Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Evolution and science

2016-09-13T12:55:45Z

Brians1: Tidy up

'''Evolution and science''' conflict with each other. [[Evolution]] is clearly [[atheism|atheistic]]<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref> and a [[pseudoscience]], easily disproven by numerous [[Counterexamples to Evolution|counterexamples to evolution]] that exist. Evolution is not real science because it makes guesses as to what happened in the past, which cannot be observed and is not repeatable, while real, observational science can be observed through repeatable tests. While [[creation science]] is similar to this, the evidence, including in science, in history, and in [[Bible|divine revelation]], points to something other than [[evolution]] and long ages.

Creationists also disagree with evolution as it requires a time frame of billion/millions of years. This is incompatible with their time frame for creation of approximately 6000 years, as derived from the [[Bible]].

People who can distinguish real [[science]] from atheistic secular [[junk science]] are increasingly embracing the [[logic]] of [[creation science]].

==See Also==

[[Evolution and creation]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Age of the Earth

2016-09-12T14:16:14Z

Brians1: Removed uncited text

[[File:Blue Marble.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|The historical and scientific evidence strongly indicates that the [[earth]] is approximately 6,000 years old.{{#tag:ref|cf.
*Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe<ref name="101Evidences">{{cite web |title=Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe |author=Don Batten |publisher= CMI |date= 4 June 2009 |url=http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth}}</ref>
*How old is the earth?<ref name="RefutingEvo">{{cite book |title=Refuting Evolution; How old is the earth? |author=Jonathan Sarfati |chapter =8 |url=http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth}}</ref>
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A]
*[http://creation.com/jesus-age-earth Jesus on the age of the earth]|group=note}}]]
''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. Yet with circular reasoning and implausible assumptions, [[liberals]] insist that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 10<sup>9</sup> ± 1%).<ref name="101Evidences"/><ref name="RefutingEvo"/><ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml polling]</ref>

Old Earth advocates rely on one flawed assumption to the exclusion of other evidence, similar to how an investigator may mistakenly rely on one faulty eyewitness's opinion to the exclusion of all else. In fact, eyewitness testimony is proven to be less reliable than other indicators, just as the assumption by Old Earth proponents that the [[Radiometric dating|rate of radioactive decay]] has always been constant is flawed.

Moreover, a large number of physical processes, such as neutron capture and fluctuations in solar radiation, affect the rate of radioactive decay of elements in the Earth's crust and render radioactive dating measurements unreliable, depending upon the specific methods used.<ref>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899536205000138#bib6</ref>

Much scientific evidence points to a [[young earth creationism|young age]] of the earth and the universe and the biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published articles entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]'' and [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] which summarize some of the evidence for a young age of the earth.

== Historical views ==
[[Image:Landscape.jpg|right|300px]]
=== Widespread Historical Acceptance of Biblical Account ===
For most of recorded history humans of many backgrounds, such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus,<ref>Burnet, p. 259.</ref> viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.<ref>Burnet, p. 258.</ref>

Saint [[Cyril]], who came into Great Moravia (present day [[Slovakia]] and Moravia in [[Czech Republic]]) from [[Byzantine Empire]] in 863 [[AD]] as Christian [[missionary]], wrote in his poem ''Proglas'',<ref>{{cite web
|title=Proglas
|publisher=sme.sk
|url=http://zlatyfond.sme.sk/dielo/93/Filozof_Proglas
|language=Slovak
|access date=05.05.2012
|quote=The parchment version of Proglas in Cyrillic from 13th century was discovered in 1858 by Russian Slavic scholar Hilferding}}</ref> dedicated to his works on translation of the four [[Bible|biblical]] [[The Gospels|Gospel]]s to Slavonic language, the following sentence that brings testimony about the perception of the age of the world that time:
{| class="wikitable"
| rowspan="4" |{{cquote|To the holy Gospels I am the Foreword:<br/> for as it was promised by the prophets long ago,<br/> Christ comes to gather the nations,<br/> for He sheds light on the world entire.<br/>That is what has happened ''in our '''seventh''' millennium.''}}
!''The seventh millennium'' since the [[Creation]] was calculated as follows:
|-
| '''5 508''' years that had passed since the Creation till [[Jesus Christ]]’s birth plus
|-
| '''863''' (the year when Constantine and Methodius had come to Moravia)
|-
|results in figure of '''6 371'''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Proglas, the foreword to the Old Church Slavonic translation of the four Gospels|publisher=The Centre for Information on Literature, Slovakia|url=http://www.litcentrum.sk/36106|access date=05.05.2012|quote=Explanations: '''in our seventh millennium''' – it means the seventh millennium since the Creation. It was calculated as follows: 5 508 years that had passed since the Creation till Jesus Christ’s birth plus 863 AD (the year when Constantine and Methodius had come to Moravia) added to the year 6 371 -- that is seventh millennium.}}</ref>
|}
Prior to the onset of [[totalitarian]] and [[uniformitarianism|uniformitarian]] (i.e. long-age) [[scientism]] promoted by [[Charles Lyell|Lyell]], [[Darwin]], [[T. H. Huxley|Huxley]], and others in the 19th century, when most people and scientists in [[Europe]] and [[North America]] had a [[Christian]] or [[biblical]] worldview, the [[atheist]]ic [[evolution]]ary concept of billions of years for the age of the earth was unknown to mainstream [[Western civilization|Western]] [[science]] beyond cursory [[philosophical]] speculations.<ref name="YECBritannica">{{cite web |title=Encyclopaedia Britannica: supporting a young earth! |publisher=creation.com |url=http://creation.com/encyclopedia-britannica-supporting-a-young-earth |quote=The concept of billions of years for the age of the earth was unknown to science (or to the church[4]) before the rise of uniformitarianism in the 19th century. This is strong evidence that modern long-age views of creation do not originate in Genesis, but are a misguided attempt by some Christian leaders to try to reconcile what God has said with the atheistic pronouncements of evolutionary ‘science’.|accessdate=November 8, 2014}}</ref>

For example, in his 1619 book the ''Harmonices Mundi'' (The Harmony of the World), [[Johannes Kepler]], [[mathematician]] and [[astronomer]], wrote that he does not care if his book will need to wait a century for a reader, as [[God]] has waited '''six thousand years''' for him as an [[Scientific observation|observer]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The Harmony of the World |author=Johannes Kepler |publisher=American Philosophical Society |year=1997 |pages=IX, XXXVII, 391, 410 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=rEkLAAAAIAAJ&q=six+thousand#v=snippet&q=six%20thousand&f=false|quote=O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee! ... The book is written, to be read either now or by posterity, I care not which. It may be well to wait a century for a reader, as God has waited six thousand years for an observer.}}</ref> Kepler calculated a Creation date of 3992 BC, and [[Isaac Newton]] also strongly defended [[Biblical chronology]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution |author=Jonathan Sarfati |publisher=Creation Books Publishers |year=2010 |place=Atlanta, Georgia, USA |pages=311 |isbn=978-1921-643064 |url=http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php |quote=Kepler calculated a Creation date of 3992 BC, and Isaac Newton (1643-1727), probably the greatest scientist of all time, also strongly defended biblical chronology.}}</ref><ref name="Newton">{{cite book
|author= Isaac Newton
|title= Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John
|publisher=Originally: J. DARBY and T. BROWNE (2005:Project Gutenberg)
|place=London
|chapter=PART I. Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel.CHAP. I. Introduction concerning the Compilers of the Books of the Old Testament.
|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16878?msg=welcome_stranger
|quote=The Pentateuch is composed of the Law and the history of God’s people together; and the history hath been collected from several books, such as were the history of the Creation composed by Moses, Genesis 2:4; the book of the generations of Adam, #Ge 5:1;
|accessdate=26 July 2015}}</ref><ref name>{{cite book |title=Experimenting on a Small Planet: A Scholarly Entertainment
|author=William W. Hay |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |year=2012 |pages=63|isbn=9783642285608 |url=http://books.google.no/books?id=teJYlWH9vg4C |quote=Ussher’s was not the first nor last attempt to determine the age of the Earth from the Bible. Estimates had been made by the Venerable Bede in 723 (3952 BC) and John Lightfoot in 1644 (3929), and later by Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), and Isaac Newton (4000 BC) among others.}}</ref> The latter also vigorously opposed to a naturalistic cosmic evolution and suggested [[chemical]] processes that might aid in explaining the creation of the earth's [[crust]] during the '''six days'''.<ref name="Rappaport1997">{{cite book |title=When Geologists Where Historians, 1665-1750 |author=Rhoda Rappaport |publisher=Cornell University Press |place=Ithaca and London |year=1997 |pages=138, 197 |isbn=978-0801-433863 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=30U3W2kI7foC}}</ref><br>

In 1771, the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, the oldest English-language general encyclopedia that was first published as a 3-volume set in Scotland, included a table of world events under the heading ‘Astronomy’ on page 493. These events begin with the [[creation]] of the world in the year 0, which they dated at 4007 years before Christ.<ref name="YECBritannica"/><ref>{{cite web |title= Encyclopaedia Britannica: supporting a young earth! |publisher= creation.com |url=http://creation.com/media-center?fileID=Rj4PFM_od9U |quote= The notion that the world in billions of years old has only been popular for about 200 years. Before that time most scientists understood that Noah's Flood was responsible for laying down the rocks which today are associated with millions of years. Richard Fangrad and Calvin Smith discuss the details. |accessdate=November 8, 2014}}</ref><br>

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on an official [[date of creation]].<ref name="Hales">{{cite book |title=Chronology and geography |author=William Hales |publisher=C.J.G. & F. Rivington |year=1830 |page= |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=aNfVAAAAMAAJ}}</ref> These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.<ref>Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.</ref>

Included in Hales' list is [[James Ussher]], who calculated the '''famous date of 4004 B.C.''' for creation<ref name="Carson">{{cite book
|author=David G. Dunbar et al.
|title=Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon
|editor=D.A. Carson and J.D. Woodbridge
|publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers
|year=1986 (Zondervan), 2005
|location=Eugene, Oregon
|chapter=Nine: The Biblical Canon
|pages=256
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XHoFAQAACAAJ
|isbn=1-59752-118-3
|quote= Professor John Redwood describes the commitments of seventeenth century Christians: “To the seventeenth-century biblical chronology, the account of Moses, and the science of geology were all part of the same world of learning. No one seeking to enquire into rocks or minerals, into earth history of formation of the earth’s configuration could afford to ignore or deny the value of his primary source, the Bible.” James Ussher in the early seventeenth century had based his dating of creation at 4004 B.C. on a detailed and literal reading of the historical accounts.}}</ref> and published it in his ''magnum opus'', ''[[The Annals of the World]]'' during the mid-1600s. Young Earth creationists, essentially adopting the same method as [[Nikola Tesla]] who was taught by his mother ''"to seek all truth in the Bible,"''<ref>{{cite book |title=My inventions: The autobiography of Nikola Tesla |author=Nikola Tesla |publisher=NuVision Publications LLC |year=1982 |pages=41 |isbn= |url=http://books.google.com/books?hl=no&id=uBafTxRVtkAC&q=Bible#v=snippet&q=Bible&f=false |quote= Up to that time I never realized that I possed any particular gift of discovery, but the Lord Rayleigh, whom I considered an ideal man of science, had said so, and if that was the case, I felt that I should concentrate on some big idea. At this time, as many other times in the past, my tought turned towards my mother's teaching. The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible; therefore I devoted the next few months to the study of this work.}}</ref> still consider this date to be close to the actual date.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Creation Seminar 1 - Age of the Earth (FULL)
|author=Kent Hovind
|publisher=Creation Science Evangelism
|page=31min:00sec
|url=https://youtu.be/szBTl3S24MY?t=1857
|accessdate=26 July 2015
}}</ref> The year 4004 [[B.C.]] was considered to be also a remarkable astronomical epoch by the great French astronomer [[Pierre Simon Laplace|Laplace]] who in his ''Méchanique Céleste'', Tom III.p. 113, announced a curious discovery - it was supposed to be a year when the great axis of the earth's [[orbit]] coincided with the line of the [[equinox]]es, and consequently true and mean equinoxes were united.<ref>{{cite book |title=Chronology and geography |author=William Hales |publisher=C.J.G. & F. Rivington |year=1830 |page=228|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=aNfVAAAAMAAJ}}</ref>

=== Evolutionists vs. “odius spectre” Kelvin ===
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightgray; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | Time as key hero for [[naturalistic]] ‘[[Fog displacement|explanation]]’
|-
| style="padding:15px;" | ''“Time is in fact the hero of the plot … given so much time the "impossible" becomes [[Logic of possibility|possible]], the possible probable and the probably virtually certainly certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs [[miracle]]s.”''
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— George Wald<ref>{{cite book |title= The Physics and Chemistry of Life|author=George Wald |publisher=G. Bell |year= 1957 |pages=12 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=IlCgnQEACAAJ }}</ref><ref name="West">{{cite web |title=Western culture and the age of the earth; Review of The Dating Game: One Man’s Search for the Age of the Earth by Cherry Lewis, Cambridge University Press, 2000 |author= Tas Walker |publisher= CMI |url= http://creation.com/cherry-lewis-the-dating-game-one-mans-search-for-the-age-of-the-earth-book-review |accessdate=13 June 2015
}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|Ad. “time itself performs miracles” - cf. [[Evolution of the gaps]]: An 'explanation' that has no other than philosophical implication and that cannot be tested is regarded for a key symptom of ideological thinking. Moreover, the Slovak poet Ondrej Fabrici maintained that [[idol]]s of the old [[pagan]] belief systems have been refurbished and disguised in the changed setting of the modern era under the new name of scientific endeavor.<ref>{{cite book |title=Prorok Daniel (Prophet Daniel)|author= Jozef Ondrej Markuš|publisher=Matica slovenská|year=2001|page=39|isbn=80-7090-600-6|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=zpnkAAAACAAJ|language=Slovak |quote=
Či zmenil dačo Chronos starý na plánoch tých Babylonu, hoci sa ako dieťa tvári vek atómu, elektrónu?! Len tváre figúr vymenené, technika ťahov spresnená, idoly staré postavené odiali sa v nové mená! Kulisy zmenil Chronos – čas Babylon žije prostred nás! (Ondrej Fabrici)}}</ref> For example, the “incomprehensibly vast periods of time” invoked by evolutionism is in fact nothing more than refurbished and masqueraded belief in creative power of elapsing time represented either by ancient [[Babylonian]] god, transposed into Greek mythology as [[Chronos]], or antique Aeon,<ref>{{cite web |title= ЭОН |publisher= dic.academic.ru |url= http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_philosophy/3798/ЭОН |language=Russian |accessdate=14 June 2015 |quote= ЭОН (греч. ), термин др.-греч. философии, «жизненный век», «вечность», время в аспекте жизненного существования, как некая целостная самозамкнутая структура (ср. лат. aevum, рус. «век») в отличие от «хро-носа» как абстрактного, количественно-измерительного, объективного и аморфного времени. … В гностицизме зон – это силы, которые исходят от божества. … Эон в геологии длительный период времени, состоящий из нескольких эр.}}</ref> a divine power constituting a [[gnostic]] belief system.<ref name="Skarsaune">{{cite book
|author=Oskar Skarsaune
|title=In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influence on Early Christianity
|publisher=IVP Academic
|year=2002
|location=Downers Grove, IL
|pages=246
|chapter=12:Orthodoxy and Heresy
|isbn=978-0-8308-2844-9
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2q6qTb-A7GwC
|quote=There are several gnostic “systems,” with a great deal of variety in details, but one can newertheless discern a basic pattern that is common to most or all Gnostic texts: There exists a highest God, who within himself comprises several divine powers. The Gnostics called these powers aeons, and there were different systems of arranging aeons. … This aeon, confused and in despair, created the material world…
}}</ref>|group=note}}</div>
|}
George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of [[Buffon]], rejected [[Christianity]], adopted [[Evolutionism|evolutionary thought]], and thus searched for [[materialistic]] explanations for the [[origin science|origin]] of earth.<ref name="Larson">{{cite book
|author=E.J. Larson
|title=Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory
|publisher=Modern Library
|location=New York
|year=2006
|pages=9, 13–18, 39, 58–62
|isbn=0-8129-6849-2
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=xzLRvxlJhzkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Larson+Evolution:+The+Remarkable+History&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PbZfVJugD83vaJengLgI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=rejected%20Christianity%20&f=false}}</ref> Despite his treatises lacking both a timescale and even a clearly developed sense of time, in 1778 he proposed, apparently following his own belief ''"past is so old and has left so few traces that one can say anything one likes about it"'',<ref name="Rappaport1997"/> that the Earth was about 74,832 years old,<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref> what was also in line with thinking that pushed God as [[Creator]] either back in time or out of the picture altogether.<ref name="Larson"/>
In the early nineteenth-century, the so called [[uniformitarian]]s conspired to overthrow the [[Biblical chronology]] that would measure geologic time in generations of man.<ref name="Richter">{{cite journal |title=Geological Notes: Kelvin and the Age of Earth |author=F.M. Richter |publisher=Journal of Geology |year=1986 |volume=94 |pages=395–401 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/30068713}}</ref> The dictum as a fundamental maxim for their geological speculation and worldview<ref name="PerryInAS">{{cite web |title=Kelvin, Perry and the Age of the Earth |author=Philip C. England, Peter Molnar, Frank M. Richter |date= |url=http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/page2/kelvin-perry-and-the-age-of-the-earth |accessdate=13 June 2015 |quote=Before dissecting Kelvin's arguments, it is worth describing the worldview that he was opposing.}}</ref> was expressed through [[James Hutton]]’s aphorism,<ref name="ingv"/> coming from his 1785 book ''Theory of the earth'': ''“The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find [[Singularity#Antipathy to the idea of beginning|no vestige of a beginning]], [[Horror of a Divine Foot|no prospect of an end]].“''<ref name="KelvinOnDynamics">{{cite web |title=On Geological Dynamics |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow |year=1869 |url=http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_geological_dynamics.html |aaccessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Theory of the earth; or an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution and restoration of land upon the globe. |author=James Hutton |publisher=Royal Society of Edinburgh |year=1785 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RjYAAAAAQAAJ}}</ref> Hutton's theory of the earth was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with [[Newton]]ian [[physics]].<ref name="GOULDinNYT">{{cite web |title=IT'S AN OLD, OLD , OLD, OLD WORLD |publisher= NYT |author=D. R. Wallace |date= June 14, 1987 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-arrow.html |accessdate=7 June 2015 |quote=Hutton's theory of the earth as a geological clockwork of eroding continents balanced against uplifting ocean basins was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with Newtonian physics....Hutton and Lyell were dedicated not to modern notions of geological dynamism but to antique ones of geological steady-state...The textbook legend of Hutton and Lyell seems dim and confused compared with that of Copernicus and Galileo. In demonstrating the shallowness of that legend}}</ref>

In 1822, [[Joseph Fourier|Fourier]] laid the groundwork for the mathematical analysis of the flow of [[heat]] in his treatise ''Théorie Analytique de la Chaleur''; and later, in 1827, he published arguments that the Earth must be cooling.<ref name="PerryKelvinCritique">{{cite journal | title=John Perry’s neglected critique of Kelvin’s age for the Earth: A missed opportunity in geodynamics |author=P. England, P. Molnar, F. Richter |journal=GSA Today |volume= 17 |number= 1 |date=January 2007 |doi=10.1130/GSAT01701A.1 |url=http://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/faculty/molnarpdf/2007GSAT.England.PerryKelvinBlownOpportunity.pdf |accessdate=5 June 2015 |quote= Fourier ... made arguments that the Earth must be cooling (Fourier, 1827), with which Lyell was certainly familiar (Lyell, 1830, p. 140–141).}}</ref> This was in line with so called [[Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis]], under which the earth would have gradually cooled from its assumed molten beginnings to its current state.

In 1830 [[Charles Lyell]], despite being familiar with Fourier's arguments,<ref name="PerryKelvinCritique"/> supported, with a convert's zeal, the Hutton's idea of a
steady-state Earth of indefinite age in ''Principles of Geology'',<ref name="ingv" /> a book that later influenced [[Darwin]]. Lyell started his book with a self-serving history of geology that [[Academician Burdenko syndrome|uncritically hailed]] any insight anticipating uniformitarianism and under the banner ''“to free the science from Moses”''<ref>{{cite book |author= Charles Lyell |title= Principles of Geology |volume= 1 |year=1881 (1990)|publisher=University of Chicago Press (reprint) |pages=268 (XVII) |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=9WjnbzHpvfEC |quote=Most other geologists, whether or not they agreed with Lyell on specific issues, would in fact have considered themselves his allies in hoping “to free the science from Moses” (Lyell 1881, vol.1, p.268).}}</ref> [[Kerkut’s student syndrome|utterly dismissed]] the contributions of [[Catastrophism|catastrophists]] including [[Georges Cuvier]], the "lion of nineteenth-century French science" and founder of modern comparative anatomy and paleontology, who as early as 1796 announced ''"the existence of a world previous to ours, destroyed by some kind of catastrophe"'' and whose scientific arguments for the theory of [[special creation]] held back the tide of evolutionary thought for a generation.<ref name="Larson"/> Lyell shown up to be a disciple of Buffon, who resolutely refused to accept the notion of catastrophes, including the [[Noah's Flood|Biblical Flood]], which many of their contemporaries upheld. Before Darwin boarded the HMS Beagle in 1831, his Cambridge tutor Adam Sedgwick, who had supplied just twenty-two years old Darwin with a reading list for the voyage, conspicuously omitted controversial Lyell’s ''Principles''. Darwin was however given a copy of the book by the ship's aristocratic captain Robert FitzRoy, who wished to have some scientific person on board.<ref name="Larson"/><ref>{{cite web |title=The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Part 1 |publisher=BBC |year=1978 |pages=7-part series Part 1, 46min:15sec |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hoDaxVIVPE&feature=youtu.be&t=2850 |accessdate=May 17, 2015 |quote=}}</ref> Darwin was fascinated by book, he dedicated his own writings about the voyage to Lyell, and in his letters claimed that ''"I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell's brains ... the great merit of the Principles, was that it altered the whole tone of one's mind & therefore that when seeing a thing never seen by Lyell, one yet saw it partially through his eyes."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Darwin Correspondence Database: Darwin, C. R. to Horner, Leonard 29 Aug 1844 |author=Ch.Darwin |publisher=Darwin Correspondence Project by Cambridge University Library |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/entry-771 |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref>
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightgrey; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | About people who admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time
|-
| style="padding:15px;" |''If the question "When?" is asked, the natural reply is merely a look of astonishment, and persistent enquiry elicits '''nothing more definite than a vague "Long ago."'''{{#tag:ref|Ad. ''“nothing more definite than a vague ’Long ago’”'' cf.
*''«I asked Ramsay how long a time he allowed for that history. He answered that he could suggest no limit to it. I said “You don’t suppose geological history has run through 1,000,000,000 years?” “Certainly I do.” “10,000,000,000 years?” “Yes.” “The sun is a finite body. You can tell how many tons it is. Do you think it has been shining for a million million years? ” “I am as incapable of estimating and understanding the reasons which you physicists have for limiting geological time as you are incapable of understanding the geological reasons for our unlimited estimates.” I answered, “You can understand the physicists’ reasoning perfectly if you give your mind to it.”»'' Lord Kelvin, conversation on geological time with Sir Andrew Ramsay during the meeting of the British Association at Dundee in 1867<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Age of the Earth as an Abode Fitted for Life
|journal=Science |publisher= American Association for the Advancement of Science |volume=9 |issue=228 |date= May 12, 1899 |page=668 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1626214?seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents |accessdate=July 18, 2105}}</ref>
*''“I don't have millions billions of years”'' Gail E. Kennedy, Associate Professor, Anthropology, [[UCLA]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Evolution Vs. God Movie |publisher=Living Waters |pages=14min:48sec|date=6 Aug 2013 |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ&feature=youtu.be&t=885 |accessdate=25 July 2015}}</ref>
*''“I require for my theoretical views '''a very long''' period before the Cambrian formation.”'' Ch. Darwin<ref name="DarwinToCroll31JAN1869"/>
*Vallisneri, who together with [[Leibniz]] urged Louis Burguet to consider ''biblical time'' as ''too restricted'', '''could add nothing more''' to his early conviction that the earth is ''"of '''nearly incomprehensible antiquity'''"''. Rappaport (p.195-7)<ref name="Rappaport1997"/>|group=note}} Anything else, of course, could not be expected from a people whose [[Big Bang theory|conceptions of the development of the universe]] are limited to a recognition of the [[Geologic system#The system|alternation of seasons]] and the [[Abiogenesis|insistent mysteries of life]] and death.''<div style="padding-left:40px;">— Arthur Holmes <ref name="Holmes1913">{{cite web |title= The age of the earth |author= Arthur Holmes |publisher= Harper |place=London |year= 1913 |pages=2, 11, 135 |url= https://archive.org/details/ageofearth00holmuoft |accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote=As an example of one of the more extravagant demands, mention may be made of Darwin’s estimate in 1859 of the time elapsed since the latter part of the Cretaceous period. From the rate of chalk erosion in Kent, he deduced that the excavation of the Wealden valleys had required a period of 300 million years. Referring to this estimate, Jukes gave his opinion that while it might be a hundred time too great, it was equally probable that it was hundred times too small. Evidently 30,000 million years, in the absence of more reliable data, was not considered an absurdly excessive period for the erosion of the Weald. It should be noticed, however, that after the publication of Thomson’s views, Darwin withdrew this estimate from the origin of species.}}</ref></div>
|}
In his 1859 ''[[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection|Origin of species by means of Natural selection]]'', Darwin declared that ''‘He who can read Sir Charles Lyell’s grand work on the Principles of Geology, which the future historian will recognise as having produced a revolution in natural science, yet does not admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time, may at once close this volume.’''<ref name="KelvinOnDynamics"/><ref>{{cite book |title= On the Origin of Species |author= Charles Darwin |year=1859 |pages=282 |edition=1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RdIp_XRopbcC&q=incomprehensibly+vast#v=snippet&q=incomprehensibly%20vast&f=false}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|For partisans of [[Clifford's injunction]] closing this volume at once definitely appears to be a highly commendable suggestion.|group=note}} Darwin based his views on Hutton and Lyell who were dedicated not to modern notions of geological dynamism but to antique ones of geological steady-state.<ref name="GOULDinNYT"/> It is believed a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his heretical theories was a factor that might have contributed to FitzRoy’s tragic decision to suicide on 30 April 1865.<ref>{{cite web |title= FitzRoy's Bicentenary|publisher= The Friends of Charles Darwin |url=http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/fitzroy/ |quote= The ridicule over the weather forecasts was probably the last straw that drove FitzRoy to suicide on 30th April, 1865. But there were numerous other factors that might have contributed to his tragic decision: his failed New Zealand governorship; a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his heretical theories; his belief that suicide was a family trait; who knows what else might have helped push him over the edge? |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref><ref name="BBC67">{{cite web |title=The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Part 6&7 |publisher=BBC |year=1978 |pages=7-part series Part 6&7, 1h:49min:35sec |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXY-EWZU5qo&feature=youtu.be&t=6575
|accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote=}}</ref>

