|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which More 3LoT Compatible, Cavediver's Temp.Non-ID Or Buzsaw's Infinite ID Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? You're honestly and without equivocation saying that the reason cosmologists developed their theory is because they were big, bad atheists who were lying to themselves out of some twisted sense of spite toward god?
quote: You pretend like that's a bad thing. You do understand that a theory in science is a good thing, yes? It's the epitome of all your hard work and efforts. It's the thing that explains all the facts.
quote: Um, without getting into your description, how does this answer my question? Why would cosmologists who are studying a thermodynamic event come up with a theory for it that is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics? Did they forget their basic training? Did they simply not bother to look at the thermodynamic properties of a thermodynamic event?
[quote]Model? What model even remotely depicts their Universe paradigm?[/qutoe] The current model of cosmology. But you didn't answer my question. In short, why do you think current cosmological models are in any way out of "compatibility" with the laws of thermodynamics? The models were created by people trained in thermo. They are necessarily designed to be in accordance with thermo. In fact, many of the models were rejected precisely because there was a problem. Why do you think inflation was presented?
quote: But that doesn't answer my question: Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics? Remember, you are claiming that current models of cosmology are out of sync with thermodynamics. I am asking you why you think this to be the case. Given that the current model is an example of thermodynamics, why do you think it would be incompatible with thermodynamics?
quote: By anybody who goes out at night and looks up. If you use a telescope, you can see it better.
quote: What does this have to do with my question? Did they simply not bother to look into the thermodynamic properties of the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed? Yes or no.
quote: That doesn't answer my question: What is your basis for claiming that current cosmological models are "incompatible" with the laws of thermodynamics when they were developed in strict accordance with them? You're the one saying they're incompatible. Therefore, you must show where.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote: Nice try, but you're the one making the claim. Therefore, you are the one who needs to provide your justification. You have already agreed that the current models of cosmology exist. You can't proclaim their falling short of accordance without acknowledging their existence. Insisting that X does not live up to Y necessarily requires recognizing the existence of X. Therefore, it is up to you to explain why the models of the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed were somehow developed in violation of thermodynamics, that people who are trained in thermodynamics suddenly abandoned it when describing said thermodynamic event. So my question remains unanswered. Let's try it again: What is your basis for claiming that current cosmological models are "incompatible" with the laws of thermodynamics when they were developed in strict accordance with them? You're the one saying they're incompatible. Therefore, you must show where. Note, I have no idea what model you're referring to when you say it is incompatible. I cannot read your mind and I refuse to speculate which model you might be referring to only to have you retort that that's not the one you meant. Therefore, in order for this discussion to progress, you are the one who has to go first. You're the one making the claim. What is your basis for claiming that current cosmological models are "incompatible" with the laws of thermodynamics when they were developed in strict accordance with them? You're the one saying they're incompatible. Therefore, you must show where.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
quote: Precisely. Ergo, the entropy of the universe, being an isolated physical system, must necessarily increase. I've given the derivation of the second law here multiple times. Surely you remember how to derive it from first principles, yes? Your insistence that somehow the entropy of the universe decreases is a direct violation of the second law.
quote: You don't know what the word "tendency" means, do you? It doesn't mean that sometimes it'll increase and sometimes it'll decrease. Instead, it means that local variations may see a decrease in entropy (such as when ice freezes), but the entire system taken as a whole must see an increase. You do recall the primer on how to derive the second law from first principles, yes? And the follow-up to it regarding Gibbs Free Energy, yes?
quote: I rest my case. You don't know what "tendency" means. Let me give you a hint: That's exactly what it means. The inevitable result of the entropy of a closed system is that it will be non-negative. It is theoretically possible to achieve a zero-state, but that will only happen at the heat-death of the universe. In all real-world scenarios, entropy always increases. Now, that doesn't stop there from being local decreases in entropy. As Gibbs Free Energy shows us, if there is sufficient enthalpy (you do remember what "enthalpy" is, yes?), then reactions can be spontaneous in directions that decrease entropy. However, as the first law points out, everything's gotta go somewhere and the decrease in entropy here must necessary coincide with an equivalent-or-greater increase in entropy somewhere else.
