Jump to content


Photo

Boyle's Gas Law, What is it?


  • Please log in to reply
325 replies to this topic

#281 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 20 July 2009 - 11:28 AM

AS' argument was that stars can exist and gas clouds can exist, therefore it must be possible for the gas to switch back & forth.

View Post



What? :P

I never said anything remotely like this. I was explaining to Adam why this isn't what I believed. I made it clear that the gas that forms stars is thought to have been left over from the formation of the galaxy not the nebula of dying or dead stars. What i said was that the nebula of dying or dead stars can enrich the molecular clouds by adding heavier elements to the mix.

#282 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 20 July 2009 - 11:34 AM

I prefer to think of the universe as a closed system myself. But to say the only thing the 2LoT prevents is input to the universe from outside the universe seemed very odd to me. I don't think any such law could readily be demonstrated, neither to I think this is all 2LoT says. If it did, it's only application would be metaphysical, and it would be appropriate to call it ALoT (Atheist Law of Thermodynamics).

View Post


I think of it as closed as well :P

I never said that the 2LoT prevents input to the universe from outside the universe. I said that the 2LoT concerns itself with closed systems. Someone else stated that the universe was closed and I made it clear that a closed set could contain subsets that communicate via energy flow so that local entropy increases in one subset are balanced by local entropy decreases in another so that the the collection of subsets remains closed when summed.

Someone else asked how we knew the universe was closed and I said that it is inferred but not known. If the universe is open then the 2LoT would not apply to our open universe as a whole however there still could be closed (or nearly closed) subsets that it would apply to.

#283 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 21 July 2009 - 02:54 AM

I think of it as closed as well  ;)

I never said that the 2LoT prevents input to the universe from outside the universe.  I said that the 2LoT concerns itself with closed systems.  Someone else stated that the universe was closed and I made it clear that a closed set could contain subsets that communicate via energy flow so that local entropy increases in one subset are balanced by local entropy decreases in another so that the the collection of subsets remains closed when summed.

Someone else asked how we knew the universe was closed and I said that it is inferred but not known.  If the universe is open then the 2LoT would not apply to our open universe as a whole however there still could be closed (or nearly closed) subsets that it would apply to.

View Post

Here's the whole paragraph:

??? I am not sure what you mean by wound up. The second law of thermodynamics can be restated to mean that in a closed system entropy tends to maximum. The universe is closed however there obviously can be local regions of decreased entropy as long as the entropy of the universe is still increasing (if there couldn't be you couldn't make ice cubes, babies, etc...). So a star can form without violating the second law of thermodynamics becuase it is an open subset of a closed system. As long as energy can flow between subsets in a closed system then those subsets are open. All that is prevented is that energy cannot flow from outside the universe.

Big as day.

AS' argument was that stars can exist and gas clouds can exist, therefore it must be possible for the gas to switch back & forth

What? :P

I never said anything remotely like this. I was explaining to Adam why this isn't what I believed. I made it clear that the gas that forms stars is thought to have been left over from the formation of the galaxy not the nebula of dying or dead stars. What i said was that the nebula of dying or dead stars can enrich the molecular clouds by adding heavier elements to the mix.

View Post

Okay fine. I'm not wasting my time digging back through all those posts, if you're dropping it. Just don't switch back to that game. We've done this before. Nobody pays attention; nobody cares, right?

#284 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 21 July 2009 - 07:16 AM

Here's the whole paragraph:

Big as day.


Yes "Big as day" that a closed universe prevents energy flow from outside the universe - not that the 2LoT prevents it. I was definining a closed system and how the 2LoT is not violated inside the system just because there is a local entropy decrease.

Okay fine. I'm not wasting my time digging back through all those posts, if you're dropping it. Just don't switch back to that game. We've done this before. Nobody pays attention; nobody cares, right?


No please do. Find me a post where I claim that a star dies becomes gas and then becomes a star again from said gas.