The doctrine that the Earth was of unlimited age allowed Uniformitarian geologists to evade [[explanation in science|explaining]] any [[phenomenon|phenomena]] by laws of [[physics]] and resort to [[Fog displacement|blurring]] them by ''“reckless drafts on the bank of time”'' instead. For the legendary British physicist William Thomson, later known as [[Lord Kelvin]], this game without rules was simply not scientific. The speculations of uniformitarians on age of the Earth were forbidden by the laws of the thermodynamics, which he had helped in developing. He showed, with the full force and prestige of mathematical physics,{{#tag:ref|cf.
*''"God is mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe."'' [[Paul Dirac]]<ref name="Flew">{{Cite book|title=There is a God, How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind|author=Antony Flew|publisher=HarperOne|year=2008|isbn=978-0-06-133530-3|pages=105|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=zbL66ePcjpQC |quote= }}</ref>
*''"Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against skepticism and against dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition … [and therefore] ‘On to God’"'' [[Max Planck]]<ref name="Flew"/>|group=note}} that, if one were to assume that the Earth is a solid body cooling from an initially high temperature, measurement of the rate of heat loss from its surface would clearly place limits on its age.

Kelvin started to advance his arguments under the title ''“Note on Certain Points in the Theory of Heat”'' first in 1844 in ''Cambridge Mathematical Journal''. After clarifying some of Fourier’s mathematics related to the conduction of heat and the dissipation of energy, he presented the upper boundary for the age of the Earth in his 1863 classic paper ''On the Secular Cooling of the Earth'' as '''98 millions of years'''.<ref name="OnSecularCooling">{{cite web |title= On the Secular Cooling of the Earth |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh |year=1864 (Read 1862) |volume= XXIII |pages= 167–169 |url= http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_secular_cooling_of_the_earth.html |aaccessdate=June 14, 2015}}</ref> The figure was based i.a. on following assumptions and considerations:
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightblue; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | On the Kelvin's calculations
|-
| style="padding:15px;" | ''I have sometimes been asked by friends interested in geology to criticise Lord Kelvin's calculation of the probable age of the earth. I have usually said that it is hopeless to expect that Lord Kelvin should have made an error in calculation.''

<div style="padding-left:40px;">—John Perry<ref>{{cite journal |title= On the Age of the Earth |author=John Perry |journal=Nature |date= 3 January 1895 |issue=51 |pages=224–227 |doi=10.1038/051224a0 |url= http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v51/n1314/pdf/051224a0.pdf
}}</ref> </div>
|}
* The ‘celebrated’ '''Poisson’s hypothesis''', that the present underground heat of Earth is due to a passage, at some former period, of the Solar system through hotter stellar regions, would not serve uniformitarians and evolutionists right, since it either grants only short time periods with moderate temperature on earth’s surface or, if the transition from hot region to cold region is shifted further back in time, it leads to extreme temperatures that must have destroyed all animal and vegetable life.
* The '''[[Leibniz’s theory of earth|Leibnitz’s theory]]''', which simply supposes the earth to have been at one time an incandescent liquid, without explaining how it got into that state, is the best for view of the geologists who require the longest periods.
* The initial temperature of molten blob to be 7000 °F or 3888 °C, respectively, corresponding to a high estimate of generally assumed temperature of melting rock. Later Kelvin explained that he could take lower value as more probable, but was most anxious not to underestimate the age of the earth based on the very meager information then available.<ref name="KelvinNature1895"/>
* The measurements of underground temperatures near Edinburgh served as basis for the estimated “general increase of temperature in the Earth downwards” alias mean geothermal gradient of 1/50th of a degree Fahrenheit per foot (~ ca 36 °C/km).

After taking into account the estimated uncertainties in thermal gradient and thermal conductivity, Kelvin broadened an upper limit for the age of the Earth to interval between 20 and 400 millions of years (20 ~ 400 Ma). In a later paper, based on experimental results performed by Carl Barus (who found out that diabase, a typical [[basalt]] of very primitive character, melts between 1100 °C and 1170 °C and is thoroughly liquid at 1300 °C),<ref name="KelvinNature1895">{{cite journal |title=On the Age of the Earth |author= Lord Kelvin |journal= Nature (reprint in SA)|date= January 3, 1895 |pages= 334–337 |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lord-kelvin-on-the-age-of-the-earth/ |accessdate=14 June 2015 |quote= Carl Barus (Phil. Mag., 1893, first half year, pp. 186, 187, 301-305) that diabase, a typical basalt of very primitive character, melts between 1,100° C. and 1,170° and is thoroughly liquid at 1,300°.}}</ref> he modified the value for supposed initial molten rock temperature to 1200 °C,<ref name="Richter"/> thus by the end of the 1800s narrowed down the interval to 20 ~ 40Ma,<ref name="chemeu">{{cite web |title=William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin |publisher=chemeurope.com |url=http://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/William_Thomson%2C_1st_Baron_Kelvin.html |accessdate=14 June 2015 |quote= Thomson ultimately settled on an estimate that the Earth was 20-40 million years old }}</ref> with personal preference for the lower value which is also the most quoted one.<ref name="West"/><ref>{{cite book |title= The Dating Game: One Man's Search for the Age of the Earth |author= Cherry Lewis |publisher= Cambridge University Press |year= 2012 |pages= 39 |isbn= 978-11076-59599 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=vU1yZQ03Kz0C }}</ref>

{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightblue; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | About theoretical views requiring a very long period
|-
| style="padding:15px;" | ''"When you measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you cannot express it in numbers your knowledge about it is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."''

<div style="padding-left:40px;">—William Thompson, Lord Kelvin<ref>{{cite web |title=Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth |author=Evelyn Lamb |publisher=Scientific American |date= 26 June 2013 |url= http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/lord-kelvin-age-of-the-eart/ |accessdate=19 April 2016
}}</ref> </div>
|}
Many scientists liked these values, since they appeared to be consistent with calculations made by [[Hermann von Helmholtz]], who in 1854 estimated the age of sun to be between 20 and 40 million years,<ref name="ingv"/><ref>{{cite web |title= Trial balloons and the age of the earth |author= Tas Walker |publisher=CMI |url= http://creation.com/trial-balloons-geochronology |accessdate= 14 June 2015}}</ref> but for both evolutionists in biology as well as uniformitarians in geology they were distastefully low.<ref name="KelvinRevisited">{{cite web |title= Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earth |author= John Woodmorappe |publisher=CMI |url= http://creation.com/trial-balloons-geochronology |accessdate= 14 June 2015}}</ref> Darwin wrote in his letters that he has ''“not as yet been able to digest the fundamental notion of the shortened age of the sun and earth,”''<ref>{{cite book |author= Loren Eiseley
|title=Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It
|publisher=Anchor
|place=New York
|year=1961
|pages=234, 235, 240
|isbn= 978-03850-81412
|url=http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Century-Evolution-Men-Discovered/dp/0385081413
}}</ref> and admitted that ''“Thompson's views of the recent age of the world”'' have been for some time one of his ''“sorest troubles.”'' (1869).<ref>{{cite web
|title= Darwin, C. R. to Wallace, A. R., Letter 6706
|author=Charles Darwin
|date= 14 Apr 1869
|publisher= Darwin Correspondence Database
|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-6706#mark-6706.f4
|quote=Thompson's views of the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles, & so I have been glad to read what you say.f4:William Thomson held that the crust of the earth had solidified only 100 million years ago, and had criticised [Charles Darwin]'s estimate in the first edition of Origin of 300 million years for the denudation of the Weald (see W. Thomson 1862a, pp. 391--2). See also Correspondence vol. 16, letter to G. H. Darwin, [9 December 1868].
|accessdate=21 July 2015}}</ref> Notwithstanding some Croll's ''"excellent remarks on the work which can be effected within a million years,"'' he felt ''"greatly troubled at the short duration of the world according to Sir W. Thompson,"'' for Darwin required for his ''"theoretical views '''a very long period''' before the [[Cambrian]] formation"''.<ref name="DarwinToCroll31JAN1869">{{cite web
|title= Darwin, C. R. to Croll, James, Letter 6585
|author=Charles Darwin
|date= 31 Jan 1869
|publisher= Darwin Correspondence Database
|url= http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-6585
|quote= The physicist William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) had calculated the age of the earth based on its cooling from a molten ball. He concluded that the earth could not possibly have existed with its crust in a similar state as at present for the length of time proposed by geologists (see W. Thomson 1865). In Origin 5th ed., p. 379, [Charles Darwin] noted that based on Thomson's calculation of the age of the earth and Croll's estimation that 60 million years had passed since the Cambrian period, the time left for the pre-Cambrian period (140 million years) was `hardly sufficient for the development of the varied forms of life which certainly existed towards the close of the Cambrian period'.|accessdate=21 July 2015}}</ref> After the publication of Kelvins’s views, Darwin first halved, in the second edition of the ''[[Origin of species]]'' (p. 287), his own estimate of the time (''"far longer than 300 million years"'') allegedly elapsed since the latter part of the conjectured ''"[[Geologic system#The system|Cretaceous period]]"'', and later withdrew the discussion altogether from the third edition.<ref name="Holmes1913"/><ref>{{cite web
|title= Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., Letter 6841
|author=Charles Darwin
|date= 24 July 1869
|publisher= Darwin Correspondence Database
|url= http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-6841#back-mark-06841.f7
|quote= In [Tait] 1869, p. 429, Tait had quoted [Charles Darwin]'s conjecture, based on his estimate of time needed for the denudation of the Weald, that far longer than 300 million years must have elapsed since the latter part of the secondary period (Origin, p. 287). In response to criticisms in the Saturday Review, 24 December 1859, however, [Charles Darwin] halved his estimate in the second edition of Origin, and removed the discussion altogether from the third edition.
|accessdate=21 July 2015}}</ref> In 1871 he even named Kelvin ''“an odious spectre”'' that came so that Darwin could not ''“rely much on pre-[[Silurian]] times.”''<ref>{{cite web
|title= Darwin, C. R. to Wallace, A. R., Letter 7858
|author=Charles Darwin
|date= 12 July 1871
|publisher= Darwin Correspondence Database
|url=https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/entry-7858
|quote=I can say nothing more about missing links than what I have said. I should rely much on pre-Silurian times; but then comes Sir W. Thompson like an odious spectre. Footnote: [Charles Darwin] discussed the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record in Origin 5th ed., pp. 208–15, 346–8. He thought William Thomson’s estimate of the time elapsed since the consolidation of the earth’s crust was probably too short for species to evolve according to his theory (Origin 5thed., p. 379)
|accessdate=21 July 2015}}</ref>

== Modernized pagan views ==
=== The game changer: Radioactivity mythmaking ===
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightblue; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | The age of the earth is definite
|-
| style="padding:15px;" | ''"We do not say whether it is twenty million years or more, or less, but we say it is not indefinite. And we can say very definitely that it is not an inconceivably great number of millions of years."'' ''"We feel that there is no possibility of things going on for ever as they have done for the last six thousand years."''

<div style="padding-left:40px;">— William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)<ref name=" OntheMiracleofLife">{{cite web |title= "On the Miracle of Life" [Actual title unknown.] Excerpt from an address at the annual meeting of the Christian Evidence Society |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= as quoted in Heros of the Telegraph by J. Munro.|year= 1889 |url= http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_miracle_of_life.html |accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote= I may refer to that old, but never uninteresting subject of the miracles of geology. Physical science does something for us here. St. Peter speaks of scoffers who said that ‘all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation;’ but the apostle affirms himself that ‘all these things shall be dissolved.’ It seems to me that even physical science absolutely demonstrates the scientific truth of these words. We feel that there is no possibility of things going on for ever as they have done for the last six thousand years. ... The science of dead matter, which has been the principal subject of my thoughts during my life, is, I may say, strenuous on this point, that the age of the earth is definite. We do not say whether it is twenty million years or more, or less, but we say it is not indefinite. And we can say very definitely that it is not an inconceivably great number of millions of years.}}</ref></div>
|}

By the end of the nineteenth century, Lord Kelvin had completely demolished all opposition.<ref name="West"/> He made uniformitarian geological community to accept that the age of the earth must be finite and that estimating the age by quantitative reasoning instead of supporting steady-state theory with [[Horror of a Divine Foot|philosophical bias]] should be crucial part of the geological endeavor. Even ‘''Darwin’s bulldog''’ and [[T. H. Huxley|musketeer of Darwinism Huxley]], who previously attacked Kelvin by making indirect allusions about ''“the first passer-by who fancies that our house is not so well built as it might be”'', ventured to suggest, in front of the Geological society of London, that ''“limitation of the period during which living beings have inhabited this planet to one, two, or three hundred million years, may be admitted, without a complete revolution in geological speculation.”''<ref name="KelvinOnDynamics"/> This was in direct contradiction with [[Darwin]] who previously declared that ''“a far longer period than 300 million years has elapsed”'' since the latter part of period for which he declared to have available ''“a clear evidence of the existence … of whole groups of beings."''{{#tag:ref|cf.[[Evolutionary schizophrenia]]|group=note}} Materialistic philosophers, such as the British analytical [[Bertrand Russell]], realized that the Hutton's materialstic concept ''”no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end”'' is further unmaintainable, and de facto denounced it while starting to proclaim Biblically compatible apocalyptic views: ''“all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of Solar System”''. These things should be regarded, ''“if not quite beyond dispute,”'' ''“yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.”''<ref name="Signature">{{Cite book
| author = Meyer, Stephen C.
| title = Signature in the Cell
| publisher = HarperOne
| location= New York
| year= 2008
| isbn = 978-0-06-147279-2
| pages = 450
| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RUGKBdKawDUC| quote= }}</ref>

But T.C. Chamberlin, head of the Department of Geology at the [[University of Chicago]], was not prepared to concede defeat. While defending his faith in long-ages, he speculated, without any observational basis whatever, that there might yet be discovered new sources of energy that would allow more time than Kelvin had calculated.<ref>{{cite book |title=Earth |author= Frank Press, Raymond Siever |publisher=W. H. Freeman |edition=4 |year=1986 |pages=40 |isbn=978-0716717430 |url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Earth-Frank-Press/dp/0716717433}}</ref> Thus, the quest for the age of the earth as a subjective, arbitrary and erratic pursuit, was set for an fascinating turn.<ref name="West"/> This came in 1896, when [[radioactivity]] was discovered by Henri Becquerel and when in 1903 [[Marie and Pierre Curie|Pierre Curie]] and Albert Laborde demonstrated that [[radioactive decay]] releases heat. Before long, several people argued that this source of heat was great enough to overturn Kelvin’s conclusion about the boundary for the age of the earth. The situation resembled the one in the previous two centuries when ''“those who sought to extend biblical time hardly knew where to begin, how to proceed, and what to conclude.”''<ref name="Rappaport1997"/> Among the followers of this effort was [[Ernest Rutherford]], who in 1904 suggested, in the Royal Institution, that ''“Lord Kelvin had limited the Age of the Earth, ‘provided no new source of heat was discovered.’ That prophetic utterance refers to what we are considering tonight, [[radium]]!”'' Later, Rutherford often repeated his tale of thinking on his feet in front of the “old bird” Kelvin who “beamed” at him. This episode and pleasing form of the anecdote, boosted by the eminence of its author, who was considered the father of the nuclear theory, provided a ready vehicle for mythmaking and uncritical acceptance of proposition that because the discovery of radioactive heat undermined an assumption behind Kelvin’s calculation, it also undermined his conclusion.<ref name="PerryKelvinCritique"/> As the half-life of radium's dominant isotope is 1600 yr, heat given out by radium obviously could not be the wanted missing energy.{{#tag:ref|cf. ''"[Rutherford and Soddy] could not get away from the fact, however, that radium itself, although universally regarded as an element, decays far too rapidly to be as old as the minerals in which it is found. The only solution seemed to be that radium too must be a metabolon with a 'life' of a few thousand years."''<ref name ="BURCHFIELD">{{cite book |title=Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth |author=Joe D. Burchfield |publisher= The University of Chicago Press |place=Chicago |year=1975, 1990 |pages=173 |isbn=0-226-08043-9}}</ref>|group=note}} Nevertheless, later assumptions of equilibrium in decay series of [[uranium]] and [[thorium]] allowed to consider heat sources with half-lives in gigayears (Ga; 1 Ga = 10<sup>9</sup> years).

The 1911 edition of the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] discussed dates up to 500 million years.<ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, pp 650-651.</ref>
By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.<ref>Universal History of the World, p.76.</ref>

The inclusion of radiogenic heat makes however only insignificant difference in terms of age limit inferred from the time required for the surface gradient to reach its present-day estimated value of 20 °C/km supported by observational evidence.
As a matter of fact, it is freely acknowledged that radioactive heat sources within the earth do not account for its present internal temperatures if the earth had really existed for 4.5 Ga. The statements such as ''"Thanks to Madame Curie, the inexhaustible energies of the atom of the globe … are potentially available to geological speculation"'' and ''"Kelvin overthrown"''<ref name="KelvinRevisited"/> are logically incorrect; Kelvin's conclusion would be undermined by that discovery only if incorporation of the Earth's radioactive heat into his calculations produced a substantially different age limits for the earth.

