Greetings

[hertz vanrental]

colpat wrote

Yes, the First Law of Thermodynamics, "matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form." The Second Law of Thermodynamics, "the change in form results change from order to disorder.

I'm assuming that you didn't read the research carried out by Fermi Lab, otherwise you wouldn't have stated that the creation of a matter/anti-matter particle pair from nothing violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. It does't by the way. Why didn't you read the research by the way? If you intend to take part in such discussions, I do wish that you would make yourself aware of the salient facts. Otherwise you just look plain dumb.

[colpat]

Your assumption is just a bit off the mark. I was directly involved in the establishment of Fermi Lab, Batavia, Illinois, in 1967. In Feb I1955, along with another young Lt. were recognized as the free world's foremost electromagnetic wave propagation experts. Fermi Lab changed the form of matter, and entropy was the result.

[hertz vanrental]

colpat wrote

Your assumption is just a bit off the mark. I was directly involved in the establishment of Fermi Lab, Batavia, Illinois, in 1967. In Feb I1955, along with another young Lt. were recognized as the free world's foremost electromagnetic wave propagation experts. Fermi Lab changed the form of matter, and entropy was the result.

I didn't ask whether you were involved in Fermi Lab. I asked if you had read the research relating to Fermi Lab's research into the spontaneous creation of a matter/anti-matter particle pair from nothing. If you have read and understood it, why do you infer that the spontaneous creation of a matter/anti-matter particle pair from nothing violates the First and Second of Thermodynamics?

[colpat]

I was involved in doing the research. My input early on before 1967 was proving the foundation formulae E=MC2 was accurate in only three conditions. Using a simple analogy of a squirrel in a hollow log, I developed the formula for universality. Because of my participation in Fermi Lab USA, I was a consultant for Fermi Lab Bern.

[hertz vanrental]

colpat wrote

I was involved in doing the research. My input early on before 1967 was proving the foundation formulae E=MC2 was accurate in only three conditions. Using a simple analogy of a squirrel in a hollow log, I developed the formula for universality. Because of my participation in Fermi Lab USA, I was a consultant for Fermi Lab Bern.

FFS !!!!

For the second, and hopefully last, time, I didn't ask whether (or how) you were involved in Fermi Lab. I asked if you had read the research relating to Fermi Lab's research into the spontaneous creation of a matter/anti-matter particle pair from nothing. If you have read and understood it, why do you infer that the spontaneous creation of a matter/anti-matter particle pair from nothing violates the First and Second laws of Thermodynamics?

[colpat]

Yes, I have read, studied, and applied the Fermi Lab research. No, the FL did not falsify their report. The Fermi report used the invalid E=MC2 formula, which made their findings questionable.

[hertz vanrental]

colpat wrote

Yes, I have read, studied, and applied the Fermi Lab research. No, the FL did not falsify their report. The Fermi report used the invalid E=MC2 formula, which made their findings questionable.

The validity (or invalidity) of E=MC2 is not germane to our discussion relating to the spontaneous creation of a matter/anti-matter particle pair. The fact remains that the spontaneous creation was first observed by Fermi Lab. Therefore, for the third time of asking, on what basis do you claim that this violates the First and Second laws of Thermodynamics?

[colpat]

The "fact" has never been a fact, and it is only a theory. The notion of particle pairs is highly doubtful. The First Law of Thermodynamics still stands.

[hertz vanrental]

colpat wrote

The "fact" has never been a fact, and it is only a theory. The notion of particle pairs is highly doubtful. The First Law of Thermodynamics still stands.

The spontaneously-created matter/anti-matter particle pairs have been observed by Fermi Lab, Read the research. Because the spontaneously created particles occur in matter/anti-matter particle pairs, the laws of Thermodynamics are not violated.

Oh, are you a christard or an atheist?

[Smellyoldgit]

Oh, how I've missed the diligent wisdom of the Jesus Junkies!

cowpat wrote

The problem logically is "if an invention is natural and an inventor is above natural, then god would exist as a supernatural being.

If an invention is natural, it does not follow that an inventor is above natural (whatever the fuck that means!).
Your god only exists as a figment of your imagination - there only to provide answers whilst scientists work on providing real, natural explanations.

[colpat]

I am a christard. A theory derived from observation is not a fact. After peer review, it was determined to be questionable. https://phys.org/news/2011-06-fermilab-particle.html

[colpat]

The universal law of cause and effect demands an inventor for invention. What think ye?

[hertz vanrental]

colpat wrote

I am a christard. A theory derived from observation is not a fact. After peer review, it was determined to be questionable. https://phys.org/news/2011-06-fermilab-particle.html

I've never heard of a christard referring to himself as a christard, that's a first for me.

I am not referring to the FermiLab claim of the creation of a new particle when a proton collides with an anti-proton (phys.org/news/2011-06-fermilab-particle.html). I am referring to the FermiLab claim that matter/anti-matter particle pairs are created from NOTHING.

A proton and an anti-proton, individually, are not NOTHING. They are SOMETHING.

Now, FFS, go away and read about the creation of SOMETHING from NOTHING and then get back to me.

[hertz vanrental]

colpat wrote

The universal law of cause and effect demands an inventor for invention. What think ye?

No.

The law of cause and effect demands that an effect has a CAUSE, NOT an inventor. FFS!!

What think ye?

[colpat]

I thought, "I've never heard of a christard referring to himself as a christard, that's a first for me." was a binary choice.
The statement, "A proton and an anti-proton, individually, are NOTHING. They are SOMETHING." is correct in the sense that Something is an educated guess based on questionable research, a figment of the imagination.