#285 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 July 2009 - 02:34 AM

Yes "Big as day" that a closed universe prevents energy flow from outside the universe - not that the 2LoT prevents it.  I was definining a closed system and how the 2LoT is not violated inside the system just because there is a local entropy decrease.
No please do. 

View Post


As in a presumed closed system? And as to whether or not the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics is or isn’t affected inside or outside presumed closed system is assumed as well, is it not?

#286 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 22 July 2009 - 08:43 AM

As in a presumed closed system? And as to whether or not the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics is or isn’t affected inside or outside presumed closed system is assumed as well, is it not?

View Post



No. The 2LoT is defined for a closed system. It concerns itself with entropy increase inside a closed system.

#287 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 July 2009 - 03:25 PM

No.  The 2LoT is defined for a closed system.  It concerns itself with entropy increase inside a closed system.

View Post



The fact that the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics works in this system in which we live, whether it is a closed or open system (either option is speculative at best because we can only theorize as to the case), is enough to disprove anyone dogmatic view on the subject. The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics can concern itself with entropy increase inside a closed system, an open system, or a semi-closed system that can be interacted with by substances or entities outside of it for all we really know, because all we are doing is speculating on the whole concept.

Personally, I believe this is a closed system due to the evidences I have seen. But, it is nothing more than speculation on my part because I have never been to the edge of this system (in which we live) to prove it one way or the other. But I also believe, due to the evidences I have seen, that interaction across a closed system is possible (and likely) because we have found no perfectly closed system.

#288 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 22 July 2009 - 06:04 PM

The fact that the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics works in this system in which we live, whether it is a closed or open system (either option is speculative at best because we can only theorize as to the case), is enough to disprove anyone dogmatic view on the subject.  The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics can concern itself with entropy increase inside a closed system, an open system, or a semi-closed system that can be interacted with by substances or entities outside of it for all we really know, because all we are doing is speculating on the whole concept.

Personally, I believe this is a closed system due to the evidences I have seen. But, it is nothing more than speculation on my part because I have never been to the edge of this system (in which we live) to prove it one way or the other. But I also believe, due to the evidences I have seen, that interaction across a closed system is possible (and likely) because we have found no perfectly closed system.

View Post



It just dawned on me that closed is not even the proper term. The system must be isolated. I mix those terms up all of the time. What it means to be isolated is that our system does not interact with its surroundings. If the universe is closed then it is isolated.

Now, the 2LoT was developed for isolated systems - it is built in. It is not speculative whether or not it applies to open systems or isolated system - it ONLY applies to systems that do not interact with their surroundings. It is a built in rule. The 2LoT tells the story of closed (Isolated) systems.

#289 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 July 2009 - 02:29 AM

It just dawned on me that closed is not even the proper term.  The system must be isolated.  I mix those terms up all of the time.  What it means to be isolated is that our system does not interact with its surroundings.  If the universe is closed then it is isolated.

Now, the 2LoT was developed for isolated systems - it is built in.  It is not speculative whether or not it applies to open systems or isolated system - it ONLY applies to systems that do not interact with their surroundings.  It is a built in rule.  The 2LoT tells the story of closed (Isolated) systems.

View Post


The inference that was being made, is that this (our universe) is a closed (or isolated) system. But that is no more than speculation which is not proven. I believe it to be true, but it is a supposition not a fact A.Sphere.

The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics works here whether it’s a closed (or isolated) system or not. The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics was not developed, it was discovered (it was here before we were). Therefore your inference that it is tied to closed (or isolated) systems is highly debatable because it’s an observation built upon inferred speculation when it comes to this universe.

But this is straying from my original point in refuting your point “that a closed universe prevents energy flow from outside the universe”. Now, unless you can prove such, you, once again, are bartering in speculation.

#290 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 23 July 2009 - 06:49 AM

http://www.google.co...h&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Results 1 - 50 of about 16,400 for practical applications "second law of thermodynamics". (0.47 seconds)



#291 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 23 July 2009 - 10:01 AM

The inference that was being made, is that this (our universe) is a closed (or isolated) system. But that is no more than speculation which is not proven. I believe it to be true, but it is a supposition not a fact A.Sphere.