The general conclusion is that, even if Kelvin had included a reasonable radiogenic heat production in his thermal calculations, he would still have found grounds for arguing that the age limit of the earth was of the order of 10<sup>8</sup> years and his estimate would have been virtually unaffected.<ref name="Richter"/>

=== The Scientific Dogma of 4.5 billion years ===
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightgray; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | Subjective biased approach to data selection
|-
| style="padding:15px;" |''"In general, dates in the correct ballpark are [[Paleoscience#Paleoscience.2C worldview of the scientists.2C sociological and psychological factors.2C political pressure|assumed to be correct]] and are published, but those in disagreement with other date are seldom published, nor are the discrepancies fully explained."''
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— Richard K. Mauger<ref>{{cite journal |title= K-Ar ages of biotites from tuffs in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado |author= Richard L. Mauger |journal= |publisher=University of Wyoming |year=1977 |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=17–42 (37)|url= https://geobookstore.uwyo.edu/sites/default/files/download/ConttoGeo_TOC.pdf |accessdate=13 June 2015 }}</ref> </div>
|}
In 1943 R.A. Daly of Harvard University published his authoritative paper ''“Meteorites and an Earth model,”'' where he studied the analogies between [[Rock (material)|terrestrial rocks]] and [[meteor]]ites, coupled with deductions on the probable nature of the Earth’s interior. He hypothesized that the latter ones originated by disruption of a planet once situated between Mars and Jupiter, in the region now occupied by [[asteroid]]s. At first textbooks have quoted his theory approvingly, but later it has been disfavored due to mineralogical discontinuities between different groups of meteorites which were interpreted as evidence against a single parent body hypothesis. Nevertheless, the meteorites, “enigmatic bodies,” have managed to attract the great resurgence of interest in scientific research.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Meteorites |author=Brian Mason|journal=American Scientist |volume=55| issue=4 |year=1967|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/27837038?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents}}</ref>

In his 1956 paper named ''Age of Meteorites and the Earth'', Claire Patterson, using ''“certain assumptions which are apparently justified,”'' introduced for meteor age a figure of '''4.55 ± 0.07 × 10<sup>9</sup>yr.''' and commented that since earth lead meets the requirement for definition of ''“the isotopic evolution of lead for any meteoritic body,”'' it is therefore ''“believed that the age for the earth is the same as for meteorites”'' and that ''"this is the time since the earth attained its present mass"''.<ref>{{cite web |title= Age of meteorites and the earth |author= Claire Patterson |url=http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Patterson1956.pdf |accessdate= }}</ref> In spite of cautions and skepticism advised by the authors, this faith-based figure gradually became a scientific dogma that rarely anyone has dared to question.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Ralph W. Matthews |title=Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth |date=December 1982 |publisher=Creation |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=41–44 |quote=In spite of cautions and skepticism advised by the authors this number has been widely and enthusiastically accepted and is usually quoted as if the evidence was decisive and conclusive. It has assumed something of the status of a universal constant to which all other data must be fitted, thus it has become common practice to assume that data which does not fit this result is either wrong or unintelligible. |accessdate=December 30, 2014}}</ref> Henry Morris explains that the unprovable assumptions are not the only problem with radiometric dating. One huge concern is that the results published are only a selected sample, chosen especially to agree with preconceived ideas about the earth, life, and [[evolution]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Once upon a time … A Review of The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods by John Woodmorappe |author=Michael J. Oard |url=http://creation.com/once-upon-a-time |accessdate=November 9, 2014}}</ref>

When in 1972 N.H. Gale tried to corroborate this established figure, he discovered that U-Pb ages ''"showed apparent large excess of radiogenic lead compared with the amount expected from the decay of Uranium in the meteorites over 4.5AE. ... For each of the 4 meteorites there was an excess of radiogenic lead not supported by uranium decay over 4.5AE.”'' After short analysis:
*''“The superior modern analytical methods used made it impossible that analytical contamination could explain the result.''
*''The circumstances ... make it extremely unlikely that terrestrial contamination could explain the results for this meteorites.''
*''... a considerable excess of radiogenic lead in most fractions ...is difficult to attribute to contamination,“''
rather than starting to reckon with possibility to challenge the established figures and methods, after recalling that ''“Patterson was the first to show that several stony meteorites yield a ... model of 4.5AE,”'' he proposed the new explanation for discovered discrepancy: ''"discordant results can be attributed to contamination."''{{#tag:ref|The claim on the contamination explaining the "discordant result" is in direct contradiction with previous statements that neither analytical nor extremely unlikely terrestrial contamination could explain the results. According to Ryan Dobson, author of a book on [[moral relativism]], a person that holds conflicting opinions about something and starts disagreeing with himself of herself is in trouble.<ref name="Dobson">{{cite book
|author=Ryan Dobson, Jefferson Scott
|title=Be Intolerant in Love: Because Some Things Are Just Stupid
|publisher=Tyndale House Publishers
|location=Sisters, OR, USA
|year=2007
|isbn=978-1590-521526
|pages=23–26
|pages=121
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=yvSEGgAACAAJ
|quote= You can't recognize that you hold conflicting opinions about something and hang on to both of them for very long. When you start disagreeing with yourself, you're in trouble.}}</ref> The trouble maintaining a train of thought in logical and coherent manner is regarded by [[medical science]] as symptom and characteristic of [[schizophrenia]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Schizophrenia: Symptoms, Types, Causes, and Early Warning Signs |publisher=helpguide.org |url= http://www.helpguide.org/articles/schizophrenia/schizophrenia-signs-types-and-causes.htm |accessdate=13 June 2015 |quote=Fragmented thinking is characteristic of schizophrenia. Externally, it can be observed in the way a person speaks. People with schizophrenia tend to have trouble concentrating and maintaining a train of thought. They may respond to queries with an unrelated answer, start sentences with one topic and end somewhere completely different, speak incoherently, or say illogical things.}}</ref>|group=note}}
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightgray; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | Assault on scientific [[Socratic principle]]
|-
| style="padding:15px;" |''"Most advocates do not defend their theses out of conviction that they are true, but rather because they once declared them to be true."''
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— Georg Christoph Lichtenberg </div>
|}
Consequently, his research of the Earth’s age turned into calculation of ''"the correct sample ratios"'' from ''"observed ratios"'' so that the Table in his paper could finally show the “correct” preconceived age, established in this field of research.<ref name= "GALE1972">{{cite journal |title=Uranium-Lead Chronology of Chrondritic Meteorites |author= Gale, N.H., Arden, J.W. and Hutchison, R. |
|journal=Nature |issue=240 |pages=56-57 |date=20 November 1972 |doi=10.1038/physci240056a0
|url=http://www.nature.com/nature-physci/journal/v240/n99/pdf/physci240056a0.pdf
|quote= Considerable variations in uranium and lead concentrations are observed in different gram sized fragments of the same meteorite5·7,8, and fission track studies10 show that on the microscopic scale changes in uranium concentration by factors of 105 are observed over distances of ˜10˜2 cm. Because of experimental difficulties the uranium and lead concentrations and the lead isotopic abundances have not been measured hitherto in the same sample of a given meteorite, so that it is possible, but not proven, that the apparent lack of concordance between daughter and parent isotopes may be a direct consequence of these heterogeneities; this point of view has been well argued by Fisher11. Most of the early work on the determination of lead in meteorites was in any case badly hampered by analytical contamination by terrestrial lead.}}</ref><ref name="GALE1979">{{cite journal |title=U-Pb studies of the appley bridge meteorite |author=Gale, N.H., Arden, J.W. and Hutchison, R. |publisher=Naturwissenschaften |year=1979 |volume=66 |issue=8 |pages=419-420 |doi=10.1007/BF00368077 |url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/r741164v5162r447}}</ref> This methodological flaw is known as [[data torturing]].

Using [[circular logic]] — assuming that decay rates remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin — Old Earth proponents insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on an assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

===Turning science upside down===
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightblue; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | Doctrine outside the realm of science
|-
| style="padding:15px;" | ''"If a theory or point of view is treated only as a doctrine to be validated, and not one to be challenged, it is not within the realm of science."''

<div style="padding-left:40px;">— Randall Hedtke<ref name="Hedtke">{{cite book
|author=Randall Hedtke
|title=Secrets of the Sixth Edition
|publisher=Master Books
|place=Portland, Oregon
|year=2010
|pages=57
|isbn=978-0-89051-597-6
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gvyHquVubDoC}}</ref></div>
|}
After their acceptance of evolutionary dogma on ''“antiquity as a partially known factor”'' by faith, followers of evolutionary scientism started to assure that ''“the earth’s age must be very much greater than Kelvin calculated”''. Consequently, they commanded science to be turned upside down: ''”Kelvin’s problem must now be reversed”'' – instead of research finding the age of the earth, it should be already taken as given by their doctrine instead, and the only role left to science is to confirm it and determine the thermal history of the earth that would be in accord with it.<ref name="Holmes1913"/>

In 1978, ''Geotimes'' magazine published by American Geological Institute quoted John Eddy, a famous astronomer, who argued that due to ''“some new and unexpected results“'' scientists could live with bishop Ussher’s 4004 B.C. value for the age of Earth and Sun, ''a fortiori'' since there is not much in the way of [[Scientific observation|observational]] [[Scientific evidence|evidence]] in [[astronomy]] to conflict with his calculations.<ref>{{cite journal |author=John Eddy quoted by R.G. Kazmann |title= It’s About Time: 4.5 Billion Years (report on Symposium at Louisiana State University)|publisher= Geotimes magazine (from 09/2008 renamed to Earth magazine) of American Geological Institute |year=1978 |issue=23 |pages=18–20|quote=I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for some frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with bishop Ussher’s value for the age of Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Jon Covey |title= Age of the Universe |publisher= Creation In The Crossfire |date= January 3, 2013 |url=http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/AgeOfUniverse/AgeOfTheUniverse.html |accessdate=December 30, 2014 |quote= Evolutionary astronomers confidently argue the universe is 12-20 billion years old, although there is no certainty about any astronomical observations. John Eddy, a famous astronomer, once said that there isn’t much in the way of observational astronomy that proves the universe is old. He said that with “frantic theoretical readjustment” if new evidence showed that astronomers have been wrong, they could live with Bishop Ussher’s date of 4,004 B.C.}}</ref> American astronomer Robert Jastrow maintains that for ''"the scientist who has lived by his faith in 'the power of reason', the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak"'' and ''"as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."''<ref name="Jastrow">{{cite book
|author=Robert Jastrow
|title=God and the Astronomers
|location=New York
|publisher= W. W. Norton
|year=1992
|page=107
|isbn=978-0-393-85006-2
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1IfLYHv5pyUC}}</ref>

== Geology ==

[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, "Finding a home for stray fact", ''New Scientist'', July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging".<ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day — and much more scientific — successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[old-earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Burnet, Thomas, [http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ste/ste36.htm The Sacred Theory of the Earth, chapter V], 1691.
* Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (1911). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling On-line page facsimiles].
* Hammerton, J.A. (Ed.), "Universal History of the World" (8 volumes) The Educational Book Co., London, c1930.
* Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/417 Old-earth or young-earth belief: Which belief is the recent aberration?], ''Creation'' 24(1):24–27, December 2001.
* [http://www.ingv.it/~roma/SITOINGLESE/activities/geomagnetismo/analysistheory/historicalresearch/age.html The age of the Earth] (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)).
*Peck WH, Valley JW, Wilde SA, and Graham CM (2000) Ion microprobe Evidence for Pre-4.4 Ga Continental Crust and Low Temperature Water/Rock Interaction. ''Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr'', vol 32, no. 7.

== External links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the Earth and Universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== Notes ==
<references group=note/>

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Geology]]

Conservation law

2016-09-10T13:52:26Z

Brians1: Rewrote it

'''Conservation law''' is a [[physical law]] that says that some physical quantity is conserved, which means ''never changes''. Examples of ''conserved quantities'' in physics are:
*[[Energy]]
*[[Momentum]]
*[[Angular momentum]]
*[[Charge]]

There are various quantities that are conserved in certain situations, but are not conserved in general.

[[Category:Physics]]

Cerenkov radiation

2016-09-10T13:46:43Z

Brians1: Fixed link

'''Cerenkov radiation''', also known as the Cerenkov effect, is continuous [[light|electromagnetic radiation]] emitted by particles travelling faster than the [[speed of light]] in a material. It was first described by [[Russia]]n [[physicist]] [[Pavel Cerenkov]], who earned the 1958 [[Nobel Prize]] for his contribution. The phenomenon is often observed as a bluish glow in some types of [[nuclear reactor]]s, due to high-energy [[electron]]s travelling through [[water]].

The Cerenkov effect is not a violation of [[special relativity]], which states that no particle can travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum. The speed of light in materials is less than the speed of light in vacuum, and particles may travel at velocities greater than the speed of light in a particular medium but slower than the speed of light in vacuum.

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Particle physics]]

Cerenkov radiation

2016-09-10T13:45:53Z

Brians1: Added category

Anti-electron neutrino

2016-09-10T13:42:58Z

Brians1: Fixed broken link, category addittion

The anti-[[electron]] [[neutrino]] is the [[subatomic particle|antiparticle]] of the electron neutrino, and as such has an opposite charge and spin. They are emitted when a [[neutron]] turns into a [[proton]]. It has a mass of <2.2 eV.<ref>http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v84/i11/e112003</ref> Like all neutrinos, this particle is affected only by [[gravity]] and the [[weak force|weak nuclear force]], making it extraordinarily hard to both detect and experiment upon.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Particle physics]]

Second Law of Thermodynamics

2016-09-10T13:29:41Z

Brians1: Added some more stuff to introduction

The '''Second Law of Thermodynamics''' is a statistical law of nature about the tendency of an [[closed system|isolated system]] towards disorder in the absence of intelligent intervention. It says that the [[entropy]] of an [[isolated system]] either increases or remains constant, I.e. [[entropy]] does not decrease.

There are many different ways if stating the second law of thermodynamics. An alternative statement of the law is that heat will tend not to flow from a cold body to a warmer one without work being done, e.g. by a [[refrigerator]]. It can also be losely stated as "[t]he universe is constantly getting more disorderly!"<ref>The quotation is from Isaac Asimov, who continued to say "[v]iewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to [[work]] hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6. Put in physics terminology, the Second Law states that the [[entropy]] of an [[closed system|isolated system]] never decreases.</ref> Other statements include that it is impossible for an [[engine]] to convert [[heat]] perfectly (I.e. at 100% efficiency) into [[work]]. These statements are qualitative and stating the second law in terms of [[entropy]] makes the law quantitative.

This law makes it impossible to build a [[perpetual motion machine]] - the increase in entropy inevitably derails the system even if energy remains constant.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the [[atheistic]] [[Theory of Evolution]] and [[Theory of Relativity]], both of which deny a fundamental uncertainty to the physical world that leads to increasing disorder.

The second law can be expressed mathematically as:

<math>\frac{dS_{universe}}{dt} \ge 0</math>

where <math> \frac{dS_{universe}}{dt}</math> is the rate of change of [[entropy]] of the [[universe]] with respect to time.

==Entropy and disorder ==

In this context "increasing disorder" means "that which happens if you let nature take its course."
Imagine your old room at your parent's house. Remember how easy it was to let the room turn into a uniform mess (disorder) and remember how hard it was to clean it up until it fit a specific, non-uniform design (order). Not cleaning up would always result in an increase of entropy in your room!

Now, in nature there is no one to clean up the universe, only chances. The chance of something becoming orderly is a lot smaller than the chance of something becoming disorderly (since there are far more possible disorderly states to choose from).

Alternatively one could think of how difficult it is to construct a house of cards, while almost everything that happens in nature will result in its collapse.

On a universal scale a tidy room would be a universe which has pockets of above average concentrations of energy (if you - incorrectly - assume relativity [[E=mc²]] this includes matter as well.)
A messy room would be a universe in which all energy is equally spread out.

The flow of energy (by heat exchange) to places with lower concentrations is called the "heat flow".

The often heard argument that this law disproves an eternal universe is true, since in that case maximum entropy would have been reached already. A counter-argument to this would be to suggest that the universe is still in the process of approaching maximum entropy.

It should be stressed that the second law is statistical. To see this, consider adding a drop of red dye to a glass of water. What we see is the drop spread out and after a long time, the water is coloured uniformly red. It is more "disordered" now (a mixture of dye and water) than it was at the start (a glass containing only water and a single, concentrated drop of dye.) So the second law holds. However, it is possible by chance for all the molecules to just happen to move such that the red dye [[molecule|molecules]] all group together to form a single, concentrated drop. This appears to contradict the second law that "disorder" is always increasing. However the second law says that "disorder" increases as there are more microstates (ways of rearranging the molecules such that they look the same to macroscopic observer, i.e. a human) corresponding to "disorder" than "order". Hence it is more likely that the system will become more "disorderly" but not '''imposible''' for the system to become more "orderly". Since for any everyday system, such as a glass of water, there are so many microstates that it can be assumed that [[entropy]] never decreases.

==Reversibility and Irreversibility==

[[Reversible process|Reversibility]] is a theoretical concept related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A process is reversible if the net heat and work exchange between the system and the surroundings is zero for the process running forwards and in reverse. This means the process does not generate [[entropy]]. In reality, no process is completely reversible. Irreversibility is a quantity sometimes called "lost work" and is equal to the difference between a process' actual work and reversible work. Irreversibility is also equal to a process' entropy generation multiplied by a reference temperature.

==Trend toward uniformity in the universe==

The universe will always become increasingly uniform, that is: heat will spread until the entire universe has the temperature and energy level (in a closed system heat will always spread from a place where there is a lot of heat to a place where there is less until balance is achieved), forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.

In this final state the universe is one uniform space where nothing happens and no work (moving something) can be done since there are no above average concentrations of energy left.
This state is called maximum entropy and is said to be in perfect disorder (although intuitively its uniformity would seem to be a state of perfect order) because it has become impossible to determine what happened in the past. ''i.e.'' There are an infinite number of ways (histories of the universe) maximum entropy could have been reached.

==The types of systems governed by the Law==
There is only one type of system that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to: an isolated system. An isolated system is one that does not exchange matter or energy with its surroundings.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not strictly apply to the following types of system:
* Closed system - Exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings
* Open system - Exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings

The boundary of any system can always be expanded to produce an isolated system.

==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==

It has become common in recent years for [[Environmentalism|environmentalists]] to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies limits to [[economic growth]]. Their reasoning is that because free energy in resources such as [[petroleum|oil]] decreases with time, then economic growth can only be finite. However, this simplistic [[liberal]] reasoning ignores the [[false zero-sum game|non-zero sum]] nature of [[free market economics]], whereby improvements in technology deliver gains for all at no further cost. Indeed, one of the most vital economic goods, knowledge, or more generally information, can be said to be free from thermodynamic limitations entirely.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2053] Discovery Institute cofounder and futurist George F. Gilder put it eloquently as follows: ''Gone is the view of a thermodynamic world economy, dominated by "natural resources" being turned to entropy and waste by human extraction and use. Once seen as a physical system tending toward exhaustion and decline, the world economy has clearly emerged as an intellectual system driven by knowledge.''</ref> Liberals also vastly exaggerate the limitations that [[natural resources]] impose on human economies. Some estimate that the [[Earth]] can harbor 100 billion people. God Himself gives His explicit assurance that the Earth will be generous as long as the human race exists in [[Genesis]]: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28, KJV)

== Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution ==

[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]

[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the [[evolution]]ary [[paradigm]].

Some of their key resources on this matter are:

*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]

*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]

Evolutionists and other scientists claim that these resources misrepresent the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
== The 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the universe having a beginning ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]

According to Ohio State University professor Patrick Woodward, the [[First Law of Thermodynamics]] "simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy)."<ref>[https://chemistry.osu.edu/~woodward/ch121/ch5_law.htm 1st Law of Thermodynamics], Ohio State University, Professor Pat Woodward (teaches for the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry [https://chemistry.osu.edu/faculty/woodward])</ref>

The [[Christian apologetics]] website ''Why believe in God?'' declares about the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
{{cquote|The second law of thermodynamics, or the law of increased [[entropy]], says that over time, everything breaks down and tends towards disorder - entropy! Entropy is the amount of UNusable energy in any systems; that system could be the earth's environment or the universe itself. The more entropy there is, the more disorganisation and chaos.

Therefore, if no outside force is adding energy to an isolated system to help renew it, it will eventually burn out (heat death). This can be applied to a sun as well as a cup of tea - left to themselves, both will grow cold. You can heat up a cold tea, you cannot heat up a cold sun. NOTE: when a hot tea in an air tight room goes cold (loses all it's energy) not only do we NOT expect the process to reverse by natural causes (ie. the tea will get hot again), but both room temp and tea temp will be equal. Keep that in mind as you read the next paragraph.

Look at it like this, because the energy in the universe is finite and no new energy is being added to it (1st law), and because the energy is being used up (2nd law), the universe cannot be infinite. If our universe was infinite but was using up a finite supply of energy, it would have suffered 'heat death' a long time ago! If the universe was infinite all radioactive atoms would have decayed and the universe would be the same temperature with no hot spots, no bright burning stars. Since this is not true, the universe must have begun a finite time ago.<ref>[http://www.whybelieveingod.net/istheuniverseinfinite.htm Is the Universe Infinite? Past beliefs and implications], Why believe in God? website</ref>}}

Thus, the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the [[universe]] having a beginning.<ref>
*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php CAN LAWS OF SCIENCE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?]
*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]</ref> However, the statistical nature of the second law mean that it is not firmly true.

== The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, theism and the origins of the universe ==

In the articles below, [[Theism|theists]] point out that the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the universe having a divine origin:

*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php Can the laws of science explain the origin of the universe?]

*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]

== See also ==

*[[Genetic entropy]]
*[http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html]
*[[Essay:Commentary on Conservapedia's article on the second law of thermodynamics]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Thermodynamics]]
[[Category:Second Law of Thermodynamics]]

Special theory of relativity

2016-09-10T13:03:59Z

Brians1:

'''Special Relativity''' ('''SRT''') is a generalization of classical mechanics. In contrast to General Relativity, Special Relativity deals with processes observed in so called inertial frames (frames of observation without the influence of acceleration or gravity). It is based on two main observations from different experiments.

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial [[frame of reference|reference frames]].''

[[File:Albert Abraham Michelson2.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px]]
[[File:Edward Williams Morley2.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Albert Michelson and Edward Morley performed the famous [[Michelson-Morley experiment|experiment]] that clinched the experimental case for Special Relativity.]]It is not difficult to demonstrate that it is impossible to reconcile these conditions with a Newtonian mechanics, in which the coordinates are formed in a three-dimensional space. In SRT, each object moving in its own inertial frame has its own time, which constitutes a fourth coordinate describing its state.

The three most prominent SRT effects are [[time dilation]], length contraction and the equivalence of mass and energy.

== Mathematics ==

The central equations of special relativity are the [[Lorentz transformation|Lorentz transformations]]:

<math> x' = \gamma (x -ut) </math><br/>
<math> y' = y </math><br/>
<math> z' = z</math><br/>
<math> t' = \gamma (t - \frac{ux}{c^2} ) </math>

These are the transformations from one coordinate system <math> (x, y, z, t) </math> to another system, <math> (x', y', z', t') </math>, moving past this one at speed u, and with <math>x </math> and <math> x' </math> axes colinear.

The [[Lorentz factor]], <math>\gamma </math> occurs frequently all over special relativity and is<ref>http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html</ref>
:<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{u^2}{c^2}}}</math>, where:

* <math>u</math> is the difference in speed between the [[Inertial frame of reference|frames of reference]]
* <math>c</math> is the [[speed of light]]

=== Classical mechanics ===

When <math>u</math>, the speed of the object in question, is low relative to <math>c</math>, <math>\gamma </math> approaches <math>\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-0}} = 1</math>, causing the ''Einstein-Lorentz relativity'' equations to be equivalent to Newton's equations. This is why [[classical mechanics]], governed by [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion, works for [[Subatomic particle|particles]] at low mass and low speed. However, at higher velocities, <math>\gamma</math> diverges, causing relativity to be essential.

Electromagnetism, including for [[light]] and gamma radiation, where the quanta ([[photon]]s) travel at [[Speed of light|light speed]] have no rest mass, is always relativistic.

===Universal speed limit ===

At the other extreme, when <math>u</math> approaches <math>c</math>, <math>\gamma </math> approaches <math>\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-1}} = \frac{1}{0} = \infty</math>. Since infinite <math>\gamma </math> means an object would have infinite [[kinetic energy]], no object with mass can ever travel at the speed of light. Relativity does not however forbid particles from traveling faster then <math>c </math>, rather that it is impossible to cross the speed of light barrier. Some theorists have postulated hypothetical [[tachyons]], which would always travel faster than the speed of light.<ref>http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html</ref> No evidence has been found for them.

== Experimental Proofs ==
# Michelson-Moreley experiment
# GPS clocks (general relativity)
# Lifetimes of fast traveling particles such as [[muon]]s produced by [[cosmic rays]] (see [[muon]])

== History ==
In the beginning of the last century the two assumption mentioned before where found experimentally in the form of the Maxwell equations, which describe electromagnetic waves. The general idea at that point was that any wave is carried by some medium, called the [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]]. However, as the earth is moving through space, there should be a difference in the interferometrically determined light wavelength, when measured at noon, at evening and at night at the same geographic location. However the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] did reject the aether hypothesis. With this rejection it became an inevitable fact that equations describing physics, which where fitting to a three dimensional space with a single timeframe for all observers exist. The mathematical framework and physical significance was developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]]. [[Albert Einstein]] gave an alternate derivation in terms of postulates.
Many other scientists contributed modifications of this theory. In particular, the Irish Physicist Fitzgerald proposed that the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment was as a result of a length contraction effect. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com Special Relativity]

== Spin as a relativistic effect ==
The relativistic extension of Quantum Mechanics, described by the Dirac Equation allows, due to the symmetry of the equation in 4-space, an additional quantum number to exist, called spin. [[electron spin]] was known from chemistry before relativity arose.

== Interpretation and paradoxes==

Some consequences of the SRT are:

# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner.

For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in an [[inertial reference frame]]).

Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

In the framework of special relativity, several thought experiments can be constructed, which lead to apparent paradoxes. The most striking one is the twin paradox. If you take twins, one on earth, and one in traveling to the next star with high speed and back, their biological age will not be the same, even though you could redefine the system of the traveling twin to be resting. This paradox is resolved because the second twin is not in an inertial frame - he has accelerated, most significantly at his turn-around point. This points out, that while neglected in special relativity, acceleration has a non-trivial role. This is considered in the [[General theory of relativity]].

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== Related Links ==

[http://www.drphysics.com/syllabus/energy/energy.html Mass Energy Equivalence Example]

[http://rareuniverse.org/general_science/special_relativity.html Time Dilation Example]

[[Category:Physics]]

Special theory of relativity

2016-09-10T12:59:15Z

Brians1: Fixed link

'''Special Relativity''' ('''SRT''') is a generalization of classical mechanics. In contrast to General Relativity, Special Relativity deals with processes observed in so called inertial frames (frames of observation without the influence of acceleration or gravity). It is based on two main observations from different experiments.

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial [[frame of reference|reference frames]].''

[[File:Albert Abraham Michelson2.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px]]
[[File:Edward Williams Morley2.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Albert Michelson and Edward Morley performed the famous [[Michelson-Morley experiment|experiment]] that clinched the experimental case for Special Relativity.]]It is not difficult to demonstrate that it is impossible to reconcile these conditions with a Newtonian mechanics, in which the coordinates are formed in a three-dimensional space. In SRT, each object moving in its own inertial frame has its own time, which constitutes a fourth coordinate describing its state.

The three most prominent SRT effects are [[time dilation]], length contraction and the equivalence of mass and energy.

== Mathematics ==

The central equations of special relativity are the [[Lorentz transformation|Lorentz transformations]]:

<math> x' = \gamma (x -ut) </math><br/>
<math> y' = y </math><br/>
<math> z' = z</math><br/>
<math> t' = \gamma (t - \frac{ux}{c^2} ) </math>

These are the transformations from one coordinate system <math> (x, y, z, t) </math> to another system, <math> (x', y', z', t') </math>, moving past this one at speed u, and with <math>x </math> and <math> x' </math> axes colinear.

The [[Lorentz factor]], <math>\gamma </math> occurs frequently all over special relativity and is<ref>http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html</ref>
:<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{u^2}{c^2}}}</math>, where:

* <math>u</math> is the difference in speed between the [[Inertial frame of reference|frames of reference]]
* <math>c</math> is the [[speed of light]]

=== Classical mechanics ===

When <math>u</math>, the speed of the object in question, is low relative to <math>c</math>, <math>\gamma </math> approaches <math>\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-0}} = 1</math>, causing the ''Einstein-Lorentz relativity'' equations to be equivalent to Newton's equations. This is why [[classical mechanics]], governed by [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion, works for [[Subatomic particle|particles]] at low mass and low speed. However, at higher velocities, <math>\gamma</math> diverges, causing relativity to be essential.

Electromagnetism, including for [[light]] and gamma radiation, where the quanta ([[photon]]s) travel at [[Speed of light|light speed]] have no rest mass, is always relativistic.

===Universal speed limit ===

At the other extreme, when <math>u</math> approaches <math>c</math>, <math>\gamma </math> approaches <math>\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-1}} = \frac{1}{0} = \infty</math>. Since infinite <math>\gamma </math> means an object would have infinite [[kinetic energy]], no object with mass can ever travel at the speed of light. Relativity does not however forbid particles from traveling faster then <math>c </math>, rather that it is impossible to cross the speed of light barrier. Some theorists have postulated hypothetical [[tachyons]], which would always travel faster than the speed of light.<ref>http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html</ref> No evidence has been found for them.

== Experimental Proofs ==
# Michelson-Moreley experiment
# GPS clocks (general relativity)
# Lifetimes of fast traveling particles

== History ==
In the beginning of the last century the two assumption mentioned before where found experimentally in the form of the Maxwell equations, which describe electromagnetic waves. The general idea at that point was that any wave is carried by some medium, called the [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]]. However, as the earth is moving through space, there should be a difference in the interferometrically determined light wavelength, when measured at noon, at evening and at night at the same geographic location. However the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] did reject the aether hypothesis. With this rejection it became an inevitable fact that equations describing physics, which where fitting to a three dimensional space with a single timeframe for all observers exist. The mathematical framework and physical significance was developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]]. [[Albert Einstein]] gave an alternate derivation in terms of postulates.
Many other scientists contributed modifications of this theory. In particular, the Irish Physicist Fitzgerald proposed that the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment was as a result of a length contraction effect. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com Special Relativity]

== Spin as a relativistic effect ==
The relativistic extension of Quantum Mechanics, described by the Dirac Equation allows, due to the symmetry of the equation in 4-space, an additional quantum number to exist, called spin. [[electron spin]] was known from chemistry before relativity arose.

== Interpretation and paradoxes==

Some consequences of the SRT are:

# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner.

For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in an [[inertial reference frame]]).

Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

In the framework of special relativity, several thought experiments can be constructed, which lead to apparent paradoxes. The most striking one is the twin paradox. If you take twins, one on earth, and one in traveling to the next star with high speed and back, their biological age will not be the same, even though you could redefine the system of the traveling twin to be resting. This paradox is resolved because the second twin is not in an inertial frame - he has accelerated, most significantly at his turn-around point. This points out, that while neglected in special relativity, acceleration has a non-trivial role. This is considered in the [[General theory of relativity]].

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== Related Links ==

[http://www.drphysics.com/syllabus/energy/energy.html Mass Energy Equivalence Example]

[http://rareuniverse.org/general_science/special_relativity.html Time Dilation Example]

[[Category:Physics]]

Special theory of relativity

2016-09-10T12:46:37Z

Brians1: Rephrasing, formatting

'''Special Relativity''' ('''SRT''') is a generalization of classical mechanics. In contrast to General Relativity, Special Relativity deals with processes observed in so called inertial frames (frames of observation without the influence of acceleration or gravity). It is based on two main observations from different experiments.

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial [[frame of reference|reference frames]].''

[[File:Albert Abraham Michelson2.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px]]
[[File:Edward Williams Morley2.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Albert Michelson and Edward Morley performed the famous [[Michelson-Morley experiment|experiment]] that clinched the experimental case for Special Relativity.]]It is not difficult to demonstrate that it is impossible to reconcile these conditions with a Newtonian mechanics, in which the coordinates are formed in a three-dimensional space. In SRT, each object moving in its own inertial frame has its own time, which constitutes a fourth coordinate describing its state.

The three most prominent SRT effects are [[time dilation]], length contraction and the equivalence of mass and energy.

== Mathematics ==

The central equations of special relativity are the [[Lorentz transformation|Lorentz transformations]]:

<math> x' = \gamma (x -ut) </math><br/>
<math> y' = y </math><br/>
<math> z' = z</math><br/>
<math> t' = \gamma (t - \frac{ux}{c^2} ) </math>

These are the transformations from one coordinate system <math> (x, y, z, t) </math> to another system, <math> (x', y', z', t') </math>, moving past this one at speed u, and with <math>x </math> and <math> x' </math> axes colinear.

The [[Lorentz factor]], <math>\gamma </math> occurs frequently all over special relativity and is<ref>http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html</ref>
:<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{u^2}{c^2}}}</math>, where:

* <math>u</math> is the difference in speed between the [[Inertial frames of reference|frames of reference]]
* <math>c</math> is the [[speed of light]]

=== Classical mechanics ===

When <math>u</math>, the speed of the object in question, is low relative to <math>c</math>, <math>\gamma </math> approaches <math>\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-0}} = 1</math>, causing the ''Einstein-Lorentz relativity'' equations to be equivalent to Newton's equations. This is why [[classical mechanics]], governed by [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion, works for [[Subatomic particle|particles]] at low mass and low speed. However, at higher velocities, <math>\gamma</math> diverges, causing relativity to be essential.

Electromagnetism, including for [[light]] and gamma radiation, where the quanta ([[photon]]s) travel at [[Speed of light|light speed]] have no rest mass, is always relativistic.

===Universal speed limit ===

At the other extreme, when <math>u</math> approaches <math>c</math>, <math>\gamma </math> approaches <math>\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-1}} = \frac{1}{0} = \infty</math>. Since infinite <math>\gamma </math> means an object would have infinite [[kinetic energy]], no object with mass can ever travel at the speed of light. Relativity does not however forbid particles from traveling faster then <math>c </math>, rather that it is impossible to cross the speed of light barrier. Some theorists have postulated hypothetical [[tachyons]], which would always travel faster than the speed of light.<ref>http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html</ref> No evidence has been found for them.

== Experimental Proofs ==
# Michelson-Moreley experiment
# GPS clocks (general relativity)
# Lifetimes of fast traveling particles

== History ==
In the beginning of the last century the two assumption mentioned before where found experimentally in the form of the Maxwell equations, which describe electromagnetic waves. The general idea at that point was that any wave is carried by some medium, called the [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]]. However, as the earth is moving through space, there should be a difference in the interferometrically determined light wavelength, when measured at noon, at evening and at night at the same geographic location. However the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] did reject the aether hypothesis. With this rejection it became an inevitable fact that equations describing physics, which where fitting to a three dimensional space with a single timeframe for all observers exist. The mathematical framework and physical significance was developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]]. [[Albert Einstein]] gave an alternate derivation in terms of postulates.
Many other scientists contributed modifications of this theory. In particular, the Irish Physicist Fitzgerald proposed that the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment was as a result of a length contraction effect. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com Special Relativity]

== Spin as a relativistic effect ==
The relativistic extension of Quantum Mechanics, described by the Dirac Equation allows, due to the symmetry of the equation in 4-space, an additional quantum number to exist, called spin. [[electron spin]] was known from chemistry before relativity arose.

== Interpretation and paradoxes==

Some consequences of the SRT are:

# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner.

For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in an [[inertial reference frame]]).

Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

In the framework of special relativity, several thought experiments can be constructed, which lead to apparent paradoxes. The most striking one is the twin paradox. If you take twins, one on earth, and one in traveling to the next star with high speed and back, their biological age will not be the same, even though you could redefine the system of the traveling twin to be resting. This paradox is resolved because the second twin is not in an inertial frame - he has accelerated, most significantly at his turn-around point. This points out, that while neglected in special relativity, acceleration has a non-trivial role. This is considered in the [[General theory of relativity]].

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== Related Links ==

[http://www.drphysics.com/syllabus/energy/energy.html Mass Energy Equivalence Example]

[http://rareuniverse.org/general_science/special_relativity.html Time Dilation Example]

[[Category:Physics]]

Gravitational waves

2016-09-10T12:10:04Z

Brians1:

:::''Gravitational waves are often incorrectly called "[[Gravity waves]]". See that page for a discussion of this point.''

'''Gravitational waves''' are distortions in space that travel at the [[speed of light]] away from a mass that accelerates. Predicted by [[Albert Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] in 1916. Gravitational waves were first observed and their existence confirmed in early 2016.<ref>http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102</ref>

==Description==

Gravitational waves are essentially "ripples", similar to the ripples made in a pond when a pebble is tossed in, but on a cosmological scale. The mass in question are binary systems - pulsars, neutron stars, or black holes - which orbit around each other. According to Einstein's [[General relativity|General Theory of Relativity]] and his formula [[e=mc^2|E=mc<sup>2</sup>]], both objects emit gravitational waves while losing energy as they gradually approach, eventually resulting in a collision at one-half the speed of light, forming a single object as well as emitting a final, very strong burst of gravitational waves

As part of his relativity theory, Einstein came up with his "quadrupole formula", which describes the rate of wave emissions from a system of astronomical masses based on the change of the mass itself, what he called the "quadrupole moment". His formula as originally postulated was
:<math> \bar{h}_{ij}(t,r) = \frac{2 G}{c^4 r} \ddot{I}_{ij}(t-r),</math>

Where
:<math> \bar{h}_{ij} </math> is the gravitational wave
:<math>I_{ij}</math> is the mass quadrupole moment.

The results of his findings were published in 1916 as ''Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation'' (''"Approximate Integration of the Field Equations of Gravitation"''),<ref>Einstein, Albert. "Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation"; ''Proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences'' (1916), Berlin, Germany.</ref> but serious errors led him to a revision, published in 1918 as ''Über Gravitationswellen'' (''"About Gravitational Waves"'').<ref>Einstein, Albert. "Über Gravitationswellen"; ''Proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences'' (1918), Berlin, Germany.</ref>

== The LIGO observations of 2015 ==

Because gravitational waves from distant (billions of light years away) phenomena are incredibly faint, detecting them has been a daunting task. Decades of work have gone into the development of sufficiently sensitive detectors. In 2015, the [[LIGO]] detectors (one in Hanford, Washington and one in Livingston Louisiana) made the first detection of the waves. <ref>http://www.ligo.org/news/pressreleases.php</ref>

=== The event of September 14, 2015 ===

This event was observed shortly after turning on the enhanced version of the LIGO detection system, and reported in January 2016.<ref>http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102</ref> It was the merger of two black holes, each about 30 times the mass of the [[Sun]], about 1.3 billion light years away and hence 1.3 billion years ago. Making sure that it wasn't a detection of random noise required comparing the waveforms with the predicted waveforms from theoretical calculations of the final approach and "ringdown" of a merger of two black holes. The signal closely matched theoretical predictions.<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/image/ligo20160211a</ref>
The match showed a confidence of better than "five sigma", that is, a probability of less than one in a million that this was a coincidence. The same event was detected at both observatories, a small fraction of a second apart, as the wave passed through the Earth.

Unlike most astronomical wave phenomena, the gravitational waves from black hole mergers are approximately in the audible range. With only a small amount of signal processing, the signal was made audible; it's sort of a "chirp".<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/video/ligo20160211v2</ref> For a while this "chirp" became something of an internet sensation.

Other articles: [http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/gravitational-waves-ripples-space-time-detected-first-time-n516566], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEPIwEJmZyE]

=== The event of December 26, 2015 ===

A second black hole merger was detected two months later.<ref>http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/it-wasn-t-fluke-scientists-see-black-holes-collide-again-n593156</ref><ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-detect-second-gravitational-wave-einstein-predicted/</ref><ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160615</ref>

Here is a comparison of the "chirps" from the two events. The December event was significantly less powerful that the September one<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/video/ligo20160615v2</ref>

== The LISA project ==

An even more ambitious and sensitive detector, previously called LISA and now called eLISA (Evolved Laser Interferometer Space Antenna), is being designed by an international consortium of agencies. This one involves satellites in heliocentric orbit, using laser interferometers to measure changes in the distance between "test masses" inside the satellites.

A test of the underlying test mass technology, called the LISA Pathfinder test, succeeded on June 6, 2016.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36472434#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa</ref>

== See also ==
*[[LIGO]]
*[[Theory of relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Relativity]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Fermion

2016-09-08T19:02:34Z

Brians1: Added category

'''Fermions''' are [[subatomic particle]]s with half-[[integer]] spin that obey the [[Jacques Dirac|Dirac]]-[[Enrico Fermi|Fermi]] statistics. The known elementary fermions are [[quark]]s and [[lepton]]s, which make up all [[atom]]s. Composite particles, such as [[meson]]s, can also be fermions.

[[Category:Particle physics]]
[[Category:Quantum Mechanics]]

Momentum (physics)

2016-09-08T18:59:26Z

Brians1: Category change

'''Momentum''' is the "quantity of motion" an object possesses. In classical [[physics]], the linear form of momentum is defined as the product of [[mass]] and [[velocity]]:

:<math> \mathbf{p} = m\mathbf{v} </math>

Hence, the faster an object goes, or the more mass it possesses, the more momentum it has. Momentum is a [[vector]] quantity, and therefore has both a magnitude and direction. It is important to physicists because it is a [[conservation law|conserved]] quantity, making it useful for solving problems.

In common usage, the words "momentum" and "[[inertia]]" are sometimes used interchangeably. Inertia is the tendency for a body to resist changes in its motion until and unless a force acts on it.

The motion of an object will continue until something makes it change its motion. A railroad car, once it gets going, will continue its motion for a long time, until the tiny forces of friction cause it to slow down and stop. This can take miles. Even putting on the brakes can take up to mile, because there is so much momentum.

A [[force]] in the same direction as the body is moving will increase its speed. A force in the opposite direction will slow it down.

A force coming from the side will cause a deviation from straight-line motion.

An interesting case of a sideways force is a weight on the end of a string (like the Biblical slingshot used by [[David]] against [[Goliath]]). When you twirl the weight around above your head, the string is pulling the weight toward you - but it never gets any closer! This kind of force is called a [[centripetal force|centripetal]], or center seeking, force.

==Angular momentum==
A rotating or orbiting body possesses angular momentum. Like linear momentum, angular momentum is a vector quantity and is conserved. An object's angular momentum changes only when a [[torque]] is applied to it.

The magnitude of the angular momentum of a particle orbiting some origin (such as the [[earth]] orbiting the [[sun]]) is given by

:<math>L=mvr</math>

where

*'''L''' is angular momentum
*'''m''' is the mass of the particle
*'''v''' is the linear velocity of the particle
*'''r''' is the distance from the particle to the origin

The direction of the angular momentum vector points perpendicularly to the plane formed by the object's orbit, in accordance with the [[right hand rule]].

In addition to orbital angular momentum, the earth has rotational angular momentum due to its spin. The equations for calculating rotational angular momentum depend on the object's [[moment of inertia]], and therefore the shape and density of the object.

=== Generalized momentum ===
The definition of momentum can be generalized in [[Lagrangian Dynamics|Lagrangian]] and [[Hamiltonian Dynamics|Hamiltonian]] dynamics, to

<math>
p=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot x}
</math>

where L is the [[Lagrangian]] and <math>\dot x</math> is the velocity. In some cases the generalized momentum is the same as the momentum defined above. For example, for a free particle the Lagrangian equals the [[kinetic energy]] and so

<math>
p=\frac{\partial (m\dot x^2/2)}{\partial \dot x}=m\dot x
</math>

as above.

== Momentum in Relativity ==

In [[relativity]], momentum must be redefined for conservation of momentum to be retained. It is defined as

:<math> \mathbf{p}= \gamma m \mathbf{v}</math>

where <math>\gamma</math> is the Lorentz factor.

==External links==
*[http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/momentum/momentum.html Momemtum]

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Mechanics]]

Second Law of Thermodynamics

2016-09-08T18:57:57Z

Brians1: Added category

The '''Second Law of Thermodynamics''' is a statistical law of nature about the tendency of an isolated system towards disorder in the absence of intelligent intervention. This principle correctly predicts that heat will tend not to flow from a cold body to a warmer one without work being done, e.g. by a [[refrigerator]]. It also predicts that "[t]he universe is constantly getting more disorderly!"<ref>The quotation is from Isaac Asimov, who continued to say "[v]iewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to [[work]] hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6. Put in physics terminology, the Second Law states that the [[entropy]] of an [[closed system|isolated system]] never decreases.</ref>

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the result of the intrinsic uncertainty in nature, manifest in [[quantum mechanics]], which is overcome only by intelligent intervention.

This law makes it impossible to build a [[perpetual motion machine]] - the increase in entropy inevitably derails the system even if energy remains constant.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the [[atheistic]] [[Theory of Evolution]] and [[Theory of Relativity]], both of which deny a fundamental uncertainty to the physical world that leads to increasing disorder.

The second law can be expressed mathematically as:

<math>\frac{dS_{universe}}{dt} \ge 0</math>

where <math> \frac{dS_{universe}}{dt}</math> is the rate of change of [[entropy]] of the [[universe]] with respect to time.

==Entropy and disorder ==

In this context "increasing disorder" means "that which happens if you let nature take its course."
Imagine your old room at your parent's house. Remember how easy it was to let the room turn into a uniform mess (disorder) and remember how hard it was to clean it up until it fit a specific, non-uniform design (order). Not cleaning up would always result in an increase of entropy in your room!

Now, in nature there is no one to clean up the universe, only chances. The chance of something becoming orderly is a lot smaller than the chance of something becoming disorderly (since there are far more possible disorderly states to choose from).

Alternatively one could think of how difficult it is to construct a house of cards, while almost everything that happens in nature will result in its collapse.

On a universal scale a tidy room would be a universe which has pockets of above average concentrations of energy (if you - incorrectly - assume relativity [[E=mc²]] this includes matter as well.)
A messy room would be a universe in which all energy is equally spread out.

The flow of energy (by heat exchange) to places with lower concentrations is called the "heat flow".

The often heard argument that this law disproves an eternal universe is true, since in that case maximum entropy would have been reached already. A counter-argument to this would be to suggest that the universe is still in the process of approaching maximum entropy.

==Reversibility and Irreversibility==

[[Reversible process|Reversibility]] is a theoretical concept related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A process is reversible if the net heat and work exchange between the system and the surroundings is zero for the process running forwards and in reverse. This means the process does not generate [[entropy]]. In reality, no process is completely reversible. Irreversibility is a quantity sometimes called "lost work" and is equal to the difference between a process' actual work and reversible work. Irreversibility is also equal to a process' entropy generation multiplied by a reference temperature.

==Trend toward uniformity in the universe==

The universe will always become increasingly uniform, that is: heat will spread until the entire universe has the temperature and energy level (in a closed system heat will always spread from a place where there is a lot of heat to a place where there is less until balance is achieved), forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.

In this final state the universe is one uniform space where nothing happens and no work (moving something) can be done since there are no above average concentrations of energy left.
This state is called maximum entropy and is said to be in perfect disorder (although intuitively its uniformity would seem to be a state of perfect order) because it has become impossible to determine what happened in the past. ''i.e.'' There are an infinite number of ways (histories of the universe) maximum entropy could have been reached.

==The types of systems governed by the Law==
There is only one type of system that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to: an isolated system. An isolated system is one that does not exchange matter or energy with its surroundings.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not strictly apply to the following types of system:
* Closed system - Exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings
* Open system - Exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings

The boundary of any system can always be expanded to produce an isolated system.

==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==

It has become common in recent years for [[Environmentalism|environmentalists]] to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies limits to [[economic growth]]. Their reasoning is that because free energy in resources such as [[petroleum|oil]] decreases with time, then economic growth can only be finite. However, this simplistic [[liberal]] reasoning ignores the [[false zero-sum game|non-zero sum]] nature of [[free market economics]], whereby improvements in technology deliver gains for all at no further cost. Indeed, one of the most vital economic goods, knowledge, or more generally information, can be said to be free from thermodynamic limitations entirely.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2053] Discovery Institute cofounder and futurist George F. Gilder put it eloquently as follows: ''Gone is the view of a thermodynamic world economy, dominated by "natural resources" being turned to entropy and waste by human extraction and use. Once seen as a physical system tending toward exhaustion and decline, the world economy has clearly emerged as an intellectual system driven by knowledge.''</ref> Liberals also vastly exaggerate the limitations that [[natural resources]] impose on human economies. Some estimate that the [[Earth]] can harbor 100 billion people. God Himself gives His explicit assurance that the Earth will be generous as long as the human race exists in [[Genesis]]: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28, KJV)

== Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution ==

[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]

[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the [[evolution]]ary [[paradigm]].

Some of their key resources on this matter are:

*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]

*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]

Evolutionists and other scientists claim that these resources misrepresent the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
== The 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the universe having a beginning ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]

According to Ohio State University professor Patrick Woodward, the [[First Law of Thermodynamics]] "simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy)."<ref>[https://chemistry.osu.edu/~woodward/ch121/ch5_law.htm 1st Law of Thermodynamics], Ohio State University, Professor Pat Woodward (teaches for the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry [https://chemistry.osu.edu/faculty/woodward])</ref>

The [[Christian apologetics]] website ''Why believe in God?'' declares about the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
{{cquote|The second law of thermodynamics, or the law of increased [[entropy]], says that over time, everything breaks down and tends towards disorder - entropy! Entropy is the amount of UNusable energy in any systems; that system could be the earth's environment or the universe itself. The more entropy there is, the more disorganisation and chaos.

