Jump to content


Photo

Boyle's Gas Law, What is it?


  • Please log in to reply
325 replies to this topic

#1 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 July 2009 - 03:58 AM

Nice cut-n-paste.

Evolution violates Boyle's gas law?  Who knew!  :huh:

--Percy

View Post


It's an empirical law that falsifies star formation(Cosmic evolution).I'm sure you were saying that tongue in cheek.LOL

#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 July 2009 - 04:57 AM

It's an empirical law that falsifies star formation(Cosmic evolution).I'm sure you were saying that tongue in cheek.LOL

View Post


They hate it when you show the quotes Jason. It's like bad food to them, it lingers. So they'll ridicule you for doing it because they have no real answer or refutation. :huh:
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#3 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 05 July 2009 - 07:06 AM

It's an empirical law that falsifies star formation(Cosmic evolution).

View Post


Boyle's law relates temperature to pressure for gases. It doesn't include the effect of gravity. I think if you check your source and try to work out for yourself how Boyle's law might falsify star formation that you'll discover the claim is untrue.

Biological, cosmological and stellar evolution are fairly disparate topics. It helps in discussion to be clear which you're referring to.

--Percy

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 July 2009 - 10:21 AM

Boyle's law relates temperature to pressure for gases.  It doesn't include the effect of gravity.  I think if you check your source and try to work out for yourself how Boyle's law might falsify star formation that you'll discover the claim is untrue.

View Post



Really? Doesn't Boyle's Law state: The volume and pressure of a gas are inversely proportional and when multiplied, equal to a constant?

PV = k

And so, when the pressure of a gas goes up, the volume goes down, and vice versa?

So, doesn't it follow that in order for this to be true the temperature of the gas must remain constant?

(as illustrated by the equation)
V1 P1 = k
V2 P2 = k

thus
V1 P1 = V2 P2

Therefore: where the subscripts 1 and 2 represent the first and second set of conditions respectfully. If three of these variables are known, we can solve for the fourth:

V2 = V1 P1 / P2

Volume (V) is typically measured in mL or L while pressure (P) can be measured in a variety of units such as atmospheres (atm), millimeters (mm) or kilopascals (kPa). Conversion factors for these units are:
1 atm = 760 mm = 101.3 kPa

Pressure is defined as Force per Area or

P = F / area

Force is defined as mass, in kg, times acceleration (gravity) in m/s2.
F = mass gravity

The units for F are kg m/s2 or Newtons (N). If area is measured in m2 then the units for P are N/m2 or Pascals (Pa).

From all of this, if we know the mass of an object and the area it is pressing down upon, we can calculate the Pressure it is exerting.



I was just wondering.

#5 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 05 July 2009 - 11:58 AM

Yes, you're quite right. I was rushing to leave for an appointment, Boyle's law relates pressure and volume. Good grief again, since a couple days ago I thought "chimp" and wrote "monkey," and today I think "volume" and write "temperature." Increasing temperature also occurs with compression, but it isn't part of Boyle's law.

But the important point is that Boyle's law doesn't include the effects of gravity. Your cut-n-paste makes clear that gases are subject to gravity, because it came from a lab outline intended to illustrate the effects of gravity on volume and pressure.

It is gravity that provides the pressure that compresses nebular gases into stellar furnaces, because as pressure increases so does temperature. This temperature effect is part of the modern gas law that replaced Boyle's law, since that only dealt with the pressures and temperatures that 17th century technology could produce. This is all covered at Wikipedia's article on Boyle's Law.

I don't understand why there should be a YEC objection to the birth of new stars, and what could possibly forestall the effects of gravity anyway. Gravity is what holds our atmosphere in place, gravity is what holds the gases of the Sun together, and gravity is what draws the gases of interstellar nebula together to form stars. One common way this is theorized to happen is that fairly homogeneous and very tenuous gas clouds can begin to form stars when a nearby supernova occurs. The blast wave causes turbulence and eddies in such clouds resulting in regions of slightly greater gas density that are the seeds of the slightly greater gravity necessary to attract more gas that eventually results in new stars.

Jason cut-n-pasted without attribution earlier, and now you've just done the same thing, maybe from this page at eduweblabs.com? Really cuts down on all that tedious typing, I guess, and if you copy from a quality website you don't even have to worry about spelling, punctuation, grammar or even thinking! :D

--Percy

#6 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 July 2009 - 12:45 PM

Jason cut-n-pasted without attribution earlier, and now you've just done the same thing, maybe from this page at eduweblabs.com?  Really cuts down on all that tedious typing, I guess, and if you copy from a quality website you don't even have to worry about spelling, punctuation, grammar or even thinking! :D

View Post


Actually I was in a hurry as well, but I just got back in.