The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics works here whether it’s a closed (or isolated) system or not. The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics was not developed, it was discovered (it was here before we were). Therefore your inference that it is tied to closed (or isolated) systems is highly debatable because it’s an observation built upon inferred speculation when it comes to this universe.

But this is straying from my original point in refuting your point “that a closed universe prevents energy flow from outside the universe”. Now, unless you can prove such, you, once again, are bartering in speculation.

View Post



I don't think you understand. The theoretical development of the 2LoT is defined only for an isolated system. A system that does not recieve energy froim its surroundings. If energy is recieved from its surroundings then entropy can be decreased locally as long as entropy is increased elsewhere. We can apply the 2LoT to the large picture - that is where the entropy decreases and where the entropy increases (if the form an isolated system) but the 2LoT does not apply to each one individually.

For example, lets define our system to be my freezer. I glass of water has entropy S_w. We put the water in the freezer and it freezes. The glass of ice now has entropy S_f. However, S_w < S_f. So it appears that in our system the 2LoT has been violated. But we notice the plug coming out of the back of our system and realize that energy is being delivered to our system so the 2LoT doesn't even apply to our system because it is not an isolated system and entropy is allowed to increase in it.

Now if we expand our system to include the refrigerator and its power source and nothing else we would see that the entropy decrease in the freezer is matched by the increase in the power source. The 2LoT does apply to the system that includes both the freezer and the power source.

#292 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 23 July 2009 - 10:20 AM

http://www.google.co...h&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

View Post


Actually I didn't see 50 practical examples - I dunno maybe I missed them. Can you give me a specific practical example?

I can tell you how it is practically applied by scientists and engineers. If a scientist or engineer is working in the macroscopic scale (this means that the number of atoms in a system approach avagadros number) then the 2LoT can be used without actually measuring the entropy change of the total isolated system (which would not be possible). Because our reference system is so large (avagadros number) the system we are analyzing can reach equilibrium without changing the reference system (there is always some change however it would be so small that it would be zero to multiple orders).

I also tells us that a perpetual motion machine is impossible, defines irreversible systems, and tells us that heat always flows from hot to cold.

#293 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 July 2009 - 01:52 PM

I don't think you understand. 

View Post

I understand completely. I think you don’t want to admit that you have no solid evidence that this universe is a closed system that cannot be interfered from the outside. Other than theoretically that is.

The theoretical development of the 2LoT is defined only for an isolated system.  A system that does not recieve energy froim its surroundings.  If energy is recieved from its surroundings then entropy can be decreased locally as long as entropy is increased elsewhere.  We can apply the 2LoT to the large picture - that is where the entropy decreases and where the entropy increases (if the form an isolated system) but the 2LoT does not apply to each one individually. 

View Post


Can you provide an example of a perfectly closed (isolated) system so we can put this hypothetical Second Law of Thermal Dynamics experiment to the test? I mean other than a hypothetical system?


For example, lets define our system to be my freezer.  I glass of water has entropy S_w.  We put the water in the freezer and it freezes.  The glass of ice now has entropy S_f.  However, S_w < S_f.  So it appears that in our system the 2LoT has been violated.  But we notice the plug coming out of the back of our system and realize that energy is being delivered to our system so the 2LoT doesn't even apply to our system because it is not an isolated system and entropy is allowed to increase in it. 

View Post


As you realized above, the glass of water isn’t in a closed (isolated) system, therefore this is a bad example. But it has no bearing on the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics because both the glass of water and the freezer will suffer the diminishing return of entropy without outside power. And they will suffer the diminishing return of entropy even with outside power because the freezer has to continue to run due to the lack of perfect seal and perfect insulation on this freezer causing energy to escape this non-closed system. Therefore the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics isn’t violated at all because entropy still does it deed in this non-closed system.