Therefore, if no outside force is adding energy to an isolated system to help renew it, it will eventually burn out (heat death). This can be applied to a sun as well as a cup of tea - left to themselves, both will grow cold. You can heat up a cold tea, you cannot heat up a cold sun. NOTE: when a hot tea in an air tight room goes cold (loses all it's energy) not only do we NOT expect the process to reverse by natural causes (ie. the tea will get hot again), but both room temp and tea temp will be equal. Keep that in mind as you read the next paragraph.

Look at it like this, because the energy in the universe is finite and no new energy is being added to it (1st law), and because the energy is being used up (2nd law), the universe cannot be infinite. If our universe was infinite but was using up a finite supply of energy, it would have suffered 'heat death' a long time ago! If the universe was infinite all radioactive atoms would have decayed and the universe would be the same temperature with no hot spots, no bright burning stars. Since this is not true, the universe must have begun a finite time ago.<ref>[http://www.whybelieveingod.net/istheuniverseinfinite.htm Is the Universe Infinite? Past beliefs and implications], Why believe in God? website</ref>}}

Thus, the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the [[universe]] having a beginning.<ref>
*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php CAN LAWS OF SCIENCE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?]
*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]</ref> However, the statistical nature of the second law mean that it is not firmly true.

== The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, theism and the origins of the universe ==

In the articles below, [[Theism|theists]] point out that the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the universe having a divine origin:

*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php Can the laws of science explain the origin of the universe?]

*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]

== See also ==

*[[Genetic entropy]]
*[http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html]
*[[Essay:Commentary on Conservapedia's article on the second law of thermodynamics]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Thermodynamics]]
[[Category:Second Law of Thermodynamics]]

Ideal Gas Law

2016-09-08T18:56:21Z

Brians1: Added category

The '''ideal gas law''', is an equation of state for an ideal gas. It combines three [[gas]] laws ([[Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures|Dalton's Law]], [[Boyle's Law]] and [[Charles' Law]]) into one equation:

:<math>PV = nRT</math>

where

*''P'' is the [[pressure]] of gas;
*''V'' the [[volume]] the gas occupies;
*''T'' the absolute [[temperature]] (meaning it must be in [[Kelvin]] or [[Rankine]]);
*''n'' is the number of [[Mole (chemistry)|moles]] of the gas occupying the volume V;
*''R'' is the ideal gas constant.

The ideal gas constant can be expressed in any number of units, but the most common representations are <math>0.0821\,L \cdot atm \cdot mole^{-1} \cdot K^{-1}</math> or <math>8.314\,J \cdot mole^{-1} \cdot K^{-1}</math>

==Ideal Gas==

The equation is valid only for an ideal gas, the hypothetically perfect embodiment of a gas in which the particles ([[atom]]s or [[molecule]]s) in the gas are point particles (have no [[volume]]) and experience no intermolecular forces. All collisions between the particles or the particles and the container are perfectly elastic.

Since this is just a model, real gases only obey the ideal gas law approximately, not perfectly. Generally, the ideal gas assumption is accurate for unreactive gases at high temperature and/or low pressure. A good rule of thumb is that the assumption can be used above room temperature and below 1 [[atmosphere]] of pressure.

==Density==
With the molar mass (''M''), the ideal gas law can be used to calculate the [[density]] of a gas, <math>\rho</math>.

:<math>PM= \rho RT</math>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Thermodynamics]]
[[Category:Chemistry Laws and Principles]]

Ideal Gas Law

2016-09-08T18:07:56Z

Brians1: Removed broken links

Second Law of Thermodynamics

2016-09-08T17:49:50Z

Brians1: Added equation

Conservation of Angular Momentum

2016-09-08T17:37:36Z

Brians1:

The '''angular momentum''' of a point mass about a point is defined as <math>\vec H = \vec r \times \vec p</math> where '''r''' is the position [[vector quantity|vector]] of the point mass with respect to the point of reference and '''p''' is the [[momentum|linear momentum]] vector of the point mass.

The principle of angular momentum can be applied to a system of particles by summing the angular momentum of each particle about the same point.

The [[derivative]] of angular momentum with respect to time is equal to the sum of the external moments (or torque <math>\vec {\tau}</math>) applied to the system. Differentiating angular momentum gives:

<math>\vec {\tau} = \vec r \times \vec F + \vec{\dot{r}} \times p</math>

For a constant radius, the second term is zero. Hence <math>\vec {\tau}= \vec r \times \vec F</math> From this, it can be concluded that in the absence of an external moment, angular momentum must be conserved.

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Mechanics]]

Kinetic Energy

2016-09-07T20:37:21Z

Brians1: Added section about kinetic energy in relativity

'''Kinetic energy''' represents the [[energy]] associated with the [[motion]] of an object.<ref>Serway and Beichner, ''Physics for Scientists and Engineers'', Fifth Edition</ref> It is defined as:

K ≡ [[mass|m]][[velocity|v]]<sup>2</sup> / 2 for a point mass and <math> K = {1 \over 2}mV^2 + {1 \over 2} I \omega ^2 </math> for a rigid body, where I is the body's moment of inertia and omega is the body's angular velocity.

The change of kinetic energy is equal to the total [[work]] done on it by the resultant of all [[force]]s acting on it. For a point mass this can be expressed as:

Σ''W'' = ΔK = mv<sub>f</sub><sup>2</sup> / 2 - mv<sub>i</sub><sup>2</sup> / 2

Where v<sub>i</sub> is [[speed]] at t = 0 and v<sub>f</sub> is speed at [[time]] = t.

Kinetic energy is a scalar and has the same units as work (i.e. [[Joule]]).

Note that if the mass of an object is increased, the increase in kinetic energy increases linearly; if the velocity of an object is increased, the increase in kinetic energy increases quadratically. For example, doubling the mass of an object doubles its kinetic energy; doubling its velocity quadruples its kinetic energy.

== Kinetic Energy in Relativity ==

The energy of a particle in [[relativity]] is:

<math> E = \gamma m_0 c^2 </math>

where <math>\gamma</math> is the Lorentz factor, <math>m_0</math> is the [[rest mass]] and c is the [[speed of light]].

Since this includes the mass energy of the particle, we must subtract a factor of <math> m_0 c^2 </math> to get the energy due to the particle's motion, the kinetic energy, as:

<math> K = (\gamma - 1) m_0 c^2 </math>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Mechanics]]

Momentum (physics)

2016-09-07T20:03:46Z

Brians1: Added a bit about relativity

Work

2016-09-07T19:44:55Z

Brians1: Formatting

In [[physics]], '''work''' refers to the [[dot product]] of [[force]] and [[distance]] vectors
.<ref>Serway and Beichner, ''Physics for Scientists and Engineers'', Fifth Edition</ref>

<math>W = \bold{F} \cdot \bold{d}</math>

Or:

<math>W = Fd \cos\theta</math>

Where θ is the angle that separates the vectors. The second form of the equation is the expanded form of the "dot product" in the first equation. In physics, the dot product "a · b" (read "a dot b") can be rewritten as "|a| |b| cos θ".

When the force is not constant, the correct expression uses [[integration]]:

<math>\int \bold{F} \cdot \mathrm{d}\bold{s}</math>

Work is a transfer of [[energy]]; if ''W'' is positive, there is a transfer of energy ''to'' the system, and if ''W'' is negative there is a transfer of energy ''from'' the system.

Its units are that of force multiplied by distance, in SI this is [[newton (unit)|Newton]] · [[Meter]], or [[Joule]]. The aberrant unit kWh (kilowatt-hour) is sometimes used; this unit is the product of kilowatt, or 1,000 Watts (Joules per second), and hour, or 3,600 seconds.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Mechanics]]

Second Law of Thermodynamics

2016-09-07T19:34:02Z

Brians1: Rephrasing

The '''Second Law of Thermodynamics''' is a statistical law of nature about the tendency of an isolated system towards disorder in the absence of intelligent intervention. This principle correctly predicts that heat will tend not to flow from a cold body to a warmer one without work being done, e.g. by a [[refrigerator]]. It also predicts that "[t]he universe is constantly getting more disorderly!"<ref>The quotation is from Isaac Asimov, who continued to say "[v]iewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to [[work]] hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6. Put in physics terminology, the Second Law states that the [[entropy]] of an [[closed system|isolated system]] never decreases.</ref>

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the result of the intrinsic uncertainty in nature, manifest in [[quantum mechanics]], which is overcome only by intelligent intervention.

This law makes it impossible to build a [[perpetual motion machine]] - the increase in entropy inevitably derails the system even if energy remains constant.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the [[atheistic]] [[Theory of Evolution]] and [[Theory of Relativity]], both of which deny a fundamental uncertainty to the physical world that leads to increasing disorder.

==Entropy and disorder ==

In this context "increasing disorder" means "that which happens if you let nature take its course."
Imagine your old room at your parent's house. Remember how easy it was to let the room turn into a uniform mess (disorder) and remember how hard it was to clean it up until it fit a specific, non-uniform design (order). Not cleaning up would always result in an increase of entropy in your room!

Now, in nature there is no one to clean up the universe, only chances. The chance of something becoming orderly is a lot smaller than the chance of something becoming disorderly (since there are far more possible disorderly states to choose from).

Alternatively one could think of how difficult it is to construct a house of cards, while almost everything that happens in nature will result in its collapse.

On a universal scale a tidy room would be a universe which has pockets of above average concentrations of energy (if you - incorrectly - assume relativity [[E=mc²]] this includes matter as well.)
A messy room would be a universe in which all energy is equally spread out.

The flow of energy (by heat exchange) to places with lower concentrations is called the "heat flow".

The often heard argument that this law disproves an eternal universe is true, since in that case maximum entropy would have been reached already. A counter-argument to this would be to suggest that the universe is still in the process of approaching maximum entropy.

==Reversibility and Irreversibility==
[[Reversible process|Reversibility]] is a theoretical concept related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A process is reversible if the net heat and work exchange between the system and the surroundings is zero for the process running forwards and in reverse. This means the process does not generate entropy. In reality, no process is completely reversible. Irreversibility is a quantity sometimes called "lost work" and is equal to the difference between a process' actual work and reversible work. Irreversibility is also equal to a process' entropy generation multiplied by a reference temperature.

==Trend toward uniformity in the universe==

The universe will always become increasingly uniform, that is: heat will spread until the entire universe has the temperature and energy level (in a closed system heat will always spread from a place where there is a lot of heat to a place where there is less until balance is achieved), forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.

In this final state the universe is one uniform space where nothing happens and no work (moving something) can be done since there are no above average concentrations of energy left.
This state is called maximum entropy and is said to be in perfect disorder (although intuitively its uniformity would seem to be a state of perfect order) because it has become impossible to determine what happened in the past. ''i.e.'' There are an infinite number of ways (histories of the universe) maximum entropy could have been reached.

==The types of systems governed by the Law==
There is only one type of system that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to: an isolated system. An isolated system is one that does not exchange matter or energy with its surroundings.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not strictly apply to the following types of system:
* Closed system - Exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings
* Open system - Exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings

The boundary of any system can always be expanded to produce an isolated system.

==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==

It has become common in recent years for [[Environmentalism|environmentalists]] to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies limits to [[economic growth]]. Their reasoning is that because free energy in resources such as [[petroleum|oil]] decreases with time, then economic growth can only be finite. However, this simplistic [[liberal]] reasoning ignores the [[false zero-sum game|non-zero sum]] nature of [[free market economics]], whereby improvements in technology deliver gains for all at no further cost. Indeed, one of the most vital economic goods, knowledge, or more generally information, can be said to be free from thermodynamic limitations entirely.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2053] Discovery Institute cofounder and futurist George F. Gilder put it eloquently as follows: ''Gone is the view of a thermodynamic world economy, dominated by "natural resources" being turned to entropy and waste by human extraction and use. Once seen as a physical system tending toward exhaustion and decline, the world economy has clearly emerged as an intellectual system driven by knowledge.''</ref> Liberals also vastly exaggerate the limitations that [[natural resources]] impose on human economies. Some estimate that the [[Earth]] can harbor 100 billion people. God Himself gives His explicit assurance that the Earth will be generous as long as the human race exists in [[Genesis]]: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28, KJV)

== Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution ==

[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]

[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the [[evolution]]ary [[paradigm]].

Some of their key resources on this matter are:

*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]

*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]

Evolutionists and other scientists claim that these resources misrepresent the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
== The 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the universe having a beginning ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]

According to Ohio State University professor Patrick Woodward, the [[First Law of Thermodynamics]] "simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy)."<ref>[https://chemistry.osu.edu/~woodward/ch121/ch5_law.htm 1st Law of Thermodynamics], Ohio State University, Professor Pat Woodward (teaches for the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry [https://chemistry.osu.edu/faculty/woodward])</ref>

The [[Christian apologetics]] website ''Why believe in God?'' declares about the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
{{cquote|The second law of thermodynamics, or the law of increased [[entropy]], says that over time, everything breaks down and tends towards disorder - entropy! Entropy is the amount of UNusable energy in any systems; that system could be the earth's environment or the universe itself. The more entropy there is, the more disorganisation and chaos.

Therefore, if no outside force is adding energy to an isolated system to help renew it, it will eventually burn out (heat death). This can be applied to a sun as well as a cup of tea - left to themselves, both will grow cold. You can heat up a cold tea, you cannot heat up a cold sun. NOTE: when a hot tea in an air tight room goes cold (loses all it's energy) not only do we NOT expect the process to reverse by natural causes (ie. the tea will get hot again), but both room temp and tea temp will be equal. Keep that in mind as you read the next paragraph.

Look at it like this, because the energy in the universe is finite and no new energy is being added to it (1st law), and because the energy is being used up (2nd law), the universe cannot be infinite. If our universe was infinite but was using up a finite supply of energy, it would have suffered 'heat death' a long time ago! If the universe was infinite all radioactive atoms would have decayed and the universe would be the same temperature with no hot spots, no bright burning stars. Since this is not true, the universe must have begun a finite time ago.<ref>[http://www.whybelieveingod.net/istheuniverseinfinite.htm Is the Universe Infinite? Past beliefs and implications], Why believe in God? website</ref>}}

Thus, the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the [[universe]] having a beginning.<ref>
*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php CAN LAWS OF SCIENCE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?]
*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]</ref> However, the statistical nature of the second law mean that it is not firmly true.

== The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, theism and the origins of the universe ==

In the articles below, [[Theism|theists]] point out that the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the universe having a divine origin:

*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php Can the laws of science explain the origin of the universe?]

*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]

== See also ==

*[[Genetic entropy]]
*[http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html]
*[[Essay:Commentary on Conservapedia's article on the second law of thermodynamics]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Second Law of Thermodynamics]]

Second Law of Thermodynamics

2016-09-07T19:31:07Z

Brians1:

The '''Second Law of Thermodynamics''' is a fundamental truth about the tendency towards disorder in the absence of intelligent intervention. This principle correctly predicts that heat will tend not to flow from a cold body to a warmer one without work being done, e.g. by a [[refrigerator]]. It also predicts that "[t]he universe is constantly getting more disorderly!"<ref>The quotation is from Isaac Asimov, who continued to say "[v]iewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to [[work]] hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6. Put in physics terminology, the Second Law states that the [[entropy]] of an [[closed system|isolated system]] never decreases.</ref>

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the result of the intrinsic uncertainty in nature, manifest in [[quantum mechanics]], which is overcome only by intelligent intervention.

This law makes it impossible to build a [[perpetual motion machine]] - the increase in entropy inevitably derails the system even if energy remains constant.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the [[atheistic]] [[Theory of Evolution]] and [[Theory of Relativity]], both of which deny a fundamental uncertainty to the physical world that leads to increasing disorder.

==Entropy and disorder ==

In this context "increasing disorder" means "that which happens if you let nature take its course."
Imagine your old room at your parent's house. Remember how easy it was to let the room turn into a uniform mess (disorder) and remember how hard it was to clean it up until it fit a specific, non-uniform design (order). Not cleaning up would always result in an increase of entropy in your room!

Now, in nature there is no one to clean up the universe, only chances. The chance of something becoming orderly is a lot smaller than the chance of something becoming disorderly (since there are far more possible disorderly states to choose from).

Alternatively one could think of how difficult it is to construct a house of cards, while almost everything that happens in nature will result in its collapse.

On a universal scale a tidy room would be a universe which has pockets of above average concentrations of energy (if you - incorrectly - assume relativity [[E=mc²]] this includes matter as well.)
A messy room would be a universe in which all energy is equally spread out.

The flow of energy (by heat exchange) to places with lower concentrations is called the "heat flow".

The often heard argument that this law disproves an eternal universe is true, since in that case maximum entropy would have been reached already. A counter-argument to this would be to suggest that the universe is still in the process of approaching maximum entropy.

==Reversibility and Irreversibility==
[[Reversible process|Reversibility]] is a theoretical concept related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A process is reversible if the net heat and work exchange between the system and the surroundings is zero for the process running forwards and in reverse. This means the process does not generate entropy. In reality, no process is completely reversible. Irreversibility is a quantity sometimes called "lost work" and is equal to the difference between a process' actual work and reversible work. Irreversibility is also equal to a process' entropy generation multiplied by a reference temperature.

==Trend toward uniformity in the universe==

The universe will always become increasingly uniform, that is: heat will spread until the entire universe has the temperature and energy level (in a closed system heat will always spread from a place where there is a lot of heat to a place where there is less until balance is achieved), forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.

In this final state the universe is one uniform space where nothing happens and no work (moving something) can be done since there are no above average concentrations of energy left.
This state is called maximum entropy and is said to be in perfect disorder (although intuitively its uniformity would seem to be a state of perfect order) because it has become impossible to determine what happened in the past. ''i.e.'' There are an infinite number of ways (histories of the universe) maximum entropy could have been reached.

==The types of systems governed by the Law==
There is only one type of system that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to: an isolated system. An isolated system is one that does not exchange matter or energy with its surroundings.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not strictly apply to the following types of system:
* Closed system - Exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings
* Open system - Exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings

The boundary of any system can always be expanded to produce an isolated system.

==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==

It has become common in recent years for [[Environmentalism|environmentalists]] to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies limits to [[economic growth]]. Their reasoning is that because free energy in resources such as [[petroleum|oil]] decreases with time, then economic growth can only be finite. However, this simplistic [[liberal]] reasoning ignores the [[false zero-sum game|non-zero sum]] nature of [[free market economics]], whereby improvements in technology deliver gains for all at no further cost. Indeed, one of the most vital economic goods, knowledge, or more generally information, can be said to be free from thermodynamic limitations entirely.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2053] Discovery Institute cofounder and futurist George F. Gilder put it eloquently as follows: ''Gone is the view of a thermodynamic world economy, dominated by "natural resources" being turned to entropy and waste by human extraction and use. Once seen as a physical system tending toward exhaustion and decline, the world economy has clearly emerged as an intellectual system driven by knowledge.''</ref> Liberals also vastly exaggerate the limitations that [[natural resources]] impose on human economies. Some estimate that the [[Earth]] can harbor 100 billion people. God Himself gives His explicit assurance that the Earth will be generous as long as the human race exists in [[Genesis]]: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28, KJV)

== Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution ==

[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]

[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the [[evolution]]ary [[paradigm]].

Some of their key resources on this matter are:

*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]

*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]

Evolutionists and other scientists claim that these resources misrepresent the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
== The 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the universe having a beginning ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]

According to Ohio State University professor Patrick Woodward, the [[First Law of Thermodynamics]] "simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy)."<ref>[https://chemistry.osu.edu/~woodward/ch121/ch5_law.htm 1st Law of Thermodynamics], Ohio State University, Professor Pat Woodward (teaches for the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry [https://chemistry.osu.edu/faculty/woodward])</ref>

The [[Christian apologetics]] website ''Why believe in God?'' declares about the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
{{cquote|The second law of thermodynamics, or the law of increased [[entropy]], says that over time, everything breaks down and tends towards disorder - entropy! Entropy is the amount of UNusable energy in any systems; that system could be the earth's environment or the universe itself. The more entropy there is, the more disorganisation and chaos.

Therefore, if no outside force is adding energy to an isolated system to help renew it, it will eventually burn out (heat death). This can be applied to a sun as well as a cup of tea - left to themselves, both will grow cold. You can heat up a cold tea, you cannot heat up a cold sun. NOTE: when a hot tea in an air tight room goes cold (loses all it's energy) not only do we NOT expect the process to reverse by natural causes (ie. the tea will get hot again), but both room temp and tea temp will be equal. Keep that in mind as you read the next paragraph.

Look at it like this, because the energy in the universe is finite and no new energy is being added to it (1st law), and because the energy is being used up (2nd law), the universe cannot be infinite. If our universe was infinite but was using up a finite supply of energy, it would have suffered 'heat death' a long time ago! If the universe was infinite all radioactive atoms would have decayed and the universe would be the same temperature with no hot spots, no bright burning stars. Since this is not true, the universe must have begun a finite time ago.<ref>[http://www.whybelieveingod.net/istheuniverseinfinite.htm Is the Universe Infinite? Past beliefs and implications], Why believe in God? website</ref>}}

Thus, the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the [[universe]] having a beginning.<ref>
*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php CAN LAWS OF SCIENCE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?]
*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]</ref> However, the statistical nature of the second law mean that it is not firmly true.

== The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, theism and the origins of the universe ==

In the articles below, [[Theism|theists]] point out that the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the universe having a divine origin:

*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php Can the laws of science explain the origin of the universe?]

*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]

== See also ==

*[[Genetic entropy]]
*[http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html]
*[[Essay:Commentary on Conservapedia's article on the second law of thermodynamics]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Second Law of Thermodynamics]]

Perpetual motion machine

2016-09-07T19:19:17Z

Brians1: Rephrasing to improve clarity

[[Image:BoyleSelfFlowingFlask.png|right|thumb|[[Robert Boyle]]'s self-flowing flask appears to fill itself through siphon action. This is not possible in reality because a siphon requires its "output" to be lower than the "input".]]
A '''perpetual motion machine''' is a [[hypothetical]] isolated system capable of having internal motion indefinitely. Many attempts to build such a system have failed for a simple reason: [[entropy]] (disorder) is always increasing, and a perpetual motion machine would defy that law.

A perpetual motion machine would try to use its initial energy to remain in motion perpetually. Because [[entropy]] is always increasing isolated systems, indefinite motion is impossible because an increase in the disorder of the system will inevitably disrupt the motion and require additional energy to "fix" it. The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] predicts that a perpetual motion machine in this sense is impossible, and none has ever been created.

An even less plausible type of perpetual motion machine would continue to perform work without any input of energy, thereby serving as an unlimited energy source. This is prohibited by the [[First Law of Thermodynamics]], which states that energy must be conserved.

