Sentences with phrase «energy out of nothing»

The first law of thermodynamics of course prevents the Atmosphere from creating energy out of nothing.

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick but if we start with 235 joules worth of energy at the surface, then the other 235 joules that were transmitted downwards came from the original 235 to begin with, so then we have created energy out of nothing.

If you start with a ball radiating at 235 w / m2, then if you add the 235 w / m2 radiated back from the steel shell aren't you creating energy out of nothing?

>> Vincent (04:22:19): >> If you start with a ball radiating at 235 w / m2, then if you >> add the 235 w / m2 radiated back from the steel shell aren't >> you creating energy out of nothing?

I interpreted the other 235 w / m2 of back radiation as energy added to the original energy — ie energy out of nothing.

Until you can somehow get around this physical FACT, you can not get a cooler object to further warm a warmer object, if you could, you can make energy out of nothing.

I have therefore a thermocouple in the middle producing energy out of nothing since gravity, without doing any work will restore the resulting termperature changes inside the adiabatic container.

While its true that a butterfly can move a few cc's of air, it can not manufacture energy out of nothing.

Second, the part where the big bang was a sudden outrush of energy out of nothing.

Not exact matches

In a press release, MoMA says the tower will require almost no energy or carbon emissions during the creation process — «a building that grows out of nothing but earth and returns to nothing but earth.»

Share: FacebookTwitterLinkedinGoogle + emailYou wouldn't know it from the media coverage, but the biggest energy story coming out of last week's visit to Canada by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had nothing to do with oil and gas prospects, or uranium.

The questions is whether or not people are willing to see God as an old man in a robe with who creates essence out of nothing, or if people are willing to see God as the «creative» event that occured, a so - called actual essence of energy that was the over-all reason why we are here now.

Matter and energy never come out of nothing according to Newton, and neither do ideas.

PDX — It doesn't take a Genius to realize from my statements that i have read things other than the Bible you moron i have spent many hours reading and listening to scientists about their theories on the big bang, i have listened to ideas from the most revered scientists including Hawking and others, and they all admit that there are holes in their theories, that nothing fully explains their big bang theory, the physics doesn't add up let alone the concept, there are plenty of scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will be judged.

My email inbox is out of control and there's nothing in the fridge except energy balls and blueberry muffins.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

Last night, they ran out of energy and nothing more to give; emotionally nor physically.

It goes like this: (1) we can't seem to carry possession into the O - zone, (2) so we dump and chase, (3) and then we have to go spend significant effort along the boards, (4) to try to get the puck back under possession in what is a 50/50 crapshoot, (5) and when we do repossess, (6) we have to re-organize to get a quality O - zone shot chance, (7) but we are tired because we just spent 50 - 60 % of our time working our asses off along the boards, (8) just to try to get the puck back and have a chance, (9) which said lack of energy results in actual lower quality chances (and maybe fewer penalties drawn and more penalties taken) and (10) we go back to the bench deflated because it seems like we are working really hard and getting nothing out of it.

As I was watching I was trying to work out what had gone so wrong with those two, the only idea I could come up with was that although in training the energy of Sanchez and his determination to defend from the front has clearly rubbed off; they track back with greater determination, the problem is they also seem to both be copying the man from Chile's unnecessary obsession of trying to beat at least two opponents before making his pass, Sanchez can get away with this — just — but it is downright infuriating when Walcott and Oxlade - Chamberlain try and do the same as neither of them has Sanchez» close control; nothing like it in fact, the result is that we lose possession so easily and so unnecessarily which gifts attacking opportunities to the opposition.

Speaking to a section of the media on why he's out with a song titled «Dumsor Baa», he revealed that the song has nothing to do with the energy crisis Ghana is going through.

«I believe, however, that while nothing should be ruled out, it is important to say that the sanctions that we are placing on Iran are having some effect, that we will continue to look at how the United Nations regime can be improved if it becomes necessary but Iran of course has an opportunity to comply with the International Atomic Energy Authority and with its obligations under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and I hope they will do so.»

As Rubio stressed, this does not constitute «an infringement of any fundamental theorem of physics nor is energy created out of nothing.

«We usually say that nothing can be created out of nothing because we think it would violate the law of conservation of energy,» a hallowed principle in physics holding that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, Vilenkin explains.