Now if we expand our system to include the refrigerator and its power source and nothing else we would see that the entropy decrease in the freezer is matched by the increase in the power source.  The 2LoT does apply to the system that includes both the freezer and the power source.

View Post


Ah, but it is still not a closed system at all because the power source still needs a source for its energy. Therefore your closed system is a false closed system, and yet the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics still holds sway.


And I didn’t even mention the fact that I will get in this unclosed system and grab breakfast, lunch, or dinner out of it and cause more interference from an outside source every time I do!



And, as an aside: The entire system you described above involves design and a designer.

#294 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 23 July 2009 - 05:10 PM

I understand completely. I think you don’t want to admit that you have no solid evidence that this universe is a closed system that cannot be interfered from the outside. Other than theoretically that is.


I am so confused. I have already stated that there is no solid evidence that the universe is closed. I am not even trying to argue that it is. Creationists often claim that the universe is closed and therefore entropy always decreases - they often conclude that star formation is a decrease in entropy and therefore violates teh 2nd Law. I am saying that EVEN IF the universe were closed we expect local entropy decreases and we know that IF the universe is closed the decrease must be matched by an increase with a system elsewhere in the universe that communicates via energy flow. If the universe isn't closed then the creationist argument that a closed universe prevents entropy decrease no longer matters.

Can you provide an example of a perfectly closed (isolated) system so we can put this hypothetical Second Law of Thermal Dynamics experiment to the test? I mean other than a hypothetical system?


There is no such system. However, if our reference state is above the thermodynamic limit and the sytem we are considering can reach equilibrium without changing the reference state then our system approaches a near isolated state and its behavior approaches what is predicted by the 2LoT. This is how it is applied.

As you realized above, the glass of water isn’t in a closed (isolated) system, therefore this is a bad example. But it has no bearing on the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics because both the glass of water and the freezer will suffer the diminishing return of entropy without outside power. And they will suffer the diminishing return of entropy even with outside power because the freezer has to continue to run due to the lack of perfect seal and perfect insulation on this freezer causing energy to escape this non-closed system. Therefore the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics isn’t violated at all because entropy still does it deed in this non-closed system

.

You are getting close to understanding it but you do not quite get the thermodynamics. No system is truly isolated. However its large scale behavior approaches what is predicted by 2LoT if our system and its reference state is above the thermodynamic limit. Its really all about how much energy is exchanged between the two systems. The law is practically violated if we expect (based on how much energy is exchanged between the two system) the system's entropy (or work or Gibbs free energy whatever form you are measuring) is not conforming to what the 2LoT says it should once we are above the thermodynamic limit. So in our refrigerator example, if not enough energy is entering our system (or if too much is being lost too quick) to allow the entropy of the water to decrease but it does anyway we know that its behavior is not approaching what the 2LoT predicts it should - the law is violated.


Ah, but it is still not a closed system at all because the power source still needs a source for its energy. Therefore your closed system is a false closed system, and yet the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics still holds sway.


I hope I have already covered your dissent here.

And I didn’t even mention the fact that I will get in this unclosed system and grab breakfast, lunch, or dinner out of it and cause more interference from an outside source every time I do!
And, as an aside: The entire system you described above involves design and a designer.


;)

#295 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 July 2009 - 02:45 AM

I am so confused.  I have already stated that there is no solid evidence that the universe is closed.  I am not even trying to argue that it is.  Creationists often claim that the universe is closed and therefore entropy always decreases - they often conclude that star formation is a decrease in entropy and therefore violates teh 2nd Law.  I am saying that EVEN IF the universe were closed we expect local entropy decreases and we know that IF the universe is closed the decrease must be matched by an increase with a system elsewhere in the universe that communicates via energy flow.  If the universe isn't closed then the creationist argument that a closed universe prevents entropy decrease no longer matters. There is no such system.  However, if our reference state is above the thermodynamic limit and the sytem we are considering can reach equilibrium without changing the reference state then our system approaches a near isolated state and its behavior approaches what is predicted by the 2LoT.  This is how it is applied.