Since both types of perpetual motion machine are flawed in both theory and in practice, they are clearly [[pseudoscience]]. Despite this, websites have professed to offer "free energy" devices for sale.<ref>http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/</ref><ref>http://www.fuellesspower.com/</ref><ref>http://www.magniwork.com/</ref>

The rejection of the possibility of a perpetual motion machine requires recognition that the Earth itself is not in perpetual motion, and that its instability is increasing, which is one of the many [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Physics]]

Second Law of Thermodynamics

2016-09-07T19:13:17Z

Brians1: Rephrasing

The '''Second Law of Thermodynamics''' is a fundamental truth about the tendency towards disorder in the absence of intelligent intervention. This principle correctly predicts that heat will tend not to flow from a cold body to a warmer one without work being done, e.g. by a [[refrigerator]]. It also predicts that "[t]he universe is constantly getting more disorderly!"<ref>The quotation is from Isaac Asimov, who continued to say "[v]iewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to [[work]] hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6. Put in physics terminology, the Second Law states that the [[entropy]] of an [[closed system|isolated system]] never decreases.</ref>

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the result of the intrinsic uncertainty in nature, manifest in [[quantum mechanics]], which is overcome only by intelligent intervention.

This law makes it impossible to build a [[perpetual motion machine]] - the increase in entropy inevitably derails the system even if energy remains constant.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the [[atheistic]] [[Theory of Evolution]] and [[Theory of Relativity]], both of which deny a fundamental uncertainty to the physical world that leads to increasing disorder.

==Entropy and disorder ==

In this context "increasing disorder" means "that which happens if you let nature take its course."
Imagine your old room at your parent's house. Remember how easy it was to let the room turn into a uniform mess (disorder) and remember how hard it was to clean it up until it fit a specific, non-uniform design (order). Not cleaning up would always result in an increase of entropy in your room!

Now, in nature there is no one to clean up the universe, only chances. The chance of something becoming orderly is a lot smaller than the chance of something becoming disorderly (since there are far more possible disorderly states to choose from).

Alternatively one could think of how difficult it is to construct a house of cards, while almost everything that happens in nature will result in its collapse.

On a universal scale a tidy room would be a universe which has pockets of above average concentrations of energy (if you - incorrectly - assume relativity [[E=mc²]] this includes matter as well.)
A messy room would be a universe in which all energy is equally spread out.

The flow of energy (by heat exchange) to places with lower concentrations is called the "heat flow".

The often heard argument that this law disproves an eternal universe is true, since in that case maximum entropy would have been reached already. A counter-argument to this would be to suggest that the universe is still in the process of approaching maximum entropy.

==Reversibility and Irreversibility==
[[Reversible process|Reversibility]] is a theoretical concept related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A process is reversible if the net heat and work exchange between the system and the surroundings is zero for the process running forwards and in reverse. This means the process does not generate entropy. In reality, no process is completely reversible. Irreversibility is a quantity sometimes called "lost work" and is equal to the difference between a process' actual work and reversible work. Irreversibility is also equal to a process' entropy generation multiplied by a reference temperature.

==Trend toward uniformity in the universe==

The universe will always become increasingly uniform, that is: heat will spread until the entire universe has the temperature and energy level (in a closed system heat will always spread from a place where there is a lot of heat to a place where there is less until balance is achieved), forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.

In this final state the universe is one uniform space where nothing happens and no work (moving something) can be done since there are no above average concentrations of energy left.
This state is called maximum entropy and is said to be in perfect disorder (although intuitively its uniformity would seem to be a state of perfect order) because it has become impossible to determine what happened in the past. ''i.e.'' There are an infinite number of ways (histories of the universe) maximum entropy could have been reached.

==The types of systems governed by the Law==
There is only one type of system that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to: an isolated system. An isolated system is one that does not exchange matter or energy with its surroundings.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not strictly apply to the following types of system:
* Closed system - Exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings
* Open system - Exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings

The boundary of any system can always be expanded to produce an isolated system.

==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==

It has become common in recent years for [[Environmentalism|environmentalists]] to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies limits to [[economic growth]]. Their reasoning is that because free energy in resources such as [[petroleum|oil]] decreases with time, then economic growth can only be finite. However, this simplistic [[liberal]] reasoning ignores the [[false zero-sum game|non-zero sum]] nature of [[free market economics]], whereby improvements in technology deliver gains for all at no further cost. Indeed, one of the most vital economic goods, knowledge, or more generally information, can be said to be free from thermodynamic limitations entirely.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2053] Discovery Institute cofounder and futurist George F. Gilder put it eloquently as follows: ''Gone is the view of a thermodynamic world economy, dominated by "natural resources" being turned to entropy and waste by human extraction and use. Once seen as a physical system tending toward exhaustion and decline, the world economy has clearly emerged as an intellectual system driven by knowledge.''</ref> Liberals also vastly exaggerate the limitations that [[natural resources]] impose on human economies. Some estimate that the [[Earth]] can harbor 100 billion people. God Himself gives His explicit assurance that the Earth will be generous as long as the human race exists in [[Genesis]]: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28, KJV)

== Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution ==

[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]

[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the [[evolution]]ary [[paradigm]].

Some of their key resources on this matter are:

*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]

*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]

Evolutionists and other scientists claim that these resources misrepresent the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
== The 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the universe having a beginning ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]

According to Ohio State University professor Patrick Woodward, the [[First Law of Thermodynamics]] "simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy)."<ref>[https://chemistry.osu.edu/~woodward/ch121/ch5_law.htm 1st Law of Thermodynamics], Ohio State University, Professor Pat Woodward (teaches for the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry [https://chemistry.osu.edu/faculty/woodward])</ref>

The [[Christian apologetics]] website ''Why believe in God?'' declares about the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
{{cquote|The second law of thermodynamics, or the law of increased [[entropy]], says that over time, everything breaks down and tends towards disorder - entropy! Entropy is the amount of UNusable energy in any systems; that system could be the earth's environment or the universe itself. The more entropy there is, the more disorganisation and chaos.

Therefore, if no outside force is adding energy to an isolated system to help renew it, it will eventually burn out (heat death). This can be applied to a sun as well as a cup of tea - left to themselves, both will grow cold. You can heat up a cold tea, you cannot heat up a cold sun. NOTE: when a hot tea in an air tight room goes cold (loses all it's energy) not only do we NOT expect the process to reverse by natural causes (ie. the tea will get hot again), but both room temp and tea temp will be equal. Keep that in mind as you read the next paragraph.

Look at it like this, because the energy in the universe is finite and no new energy is being added to it (1st law), and because the energy is being used up (2nd law), the universe cannot be infinite. If our universe was infinite but was using up a finite supply of energy, it would have suffered 'heat death' a long time ago! If the universe was infinite all radioactive atoms would have decayed and the universe would be the same temperature with no hot spots, no bright burning stars. Since this is not true, the universe must have begun a finite time ago.<ref>[http://www.whybelieveingod.net/istheuniverseinfinite.htm Is the Universe Infinite? Past beliefs and implications], Why believe in God? website</ref>}}

Thus, the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the [[universe]] having a beginning.<ref>
*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php CAN LAWS OF SCIENCE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?]
*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]</ref>

== The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, theism and the origins of the universe ==

In the articles below, [[Theism|theists]] point out that the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the universe having a divine origin:

*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php Can the laws of science explain the origin of the universe?]

*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]

== See also ==

*[[Genetic entropy]]
*[http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html]
*[[Essay:Commentary on Conservapedia's article on the second law of thermodynamics]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Second Law of Thermodynamics]]

Ultimate fate of the universe

2016-09-06T20:10:59Z

Brians1: Formatting

The '''ultimate fate of the universe''' is a valid question because according to all models on the universe, the universe is finite, and will end.<ref name="religious">''When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. (Revelation 6:12–14)''</ref><ref name="bigbang">^ a b Lemaître, Georges (1927). "Un univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extra-galactiques". Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles A47: 49–56. Bibcode 1927ASSB...47...49L translated by A. S. Eddington: Lemaître, Georges (1931). "Expansion of the universe, A homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extra-galactic nebulæ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91: 483–490. Bibcode 1931MNRAS..91..483L</ref><ref name="static">Thomson, William. (1851). "On the Dynamical Theory of Heat, with numerical results deduced from Mr Joule’s equivalent of a Thermal Unit, and M. Regnault’s Observations on Steam." Excerpts. [§§1–14 & §§99–100], Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, March, 1851; and Philosophical Magazine IV. 1852, [from Mathematical and Physical Papers, vol. i, art. XLVIII, pp. 174]</ref> The only question logically, is what will happen at the end of the universe. There are many different scientific scenarios, and religious scenarios as well. When the Big Bang theory became the foremost explanation for the current state of the universe, the fate of the universe became a valid question.

==Background==
The universe is currently expanding at a rate of 73.8 ± 2.4 kilometers per second per Megaparsecs. (''A megaparsec is 3.08x10<sup>19</sup> kilometers'') Under the big bang model, expansion is currently accelerating.<ref>M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode 1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568.</ref> When [[catholic]] priest George Lemaitre proposed that the universe was born from a singularity, which was expounded on by Edwin Hubble, using the theory of relativity, it became clear that all theories implied an ultimate fate to the universe.

==Scientific theories==
There are three commonly accepted theories on how the universe will end. They are the Big crunch, where the universe collapses on itself, the Big Rip scenario, where acceleration destroys the bonding of atoms, and all matter decays, and the Heat death, where the universe reaches a maximum state of entropy.

===Big Crunch===
The Big Crunch theory is a symmetric view of the ultimate fate of the Universe. Just as the Big Bang started a cosmological expansion, this theory assumes that the average density of the universe is enough to stop its expansion and begin contracting. The end result is unknown; a simple estimation would have all the matter and space-time in the universe collapse into a dimensionless singularity, but at these scales unknown quantum effects need to be considered.
This scenario allows the Big Bang to be immediately after the Big Crunch of a preceding universe. If this occurs repeatedly, we have a cyclic model which is also known as a oscillatory universe. The universe could then consist of an infinite sequence of finite universes, each finite universe ending with a Big Crunch that is also the Big Bang of the next universe. Theoretically, the cyclic universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model. A somewhat similar idea is embraced by the cyclic model, but this idea evades heat death, because of an expansion of the branes that dilutes entropy accumulated in the previous cycle. In the big crunch, the universe will end approximately 30 billion years from now.
===Big Rip===
In the special case of phantom dark energy, which has even more negative pressure than a simple cosmological constant, the density of dark energy increases with time, causing the rate of acceleration to increase, leading to a steady increase in the Hubble constant. As a result, all material objects in the universe, starting with galaxies and eventually, all forms, no matter how small, will disintegrate into unbound elementary particles and radiation, ripped apart by the phantom energy force and shooting apart from each other. The end state of the universe is a singularity, as the dark energy density and expansion rate becomes infinite. For a possible timeline based on current physical theories, see 1 <sup>19</sup> s and more. This universe will end approximately 100 billion years from now.

===Heat death===
After the Stelliferous Epoch, all hydrogen in the universe will be exhausted. Then, only remnants remain. Some Grand Unified Theories predict that [[protons]] will decay into a positron, and a pion<ref>http://io9.gizmodo.com/5958012/how-one-tiny-particle-could-end-the-universe</ref>. Experiments have not detected proton decay, suggesting that the half life of a [[proton]] is at least 10<sup>34</sup> years<ref>http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/do-protons-decay</ref>. All that will remain will be [[fundamental particles]] such as [[lepton]]s and [[photon]]s. The rate of entropy will be at a maximum. There will be no real structure to the universe, such as stars. The universe will be devoid of life.

==Religious Views==
Most organized religions have a prophecy regarding the end of the universe, and of time itself. The 3 Abrahamic religions predict a "judgement day", while Buddhism follows a more "heat death" scenario.<ref>Jātaka 20:12-1 ''And the all will fall quiet, forever; all will reach nirvana, or perish in "naraka"''</ref> Others believe in an infinite "flat" universe, where everything is static<ref name="scientology">Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Hubbard, Ron, L ''accessed 11/21/11</ref>

==Judeo-Christian-Islam==
The Abrahamic religions teach a judgement day, where the righteous will enter heaven, and the wicked, shall either be destroyed, or suffer for all eternity in hell.<ref>Revelations 21:8 ''But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death''</ref> Regarding the universe, the three religions agree that the universe will be destroyed, and replaced with a new earth, universe, and God will reign forever and ever.

==Buddhist-Hindu==
Buddhism and Hinduism teach that the universe will one day be devoid of life, and action. This is because the people will have escaped the cycle of life and death, desire, and suffering, and enter a state of nirvana. The wicked will suffer in naraka, for unimaginably long periods of time, but not forever.

== Atheism and agnosticism and the fate of the universe ==

''See also:'' [[Hopelessness of atheism]] and [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]
[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Bertrand Russell]] ]]
Although [[Bertrand Russell]] was an [[agnosticism|agnostic]], he had favorable views of atheism.<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?"[http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref> Bertrand Russell wrote in 1903 about [[entropy]] and the universe:
{{cquote|That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of [[atom]]s; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the [[solar system]], and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.

"Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding dispair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." <ref>[http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/pessimism/entropy.html Entropy and heat death]</ref>}}

In a letter to Lowes Dickinson, Bertrand Russell wrote:
{{cquote|We stand on the shores of an ocean, crying to the night and the emptiness; sometimes a voice answers out of the darkness. But it is a voice of one drowning; and in a moment the silence returns” (Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, p. 287 as quoted by Leroy Koopman, “Famous Atheists Give Their Testimonies,” Moody Monthly, Nov. 1975, p. 124.) <ref>[http://www.guidelines.org/commentaries/atheism-and-the-despair-of-hope/#sthash.deoxNoqK.dpuf Atheism and the despair of hope]</ref>}}

==Fringe groups==
Certain fringe groups, such as Scientology, hold that the universe is static, and will never change.<ref name="scientology" /> Specifically, it states that all consciousness will follow the same pattern of birth and rebirth, forever.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Cosmology]]

Ultimate fate of the universe

2016-09-06T20:09:03Z

Brians1: Fixed broken link

The '''ultimate fate of the universe''' is a valid question because according to all models on the universe, the universe is finite, and will end.<ref name="religious">''When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. (Revelation 6:12–14)''</ref><ref name="bigbang">^ a b Lemaître, Georges (1927). "Un univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extra-galactiques". Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles A47: 49–56. Bibcode 1927ASSB...47...49L translated by A. S. Eddington: Lemaître, Georges (1931). "Expansion of the universe, A homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extra-galactic nebulæ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91: 483–490. Bibcode 1931MNRAS..91..483L</ref><ref name="static">Thomson, William. (1851). "On the Dynamical Theory of Heat, with numerical results deduced from Mr Joule’s equivalent of a Thermal Unit, and M. Regnault’s Observations on Steam." Excerpts. [§§1–14 & §§99–100], Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, March, 1851; and Philosophical Magazine IV. 1852, [from Mathematical and Physical Papers, vol. i, art. XLVIII, pp. 174]</ref> The only question logically, is what will happen at the end of the universe. There are many different scientific scenarios, and religious scenarios as well. When the Big Bang theory became the foremost explanation for the current state of the universe, the fate of the universe became a valid question.

==Background==
The universe is currently expanding at a rate of 73.8 ± 2.4 kilometers per second per Megaparsecs. (''A megaparsec is 3.08x10<sup>19</sup> kilometers'') Under the big bang model, expansion is currently accelerating.<ref>M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode 1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568.</ref> When [[catholic]] priest George Lemaitre proposed that the universe was born from a singularity, which was expounded on by Edwin Hubble, using the theory of relativity, it became clear that all theories implied an ultimate fate to the universe.

==Scientific theories==
There are three commonly accepted theories on how the universe will end. They are the Big crunch, where the universe collapses on itself, the Big Rip scenario, where acceleration destroys the bonding of atoms, and all matter decays, and the Heat death, where the universe reaches a maximum state of entropy.

===Big Crunch===
The Big Crunch theory is a symmetric view of the ultimate fate of the Universe. Just as the Big Bang started a cosmological expansion, this theory assumes that the average density of the universe is enough to stop its expansion and begin contracting. The end result is unknown; a simple estimation would have all the matter and space-time in the universe collapse into a dimensionless singularity, but at these scales unknown quantum effects need to be considered.
This scenario allows the Big Bang to be immediately after the Big Crunch of a preceding universe. If this occurs repeatedly, we have a cyclic model which is also known as a oscillatory universe. The universe could then consist of an infinite sequence of finite universes, each finite universe ending with a Big Crunch that is also the Big Bang of the next universe. Theoretically, the cyclic universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model. A somewhat similar idea is embraced by the cyclic model, but this idea evades heat death, because of an expansion of the branes that dilutes entropy accumulated in the previous cycle. In the big crunch, the universe will end approximately 30 billion years from now.
===Big Rip===
In the special case of phantom dark energy, which has even more negative pressure than a simple cosmological constant, the density of dark energy increases with time, causing the rate of acceleration to increase, leading to a steady increase in the Hubble constant. As a result, all material objects in the universe, starting with galaxies and eventually, all forms, no matter how small, will disintegrate into unbound elementary particles and radiation, ripped apart by the phantom energy force and shooting apart from each other. The end state of the universe is a singularity, as the dark energy density and expansion rate becomes infinite. For a possible timeline based on current physical theories, see 1 E19 s and more. This universe will end approximately 100 billion years from now.
===Heat death===
After the Stelliferous Epoch, all hydrogen in the universe will be exhausted. Then, only remnants remain. Some Grand Unified Theories predict that [[protons]] will decay into a positron, and a pion<ref>http://io9.gizmodo.com/5958012/how-one-tiny-particle-could-end-the-universe</ref>. Experiments have not detected proton decay, suggesting that the half life of a [[proton]] is at least 10<sup>34</sup> years<ref>http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/do-protons-decay</ref>. All that will remain will be [[fundamental particles]] such as [[lepton]]s and [[photon]]s. The rate of entropy will be at a maximum. There will be no real structure to the universe, such as stars. The universe will be devoid of life.

==Religious Views==
Most organized religions have a prophecy regarding the end of the universe, and of time itself. The 3 Abrahamic religions predict a "judgement day", while Buddhism follows a more "heat death" scenario.<ref>Jātaka 20:12-1 ''And the all will fall quiet, forever; all will reach nirvana, or perish in "naraka"''</ref> Others believe in an infinite "flat" universe, where everything is static<ref name="scientology">Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Hubbard, Ron, L ''accessed 11/21/11</ref>

==Judeo-Christian-Islam==
The Abrahamic religions teach a judgement day, where the righteous will enter heaven, and the wicked, shall either be destroyed, or suffer for all eternity in hell.<ref>Revelations 21:8 ''But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death''</ref> Regarding the universe, the three religions agree that the universe will be destroyed, and replaced with a new earth, universe, and God will reign forever and ever.

==Buddhist-Hindu==
Buddhism and Hinduism teach that the universe will one day be devoid of life, and action. This is because the people will have escaped the cycle of life and death, desire, and suffering, and enter a state of nirvana. The wicked will suffer in naraka, for unimaginably long periods of time, but not forever.

== Atheism and agnosticism and the fate of the universe ==

''See also:'' [[Hopelessness of atheism]] and [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]
[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Bertrand Russell]] ]]
Although [[Bertrand Russell]] was an [[agnosticism|agnostic]], he had favorable views of atheism.<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?"[http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref> Bertrand Russell wrote in 1903 about [[entropy]] and the universe:
{{cquote|That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of [[atom]]s; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the [[solar system]], and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.

"Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding dispair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." <ref>[http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/pessimism/entropy.html Entropy and heat death]</ref>}}

In a letter to Lowes Dickinson, Bertrand Russell wrote:
{{cquote|We stand on the shores of an ocean, crying to the night and the emptiness; sometimes a voice answers out of the darkness. But it is a voice of one drowning; and in a moment the silence returns” (Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, p. 287 as quoted by Leroy Koopman, “Famous Atheists Give Their Testimonies,” Moody Monthly, Nov. 1975, p. 124.) <ref>[http://www.guidelines.org/commentaries/atheism-and-the-despair-of-hope/#sthash.deoxNoqK.dpuf Atheism and the despair of hope]</ref>}}

==Fringe groups==
Certain fringe groups, such as Scientology, hold that the universe is static, and will never change.<ref name="scientology" /> Specifically, it states that all consciousness will follow the same pattern of birth and rebirth, forever.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Cosmology]]

Ultimate fate of the universe

2016-09-06T20:07:14Z

Brians1: Added reference for proton half life

The '''ultimate fate of the universe''' is a valid question because according to all models on the universe, the universe is finite, and will end.<ref name="religious">''When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. (Revelation 6:12–14)''</ref><ref name="bigbang">^ a b Lemaître, Georges (1927). "Un univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extra-galactiques". Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles A47: 49–56. Bibcode 1927ASSB...47...49L translated by A. S. Eddington: Lemaître, Georges (1931). "Expansion of the universe, A homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extra-galactic nebulæ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91: 483–490. Bibcode 1931MNRAS..91..483L</ref><ref name="static">Thomson, William. (1851). "On the Dynamical Theory of Heat, with numerical results deduced from Mr Joule’s equivalent of a Thermal Unit, and M. Regnault’s Observations on Steam." Excerpts. [§§1–14 & §§99–100], Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, March, 1851; and Philosophical Magazine IV. 1852, [from Mathematical and Physical Papers, vol. i, art. XLVIII, pp. 174]</ref> The only question logically, is what will happen at the end of the universe. There are many different scientific scenarios, and religious scenarios as well. When the Big Bang theory became the foremost explanation for the current state of the universe, the fate of the universe became a valid question.

==Background==
The universe is currently expanding at a rate of 73.8 ± 2.4 kilometers per second per Megaparsecs. (''A megaparsec is 3.08x10<sup>19</sup> kilometers'') Under the big bang model, expansion is currently accelerating.<ref>M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode 1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568.</ref> When [[catholic]] priest George Lemaitre proposed that the universe was born from a singularity, which was expounded on by Edwin Hubble, using the theory of relativity, it became clear that all theories implied an ultimate fate to the universe.

==Scientific theories==
There are three commonly accepted theories on how the universe will end. They are the Big crunch, where the universe collapses on itself, the Big Rip scenario, where acceleration destroys the bonding of atoms, and all matter decays, and the Heat death, where the universe reaches a maximum state of entropy.

===Big Crunch===
The Big Crunch theory is a symmetric view of the ultimate fate of the Universe. Just as the Big Bang started a cosmological expansion, this theory assumes that the average density of the universe is enough to stop its expansion and begin contracting. The end result is unknown; a simple estimation would have all the matter and space-time in the universe collapse into a dimensionless singularity, but at these scales unknown quantum effects need to be considered.
This scenario allows the Big Bang to be immediately after the Big Crunch of a preceding universe. If this occurs repeatedly, we have a cyclic model which is also known as a oscillatory universe. The universe could then consist of an infinite sequence of finite universes, each finite universe ending with a Big Crunch that is also the Big Bang of the next universe. Theoretically, the cyclic universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model. A somewhat similar idea is embraced by the cyclic model, but this idea evades heat death, because of an expansion of the branes that dilutes entropy accumulated in the previous cycle. In the big crunch, the universe will end approximately 30 billion years from now.
===Big Rip===
In the special case of phantom dark energy, which has even more negative pressure than a simple cosmological constant, the density of dark energy increases with time, causing the rate of acceleration to increase, leading to a steady increase in the Hubble constant. As a result, all material objects in the universe, starting with galaxies and eventually, all forms, no matter how small, will disintegrate into unbound elementary particles and radiation, ripped apart by the phantom energy force and shooting apart from each other. The end state of the universe is a singularity, as the dark energy density and expansion rate becomes infinite. For a possible timeline based on current physical theories, see 1 E19 s and more. This universe will end approximately 100 billion years from now.
===Heat death===
After the Stelliferous Epoch, all hydrogen in the universe will be exhausted. Then, only remnants remain. Some Grand Unified Theories predict that [[protons]] will decay into a positron, and a pion<ref>http://io9.gizmodo.com/5958012/how-one-tiny-particle-could-end-the-universe</ref>. Experiments have not detected proton decay, suggesting that the half life of a [[proton]] is at least 10<sup>34</sup> years<ref>http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/do-protons-decay</ref>. All that will remain will be [[fundamental particles]] such as [[leptons]] and [[photon]]s. The rate of entropy will be at a maximum. There will be no real structure to the universe, such as stars. The universe will be devoid of life.