quote: My god, so much wrong in a single sentence. First, the universe isn't open. That's the entire point. Second, open systems within the universe are irrelevant. The earth is an open system. It's why we see entropy decreases all the time. The entire basis of photosynthesis depends upon it. There's this gigantic ball of fusion happening in the sky that is pouring energy upon the earth; energy that can be used for reaction which, due to Gibbs Free Energy, are spontaneous even though they decrease entropy. That's because the entropic increase of the sun more than overwhelms any decrease in entropy the earth might see. But eventually, the sun's going to give out and the earth will no longer have any of those reactions take place because there won't be any more energy coming in (or more accurately, not enough to drive the reactions). The system will close and entropy will proceed toward maximum. And then there's that "prolong the state of equilibrium" nonsense. You do understand that reactions happen precisely because the system is not in a state of equilibrium, right? Now, it is true that at equilibrium, it isn't like nothing is happening at all. It's just that for every forward reaction, there is a reverse reaction. If you were to take a jar and fill it halfway with water, seal it, and keep it at constant temperature and pressure, eventually the empty space would fill with water vapor and that amount would be at equilibrium. Now, this doesn't mean that there are no molecules of water ever being liberated from the liquid portion and going to the gaseous state. Instead, it's that for every molecule of water that is liberated from the liquid state, another molecule is captured. But here's the thing: The universe isn't at equilibrium. Not by a long shot. This pretense you have of "prolonging the state of equilibrium" is nonsense. If your model is based upon a prolonged state of equilibrium, we already know it is a complete failure because the existence of the universe is nothing but a vast example of what happens when things are far from equilibrium.
quote: And thus is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. This is in contrast to current cosmological models of the universe which are in complete accordance with the second law. If you wish to claim otherwise, it is your responsibility to show where. We can't read your mind.
quote: Irrelevant. The claim you are making is that your model, which has been shown time and time again to violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, is more in alignment with thermodynamics than current models of cosmogenesis. So far, you have yet to provide any examples of where they do.
quote: That isn't how science works. Now, if you're suggesting that there is an exception to the first and second laws of thermodynamics, we're all ears, but you're going to have to come forward with the explanations. You're the one making the claims. We cannot read your mind.
quote: Why do you say that? Surely you're not about to pull a Hamm and whine, "Were you there?" Of course we weren't there. But the universe was. And it left behind the signs of what happened. All we have to do is look at it. It's why WMAP and PLANCK were so successful.
quote: Huh? How did we get to biogenesis? I thought we were talking about the universe. You do know that the origin of life is completely compatible with all methods of cosmogenesis you care to name, yes? And vice versa, too: All methods of cosmogenesis are completely compatible with all methods of biogenesis you care to name. That said, there is nothing but physical evidence of a big bang. That's why we have the current models of cosmogenesis that we have. All you have to do is look at the red shift and you can see it directly.
quote: Incorrect. It is not a dispute at all. At least, not in the way you're presenting it to be. That is, you're taking "dispute" to be something along the lines of proof that the entire system is completely flawed and needs to be discarded. For example, you'd take two mathematicians arguing over whether or not the six-millionth digit of pi is a 2 as evidence that pi just might be an integer. It is an interesting question about how a system that expands faster than the contents within it can reach equilibrium can ever reach equilibrium. This doesn't change the way entropy works. The second law is not violated by this nor is it changed in any way. It simply recognizes that the system itself is dynamic. Here's a question to see if you understand what you read: What is the Boltzmann description of entropy? No, don't look it up. And no, "a law of disorder" is not sufficient an explanation. I'm asking you to give us the equation for statistical entropy. And if you don't know what it is or haven't even heard of it until now, then you are quote-mining.
quote: And thus violating the first law since everything's gotta go somewhere. That work doesn't just spring into existence. And since you are demanding universal decreases rather than local ones, you're violating the second law, too. You need to start showing your work.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024