View Post


I understand why you’re so confused there A.Sphere. You’re dealing in hypothetical’s and theoretical incantations, while the whole time failing to realize that regardless of your wants and wishes, the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics doesn’t predict anything, man does. The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics is not an entity, it’s a tool. And regardless of the type of system we live in, man did not invent the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics; he observes that entropy works in this system using it (whether correctly, or incorrectly).

You are getting close to understanding it but you do not quite get the thermodynamics. 

View Post


Oh, I fully understand the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics. I also understand that you cannot bend it to fit your world view. And I understand that it is of beautiful design as a mechanism to work in the given situation.

No system is truly isolated.  However its large scale behavior approaches what is predicted by 2LoT if our system and its reference state is above the thermodynamic limit.  Its really all about how much energy is exchanged between the two systems.  The law is practically violated if we expect (based on how much energy is exchanged between the two system) the system's entropy (or work or Gibbs free energy whatever form you are measuring) is not conforming to what the 2LoT says it should once we are above the thermodynamic limit.  So in our refrigerator example, if not enough energy is entering our system (or if too much is being lost too quick) to allow the entropy of the water to decrease but it does anyway we know that its behavior is not approaching what the 2LoT predicts it should - the law is violated.
I hope I have already covered your dissent here.
;)

View Post


No dissent A. Sphere, you make my point quite eloquently as a matter of fact. But you still fail to realize that the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics was not “developed for isolated systems”. It was not developed at all. It was here before we were. It is misinterpreted whenever someone posits that it says this or that, or predicts this or that. Or whenever someone attempts to disprove the design in it, while the whole time using the design in it to explain its intricacies. :blink:

#296 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 24 July 2009 - 08:02 AM

I understand why you’re so confused there A.Sphere. You’re dealing in hypothetical’s and theoretical incantations,


??


while the whole time failing to realize that regardless of your wants and wishes, the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics doesn’t predict anything, man does. The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics is not an entity, it’s a tool. And regardless of the type of system we live in, man did not invent the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics; he observes that entropy works in this system using it (whether correctly, or incorrectly).


Obviously. However, if a scientist uses a law to predict information about a system it is common to say that the information was predicted by the law. Surely you didn't believe that I thought the 2LoT is an entity that thinks? C'mon Ron you are just being silly.

Oh, I fully understand the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics.


Really? Because I can't say that and neither can many scientists. In fact, I would say that I don't fully understand it but I have a pretty good idea how the general principles work.

The only point that I have tried to make in this thread is that local entropy decreases are allowed in a closed or open system.



I also understand that you cannot bend it to fit your world view.


How am I bending it to fit my world view? Your arguments are way too scattered for me - please clarify your position in one simple sentence - here is mine:

Regardless whether or not the universe is open or closed local entropy decreases are allowed and therefore star formation does not violate any known law of thermodynamics.

But you still fail to realize that the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics was not “developed for isolated systems”. It was not developed at all. It was here before we were.


The 2LoT was developed! Are you kidding? It is a mathematical formulation that describes a repetitive pattern of behavior under the right conditions. That repetitive pattern of behavior was not created by man but the language and the formulation of how it is described obviously was.

It is misinterpreted whenever someone posits that it says this or that, or predicts this or that. Or whenever someone attempts to disprove the design in it, while the whole time using the design in it to explain its intricacies.  ;)


??? I don't get what you are saying. Many creationists believe that star formation violates the 2LoT because they claim the universe is closed and entropy inside it can only increase. It is true that the total entropy must increase however local entropy decreases are allowed if matched by increases. To illustrate why this is wrong I used a refrigerator. I could use the human body as well. Humans make babies. Babies are local decreases in entropy and according to some creationists' logic violate the second law. We are local entropy decreases in the total increasing entropy curve of the universe. There are endless examples of how entropy decreases in the universe - some man made and some nature made - what is your point?

#297 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 July 2009 - 02:24 PM

Obviously.  However, if a scientist uses a law to predict information about a system it is common to say that the information was predicted by the law.  Surely you didn't believe that I thought the 2LoT is an entity that thinks?  C'mon Ron you are just being silly.

View Post


I’m not being silly at all A. Sphere. I believe you are just into a bad habit (grammatically and philosophically). I am an educator with plenty of lab and practical field experience crossing a few diverse fields. I am not at liberty to discuss in much detail what I have done and currently do (some being proprietary, some dealing with security issues).

Some of the subjects I’ve taught (and some I still teach) are Diverse Electronic theories and applications, Adult learning theories and applications (including many taxonomic applications etc…) amongst many other subjects scientific and philosophical. And none of my peers use that term at all. I suppose it goes with whether or not you are able to apply the theories to practical application.

Really?  Because I can't say that and neither can many scientists.  In fact, I would say that I don't fully understand it but I have a pretty good idea how the general principles work.

View Post


Now your being silly A. Sphere.

ANYONE, scientist or not, can fully understand the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics as applied to practical application in everyday life. Where you get into trouble is being dogmatic about it when applying it to areas that you cannot empirically test. At that point it becomes subjective to your world view, and nothing more than an opinion.

We can ALL test entropy inductively, whenever we choose to. So, to pretend that it was contrived for a closed system is being really closed minded. As I stated before, entropy was here before we were, we didn’t invent it. And you, yourself, admitted that there are no perfectly closed systems. Therefore to surmise that the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics works only in closed systems is pure speculation.

The only point that I have tried to make in this thread is that local entropy decreases are allowed in a closed or open system.
How am I bending it to fit my world view?  Your arguments are way too scattered for me - please clarify your position in one simple sentence - here is mine:

Regardless whether or not the universe is open or closed local entropy decreases are allowed and therefore star formation does not violate any known law of thermodynamics.
The 2LoT was developed!  Are you kidding?  It is a mathematical formulation that describes a repetitive pattern of behavior under the right conditions.  That repetitive pattern of behavior was not created by man but the language and the formulation of how it is described obviously was.
???  I don't get what you are saying.  Many creationists believe that star formation violates the 2LoT because they claim the universe is closed and entropy inside it can only increase.  It is true that the total entropy must increase however local entropy decreases are allowed if matched by increases.  To illustrate why this is wrong I used a refrigerator.  I could use the human body as well.  Humans make babies.  Babies are local decreases in entropy and according to some creationists' logic violate the second law.  We are local entropy decreases in the total increasing entropy curve of the universe.  There are endless examples of how entropy decreases in the universe - some man made and some nature made - what is your point?

View Post


And my point still stands. We didn’t invent mathematics (including their formulations) any more than we invented entropy. We merely discovered their applications. The only thing man may have invented was his description of what was already there.

And another thing; Nature doesn’t make anything. Unless you want to ascribe the same sentience to “Nature” (Capitalizing the “N” for emphasis) that you ascribe to the predictive powers of the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics.

#298 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 24 July 2009 - 03:17 PM

I’m not being silly at all A. Sphere. I believe you are just into a bad habit (grammatically and philosophically). I am an educator with plenty of lab and practical field experience crossing a few diverse fields. I am not at liberty to discuss in much detail what I have done and currently do (some being proprietary, some dealing with security issues).


Of course I am being lazy with grammer - but you know what I meant and it is common to say "law A predicts..." rather than "Sceintist predicts using Law a...". You are being silly.

Some of the subjects I’ve taught (and some I still teach) are Diverse Electronic theories and applications, Adult learning theories and applications (including many taxonomic applications etc…) amongst many other subjects scientific and philosophical. And none of my peers use that term at all. I suppose it goes with whether or not you are able to apply the theories to practical application.