==Religious Views==
Most organized religions have a prophecy regarding the end of the universe, and of time itself. The 3 Abrahamic religions predict a "judgement day", while Buddhism follows a more "heat death" scenario.<ref>Jātaka 20:12-1 ''And the all will fall quiet, forever; all will reach nirvana, or perish in "naraka"''</ref> Others believe in an infinite "flat" universe, where everything is static<ref name="scientology">Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Hubbard, Ron, L ''accessed 11/21/11</ref>

==Judeo-Christian-Islam==
The Abrahamic religions teach a judgement day, where the righteous will enter heaven, and the wicked, shall either be destroyed, or suffer for all eternity in hell.<ref>Revelations 21:8 ''But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death''</ref> Regarding the universe, the three religions agree that the universe will be destroyed, and replaced with a new earth, universe, and God will reign forever and ever.

==Buddhist-Hindu==
Buddhism and Hinduism teach that the universe will one day be devoid of life, and action. This is because the people will have escaped the cycle of life and death, desire, and suffering, and enter a state of nirvana. The wicked will suffer in naraka, for unimaginably long periods of time, but not forever.

== Atheism and agnosticism and the fate of the universe ==

''See also:'' [[Hopelessness of atheism]] and [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]
[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Bertrand Russell]] ]]
Although [[Bertrand Russell]] was an [[agnosticism|agnostic]], he had favorable views of atheism.<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?"[http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref> Bertrand Russell wrote in 1903 about [[entropy]] and the universe:
{{cquote|That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of [[atom]]s; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the [[solar system]], and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.

"Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding dispair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." <ref>[http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/pessimism/entropy.html Entropy and heat death]</ref>}}

In a letter to Lowes Dickinson, Bertrand Russell wrote:
{{cquote|We stand on the shores of an ocean, crying to the night and the emptiness; sometimes a voice answers out of the darkness. But it is a voice of one drowning; and in a moment the silence returns” (Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, p. 287 as quoted by Leroy Koopman, “Famous Atheists Give Their Testimonies,” Moody Monthly, Nov. 1975, p. 124.) <ref>[http://www.guidelines.org/commentaries/atheism-and-the-despair-of-hope/#sthash.deoxNoqK.dpuf Atheism and the despair of hope]</ref>}}

==Fringe groups==
Certain fringe groups, such as Scientology, hold that the universe is static, and will never change.<ref name="scientology" /> Specifically, it states that all consciousness will follow the same pattern of birth and rebirth, forever.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Cosmology]]

Ultimate fate of the universe

2016-09-06T20:04:55Z

Brians1: More detail about proton decay

The '''ultimate fate of the universe''' is a valid question because according to all models on the universe, the universe is finite, and will end.<ref name="religious">''When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. (Revelation 6:12–14)''</ref><ref name="bigbang">^ a b Lemaître, Georges (1927). "Un univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extra-galactiques". Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles A47: 49–56. Bibcode 1927ASSB...47...49L translated by A. S. Eddington: Lemaître, Georges (1931). "Expansion of the universe, A homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extra-galactic nebulæ". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91: 483–490. Bibcode 1931MNRAS..91..483L</ref><ref name="static">Thomson, William. (1851). "On the Dynamical Theory of Heat, with numerical results deduced from Mr Joule’s equivalent of a Thermal Unit, and M. Regnault’s Observations on Steam." Excerpts. [§§1–14 & §§99–100], Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, March, 1851; and Philosophical Magazine IV. 1852, [from Mathematical and Physical Papers, vol. i, art. XLVIII, pp. 174]</ref> The only question logically, is what will happen at the end of the universe. There are many different scientific scenarios, and religious scenarios as well. When the Big Bang theory became the foremost explanation for the current state of the universe, the fate of the universe became a valid question.

==Background==
The universe is currently expanding at a rate of 73.8 ± 2.4 kilometers per second per Megaparsecs. (''A megaparsec is 3.08x10<sup>19</sup> kilometers'') Under the big bang model, expansion is currently accelerating.<ref>M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode 1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568.</ref> When [[catholic]] priest George Lemaitre proposed that the universe was born from a singularity, which was expounded on by Edwin Hubble, using the theory of relativity, it became clear that all theories implied an ultimate fate to the universe.

==Scientific theories==
There are three commonly accepted theories on how the universe will end. They are the Big crunch, where the universe collapses on itself, the Big Rip scenario, where acceleration destroys the bonding of atoms, and all matter decays, and the Heat death, where the universe reaches a maximum state of entropy.

===Big Crunch===
The Big Crunch theory is a symmetric view of the ultimate fate of the Universe. Just as the Big Bang started a cosmological expansion, this theory assumes that the average density of the universe is enough to stop its expansion and begin contracting. The end result is unknown; a simple estimation would have all the matter and space-time in the universe collapse into a dimensionless singularity, but at these scales unknown quantum effects need to be considered.
This scenario allows the Big Bang to be immediately after the Big Crunch of a preceding universe. If this occurs repeatedly, we have a cyclic model which is also known as a oscillatory universe. The universe could then consist of an infinite sequence of finite universes, each finite universe ending with a Big Crunch that is also the Big Bang of the next universe. Theoretically, the cyclic universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model. A somewhat similar idea is embraced by the cyclic model, but this idea evades heat death, because of an expansion of the branes that dilutes entropy accumulated in the previous cycle. In the big crunch, the universe will end approximately 30 billion years from now.
===Big Rip===
In the special case of phantom dark energy, which has even more negative pressure than a simple cosmological constant, the density of dark energy increases with time, causing the rate of acceleration to increase, leading to a steady increase in the Hubble constant. As a result, all material objects in the universe, starting with galaxies and eventually, all forms, no matter how small, will disintegrate into unbound elementary particles and radiation, ripped apart by the phantom energy force and shooting apart from each other. The end state of the universe is a singularity, as the dark energy density and expansion rate becomes infinite. For a possible timeline based on current physical theories, see 1 E19 s and more. This universe will end approximately 100 billion years from now.
===Heat death===
After the Stelliferous Epoch, all hydrogen in the universe will be exhausted. Then, only remnants remain. Some Grand Unified Theories predict that [[protons]] will decay into a positron, and a pion<ref>http://io9.gizmodo.com/5958012/how-one-tiny-particle-could-end-the-universe</ref>. Experiments have not detected proton decay, suggesting that the half life of a [[proton]] is at least 10<sup>17</sup> billion years. All that will remain will be [[fundamental particles]] such as [[leptons]] and [[photon]]s. The rate of entropy will be at a maximum. There will be no real structure to the universe, such as stars. The universe will be devoid of life.

==Religious Views==
Most organized religions have a prophecy regarding the end of the universe, and of time itself. The 3 Abrahamic religions predict a "judgement day", while Buddhism follows a more "heat death" scenario.<ref>Jātaka 20:12-1 ''And the all will fall quiet, forever; all will reach nirvana, or perish in "naraka"''</ref> Others believe in an infinite "flat" universe, where everything is static<ref name="scientology">Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Hubbard, Ron, L ''accessed 11/21/11</ref>

==Judeo-Christian-Islam==
The Abrahamic religions teach a judgement day, where the righteous will enter heaven, and the wicked, shall either be destroyed, or suffer for all eternity in hell.<ref>Revelations 21:8 ''But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death''</ref> Regarding the universe, the three religions agree that the universe will be destroyed, and replaced with a new earth, universe, and God will reign forever and ever.

==Buddhist-Hindu==
Buddhism and Hinduism teach that the universe will one day be devoid of life, and action. This is because the people will have escaped the cycle of life and death, desire, and suffering, and enter a state of nirvana. The wicked will suffer in naraka, for unimaginably long periods of time, but not forever.

== Atheism and agnosticism and the fate of the universe ==

''See also:'' [[Hopelessness of atheism]] and [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]
[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Bertrand Russell]] ]]
Although [[Bertrand Russell]] was an [[agnosticism|agnostic]], he had favorable views of atheism.<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?"[http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref> Bertrand Russell wrote in 1903 about [[entropy]] and the universe:
{{cquote|That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of [[atom]]s; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the [[solar system]], and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.

"Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding dispair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." <ref>[http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/pessimism/entropy.html Entropy and heat death]</ref>}}

In a letter to Lowes Dickinson, Bertrand Russell wrote:
{{cquote|We stand on the shores of an ocean, crying to the night and the emptiness; sometimes a voice answers out of the darkness. But it is a voice of one drowning; and in a moment the silence returns” (Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, p. 287 as quoted by Leroy Koopman, “Famous Atheists Give Their Testimonies,” Moody Monthly, Nov. 1975, p. 124.) <ref>[http://www.guidelines.org/commentaries/atheism-and-the-despair-of-hope/#sthash.deoxNoqK.dpuf Atheism and the despair of hope]</ref>}}

==Fringe groups==
Certain fringe groups, such as Scientology, hold that the universe is static, and will never change.<ref name="scientology" /> Specifically, it states that all consciousness will follow the same pattern of birth and rebirth, forever.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Cosmology]]

Conservapedia proven right

2016-09-04T16:26:11Z

Brians1: Corrected capitalisation that had been missed and updated part on gravitational waves

'''''Conservapedia''''' has often been proven right on a wide range of topics including science, politics, sports, and [[video games]]. In many cases, [[liberals]] pathetically tried to ridicule predictions that subsequently rang true:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of ''Conservapedia'' statement
!''Conservapedia'' statement
![[liberal claptrap]] in response
!Result
!Date of Result
|-
|December 26, 2006
|The [[Nobel Prize]] "selection process has become political, as it was not given to [[Ronald Reagan]] or [[Pope John Paul II]] or to anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]]. The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken [[liberal]]s, such as [[Jimmy Carter]]."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize&oldid=7393</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] insists that the Nobel Prize has integrity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|Subsequently the Nobel Peace Prize was absurdly awarded to [[Barack Obama]] despite a lack of any beneficial, meaningful achievement, and even Obama supporters reacted with "shock" and "a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability."<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/09/a_weighty_prize.html</ref>
<br>In 2015, it was leaked that the prize was given to Obama more to advance the liberal goal of nuclear disarmament than "in recognition of what he had accomplished."<ref>http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/freepress/story/2015/sep/21/president-obamas-nobel-peace-awardregretted-o/326069/</ref>
|October 09, 2009 (award), and March 3, 2015 (unprecedented demoting of chairman who made the award).<ref>http://www.dw.de/chairman-of-nobel-peace-prize-committee-demoted/a-18292026</ref>
|-
|February 1, 2007
|Explained the significance of the [[30-mile rule]] to reduce the exploitation of women by abortion clinics<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=30-mile_rule&oldid=12680</ref>
|clueless [[liberals]] paid no attention
|"more than a third of the clinics in Texas have been forced to stop providing abortions," [[Planned Parenthood]] screams to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in a desperate and unsuccessful attempt to block the good law;<ref>http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/texas/article/Planned-Parenthood-asks-high-court-s-help-in-Texas-4954081.php</ref> a big abortionist in Houston then lost his medical license in Feb. 2014 for violating this law.<ref>http://www.texasrighttolife.com/a/1152/BREAKING-NEWS-Texas-Medical-Board-suspends-license-of-abortionist-for-violating-newly-enacted-ProLife-law#.Uv6W6_ldVHQ</ref>
|November 4, 2013
|-
|February 18, 2007
|Explained that [[abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&oldid=14427</ref>
|Strident, hysterical denials by liberals, who oppose even telling women of the possibility of an increase in risk.
|A study published in 2013 showed more than a six-fold increase in women who had an abortion.<ref>[http://www.indianjcancer.com/article.asp?issn=0019-509X;year=2013;volume=50;issue=4;spage=316;epage=321;aulast=Bhadoria AS Bhadoria, U Kapil, N Sareen, P Singh, "Reproductive factors and breast cancer: A case-control study in tertiary care hospital of North India," 50 ''Indian Journal of Cancer'' 4, 316-321 (2013)</ref> In addition, another study showed that the "number of young women being diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer has been slowly but steadily rising over the past 3 decades," beginning a few years after ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'',<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Health/advanced-breast-cancer-rise-younger-women/story?id=18606955</ref> and a massive research project in China showed a 44% increase in breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2013/12/02/bombshell-study-finds-44-increased-breast-cancer-risk-for-women-having-abortions/</ref>
|February 27 and December 2, 2013
|-
|March 15, 2007
|Observed that [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not [[conservative]], and cited several key examples.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_O%27Reilly&oldid=37999</ref>
|[[Liberal media]] continued to pretend that O'Reilly is somehow a leader of the [[conservative movement]].
|O'Reilly endorses the [[liberal]]s' amnesty bill for illegal immigration.
|June 20, 2013
|-
|March 24, 2007
|Pointed out how hostile the [[Fox News Channel]] is to [[pro-life]] leaders,<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=64126</ref> and observed in 2012 how it had become a bunch of [[RINO Backers]].
|Silence by [[liberals]] who like pretending that [[Fox News Channel]] is [[conservative]], when it isn't.
|The ratings of Fox News drops to a 12-year low, doing particularly poorly among the 25-54 age group.
|January 30, 2013 <ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/fox-news-ratings-hit-year-low-155638.html</ref>
|-
|May 07, 2007
|The speed of light varies.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&oldid=147388</ref>
|Physicists point out that the [[Theory of Relativity]] and [[Isaac Newton|Newtonian]] physics both demonstrate that the speed of light varies depending on the medium through which it is travelling.
|"So it turns out the speed of light might not be constant after all." <ref>https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently</ref><ref>http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184879-einsteinian-error-the-25-year-old-supernova-that-could-change-the-speed-of-light-forever</ref> Research shows that due to the impossibility of a perfect vacuum the idealized concept of 'the speed of light in a vacuum' cannot be achieved in practice.
|March 25, 2013
|-
|August 18, 2007
|Because [[Jon Stewart]]'s movies "almost always do very badly (critically and financially) people say that there is a 'Jon Stewart Curse' that he brings to all his movies."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jon_Stewart&oldid=271190</ref>
|His audience of [[public school]] kids is clueless.
|The 2008 Oscars, which he hosted, set the modern record for fewest viewers, and except for one very minor part as himself Stewart has not appeared in a movie since Conservapedia's observation in 2007.
|February 24, 2008
|-
|October 04, 2007
|In 2007, Conservapedia creates its [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] article.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality_in_animals_myth&oldid=308759</ref>
|Liberals tout a supposed "gay [[penguin]]" in a California zoo.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref> Liberals rabidly deny someone can be an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]]. Ex-homosexual is faced with a $10,000 fine, spends $7,000 in legal fees, and is forced to go to pro-homosexuality classes by a liberal judge who claimed he engaged in an aggressive behavior in a discussion with homosexual man (during his discussion the ex-homosexual man was holding a baby).<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref>
|In 2009, the alleged gay penguin in a California zoo starts a romance with lady penguin and abandons his supposed male penguin lover. The homosexual activist [[Wayne Besen]] claims the penguin is living in denial and not an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] male penguin. (see: [[Homosexuality in animals myth]]).<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref>
|July 15, 2009
|-
|January 10, 2008
|Conservapedia observes that [[Shaken Baby Syndrome]] is a doubtful theory by governmental child protective services, which has resulted in dubious convictions.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shaken_Baby_Syndrome&oldid=367617</ref>
|The governmental "experts" must be right and Conservapedia must somehow be wrong.
|Years later, even [[National Public Radio]] admitted doubts about a conviction for Shaken Baby Syndrome, and [[Democrat]] Governor [[Jerry Brown]] commuted a high-profile sentence for it.<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/shaken-baby-case-an-update/#.T4DftOjeRkI.email</ref>
|April 07, 2012
|-
|February 27, 2008
|Conservapedia warns against the [[HPV vaccine]], observing that it was not tested for possibly causing infertility.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&oldid=395596</ref>
|How can government and the big pharmaceutical industry be wrong???
|The ''British Medical Journal'' reports on a case study of a severe condition of infertility in a 16-year-old girl subsequent to taking the HPV vaccine.<ref>http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2012/bcr-2012-006879.abstract</ref>
|October 3, 2012
|-
|April 14, 2008
|Conservapedia coins the term "[[media bullying]]."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Media_bullying&oldid=430832</ref>
|[[liberal denial]] in response
|Prominent African American physician Benjamin Carson observes, "The bullies are ... especially the media who like to just beat on anybody who doesn't toe the line ... they suppress [[freedom of speech]]."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/03/09/dr-carson-media-bullies-suppress-freedom-speech-beat-anyone-who-doesn#ixzz2N5XWfVMc</ref>
|March 09, 2013
|-
|October 05, 2008
|Observed that [[Barack Obama]] is likely Muslim and could become the first Muslim President.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=530340</ref>
|While liberals would denounce the religion of Obama's future rival, [[Mitt Romney]], they insist that Obama's religion cannot be questioned.
|Once elected, Obama stops attending church, and he eschews using a Bible for his official swearing-in procedure; [[Obama's Religion|Obama makes it clear that he is likely Muslim]] in additional ways.
|January 21, 2009
|-
|March 24, 2008
|Beginning in March of 2008, Conservapedia begins chronicling higher education moral corruption via its [[Professor values]] article.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Professor_values&oldid=412536</ref> Starting in 2010, Conservapedia repeatedly warns students about picking their college majors on its main page. See: [[Worst college majors]] Conservapedia also cites [[Gerald Celente]] about future protests in Europe/Europe and cites Celente concerning useless college majors which needlessly rack up debts in young people. Conservapedia warns about a future "higher educational bubble".<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/archive91</ref>
|
|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing.
|
|-
|December 22, 2008
|The theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occurring, despite much evidence to the contrary.
|In 2011, frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory by the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]"; in 2011 and 2013, even the [[liberal media]] admit there has been no atmospheric warming since 1998.
|July 06, 2011 <ref>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/</ref>
|-
|August 04, 2009
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August of 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November of 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|February 3, 2011
|-
|September 21, 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitude.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|November 28, 2009<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&oldid=724599</ref>
|Conservapedia asserts that the [[Theory of relativity]] is false, and creates the page [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], initially containing 10 counterexamples. By late 2015 the number will have grown to 48.
|a barrage of public criticism against anyone who even questions the unproven theory; no one seeking a PhD or tenure dare express doubts about the theory
|A ''New Scientist'' article, entitled "Breaking relativity," declares that celestial signals defy the theory
|January 2, 2014
|-
|January 14, 2010
|Conservapedia identifies the significance of an effort to recall Menendez from office.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Robert_Menendez&oldid=744786</ref>
|Liberals stood by Menendez for years.
|Finally the ''[[New York Times]]'' said that [[Harry Reid]] should take a committee gavel away from Menendez. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/opinion/mr-menendezs-ethics-problem.html?hp&_r=0</ref>
|February 8, 2013
|-
|March 14, 2010
|''Conservapedia'' predicted that [[Rick Santorum]] was a stalking horse for [[Mitt Romney]]<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=762021</ref>
|Some mistakenly viewed Santorum as the only other option besides Romney, at the expense of [[Newt Gingrich]]
|After taking votes away from Gingrich, Santorum surprised many by dropping out of the race, practically giving the victory to Romney; Santorum then endorsed Romney-like [[Jon Bruning]] instead of the [[conservative]] [[Don Stenberg]] for [[U.S. Senate]] in [[Nebraska]], and then endorsed Romney in a late-night email.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/santorum-underwhelming-endorsement-romney-081055500.html</ref>
|May 7, 2012
|-
|April 19, 2010
|In [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], ''Conservapedia'' observed that intelligence has long been declining.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=770704</ref>
|Repeated attempts to remove the insight from the entry.
|A Stanford University geneticist confirms that intelligence has been declining for thousands of years.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/nov/12/pampered-humanity-less-intelligent</ref>
|November 12, 2012
|-
|May 16, 2010
|In starting the new entry [[Worst College Majors]], Conservapedia observed that "[t]he worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities and often a distorted or ultra-liberal view of the world. If the student incurred debt in attending college, then he is left with obligations without any practical way to pay for them."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Worst_College_Majors&oldid=778795</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] about several of the examples.
|A study shows that the earnings gap between good and bad college majors is bigger than the gap between a college and high school diploma.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/05/picking-college-major-mean-big-money/28578259/</ref>
|June 6, 2015
|-
|June 12, 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/June_2010</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement.
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 13, 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Letter_to_Douglas_Moo&oldid=791512</ref>
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|November 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|August 10, 2010
|In August of 2010, Conservapedia created the article [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]] indicating that [[Richard Dawkins]] had a significant problem with the women segment of the marketplace and that he [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|was abrasive]] and [[Atheism and cowardice|cowardly.]]<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Women%27s_views_of_Richard_Dawkins&oldid=803578</ref>
|Atheist men scoff at the article.
|On November 1, 2010, the Ms. Magazine website post an article by the feminist Monica Shores entitled ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women''? <ref>[http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/11/01/will-new-atheism-make-room-for-women/ ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women''] by Monica Shores, Ms. Magazine</ref> Shores' article declares: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that Dawkins’ website overwhelmingly attracts male visitors."<ref>[http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/11/01/will-new-atheism-make-room-for-women/ ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women''] by Monica Shores, Ms. Magazine</ref> In July of 2011, the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal occurs. A woman in the [[Skepchick]] community says "I look forward to watching your legacy crash and burn."<ref>[https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzoCyyqmp5b5LUdobkxhblpmTDA/edit?pli=1 Skepchick woman]</ref> <ref>http://skepchick.org/2011/07/dear-richard-dawkins/</ref>
|July 6, 2011
|-
|October 14, 2010
|Conservapedia observes and predicts increased premature graying as a [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=822877</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] that premature graying is increasing.
|A top actress -- Katie Holmes, the wife of Tom Cruise -- is observed having gray hairs at only age 33.
|April 29, 2012
|-
|January 18, 2011
|Observing that a very large percentage of college students are not developing higher thinking skills.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html</ref> The trend of liberal colleges closing their doors continues.<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/07/09/baldwin</ref><ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/</ref>
|[[Occupy Wall Street]] and other Occupy protests happen in the United States and in Europe in 2011 and young people are very prevalent in the protests. Some protests turn violent and engage in property destruction. In November of 2011, the Daily Mail reports concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement and the trash/garbage associated with it: "If this is the product of our liberal arts colleges, why continue their tax exemptions and tax support? Universities are supposed to produce intelligent people who will make a positive contribution to society. Not these pigs".<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46288</ref> In 2011, it is reported that Occupy movements are littering the streets.<ref>http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=1967</ref>