I also could have gotten it from:

http://web.fccj.org/...slaw/gaslaw.htm
http://chemistry.abo.../a/bl011804.htm
http://www.promma.ac..._10.3_main.html
http://www.phys.unsw.....aws 2001.html
http://www.wpi.edu/A...l/concept5.html
http://www.wwnorton....pter8/ch8_2.htm
http://www.sciencecl...4/Gas-Laws.html
http://www.chemprofe...om/gas_laws.htm

All of which, I might add, refute your mistaken gravity theorem (I know “chimp” “monkey” etc… et-al). And ALL of which are far superior to your fake-a-pedia references.

But, the bottom line is this (and there is no need to admit it at this point..... Without blaming it on monkey's and chimps), you were incorrect. And obviously, were so, without thinking.

#7 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 05 July 2009 - 01:26 PM

All of which, I might add, refute your mistaken gravity theorem...But, the bottom line is this (and there is no need to admit it at this point..... Without blaming it on monkey's and chimps), you were incorrect. And obviously, were so, without thinking.

View Post


Really getting into the "No it isn't" style of argument, eh? :D

Do you guys ever explain how someone is wrong around here, or do you think it sufficient to just say, "No, you're wrong?" I need to know, because if that's the way you do things here then I can save a lot of time and effort.

Anyway, if you ever feel like explaining how what I said about gravity was wrong, go ahead and give it a whirl.

And ALL of which are far superior to your fake-a-pedia references.

View Post


Would you care to tell us what's wrong with the Wikipedia article on Boyle's law? Or is this just another example of your "No it isn't" approach.

--Percy

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 July 2009 - 02:21 PM

Really getting into the "No it isn't" style of argument, eh? :D

View Post


Just wanted you to feel at home


Do you guys ever explain how someone is wrong around here, or do you think it sufficient to just say, "No, you're wrong?"  I need to know, because if that's the way you do things here then I can save a lot of time and effort.

View Post


All the time…. Just read my friend (they say its fundamental)

Anyway, if you ever feel like explaining how what I said about gravity was wrong, go ahead and give it a whirl.

View Post


You mean other than when you being incorrect in saying “Boyle's law relates temperature to pressure for gases. It doesn't include the effect of gravity”?

Would you care to tell us what's wrong with the Wikipedia article on Boyle's law?  Or is this just another example of your "No it isn't" approach.

View Post


You mean other than its (Fake-A-Pedia’s) overt evolutionary bent and the fact that anyone with aforementioned bent and a password can make the definitions and articles as malleable as an atheists definition of absoluter truth (or lack thereof)?

#9 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 05 July 2009 - 04:42 PM

It's proving difficult to have a discussion with you. In order for there to be a discussion you need to respond to things that were actually said about the topic.

Boyle's law does not relate temperature to pressure. It relates volume to pressure. I misspoke when I was in hurry. You cut-n-pasted without attribution when you were in a hurry. I've moved on to trying to discuss the actual topic. You're still stuck on a minor misspeak.

The modern gas law that replaced Boyle's law relates temperature, pressure, volume and other factors. The important consideration in star formation is the increasing temperature that occurs as gas is compressed under great pressure due to gravity. Star formation precisely follows not only Boyle's law of decreasing volume with increasing pressure, but also the part of modern gas law that holds that increasing pressure causes increasing temperature.

--Percy

#10 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 July 2009 - 06:07 PM

It's proving difficult to have a discussion with you.  In order for there to be a discussion you need to respond to things that were actually said about the topic.

View Post


Well, it does help in discussion to be clear what you're referring to doesn’t it Percy. And I do believe (getting beyond your paste fixation) that you have yet to provide any evidence for new star production. Even with your misunderstanding of Boyle's law, and gravity.

#11 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 05 July 2009 - 06:19 PM

If anyone would like to discuss the topic, my relevant posts explaining how star formation follows Boyle's law are Message 5 and Message 9.

--Percy

#12 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 July 2009 - 06:30 PM

Observation of the law proves your wrong,he's not just saying so.

You need to provided an empirical experiment that proves he's wrong or your just saying so.

Thats the difference between creation and evolution models.



Thanks.

#13 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 05 July 2009 - 07:27 PM

Hi Percy,

There's a serious resentment towards Wikipedia around here. A forum was actually made to discuss it and other sources quality.

Internet sources like wiki

For all the complaining about wikipedia's inaccuracies, no one has been able to demonstrate why they feel this way. Perhaps you'd like to contribute? :D

Regards,

Arch.

#14 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 July 2009 - 07:32 PM

Hi Percy,

There's a serious resentment towards Wikipedia around here. A forum was actually made to discuss it and other sources quality.