Which term? Saying that some law predicts something? I have read that in scientific journal articles Ron. It is very common place. In fact, you can google it and immedietely get ".edu" addresses that use the phrase as I did. This is a ridiculous discussion anyway and quite silly for you to bring up - it doesn't add to this discussion at all.

ANYONE, scientist or not,  can fully understand the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics as applied to practical application in everyday life.


You see I take complaint with your use of the word "Fully". It is not an easy concept to understand fully - not even with extensive education in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. I would never be so arrogant to assume that I fully understood anything. It isn't silly obviously - as there is research still being done that concerns the second law. I find it amazing that you fully understand it - even the cutting edge stuff. My hat off to you!

Where you get into trouble is being dogmatic about it when applying it to areas that you cannot empirically test. At that point it becomes subjective to your world view, and nothing more than an opinion.


Such as?

We can ALL test entropy inductively, whenever we choose to. So, to pretend that it was contrived for a closed system is being really closed minded. As I stated before, entropy was here before we were, we didn’t invent it. And you, yourself, admitted that there are no perfectly closed systems. Therefore to surmise that the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics works only in closed systems is pure speculation.


I've already discussed how the 2LoT gives us info about open systems. Remeber - the thermodynamic limit, macroscopic scales. It is defined for an isolated system. Read any textbook on thermodynamics - I am not making this stuff up. However, an open system that is above the thermodynamic limit has entropic behavior that approaches the theoretical values predicted by the 2LoT. This is how it is used. Ask any engineer or scientist.

And my point still stands. We didn’t invent mathematics (including their formulations) any more than we invented entropy. We merely discovered their applications. The only thing man may have invented was his description of what was already there.


Mathematics is a language. We invented it. Thats like saying that we didn't invent the word love because the emotion that is love existed before language. Mathematics isn't some physical thing - its an abstract grouping of symbols with syntax that allows people to describe natural processes in a succint way. The natural processes exist without the language that is mathematics.

And another thing; Nature doesn’t make anything. Unless you want to ascribe the same sentience to “Nature” (Capitalizing the “N” for emphasis) that you ascribe to the predictive powers of the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics.


Wait so sentience is required to make something? Nature - meaning natural processes - makes thing all of the time. Rivers, babies, stars, fires, ice, gas, etc. And again - to say a law predicts something is common place in the biz and I still claim that to even have brought it up as if it has any bearing on this conversation was silly.
  • Mat Hunt likes this

#299 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 July 2009 - 07:08 PM

Of course I am being lazy with grammer - but you know what I meant and it is common to say "law A predicts..." rather than "Sceintist predicts using Law a...".  You are being silly.

View Post


Of course you’re being lazy A.Sphere. And of course I’m not being silly for pointing it out. And of course I know what you meant, though responsibility gets the better of me here. And none of the above excuses your misusage, because to do so would give further support to such a grammatical mistake. You see, there are those who don’t understand that the usage in such a way is not what is intended by the user (if indeed, it isn’t intended). So to continue unchecked would be as big a mistake as the original.

Being silly would be in the accepting grammatical errors on any explanations that are supposed to be used in an educational sense. Silly would be in following the lemmings off the cliff of “everyone does it, so I should as well”. Silly would be calling someone silly for correcting you in your error. Just because people perpetuate a mistake by compounding it in further usage, doesn’t make the one who corrects that mistake silly A. Shpere…… That would be silly

Which term?  Saying that some law predicts something?  I have read that in scientific journal articles Ron.  It is very common place.  In fact, you can google it and immedietely get ".edu" addresses that use the phrase as I did.  This is a ridiculous discussion anyway and quite silly for you to bring up - it doesn't add to this discussion at all.

View Post


Let me explain it to you slowly A. Sphere, because I want to insure that you get it this time around. Regardless of how many make the same mistake, it is still a mistake. And it’s never ridiculous to correct a mistake. No matter how many times you can find it in scientific papers, it is still a mistake.