16 Current theories suggest that the universe was created out of a state of vacuum energy, that is, nothing.

Both the big bang theory and the stretching explanation agree that in the beginning, energy and matter appeared out of nothing, and then the universe suddenly expanded greatly.

Coupled with these lovely scents is a head - to - toe massage that — when performed by a skilled, empathetic therapist — will suck all the tension out of your body, catapult you out of the deepest doldrums, and ignite your energy like nothing else can.

I note how all 3 of Bay's movies have side - stepped these obvious and timely themes, opting instead for an allspark that generates life out of nothing and giving the robots limitless energy and weaponry.

«If you «bonk,»» says gold medalist Jessie Diggins, «it means you've just run out of energy, there's nothing left in the tank, and suddenly your body can't go on anymore.»

The recent run follows several rocky periods over the last decade, especially during the tech boom of the late»90s when value stocks fell out of favor, and more recently during the energy bonanza when Oak Value had nothing in the sector.

Golden Retriever puppies are full of affection, energy and wiggles and there's nothing like an arsenal of good toys to help them get some of that out in a constructive way (read: not chewing everything in site).

Golden Retriever puppies are full of affection, energy and wiggles and there's nothing like an arsenal of good toys to help them get some of that out in...

Seeing the world around him as nothing more than energy and color creating forms out of nothing.

I grew up in the steam age and as a boy was thunderstruck by the implication of E = mc ^ 2: a limitless abundance of energy for next to nothing and an end to needing to dig dirty coal out of the ground.

Second thing that happens, the amount of energy you get out of burning that Hydrogen at the normal BBQ tank pressure is almost nothing.

«Part of my problem with the whole process is, that it seems that the cleaner we make our energy generation capability... now we want to come up against an obstacle that nothing can come out of those pipes, we have already taken out the VOX, the NOX, the SOX, the POX, the TOX.

The simple fact is that the report is not credible; it was produced by the Republican party as propaganda: nothing more than a compilation, by lobbyists for the carbon - based energy industry, of out - of - context, out - of - date or misinformed quotes or, to be charitable, reasonable doubts that climatologists would have no problem with.

Energy can neither destroyed nor created out of nothing.

Since we have agreed that I accept (at least provisionally, as far as the powerfully augmented eye can see) an expanding Universe and am therefore clearly religious about physics and mathematics and reason if nothing else, can you explain to me how God isn't something and yet is capable of things like sentience, action, choice, design, starting off Big Bangs out of nothingness — all things that seem to involve a remarkably high degree of material complexity and organization (not to mention time, and space and energy)-- not to mention various Amazing Powers to make an entire Universe poof into existence out of nowhere with just the right rules to work out to become (in very small part) me some 14 billion years later.

Energy can not be created out of nothing.

2) We know nothing about the time period between when a chunk of energy comes into the system and when it goes out.

The idiots do not care about where the additional energy should come from, which is out of nothing.

All of which lead to unsustainably low and poor levels of Energy Return On Investment [EROI] leaving almost nothing left over in energy availability to power our civilisation after the energy costs of both building the wind and solar generator systems plus the energy storage systems to smooth out the intermittency of these wind and solar systems is given in an article in the «Brave New Climate»Energy Return On Investment [EROI] leaving almost nothing left over in energy availability to power our civilisation after the energy costs of both building the wind and solar generator systems plus the energy storage systems to smooth out the intermittency of these wind and solar systems is given in an article in the «Brave New Climate»energy availability to power our civilisation after the energy costs of both building the wind and solar generator systems plus the energy storage systems to smooth out the intermittency of these wind and solar systems is given in an article in the «Brave New Climate»energy costs of both building the wind and solar generator systems plus the energy storage systems to smooth out the intermittency of these wind and solar systems is given in an article in the «Brave New Climate»energy storage systems to smooth out the intermittency of these wind and solar systems is given in an article in the «Brave New Climate» blog.

There are of course huge vested interests in the status quo — anyone who relies on anything from any infrastructure within a meter of mean sea level (this is almost everyone if you work it out), and yet you think that someone investing in solar energy, maybe just because they'd like to see it succeed means that nothing they say can be trusted?

Zachary Hurwitz, Global Standards coordinator at International Rivers pointed out, «There's nothing — yet — in the Fund's rules to stop it from financing false solutions like «clean» coal, natural gas fracking, destructive dams or even nuclear power in the name of «low - emissions» energy.