View Post

I wouldn't say there is some serious resentment. I think the overall attitude towards any resource like Wiki is; Don't check your brain at the door. I use wiki all the time but don't assume that all it's articles are written and checked by people who have checked their bias at the door so only truth may enter in.

#15 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 05 July 2009 - 07:51 PM

I wouldn't say there is some serious resentment. I think the overall attitude towards any resource like Wiki is; Don't check your brain at the door. I use wiki all the time but don't assume that all it's articles are written and checked by people who have checked their bias at the door so only truth may enter in.

View Post


Agreed, you should always double check your wiki sources with another source. However it's comments like this:

ALL of which are far superior to your fake-a-pedia references.


Name calling like "fake-e-pedia" shows a pretty deep resentment, and one that so far has no grounding in reality, as I'm yet to see anyone supply a single inaccurate article.

Anyway, I think we've derailed this forum enough :D If anyone else is interested the link to the forum can be found in post #13.

Regards,

Arch.

#16 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 July 2009 - 08:23 PM

Name calling like "fake-e-pedia" shows a pretty deep resentment, and one that so far has no grounding in reality, as I'm yet to see anyone supply a single inaccurate article.

View Post

Well, I certainly can't talk for everyone. Inaccurate and biased can be two different things. Wikipedia does a very accurate job maintaining a bias on certain issues, like evolution and philosophical naturalism.

#17 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 July 2009 - 08:52 PM

Okay, here is the bottom line, and this speaks to the heart of the philosophical naturalist's whole dilemma, especially one that believes any outside forces are discredited based on known scientific principles.

Gravity is a weak force. Force's like Boyle's Gas Law, would be in effect in a hydrogen/helium universe. Before gravity takes hold of something, according to the philosophical naturalist, something must attract the gas into one place, but without the object that generates gravity the gas law resists any coalescing of matter. Pressure on gas, assuming that gravity is there, would cause increased force that would give the gasses increased repelling power overcoming the gravity that can supposedly get gaseous matter to form into solid bodies.

Now I have been introduced to something called the Ideal Gas Law by our member A.Sphere. This concept is a fudge factor intended to override Boyle's Gas Law. The problem...

Boyle's Gas Law is testable, demonstrable, repeatable science. The ideal gas law is hypothetical and based on the assumption of naturalism not the demonstration thereof.

When someone says science shows how things occur naturally but the concepts purported to demonstrate such thing are hypothetical based on assumptions and not the scientific method, don't the people here who have bought evolution, feel even a little betrayed by the people who can't fulfill their own promises when they are selling naturalism?

#18 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 July 2009 - 09:37 PM

Great post Adam.

Before anybody starts confusing the issue,lets use the infallible source wikipedia to demonstrate the difference between a theory that is backed by empirical testing and one that is not.

Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation.



#19 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 July 2009 - 10:14 PM

Okay, here is the bottom line, and this speaks to the heart of the philosophical naturalist's whole dilemma, especially one that believes any outside forces are discredited based on known scientific principles.

Gravity is a weak force. Force's like Boyle's Gas Law, would be in effect in a hydrogen/helium universe. Before gravity takes hold of something, according to the philosophical naturalist, something must attract the gas into one place, but without the object that generates gravity the gas law resists any coalescing of matter. Pressure on gas, assuming that gravity is there, would cause increased force that would give the gasses increased repelling power overcoming the gravity that can supposedly get gaseous matter to form into solid bodies.

Now I have been introduced to something called the Ideal Gas Law by our member A.Sphere. This concept is a fudge factor intended to override Boyle's Gas Law. The problem...

Boyle's Gas Law is testable, demonstrable, repeatable science. The ideal gas law is hypothetical and based on the assumption of naturalism not the demonstration thereof.

When someone says science shows how things occur naturally but the concepts purported to demonstrate such thing are hypothetical based on assumptions and not the scientific method, don't the people here who have bought evolution, feel even a little betrayed by the people who can't fulfill their own promises when they are selling naturalism?

It is waffle like this which undermines any claim you make to competence in science and would convince most scientists to ignore any other opinions you might have.

#20 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 05 July 2009 - 10:33 PM

It's an empirical law that falsifies star formation(Cosmic evolution).I'm sure you were saying that tongue in cheek.LOL

View Post


Boyle's law is a special case of the ideal gas law and only holds true in a CLOSED system. A closed system is one in which there is no energy exchange which is obviously not true for the ISM anyway (all sorts of messy energy transfer in there). This has been empirically shown to be true via spectroscopy as discussed on this forum before. Here is an H-alpha image of the ISM which shows that it is neither a closed system nor a system in equilibrium.

Posted Image




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Yahoo (2)