You see I take complaint with your use of the word "Fully".  It is not an easy concept to understand fully - not even with extensive education in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics.  I would never be so arrogant to assume that I fully understood anything.  It isn't silly obviously - as there is research still being done that concerns the second law.  I find it amazing that you fully understand it - even the cutting edge stuff.  My hat off to you!

View Post


You can be taken aback, be in shock, and take complaint with my use of the word FULLY if you wish. But, it is none the less a correct statement when taken in the context of my usage. When I said “ANYONE, scientist or not, can FULLY understand the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics as applied to practical application in everyday life.” That’s exactly what I meant. You can attempt to make it more difficult by positing it in a theoretical and un-empirically provable way such as your opinion on a galaxy you have never been to. But, we can physically test the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics in every day life, and have hard evidence of those experiments to back it up.

I've already discussed how the 2LoT gives us info about open systems.  Remeber - the thermodynamic limit, macroscopic scales.  It is defined for an isolated system.  Read any textbook on thermodynamics - I am not making this stuff up.  However, an open system that is above the thermodynamic limit has entropic behavior that approaches the theoretical values predicted by the 2LoT.  This is how it is used.  Ask any engineer or scientist.

View Post



Mathematics is a language.  We invented it.  Thats like saying that we didn't invent the word love because the emotion that is love existed before language. 

View Post

We didn’t invent mathematics anymore than we invented love A.Shere. We only invented the words we use to describe them. Thought I can understand why your world view would want you to deny these truths. The Laws of Mathematics were here before we were.

Mathematics isn't some physical thing - its an abstract grouping of symbols with syntax that allows people to describe natural processes in a succint way.  The natural processes exist without the language that is mathematics.

View Post


Actually mathematics is a physical thing A.Sphere. Two apples plus two apples equals four apples. If I had ten apples and sold them for a dime apiece I would have one dollar. All physical items and all used to prove the laws of mathematics.

The only time mathematics is abstract, is when you are attempting to provide an abstract answer.

Wait so sentience is required to make something?  Nature - meaning natural processes - makes thing all of the time.  Rivers, babies, stars, fires, ice, gas, etc.  And again - to say a law predicts something is common place in the biz and I still claim that to even have brought it up as if it has any bearing on this conversation was silly.

View Post


And again - to say a law predicts something is common place in the biz, is just latching on to a lemming’s need to follow the mistakes of the crowd.

It has plenty of bearing on the conversation (whether or not you “take complaint” to it). And to deny so would simply be silly!

#300 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 July 2009 - 12:43 AM

Actually I didn't see 50 practical examples - I dunno maybe I missed them.  Can you give me a specific practical example?

I can tell you how it is practically applied by scientists and engineers.  If a scientist or engineer is working in the macroscopic scale (this means that the number of atoms in a system approach avagadros number) then the 2LoT can be used without actually measuring the entropy change of the total isolated system (which would not be possible).  Because our reference system is so large (avagadros number) the system we are analyzing can reach equilibrium without changing the reference system (there is always some change however it would be so small that it would be zero to multiple orders).

I also tells us that a perpetual motion machine is impossible, defines irreversible systems, and tells us that heat always flows from hot to cold.

View Post

Hard to say if you'd know a practical application or not when it's staring you in the face.

Here's a good link.

http://www.secondlaw.com/two.html

You can be taken aback, be in shock, and take complaint with my use of the word FULLY if you wish. But, it is none the less a correct statement when taken in the context of my usage. When I said “ANYONE, scientist or not, can FULLY understand the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics as applied to practical application in everyday life.” That’s exactly what I meant. You can attempt to make it more difficult by positing it in a theoretical and un-empirically provable way such as your opinion on a galaxy you have never been to. But, we can physically test the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics in every day life, and have hard evidence of those experiments to back it up. 

View Post

I know anyone taking the link will see all those assertions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics not applying as complete and utter rubbish.

My turn to trot out the silly "Nobel Prize" line: demonstrate an instance of 2LoT not applying, and win yours today!!!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users