Young Occupy Wall Street protesters are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|
|-
|January 23, 2011
|Conservapedia observes how harmful [[Facebook]] is, and how little is accomplished on it.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Facebook&oldid=843357</ref>
|Liberals defend their gossipy, ad-driven site.
|Facebook breaks up many marriages, and the "Article Reach on Facebook is Seeing a Huge Decline ... and Facebook has now stated plainly that they expect organic reach to continue to fall."<ref>http://www.opusfidelis.com/blog/article-reach-on-facebook-is-seeing-a-huge-decline/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Weekly+OPUSfidelis+Blog&utm_content=Weekly+OPUSfidelis+Blog+CID_46b2948b9d2c498c82c9c31369d1dc43&utm_source=Email+marketing+software&utm_term=Article+Reach+on+Facebook+is+Seeing+a+Huge+Decline</ref>
|March 18, 2014
|-
| February 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months.
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination and has lost political influence. <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/105741/</ref>
|October 5, 2011
|-
|August 24, 2011
|In the late summer of 2011, a Conservapedian was very optimistic on [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]] and continues to be very optimistic.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Question_evolution!_campaign&oldid=904849</ref>
|Atheists and evolutionists whine about the campaign plus a YouTube atheist and/or evolutionist creates a fairly popular yet ultimately ineffective video which is easily refuted. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]
|The website traffic of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) sees significant growth post August 2011 (see: [[Essay: Grinding up American atheism into a fine pulp|CMI web traffic growth]]). Atheists and evolutionists have yet to adequately answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that satisfactorily evolutionists cannot answer] which is the focus of the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Global atheism continues to fall in the number of its adherents.
|November 12, 2011 <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:_Grinding_up_American_atheism_into_a_fine_pulp&oldid=936440</ref>
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_Presidential_Race_-_Endorsements_for_Republicans_2012&oldid=944456</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself.
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|October 11, 2011
|-
|September 3, 2011
|Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=909160</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] becaues this would suggest that [[atheist]]ic claims of a stable [[Old Earth]] are untrue.
|<span id="Sept. 3, 2011"></span>"A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress," according to a presentation at the Seismological Society of America.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-earthquakes-usa-idUSBRE83G1FL20120417</ref>

On May 24, 2013, the second massive earthquake in 2013 (magnitude 8 and above) occurred, ''which is more than the total annual amount in each of the past 5 years''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0525/Russia-8.2-earthquake-is-big-but-no-deaths</ref>
|April 17, 2012 and May 24, 2013
|-
|November 2, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed that [[Pacific Institute]] was not a non-partisan environmental group but deceitful liberals promoting lies.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pacific_Institute&oldid=933383</ref>
|Pretend that Peter Gleick and other environmentalists don't utilize bad science or push political agendas
|Pacific Institute's president Peter Gleick promoted bad science and pushed a biased liberal political agenda by admitting to fraud in 2012. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref>
| February 21, 2012
|-
|November 29, 2011
|Conservapedia pointed out the connection between violent [[video games]] and [[young mass murderers]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_mass_murderers&oldid=941531</ref>
|Nonsense, liberals claimed.
|An unspeakable slaughter of 20 elementary school children occurred in Newtown, Connecticut by a 20-year-old player of violent video games, followed by a mass burning of violent games weeks later.

|December 17, 2012
|-
|January 3, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Iowa Caucuses]] before all the results were in, and despite polling suggesting he would only attain third place
|For weeks the [[lamestream media]] insisted that [[Mitt Romney]] won.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|January 20, 2012 <ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/santorum-now-the-iowa-winner-officially-111713.html</ref>
|-
|February 7, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Colorado]] primary relatively early in the evening, long before all the results were in, and despite Romney later surpassing Santorum during part of the night
|Liberals delayed for hours before admitting that Santorum would win.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|February 8, 2012
|-
|March 9, 2012
|"Disney movies, which have churned out liberal claptrap for more than a decade, strike out again on opening night for Disney's lame ''John Carter''. The last Disney movie to qualify for [[Greatest Conservative Movies]] was its brilliant Beauty and the Beast (1991)."
|Liberals don't criticize Disney as long it continues to promote [[feminism]] and other liberal drivel.
|The Disney film unit chairman "resigned following the company’s $200 million loss on the science-fiction picture 'John Carter,' possibly the biggest ever for a single movie."
|April 20, 2012
|-
|May 8, 2012
|Observed that [[Rick Santorum]] was a [[stalking horse candidate]] in 2012.
|Liberals were clueless.
|Santorum pulled out early from the race for president in 2016, and surprised other [[conservative]]s by endorsing the moderate [[Marco Rubio]], but as predicted by Conservapedia he [[Expected to endorse Jeb|did not endorse Jeb Bush]].
|February 3, 2016
|-
|June 23, 2012
|"Tiger Woods -- hasn't won a major tournament in years, and yet he's still all that liberals want to talk about in covering golf tournaments."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=989076</ref>
|
|Nearly four years after Conservapedia's observation, Tiger Woods still "hasn't won a major tournament in years, and yet he's still all that liberals to talk about in covering golf tournaments."
|August, 10, 2014
|-
|June 23, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' adds [[David Beckham]] to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]] <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=989076</ref>
|Liberals desperately tried to find a role for Beckham, eventually having him play the absurd part of conveying the torch by speedboat to the Olympic Stadium while the final part of the ceremony was in progress.
|To the amazement of liberals, Beckham was not even selected for the British Olympic soccer team, even though other players over the age of 23 were selected. Subsequently, the media promoted Beckham as the likely final torchbearer, which was instead given to [[the best of the public]] (five unknown but rising young athletes).
|June 28, 2012
|-
|June 23, 2012
|Observing how overrated LeBron James is by the media.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&direction=next&oldid=989112</ref>
|Disapproval of criticism
|Despite enormous media hype for James, he and his team were routed by little-known players on the San Antonio Spurs for the championship in 2014. The following year, [[Stephen Curry]] is widely recognized as the best player in the NBA, and he leads the unheralded ''Golden State Warriors'' to the championship and a record-setting 24-0 start in the subsequent season.
|June 15, 2014, and then year 2015
|-
|June 24, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' adds Manning to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]]. <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=989247</ref>
|Liberals insist that Manning will be better for Broncos, and pretend that politics had nothing to do with this surprise replacement. The following year the media virtually declare Manning to be one of the greatest players ever, and that praise continued in 2014.
|To the amazement of liberals, Manning throws 2 key interceptions that enable the underdog Ravens to humiliate the Broncos in Denver in their first playoff game in early 2013; in 2014 he throws twice as many interceptions as TDs in a humiliating loss for the Broncos the following year in the Super Bowl; and in 2015 he plays poorly as Denver is crushed in its first round of the playoffs.
|January 11, 2013, February 2, 2014, and January 11, 2015
|-
|August 13, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' observes that nations which adopt [[same-sex marriage]] then decline in competitiveness at the Olympics.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2012_Summer_Olympics&oldid=1000056</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]]
|Germany, which rejects [[same-sex marriage]], wins the [[World Cup]] without losing a single game, including a record-breaking 7-1 rout of Brazil 7-1 in the semifinals.
|July 13, 2014
|-
|September 6, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' added [[God]]-denier [[Lance Armstrong]] to our list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]] <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=1004539</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] continued about Armstrong, insisting that he be removed from this entry because Armstrong continued to deny the obvious;<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&diff=prev&oldid=1004539]</ref> the liberal Olympic bureaucrats refused for months to strip Armstrong of his medal, until after Armstrong admitted his doping.
|Finally and pathetically Armstrong admitted what he had so aggressively denied about doping.
|January 14, 2013
|-
|Fall 2012
|''Conservapedia'' repeatedly predicted that liberals would not allow one of the [[Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Star]]s, [[Tim Tebow]], to have any real playing time on the ''New York Jets'', and that it would pathetically fail without Tebow.
|Liberals insisted Tebow would play if the other QB failed, or that Tebow was not good enough to play, despite how he led the underachieving Broncos to a playoff victory against the highly ranked Steelers.
|The ''New York Jets'' failed miserably while never giving Tebow any real playing time, and the ''Jets'' were eliminated from playoff contention even before the last week of the season. <ref>http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/new_york_jets_eliminated_from.html</ref>
|December 18, 2012
|-
|November 18, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' observed that the ''L.A. Lakers'' had packed their starting line-up with [[Overrated Sports Stars]], and then hired their preferred coach despite how a better one was available.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=1019273</ref>
|Liberals thought these players and the hiring of the new coach were good because the media told them so.
|In 2013, the ''L.A. Lakers'' barely made the playoffs, and then were routed by record-setting margins in the first round. Then, in 2014, the ''Lakers'' set a club record for the most ''losses'' in a season, and failed to make the playoffs.
|April 17, 2014
|-
|December 1, 2012
|"Indeed, it is debatable whether black holes exist at all."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&oldid=1021604</ref>
|The [[liberal media]] claim black holes exist, so it must be true!!!
|Stephen Hawking admits, "There are no black holes."<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583</ref>
|January 24, 2014
|-
| February 3, 2013
|''Conservapedia'' observed that extended 35-minute blackout at the [[Super Bowl]] was likely caused in part by the energy rationing mindset of liberals.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=1055150&oldid=1032962</ref>
|It was a faulty relay, the [[lamestream media]] and local authorities claimed.
|It was not a faulty relay - relays almost never fail in such a manner, as confirmed by an expert quoted by ''National Geographic''.
|February 9, 2013
|-
|January 8, 2013
|"The liberal media go along with the communist cover-up about Hugo Chavez, despite how he likely died in a Cuban hospital in December."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1028225</ref>
|Repeated insistence that reports in the [[lamestream media]] that Chavez was alive from December to March, including even a photo purporting to be him, must be true.
|Hugo Chávez is indeed dead, but the [[BBC]] claims he died nearly two months after Conservapedia had already informed the world of that fact.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21679053</ref> It is reported that Chavez's decomposition is too advanced for embalming. Proving he died much earlier than reported. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-venezuela-chavez-embalming-idUSBRE92C1GC20130313 Venezuela may be unable to embalm Chavez's remains]</ref>
|March 5, 2013
|-
|April 23, 2013
|"Tamerlan Tsarnaev probably murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA likely proves it."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=1048618</ref>
|Even though the DNA match is quick and known to the Obama Administration, even though there will be no trial of Tamerlan, and even though closure on the 9/11-anniversary murders would comfort families of the victims, liberals want the DNA match to continue to be withheld from the families and the public.
|More than two weeks later (and nearly three months later for the ''[[New York Times]]''), stories began to appear in the [[lamestream media]] that forensic evidence and cell phone records confirm the likely involvement of Tamerlan Tsarnaev in committing the gruesome murders.
|May 11, 2013 ([[mainstream media]] outside of [[New York Times]])
<br>July 10, 2013 ([[New York Times]])
|-
|June 13, 2013
|Added Tom Brady to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]].
|The [[liberal media]] pretend that the self-centered Tom Brady is one of the greatest football players ever, and brag about the multi-many-million dollar home he moved into.
|It was discovered that Brady had probably been cheating for an extended period by using deflated, easier-to-throw footballs in violation of NFL rules, and the NFL suspended him for four games. Brady fought the suspension, refused to apologize for his cheating, and lost on appeal.
<br>Lacking perfect pass protection and unable to use improperly deflated footballs, Brady demonstrated how lousy he really is by leading his team to an upset defeat at the 2016 AFC Championship game.
|May 11, 2015, and Jan. 24, 2016
|-
|July 1, 2013
|[[Best of the public]] is triumphing at [[Wimbledon]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=1059301</ref>
|"You obviously don't understand tennis!" and "occasional upsets don't result in championships in big tennis tournaments!"
|15th seed Marion Bartoli won Wimbledon in 2013 '''''without losing a set the entire tournament''''', the rarest of achievements; two years later, the women's finals at the U.S. Open in 2015 did not include anyone ranked among the top 20 players.
|July 6, 2013; Sept. 12, 2015
|-
|July 27, 2013
|Predicting liberal negativity, as required by the [[homosexual agenda]], towards the [[Winter Olympics]] because it was being hosted by pro-heterosexual Russia.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Winter_Olympics&oldid=1062259</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]]
|Russia was spectacular in successfully hosting the Olympics and winning the medals race, and several articles afterward were critical of the media and others in how they criticized Russia.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/olympics/bondy-putin-games-worth-weight-gold-article-1.1699246</ref>
|February 23, 2014
|-
|August 3, 2015
|Predicting that [[Lindsey Graham]] was merely a [[stalking horse candidate]] who would only temporarily pursue his "far-fetched candidacy" for the [[2016 presidential election|2016 presidential race]]<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stalking_horse_candidate&oldid=1167261</ref>
|[[Liberal]]s were clueless.
|Lindsey Graham abruptly pulled out of the race in time to help [[Jeb Bush]] before [[Christmas]], and on January 15, 2016, endorsed Jeb Bush just as ''Conservapedia'' had predicted.<ref>http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/lindsey-graham-to-endorse-jeb-bush-for-president-217838</ref>
|December 21, 2015, and January 15, 2016
|-
|August 11, 2015
|"Trump will take New Hampshire"<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/139#What_if....</ref>
|[[Liberal]]s mocked Trump and thought he never had a chance.
|Trump won New Hampshire on his way to winning the nomination.
|February 9, 2016
|-
|August 11, 2015
|"Different candidates are expected to win the Iowa caucuses and the NH primary, rendering the subsequent primary in South Carolina very influential."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=South_Carolina_primary&oldid=1168198</ref>
|
|In both the [[Republican]] and [[Democratic]] primaries, the prediction of Conservapedia came true despite polling to the contrary.
|February 1 and 9, 2016
|-
|September 6, 2015
|Conservapedia launches an "[[unplug the NFL]]" campaign in response to the religious discrimination by the [[NFL]] in excluding outspoken [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]], who experts widely agree is qualified to play in the league.
|[[Liberal]] [[double standard]] says religious discrimination against Tebow is OK, even though racial discrimination would not be.
|2.5 million Americans do "unplug the NFL" for [[Super Bowl|Super Bowl 50]], stunning experts who predicted a record TV audience.
|February 7, 2016
|-
|September 20, 2015
|Conservapedia observes that [[Jeb Bush]] is the [[Establishment]] candidate for the [[Republican]] nomination for president.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Establishment&oldid=1172191</ref>
|Liberals were silent, perhaps hoping Jeb would defeat his more [[conservative]] rivals.
|Jeb Bush raised and spent far more campaign money than [[Donald Trump]], but was destroyed in a landslide by Trump in the 2016 election primaries. Then Jeb Bush's longtime top political adviser, Sally Bradshaw, left the [[Republican Party]] and declared that she will vote for [[Hillary Clinton]] if the race is close in [[Florida]].<ref>http://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/01/jeb-bush-adviser-sally-bradshaw-gop/21442889/</ref>
|August 1, 2016
|-
|-
|February 18, 2016
|Conservapedia predicts that [[Barack Obama]] will not meet with "[[Fidel Castro]]" during Obama's visit to [[Cuba]], despite how a "Fidel" has met with other leading foreign dignitaries after the severely ill Fidel checked into and probably died in a Cuban hospital in 2006.
|[[Liberal denial]] persists about the obvious [[communist]] hoax in pretending that Fidel Castro recovered and voluntarily gave up power in 2006.
|The [[liberal media]] announce that Obama will not meet with [[Fidel Castro]] during Obama's multi-day visit there, yet the liberal media does not point out that the obvious reason is to avoid humiliation to Obama for meeting with a fake Fidel.
|March 20, 2016
|-
|July 7, 2016
|Concerning [[Donald Trump]] and [[Ted Cruz]], ''Conservapedia'' explained that "Trump is telling Ted that the train is leaving the station now, with or without Ted."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1245431</ref>
|Political "experts" downplayed the issue of whether Cruz would endorse Trump.
|[[Ted Cruz]] was loudly booed at the [[Republican National Convention]] for giving a speech that failed to endorse [[Donald Trump]], and two days later Trump said he would not accept a belated endorsement by Cruz.
|July 20, 2016
|-
|August 5, 2016
|''Conservapedia'' explains that [[joke sports]], [[political correctness]], endless swimming events won by the same person, and [[liberal claptrap]] by the media reduce [[America]]n interest in the [[Olympics]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1268648</ref>
|[[Liberal media]] expects record audiences.
|Viewership is down sharply over the first five nights.
|August 10, 2016
|-
|-
|August 17, 2016
|''Conservapedia'' criticized the [[liberal media]] and one of its favored athletes, Ryan Lochte, for telling and promoting a false tale of armed robbery near the [[2016 Summer Olympics]],<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1271150</ref> which smeared the gracious hosts.
|[[Liberal denial]] continued to downplay or refuse to admit the falsehood.
|The truth came out, but liberal denial persisted and some continued to defend Ryan Lochte.
|August 19, 2016
|}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

User:Brians1

2016-08-21T15:22:49Z

Brians1:

This is my user page, more text to come shortly.

{{userboxtop|Userboxes}}
{{User comp-5}}
{{userboxbottom}}

User:Brians1

2016-08-21T15:14:06Z

Brians1: Created page with "This is my user page, more text to come shortly."

This is my user page, more text to come shortly.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

2016-08-21T13:51:38Z

Brians1: Added detail to systems governed by the second law

The '''Second Law of Thermodynamics''' is a fundamental truth about the tendency towards disorder in the absence of intelligent intervention. This principle correctly predicts that heat will never flow from a cold body to a warmer one, and that "[t]he universe is constantly getting more disorderly!"<ref>The quotation is from Isaac Asimov, who continued to say "[v]iewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to [[work]] hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6. Put in physics terminology, the Second Law states that the [[entropy]] of an isolated or [[closed system]] never decreases.</ref>

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the result of the intrinsic uncertainty in nature, manifest in [[quantum mechanics]], which is overcome only by intelligent intervention.

This law makes it impossible to build a [[perpetual motion machine]] - the increase in entropy inevitably derails the system even if energy remains constant.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the [[atheistic]] [[Theory of Evolution]] and [[Theory of Relativity]], both of which deny a fundamental uncertainty to the physical world that leads to increasing disorder.

==Entropy and disorder ==

In this context "increasing disorder" means "that which happens if you let nature take its course."
Imagine your old room at your parent's house. Remember how easy it was to let the room turn into a uniform mess (disorder) and remember how hard it was to clean it up until it fit a specific, non-uniform design (order). Not cleaning up would always result in an increase of entropy in your room!

Now, in nature there is no one to clean up the universe, only chances. The chance of something becoming orderly is a lot smaller than the chance of something becoming disorderly (since there are far more possible disorderly states to choose from).

Alternatively one could think of how difficult it is to construct a house of cards, while almost everything that happens in nature will result in its collapse.

On a universal scale a tidy room would be a universe which has pockets of above average concentrations of energy (if you - incorrectly - assume relativity [[E=mc²]] this includes matter as well.)
A messy room would be a universe in which all energy is equally spread out.

The flow of energy (by heat exchange) to places with lower concentrations is called the "heat flow".

The often heard argument that this law disproves an eternal universe is true, since in that case maximum entropy would have been reached already. A counter-argument to this would be to suggest that the universe is still in the process of approaching maximum entropy.

==Reversibility and Irreversibility==
[[Reversible process|Reversibility]] is a theoretical concept related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A process is reversible if the net heat and work exchange between the system and the surroundings is zero for the process running forwards and in reverse. This means the process does not generate entropy. In reality, no process is completely reversible. Irreversibility is a quantity sometimes called "lost work" and is equal to the difference between a process' actual work and reversible work. Irreversibility is also equal to a process' entropy generation multiplied by a reference temperature.

==Trend toward uniformity in the universe==

The universe will always become increasingly uniform, that is: heat will spread until the entire universe has the temperature and energy level (in a closed system heat will always spread from a place where there is a lot of heat to a place where there is less until balance is achieved), forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.

In this final state the universe is one uniform space where nothing happens and no work (moving something) can be done since there are no above average concentrations of energy left.
This state is called maximum entropy and is said to be in perfect disorder (although intuitively its uniformity would seem to be a state of perfect order) because it has become impossible to determine what happened in the past. ''i.e.'' There are an infinite number of ways (histories of the universe) maximum entropy could have been reached.

==The types of systems governed by the Law==
There is only one type of system that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to: an isolated system. An isolated system is one that does not exchange matter or energy with its surroundings.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not strictly apply to the following types of system:
* Closed system - Exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings
* Open system - Exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings

The boundary of any system can always be expanded to produce an isolated system.

==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==

It has become common in recent years for [[Environmentalism|environmentalists]] to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies limits to [[economic growth]]. Their reasoning is that because free energy in resources such as [[petroleum|oil]] decreases with time, then economic growth can only be finite. However, this simplistic [[liberal]] reasoning ignores the [[false zero-sum game|non-zero sum]] nature of [[free market economics]], whereby improvements in technology deliver gains for all at no further cost. Indeed one of the most vital economic goods, knowledge, or more generally information, can be said to be free from thermodynamic limitations entirely.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2053] Discovery Institute cofounder and futurist George F. Gilder put it eloquently as follows: ''Gone is the view of a thermodynamic world economy, dominated by "natural resources" being turned to entropy and waste by human extraction and use. Once seen as a physical system tending toward exhaustion and decline, the world economy has clearly emerged as an intellectual system driven by knowledge.''</ref> Liberals also vastly exaggerate the limitations that [[natural resources]] impose on human economies. Some estimate that the [[Earth]] can harbor 100 billion people. God Himself gives His explicit assurance that the Earth will be generous as long as the human race exists in [[Genesis]]: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28, KJV)

== Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution ==

[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]

[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the [[evolution]]ary [[paradigm]].

Some of their key resources on this matter are:

*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]

*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]

Evolutionists and other scientists claim that these resources misrepresent the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
== The 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the universe having a beginning ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]

According to Ohio State University professor Patrick Woodward, the [[First Law of Thermodynamics]] "simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy)."<ref>[https://chemistry.osu.edu/~woodward/ch121/ch5_law.htm 1st Law of Thermodynamics], Ohio State University, Professor Pat Woodward (teaches for the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry [https://chemistry.osu.edu/faculty/woodward])</ref>

The [[Christian apologetics]] website ''Why believe in God?'' declares about the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
{{cquote|The second law of thermodynamics, or the law of increased [[entropy]], says that over time, everything breaks down and tends towards disorder - entropy! Entropy is the amount of UNusable energy in any systems; that system could be the earth's environment or the universe itself. The more entropy there is, the more disorganisation and chaos.

Therefore, if no outside force is adding energy to an isolated system to help renew it, it will eventually burn out (heat death). This can be applied to a sun as well as a cup of tea - left to themselves, both will grow cold. You can heat up a cold tea, you cannot heat up a cold sun. NOTE: when a hot tea in an air tight room goes cold (loses all it's energy) not only do we NOT expect the process to reverse by natural causes (ie. the tea will get hot again), but both room temp and tea temp will be equal. Keep that in mind as you read the next paragraph.

Look at it like this, because the energy in the universe is finite and no new energy is being added to it (1st law), and because the energy is being used up (2nd law), the universe cannot be infinite. If our universe was infinite but was using up a finite supply of energy, it would have suffered 'heat death' a long time ago! If the universe was infinite all radioactive atoms would have decayed and the universe would be the same temperature with no hot spots, no bright burning stars. Since this is not true, the universe must have begun a finite time ago.<ref>[http://www.whybelieveingod.net/istheuniverseinfinite.htm Is the Universe Infinite? Past beliefs and implications], Why believe in God? website</ref>}}

Thus, the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the [[universe]] having a beginning.<ref>
*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php CAN LAWS OF SCIENCE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?]
*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]</ref>

== The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, theism and the origins of the universe ==

In the articles below, [[Theism|theists]] point out that the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics point to the universe having a divine origin:

*[http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php Can the laws of science explain the origin of the universe?]

*[http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe] by Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3704 The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god If God created the universe, then who created God?] by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

*[http://creation.com/eternal-universe Has the universe always existed?]

== See also ==

*[[Genetic entropy]]
*[[Essay:Commentary on Conservapedia's article on the second law of thermodynamics]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Second Law of Thermodynamics]]