosed you onto the world.

My skin is thick in that regard.

Same as the rest of you.

I see you're still talking physics. Alas you didn't return comment to the analogy I gave in concern to your questions, or anything else I said. I take it you agreed with it? Do you find problem with it?

You remind me very much of a radio. All it does is talk and talk and talk but no matter what you say to it, it'll never hear you or respond directly to you.

Anyway, unless you're going to focus more on what I say and less on what you think I think or believe, then kindly leave me out of it. There's still some questions back on page 2 waiting for your answer..

 

[Lemming3k]

Whilst i cant apologise for my previous two posts i feel i should point out now they were not written by me but by a better educated work collegue who has been following our discussion(and i felt he has a valid opinion too), he is quite insistant that you read up on your physics woody and im inclined to agree, the difference as you can tell is he's quite annoyed at your lack of knowledge whereas i'd rather help you learn something, im not sure why you insist a lone object will move of its own accord whilst in a vacuum when there can be no forces acting on it to make it move.

 

[spidergoat]

A perfect vacuum is as theoretical as absolute zero temperature. We can get close, but some particles aren't even stopped by the entire Earth being in the way (I think its called gamma radiation).

 

[Woody]

Lemming3K my man,

I am glad you brought up the antimatter subject. Fascinating, fascinating, fascinating, did I say fascinating or what? You are right I do have some physics to catch up on. I have some white papers for your professor to look at.

First take a look at NASA's attempt at harnassing this incredible resource. My hat is off too ya dude

Here is the NASA white paper, check it out and I am sure your professor will be pleased:

NASA Antimatter Propulsion Systems

Next let me try to engineer this propulsion device a little if you don't mind. I worked in generation planning for an electric utility for 5 years and I evaluated all kinds of new technoligies for feasibility. This project is far more interesting than any technolgy I ever looked at including nuclear PWR, ALWR, wind power, geothernmal, Israeli desalienation project, to name a few.

Before I proceed, let me say I think the physics going on here can fit within the current energy laws as I know them, and I am ready for an education here if needed.

As an engineer I have three major problems to tackle with this technology:

Production of the fuel (antimatter),
Control of the energy process (mass annihilation)
Disposing of the waste products back to the universe from which they came.

Each of these processes has a relative efficiency, and to look at the overall process efficiency I must multiply the three efficiencies together. This will tell me what is going on with entropy as well.

1)The relative efficiency of the anti-matter production process can not theoretically excede 50% according to the NASA paper. OK the second law of thermo is satisfied. This efficiency then is assumed to be .50 under the best theoretical possibilty. (Current antimatter production processes are much less efficient than that).

Let's keep going:

2) The annihilation process satisfies the first law for conservation of mass/energy if you consider antimatter to be mass. This process could be as much as 200% efficient (previously thought an impossibility), that being = to 2. Man, what a problem there is with containing the beastie, and this surely will not be free! Somebody has to hold this thing with a magnetic field, there has to be a loss here. So I'll say less than 2. Let's call it ~2.

3) The disposal of the waste products back to the universe poses a problem, but let's ignore that for now and assume it can be 100% efficient, that being equal to 1.


Now I multiply the three and I get .5 * ~2 *1 for an overall process efficiency of ~100%, when I look at it from start to finish. The energy I "throw away" is then at a minimum whatever it takes to suspend the antimatter particles = ~100% and the devil is paid his dues at the magnetic field, (no pun intended). The overall net effect then is that entropy increases in the universe (the expected result). So the laws of energy are obeyed when you look from start to finish, though the uptick at annihilation is something new -- i.e. getting 2 fers.

I also read some about a parallel universe (nobody has seen), and supposedly our universe can be made a PMM with this alternate universe where antimatter could exist. That is something I have not studied.

All things considered I don't think you can get 100% efficiency from start to finish, and this is what the second law tells us.

I am eager to learn. Tell me more.

By the way, gravity acts on an object in a vacuum at ground zero (earth surface), gravity acts on the object inside the vacuum container the same as any other object. I checked with one of my engineering buddies at the development testing lab where I work (he has a masters degree in mechanical engineering). He agrees on this as a fundamental concept.

I like you Lemming. Give your professor my complements.