Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
jason777

Boyle's Gas Law, What is it?

Recommended Posts

Nice cut-n-paste.

 

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

 

--Percy

34428[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

34434[/snapback]

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:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

34434[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

34444[/snapback]

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

34455[/snapback]

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/~ethall/gaslaw/gaslaw.htm

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/workedproblems/a/bl011804.htm

http://www.promma.ac.th/chem_online/chapte..._10.3_main.html

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~kryw/electure...aws%202001.html

http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/Chemist...l/concept5.html

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/chemistry/...pter8/ch8_2.htm

http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/R...4/Gas-Laws.html

http://www.chemprofessor.com/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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

34460[/snapback]

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.

34460[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

34462[/snapback]

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.

34462[/snapback]

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.

34462[/snapback]

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.

34462[/snapback]

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)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

34478[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Percy,

 

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

34486[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

34487[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

34488[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith C

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

34434[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

34491[/snapback]

Boyle's law is what drops out of the Ideal Gas Law when temperature is held constant - I assure it is not a fudge factor. It is derivable from the kinetic theory of gasses and is one of the most important principles in the extrememly succesful theory of statistical mechanics. The ideal gas law approximates the behavior of many gasses to a very high precision - no system is truly closed and no gas only interacts elastically so of course it is off a bit as is Boyle's law. By the way Boyle's law has the same limitations as the ideal gas law - the system must be closed and only be composed of elastically interacting particles. This is not true for the ISM at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is painful to read.

 

Apparently, it is assumed that Boyle's Law overcomes gravity under all circumstances. If this is not the case, then it is a given there must be a point at which the gas density and temperature (which give us the thermal pressure) can be overcome by gravity. The latter is obviously the case, as stars exist presently. Any gas cloud with mass will collapse if the gas is below a certain temperature, and cooling in this universe is inevitable. Radiative heating will continuously drop the pressure of any gas cloud until it becomes gravitationally bound and collapses.

 

Say we're playing with a large nebulae. Let's say it starts at 30K, a pretty standard temperature for a dust cloud in space. It will fall together until it reaches equilibrium in its pressure against its gravity, (1/2 its gravitational potential, according to the virial theorem), and fragments (it will have some freedom of movement as a dynamic mass near equilibrium with no container), and cools some more, and does this again, and again, fragmenting into lots of protostars. Why does the fragmentation stop and the frictional energy heat up to the point of fusion once we reach the stellar scale? Because the gas becomes increasingly opaque, resisting the emission of heat energy.

 

This is what the present model is for stellar formation. It is mathematically backed throughout, and explaining the whole of stellar formation is beyond the means of this forum and my ability to teach and understand myself. For example, Jean's Mass is the mass above which a given volume of a given gas will inexorably collapse. Clouds of such mass are observed to be collapsing today, so unless you can tell us what we're actually observing while simultaneously showing why the math astrophysicists use (which accurately predicts what we see) is wrong, you're really in no position to say that stars can't form, particularly under the conditions the scientists predict and we observe.

 

The law you originally presented as defying stellar formation has the explicit caveat of temperature, and you should know that temperature always falls (net) in a closed (exempt from outside influence), boundless (heat energy may pass beyond its ability to be reflected or absorbed) system. Gravitational collapse is inevitable so long as the expansion of space doesn't exceed the gravitational collapse. I don't know how this thread happened . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

34498[/snapback]

Hey, Keith, I resent it when anyone pulls this stuff with me, and I'm sure Adam resents it when you pull it with him. There are clear explanations that we can offer in response to Adam's post, and we should simply offer them and see how he responds.

 

I've observed that sometimes Adam can be similarly dismissive, but that's no excuse for us to do the same thing. The ad hominem has to stop someplace otherwise it justs keeps escalating until the topic is totally obscured and a moderator finally decides to close the thread.

 

--Percy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Adam,

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I was going to respond, but I read ahead first and discovered that Ibex Pop has already posted an excellent response in Message 22.

 

--Percy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boyle's law is a special case of the ideal gas law and only holds true in a CLOSED system.

34499[/snapback]

The Universe, by definition, IS a closed system. Any outside influence would be chalked up as supernatural in both of our books. The only difference is that we acknowledge supernatural markers and naturalists ignore them and/or equivocate about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms